For those who are unable to drink moderately the question is how to stop altogether. We are assuming, of course, that the reader desires to stop. Whether such a person can quit upon a nonspiritual basis depends upon the extent to which he has already lost the power to choose whether he will drink or not. Many of us felt that we had plenty of character. There was a tremendous urge to cease forever. Yet we found it impossible. This is the baffling feature of alcoholism as we know it - this utter inability to leave it alone, no matter how great the necessity or the wish. - Alcoholics Anonymous, p. 34
There is much in this paragraph that has already been stated several tines in a variety of different ways, so I would find it difficult to say anything original.
However, it is here that I first notice the word "character." Because this word will become a very important part of our discussions of the Steps, I think it would be a good idea to clarify what Bill means by it. Here's a dictionary definition:
character
- the aggregate of features and traits that form the individual nature of some person or thing.
- one such feature or trait; characteristic.
- moral or ethical quality: a man of fine, honorable character.
- qualities of honesty, courage, or the like; integrity: It takes character to face up to a bully.
- reputation: a stain on one's character.
Bill questions whether good character and will power are sufficient to recover from alcoholism, at least on a "non-spiritual" basis. In examining the Steps we will return again and again to this direct linkage between a spiritual recovery and the restoration of character. It's quite meaningless to speak of "defects of character" when you can't even define character. It's hard to take a "moral inventory" when you have a fuzzy idea of what the word "moral" means in that context.
As a footnote, this is where the Oxford groups' "Moral Re-armament" influence begins to move to the forefront of the AA program. It's impossible to divorce AA from it's Oxford Group roots, but it is equally absurd to claim that AA somehow inherited the indefensible excesses of that movement. There is at least one web site that tries to discredit the program by just these means. As I see it, the drunks that were attending Oxford Group meetings had little interest in the political and social ends of the groups and, when they split off (or were kicked out, depending on your point of view), borrowed what was valuable and effective in recovery and left the rest.
Here's a portion of Bill's Guest House talk that shows just what parts of it they did, in fact, borrow:
So Roland aligned himself with the Oxford groups of that time, a rather evangelical movement, rather aggressive (very easy it is to criticize). It was nondenominational, however, and it used simple common denominators of religions, simple moral principles. It called upon its members to admit that they could not solve the life problem on their own. It called upon them for self-examination. It called upon them for restitution. It called upon them for a kind of giving in the Franciscan manner, the kind of giving that demands no return in money, power, prestige and the like, the losing of one's self in the lives of others. Such was the nature of the crowd with which he became associated. Unaccountably, to him, the obsession to drink left. And for some years he had no more trouble. At the time in the groups there were a few alcoholics sober. There is one now at Ann Arbor that goes back to that time, an old friend who never became an AA. Sobered up in the Oxford Groups.Notice that there is no mention of the political goals of Moral Re-armament. That's a very telling omission.
In my next post, we will begin to read "Jim's" story. I'm looking forward to that.
No comments:
Post a Comment