“Desire drives consumption, and consumption is destroying the earth.” So states Peter Schoonmaker, the director of the Illahee environmental lecture series here in Portland, and I agree with him. Peter circulated my review of Susan Cheever’s lecture to Illahee members (I took issue with Ms. Cheever’s claim that broken promises are what define addiction). Beth, a recovering alcoholic, responded with a comment so insightful that I’m presenting it today as a guest post.
I was disappointed with Susan Cheever’s discussion of addiction. I think she comes to the topic as a writer, not a scientist or policy maker. I think we, the audience at Illahee, came to her with questions more suited to someone with expertise in science, psychology, and/or public health.
As a recovering alcoholic, I know that when I was in the midst of my addiction I did not see any reason to make or break promises to myself. Why make a promise to oneself when one doesn’t have a problem? There is a saying that a non-alcoholic will change his lifestyle to meet his goals whereas an alcoholic will change his goals to meet his lifestyle. With no goals other than staying loaded, it is easy to avoid making or breaking any promises.
For me, hitting bottom was discovering that I wanted to stop drinking and that I could not. This “moment of clarity” was not the moment I became addicted; I had been addicted long before. Cheever seems to conflate the moment of clarity with the addiction by saying that one cannot be addicted until one has the moment of clarity’s subsequent broken promises.
This disregards the basic facts of addictive consumption. By her definition, someone can drink (as I did) everyday to excess (blacking out, vomiting, etc.) and not be able to stop drinking, but not be an alcoholic because, woops, no broken promises.
So, I think you’re right when you say the promises really are not the problem.
No Comments so far ↓
There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.