AA Critique,
After spending over two sober years with AA I have found aspects of the basis steps and general BB teachings not absolute truths as some members seem to claim.
I will touch only today on one teaching (actually Bill W wrote of suggestions) and this relates to the dichotomy made between 'alcoholics' and so called normal drinkers. Now according to the BB normal drinkers may range from the light to the relatively heavy.
Now the 'heavy' accordingly, so long as he holds a job, doesn't cause trouble, supports his family etc is not really an alcoholic...... but may die prematurely. So called normal drinking is well tolerated by AA, while alcoholism is seen a an incurable disease. Many alcoholics, but not all claim, that one drink starts them off of a massive binge. No one would deny this claim, but does it reflect on the few, rather than the many.
By having a group of normal drinkers and a distinct group of ill alcoholics are we muddying the waters in an irrational if not dangerous way. The light to heavy drinker is not exempt from alcoholism it would seem, nor would it be obligatory. Would an approach to a very light drinking on occasions be preferable to the hard line divided stance which equates alcoholic as a completely separate entity from the [I]normal drinker.
I am not saying that extreme alcoholism does not exist, as a disease and needs desperate measures, but a good many who attend AA do not seem to reach this criterion. Conversely many drinkers out there, seen as normal imbibers may well have crossed the threshold. I do not see this arbitrary division as helpful to either group.
I am no longer a member of AA ( that's another story) and see a good deal of it's teachings as highly worthwhile but in no way a panacea for all of life's problems.