For me, the most important words of the so-called "AA Promises" are the first four: "If we are painstaking during this phase of our development...". Sometimes I think this "being painstaking" is prerequisite to the Promises and is either ignored or given too little weight by me. A deadly or critical error to be sure.
Painstaking is an unusual word, not often seen or heard elsewhere. One definition I found helpful is "The act of taking pains...". In the broad context of recovery, I take that to mean that to the extent I am able "to take" the actual and inevitable pains in my life and my body, I can move through and beyond suffering.
Other ways of saying the same thing would be:
To the extent I am able to "embrace" the actual and inevitable pains in my life and my body, I can move through and beyond suffering.
To the extent I am able to "accept" the actual and inevitable pains in my life and my body, I can move through and beyond suffering.
To the extent I am able to "feel" the actual and inevitable pains in my life and my body, I can move through and beyond suffering.
To the extent I am able to "acknowledge without judgment" the actual and inevitable pains in my life and my body, I can move through and beyond suffering.
"Taking" can be done so many different ways though and I'm not sure all of them have the same level of effectiveness in terms of dealing with pain and suffering. I doubt that a "begrudging acceptance" that one is an alcoholic will have the same effect as someone who "fully concedes to their innermost selves" that they are an alcoholic.
I think there's a difference between "pain" and "suffering". Pain seems to be more of the objective reality that we're experiencing. Suffering is more our subjective or personal response to that experience of pain. I can (and will!) experience pain. I may or may not experience suffering as a result of this particular experience of pain.
All this means a great deal to me in the context of my ongoing recovery from alcoholism. Before I got sober, pain was bad and to be avoided at all costs. Alcohol, among other things and techniques, was a means of escaping and/or avoiding pain. And for a long, long time: it worked wonderfully! And then, it didn't. In between the time when it worked and the time it didn't, alcohol never really worked. All it did was anesthetize: it prevented my mind from knowing that the body and soul was hurting. But the hurting or injury continued even though I wasn't "feeling" it.
Anesthesia is good in limited situations where the use of anesthesia permits a doctor to perform work that's necessary (even though it causes pain) and would be impossible if the patient was actually feeling the pain. But self-prescribed anethesia via alcohol/drugs is ultimately a disaster for those addicted to alcohol/drugs. The medicine (alcohol) both medicates the pain and causes the pain. In the beginning, alcohol causes a smaller percentage of the pain, while it medicates a much larger percentage of the pain. In the end, the alcohol is unable to medicate or relieve any of the pain. In the end, it's almost "pure" cause of the person's pain.
The process of learning the skill or tool of "painstaking" does not begin when someone starts working the 9th step and making their amends for past harms done others. It begins with the first step where we experience (yet another synonym for "take") the physical pains caused by "withdrawing" from the use of alcohol. It continues though the 2nd step where we begin looking beyond the pains of withdrawal and begin looking toward the possibility of life without alcohol by means of some thing ("higher power" if you like) other than pure willpower/effort. And through the 3rd step where we let go of our death grip on trying to be other than who we are (alcoholics). And through the 4th step where we began a self-inventory, without fear, judgment or condemnation (all of which cause needless pain). And through the 5th step where we share with our most trusted "others" (those being: ourselves, God as we understand God and another human being...) the exact nature of our wrongs (that is, that there's absolutely NOTHING wrong but our long standing attempts to not be who we really were!). And through the 6th step where we began loosening our grip on the mistaken idea that we were "bad people" and becoming more aware of the fact that we were and are "sick people trying to become weller". And through the 7th step where we asked for help letting go of all the (painful) false images of who we were/are. And through the 8th step where we, finally, began to list (to see...) the inevitable reality that all of our attempts to hide from who we were (alcoholics) hurt not only ourselves, but those around and about us: especially those close enough to love us, the real us.
So, by the time where we began the active process of mending the damages left in our wake, it was not the beginning of "painstaking." It's the culmination of a long and gentle process, begun at the beginning. And it's certainly not the end of the process.... The remaining three "maintenance" steps each keep the importance of painstaking "front and center" of our living life on life's terms.
