Question
2:
“Would
the Fellowship review and re-affirm what constitutes an AA Group,
within the Fellowship in Great Britain with specific reference to
Traditions 4 - 6?
Background
Consider
the contribution to the carrying of the message, financial and
practical implications when deliberating each question.”
Extract:
“The
question is clear enough and the background is sufficient (and does
not exclude additional citation)
“The Traditions have these words to say on Groups in AA.
Tradition 3 (Long Form). Our membership ought to include all who suffer from alcoholism. Hence we may refuse none who wish to recover. Nor ought A.A. membership ever depend upon money or conformity. 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 affiliation.
Tradition 4 (Long form). With respect to its own affairs, each A.A. group should be responsible to no other authority than its own conscience. But when its plans concern the welfare of neighbouring groups also, those groups ought to be consulted. And no group, regional committee, or individual should ever take any action that might greatly affect A.A. as a whole without conferring with the trustees of the General Service Board. On such issues our common welfare is paramount.”
(Source: GUIDELINES for A.A. in Great Britain - Revised January 2000 No. 1)
Tradition 3 may be divided into two parts: firstly that which relates to membership of AA as a whole; secondly what constitutes an AA group as such (but qualified). The first part includes only one proposal – that membership is open to anyone “who suffer[s] from alcoholism” (self diagnosed). Their membership cannot be restricted on any other ground. These may, in turn, form an AA group (subject only to the above constraint but see Traditions 1, 2, 5, 6, 9 and 10).
Tradition 4 deals with group autonomy (but qualified and not unrestricted)
From this it follows that membership of AA (and consequent individual participation in the fellowship) should be distinguished from membership of an AA group (and its collective participation in the fellowship); the two are not necessarily the same. One can be a member of AA without being a member of a particular AA group or groups. Moreover this (almost) unrestricted right of AA membership does not imply or entail that any group (composed solely of AA members) has a correspondingly unrestricted right to call itself an AA group. Tradition 3 above clearly indicates otherwise. Therefore whereas an alcoholic may declare themselves to be a member simply because they say so (and quite rightly) the same does not apply to an AA group. These two basic concepts should not be indiscriminately conflated.
The question as to WHO decides whether an AA group is one or not relies mostly on Traditions 1 and 4. The first makes clear the priority of the “whole” over the 'parts'. If members singly (or collectively) act in such a fashion as to threaten the “common welfare” then the interests of the “whole” must take precedence. If the former continue to act irresponsibly then the latter will be obliged to take action; there really is no other choice. Tradition 4 moreover makes it clear that group autonomy is subject to consultation in some instances. Again if no consultation takes place and/or our “common welfare” is again threatened then the “whole” is presented with same choice.
The notion that an AA group may function (as such) completely independently of the AA service structure is merely disingenuous (quite apart from being impractical). It ignores completely Traditions 1, 3 and 4. For example Tradition 3 indicates the central criterion for an AA group: “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 affiliation.” The key phrase here is “no other affiliation” - this does not imply 'no' affiliation. A group that refers to itself as an “AA” group explicitly affiliates itself with AA generally, and one might reasonably assume therefore with both the AA fellowship and AA programme. Why in this case would such a group not wish to be part of the service structure, and even more interestingly, why should it not seek to be in “harmony with” other “neighbouring groups” (under Tradition 4) as represented by, for example, the local intergroup? If its objectives, methods etc are so at odds with these latter then why again would such a group wish to affiliate itself with AA in the first place?
The principle of non-affiliation is in fact referred to in two of the traditions:
Tradition 3: ”........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 affiliation.”
Tradition 6: “.......While an A.A. group may cooperate with anyone, such cooperation ought never go so far as affiliation or endorsement, actual or implied. An A.A. group can bind itself to no one.”
In both instances there is a context but neither of these subtract from the fundamental principle so clearly stated in the conclusion to Tradition 6 viz. “An A.A. group can bind itself to no one” (other than self-evidently – and definitionally - AA itself). This principle is exemplified in the AA preamble but not limited by this.
