Are “Functional Alcoholics” Actually Drinkers Who Moderate?
The functional alcoholic. What does that term mean? Many of the terms we use to describe human behaviors have multiple meanings, and the functional alcoholic is one of them. The lack of a single universally agreed upon definition causes all manner of confusion when trying to build solutions for people with these kinds of drinking habits. The term, functional alcoholic is an example where a lack of agreement surrounding its definition causes trouble when trying to discuss it and understand it, or solve it. Ask any five random people what a functional alcoholic is, and you’ll get five different answers. But if we truly want to be helpful to those with these types of drinking habits, we have to start with an accurate way to talk about it.
The fact that there is no single accepted definition for the term functional alcoholic should be a red flag. There isn’t an agreed upon definition because the concept behind the term (that the alcoholic or addict has no control over their consumption once they start drinking) is in and of itself, wrong-headed. And then, if you expand the already muddied term of “alcoholic” with an additional subjective moniker of “functional” – you have just made the goal of finding an accurate definition that much more elusive.
What About Moderation?
The term moderation is just as difficult to pin down. After all, whose to say what moderate use of a substance is? Is it reducing from 6 drinks per day to 6 per week? Or maybe 5 or 4 drinks per week? Is it changing a heroin habit by replacing it with marijuana use? Is it having one glass of wine at dinner instead of two with dinner and a few more after dinner? Or Is it when you stop having problems that often come with heavier use? Is it not having hangovers or withdrawal symptoms? There are so many factors to consider.
Lack of Control = Alcoholism. Or Does It?
While we can spend a lot of time here trying to come up with our own definition, wouldn’t it be more effective to attack the single premise underneath all of it – the lack of control theory – and see if that has any validity. Beneath all the various labels that try to describe the spectrum of substance use habits (including the “functional alcoholic or addict”) is the fundamental belief that there are people who lose control once they start using. And if that class does indeed exist, then it stands to reason that there is a class of people called alcoholics/addicts and a sub-class called the functional alcoholic/addict.
In our book, The Freedom Model for Addictions, we debunk the loss of control theory. Take a look at this excerpt:
“None of us want to be commanded how to live as adults and we rebel against it at all costs. Therefore, it is thought that the commands by those who know better must be more subtle and disguised in order to be effective. The claim that someone’s drinking or drugging is “out of control” is thus used in the literal sense with adults (and adolescents who’ve matured to a level of intellectual independence) to cover up the coercive dynamic. That is, what’s really going on is that the substance user’s freely chosen, fully controlled substance use goes against the wishes of others, and those others are demanding that they stop it. The demand/coercion is reframed as an offer of help, a diagnosis and “treatment for the disease of addiction.” It is said to be a way to help the substance user to “regain control” that he’s literally lost over his own behavior. It’s all a ruse and a giant cultural charade. It allows the coercers to hide their coercion, and it allows the substance users to submit to the coercion while saving face and not appearing to be lower status individuals who are being bullied into living their lives on terms set by others.
Of course it doesn’t usually work so smoothly, because people inherently know that they are doing what they want to do; that their substance use isn’t involuntary even though the results may be troubling. Substance users often will argue with the suggestion that they are literally “out of control.” It is then said that they are “in denial” and that this is just another symptom of the disease – it hides from you the truth that you are truly out of control! Now the substance user has a second chance to acquiesce, by “realizing” that they’re “in denial” and “admitting” that they cannot control their substance use.
You get to decide whether you take part in this charade or not. Unfortunately, you may have come to believe it’s not a charade at all, but reality. In this case, you may feel truly out of control; but this is just a feeling, and it will change when you decide to change the thoughts and beliefs underlying it. Know this: the claim that substance users lack control of their own behavior is actually a tool of control used by others. It is used to try to manipulate substance users into making the choices those other seemingly more powerful parties want them to make. It is not a scientifically true claim; it is a socially convenient one.
About half of our readers have personally faced this Orwellian doublespeak, and will recognize it as formative of their own downfall. About half of you have not personally experienced it, but have likely witnessed it if you think back on the experiences of friends and family. Whether you’ve experienced it personally or not, it’s important for you to understand, because what you think you know about addiction is based on it. The vast majority of research on “addiction” and views of what it is, how it works, and what is needed to overcome it, are based on these coercive interactions. That is, support groups and treatment programs were invented as places to send people whose loved ones or the legal system decided to intervene and coerce them into making changes that they did not, of their own volition and judgment, wish to make. Those people then became the research subjects and the face of addiction.”
These paragraphs from our book explain the complexities of the loss of control theory in society and the utter sham of it. The book goes on to debunk the theory fully in the pages that follow (see Appendix A, The Myth of Loss of Control). We only pulled this particular excerpt above to make the point that once you challenge and debunk the foundation of the “alcoholic” identity, (the loss of control) the “functional alcoholic” identity is debunked as well. Neither label has any legs to stand on anymore. By letting go of the feeling and the idea that you lose control, the result becomes that there is no alcoholism or functional alcoholism either. You are left with a personal choice to drink or drug in the way that you prefer, whether that’s heavy use, moderate use, or no use at all.
Obviously, the cases commonly described as “functional” are simply people whose preference for heavy substance use is not as strong as it may be for others. “Functional” isn’t a meaningful classification; it merely describes people who don’t see enough value in heavy use to accept the substantial costs that come with it. Instead, they keep their moderate use at a level they personally consider acceptable – in other words, they moderate according to their own standards.
Your Standard is Your Truth
A personal standard that includes moderate use and some inherent consequences is not “functional alcoholism”; it’s an individual using moderately and paying moderate costs. As we stated earlier, this personal standard of use is a moving target; it’s completely based on what the individual wants at that particular time. Hence, why no one is able to agree on a definition of what a “functional alcoholic” is, or even what moderated use is. There’s no such universal definition of either. There’s simply people using substances in a whole variety of ways based on their personal wants and beliefs. If they say it’s moderate use, it is. If they say it isn’t, then that is their truth. Regardless, the label of a functional alcoholic in that determination becomes pointless once you realize all the use is chosen, and is not based on uncontrollable urges, a disorder they can’t control, or a progressive brain disease.
In summary, removing labels through better understanding of one’s personal preferences and autonomous choices exposes the truth; the “functional alcoholic” label and the generic “alcoholic” moniker are both meaningless once you discard the erroneous fundamental loss of control theory. In the end, we are all just people making choices based on our free will, autonomy, and our Positive Drive Principle. These attributes are the actual causes of behavior, not those addiction myths and labels we have spent nearly four decades debunking.
