Sure ... my own anecdote is similar: a friend who drank very detrimentally for years, joined AA to get clean, then eventually found that he didn't need the program because he had moved on to other ways to stay emotionally healthy. (I still believe he doesn't drink though, so in his case, the abstinence is still there, just not the program.)
I won't argue with the points you make above because i don't think it's too important. AA speaks of alcoholism as including the "physical allergy" component (which i believe there is some study to support biochemically, but i don't have the sources; i'll see if i can find 'em for you). Others who define it may not include that point. Like many words, "alcoholic" seems like one where the definition needs to be clarified before folks dig into details. I don't think AA claims to be the defining authority outside of their own context, and i'd support you in the statement that they shouldn't be.
I also understand that their somewhat circular arguments may border on tautology; that's fair to say. However, no part of the AA program (again AFAIK) aims to diagnose the alcoholic (in the AA definition or any other). It's just a grass-roots group to support those who have diagnosed themselves.
(More on the diagnosis aspect below on the thread's "split end".)
I think it's hard to look at how much she was drinking (and how much it affected her personal relationships and health) and say she wasn't a "true" alcoholic.
This is the one point i don't quite agree on. Even outside the AA context, i don't think quantity and regularity of drinking are sufficient metrics to define alcoholism, nor are statements regarding personality shifts that occur as a result. However, i don't have any backing on that with any source that could claim authority on the matter; i state it merely because i think the points you made later about dependence and control matter much more. I add that just for completeness; as i said, definitions often need to be revisited in analytical discussions, anyway.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: (part 1 of 2)
Date: 2010-05-21 10:57 pm (UTC)I won't argue with the points you make above because i don't think it's too important. AA speaks of alcoholism as including the "physical allergy" component (which i believe there is some study to support biochemically, but i don't have the sources; i'll see if i can find 'em for you). Others who define it may not include that point. Like many words, "alcoholic" seems like one where the definition needs to be clarified before folks dig into details. I don't think AA claims to be the defining authority outside of their own context, and i'd support you in the statement that they shouldn't be.
I also understand that their somewhat circular arguments may border on tautology; that's fair to say. However, no part of the AA program (again AFAIK) aims to diagnose the alcoholic (in the AA definition or any other). It's just a grass-roots group to support those who have diagnosed themselves.
(More on the diagnosis aspect below on the thread's "split end".)
I think it's hard to look at how much she was drinking (and how much it affected her personal relationships and health) and say she wasn't a "true" alcoholic.
This is the one point i don't quite agree on. Even outside the AA context, i don't think quantity and regularity of drinking are sufficient metrics to define alcoholism, nor are statements regarding personality shifts that occur as a result. However, i don't have any backing on that with any source that could claim authority on the matter; i state it merely because i think the points you made later about dependence and control matter much more. I add that just for completeness; as i said, definitions often need to be revisited in analytical discussions, anyway.