Why I Will Maintain Anonymity At The Level of Press, Radio and Film

It is increasingly common to hear from individuals, both the highly recognizable and everyday people, discussing their treatment and recovery from alcohol and drugs.  They do so in public forums including newspapers, television and radio.  LinkedIn, purportedly a platform for professional connectivity, and Instagram are regular platforms for individuals to declare their anniversaries of recovered time.  

These declarations are sometimes unavoidable, and one must assume well intentioned.  Yet, in my view they are not without pitfalls and concerns.  My purpose is not to suggest that everyone speaking publicly about their addiction and recovery is in the wrong, but to discuss the wisdom of one of the traditions of twelve step programs.

Most people know that twelve step communities recommend those twelve steps.  A smaller number know that their members are guided by twelve traditions.    Those traditions were well considered at their adoption and are not without justification.  The 11th Tradition is, "Our public relations policy is based on attraction rather than promotion; we need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio, film." This tradition was laid by the Founders of AA and is included by the other twelve step offspring such as Narcotics Anonymous, Gamblers Anonymous, Overeaters Anonymous, and the codependent organizations Al-Anon, Nar-Anon and Gam-Anon.  I am writing to discuss the wisdom of that tradition as it might apply to anyone in recovery and why I choose to follow the guidance in that tradition.

At its founding AA received almost immediate acclaim first through academic articles by physicians collaborating with the founders and then through public attention.  AA was first active in the New York City news market which at that time had highly active and aggressive reporting among several dailies that often reported about the newfound success in arresting alcoholism.  A marketing executive, Marty Mann, was one of the first women sober in AA and she spread the word widely and successfully.  In that time a landmark piece was published in the then very widely read, “Saturday Evening Post.”  

At first this publicity seemed a positive development.  Respected individuals including physicians, and respected publications and authors were recognizing, respecting, verifying this new approach to an ages old plague.  It was exciting and edifying to see so many people free from addiction where it was as rare in the past.  

This heady time quickly turned.  While publicity for AA increased, the stigma of addiction continued.  People who wanted what AA had to offer were increasingly afraid to approach that community for fear of disclosure.  After all, the “anonymous” portion of the name was designed to protect against just that kind of avoidance.  The Founders began to back away from this publicity In part as a result of what was seen as intrusion, in part to maintain the individual anonymity of this behavioral health problem that was then (and still is) shrouded in shame, in part to keep the newfound community insulated and protected.  

Then, certain spectacular and very public relapses by recognizable members occurred including that of Ms. Mann.  After years of success  in promoting AA, passing legislation, beating down the walls of stigma, in many respects becoming the “face” of AA, Ms. Mann relapsed in rather public ways.  At this point aspects of her personal life, which by today’s standards would be perfectly acceptable but were then not so, became very public.  The Founders believed that her relapse, as sad and lamentable as it may be, damaged the reputation of the new organization.  It was in this time that the founders discussed and penned the 11th Tradition 

There are many of my respected colleagues who hold that one may declare their recovery as long as they do not identify as being a part of AA (NA, GA, Al-Anon, Nar-anon, Gam-Anon etc.)  In this way, they profess, one sets the example that recovery is possible while not associating themselves with AA.  In this way they intend to reduce stigma.  Why is this not acceptable?

First, it seems reasonable to think that the public will assume that one does not get clean and sober without the inference that treatment and/or a twelve step program was involved.  Quietly ignoring this connection by inference, or by outright denial only reinforces the suspicion.  Further, the same concerns about damaging the public image of recovery in general apply even if it is not tied to one or more of the twelve step programs.

Second, it seems reasonable to avoid assuming the mantle of "representing" recovery.  Who anointed that movie star, athlete, elected official, news personality and so on to represent recovery?  If there is one day an election to that post, and one is voted in then, perhaps, but until then this self-anointing behavior seems inappropriate

Third, as a flawed human being I will not hold myself up as an example thus risking that someone will demean other people in recovery with my faults.  

