Question
1:
“Would
the Fellowship share experience and make recommendations on how to
make AA more visible to the general public, particularly by
increasing awareness and understanding of how the AA programme
works?"
Extract
"I
assume that the previous responder refers to the AA Minority Report
2012 (which can be accessed by putting the phrase into any search
engine) submitted for consideration by the AA conference. My
understanding is that it was co-authored by a number of AA members
(their names included in the submission but their anonymity respected
under the guidelines and traditions relating to such publications)
and not by a single individual. I have read the original report and
see no evidence that the authors are branding anyone a “cultist”,
“extremist” or “who are 'damaging AA and violating the
traditions'” simply on the above stated grounds (which would indeed
render the entire enterprise quite ludicrous). In fact the whole
emphasis of the study is to draw our attention back to what I would
term 'authentic' AA sources, and to remind us of the importance not
only of learning from past experience (and moreover the principles so
derived) but also their application to contemporary problems These
principles evolved through a process of trial and error and there is
absolutely no requirement for us to repeat those mistakes, especially
when we have clear guidance to the contrary. It also recalls to us
our obligation to act (according to those same principles) where
individuals or groups behave in such a way as to cause harm to those
we are supposed to be assisting and thereby bring AA into disrepute.
With
reference to the basis upon which a minority report may be submitted
AA members need look no further than Concept V:
“Concept
V
Throughout
our service structure, a traditional “Right of Appeal” ought to
prevail, thus assuring
us that minority opinion will be heard and that petitions for the
redress of personal
grievances will be carefully considered.”
From this
it can be seen that it is not merely at conference level that such
views should be taken into account but “throughout our service
structure”. (Incidentally it is interesting to note that “personal
grievances” also fall under this category. This might suggest a
basis for establishing a formal complaints procedure within AA – at
every level of the service structure – where members can have such
grievances both heard and redressed. At the moment no such mechanism
exist).
As for the
conduct of conference delegates I would expect it to be based on the
guiding principles of AA (according to the consensus established and
reflected in our conference approved literature): their duty
thereafter is to defend and uphold them.
With
regard to the purpose of an AA group this is stated clearly in the
Preamble (which in my view should be read out in its existing form at
the start of every AA meeting if only to ensure that those new to our
fellowship are clear about our objective). The vast majority of the
meetings I have attended in the last 25 years have conformed entirely
to these injunctions (the exceptions being those which form the
subject matter of the AA Minority report). (I've lost count
incidentally of the number of times I've heard that “old chestnut
pulled out of the fire” by some of AA's detractors ie. “all they
do is talk about drink”, a 'defence' deployed invariably as a
deflection from facing the real problem. It's so much easier to blame
others than take responsibility for your own life isn't it?).
Fortunately in AA we have no censor to dictate how members should
share nor what they should share about but are guided rather by the
example (not merely 'words') of those more experienced within the
fellowship. This form of leadership displays far more integrity and
conviction than any set of 'rules' laid down by a (usually) arbitrary
authority ie. a “human power”.
The
reference to the phrase in the basic text of our society ie.
Alcoholics Anonymous is incomplete ie. 'precisely how we recovered'.
In this case the context is as important as the quote. In full it is
as follows: “To show other alcoholics precisely how we have
recovered is the main purpose of this book” (p. xiii. Foreword to
First Edition). Here there is no suggestion that this is to be taken
as anything other than a demonstration of the efficacy of “a”
program of recovery on the part of the authors specifically. It
cannot be inferred from this that they are claiming that there are no
other means of recovering from alcoholism nor that this method will
'necessarily' work for everybody. Indeed this is made explicit within
the text itself (anyone sufficiently familiar with the book will know
what I refer to. If you don't then now is your chance to find out!).
But to cite an example from Chapter 5, How It Works: “Rarely have
we seen a person fail who has thoroughly followed our path. Those who
do not recover are people who cannot or will not completely give
themselves to this simple program......” No claim is made here
either explicitly or implicitly that there is no other method of
recovery. They are simply arguing that lack of commitment is the
central problem. Indeed it is no more than intuitive to recognise
that an individual who applies himself half-heartedly to anything
reduces his chance of success by comparison with someone who commits
completely.
Finally in
answer to the question (I assume rhetorical but I'll answer it
anyway) “Who're we trying to attract?” again I refer to the
aforementioned preamble of AA ie. those who have “a desire to stop
drinking”. As to whether they are “real alcoholics” or not is
again fortunately none of my (or anybody else's) business. That is
for each individual to decide. An untidy state of affairs perhaps but
then life frequently is!"
Join the
debate at: http://www.aa-conference.org.uk/conforum/index.php
Cheerio
The Fellas
(Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
