This chapter draws heavily upon two sources: The paper "Divine Intervention and the Treatment of Chemical Dependency," by Drs. Albert Ellis and Eugene Schoenfeld,ⁱ and The Real AA: Behind the Myth of 12-Step Recovery (formerly More Revealed), by Ken Ragge.ⁱⁱ The material regarding the relationship of the Oxford Group Movement's teachings to the content of the 12 steps is mine. But many of the other insights contained in this chapter are the responsibility of the above-mentioned authors; and any inaccuracies are my responsibility alone.
 

The 12 steps are the backbone of the AA "program." A majority of Alcoholics Anonymous members regard them in the same reverent manner that fundamentalist Christians regard the 10 Commandments. This is no accident, considering the overtly religious nature of the steps. They were drawn directly from the teachings of the Oxford Groups, the evangelical Christian movement to which Bill Wilson and Dr. Bob Smith belonged, and which AA was a part of until the late 1930s. As well, Bill Wilson believed that he was acting under divine "guidance" when he wrote the 12 steps,ⁱⁱⁱ and any-one who accepts that he was doing so must necessarily place the 12 steps in the category of "revealed wisdom." One indication that Wilson and his fellow AAs believed that he was divinely inspired is found in Pass It On, where Wilson, or a fellow AA in his company, is quoted as follows in replying to a suggestion that Wilson make changes in the "Big Book": "Why [change it]? What is the matter with it? It is perfect."^iv One doubts that Bill Wilson was so egotistical as to think that he, as a "powerless" individual, could write a "perfect" book; he undoubtedly believed that he had God's help in doing so. Many current AA members almost certainly believe that Wilson did indeed have divine help. One service worker in AA's General Service Office recently stated: "I consider the Big Book as an inspired text, written by Bill under the guidance of the spirit."^v

Bill Wilson makes the connection between the Oxford Groups and the AA "program" crystal clear in Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age, in which he directly credits the Oxford Groups as the source of the religious teachings codified in the 12 steps.^vi In the Oxford Groups, the concepts embodied in the steps were prescribed as the cure for sin. In AA, these same principles are prescribed as the cure for alcoholism. Thus, religion is presented as the cure for what is commonly considered a disease.

Unfortunately, the hold of AA upon the field of alcoholism treatment is so tight that this obvious fact is almost never mentioned in either the popular press or professional journals. When this fact is (rarely) pointed out in the mass media, more often than not it's "balanced" by the disingenuous claim that AA's program is "spiritual" rather than "religious."

A great many members of AA, probably a large majority, regard the steps as fundamental to their own recovery, and often vocally maintain that recovery is impossible without following the steps. Is this true? Are the 12 steps essential to recovery, and are alcohol abusers who reject them doomed to an early death from alcoholism? Fortunately, the answer is "no" to both parts of the question. If it were "yes," the many thousands of members of Moderation Management, S.M.A.R.T. Recovery, Rational Recovery, Women for Sobriety, and Secular Organizations for Sobriety wouldn't be sober today,^vii nor would the multitude—undoubtedly millions—of persons who have recovered from alcohol abuse without participating in any recovery program.

Why then do so many members of Alcoholics Anonymous zealously promote the 12 steps, and why—in the face of convincing contradictory evidence—do they maintain that the steps are essential to recovery? The answer can only be that their position is the result of religious belief, not the result of honesty and logical thinking.

Fully half of the 12 steps explicitly mention "God," "a Power greater than ourselves," or "Him." Most religious AA members have little or no problem with this terminology. It fits their belief system. And just as they have no problem believing, in the absence of evidence, that God exists, they have no problem insisting, in the presence of crushing contradictory evi-dence, that the 12 steps are essential to recovery.

But what of formerly nonreligious alcoholics who embrace the 12 steps? Virtually without exception they "got religion" when they were in desperate straits. They underwent religious conversion.

