Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Things That Occur to Me While I Watch 'Intervention'

1. Skinny people are on drugs / sober people get chubby. Corollary insight: I have body image issues. 
  
2. If anybody's still out there genuinely making documentaries on addiction, then I can't help but picture some hapless bastard anxiously showing up for his scheduled 'final interview', only to be asked a few leading questions by a guy sitting in a folding chair, handed some release papers to sign and twenty bucks for his troubles, before being told to have a nice life. This thought makes me sad. 
   
3. I am capable of a terrible sort of delusional jealousy, wherein I can remain powerfully ignorant to the presented reality of addiction and unabashedly envious of the weird, insular relationships drugged-up people form with one another. 
  
On one (of what could have been any) episode, a concerned loved one of a meth-addicted twenty-something noted, of the addict's boyfriend, that he's just kept around because she likes to feel wanted. This was clearly meant as a criticism, but (and I admit an obvious bias) I couldn't help but side with the addicts, in that I can't imagine a person not having (or feeding, when able) the powerful urge to feel wanted. 
  
And, I understand that the criticism being made is more a note on the perceived character limitations of the boyfriend (ie: the best that can be said of him is that he wants to be around), but in the same way that I harbor a sort of shameful jealousy for characters on hospital dramas who may soon leave behind a devoted spouse (unless their life-threatening case of exploding organs is treated by the gruff but lovable head of diagnostics / scrappy lady-surgeon who's got enough on her plate just trying to make it in a man's world) or the truly unfortunate teen parents of MTV reality fame, I envy the easily digestible, dramatic display of "being wanted" set, as it usually is, in contrast with failure to live up to expectations (or just live, in general, what with the exploding organs). 

Lonely people are envious of even terrible relationships. So, that's a thing.  
  
4. If I'm ever intervened upon (take notes, friends and family), I will demand that all letters be as concise as is possible and lacking in idioms, euphemisms, and appeals to any sweet, beautiful little person inside of me. Also, there's every chance I'll agree to enter treatment before listening to the letters, because that's exactly the sort of spiteful thing I'd probably do.
  
5. My urge to mock is somewhat dependent on my assumption that the addict will enter treatment at the end of the show, and for the most part, I prefer to ridicule the show's editors than its subjects. By this, I mean that it's more satisfying (or less depressing) to chortle derisively at the juxtaposition of a narrator claiming "she is an expert manipulator" accompanied by a scene of the addict flatly demanding money so she can go buy drugs than it would be to giggle at the powerlessness and humiliation felt by the addict and their loved ones. 
  
6. Also, despite what I wrote about mocking the story-telling rather than the subjects, there is something shamefully amusing about people who can't seem to grasp the purpose of an intervention, who think it's their chance to finally berate the addict into sobriety (in hopes they'll finally see that they're wrong to be addicted to drugs), and who can't grasp that their stubborn, narcissistic need to avoid blame and assert an absurd (and unfounded) air of control and superiority is the sort of pathetic dishonesty they claim to decry in the addict. I say this is amusing, but not in a way that makes it less heart-breaking... I suppose the trick is not to think about it all that closely.
  
7. I'm not sure whether having an overtly-conservative, ultra-dogmatic religious figure in one's life drives one to drugs and alcohol or if having a self-destructive, emotionally-abusive addict in one's life drives one to religious zealotry, but what I notice is that these things coincide. 

4 comments:

  1. I recently overheard a girl taking with her AA sponsor. She was clearly new to program, and her sponsor was asking if she was really dedicated, if she really wanted to work to end the pattern of alcoholism. The sponsor pointed out how it's a constant battle, and how it wasn't enough to just say you were ready. It was all practical and tough loving, but then the sponsor brought up a key tenet of AA that I'd forgotten about until that exact moment.

    The sponsor started talking about how having faith in god made you part of something bigger than the girl's alcoholism, and how asking god to help you stay strong every day was crucial.

    If I ever descended into a life-impeding addiction, any program that uses belief in a god as a large portion of its intervention would not work for me.

    Also, is it just me, or does it seem sneaky and dastardly for christians (or whatever; I'm not sure if AA adhere's to any particular religion or if it just uses the term "god" to indicate an omnipotent creator being) to recruit from the population that's totally broken down and hurting. I mean, I'm all for helping people - but slipping in the religion thing seems to be on par with selling someone insurance right after they've been hit by a bus.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The pamphlet (or book... it's not really a book; it's a pamphlet) says that "the something larger" doesn't have to be God, but "could be a rock", for instance. It's a moronic example that they include for some reason.

    Ultimately, I'm not sure I hate the idea so much as I used to, in that it seems to be striving for inclusivity and isn't necessarily bullshit -- your something larger could be your community, the group of friends you can effect, your place of significance in the universe... just something to get you out of the solipsism addiction creates. Someone I was reading wrote that you could use the passage of time as your something larger (ie: faith that the next moment will come, as all the previous moments have), which is sort of poetic... if still sort of weaselly.

    It is Christian, or was, but they've gone past that, or at least as much as they can. I think the idea of getting addicts out of decision-making mode is the key issue, and putting faith in an authority that seems outside of themselves is a quick short-cut.

    As to Christians being predatory, I'd have to ask if you felt there were any other kind? I don't meant to say that they're all swindlers and confidence men (cough... mormons... cough), but religions prey on the fears and ennui that trouble even the most competent among us.

    ReplyDelete
  3. That is poetic. Thanks for doing that pamphlet research.

    I agree that religion is innately predatory and is born out of fear of the dark/future/encroaching savages and/or liberals. It just seems like cheating to take advantage of individuals are so torn down and desperate, such as the starving or the terminally ill or the suicidal.

    I guess in the case of AA, I can get past using religion as a short cut out of addiction, since faith in an outside world is a direct tool toward recovery.

    But missionary organizations, that require people to subscribe to christianity before or concurrently with receiving nutrition and medication and other life essentials, seem particularly disingenuous. It's putting religion before ... well, the basic value of fellow humanity.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Could be worse.

    They could strive to be like Mother Terressa ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WQ0i3nCx60 ).

    But yes, there are legitimate concerns about AA using religion (subtle/not-so-subtle pressure to consider the higher power as God), not to mention the success rates being roughly the same as those not in programs, but that's probably misleading (solitary people v. social people or something).

    As to the morality of preying on the sick and dying:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-AwgHcgYR4&feature=related

    ReplyDelete