It was a surprise and a delight to find an acknowledgement of satire in the February 2005 issue of Counselor, in an article by Omer Gillham Jr. titled: “What Happened to Adult Children of Alcoholics.” He referred to the character Stewart Smalley an ACA Twelve Stepper created by satirist Al Franken for Saturday Night Live whose mantra was: “I am good enough. I am smart enough and dog-gone-it people like me.”

This comedy skit followed in the tradition of classical literary parody extending back to Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels through to Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World in which Huxley metaphorically describes the characteristics of the nationally prescribed drug soma: “Euphoric, narcotic, pleasantly hallucinant — all of the advantages of Christianity and alcohol, none of the drawbacks.”

By juxtaposing Christianity and alcohol Huxley asks the question, “How are these two phenomena related?” We already know the important role Christianity plays for some in chemical dependency recovery. We also know about the obvious “drawbacks” of alcohol. Huxley asks: “Are there “drawbacks” to the practice of Christianity that have an effect on alcoholism?”

There is a special power to parody/satire as it points to new paradigms, new directions in thought. It stimulates critical thinking. This is why parody and satire have been so controversial and why satire has faced censorship over the years. The power of satire allows us to question what was hitherto considered unquestionable. Critical thinking is the answer to entrenched orthodoxy and critical thinking is what wellness in recovery currently needs.

Al Franken articulated his satirical role of Stewart Smalley to ask the question: “What is the connection between the personal affirmations used in recovery to promote self-esteem and narcissistic self-indulgence?” Is the concentration on “my recovery” a perpetuation of the same “selfishness” which was heretofore expressed in “my high.” Does the focus on “denial” limit one’s ability to question not only one’s own alcohol and drug abuse but also what is currently known about AOD recovery? Does the use of “denial” limit freedom of inquiry?

Satire and parody are important as they offer doors to critical thinking. Critical thinking is important because it allows for unrestricted questioning, uncensored by political, philosophical, religious or even recovery orthodoxy. Am I an alcoholic/addict or am I simply being labeled and stigmatized as such?

Questioning recovery
A genuine recovery process allows clients to ask such questions rather than simply proclaiming that such questioning is a form of denial itself. The use of “denial” in this way is simply another form of censorship and social control. Recovery from chemical dependency needs to be transparent without “hidden agendas.” Clients must feel they have the right to question everything, including their own recovery process.

This questioning process can become an introspective imperative when the clients ask: “Am I addicted?” And the counselor’s response is: “I don’t know, but one way to find out is through an abstinence challenge. Can you go without the drug for a specified period of time? Research yourself ... perhaps, if you cannot, you do have a problem.”

Framed in this way, the client can become more of a colleague committed to a self-knowledge research project. Clients often rebel at having labels bestowed upon them, which they are not open to accept. Questioning is not always “denial” ... and encouraging questioning is not necessarily “enabling.”

Drug use in America today is a complex phenomenon which requires a “client centered” approach rather than a standardized dogmatic response. There are many paths to recovery; some need to be based on total abstinence while others do not. Every path, however, is set within a specific time and culture.

Clients with drug and alcohol concerns do not live in a media vacuum. They know drug issues exist. Rather than ignoring these issues we, as counselors, need to contextualize one’s abuse of a substance with what is happening in the larger culture. In this way, clients can be enlightened as to how their own abusive drug taking behavior is related to larger cultural issues that include family and friendship relations, educational inadequacies, economic or job-related performance, and both religious and political prohibition. Can clients use such issues as distractions from focusing on their own recovery? Yes they can, but under the guidance of critical thinking we also can ask the client if such concerns are a misplaced justification for not being critical of one’s own thinking.

Such a concern with “drug issues” develops critical thinking about one’s own drug use. For example, American culture subtly and unintentionally allows for teenage drinking as a “rite of passage.” So that while adults may proclaim their abhorrence for teenage drinking (especially drinking & driving), it’s always tempered with “teens will be teens” (i.e. drink anyway but don’t get caught). After all, it is just alcohol. Due to alcohol’s legal status it is commonplace and thought to be an OK drug that requires little vigilance or control. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Educating people
What teens do not learn from their culture, including their drug education classes, is that alcohol is a dangerous drug —pharmacologically it is a sedative-hypnotic-analgesic equivalent to liquid barbiturate.

Drug education and treatment in America today needs to change. People need to make informed decisions about their own drug use not based on someone else’s morality but, rather, because they have developed a critical thinking perspective both about their own use/abuse as well as the cultural forces that socially shape and construct it.

Most importantly, any recovery program that is wellness oriented and includes concerns with physical fitness, nutrition awareness, stress management, social supports, and health care resources needs to include an unambiguous advocacy of freedom to inquire. There should be no “sacred cows” in recovery. Questioning should be allowed. Critical thinking should become a necessary part of the recovery process and counselors should feel at ease with and even encourage: just say know to drugs.

The strength of any science is dependent on how open it is to the heuristic process where what IS known is continually open to question. The same should be true for “addiction science.”

Richard Wilmot, PhD, is the clinical director at Path to Recovery, a chemical dependency recovery and treatment facility in Northern California. Dr. Wilmot, a sociologist with a specialization in the social psychology of substance abuse, conducts workshops on critical thinking related to drug abuse and treatment.

This article is published in Counselor,The Magazine for Addiction Professionals, December 2005, v.6, n.6, pp.58-59.

---

Comments

Add New Search RSS

Write comment
Name:
Email:	do not notifynotify
Title:
UBBCode:	-color-aquablackbluefuchsiagraygreenlimemaroonnavyolivepurpleredsilvertealwhiteyellow -size-tinysmallmediumlargehuge
	Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.25

3.25 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."