Normally, happy, well-adjusted persons do not radically change their views; and, especially, they do not normally adopt views that they regard as silly and irrational. On the other hand, when a person is in an emotional crisis, radical alteration in beliefs, including religious conversion, is not unusual. As Drs. Ellis and Schoenfeld point out, "A person may be so desperate and beaten that his or her normal beliefs can be temporarily suspended, as in 'there are no atheists in foxholes.' Yes, the drowning may grasp at any straw."^viii

In probably 999 cases out of 1000, then, the acceptance of the 12 steps by formerly nonreligious alcohol abusers is no more based in rationality and respect for facts than is the acceptance of the 12 steps by religious alcohol abusers.

Another likely reason that many members of AA tightly embrace the 12 steps is that the steps provide structure, a well groomed path to follow, in shattered lives. That can look awfully attractive when your world has turned upside down and you no longer have your best friend—alcohol—to lean on. It seems probable that to a great extent the substance of the steps is irrelevant; what is seemingly more important is simply that the steps are there and that those dependent on them believe that they're the means of overcoming alcoholism. Another way of spelling recovery-via-the-steps could well be p-l-a-c-e-b-o e-f-f-e-c-t. That would largely explain why those who believe in the steps cling to them so stubbornly.

Nevertheless, their religious content is probably a more important reason for blind adherence to the steps. Life is filled with annoyances, dangers, and uncertainties, and like most people, AA true believers don't want to face such unpleasant things. They want a "Higher Power" to take care of their problems; and since there is no evidence that their heavenly Big Brother exists, they desperately cling to the belief that it does. As Albert Ellis notes, "This is like a young boy's believing that he must have a kindly father in order to survive; and then, when his father is unkind, or perhaps has died, the boy dreams up a father . . . and insists that this dream-father actually exists."^ix

Still another reason for religious adherence to the steps is fear. As Ken Ragge has pointed out, while the Oxford Group Movement exploited guilt in its indoctrination process, AA exploits fear in its indoctrination process.^x Newcomers to AA are routinely and repeatedly told that the only alternatives to AA and "working" the steps are "jails, institutions, and death."

In itself, this is a sad state of affairs. What makes it truly worrisome is that many, probably most, members of Alcoholics Anonymous not only embrace the irrational belief in a "Higher Power," but they actively promote the idea that their irrational belief system is the only road to sobriety. I believe that they do this primarily for self-validation; they want to assure themselves that they're doing the right thing and that it "works." And because "believers" invariably have doubts (about themselves, if not about received wisdom), "belief" becomes much easier to maintain if there are no dissenting voices to be heard. This largely explains the routine and extreme hostility to those who question accepted wisdom at AA meetings.

This attempt at self-validation with its accompanying fixation on the AA program often leads to a lack of concern for those who have alcohol problems but reject AA. In fact, from what I've observed, at least a few members of AA enjoy seeing nonreligious alcoholics drink themselves to death. It provides confirmation of their "spiritual" beliefs.

Unfortunately, many non-religious alcoholics do drink themselves to death after investigating AA and rejecting it because of its religiosity. In all too many cases, that appears to be the result of their acceptance of the AA myth that alcoholics who reject AA are doomed to an alcoholic hell. This belief frequently becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If those too honest to "fake it until [they] make it" believe that their only choice is between abandoning their integrity (by embracing AA and participating in an endless series of dreary religious meetings) or continuing to drink, it's little wonder that a great many eventually do drink themselves to death.

But what of the 12 steps themselves? Are they the magic key to sobriety? The key to becoming "happily and usefully whole," as AA claims? Are they a formula for mental enslavement? Or are they a combination of good, useful principles and unhealthy, pernicious dogma? The best way to answer the question is to consider the steps individually:
 

1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol . . . that our lives had become unmanageable.
 

This, like all of the other steps, stems directly from Oxford Group Movement/Moral Re-Armament beliefs. A central tenet of Oxford Group Movement dogma is that the vast majority of "men" (the terminology is theirs) are "defeated" and are powerless in themselves to overcome their "defeat." The original version of the first step shows its lineage very clearly: "We admitted that we were licked, that we were powerless over alcohol."^xi

To put it plainly, this first step can only be seen as harmful in that it stresses personal powerlessness. It's difficult to see how it can do anything for those who accept it other than contribute to low self-esteem. This is pernicious in that if there's one common denominator among those who do harmful things to themselves, such as drinking excessively, it's that they have a low opinion of themselves.

