Committee No. 1
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
“US
experience is not necessarily transferable to Great Britain, and
specifically (and perhaps centrally) with regard to the greatly
varying cultural attitudes towards 'religion' and religious practice
between the two countries. Moreover membership in the US is static,
and has been for some considerable time, standing currently at
approximately 2,000,000. The situation (on a smaller scale) is the
same in the UK. This would suggest that AA membership has reached an
equilibrium point (in terms of growth) in both countries.
According
to the GB Census flier (obtainable on the GB site at:
http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org.uk/members/index.cfm?PageID=98&DocumentTypeID=8256
(Census flier)
(Census flier)
the following observation is made:
"In
business terms, the growth curve is characteristic of a product or
process which has lost its novelty and is in need of some form of
revitalisation. Perhaps this could be achieved by the Fellowship
thinking more in terms of substance than of form - i.e. by looking
perhaps more outwards at influences, rather than inwards at
procedures. In this way, we may be able to improve how we carry out
our Primary Purpose."
Apart
from the rather unfortunate choice of words ie. confusing AA with a
"business" and presumably the programme as some kind of
associated "product" (not to mention the rather opaque
mixture of terminologies) this would suggest that PR and advertising
campaigns are not going to be effective in shifting the equilibrium
point upwards; this is indeed a question of substance rather than
form, which brings us back to the "substance" of the above
discussion. AA does not require some form of 'rebranding' nor an
appeal to “novelty” but rather that we direct our efforts towards
ensuring the message we convey is both consistent and clear, and
represents moreover a manifest consensus. To this end a body of
literature has evolved (conference approved) which serves as the
foundation (or the “substance”) for this approach. Individual
members of course remain free to make whatever interpretation they
may choose but groups (intergroups etc) have a responsibility to
ensure that this consensus is sustained (according to the
traditions). However it is clear that some groups (and even
intergroups) have elected to pursue other (divergent) aims choosing
to present a radically different programme whilst representing this
as being the legitimate AA message, and moreover disseminating these
variants more widely afield than their own group (predominantly via
the internet). Whilst this situation prevails it is clear that little
progress can be made towards reducing the increasing public
scepticism about AA (see internet for various forums,
magazine/newspaper articles etc relating to this). So long as groups
continue to interpret Tradition Four as a licence to ignore these
unifying principles then we will simply be wasting our time (and
money) in employing dubious (and unproven) promotional strategies
(quite apart from the latter's legitimacy – again according to our
own traditions) to remedy the situation. (Incidentally at a time of
growing austerity it would seem entirely inappropriate to expect AA
members to expend even more money directed towards entirely
questionable ends).
With
regard to the statement “the current movement against spirituality
in the UK” I am not aware of any evidence to support this. However
if the contributor is referring to increasing “secularisation”
(or decline in religious belief) this is quite a different matter.
But neither of these necessarily imply a similar variation in the
popularity (or not) of spiritual perspectives. The terms may overlap
but they are not to be taken as synonymous. A study (meta analysis)
has been conducted to examine the question of “religious” change
internationally (and which may be found by putting the terms
“Religious Change around the World” in any good search engine)
which suggests the following in its conclusion:
“But
this does not amount to a simple confirmation of secularization
theory. The secularization hypothesis predicts a general and sweeping
decline in religion. While the preponderance of evidence does show a
secular shift across time, age cohorts, and levels of development,
the pattern is very mixed and nuanced. Trends are not universal and
vary greatly in magnitude and on how widespread they are. They differ
both across and within religious traditions and geo-cultural regions.
Also, there is considerable variation across different religious
indicators. This diversity of religious changes clearly indicates
that one fixed outcome is not inevitable.
Also,
there are clearly elements of transformation rather than simply
decline. In many countries some elements of “believing with
belonging,” religious individualization, or “spirituality with
religion” is prevalent. But on average it is hard to characterize
the religious change as only transformative. The most common
attributes of the religious change do entail declines in most
meaningful measures of religious beliefs and/or behaviors. Thus,
there are a variety of trends and a clear element of transformation,
but on average a secular tilt to religious change.”
