“Section
Four
Analysis
of A.A. Traditions and Concepts applied to past and current events,
examining the difference between assertive and punitive behaviour.
The
incidents with Chuck D. illustrate the paradox involved in preserving
A.A. Unity, similar to the biblical paradox: “Whoever seeks to gain
his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will preserve it”
(luke17.33). The “trusted servants” “elder statesmen” of 1958
demonstrated this by having the courage to assert AA Tradition, at
the price of a heated argument in which a few might leave AA and get
drunk. Thus they lost unity in order to preserve it. - A.A. remained
unified, while Chuck D. left with his cult and was arrested whilst
drunk some 20 years later. This battle of wills between the “elder
statesmen" “trusted servants” of the A.A. group conscience
and a well intentioned dictator is the implication of Tradition Two:
“Being
the founder, he is at first the boss. Who else would be? Very soon,
though, his assumed authority to run everything begins to be shared
with the other first alcoholics he has helped. At this moment the
benign dictator becomes the chairman of a committee composed of his
friends. These are the group’s hierarchy of service – self
appointed of course, because there is no other way……Growing pains
now beset the group…..the revolution is on. The group conscience is
about to take over……..The arch deacon is one who just as surely
convinced that the group cannot get along without him…… A few
haemorrhage so badly that – drained of all A.A. spirit and
principle - they get drunk. At times the A.A. landscape seems to be
littered with bleeding forms.” (Tradition Two, Twelve Steps and
Twelve Traditions page 137-139).
It
can be seen from the above that for the power of Tradition Two, “but
one ultimate authority,” to operate in A.A. “elder statesmen”
or “trusted servants” must also face their responsibility to lead
the revolt to challenge dictators. If leadership is weak and the
revolt does not take place, recent historical evidence is that some
groups may retain the hierarchical pyramid structure of a cult,
rather than the upside down triangle structure of A.A. - The “benign
dictator” mentioned in Tradition Two becomes malignant. It can also
be seen that where the “ultimate authority” of Tradition Two is
operating healthily in A.A., there will also be those who feel their
unreasonable demands for total liberty are being restricted.
“..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…..” (Concept
12, warranty five).
Abusive/coercive
sponsorship within a cult group is clearly a public matter affecting
other groups and AA as a whole, “an incitement to public
controversy” (Concept 12, Warranty 5), which warrants intervention
under the exception to group autonomy in Tradition 4. The
responsibility to protect the vulnerable from abuse, preserve A.A.
unity and AA public relations lies with the “trusted servants”
and “elder statesmen” within the intergroup. However,
responsibility also lies at regional and board levels, to
unequivocally support such interventions.
“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).
A
responsible protective action to assert duty of care in protecting
the vulnerable and AA public relations, where cult groups occur and
where continued abuse is reported, would be for the intergroup public
information committee to inform all agencies and other A.A. groups in
the area which may be referring alcoholics to the group, to recommend
they not to send referrals to that group.
“Whenever
and however we can, we shall need to inform the general public also;
especially upon misuses of the name Alcoholics Anonymous."
(Concept 12, warranty five).
“Finally,
any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call
themselves an A.A. group provided that, as a group, they have
no other purpose or affiliation." (Concept 12, Warranty six)
It
can be seen that any group of alcoholics gathered together for the
purpose of the control, coercion and abuse of the vulnerable has
another purpose other than sobriety and is a misuse of the name
Alcoholics Anonymous. Such measures, which basically amount to
saying: “No.” or “We are not obliged to cooperate
with, or to be governed by, the unreasonable dictates of a “tyranny
of very small minorities invested with absolute power.” (Concept V)
cannot be regarded as governmental or punitive, but assertive of
Traditions One and Two. They are simply informative of AA Tradition
and warranties of conference.
"..AA's
right to object calmly and privately to specific violations is at
least equal to the rights of the violators who violate. This cannot
accurately be called a governmental action." (Concept XII,
warranty Five.)
Such
application of AA tradition does need more than just a little courage
on behalf of those serving on an intergroup committee, for it is
likely to be met with stiff resistance because:
“Instincts
on the rampage balk at investigation. The minute we make a serious
attempt to probe them, we are liable to suffer a severe reaction.”
(Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions page 46)
-
As Bill W. encountered with “Our Promoter friend” who turned
“alarming poser” with his ultimatum: “To hell with the
trustees, the world is waiting for my message. I’ve got the right
to free speech and I’m going on air whether you like it or not.”
(AA Comes of Age page 130-131) And as the “trusted servants” of
1958 encountered with Synanon cult leader Chuck D: “All right, lets
go home-the hell with this.’ So the whole meeting got up, and we
all got into our automobiles and… … we never went back to A.A.
again.”
Warranty
five states:
“…we
still say ‘fine. Only we hope you won’t designate your efforts as
an A.A. group or enterprise.’ These examples illustrate how far we
have already gone to encourage freedom of assembly, action, and even
schism. To all those who wish to secede from A.A. we extend a
cheerful invitation to do just that. If they can find a better way we
are glad.” (Concept 12, warranty 5).
In
the case of Chuck D, given the history of Synanon, the committee of
“trusted servants” could congratulate themselves on a job well
done. However, in instances where they do not wish to secede, but
insist on staying to ruin A.A. unity instead, then a committee of
“trusted servants” is likely to have to face a slightly different
situation, and one which requires them to:
“…take
a stand against a storm...... to stick flat footed to one’s
convictions about an issue until the matter it is settled……. face
heavy and long- continued criticism…. and face those who
powerdrive, they are the ‘politckers,’ They make accusations.