It can be seen from the above that any AA group can indeed organise a convention (or anything they like) within the terms of Tradition 3 but then this is not the applicable tradition. Tradition 4 (see above) indicates that consultation ought to take place prior to any such planned action. But again it begs the question why would any AA group wish to organise something without consulting all of the affected groups (ie. “neighbouring groups”) via the most appropriate service structure – the local intergroup? Similarly this tradition covers advertising on websites, announcements etc. (and indeed the very existence of these websites).
[Definition of terms:
Affiliate: To become closely connected or associated
Co-operate: To work or act together toward a common end or purpose
Institution: an established custom, law, or relationship in a society or community]
A collection of AA members may decide to co-operate towards any end they like (ie. as a collection of individuals who happen to be AA members). But an AA “group” has “but one primary purpose” and its attendees (members and visitors) need meet only one membership requirement. Moreover within the context of AA there is only one reason why members should “band together” ie. to fulfil that “one primary purpose” (Tradition 5). If an AA group should direct its efforts towards any other goal (subsidiary or otherwise) it becomes a “dual” or even “multi purpose” group and has therefore set aside that tradition. Even if a group merely advertises such events it is actively “endorsing” these and therefore has itself chosen to disregard Tradition 6. But generally the operative tradition here is, I repeat, primarily Tradition 4, and not Tradition 3.
With respect to the distinction to be drawn between the notions of “affiliation” and “co-operation” reference should again be made to Tradition 6:
“While an A.A. group may cooperate with anyone, such cooperation ought never go so far as affiliation or endorsement, actual or implied. An A.A. group can bind itself to no one.”
Here it would seem that these concepts lie along a continuum with co-operation placed at one end and affiliation or endorsement located at the other. If a group pursues some objective other than our primary purpose ie. the promulgation of sectarian practices and beliefs, financial enterprises (e.g. paid circuit speakers, recovery courses, retreats etc – and see here Tradition 12) or even simply endorses (actual or implicit) them (via notices, advertisements etc) then it is in breach of Tradition 6 (as well as Tradition 5). Co-operation should be limited to information provision on the part of AA (or AA groups) but with no suggestion of endorsement.
Finally the notion of differing “common interest collections” represents presumably groups of members (who happen to be in AA) but who are pursuing interests which diverge from our primary purpose. Such “collections” are according to our own traditions not AA groups. Moreover groups which endorse their activities are again in breach of Tradition 6.
With respect to the example cited of “Alano” clubs I refer here to “Clubs in AA. Are they with us to stay? (originally a Grapevine article but published in “A.A. Tradition—How It Developed (http://www.aa.org/pdf/products/p-17_AATraditions.pdf). Bill Wilson discusses in this article the origin and evolution of the “club” system in the US. Clearly these institutions posed some dilemmas in terms of how they were to be reconciled within AA's structure and principles. To quote: “This tangle slowly commenced to unravel, as we began to get the idea that clubs ought to be strictly the business of those individuals who specially want clubs, and who are willing to pay for them.......that an A.A. group, as such, should never get into active management of a business project.” From these (and subsequent) comments it is clear that the relationship between AA groups and the Alano clubs is not substantially different from that which exists between an AA group and the landlord of a premises hired for the purposes of a group meeting (or IG meeting). The only difference is that the landlords in this instance also happen to be AA members (but not AA groups). No one would indeed suggest that such an arrangement constitutes an “affiliation” or “endorsement”. But a landlord/tenant relationship is not currently the one under discussion. The affiliation principle applies rather where groups seek to “become closely connected or associated” with institutions, movements etc with diverging, or even on occasion related objectives to those of AA . Cooperation might be appropriate (as indicated above ie. the provision of requisite information) but no more than this. The Alano comparison therefore is invalid.
Finally it is unfortunate that the above contributor should descend to such emotive language as “self-righteous AA policemen” or attribute to them such unworthy motives. The provision for the exclusion of groups already exists under our own traditions. Exclusion of AA members is simply not possible according to those same traditions:
3.—Our membership ought to include all who suffer from alcoholism. Hence we may refuse none who wish to recover. Nor ought A.A. membership ever depend upon money or conformity. 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 affiliation. “
“The Traditions have these words to say on Groups in AA.