("Religious Change around the World", Tom W. Smith, NORC/University of Chicago Oct 23, 2009. Report prepared for the Templeton Foundation, p. 15)
This
would suggest that it is becoming increasingly important to
distinguish clearly (within the context of AA) the substantial
difference between “religious” and “spiritual” perspectives,
the latter being more inclusive, individualistic and frequently
dissociated from set practices and dogma whilst the former tends to
demonstrate the precise reverse. Again where groups adopt those
practices which exemplify a “religious” bias eg. the use of the
Lord's Prayer in meetings, kneeling etc, then we should hardly be
surprised when our critics point out to us these divergences from our
stated (inclusive) principles.
Again
when it comes to the notion that AA is “free” this is not
strictly true. There is no such thing as a “free lunch”. We are
“self supporting through our own contributions”.
Possible
strategies to address the above (and implemented mainly via the AA
(GB) website):
A
better designed site (given the increasing role of the internet in
attracting potential members). The current one is badly laid out and
even amateurish (and not in a good way!) in its formatting.
Free
online access to ALL AA conference approved literature. Currently
most of this is not available on the GB site (although the AAWS site
does carry a lot of pamphlets (in pdf format). But none of the books
(apart from Alcoholics Anonymous - the “Big Book” - and the 12 and 12) are accessible (free) via this medium. Such a facility would
ensure that all members potentially have access to all conference
approved literature and therefore may acquaint themselves more easily
with the history and principles upon which the fellowship and
programme are founded. Education is key to ensuring AA's continued
integrity. (Moreover such provision would bring AA back into line
with Tradition 7. We should not be subsidising our finances through
literature sales).
The
removal of all links (or directions) to individual group websites
from the main AA website. There is no good reason for any group to
“promote” itself (and “its message”) in this fashion over
other groups, and more so where the formers' presentation of the
programme is of doubtful provenance. eg. 'sponsor/”human power”
centred' rather than 'God centred', anti-prescribed medication,
anti-counselling etc. Website links for intergroups, regions etc may
be retained but only for the purpose of communicating matters
relating directly to their activities. eg. local Where to Finds,
notices of IG meetings, IG sponsored conventions, officer vacancies.
Otherwise information should reflect only what is published on the
main website.
The
publication of ALL the proceedings (and in full) of ALL the various
entities within the service structure. eg. minutes, agenda etc for
Intergroups, regions etc, and accessible to ALL members of the
fellowship (and indeed the general public) via the GB website. This
will ensure increased transparency of our activities (and
deliberations). Anonymity may be preserved by the simple expedient of
referring to members by their office rather than by name. However
their home group association(s) should also be identified to point up
any instances of 'over-representation' and thus ensure that a
balanced distribution is always preserved throughout the service
structure (a confidential list - available only to local members –
should also be maintained where offices are attributed to named
individuals). Such publication would serve to ensure that Tradition
Four is fully effective, and that no part of the service structure
(including at group level) may remain beyond the scrutiny of the
entire fellowship, and where necessary, can be challenged should they
exceed their authority or deviate substantially (and dangerously)
from the guiding principles of AA
The
establishment of a formal complaints procedure to ensure that
grievances are properly heard and dealt with. A major part of the
content of sites hostile to AA relate to such questions and - more
specifically - our failure to respond. In this fashion abusive
conduct (however it may manifest itself ie. sexual predation,
exploitation, more subtle coercive conduct and so on) may be exposed
and addressed. This does not imply that exclusion from AA generally
will follow but that miscreants can no longer expect their conduct to
be ignored or left uncorrected. In more serious cases ie. relating to
criminal or tortious acts, the usual remedies remain available.
The
above measures utilise existing resources, are easy (and practical)
to implement, and would incur only a marginal cost (but saving money
in the longer term). Moreover they would go a long way in ensuring
that AA (at every level of the service structure) presents a
cohesive, unified (and inclusive) message, and remove thereby the
ambiguities currently communicated by too many disparate sources. Our
fellowship should exemplify our own principles, that is to say we
should seek to be responsible, accountable and honest, and “in all
our affairs”. I believe this is what constitutes “attraction”
rather than “promotion”.”
Join
the debate at: http://www.aa-conference.org.uk/conforum/index.php
Cheerio
The
Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
