|
I do wanna play. I don't see anything wrong with a healthy debate on this topic.
As a relative newcomer, compared to Andy and Garry, I have come to a few of my own conclusions. Now that Garry has bowed out, I expect Andy will give me some feedback:
I have decided that I will adopt a policy of loving acceptance regardless of how any person identifies themself. It still strikes me as odd that someone would come into NA, and identify as a member but not as an addict, but OK. Why the Andas? Why the Specifics, like "I'm So-and-so, a crack-head." Why say you are an alcoholic and an addict (unless you are brand new and don't know that it is one disease)?
I wouldn't feel comfortable identifying as "KJ, a gamblng addict" at GA, for instance, because I truly hate gambling, just don't get the draw of it at all. But I bet I could identify as just an addict there, and fit right on in talking about obsession, compulsion, unmanageability, and the way up and out with stepwork. And then the people in that meeting might be able to listen and to identify, and to get some help if I carried the message, rather than waste time and brain cells trying to figure out if they are like me enough to benefit from my methods.
So why don't people just identify as addicts, so we can focus on the similarities between all of us and not the differences? Wouldn't it be more thereaputic for us all? For both the speaker and the listener? Wouldn't it help them to fit in rather than give their disease a way to wiggle out on a technicality?
I'm not arguing to try to get people banned from meetings, or even to get them corrected in meetings, when they identify differently. What I'm suggesting is that people learn to identify as addicts as they learn other aspects of the program. As part of their first step work with a sponsor. When they learn that they really are addicts. I just think it is helpful to know who you are, what disease you have, and that you share it with the other people in NA. At least, it helps me. JMO.
Love,
KJ
|