I posted a couple of things on the double bind and A.A. over here.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423&start=30 viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30423&start=45 .
It may be relevant to the conversation on this thread. One argument against A.A. that I have is, is it acceptable to prescribe, or enforce a process of therapy that relies on maintaining lies, or a false interpretation of itself in order to achieve therapeutic results? If, when the reasons for success are openly shown, the process does not really work, can we classify it as treatment?
"…the alcoholic finds himself, no matter what he does, in a double bind: if he does not drink, has he really won? Or rather, has he lost because he has avoided the provocation?.....
How does the alcoholic in his contact with A.A., come to accept a definitive complementary position vis a vis the bottle? According to Bateson, the philosophy of A.A. is that an alcoholic can be helped ONLY when he has hit the very bottom, and has been reduced to the point of asking for help. Only then can he accept the humiliating sentence of A.A.: Once an alcoholic, always and alcoholic…..
In this insistence that the alcoholic touch the bottom before coming for help, and therefore in the explicit prescription that he do so, we can recognize the essential thrust used by A.A. to change the alcoholic. This time it is against A.A. that the alcoholic has to measure himself IN ORDER TO DEMONSTRATE THE FALSENESS OF THE HUMILIATING SENTENCE. In order to succeed he has only one choice: He will no longer be an alcoholic. He thus becomes symmetric in regard to the clear definition A.A. has given of him: Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic. He accepts the complementary position in relation to the bottle in order to be symmetric with the definition (to reject it).
The therapeutic paradox consists of having forced the alcoholic to adopt the following position: “To show you (A.A.) that you are wrong, that is, that I won’t always be an alcoholic like you say, I don’t care anymore about the bottle. We can even say it is stronger than I am, that doesn’t matter. The important thing is that I show you that I am not what you say I am: always an alcoholic. ”….
Paradox and Counter-Paradox
A New Model in the Therapy of the Family in Schizophrenic Transaction.
c1978 Palazzoli”