Tradition 3 (Long Form). Our membership ought to include all who suffer from alcoholism. Hence we may refuse none who wish to recover. Nor ought A.A. membership ever depend upon money or conformity. 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 affiliation.
Tradition 4 (Long form). With respect to its own affairs, each A.A. group should be responsible to no other authority than its own conscience. But when its plans concern the welfare of neighbouring groups also, those groups ought to be consulted. And no group, regional committee, or individual should ever take any action that might greatly affect A.A. as a whole without conferring with the trustees of the General Service Board. On such issues our common welfare is paramount.”
(Source: GUIDELINES for A.A. in Great Britain - Revised January 2000 No. 1)
Tradition 3 may be divided into two parts: firstly that which relates to membership of AA as a whole; secondly what constitutes an AA group as such (but qualified). The first part includes only one proposal – that membership is open to anyone “who suffer[s] from alcoholism” (self diagnosed). Their membership cannot be restricted on any other ground. These may, in turn, form an AA group (subject only to the above constraint but see Traditions 1, 2, 5, 6, 9 and 10).
Tradition 4 deals with group autonomy (but qualified and not unrestricted)
From this it follows that membership of AA (and consequent individual participation in the fellowship) should be distinguished from membership of an AA group (and its collective participation in the fellowship); the two are not necessarily the same. One can be a member of AA without being a member of a particular AA group or groups. Moreover this (almost) unrestricted right of AA membership does not imply or entail that any group (composed solely of AA members) has a correspondingly unrestricted right to call itself an AA group. Tradition 3 above clearly indicates otherwise. Therefore whereas an alcoholic may declare themselves to be a member simply because they say so (and quite rightly) the same does not apply to an AA group. These two basic concepts should not be indiscriminately conflated.
The question as to WHO decides whether an AA group is one or not relies mostly on Traditions 1 and 4. The first makes clear the priority of the “whole” over the 'parts'. If members singly (or collectively) act in such a fashion as to threaten the “common welfare” then the interests of the “whole” must take precedence. If the former continue to act irresponsibly then the latter will be obliged to take action; there really is no other choice. Tradition 4 moreover makes it clear that group autonomy is subject to consultation in some instances. Again if no consultation takes place and/or our “common welfare” is again threatened then the “whole” is presented with same choice.
The notion that an AA group may function (as such) completely independently of the AA service structure is merely disingenuous (quite apart from being impractical). It ignores completely Traditions 1, 3 and 4. For example Tradition 3 indicates the central criterion for an AA group: “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 affiliation.” The key phrase here is “no other affiliation” - this does not imply 'no' affiliation. A group that refers to itself as an “AA” group explicitly affiliates itself with AA generally, and one might reasonably assume therefore with both the AA fellowship and AA programme. Why in this case would such a group not wish to be part of the service structure, and even more interestingly, why should it not seek to be in “harmony with” other “neighbouring groups” (under Tradition 4) as represented by, for example, the local intergroup? If its objectives, methods etc are so at odds with these latter then why again would such a group wish to affiliate itself with AA in the first place?
The principle of non-affiliation is in fact referred to in two of the traditions:
Tradition 3: ”........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 affiliation.”
Tradition 6: “.......While an A.A. group may cooperate with anyone, such cooperation ought never go so far as affiliation or endorsement, actual or implied. An A.A. group can bind itself to no one.”
In both instances there is a context but neither of these subtract from the fundamental principle so clearly stated in the conclusion to Tradition 6 viz. “An A.A. group can bind itself to no one” (other than self-evidently – and definitionally - AA itself). This principle is exemplified in the AA preamble but not limited by this.
