This well researched, painstakingly documented book provides detailed information on the right-wing evangelical organization (Oxford Group Movement) that gave birth to AA; the relation of AA and its program to the Oxford Group Movement; AA's similarities to and differences from religious cults; AA's remarkable ineffectiveness; and the alternatives to AA. The greatly expanded second edition includes a new chapter on AA's relationship to the treatment industry, and AA's remarkable influence in the media.
This book is heavy handed. All AA members know the origins of the program from the Oxford Group. AA does not mislead anyone as to what it is or does. It is not a cult, but a program that has saved millions of lives since its inception.... People are mandated by the courts at times, because it works. The program is more spiritual than most churches and operates on self examination and responsibility. Something this author should have used in trying to discredit a programs millions benefit from.....
Thank God for people like Charles that are not afraid to step up to giants like Alcoholics Anonymous. Charles took a good look at how AA can be more dangerous than helpful to some. When we think of AA, we think of a group that helps millions. But, AA can be detrimental to others, and Charles did a great job of showing us how/why.
Some complain that the author is too heavy-handed and biased. I don't see it. There are a couple passages that suggest that bias, but most of the information here is two-sided and presented as such.
The author never fully states the answer to the question posed in the title, which gives him, in my book, credence.
"For now, the best evidence available suggests that AA is ineffective as a means of overcoming alcohol problems, and there's some evidence that exposure to AA worsens at least one significant abusive behavior—binge drinking. But the evidence is not conclusive, and until additional controlled studies are conducted, it will remain impossible to draw firm conclusions about AA's (ineffectiveness. One thing, however, bears repeating: there's no good evidence to indicate that AA is any more effective than "spontaneous recovery." Assertions that AA is an effective means of overcoming alcohol problems, let alone assertions that AA is the most or the only effective means of doing so, are just that—assertions, and groundless ones at that."
While some of the info is a little dated and the author has a bias, anyone who is capable of thinking objectively will see a lot of valid points are brought up. The more I read about 12 step programs and the disease model of addiction the more outraged I am that these are the "standards" in the US. It's doing people struggling with addiction a huge disservice.
The author's painstaking research and attention to detail is obvious in the writing of this book. The author laid out the information in a manner that allowed the reader to form their own opinion.
One fault I see from the start--Author has not begun with telling us anything about who he is or about his connection to the materials, although much is suggested and implied. Again I say, if I never write anything else, there is NO SUCH THING AS 'OBJECTIVE' WRITING !
Well researched, available online to read. It is a part of the change moving from an attempt at religious recovery to the bio/psycho/social model of today.
Nothing I haven't already read on the Orange Papers, and surprisingly not as anti-AA as the title or cover would suggest. I think he actually writes, "To Bill Wilson's credit..." a few times. S'ok.
I didn't finish the whole thing because I became ill, but it really helped me quit 12 steps. I ended up quitting all my former addictions thanks to Stanton Peele's work "7 Tools to Beat Addiction".