Jump to content

Talk:Twelve-step program

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mutual Aid

[edit]

I removed a link in the firt paragraph describing these as mutual aid programs, with a link to mutual aid page- This seems very prominent and while some 12 step programs are certainly run like this, I don't think it's a defining feature of the programs- many state, charity and church funded residential centres are 12 step programs, for example, and these are definitivley not mutual aid programs- both in terms of funding, and structure. If we want to have a note that some programs fit within that oranisational structure, we should put it in a later paragraph, with more nuance. Adacable (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not going to revert this change, but WP:RS do describe 12-step programs as being mutual aid or words to that effect. For example, “AA is a widespread and free mutual‐help fellowship”. There’s a very significant difference between going to a 12-step meeting (free mutual help group) and going to a treatment center, which is not a 12-step meeting per se, even though the center may host their own 12-step meetings. SkylabField (talk) 09:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, this is an interesting point- The | actual paper cited focuses on specific histories of "recovery mutual aid", with the NIH writeup shortening it to "mutual aid" for the title(and not discussing it further). "Recovery mutual aid" in the paper includes everything from temperence societies to native american cultural preservation movements, and as they say "the boundary between mutual aid and treatment has not always been a clear one"- this seems in opposition to the clear differnetiation between, say, mutual aid and charity, or external coercion that's drawn up on the organisational page.
I think maybe there's a political/organisational term "mutual aid", and a medical term "recovery mutual aid", which have similar meanings but which aren't actually synonyms? I've not got time to go through the citations in the paper at the moment, maybe one of them will yeild a specific definition or root of the medical term?
Either way- Thanks, the NIH article was an intertesting read, and discovering a second tradition of mutual aid is interesting in itself. (edited link to go to the right place) Adacable (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, having done a bit of reading, there's one source which extensivley discusses 12 step and mutual aid vs other terms, which is already cited in the article.
It distingurishes between mutual aid movements and mutual help movements, describing AA as the latter(in fact, it's the premise of the entire work), and is also(presumably) the citation for refering to AA as a mutual aid movement on the AA page(the other two citations in the lede don't mention mutual aid at all- though why it was recorded as mutual aid rather than mutual help I don't know).
The 2020 cochrane review, also describes it as a peer-to-peer help organisation, which could be another term which would fit well into that slot.
I'm going to edit it to "mutual help", without a link to the mutual aid (organisation theory) page, replacing my clunky uncited description, and use MAKELA 1996 as the citation for it. Also going to go over and do the same for the AA page, as it appears to fall into the same trap. Adacable (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you make a good point about recovery centres not in themselves being 12 step by the definition of the 12 steps, but simply hosting(sometimes questionably) 12 step meetings.
I think there's a lot of things which are not 12 step by the original definition of the 12 steps, but are understood as 12 step by reliable sources- The most obvious being court ordered 12 step- which isn't more than superficically 12 step(because 12 step is first about wanting to stop drinking- A court can't order you to admit that you're powerless over alcohol, let alone get any further!).
This is also a very good example of something that is considered to be 12 step by reliable sources, but is not voluntary, and thus not mutual aid as discussed in the mutual aid (organization therory) page.
If it's important to discuss structure and "mutual aid(Organization theroy)"/"recovery mutual aid" Maybe we should have a paragraph on the structure of the groups further down, discussing the structure of the programme(s) it seems maybe there should be a discussion on meeting/organisational structure in general, which is left somewhat implicit through the page(meetings, with a given structure, are a commonality to all of the programmes mentioned I think, but their common structures aren't mentioned on the page). Adacable (talk) 09:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Preferring mutual self-help, while well intentioned, is ahistorical and can not stand once Wilson’s reliance on Kropotkin’s anarchist mutual aid ideology—the title of one of his books-is considered. Makela adheres to regarding AA as an “international mutual aid movement”, and in the introduction takes no issue with the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.60.170.151 (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a citation for the Kropotkin/Wilson link? I think adding it to an expanded section on structure would be really useful. Adacable (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, found it in AA comes of age, going to give a draft of a structure section(incorperating discussion of the twelve traditions, historical and contemporary structures of twelve step programmes, etc. Adacable (talk) 12:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Giving Strength" vs. "Restoring Sanity"

[edit]

From the Article:

As summarized by the American Psychological Association (APA), the process involves the following: admitting that one cannot control one's alcoholism, addiction, or compulsion; coming to believe in a Higher Power that can give strength;

The 2nd Step from Alcoholics Anonymous:

"We came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity."

"Strength" and "Sanity" are not the same thing. AA is correct, and the APA is WRONG. It's AA's 2nd step. You'd think that AA would know what their own 2nd step is. The 2nd step is about the higher power RESTORING SANITY and not giving "strength", which evokes the idea of individual willpower and someone overcoming the addiction via some idea of "strength" (perhaps they mean "fortitude" or "endurance"), rather than recovering one's sanity. These are two completely different concepts, and to throw in the idea of "strength" evokes delusional notions of willpower, which have already been discarded in the 1st step, admitting one's powerlessness. These are two completely different concepts. One is a verbatim lift of the AA 12-step program text, and the other is a complete fabrication and lie. If the "APA" (whoever they are) published that the sun rose in the west, and set in the east, would Wikipedia quote them as a "reliable source" in an Article about the sun? This looks like intentional vandalism to me. I find it very odd that the "American Psychology Association" has apparently made the decision to reject the use of the meaningful word "sanity", and instead has adopted the use of the completely meaningless word "strength" in this context. Perhaps the notion of "sanity" (and therefore insanity) has been deprecated and scrubbed from our now politically correct language.72.180.111.79 (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]