Our Sponsors are an important foundation of our online community. Please visit their websites.
Our Associate Sponsors provide valuable support to our community and help build 'The Wall'.
Our partners help move the Wired In agenda forward.
Join our community, create your own profile page, and communicate about what matters to you.
I have a confession to make, but if you as much as hint that it might make me a geek, I’ll have to hunt you down.
I love physics.
I think it had more to do with the charisma of my first year physics teacher than anything else. Passionate about his subject and a wonderful communicator, he drew us in and we were hooked. There’s something about the natural order of things that makes sense, which pleases that bit of my mind that looks for answers. And, being an addict, my mind ain’t easily pleased.
One of the laws of physics is that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Newton, in one of the moments he wasn’t lolling around orchards contemplating Cox’s orange pippins, is the chappie who came up with this. The hand that punches the jaw takes as much force and hurt as the jaw it’s punching, something Tarantino, for all his talents, doesn’t always make as clear as he might.
Now, if you are still with me, you’ll be wondering where I’m going with this. You might also be wondering: “did this guy hold back on his medication today?” or even “did I bring the cat back in this morning?”
I’m thinking about the recovery movement here. It’s been a week where I’ve noticed a tiny little bit of resistance to the recovery cause and movement and I don’t think it’s paranoia.
We read elsewhere on Wired In about the mysterious “Scottish commentator” in the DDN cover story who postulated that the perceived slow response of the Scottish government to the tragic anthrax outbreak was due to the focus of that administration on Recovery. The same article appeared to be dismissive of some of the elements of the recovery movement.
In the Guardian this week Jeremy Sare argued against the Conservative Party’s aim “to help addicts achieve full recovery”. For the record, I’m not a Tory (sorry granny, I know that’s the one thing we could never agree on) but I absolutely do sign up to this principle. Sare complains that this is against the views of “most practitioners”. I must have missed that poll.
Sare then makes the rather impressive jump that the focus on helping people recover means that offering abstinence instead of harm reduction “implies a preference for faith based solutions”. Apparently this is “very reminiscent of the religious based 12 step programmes popular in the US.” This does not satisfy the bit of my brain that looks for answers.
Now again for the record, I don’t consider myself at all religious (not guilty your honour), but it is hard to know where to start with this. The exclusive linking of recovery to a particular support system reflects a lack of understanding of what a broad church (yes I know… sorry) recovery is.
The other news for the journalist is that not only is 12 step popular in the US, it’s popular in the UK, with thousands of meetings every week and tens of thousands of members. Many would argue vociferously that it is not religious, but spiritual.
In any case, what’s wrong with faith? We all have faith; in ourselves, in others and for some in a power greater than themselves. The anonymous fellowships are the biggest mutual aid support in this country and have helped hundreds of thousands of people.
The resistance to full recovery is mirrored, says Sare, by the charity Release and by UKDPC. They want to stick with what works. Well, if anyone had bothered to do the research on what works in recovery we might be able to agree on this, but since it’s all been done on maintenance and harm reduction, we can’t actually say what works. And in any case, aren’t we forgetting something?
Addicts want to recover and many of us want abstinence. Does that not count?
I’ve overstayed my welcome on this blog and if you got this far, I’m impressed so I don’t have time to feed back to you comments I’ve heard at meetings and a conference this week where the resistance of clinicians to recovery would have curdled your blood, curled your toes and cauterised your cortex.
There’s absolutely nothing unpredictable about this of course. We’re back to Newton and his equal and opposite reaction. Despite the fact that recovery is good news and makes such good sense to those of us whose lives have been turned around, we will certainly find resistance as our voices grow louder.
Resistance to the concept that addicts can recover and resistance to the fact that treatment is only a small part of recovery for some people. There will be and is resistance to mutual aid and communities of recovery.
Those of us who are in positions of care who have never really worked out why we are there can be very reluctant to let go of control and let our clients recover. This will cause resistance to a grassroots recovery movement, but those resisting will not fully understand where their resistance comes from.
It will not matter. The momentum is too strong and we won’t be silenced. We do recover.
Resistance, at least to the wonderful phenomenon of recovery, is futile.
I have a new hobby. The I-Spy book of things that Recovery is responsible for.
In fact this week I may well be writing how Recovery was the underlying reason for the second world war (facism – ha – that was all a smoke screen), the death of Elvis (the original title of one of his best loved songs was “Don’t step on my ROIS suede shoes”) and for a horrific surge in people being nice to each other – OK this last one might just have legs!
On a slightly more serious note just who are the journos talking to? Not many anonymous, or indeed out and proud, recoverees seem to be quoted. Nothing new there then….
I predict the I-spy idea will need to turn into a series and will outsell the Harry Potter books.
Recovery responsible for pen shortage (my desk, every day)
Recovery causes global warming.
Recovery ate my hamster.
You are right though. When making proclamations about recovery why always stick with the professionals. Why not ask recovering people what they think?
And for that matter, service users. What are their one, two and five year goals? Are they likely to reach them? How would they like to see services shape up? Do they think aiming for a drug free recovery is a bad idea?
