Millwallj

"The pathologizing culture is seeping into our every thought and behaviour".

equus

The problem (I believe) is not in the pathology but in the misinterpretation of pathology where by it is assumed it removes free will.

How the hell that happened on such a huge scale I will never understand!

Millwallj

My main issue is that we seem to be working towards a non existant model of sanity.

equus

If I had a magic wand (which I don't) I wuold seperate completely the behavioural models from the question of 'disease' underlying pathology. They should NOT be in oppsition and we need more understanding of both.

If those supporting behavioural treatments (for example) argue that it is 'proof' against the notion of pathological differences what will happen AS research shows otherwise? Will they give up their effective treatment? Will those who have followed it suddenly lose confidence?

At the same time if those supporting the disease based treatments see it as 'proof' against behavioural influence what will happen AS research shows otherwise? Will they reject the research into effective treatments? Will their followers suddenly lose confidence?

These two things shouldn't be in opposition, disease, enviroment, behaviour, free will, genes, nuturing etc have ALWAYS interacted. It's insane to have set them against each other in search of uneeded single causes and solutions.

Millwallj

yes yes.

Millwallj

What ever gets us sober, I guess. Sigh.

Lets all have a party, lets all have a party, la la la la la la la la la.

oh God.

FaeryQueen

I think that alcoholism/addiction appears as pathology, but is actually just an evolutionary response to the pain of a mind dominated, insane culture. My spirit was fighting against all the "knowledge" and thoughts that had been put in my head by a culture gone mad. Most of the "knowledge" was not Truth, therefore I medicated in an attempt to numb out the pain that occurs when Spirit/Truth is fighting with mind/condtioning. Most people are so heavily conditioned that they just follow along with the herd mentality. It seems to me that "we", as "diseased" alcoholics are actually ahead in the evolutionary game. A spiritual awakening and a new found ability to differeniate the true from the false ended the war in my head....thus I recovered from the "disease".

doorknob

Hi FaeryQueen,

I'm not entirely certain as to what you mean by "knowledge" and "truth".

Doorknob

FaeryQueen

By "knowledge" and societal conditioning I mean everything that has been passed down from one generation to the next and is accepted as "this is the way it is". Some of the knowledge I received for example.....God is a jealous, male, cruel god. Sexuality is bad. War is necessary. Hoarding money is the primary objective in a happy life. Women should be perfect mommies, housewives, sex partners, while working full time at a highly successful career....oh and have the perfect body complete with big **** and flat abs....I could go on ad nauseum.
By Truth..I mean what is true to my own spirit...free from what I have been taught. Such as, God is actually the force of Love that lives thru us and plays in human form, Sexuality is the ultimate expression of divinity and creativity, War is not neccessary, Money is not the ultimate source of happiness, Women need to find their own power and express it as a manifestation of the divine feminine....this is just true for me...it changes and flows as I grow.

doorknob

Thank you Faery,

That was much different than the way I interpreted it. I'm glad I didn't submit my original response!

Doorknob

FaeryQueen

lol....It is a real talent to be able to express your thoughts accurately and authentically on a message board.....still trying.

Millwallj

I agree with you Faery. Be true to God and be true to Ourselves. Self meaning God and God meaning self perhaps.

People forget to live their lives.

doorknob

Well, it makes perfect sense now! It was my preconceptions about you, as an AA member, that threw me off. I thought it was a "secular" vs. "faith" argument, which it wasn't. I agree with you wholeheartedly about societal conditioning. Actually, I think it is that conditioning, which has many believing that the 12 Step program is the universal solution to all psychological and behavioral problems. Once society has accepted an idea, it is very hard to get people to even consider alternate concepts or possibilities. I think that is why people here at SR who are looking for other options besides 12 Step participation, get so frustrated. It feels like "AA or the highway" every place we seek help. And many of us have tried to fit ourselves into that mold. Hell, I may try again! It's the only game in town where I live, and I know from past attempts at sobriety, that I need a f2f support group. Thank you Faery, for giving me the opportunity to think and clarify before responding!

doorknob

Hi Equus,

Where is this a commonly accepted belief? I don't think that most disease model supporters accept this notion, atleast in my experience.