It can be seen from the above that any AA group can indeed organise a convention (or anything they like) within the terms of Tradition 3 but then this is not the applicable tradition. Tradition 4 (see above) indicates that consultation ought to take place prior to any such planned action. But again it begs the question why would any AA group wish to organise something without consulting all of the affected groups (ie. “neighbouring groups”) via the most appropriate service structure – the local intergroup? Similarly this tradition covers advertising on websites, announcements etc. (and indeed the very existence of these websites).
[Definition of terms:
Affiliate: To become closely connected or associated
Co-operate: To work or act together toward a common end or purpose
Institution: an established custom, law, or relationship in a society or community]
A collection of AA members may decide to co-operate towards any end they like (ie. as a collection of individuals who happen to be AA members). But an AA “group” has “but one primary purpose” and its attendees (members and visitors) need meet only one membership requirement. Moreover within the context of AA there is only one reason why members should “band together” ie. to fulfil that “one primary purpose” (Tradition 5). If an AA group should direct its efforts towards any other goal (subsidiary or otherwise) it becomes a “dual” or even “multi purpose” group and has therefore set aside that tradition. Even if a group merely advertises such events it is actively “endorsing” these and therefore has itself chosen to disregard Tradition 6. But generally the operative tradition here is, I repeat, primarily Tradition 4, and not Tradition 3.
With respect to the distinction to be drawn between the notions of “affiliation” and “co-operation” reference should again be made to Tradition 6:
“While an A.A. group may cooperate with anyone, such cooperation ought never go so far as affiliation or endorsement, actual or implied. An A.A. group can bind itself to no one.”
Here it would seem that these concepts lie along a continuum with co-operation placed at one end and affiliation or endorsement located at the other. If a group pursues some objective other than our primary purpose ie. the promulgation of sectarian practices and beliefs, financial enterprises (e.g. paid circuit speakers, recovery courses, retreats etc – and see here Tradition 12) or even simply endorses (actual or implicit) them (via notices, advertisements etc) then it is in breach of Tradition 6 (as well as Tradition 5). Co-operation should be limited to information provision on the part of AA (or AA groups) but with no suggestion of endorsement.
Finally the notion of differing “common interest collections” represents presumably groups of members (who happen to be in AA) but who are pursuing interests which diverge from our primary purpose. Such “collections” are according to our own traditions not AA groups. Moreover groups which endorse their activities are again in breach of Tradition 6.
With respect to the example cited of “Alano” clubs I refer here to “Clubs in AA. Are they with us to stay? (originally a Grapevine article but published in “A.A. Tradition—How It Developed (http://www.aa.org/pdf/products/p-17_AATraditions.pdf). Bill Wilson discusses in this article the origin and evolution of the “club” system in the US. Clearly these institutions posed some dilemmas in terms of how they were to be reconciled within AA's structure and principles. To quote: “This tangle slowly commenced to unravel, as we began to get the idea that clubs ought to be strictly the business of those individuals who specially want clubs, and who are willing to pay for them.......that an A.A. group, as such, should never get into active management of a business project.” From these (and subsequent) comments it is clear that the relationship between AA groups and the Alano clubs is not substantially different from that which exists between an AA group and the landlord of a premises hired for the purposes of a group meeting (or IG meeting). The only difference is that the landlords in this instance also happen to be AA members (but not AA groups). No one would indeed suggest that such an arrangement constitutes an “affiliation” or “endorsement”. But a landlord/tenant relationship is not currently the one under discussion. The affiliation principle applies rather where groups seek to “become closely connected or associated” with institutions, movements etc with diverging, or even on occasion related objectives to those of AA . Cooperation might be appropriate (as indicated above ie. the provision of requisite information) but no more than this. The Alano comparison therefore is invalid.
Finally it is unfortunate that the above contributor should descend to such emotive language as “self-righteous AA policemen” or attribute to them such unworthy motives. The provision for the exclusion of groups already exists under our own traditions. Exclusion of AA members is simply not possible according to those same traditions:
3.—Our membership ought to include all who suffer from alcoholism. Hence we may refuse none who wish to recover. Nor ought A.A. membership ever depend upon money or conformity. 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 affiliation. “
Cheerio
The
Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
