“The
incidents with Chuck D. and “Our promoter friend” show that in
the past, cult groups in AA have been stopped before they could even
begin by active intervention of “trusted servants” and “elder
statesmen” upholding A.A. Traditions. They recognised the link
between figureheads and “degeneration into a cult.” (Jack
Alexander article about AA, page 23) In other words, the rise of a
“tyranny of very small minorities invested with absolute power.”
(Concept V). These “trusted servants and” “elder statesmen”
in the 1940s and 1958 were therefore evidently “prudently ever on
guard against tyrannies great and small.”(Concept 12, warranty
six). They also clearly understood the Traditions to be principles
upon which the survival of the fellowship depends, rather than “just
suggestions.” They evidently understood it to be their
responsibility and duty to be active guardians of Traditions by
informing “Traditions violators that they are out of order”
(Concept 12, warranty five). They evidently understood their duty of
care to protect a vulnerable minority from coercion and abuse, “That
care will be observed to respect and protect all minorities,”
(Concept 12, warranty 6). They evidently understood their
responsibility and authority as “trusted servants” that they were
trusted to actively guard the principles of AA Traditions and assert
their leadership in Tradition Two, to perform the “duty of
leadership, even when in a small minority, to take a stand against a
storm,” (Concept IX), - The upholding of Tradition Two, of which
Bill W. was later to go to great lengths to explain in the Twelve
Concepts for World Service in 1962:
“…All
of this is fully implied in A.A.’s Tradition Two. Here we see the
‘group conscience’ as the ultimate authority and the
‘trusted servant’ as the delegated authority. One cannot
function without the other” (Concept X) “Hence the principle of
amply delegated authority and responsibility to ‘trusted servants’
must be implicit from the top to the bottom of our active structure
of service. This is the clear implication of A.A.’s Tradition Two”
(Concept II) “Trusted servants at all A.A. levels are expected to
exercise leadership, and leadership is not simply a matter of
submissive housekeeping” (Concept VII) “Leadership is often
called upon to face heavy and sometimes long-continued criticism”
(Concept IX) “All around us in the world today we are witnessing
the tyranny of majorities and the even worse tyranny of very small
minorities invested with absolute power” (Concept V) “that care
will be observed to respect and protect all minorities… …That our
Conference shall ever be prudently on guard against tyrannies, great
and small, whether these be found in the majority or in the minority”
(Concept XII: Warranty 6). “Feeling the weight of all these forces,
certain members who run counter to A.A.’s Traditions sometimes say
that they are being censored or punished and that they are therefore
being governed. It would appear however, that A.A.’s right to
object calmly and privately to specific violations is at least equal
to the rights of the violators to violate. This cannot accurately be
called a governmental action” (Concept XII, warranty 5).
In
contrast to the leadership described above, recent history reveals
the apparent lack of it, perhaps a 20-30 year trend toward liberty
above that of our common welfare, leading to a “tyranny of
apathetic, self-seeking, uninformed, …..majorities” (concept V),
this in turn, has led to the presence of figureheads, and the
motivation for an “even worse tyranny of very small minorities
invested with absolute power” (concept V), and in some groups, a
“degeneration into a cult” (Jack Alexander article about AA, page
23). This has resulted in abuse of the vulnerable and bad press for
AA, as reported in the Independent (UK) and in the Washington Post
(USA).
The
difference between good service leadership and no leadership at all
in the face of rising dictators, spells the difference between future
A.A. unity and anarchy. If A.A. continues the current trend in
autonomous groups, “personality before principle” speaker
recordings, lectures, guides and trinket business, then this may
eventually lead to a systemic failing of the “but one ultimate
authority” in Tradition Two. The experience of the disintegration
of the Washingtonian movement (Language of the Heart page 5;
Tradition 10, Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions page 180-183)
predicts the future:
If,
on the other hand, A.A. opts for A.A. Tradition, “Each group should
be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or AA as a
whole”, then the exception to group autonomy in Tradition 4 implies
that “elder statesmen” and “Good Service Leaders” (concept
IX) will face their responsibility to intervene when necessary. As
Synanon cult leader Chuck D recalled 1958: “They made things
difficult for us… ... and we never went back to A.A. again.” And
as Bill W. recalled his encounter with “Our promoter friend”: “We
assured our well-meaning friend that we would certainly uphold his
right to free speech. But we added that he ought to uphold ours, too.
We assured him that if his “lectures” went on air, we would
advise every A.A. group of the circumstances and ask them to write
strong letters… ... … letters of a kind the sponsor might not
like to receive.” (A.A. comes of Age page 131)”
Comment:
The emphasis in this section is clearly upon the moral responsibility
of “leaders” to LEAD (by example), to have the COURAGE to SPEAK
OUT when they witness corrupt practices, to CHALLENGE those who would
abuse their power, and finally to DEFEND AA and its principles
against those “personalities” who would subvert our fellowship.
However we would go further than this and argue that it is the duty
of every AA member to actively uphold our traditions, and that when
they witness evil they should oppose it; failure to act, to look the
other way, is no longer an option. Cult leaders have demonstrated
time and time again their utter contempt for our principles. They are
more than willing to set these aside or indeed pervert them in
pursuit of their sole aim: personal power. Their victims constitute
the most vulnerable section of our fellowship - the newcomers. We are
manifestly failing in our duty of care to these and if we continue to
do so why should we expect others to place their trust in us; we
simply would not deserve it. The writing is very clearly on the
wall. If we do not learn from the lessons of the past then history
will surely repeat itself..... Either we shape up or ship out!
The
Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