Some—including myself in the first edition of this book—have attempted to interpret this step as a healthy admission of having a problem. But this is simply at odds with the first step's wording and intent. This step is an admission alright, but it isn't a healthy one. There's a huge difference between stating that you have a problem and are going to do something about it, and stating that you have a problem and are "powerless" to do anything about it.

As Ken Ragge points out, the first step is a step toward learned helplessness, toward personal irresponsibility. In fact, there is evidence that AA's emphasis upon individual powerlessness over alcohol consumption—where taking a single drink is considered a catastrophe inevitably leading to a bender— significantly contributes to worsening relapses. In the March-April 1987 issue of the professional journal Social Work, Dennis Daley states:
 

Teaching clients to expect one episode of use to lead to total loss of control may set the expectation that initial use cannot be curtailed before a full-blown relapse occurs . . . In the course of treating hundreds of relapsed substance abusers, my colleagues and I found that our clients reported that they thought total loss of control was inevitable or that the initial substance use behavior meant that they could not recover.^xii
 

In addition to the anecdotal evidence offered by Daley, there is also experimental evidence that the learned helplessness induced by AA (as expressed in the first step) leads to binge drinking. In the most sophisticated controlled study yet done of AA's effectiveness, after several months' exposure to AA, the court-mandated offenders assigned to AA were engaging in four times as much binge drinking as the no-treatment control group.^xiii

In short, the first step leads to low self-esteem, learned helplessness, personal irresponsibility, and binge drinking. The first step is a step toward disaster; it has no redeeming features.
 

2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
 

Again, this stems directly from Oxford Group Movement teachings. Oxford Groupers fervently believed that the individual was powerless and that there was an all-powerful God who could, and would, solve all human problems if "men" would only turn their lives over to "Him." Of course, this belief implies the existence of a God which can only be described as crudely anthropomorphic—a God vitally concerned with human problems, including the most trivial. It's difficult to see the results of such a belief as anything other than atrocious. In the Oxford Groups, it led, as The Christian Century pointed out (see p. 13), to Frank Buchman's desire for "a Godcontrolled Fascist dictator"; and in AA it leads to personal powerlessness, learned helplessness, and other-directedness.

As well, the very religiosity of step 2 is a major problem for many persons. Like steps 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11, step 2 refers to "God," "Him," or "a Power greater than ourselves." (Note the capitalization.) This poses obvious problems for those who believe that the existence of God is no more likely than the existence of Mother Goose. It's little wonder that a great many atheists and agnostics reject AA and its steps rather than renounce their honest beliefs—though often only after being pushed in self-destructive directions by AA's "one drink, one drunk," "progressive" illness, and "AA is the last house on the street" dogmas.

When AA newcomers express doubts about the religiosity of the second step, they're normally told that their "Higher Power" can be anything they choose. Doorknobs, bedpans, and AA itself are often suggested as "Higher Powers" for atheist and agnostic newcomers. It doesn't seem to bother those making such suggestions that the very next step explicitly mentions "God."

The second step is also harmful to religious persons in that it reinforces individual powerlessness and learned helplessness. It encourages AA members to be dependent. This is directly contrary to the normal therapeutic goal of helping individuals to become independent and self-directed.
 

3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over the care of Godas we understood Him.
 

As Jack Trimpey, founder of Rational Recovery, has pointed out, steps 2 and 3 are a con—a classic "bait and switch." Specifically, step 3 poses obvious problems for atheist and agnostic newcomers who have chosen, for example, a doorknob as their "Power greater than [themselves]." How does one turn one's life over to a doorknob? Obviously, one can't. One is left with the choice of God, or, more likely, God's interpreters—in this case, AA. This is clearly dangerous. The submission of the individual to the collectivity is a hallmark—indeed a defining criterion—of religious cults and authoritarian political groups. Submission of the individual to the collectivity, to the "collective wisdom" if you will, is a recipe for producing masses of other-directed true believers.