Take care!
Mike L.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Limited Safety of and within Meetings
I recently had a powerful experience of how the AA meeting is not safe in all respects and all circumstances. In addition, this same experience taught me an important lesson about the power of storytelling and how it can be used both for good and for evil.
Two weeks ago, I attended a meeting wherein a man, in an obvious state of agitation and distress, disclosed to the people at this meeting that the night previous he had "snapped" and had "beaten the shit" out of his 8 year old daughter and his wife. He explained that he had not "punched" his daughter with a fist, but had spanked her --- hard. He even acted out the severity of his spanks. He didn't describe the form of beating that his wife suffered, but he did say that at the end he'd told his wife to go into her room and lock the door. He then left the house and spent the rest of the night driving around town.
When he reenacted the spanking he'd given his daughter, I knew immediately that he'd crossed a line between "disciplinary" and "abusive." What he was demonstrating was abuse, clear and simple.
Present in the meeting was a nurse with 20 years sobriety. There were also at least three women and one man who I know from their stories have each suffered various forms of physical and/or sexual abuse from men in their past.
I left the meeting and struggled for at least an hour with the ethical dilemma presented by what I'd experienced at that meeting. I felt a strong ethical mandate to report this information to the police and/or Child Protective Services: primarily because I believed that this man's daughter and wife were both in imminent danger of further abuse from this troubled man. At the same time, I felt some obligation to protect this man's annonymity and his right to privacy in terms of what he'd shared in the context of the meeting. In the end, after consulting with several other AA members and my wife (who had been responsible for the "Safe Enviroment" program in our local Catholic diocese for several years (the department responsible for ensuring that children in Catholic institutions were protected from such abuse, whether it be from priests or others) --- and I ended up convinced that I had an obligation to call the police. And I did.
The police did go to the man's home and question him about what happened, as well as interview his wife and then his daughter. I'm not sure exactly what was said to the man by the police and the only one talking about what supposedly happened is the man himself. His story is that the police agreed with him that what he'd done to his daughter was permissible disciplinary action. I'm not at all sure that's true, but that's the story he's spreading in and out of the meetings ever since as he is on a intense search for "the snitch in AA" who called the police on him. As I have been listening to him, I'm coming to realize that "story" can be used for both good and evil. Stories, even untruthful and deceitful ones, can be very powerful and effective.
I have no regrets or shame about what I've done. I'm troubled by the fact that it appears I may have been the only one who felt obligated to call the police. I'm troubled by the fact that those four people who had prior experiences of being abused may be thinking to themselves that this group is condoning what this man did to his daughter and wife and that by their silence they are supporting an abuser and ignoring two co-victims of abuse. I'm troubled by the fact that I've been silent to date as to what happened and what was the right thing to do --- because to do so would expose the fact that I was probably the one who called the police.
But is my "silence" buying into the myth of this guy's power as an abuser? I personally don't believe this guy would attempt to harm me should I disclose to him, either privately or in front of the group, that I called the police and why I did that. I believe that he's a good man who's battling cancer and in conjunction with that battle, is taking a variety of medications that are probably messing with his whole sense of well-being and sanity.
I'm now looking for a good "story" that will convey to the group and to this guy the limited safety we have in AA meetings, but more importantly, some sort of truth about acceptable and unacceptable ways of dealing with stress and anger. When I find it, I will tell it. AA meetings are safe primarily in the sense that anyone should be able to come in and share their struggle with alcohol/drugs and not be ashamed of who they are or what they have done in the context of that struggle. AA meetings are not a safe haven for people to disclose unlawful acts, nor are the statements made in AA meetings somehow privileged from disclosure to law enforcement or legal deposition. As one group warns with a plague in their meeting room: "Notice! What you say here can be used against you in a court of law." Not only that, AAer's are particularly bad about keeping things private. To pretend otherwise is stupid and dangerous. That's why we don't share our 5th step from the podium.