Excellent stuff Androcles.
“Those of us who are in positions of care who have never really worked out why we are there can be very reluctant to let go of control and let our clients recover.”
I think one of the tasks (among the many) of the recovery movement and all its allies is to help those in the ‘caring profession’ work out why they are there, as we work out why we are here. I don’t think employers and commissioners spend a lot of energy on this. Too busy chasing the numbers and the contracts. I sympathise, been there, got the t-shirt, didn’t like it.
As to the critics I’d have more time for them (and I will make time) if I felt they understood what ‘Recovery’ might be and were willing to engage in creative discussion. But again, I think it’s down to us to work together and learn together no matter how challenging it might be.
I think the reason why I said in my last blog that we should “go easy on the spirituality” was for exactly this reason.It is too easy a stick for people to beat us with. YES, there is a lot of value in the spiritual element of recovery, but for now we have to sell recovery in such a way that everyone can buy in to it. For reasons right or wrong, some people will dismiss certain thing as “brain-washing” “new-age” or “tree-hugging”. Such ill-informed people are keen to dismiss “recovery” as a concept in the same way.
Maybe we have to promote understanding, to show that such movements are being unfairly branded, but winning the cynics over wont be easy.
The plain facts are that:
A: Addicts want to get better, they want to recover and they want abstinence (I believe the figure is around 87%).
B: Addicts CAN get better.
Once people fully understand this, then we can start to educate them more about pathways to recovery, including spiritual and religious pathways.
In order to win the war on ignorance we have to win the battle on misinformation first. This starts with facts A & B.
Matt
Who could argue with A & B? I’m with you!
I have more difficulty with the issue of whether I hide parts of my recovery or change my story to appease critics. I’ve found that when I’m not true to myself, I suffer.
I think Matt you are referring what sort of a face we as a movement (if such a concept exists) we show to the world and I agree, here we keep it simple. It’s important too not to alienate those of us for whom spirituality is at the heart of our recoveries.
My initial reactions to resistance and sweeping comments is normally one of negativity. However, I like to turn them into positives – as resistance means questions and with recovery, the more questions we ask of people – what’s recovery to you, what do you want from recovery, what’s worked for you etc – the more we can highlight the real stories. No one can deny that :-)
p.s. I am a geek too – although Physics is not my bag. hahaha
yes the lie is dead, we do recover……. oh and how that annoys some people…….
Why?
only god knows but i suspect its because they know little of him.
Sarah, a geek? You? Surely not. Like the take on the negativity. If I’m honest a bit of me (probably a twisted and gnarled bit) quite likes a negative response. Possiblity of righteous indignation. Very dangerous, but hugely appealing.
I think some folk don’t like addicts recovering on their own without appointments and lifelong prescriptions is that it threatens their raison d’etre. Just a thought.
Haha.
Although it can all-too-often seem that way I think it is rarely that blatant in people’s thinking. Perhaps it is more insiduous – people think they have the right way and are fearful of anything that contradicts that – or unenlightened if I may put it like that. I’m not making excuses but think that we too need to put ourselves in people’s shoes and ask ourselves why they believe these things – and then target that. When you take this thinking to the larger scale – i.e. services in general, we then have the added dimension of competition and finance which can certaintly blur the boundaries.
How about some righeous indignation for a Monday morning?!
Hi,
I’m not sure where I’m going with this, but want to add some of my thoughts on it…
I think you’re right about some things – many addicts want to get better, and can, and do. However some don’t want to just yet and will carry on using for a while. The thing that worried me about the Scottish reaction to the anthrax was that the line was, “stop using – it’s bad for you”. Honestly, who doesn’t know that using heroin brings risks? If it was that easy to stop for everyone then all we have to do is make a shedload of posters telling everyone it’s bad for them and that they can stop if they want – peasy. So do we carry on down that road and let people die, as it’s their choice? You could argue that, and I have heard various people in the recovery movement argue it, along with the tories. But what if you’d done some harm reduction work and kept those people alive til they were ready to stop?
I can’t believe we still end up with the recovery people on one side and the harm reduction ones on the other, each arguing extreme points, while others of us are stuck in the crossfire getting bored with the whole thing. Are people on both sides too short-sighted to see that they are two sides of the same coin? We SHOULDN’T have one without the other.
Hello Jenny,
I agree with you completely. I think I’m one of those ‘recovery people’ (although not a term I would usually use about myself ) and I’m absolutely committed to harm reduction approaches and have used them throughout my working life. There are many people within the emerging recovery movement who embrace harm reduction approaches within the context of long-term recovery focused trajectories.
There is a massive need to communicate that it is not about extreme positions. Recovery is not simply abstinence. Each individual should define what recovery means to them. This is key to recovery-focused approaches. Recovery lies within the individual and within communities not within abstentionist organisations or harm reduction treatment services. I would suggest that those in the crossfire need to become involved in the discussions and actions (be less boring hopefully!) that will eventually lead to the development of British recovery models. I believe we are trying to be part of something new and would welcome many views and ideas.
You take care.
