Our renewed interest in the pair was sparked by some extracts from a book produced by the former on the subject of “Big Book Sponsorship”, and which we perused eagerly for any insight they might afford us. What was more revealing, however, was not so much the content of this particular function but rather the author's attitude to the nature of the relationship between “sponsor” and “sponsee”.
[Note: We should point out here that the basic text (“Alcoholics Anonymous”) itself does not use the terms “sponsor”, “sponsee” or “sponsorship” even once - nor for that matter does the word “sponsee” appear in any dictionary! However it does give some pointers on how an AA member might communicate the programme of recovery with someone relatively new to the fellowship (most notably in the Chapter “Working With Others”)].
Joe begins his discussion reasonably enough. He argues that the sponsor should “find out about the person through conversation” and that while…. “It's true we all have some important things in common – our inability to drink normally, for instance – [….] everybody is different in other ways. I think we should work with each person in the way that best suits him or her.” Unfortunately this principle is as quickly dismissed as it is introduced. Now we discover that it is also Joe's view that “.....some guidelines (?) do have to be established because we are working with an undisciplined person”, and he goes on to exemplify this practice (including the allocation of assignments with a timetable attached). His basic premise would seem to be that one must assume (and regardless of the specific characteristics of the person with whom he is dealing) the sponsee is “undisciplined” and therefore needs to be treated accordingly ie. “disciplined”. “Discipline” does indeed seem to feature prominently in Joe's interpretation of the AA programme. Later on in the work he cites the book “Alcoholics Anonymous” to support this contention:
“We alcoholics are undisciplined, so we let God discipline us in the simple way we have just outlined.” (AA, p. 88)
On examining this quote it is evident both directly and in context that there is no suggestion whatsoever that this disciplining process should be administered by anyone other than God (Higher Power) or the individual themselves ie. that they should practise SELF-discipline. There is no indication that this regime ought – or must – be applied by another human power eg. a sponsor or indeed anyone else.
Nevertheless, and according to Joe:
“Assignments should be given, and the sponsor should make it clear to the person that assignments have to be done by a specific time. In my experience, this is the best way to work with an alcoholic”.
Now it is unclear here at what point these “guidelines” were translated into “... have to be done...”. A guideline surely is a suggestion and no more, and therefore one is under no obligation to abide by it? (Note: this is a defence frequently raised by the cult when they are themselves seeking to evade the traditions, but only on those occasions where it suits their own egocentric ambitions and not because a more judicious interpretation would lend itself better to the particular and prevailing circumstances). Moreover it is declared not only is this the way to proceed with sponsees but, in “[Joe's] experience, this is the best way to work with an alcoholic”. [Note the use of the indefinite article before the word “alcoholic”. This principle would seemingly apply not to some alcoholics, nor even a majority of alcoholics, but to alcoholics in general].
So which is it? If it is the case that everybody is different then how does it make sense to assume that everyone must be “disciplined” (if at all) in the same way? (ie. “this is the best way to work with an alcoholic”) Or - if everybody is in fact similarly constituted then why bother getting to know them as individuals? Why not just 'process' them 'assembly line' style and have done with it! (this conducted with or without discipline – but probably the former, for after all assembly lines require a set and imposed structure!). On the contrary we would assert that most alcoholics do in fact sustain (or retain) a remarkable level of self-discipline. This may frequently be motivated by rather negative considerations but nevertheless they do manage (often) to indulge in an extremely destructive drinking habit whilst pursuing careers, raising families etc. It may well be in the latter stages of the progression of the disease this tends to disintegrate but that is not to suggest that they are intrinsically incapable of exercising some degree of self control once the drink has finally been put down. We would argue that the relative stability and consistency offered by AA meetings is quite sufficient in itself to restore some level of equilibrium within their lives, and that they can by these means quite easily adjust to a less chaotic and more ordered life style. None of this suggests that they need to be “disciplined” by anybody else. Finally if someone does demonstrate such a level of incapacity we would propose that the better tactic to employ would be to afford them encouragement (and NOT direction or manipulation!), and thereafter progressively greater levels of responsibility (but at their own discretion) within AA eg. via group service positions, which would allow them to acquire sufficient self-confidence and self-respect to bring their own lives back into some order. What they quite categorically do not need is someone telling them “what to do”!
However (and to continue the theme) we present a few more illustrations of the kind of 'guidance' that Joe proposes:
"As sponsors, we know there are certain things we require of a sponsee: he has to be willing to go to any lengths to get sober, and if he expects you to work with him, he has to carry out his assignments and do the things you ask him to do"
"It is also important to work the Steps in sequence and not to draw the work out over too long a time. I have heard of people taking a week or even a month on each Step. That is not an effective approach. This process works better when we work one Step and then immediately work the next. Keep your sponsee moving!"
