Introduction
Open and closed psychological support groups have at all times been an essential mechanism of maintaining a mentally healthy society. Speaking of them, it is impossible not to mention one of the most popular varieties of such groups – Alcoholics Anonymous. It is a community of men and women who share their experiences, strengths, and hopes with each other to help themselves and others to get rid of alcoholism. The only condition for membership is a desire to quit drinking. In order to lead a healthy lifestyle, Alcoholics Anonymous goes to meetings regularly, gains new knowledge, and uses it.
Moreover, they know from their own experience that the more they help other alcoholics, the less they are craving alcohol. By coming to AA meetings, any alcoholic can understand not only what is going on with him but also how to learn to live with it properly. He finds himself surrounded by people who, like him, have experienced what alcoholism is, who want to heal, and who offer each other moral support. In addition, meetings of AA groups help people get rid of loneliness, which is sometimes one of the leading causes of alcoholism. In my paper, I would like to analyze the work of one of the AA groups.
The Type of Group Attended
For the study, I chose a group that takes place in the city of Marshall, Texas. It is called the Marshall Group and specializes in helping people with alcohol addiction. The group holds open-ended meetings where people with alcoholism can come and those who want to support them (Alcoholics Resource Center, n.d.). The type of this group is peer-support, which means that the primary therapeutic method is the support of like-minded people. In this circle, people share their experiences with alcohol addiction and talk about coping mechanisms. Membership in this group is entirely free and anonymous.
The word “anonymous” in the name of AA groups means that their members do not use their names and do not allow their personal information to be released to the media without their knowledge (Borkman et al., 2020). No lists are kept here, and no one controls anyone. The only condition for membership in AA is a sincere desire to quit drinking. There is no solicitation of new members in this society, and they never ask for or accept donations from outsiders. AA groups are not affiliated with any sects, faiths, or political movements. The main goal of AA is to stay sober and help other alcoholics get sober.
An Image of the Group Before a Visit
Before attending the meeting, I had some idea of how it was going. First of all, I thought that people who come to meetings are always discouraged. I attributed this to the process of overcoming addiction. A person trying to wean themselves off something they have been addicted to for a long time experiences unpleasant withdrawal symptoms and an overwhelming desire to go back to the way things were. In addition, for many people, alcohol is the primary way to cope with problems and mental trauma. When a person is deprived of such a way, he appears defenseless in the face of life’s trials. This state of helplessness and deprivation of the usual way of “hiding” from problems must drive a person into a depressed state (Kelly et al., 2020). My second perception of AA was that these people are very religious and pray all the time.
This view was inspired by the fact that many people try to replace addiction, that is, belief in alcohol’s ability to solve all their problems with a stronger faith. More often than not, this belief is a belief in God. After all, alcohol is most often resorted to forget and surrender one’s troubles in life to the will of fate. On the other hand, according to many people, God can also solve their problems without squatting on oblivion and, consequently, on alcohol (Taylor et al., 2019). Finally, I felt that those alcoholics who were in long-term sobriety at the time of the group session would actively instruct fellow alcoholics who had not so long ago quit. After all, the more experienced people had long since gone through the withdrawal and could give authoritative advice on dealing with it.
An Image of the Group After a Visit
After attending the group, my opinion of it changed. The first thing that surprised me was that the people who came to the meeting felt great and were in a good mood. People start gathering for the discussion about an hour before it starts, so if one arrives early, it is possible to observe the atmosphere in the group for a while. In my AA group, people were very friendly with each other, whether they had known each other for a long time or had just met. None of them showed any signs of depression. I was very pleased with this fact because it showed that group therapy does help to maintain good morale.
Secondly, at the Marshall Group meeting, no one imposed any religious views and beliefs, not forced to pray, hold hands, hug. All of this was entirely the voluntary choice of each person. In addition, no one stopped or held anyone back until after the meeting if one wanted to leave early. My opinion has also changed about mentoring – no one in the group advises unless they are asked for it. On the whole, the class was conducted without pressure; a person could come and sit wholly silent and then leave.
Curative Factors in the Group
After observing the participants in an open group, I was able to identify several therapeutic factors that form the basis of AA therapy. One of the main factors of therapeutic influence in such groups is the direct interaction between group members (Marcovitz et al., 2017). Each group member who is on the road to recovery can help his fellows adjust to a typical social environment. Communication with people who have successfully completed treatment and rehabilitation for alcohol addiction is invaluable in novice alcoholics. Also, communication with those people who have become full members of society and started a new life has a therapeutic effect.
Therefore, even at a stage when the therapy of alcohol addiction without medication is life-threatening for the alcoholic, attending meetings can be seen as rehabilitation to anchor the medication treatment. An anonymous and safe atmosphere free of prejudice can be considered another therapeutic factor. The person is not asked questions about his age, religion, sexual orientation, or even his name in the group. This creates a safe atmosphere that is conducive to sharing one’s problems. The mentor does not pressurize the participants or give unsolicited advice or judgment. This serves as a therapeutic factor in that the person does not begin to hate himself because of his addiction and realizes that the community is ready to accept him.
