Just listened to the Bill Simmons interview with Chris Herren, the subject of the ESPN documentary Unguarded, about Herren’s 10-year addiction and subsequent recovery. I have always found the question of anonymity a fascinating one as it relates to addiction, treatment, and recovery. As we all know, Alcoholics Anonymous stresses the importance of personal anonymity as a core principle of the fellowship. (Traditions 11 and 12: 11) Our public relations policy is based on attraction rather than promotion; we need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio, and films. 12) Anonymity is the spiritual foundation of all our traditions, ever reminding us to place principles before personalities.)
It seems to me that anonymity should be re-examined. The power that a personal testimony of recovery can offer seems to me to be without parallel—and that this testimony can be done without violating12-step principles. Certainly, many A.A. members can talk about their recovery without naming A.A. per se. Even if A.A. is mentioned, however, the value of what can be learned has the potential to be life-saving for people hearing the story—and this may outweigh the potential problems. The risks, of course, are there as well—that the disclosing individual may relapse at some point, that the individual may not be clear that he or she does not speak for A.A., that “celebrity spokespeople” may develop, potentially causing division with the fellowship. All of these are not to be dismissed—but are they enough to keep those in recovery from sharing their experience, strength and hope with those may so badly need to hear the message? I wonder…
It seems to me that anonymity should be re-examined. The power that a personal testimony of recovery can offer seems to me to be without parallel—and that this testimony can be done without violating12-step principles. Certainly, many A.A. members can talk about their recovery without naming A.A. per se. Even if A.A. is mentioned, however, the value of what can be learned has the potential to be life-saving for people hearing the story—and this may outweigh the potential problems. The risks, of course, are there as well—that the disclosing individual may relapse at some point, that the individual may not be clear that he or she does not speak for A.A., that “celebrity spokespeople” may develop, potentially causing division with the fellowship. All of these are not to be dismissed—but are they enough to keep those in recovery from sharing their experience, strength and hope with those may so badly need to hear the message? I wonder…
RSS Feed