Unsurprisingly, this step was lifted directly from the Oxford Group Movement dogma mentioned in the discussion of step 2. Indeed, the central tenet of the Oxford Groups was that God would reveal "Himself" to anyone who would "listen," and that "He" had a minutely detailed plan for every human life. The sheer chutzpah of this belief is positively breathtaking. It's the most grandiose excuse imaginable for the evasion of individual thought, responsibility, and decision making.

A particularly harmful aspect of this step is that it demands dependence on a God whose existence has never been demonstrated. If someone truly believed that God was keeping him or her from drinking and—perhaps because of the death of a loved one or some other traumatic event—was shocked into the realization that God very probably doesn't exist, s/he could well begin to drink abusively again (especially if he or she bought AA's "one drink, one drunk" dogma). Of course, those who have chosen AA as their "Higher Power" don't face this particular hazard, as they've turned their "will" and "lives" over to AA, not God.

As Drs. Ellis and Schoenfeld point out, anything encouraging individual effort and responsibility—even the religious saying, "God helps those who help themselves"—would be preferable to this step.

4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
 

This could be a very useful principle—and not just for alcoholics. A searching and fearless self-examination is obviously useful to those attempting to rebuild shattered lives (or to those simply attempting to live happier, more productive lives). Few things are more useful to former alcoholics than discovering the reasons why they drank excessively. For once they've discovered those reasons, and especially the irrational beliefs which made drinking seem attractive, they can deal with them.

Unfortunately, the fourth step doesn't call for an inventory of irrational beliefs, physical causes, or other contributory factors; it calls for a moral inventory. What this has to do with recovery from alcoholism is anybody's guess. Unless one believes that alcoholism is caused by sin, this step makes no sense whatsoever.

Unfortunately, Bill Wilson was an enthusiastic Oxford Grouper and did, at bottom, believe that alcoholism was caused by sin. If Wilson actually believed that alcoholism was caused by an "allergy," as Dr. Silkworth speculates in the "Big Book,"^xiv it's extremely difficult to see why he would have included the guilt-inducing, religious term "moral" in this step. But at the time he wrote the steps, Wilson regarded the Oxford Group Movement as his rescuer, and so it was natural that he would share the assumption of the Groups that all human problems are a direct result of sin.

In sum, this step is designed to produce guilt, and hence low self-esteem, which tends to contribute to self-damaging rather than self-caring behavior. Step four performs one other function: it prepares those being indoctrinated into AA for the next step, confession.
 

5. Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
 

This is still another legacy of the Oxford Groups. "Confession" was an integral part of the Oxford Group program, and Group Movement founder Frank Buchman was an expert at extracting confessions (often of a sexual nature) from potential converts. Confession of sin was considered so important by Buchman that he included it as one of the "5 Cs," which were a schematic outline of the Group program, and were reportedly utilized by conservative AA groups well into the 1940s: "Confidence, Conviction, Confession, Conversion, Continuance." Thus it was natural that Grouper Bill Wilson would include confession as a key element of the AA program. It should be noted, though, that in order to make this step more palatable to nonreligious alcoholics, Wilson used the euphemism "our wrongs" when what he undoubtedly really meant was "our sins." It should also be noted that confession in AA consists of more than confessing one's "wrongs" to "another human being"; it also consists of public "sharing" and "witnessing" at meetings. Finally, it should be noted that such use of confession is a classic means of deepening individual immersion in groups, and of fostering individual identification with groups. Robert Jay Lifton goes into great detail about the techniques and purposes of such public confession in his classic study of Chinese Communist indoctrination methods, Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism.^xv

Unsurprisingly, many commentators on the steps have attempted to torture the meaning of the fifth step into a recommendation of openness and honesty—which it isn't. The wording of this step is unambiguous; it's concerned with admission (confession) of "wrongs," period. While it's quite understandable that humane individuals would attempt to interpret the steps in a humane manner—much as liberal Christians attempt to interpret scripture in a humane manner—such interpretations jibe with neither the actual wording of the steps nor with the concepts and intent of the religious movement (Buchmanism) that produced them. Like it or not, the steps do not have the humane meanings ascribed to them by wishful thinkers.