Group Formation Stage and Its Challenging Members
The group I was attending was in the norm-building phase. At this stage, group members begin to adapt constructively to the differences in views and cooperate with each other. They develop group norms of behavior, and the distribution of roles in the group is finally completed and recognized by all (Rubya & Yarosh, 2017). A sense of camaraderie, group cohesion emerges, and participants identify themselves with the group. In the Marshall Group, all participants demonstrated a complete understanding of the rules and followed them flawlessly. However, as with any group therapy, destructive incidents can occur. In the group I attended, there was one problematic participant. He was a middle-aged man with a long history of alcohol addiction and a relatively short five-month period of sobriety. His destructive behavior manifested itself in the fact that he did not consider people who had been alcoholics for less than a year to be addicts. Accordingly, he tried in every way to prevent them from telling their stories and spoke disparagingly of them when participants could express personal opinions.
The man claimed that this group was for people with “real problems” and that those who had been addicts for less than a year had no place here. The curator of the group could not let such behavior go unchecked and took action. His actions consisted of gently explaining that alcohol addiction is not a competition and everyone deserves to have their problems acknowledged. I consider this approach to be overly lenient. From my point of view, it should have been made clear to the man that if he did not follow the rules about mutual respect, he could no longer attend this group. The mentor’s responsibility is to maintain a safe and understanding atmosphere, and telling the man about “real problems” can be very damaging to the rest of the group. They may lose confidence in what they are doing and even deny having a problem, which will only make the road to recovery harder and longer.
Experience Comparison
The experience I had while attending the Marshall Group can be compared to the experience I had watching an experienced group therapist in practice. The main difference in the Marshall Group therapist’s work was his excessive softness and lack of apparent moderation. Each session had a different structure and was not unified. In addition, the therapist could not deal productively enough with a disruptive group member. After his requests, the man only briefly ceased his attacks on the other participants, but the problem was not entirely eliminated. The experienced therapist, whose actions I observed during my practice, conducted his work in a more structured way. He marked the limits of what was permissible for all the participants and urged strict observance.
The participants understood that they could be suspended from the group if they did not follow the rules. However, the group from my practice and the Marshall Group have similarities. First, there is an unobtrusive atmosphere and no pressure from the participants and the supervisor. In both groups, the therapists did not make judgments about the participants’ alcoholism or give advice based on their subjective opinions. Second, both therapists modeled the conversation well, filling in pauses and giving voice to all group members. In this way, both groups created a comfortable environment in which people felt safe to share their problems.
Client Referral Opinion
In conclusion, I would like to express my opinion on whether I would refer my patient to the Marshall Group for therapy. Based on everything I have written above, this group can be considered suitable for treating alcohol addiction. Its main advantage is that the group supervisor creates an atmosphere of trust and safety for the participants. They do not have to give their name or share personal information, and they do not have to worry about the confidentiality of their experience. I also like that there is no judgment or devaluation of the participants’ problems. Destructive cases arise, but they are isolated, and the supervisor takes steps to address them. People in this group are also friendly and open to dialogue. The more experienced nondrinkers are always ready to share their experiences.
It is also worth noting the room in which the classes take place – it is clean and bright, and the atmosphere in the room is as neutral as possible. Another advantage of the Marshall Group is that there is no religious bias in the classes. Participants do not recite prayers or see the church substitute for avenging problems. Several people in the group became active in church during the period of abstinence from alcohol. However, they do not impose their views on the other participants or elevate religion as the answer to all problems. I would confidently refer my alcohol-dependent patient to this group based on all of the above.
References
Alcoholics Resource Center. (n.d.). Marshall Group. Alcoholics Resource Center.
Borkman, T., Munn-Giddings, C., & Boyce, M. (2020). Self-help/mutual aid groups and peer support. Voluntaristic review, 5(2-3), 1-219. Web.
Kelly, J. F., Humphreys, K., & Ferri, M. (2020). Alcoholics Anonymous and other 12‐step programs for alcohol use disorder. Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 1(3), 12-28.
Marcovitz, D., Cristello, J. D., & Kelly, J. F. (2017) Alcoholics Anonymous and other mutual help organizations: Impact of a 45-minute didactic for primary care and categorical internal medicine residents. Substance abuse, 38(2), 183-190.
Rubya, S., & Yarosh, S. (2017). Interpretations of online anonymity in alcoholics anonymous and narcotics anonymous. Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction, 1(19), 1–22.
Taylor, I., McNamara, N., & Frings, D. (2019). The “doing” or the “being”? Understanding the roles of involvement and social identity in peer-led addiction support groups. Journal of applied social psychology, 50(1), 3-9.