Here in British Columbia, the Nisga'a Nation has finally won the highest level of self-determination for any aboriginal culture in Canada (except perhaps the North). Everyone is probably aware of the massive repression aboriginal peoples have experienced - raping of their culture and land, sexual abuse, chidren appropriated from loving homes and put up for adoption in non-aboriginal homes and continued public abuse (racism), etc.. All these facts have induced high levels of alcoholism, drug use and disease (for example, AIDS is growing fastest among aboriginal youth here in Canada; so great is the level of tuberculosis that you can't even put aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples on the same graph). Throughout the 'Fourth World', efforts have been made to recapture their cultures as the only answer to the destructive effect this has had on individuals. There is a strong recognition that you do not treat the illness- healing historical and contemporary social wounds - without rebuilding the culture. While I haven't seen anything more than anecdotal, I wouldn't be surprised if these recent efforts have reduced the level of alcoholism and disease. The Nisga'a may have much to show the world.
What I think is noteworthy, though, is how easily so many of us (and I'm speaking of non-politicos) can grasp the cultural basis of aboriginal problems but then turn around and find it so hard to see the cultural roots of alcoholism among non-aboriginals. This says so much about how notions of class and alienation are wiped clean of public consciousness.
AA seems to attempt create a 'culture' by its step program. But unlike aboriginal peoples, it seems to be artificial, only united by the notion that everyone there shares the same disease. Hence, this is the common and defining element of the 'culture'. In fact, only being allowed to say your first name, while intended to allow for anonymity, also prevents you from knowing your fellow alcoholic on any other grounds. And the twelve steps are not about empowerment but disempowerment. I went to an AA meeting years ago, as a support for my roomate who was celebrating her first year of sobriety. I honestly felt like I was in some revivalist church. They ritually said the twelve steps together and had their confessionals. People were hugging me and saying all sorts of kind things without knowing a thing about me except that I came to celebrate my roomate's 1st year (it had such a 'born again' feeling that I nearly said first birthday). She asked what I thought of the meeting and I lied. She wanted to be sober and this seemed to be the only thing that had 'worked' for her that far. I tell you, I drank hardly anything for years after but not for fear of all its 'evils' but for the fear that AA would be my only alternative. (I was also told I had an addictive personality and should continue coming to meetings)
In Vancouver, there's a place called the 'Downtown Eastside' which is known throughout Canada for its high concentration of drug and alcohol use. It is, of course, the poorest, run-down and most neglected area of the city. The CBC (our public broadcaster) recently did a half-hour newsprogram looking at this area. While the interviews of political reps, cops and other sundry figures were going on, in the *immediate* backdrop you saw people shooting up (and they weren't doing it for the cameras). This just so shamed local politicians that it opened the floodgates for discussions of alternatives (while they continued to shut down publicly funded rehabs). One major discussion occured over using the Netherland model where drugs, now legalized, are provided for a nominal fee from a medical clinic (I think another country is doing the same). It was interesting to see how much public support this received (no poll was done but right-wingers had a hard time whipping up the usual moral outrage). One high-ranked police officer even supported the idea, as well as the chief medical officer. I don't know if there's been much discussion of this alternative in the States or elsewhere. Undoubtedly this doesn't resuscitate class consciousness or help us to confront the roots of these problems but, as Carrol says, do we want to wait?
Unfortunately, public discussion here about these alternatives seems to have dwindled and we're back to the same old, same old.
Cathy
>Social conditions are an element, a large element, in a large number of
>illnesses, but (1) those social conditions are going to be with us for a long
>time (that's why we are marxists), (2) so in the meantime a "medical"
approach
>is the only possible approach, and we need to fight for the right of all
>sufferers to the best possible treatment, and (3) even in that socialist
world
>which none of us will ever see there will almost certainly remain many
organic
>conditions which will not be "curable," for which the symptoms will have
to be
>treated. By "organic" illnesses I mean any illness, whether labelled
>"physiological" or "psychological." The distinction is unreal.
>
>I doubt that socialism will eliminate schizophrenia, though it should
create a
>world in which the schizophrenic will more easily live his/her life. The
>daughter of a close friend is a schizophrenic living on her own -- and
getting
>along pretty well in some ways. In a socialist world she perhaps would be
less
>in danger of an occasional assault. She would have friendlier neighbors who
>would keep a better (invisible and non-invasive) eye on her. But she would
still
>be a schizophrenic, and there would still be a strong possbility that her
life
>would end as her sister's had: in suicide. The sister was also schizophrenic.
>
>Carrol
>
>
>
>