We
recently came across an article (AA's Culture Clash: NYC vs. LA) in
The Fix (an online magazine of variable content and moreover
extremely variable quality!) which gave an account of one chap's
transition from New York AA 'culture' to that of LA. Briefly:
“.....
was only one of many differences I was to encounter between New York
AA and its Los Angeles counterpart. You’d think with all the
traffic between the two cities, there would be some uniformity in the
meetings. That was not the case. Los Angeles, I came to see—perhaps
suffering from a second-city complex, or maybe reflecting it’s own
unique showbiz personality—had developed its own take on AA.
For
starters, LA meetings are held in strange places. In New York,
meetings are pretty much held in churches, conference rooms or
schools. These official-seeming locations lend a certain gravity
to New York meetings. In LA meetings are held on fishing piers, in
the back yards of yoga studios and in underground parking garages.
The
format of New York meetings is fairly consistent: A speaker
tells their story for 20 minutes, followed by sharing from the floor.
In LA, every meeting has its own format: Sometimes there are two
speakers, sometimes there are three; sometimes the speaker reads,
sometimes he or she answers questions. Sometimes there are
free-rolling, debate-style conversations, sometimes there is no
participation at all. Occasionally everything stops for a meditation.
Or a coffee break. Or for further announcements (there are lots of
announcements in LA). In many meetings the speakers are recorded
so you can listen to it later in your car. In LA, you get the
feeling that each new meeting feels obligated to add some new spin
on the traditional format.
There
are more private meetings in LA, held in people’s private homes.
This is presumably to protect celebrities, film executives and CAA
agents from having to mix with the common people. There are
also larger “cool-people” meetings that are open to the
public but not listed in meeting books. You find out about these
meetings by word of mouth, like you would find out about an exclusive
nightclub. And like a nightclub, once there, you feel instantly
self-conscious because everyone is younger than you and much better
looking.
Perhaps
the most jarring difference between the two cities’ meeting styles
is the way people decide who should speak. In New York, the object
is to have everyone who regularly attends a meeting speak at some
point, the idea being that even the least articulate person from your
group might have some unexpected nugget of wisdom to share. Also, if
nothing else, everyone should hear each other’s story, and thereby
have a basic knowledge of their fellows.
But
in LA, chair-people are more concerned with entertainment value—also
with speakers carrying an “appropriate” message. This creates
an inevitable reliance on circuit speakers and AA “stars.”
The idea of putting someone unproven, or unknown, at the podium is
frowned upon. Nobody wants to sit through amateur hour. In one
way this is good: There are fewer dull meetings. But in another
way, you could be sober in LA for several years and never speak at a
meeting. Which is not good.
Another
source of tension between the two cities is the idea LA people have
that New York AA is “therapy-based”. Meaning that New York people
talk about themselves too much. It’s too character-driven. It’s
too personal.
In LA,
they consider their program to be “solution-based.” In LA,
members who talk about personal issues are told: “Your problems
are for your sponsor; your solutions are for the meeting.” Which
sounds good, but unfortunately results in the repetition of the same
slogans and truisms everyone’s already heard a million times. In
New York, especially in early sobriety, I found it helpful to hear
the specifics of people’s problems and how they dealt with them. I
found it interesting.
But in
a way this difference makes sense. Individual predicaments,
individuality in general, is not as valued in LA—a city dominated
by the film and TV industries, where teamwork and consensus rule the
day. In New York, the land of cranky eccentrics, novelists, artists,
etc., a certain self-involvement is to be expected.”
(our emphases)
Comment:
When reading this a section of the Big Book came almost instantly to
mind. From The Doctor's Opinion:
“Frothy emotional appeal seldom suffices. The message which can interest and hold these alcoholic people must have depth and weight. In nearly all cases, their ideals must be grounded in a power greater than themselves, if they are to re-create their lives.”
It would seem that the New York 'style' of presentation is far more in keeping with this sentiment than the gloss - and all too frequently dross - presented at the LA 'show biz' meetings. Consistency, egalitarianism, credibility, veracity, gravity all seem to characterise the New York 'culture' with their opposites predominating in the LA “cool-people” meetings. Unfortunately the author loses his nerve towards the end of of his disquisition and attempts to reconcile the two contrasting approaches via the usual device of presenting AA as something of a 'broad church' (if you'll forgive the 'religious' analogy). Of course that would be fine if it were simply a matter of appealing to varying tastes. But the LA model lends itself far more easily to abuse of the narcissistic kind (a 'virtue' which we suspect is rampant in the City of Angels) with all the (sometimes) serious consequences which follow from this. New York, on the other hand, with its more - dare we say - traditional egalitarian emphasis, is far less likely to fall prey to this kind of folly and excess. For our part we'll forego the 'bread and circuses' approach and opt for the weightier substance of those rather “dull”, “amateur” meetings so beloved of our New York brethren. After all, if you want 'slapstick' you can always switch on the TV. There's plenty of 'entertainment' to be had here - and at the flick of a button!
Cheerio
The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous .. and of 'amateurs' everywhere!)
