There’s a discussion going on at We Quit Drinking over whether or not one can view AA as a religion. Personally, i draw parallels between the two regardless of whether or not i would label AA as a religion.
First, i take severe issue with Webster’s definition of religion (used in the debate):
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2.A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
3.The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
4.A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
5.A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
This proposed definition sits at the heart of the discussion, which is a bit problematic. First, it is *very* easy to read Western hierarchical organized religion into this definition. It is hard for me to tell if that is the intention of the definer or if that is simply my own Wester predilection. My own religious beliefs are very much not Zoroastrian in foundation (i.e. not Jewish/Islamic/Christian). Thus, i have to look particularly close at this definition to find myself; it is not the first read that one might do. In fact, it is precisely that Western version that most of the discussion focuses on. Only in Western religions are religions exclusive and define ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ or ‘one true way.’ I view myself as religious but i don’t identify with any of those classifications.
I’ve never found a definition of religion that feels comfortable to me. That said, Bob Jesse of the Council on Spiritual Practices offered me the best perspective i’ve ever heard, noting that religions have three tiers of participation: scriptures, traditions/rituals, primary religious experiences. Community forms out of religions because of shared scriptures, traditions/rituals and goals to experience primary religious experiences. Anyhow, i could go on about this but i’d like to return to Alcoholics Anonymous for a moment.
AA is a fantastic organization that helps many people. In many ways, i feel as though its effectiveness comes from its clear parallels to religious organizations. There are a set of scriptures, traditions/rituals that bind people together and a goal of reaching a primary state of ecstasy from sobriety. Just like civic and religious groups, AA brings people together from all walks of life, allowing for an education in tolerance.
It’s funny because i know the debate on We Quit Drinking fundamentally surrounds how people feel about the term religion. It’s a hefty word with a lot of connotations that make people run screaming. Also, people automatically conjure Western religion when they think religion which can be truly limiting. At one point, one of the debaters noted that AA is not about worshipping a higher power. Yet, in many ways, AA is precisely about that. Only, the higher power is not a white bearded man in the sky. The higher power is found within you. Rather than drowning out that power, AA is about finding the strength internally to worship yourself, those around you and the ground you walk on. It’s about finding your own unique path and following it one day at a time.
I just read a great book titled -Dharma Punx- which explores some of these questions. It follows a punk through his experiences with hard drugs and violege, time in jail, A.A., and his exploration with Buddhism.
He has to deal with the Christian/religion/A.A. question/
Interesting comments… I was taught that one can characterize religions on the three axes as “behaving”, “belonging”, and “believing”, with varying degrees of importance to each. (Look at the protestant/catholic split; look at the distinction between the amorphous jewish belief in the afterlife, and the obligatory beliefs in catholicism).
AA proudly grabs all three of these: one must belong to an AA community, one must subscribe to the AA beliefs, and one must do the recovery thing.
On the other hand–your commetnts about a bearded man?
…
2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.
…
The twelve steps are pretty explicit about the role of a non-self Divine Power with changing force.
I won’t, and can’t, say whether it’s a religion. But it wears, proudly, many of the trappings. (It’s really a religion-buddy: it isn’t a full-on religion, but many of its best friends are.)
I landed in your weblog browising for academic blogs. I liked your post on AA and religion very much and Danyel’s contribution very nuanced and interesting.
I also read some of your recent posts. Nice to find colleagues blogging “their brains out” (if that is a expression that I can use in English) and researching in new more open and informal ways.
Alvaro – very cool & welcome. And yes, Danyel is a smarty pants and that’s why i adore the boy.
On definitions of religion: What about “religious” devotion to other things such as money, career, good housekeeping, appearance, image, etc. Does something have to be spiritually oriented to constitute a religion or sorts?
On definitions of religion: What about “religious” devotion to other things such as money, career, good housekeeping, appearance, image, etc. Does something have to be spiritually oriented to constitute a religion or sorts?
Fascinating conversation. I would like to add something to the mix: M. Scott Peck’s theory of the four stages of spiritual growth (see URL).
Applying Peck’s theory to this whole discussion, I would say that people who feel that AA is a religion are in stage two, while the people who argue otherwise would fall into either stage three or stage four.
Of course, the pre-AA folk would be stage one.
http://s89693428.onlinehome.us/blog/archives/000027.html
Fascinating conversation. I would like to add something to the mix: M. Scott Peck’s theory of the four stages of spiritual growth (see URL).
Applying Peck’s theory to this whole discussion, I would say that people who feel that AA is a religion are in stage two, while the people who argue otherwise would fall into either stage three or stage four.
Of course, the pre-AA folk would be stage one.
http://s89693428.onlinehome.us/blog/archives/000027.html
Fascinating conversation; I found this via a link on Danah Boyd’s blog (I would have posted it there as well, but I got an error message when I tried to).
I would like to add something to the mix: M. Scott Peck’s theory of the four stages of spiritual growth (see URL in my name, or below).
Applying Peck’s theory to this whole discussion, I would say that people who feel that AA is a religion are in stage two, while the people who argue otherwise would fall into either stage three or stage four.
Of course, the pre-AA folk would be stage one.
http://s89693428.onlinehome.us/blog/archives/000027.html
Zephoria–sorry, forgot to check for follow-ups. I adore you too, even if I you didn’t make it to Berkeley ’till after I left.
Anyway.
Ryan, I’m kinda worried that you’ve blurred things together a little here. I float back and forth between stages 2,3,and 4 in my own religion-of-choice: but I don’t see how anyone can do anything *but* describe lexically and socially (e.g. “stage 2”) a religion not their own.
I know AAs who found it mystical. I know AAs who are skeptical. I know former AAs who are now drunks. None of these affects whether AA casts itself as a religion, I think.
Hi”,
I have a problem with AA as when I came to the end of the steps I was told to use a ritual (whith is pagan)to be identified as having done the steps, I a’m a riligious man and now I find I can’t use this ritual any more,it’s hard when these barriers are put there. Earl.