Doorknob

doorknob

I don't see such a clear dichotomy. Does SMART preclude the notion of a biological component in addiction to substances? Don? I know there is a place in Arizona, which combines biological treatment (Naltrexone) with behavioral methods (REBT). I know from experience, mosts doctors, shrinks, psychologists, social workers, etc. will send you off to 12 Step programs. That's not exactly a medical treatment, although they may also prescribe or suggest medication. Some may suggest behavioral methods, if they are aware of them. Anyway, I agree that alcoholism/addiction has a number of causes, but I think that is widely acknowledged, and most treatment tries to address the problem at all levels. It is, however, difficult to find treatment and support that is not spiritually (using concepts of prayer, divine intervention, etc.) based. Also, 12 Step programs are behavioral as well, just with a spiritual emphasis.

Doorknob

equus

Taken from the SMART FAQ. By the way - I think SMART is excellent!!! My whole point is that this shouldn't be an issue and probably wouldn't be if the disease model hadn't been paired with powerlessness.

As for whether the disease model is in opposition to behavioural theory - again I don't believe it should be but if you look back to previous disease or not threads powerlessness/lack of self control is often raised in support of the disease model. Although it has NO relevence to the dictionary definition of disease. To class something as a disease does not negate free will, or the influence of that will. I perhaps should have added I was refering to AA view of disease that seems to keep cropping up. I would be relieved to be corrected that this is not the AA aproach.

doorknob

I think it depends alot on how terms are defined and also on what negative connotations or stigma they may carry. Is the AA definition of disease different than the medical definition. Are there other definitions? For some, the word disease may imply weak, defective, or powerless. That may be why SMART rejects it. I'm Ok with it. I'm also Ok with the term powerlessness, if it means that I can't reliable control my drinking once I start. If it means that I have no defense against the first drink save for the intervention of a divine being, then I reject it. Similarly, most AA members will reject AA being characterized as religious, and instead use the term spiritual, when in the dictionary, they mean essentially the same thing. Disease or not, I have the condition. Powerless or not, I can't control my consumption reliably once I start. And religious or spiritual, I have serious difficulty relating to AA. So, I'm not sure that powerlessness necessarily negates free will.

Doorknob

equus

I don't see disease as meaning weak - I mean it no more or less than the word itself is described in the dictionary. Should only be used to describe a 'condition' - not human beings, doing that would create problems that extend well beyond addiction.

If you notice I started both examples with the word 'If'
I remember outlining carefully why I believe viewing alcohol addiction as a a disease could be important, firstly to forewarn those potentially more vulnerable, secondly from the point of view of human rights, and thirdly to give it a cohesive title for further research.

My point was that I'm not against this:
BUT I am against it being misunderstood and misused. Pathology is important - for arguments sake lets pretend (ehem... said losely) that alcohol was found to be as addictive as herion in 3% of the population - THAT would be pathology but IF you can fnd which 3% it could also save lives. Pathology might also matter for public health warnings - like cigarette packets or when we are told in our school days not to take drugs. I have the memory of an elephant but can never remember being told at school not to drink once adult.

I suppose it comes from my own belief that had I been able to increase my tolerance for booze, had I been able to get drunk without either falling asleep or throwing up - it could as easily have been me in my hubby's place. Being on the other end of the biological scale I was no less aware of differences between people! In fact I endured more than my fair share of teasing because of it - it seems others were rather aware I was a lightweight too!

That's the important part to me. My husband is still responsible for his actions, he's responsible for reacting to what became evident, he's responsible to do whatever he needs to BUT I can't say I know he was responsible for it happening to him rather than every other Tom, Dick or Harry that drank themselves into oblivion at uni.

Don S

Nope. Nor do all the studies about what is happening in our brains and neurotransmitters negate the behavioral basis of addiction management. They are common topics among the researchers and others on the SMART Recovery email lists. The biological component may help to explain why some people have more difficulty achieving abstinence than others. But they don't determine the outcome for any individual.
Don S

equus

That is good to hear!!