Finally, the reference to "another human being" introduces us to the concept of "sponsors." Newcomers ("pigeons") in AA are routinely urged to find a sponsor (a more experienced member of AA with whom they develop a special relationship, to whom they make a confession of their "wrongs," and from whom they receive guidance and indoctrination) shortly after they enter "the program." Sponsors, of course, vary greatly. Some genuinely try to be helpful, while others are meddlesome busybodies who enjoy controlling other human beings. The therapeutic value of the sponsor relationship—like that of public confession—seems suspect in that it, like virtually everything else in the AA program, encourages dependence.
 

6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.
 

This is yet another step which invokes "God" and encourages dependence rather than independence. It echoes the first three steps' declarations of personal "powerlessness" (first step), personal "[in]sanity" (second step), and the "decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God" (third step). (As an aside, it's most interesting to speculate how those who chose doorknobs or bedpans as their "Higher Power" work this step.")

The sixth step is yet another expression of the Oxford Group belief in an all-powerful, anthropomorphic God with a detailed plan for every human life, which "He" will reveal if human beings will only "listen." Needless to say, "defects of character" is almost certainly another euphemism for "sins," and is employed to disguise the religious nature of the steps.
 

7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.
 

Humility is the virtue of those with poor self-images. In our cultural context, it's a purely religious, Christian concept: human beings are sinful wretches and should be properly humble before a perfect God who will resolve all of their problems if they properly abase themselves. Nonbelievers often find this concept revolting, and it would be surprising if this step in and of itself didn't drive countless alcoholics away from AA. It's interesting to note that the original version of step 7 included the words "on our knees" after the word "humbly." In light of this step, it seems absurd that AA continues to maintain that its program is "spiritual" rather than "religious."

Step 7 is yet another assertion of individual helplessness and defectiveness, and the desirability of dependency and guilt—things which were at the heart of the Oxford Group program. In the Oxford Groups (after "Confidence" in the "soul surgeon" was established), guilt was considered a desirable and necessary precursor to "Conviction, Confession, Conversion, Continuance." It plays a similarly vital role (though one subservient to the role played by fear) in AA.
 

8. Made a list of persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to such people wherever possible.
 

This and the next step stem directly from the personal experience of Oxford Group Movement founder Frank Buchman, specifically from his much ballyhooed writing of apologetic letters after his "conversion" at Keswick in 1908. After writing the letters, Buchman reportedly felt a great sense of release, and henceforth regarded making amends as an essential aspect of his spiritual program.

Making a list of those one has harmed is a useful practice in so far as it goes, and can be a helpful tool in coming to a full realization of the effects one's alcoholism (or other destructive behavior) has had on other people. But this step begs the question of whether those one has harmed want to be contacted by the person responsible for their irritation, inconvenience, loss, or suffering. In a great many cases, they've probably forgotten about minor harmful incidents, and in others are happy to have the perpetrator out of their lives; and recontacting them could easily reopen old wounds.

As well, the eighth step (and, indeed, the entire AA program), with its emphasis on individual culpability and total disregard of social factors, bears more than a passing resemblance to the more reactionary strands of "new ageism," with their insistence that we are all "totally responsible" for everything that happens to us. New ageism and AA's eighth step both ignore the fact that most people (including alcoholics) are the victims of more wrongs than they commit. We're all the victims of government and corporate intrusions into our private lives and finances; the vast majority of us are economically exploited and have little choice but to work at jobs that we barely tolerate, if not outright hate; we're all victims of environmental despoliation for private profit; and huge numbers of us are the victims of racism, sexism, and homophobia.

But you won't find a hint of this in AA's program. For example, it's a well established fact that the level of alcohol abuse rises (as do the rates of child abuse and wife beating) when unemployment levels rise. Alcoholics Anonymous, however, totally ignores this and all other social factors which contribute to alcoholism. Instead, AA lays the entire blame for alcoholism on the shoulders of alcoholics with its references to "our wrongs," "our shortcomings," and making "amends." In so doing, it provides tacit support for the social and political status quo. In regard to this, The Christian Century's comments about the Oxford Group Movement in 1936 are equally true of AA today:
 

Indeed, perhaps the worst thing about a religion which undertakes to be purely individualistic and to concern itself not at all as to the way in which the corporate life of society is organized is that it cannot succeed in that undertaking—it is forced to take a political position, and its utter lack of understanding of political realities predetermines what that position shall be.