He gives here an example of Dr Bob taking someone through the first three steps in seconds flat (concluding with a "Get down on our knees" to pray!). He does not indicate whether this particular prospect remained sober thereafter! (This is usually an important factor when considering the efficacy of a method – something which the cult so far have failed miserably to demonstrate with regard to their own 'techniques')
And then:
“Many people don't understand about working with alcoholics [except of course for Joe]. They may say, "Well, alcoholics are so new and unaccustomed to the way we do things that I don't think you can get them to do it". But an alcoholic can do just about anything you make her do. If you insist that she do certain things, she'll get them done. She has to go from undisciplined to very disciplined, and the sponsor is the one who helps her build the bridge between the two".
He then goes on to expand on a treatment centre approach with which he is involved, and the methods applied therein. Discipline and more discipline are the watchwords here. Extraordinarily a minutia of sanity fleetingly returns at this point with at least a passing recognition that this approach may not suit all. However this notion is again brushed aside in favour of..... more "discipline"!
Additionally he believes that the same sponsor should take the sponsee through Step 5. He asserts that this will determine whether in fact they have done the first three steps adequately. Playing God perhaps!?
Moreover it would seem even the choice of sponsor is not left to the candidate. Guess who? - It's the sponsor's choice!
And so to the next 'axiom':
"An undisciplined person may fight discipline but it has to be enforced to help the person. If he had had that discipline, he wouldn't be in the shape he's in." (Ah! So that's the problem is it? Lack of discipline or as it's otherwise known - willpower). We don't have enough willpower ourselves so we have to rely on ….. whose willpower? Our sponsor's of course! Now what was that bit in the Big Book about human power? Surely Joe must know about it? He is after all something of an expert – isn't he? Ah yes! We remember now. It's the second pertinent point in Chapter Five just before the outline of Step Three: “b) That probably no human power could have relieved our alcoholism”. Maybe that's not in Joe's version of the book? Never mind.....
However Joe relents somewhat at this point recognising that sometimes these undisciplined people might not do "everything we ask them to do". But never mind -onward and upward – and even if you don't like it!
And so he continues (and largely in this vein) through the remainder of the programme (although he does make the point that sponsoring too many people is not a good idea - ie. this demonstrates "ego on the sponsor's part" – now who would have thought it!)
In the last part of the extract there is the usual descent into reminiscences about the good old days etc. Apparently then everybody (or at least in his particular little corner of the fellowship) worked the steps in six weeks. Moreover "Everybody was required to do them." But of course now AA has been infiltrated by backsliders it's all gone to pot! In fact some of them are "not really alcoholics...... [they're] "hard drinkers". ..... They aren't really alcoholic"
(all our emphases)
To conclude - an extract from an article submitted to Share magazine (July 2007 and with the author's permission):
"Are all changes for the better?"
"... in the late 1980s 'authorities' on the Big Book began arriving from America like missionaries. Their 'disciples' were indoctrinated at Big Book weekends and study groups. Some, ablaze with zeal, went around meetings telling oldtimers who were already 'happily and usefully whole' how it should be done! ... I believe these zealots are like religious fundamentalists who insist that the Bible or Koran is the literal, inviolable, revealed word of God. But the spirit blows where it will - not necessarily where a Big Book 'expert' says it should. Some members tell me their recovery has been enhanced by attending a Big Book study; but these extramural courses have also been a source of conflict, tension and division, setting member against member. At meetings I hear new members say, 'I haven't done the Book study yet.' They seem to think it is expected of them. Are these classes in Big Book dogma an example of 'the good as the enemy of the best' in Bill W’s phrase? Certainly, any group insisting that a member study the Book could not call itself an AA group, since 'the only requirement for AA membership is a desire to stop drinking'. There is no requirement on anyone to even read the Book, let alone to study it. Bill W said, 'In AA great suffering and great love are our only disciplinarians - we need no others.' I have no need of a self-endorsed teacher to 'take me through the Book'. We each have to work out our own salvation. The Big Book speaks for itself; anything else is commentary.
I then quoted from the Service News reprint of the Box 459 article emphasising, "...it is preferable that the individual member or prospect interpret the literature according to his/her own point of view..."; which echoes Bill W's observation, "... every AA has the privilege of interpreting the program as he likes..." (Letter dated 1949, quoted in "As Bill Sees It"); and, "There are few absolutes inherent in the 12 Steps. Most Steps are open to interpretation, based on the experience and outlook of the individual. Consequently, the individual is free to start the Steps at whatever point he can or will..." (Letter, 1966, "ABSI").”
So there you have it!
Cheerio
The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