So, until I do come up with this story, I am privately approaching the four people who have histories of abuse in their lives and sharing with them what I have done and that I am there for them should they want to talk.
Take care!
Mike L.
Two weeks ago, I attended a meeting wherein a man, in an obvious state of agitation and distress, disclosed to the people at this meeting that the night previous he had "snapped" and had "beaten the shit" out of his 8 year old daughter and his wife. He explained that he had not "punched" his daughter with a fist, but had spanked her --- hard. He even acted out the severity of his spanks. He didn't describe the form of beating that his wife suffered, but he did say that at the end he'd told his wife to go into her room and lock the door. He then left the house and spent the rest of the night driving around town.
When he reenacted the spanking he'd given his daughter, I knew immediately that he'd crossed a line between "disciplinary" and "abusive." What he was demonstrating was abuse, clear and simple.
Present in the meeting was a nurse with 20 years sobriety. There were also at least three women and one man who I know from their stories have each suffered various forms of physical and/or sexual abuse from men in their past.
I left the meeting and struggled for at least an hour with the ethical dilemma presented by what I'd experienced at that meeting. I felt a strong ethical mandate to report this information to the police and/or Child Protective Services: primarily because I believed that this man's daughter and wife were both in imminent danger of further abuse from this troubled man. At the same time, I felt some obligation to protect this man's annonymity and his right to privacy in terms of what he'd shared in the context of the meeting. In the end, after consulting with several other AA members and my wife (who had been responsible for the "Safe Enviroment" program in our local Catholic diocese for several years (the department responsible for ensuring that children in Catholic institutions were protected from such abuse, whether it be from priests or others) --- and I ended up convinced that I had an obligation to call the police. And I did.
The police did go to the man's home and question him about what happened, as well as interview his wife and then his daughter. I'm not sure exactly what was said to the man by the police and the only one talking about what supposedly happened is the man himself. His story is that the police agreed with him that what he'd done to his daughter was permissible disciplinary action. I'm not at all sure that's true, but that's the story he's spreading in and out of the meetings ever since as he is on a intense search for "the snitch in AA" who called the police on him. As I have been listening to him, I'm coming to realize that "story" can be used for both good and evil. Stories, even untruthful and deceitful ones, can be very powerful and effective.
I have no regrets or shame about what I've done. I'm troubled by the fact that it appears I may have been the only one who felt obligated to call the police. I'm troubled by the fact that those four people who had prior experiences of being abused may be thinking to themselves that this group is condoning what this man did to his daughter and wife and that by their silence they are supporting an abuser and ignoring two co-victims of abuse. I'm troubled by the fact that I've been silent to date as to what happened and what was the right thing to do --- because to do so would expose the fact that I was probably the one who called the police.
But is my "silence" buying into the myth of this guy's power as an abuser? I personally don't believe this guy would attempt to harm me should I disclose to him, either privately or in front of the group, that I called the police and why I did that. I believe that he's a good man who's battling cancer and in conjunction with that battle, is taking a variety of medications that are probably messing with his whole sense of well-being and sanity.
I'm now looking for a good "story" that will convey to the group and to this guy the limited safety we have in AA meetings, but more importantly, some sort of truth about acceptable and unacceptable ways of dealing with stress and anger. When I find it, I will tell it. AA meetings are safe primarily in the sense that anyone should be able to come in and share their struggle with alcohol/drugs and not be ashamed of who they are or what they have done in the context of that struggle. AA meetings are not a safe haven for people to disclose unlawful acts, nor are the statements made in AA meetings somehow privileged from disclosure to law enforcement or legal deposition. As one group warns with a plague in their meeting room: "Notice! What you say here can be used against you in a court of law." Not only that, AAer's are particularly bad about keeping things private. To pretend otherwise is stupid and dangerous. That's why we don't share our 5th step from the podium.
So, until I do come up with this story, I am privately approaching the four people who have histories of abuse in their lives and sharing with them what I have done and that I am there for them should they want to talk.
Take care!
Mike L.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