Such a religion enters the social arena inevitably on the side of reaction.^xvi
 

9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
 

This is sometimes a useful thing to do, as it can deepen the appreciation of what effects one's actions had on others, and it can give a sense of closure to an unhappy period in one's life. But in place of this step's emphasis on individual culpability and atonement, it would be healthier to substitute a step that emphasized working to change the social conditions that contribute to alcohol abuse. This could, conceivably, lead to direct social improvements; and at the very least it would enhance personal empowerment. Active engagement, rather than passive acceptance, increases self-esteem.
 
 

10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.
 

This is essentially a restatement of step 4. It's also an expression of the Oxford Group principle of "Continuance." Unfortunately, step 10 doesn't state what kind of personal inventory we should continue to take. Since the only type mentioned earlier in the steps was a moral inventory, one can only conclude that a moral inventory is what's intended. This can only lead to more guilt, low self-esteem, and groveling "humbly" before the "Power" that "restore[s]" AA members to "sanity." The tenth step also implies that there is no escape from the AA program—if you accept it, you'll participate in it for the rest of your life.
 

11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.
 

This is still another tiresome call to dependency, other-directedness, and disregard for facts, logic, and rationality. Not incidentally, seeking such "guidance" from God was considered the only legitimate reason for prayer by the Oxford Groups. This step is an expression of the Oxford Group belief in "two-way" prayer, in which God both listens and makes its wishes known. In view of this step, with its repeated calls for prayers to "God," the claim that AA's program is "spiritual" rather than "religious" sounds downright ludi-crous and more than a little dishonest.
 

12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these Steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics and to practice these principles in all our affairs.
 

This is another expression of the Oxford Group principle of "Continuance." It was an article of faith among Groupers that once they had been "Changed" they should carry the "message" to those who were still "defeated" so that they too could "change." The reference to "practic[ing] these principles in all our affairs" is an obvious echo of the Oxford Group belief that theirs was not an organization but a "way of life," as well as a foreshadowing of the subsequent AA claim that it too is a "way of life."

It should also be noted that active evangelization ("carry[ing] the message") puts one in a position of relative knowledge and power, and so provides a certain measure of ego gratification for the evangelizer. This tends to cement acceptance of "this message" (AA's ideology) by the evangelizer, and to also cement his or her identification of self with the collectivity (AA). The ego gratification gained through evangelizing also makes the bitter pill of a lifetime commitment to AA easier to swallow.

Having said this, I should note that experience has shown that aiding others to become sober is very helpful to recovering alcohol abusers. It makes them feel useful, which builds self-esteem, which in turn promotes self-caring behavior; and it provides a reminder of the unpleasant realities of alcohol abuse, which provides a powerful spur to staying sober.

At the same time, step 12 clearly indicates that AA's program is a program for life—no one (in theory) ever graduates from it. It's also indicative of AA's self-absorption. Members of AA are not urged to help others overcome alcohol problems regardless of their acceptance or nonacceptance of AA's program. Rather—because AA has the answer—they are urged to "carry this [AA] message to alcoholics." And if those alcoholics don't want to hear the message, screw 'em.
 
 

In sum, the 12 steps are not a road to recovery, let alone the road to recovery. They are, instead, a road to a substitute dependency—a dependency upon AA rather than upon alcohol. Lois Wilson put the matter well in Lois Remembers, in her comments on the drunks who lived in her and Bill's home during AA's early days: "We often made the mistake of overprotecting our new prospects, thus encouraging dependence on other people rather than on the AA program."^xvii

Quite simply, the 12 steps lead to a lifetime of dependency. Virtually anyone with any real knowledge of alcohol abuse should be able to construct a sturdier set of steps to recovery.