Finally, humility requires that we recognize that our physical, intellectual and spiritual energy is only one part of our recovery.  We must ask if there are greater forces at work here or, alternatively, are we approaching a boast that is not all of our doing.  To be clear, and humbly, I think that the chance of a relapse and the damage to the public’s view of recovery is remote after some period of time.  Nevertheless, that risk is there, and Ms. Mann's public example instructs.

The behavior of public persons, “celebrities” if you will, is more complex.  It is popular for celebrities to talk of their recovery and to mention AA and/or NA.  One might argue that they cannot avoid talking about their treatment and early recovery.  Someone in the public eye cannot disappear for three or six months without some explanation or without raising other questions and hurtful speculation.  Some choose, then, to address the issue straight on and stop talking about it in the future.  A good strategy for them if they are faithful to that plan.  However, mentioning one twelve step community or another seems to fail their responsibility to that community.

Many argue that following the 11th Tradition inadvertently reinforces stigma.  Afterall, the thinking goes, since we are all public, inevitably, at some level, in the eye of family, friends, colleagues at minimum, then by avoiding disclosure or actively denying the disease we are reinforcing that we have something to hide.  With all respect to those adherents, one does not logically lead to the other.  Further, and as noted, the public declarations I am citing are at the level of press, radio and film not family, friends and colleagues.

I have been personally accused by one colleague of “hiding behind the traditions.”  After four decades of recovery and several roles leading discussions about addiction and recovery this seems misplaced accusation.  However, it does seem to me, not a clinician, that denial is very real and worth self-examination.  Further, the programs of recovery recommend amending the past harms done and does require some disclosure of recovery (certainly those harmed have no doubt of our addiction).  This level of disclosure seems essential.  Further, this is not so public a disclosure to offend my point.

I have also been accused of being a “traditions fascist.”  If one is a member of a twelve step community it would seem that deciding, individually, to ignore traditions fails one’s responsibility to that community.  Further, my point has to do with the wisdom of the tradition although, admittedly, I am proposing that members of one or another of those communities have an obligation to follow their traditions.

Does all of this suggest a complete revision of the traditions of twelve step programs?  Such an approach seems reasonable after 70 years with little change.  However, this blanket accusation does not mean such revision would eliminate this tradition.

Finally, there is the obligation to help others and since two in three people in America have someone in their lives with this issue, atop the 31 million disease sufferers, then that is nearly everyone.  One may disclose their recovery, without implicating a specific twelve step community through unabashed discussions at informal settings when appropriate, to family, friends even colleagues (though one might tread lightly with the latter), to groups such as senior centers, employers, and, of course, participating by speaking at various twelve step meetings.  Again, this does not violate this suggestion “at the level of press, radio and film.”

One significant issue seems worth noting critically. Strikingly, it is increasingly typical for organizations to publicly declare that other individuals were treated by that organization and are now clean and sober, their lives are transformed and so on.  This is often purported to be congratulatory but cannot be free of promotion for the organization that posts the “congratulations.”  

In some cases these congratulations are a form of testimony at a closed meeting such as an annual dinner or celebration.  Assuming that these testimonials are not coerced, and that they are not directed at press, radio or film, then this would pass muster vis-à-vis the wisdom of the 11th Tradition.  This disclosure seems remarkably close to the disclosures that happen per force at twelve step meetings.

One assumes that there is written authorization or at least tacit approval from the person testifying or who is described in a public posting.  Regardless, ethical considerations are readily present.  Does the public posting about that person newly in recovery impact their ability to form professional or personal relationships later in life?  Is it taking advantage if the person being discussed is newly in recovery and is being guided expressly or implicitly by someone in the organization making the post?  Further, if the person newly in recovery has become an employee or volunteer for the sponsoring organization, is the waiver coercive by its very nature?  This latter case, a public posting by a treatment organization declaring the recovery of another individual, seems far over the line in my view.  

I do not perceive myself to be a “traditions fascist”, to be hiding behind the tradition, or overly strict.  Those who are members of a twelve step community have an obligation to that community and its traditions.  When one steps outside that community the wisdom of the tradition guides, nonetheless.  I, for one, will maintain anonymity at the level of press, radio and film.

Anon

July 2022