A Compassionate Alternative to 12-Step Recovery: An IFS Perspective

For many people, Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) has been a lifeline. I spent 35 years in the program and remain deeply grateful for the relationships and support it offered during a critical time in my life. I got sober in 1982 and have remained sober since.

Over time, I began to see that the framework of AA, as described in the first 164 pages of the Big Book, was out of step with what I had come to understand about people, healing, and recovery.

When I was introduced to Internal Family Systems (IFS), I realized the two approaches were fundamentally different. The more I worked with IFS, the clearer it became: people respond better to compassion than to fear and shame. Eventually, I stopped attending AA meetings and withdrew from the program.

This article is not a condemnation of AA, nor is it meant to alienate those who have found help there. My hope is to offer a gentle invitation to anyone who has tried 12-step recovery and decided it could not work for them, or who blames themselves for “failing” at it, to consider an alternative.

The 12 Steps: A Closer Look

AA is built on a set of beliefs and practices that are widely accepted by its members as true and valid. The 12 Steps are treated almost like scripture. For many, they are life-changing. But for others, each step can carry unintended harm.

Below is a brief look at how the steps are framed, and where they clash with an IFS-informed perspective.

Step 1: We admitted we were powerless over alcohol, that our lives had become unmanageable.
We are not powerless over alcohol. Alcohol is a substance; once it is in the body, it does what it does, but we do have power over whether we put it there. In IFS, we work with the parts of us that influence that choice, restoring awareness and agency.

Step 2: Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
This assumes we are insane, and then offers religion, despite claims to the contrary, as the remedy. It is a leap into magical thinking that dismisses the complexity of why people drink.

Step 3: Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.
This step further strips personal power and autonomy, training members to depend on an external authority.

Step 4: Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
The word “moral” here is telling. It frames the problem as one of moral failing, not unhealed pain or maladaptive survival strategies.

Step 5: Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
Here the agenda of Step 4 becomes clear. You are wrong. You have done wrong. You are defective.

Step 6: Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.
We are whole, perfect, and complete at our core. Declaring oneself “defective” creates an inner wound that often deepens dependency on the very coping strategies, like drinking, we are trying to resolve.

Step 7: Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.
The language shifts back to the God of the Bible, eroding choice and autonomy. In IFS, what AA calls “shortcomings” are simply protective parts doing their best under outdated beliefs.

Step 8 and Step 9: Made a list of all persons we had harmed… Made direct amends…
Amends can be deeply healing, but only when they come from Self-led clarity, not from fear or shame.

Step 10: Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.
This reinforces the shame-based moral lens introduced in Step 4. It promotes daily self-criticism as prevention.

Step 11: Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God…
Again, power is externalized, and individual choice is minimized.

Step 12: Having had a spiritual awakening… we tried to carry this message to alcoholics…
The cycle continues. Do this to yourself, then teach others to do it. In contrast, IFS would have us heal, then support others from a place of love and empowerment.

AA vs. IFS: Five Core Differences

1. Fear and shame versus healing and expansion. AA often uses fear of relapse and shame of identity. IFS invites curiosity and compassion toward parts.

2. Rigid compliance versus meeting people where they are. AA demands adherence. IFS adapts to the individual’s needs and readiness.

3. Spiritual imposition versus self-discovery. AA requires a Higher Power. IFS allows the individual to discover their own internal Self.

4. Answers versus questions. AA prescribes. IFS inquires.

5. External versus internal power. AA externalizes hope. IFS restores innate power.

The Compassionate Approach

You are not defective. You are not bad. You have a family of parts that are doing their best to manage unhealed wounds.

The compassionate approach is free of judgment, evaluation, or imposed advice. It assumes that each person has everything they need inside to heal. Recovery becomes a process of unburdening, listening to, and supporting the parts that have been carrying pain, fear, and outdated strategies.

When those parts feel understood and appreciated, they can relax, heal, and update. As they do, you naturally reclaim clarity, love, and joy. Sobriety becomes the result of wholeness, not a constant battle against a “disease.”

A New Vision for Recovery

Imagine a recovery community that practices IFS together, much like AA meets, but without the fear, shame, or moral judgment. A place where those who have restored Self-energy can walk alongside others still in pain.

Here, recovery is not about lifelong vigilance or surrender to an external power. It is about reclaiming the power you were born with, healing the wounds that drove you to numb, and leading your life from your own Self.

Closing

If AA did not work for you, it does not mean you failed. It means the framework was not the right match for your system.

There is another way, one that meets you with compassion, trusts your autonomy, and believes in your inherent capacity to heal.