Maybe they are violent, malicious. They pitch gobs of rumors, gossip,
and general scuttlebutt to gain their ends – all for the good of
A.A. of course!” (Concept IX).
The
Traditions violators may defiantly twist Tradition One insisting
their “rights,” much like “Our promoter friend”: “I’ve
got the right to free speech…..whether you like it or not.” (AA
comes of Age page 130-131) Or they may twist warranties five and six;
seek sympathy from newer members of the fellowship who are ignorant
of Traditions, claiming they are being “punished”, or “governed”.
- It would appear however, that when the ultimate authority in
Tradition two is operating healthily in A.A., “The influence of
ultimate authority must always be felt,” (Concept X) and there will
at times be those who:
“Feeling
the weight of all these forces… ... sometimes say that they are
being censored or punished and that they are therefore being
governed…..” (Concept 12, warranty five).
It
can be understood that the state of “feeling” censored, punished
or governed is not the same thing as the actual state of “being”
censored, punished or governed, the two are distinctly different as
can be explained in the following paragraphs:
Where
such defiance is met from a small tyranny, there is the duty to
protect from “tyrannies great and small” (Concept XII, warranty
six). As Bill W. demonstrated with “Our promoter friend” (AA
comes of Age page 130-131), Tradition one affords the equal liberty
to any A.A. member, group, intergroup and AA as a whole, as does a
small tyranny afford to itself: “No AA can compel another to do
anything.” (Tradition One, Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions page
133). There is no compulsion to submit to, or cooperate with
unreasonable demands of a small tyranny if their actions affect other
groups or AA as a whole. – Such a compulsion would amount to the
majority being governed by a “tyranny of very small minorities
invested with absolute power”. (Concept V). If negotiation fails,
de-listing a group and informing the public in such cases is both an
option and a duty under warranties five and six:
“Whenever
and however we can, we shall need to inform the general public also;
especially upon misuses of the name Alcoholics Anonymous."
(Concept 12, warranty five).
“Finally,
any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call
themselves an A.A. group provided that, as a group, they have
no other purpose or affiliation”. (Concept 12, warranty 6)
Tradition
Four states:
“Each
group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups
or AA as a whole.” – Further explained by Bill W: “…Yet
please note one important qualification. It will be seen that such
extreme liberty of thought and action applies only to the group’s
own affairs…… Obviously if any individual, group, or regional
committee could take an action that might seriously affect the
welfare of Alcoholics Anonymous as a whole or seriously disturb
surrounding groups, that would not be liberty at all, It would be
sheer license, it would be anarchy, not democracy”. (Bill W.
“Tradition four”, AA Grapevine March 1948, Language of the Heart
page 81).
"Our
membership Tradition does contain, however, one vitally important
qualification. That qualification relates to the use of our name
Alcoholics Anonymous......... We cannot lend the AA name, even
indirectly, to other activities, however worthy. If we do so we shall
become hopelessly compromised and divided. We think that AA should
offer its experience to the whole world for whatever use can be made
of it. But not its name. Nothing can be more certain." (Bill W.
Tradition Three, AA Grapevine 1948, Language of the Heart page 79-80)
“In
AA, the group has strict limitations, but the individual scarcely
any.” (Bill W. AA Grapevine February 1958 - Language of the Heart
pages 222-225).
“On
such issues our common welfare is paramount” (Tradition Four (Long
Form))
It
can be seen from Traditions Three and Four that an individual
alcoholic’s unconditional
right to be an A.A. member is all inclusive, never exclusive, but
there is no such right afforded to any two or three alcoholics
gathered together as a group.
There
is “one important qualification” which is all exclusive except
for as a group they have no other purpose or affiliation. –
Therefore any two or three alcoholics gathered together as a group
may not necessarily qualify themselves to be called an A.A.
group, as stated in warranty six:
“Finally,
any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call
themselves an A.A. group provided that, as a group, they have
no other purpose or affiliation”.
And
confirmed in warranty five:
“If
individual A.A.s wish to gather together for retreats, Communion
breakfasts, or indeed any undertaking at all, we still say ‘Fine.
Only we hope you won’t designate your efforts as an A.A. group or
enterprise.”
As
Bill W. explains:
“I
think we might sum it up like this: “AA members who are so inclined
should be encouraged to band together in groups to ……. But they
ought to refrain from calling themselves AA groups……....... But
obviously, such a dual purpose group should not insist that it be
called an AA group nor should it use the AA name in its title.”
(Bill
W. AA Grapevine February 1958. Language of the Heart pages 222-225).
It
can be understood, that any two or three alcoholics gathered together
as a group has no right to insist that any other A.A. member,
group, intergroup or any part of A.A. calls them an A.A. group.
It
can be understood that a group’s autonomy, or in other words, its
liberty to violate all A.A.’s Traditions, its “right to be wrong”
extends strictly to its own affairs. There is a well defined boundary
in Tradition Four at which an A.A. group’s autonomy ends and where
the principles of Traditions One and Two take precedence; assuming
“trusted servants” and “elder statesmen” are willing to apply
the able leadership of Tradition Two, Concept IX; and the “specific
application” of Tradition Four:
“Tradition
Four is a specific application of general principles already outlined
in Traditions One and Two. Tradition One states: ‘Each member of
Alcoholics Anonymous is but a small part of a great whole’……..
Hence our common welfare comes first …………. there is but one
ultimate authority…” (Bill W, Tradition Four, Grapevine March
1948. Language of the Heart, page 80).”
Comment:
Action not inaction is what is required, or perhaps our preference is
to stand idly by, mere spectators to the destruction of our
Fellowship!
"....when
bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by
one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." Thoughts
on the Cause of the Present Discontents, Edmund Burke 1770
Over
to you,
The
Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
