The First Step Isn’t What You Think It Is

How often have you heard this, “The first step is admitting you have a problem”? This sounds like a perfectly reasonable way to begin the process of addressing a problem, and it is probably understood by the majority of people who hear it, and/or repeat it, to be the first of the famous 12 Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous and its many offshoots.

But that is not the actual text of the First of the famous 12 Steps. The actual First Step is, “We admitted that we were powerless over alcohol – that our lives had become unmanageable.”

Unlike the vernacular version, which describes approaching a difficulty by identifying a specific thing that one will then act to improve, the First of the 12 Steps is incompatible with the confidence in one’s own capacity to solve the identified problem. To have admitted powerlessness is an announcement of a complete lack of faith in one’s own competence and a declaration of why one should not even be expected to try. On top of that, the First Step follows with “our lives had become unmanageable” – which is far beyond having a potentially identifiable obstacle, predicament or crisis, whether or not one might be capable of acting to improve it. Someone calling his/her own life unmanageable is declaring inability to act on any form of problem, large or small. In short, the First of the famous 12 Steps is the exact opposite of “admitting I have a problem.” It is declaring, “I give up.”

Step 2 says, “Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.” So the individual is not only not just a person with a particular problem, but such a monumental screw-up as to be unable to tackle any life problem large or small. Not just unable to tackle a problem on one’s own, but even the help of other humans is insufficient. The only thing that can help this person is the intervention of a Supernatural Power. The call for restoration of sanity is interesting. How or why would anyone trust an insane person to notice being insane or to know what the cure would be? If the person already knew that he/she was insane and what would be able to restore sanity, why would that person still be insane? Claiming a need for sanity to be “restored” is another way of saying, “I am not capable of identifying or acting to improve the problems in my own life.” Step 2 is a repetition of the resignation of Step 1.

Step 3, “Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him”, again reinforces the individual’s incapacity to manage any part of life, and turning over not just (the management of) our lives, but “our will” is relinquishing even the desire to participate in the improvement of any aspect of one’s life. In addition, the phrase “God as we understood Him” is an opening for this person, this epically incompetent individual, (who is too powerless to do all the things ordinary humans do in the course of an average life) to assume responsibility of defining the nature of the “Power greater than ourselves.”

Step 4, “Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.” So now this person who is uniquely feeble in the face of ordinary life struggles, who has self-identified as an insane person requiring supernatural assistance, is ready and capable of honestly and accurately diagnosing all the wrongs he/she has ever intentionally inflicted on others? Or, is this another exercise in encouraging the individual to continue cogitating on past inadequacies?

Step 5, “Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being, the exact nature of our wrongs”. Now the person who has accepted a self-image as a fully un-functional human will give a detailed account of past wrongdoings to someone else. Considering the fact that the 12 Steps are not intended to be used as a DIY activity, but are part of participation in a group that includes regularly speaking in IRL meetings, it’s likely more than just one other human being hears all the degrading details of these admissions.

Step 6, “Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character” and Step 7, “Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings”, are a single step, requesting the divine intervention described in Steps 2, 3 and 5. But if in Step 3, God has already taken over the running of the person’s life, how could that person still have defects that need to be removed?

Step 8, “Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all” and Step 9, “Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others” is another pair of steps, plus Step 4, that could also easily be a single step. What is the “fearless moral inventory” other than an accounting of harms to other persons?

But, more troubling than stretching out the material into multiple steps is the concept of making direct amends. I personally feel that making and accepting an apology should be about the relationship between the persons who have done and received the harm, as the best a sincerely remorseful person can do, since no one can go back in time and undo the hurtful act. To me, the idea of making amends being on the recovery-process to-do list seems to be using those people one has already hurt to further a goal for a purpose other than improving the relationship. Like any of the acts performed at the behest of a 12 step group or sponsor, Step 8/9 “amends” is about cementing the commitment to the 12 steps. In the case of someone who was harmed who is still part of one’s life, Step 8/9 amends is pulling off of a healing scab, a potentially maudlin rehash of old hurt feelings that could be a setback to actually healing feelings. Popping up in the life of someone who is no longer part of your life, whom you harmed in the past – while a very serviceable plot devise for the comedy show “My Name is Earl” – is a potentially cruel disruption at worst, and at best, using that person as a prop so that amends made can be reported back to one’s sponsor &/or group.

Step 10, “Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it” seems a particularly odd repetition, considering that one’s life has been turned over to a supernatural being, as a sort of non-corporeal designated driver. How, if one isn’t doing anything to control one’s life, can one commit any new wrongs? Of course, if one continues to be an ordinary, fallible human being and there is no intervention by any supernatural entity, one will continue to make mistakes, and thus have the opportunity to continue to churn over wrong actions and imperfections.

Step 11, “Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God, as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.” This step describes the individual as being in direct contact with that Supernatural Being, knowing what that Being wants, and then taking the specific action that the God wants the individual to take, even though the description “God as we understood Him” has an implication that this understanding is likely flawed or incomplete. Nothing could possible go awry in this scenario.

Step 12, “Having had a spiritual awakening as a result of these Steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs”. Considering the fact that people who choose or are compelled to enter a 12 Step program do so for the purpose of dealing with a defined and specific problem – drinking too much, gambling too much, using prohibited drugs, sexual misadventures, etc., etc. – that the final Step is the acknowledgment of a “spiritual awakening”, a promise to “carry this message” and “practice these principles” is baffling. Is letting a spectral being operate a person like a meat puppet a way to wake up a person’s spirit? Or is the supernatural administration of the individual’s life described in Steps 2, 3, 6, 7, and 11 temporary, with the eventual return to the individual of the responsibility to do all the things that Step 1 implies the person is incapable of? What principles, exactly? Reading the actual steps, there are no discernible principles. The part about carrying the message makes sense for a group that wants to grow itself – one of the best ways to cement a recruit’s attachment to a group is to send that person out as soon as possible to proselytize others. In fact, I tend to think that step 8/9 amends is just a variation on cementing commitment through sending the noob out to recruit others. – The neophyte is explaining the 12 steps to someone outside the group, which puts that neophyte in the position of identifying himself with the 12 steps.

One other weird thing about the 12 Steps is the language. First, they are in the form of the plural, “We”, not “I”, second they are all in past tense, as if, even the first time the individual recites them, the Steps have already been accomplished. But, most remarkable of all, while 6 Steps mention God (2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11), not one step mentions Quitting Drinking.*

*Or gambling, or illicit sex or illegal drugs, etc.