Question
2:
With
specific regard to the history of our AA service structure, can the
Fellowship share experience on how we can best strengthen unity by
trusting and valuing the decisions of the group conscience at all
levels of the Fellowship?
Background
‘The unity, the effectiveness, and even the survival of AA will always depend upon our continued willingness to give up some of our personal ambitions and desires for the common safety and welfare. Just as sacrifice means survival for the individual alcoholic, so does sacrifice mean unity and survival for the group and for AA’s entire Fellowship’.
AA Comes of Age, pp. 287-288 (Quoted in As Bill Sees It, p. 220)
Consider the contribution to the carrying of the message, financial and practical implications when deliberating each question.
Background
‘The unity, the effectiveness, and even the survival of AA will always depend upon our continued willingness to give up some of our personal ambitions and desires for the common safety and welfare. Just as sacrifice means survival for the individual alcoholic, so does sacrifice mean unity and survival for the group and for AA’s entire Fellowship’.
AA Comes of Age, pp. 287-288 (Quoted in As Bill Sees It, p. 220)
Consider the contribution to the carrying of the message, financial and practical implications when deliberating each question.
See
also:
Extract:
“The
main points raised in relation to this question at my home group’s
[Plymouth Road to Recovery (cult)
group] Pre-Conference discussion meeting were:-
• By clear example of Concept 5 in action, by granting a voice to the minority opinion and not allowing the AA service structure to be a tool of simple majority. Extended discussion due to a minority opinion may well turn a simple majority into a more unanimous decision, or just show that the majority has taken everything into consideration.
• It seems that in the growth of AA in GB the insertion of 14 Regions into the structure in 1980 has created a distance between groups and conference. Thereby weakening Concept 1. ‘The final responsibility and the ultimate authority for AA world services should always reside in the collective conscience of our whole Fellowship.’ But the Fellowship has a duty to fully inform itself, and not rely on Intergroups and Regions to take their decisons [sic]. Information is available but not always read and understood, so that hasty, ill informed decision can become too frequent. We cannot allow ‘ignorance, apathy and power seeking’ to break down our democratic system.
• “Unity must come from a choice to tolerate, not from a demand to conform.”
Unity does not just come from conformity but from accepting non-conformity, especially in AA. The level of conformity required for AA to function effectively is remarkably low. The hardest thing in AA is to work successfully with people whose conscience contradicts my own. It is this difficulty which often leads fearful members cry out “We need more unity!” when in fact all we need is more courage and tolerance.
The whole point of the idea of a conscience is that we are not required to conform to another person’s or group’s conscience. As far as “trusting” a group conscience: trust can be earned through sustained successful leadership, not through pressuring people to trust the majority. Quite as important to our unity is allowing the voice of the minority to be well heard, and the voice to exist freely in opposition, no matter what the majority of people believe or decide.
It is the free decision of each individual in AA whether they will sacrifice their conscience on a matter to the conscience of another or to the majority, and peer pressure does not help this process, only education and experience does.”
Comment: Some admirable sentiments expressed here. Unfortunately in the case of this particular group (and not a few like it) these are hardly ever actually translated into action. Even the language employed within the cult has an entirely different and even contradictory meaning from that used within AA or wider society. 'Tolerance' in cult circles refers to that virtue practised by EVERYBODY ELSE. After all it's a well known fact that they (the cult) are ALWAYS RIGHT... and the remainder – AA – are ALWAYS WRONG. It is WE who should tolerate their bad conduct and never the reverse. It is we who should put up with their abuse of newcomers - never they who should amend their ways. If a cult group or member should elect to denigrate the fellowship and represent AA members as “Beano” readers ie. not quite up to grasping the profundities of the recovery programme unlike Wayne P (Plymouth R2R cult group) et al, then it's up to us to turn the other cheek and take it on the chin! (to mix only a couple of metaphors!). If the cult (the minority) don't get their way at conference what do they do? Do they smile and accept the conscience of the majority with good grace? Hardly.... Rather they react with anger and even threatening behaviour (An incident at Conference)(Jon F, Alexis K from .. guess! Plymouth cult group!). Or if that fails to work well there's always the 'bore them to death' strategy! c/o David “The Icon” C (yet another cult stalwart!). Tolerance in the cult is entirely a one way concept! Us to them!
Now we come to “conformity”. Well here at least cult members are probably the best qualified to comment on this concept (and the worst on its antithesis). In their mouths “suggested” means “directed”. Remember these groups engage in “glorification of the individual” and “sponsor worship” (Dr Bob's words). Their central tenet may be summarised thus: “do exactly what your sponsor tells you” (David “The Icon” C). In other words – CONFORM! The concept of non-conformity (or autonomy) only comes into play when it suits the cult agenda. Hence their emphasis on the “minority view” (if it's theirs) and their frequent reference to the first part of Tradition Four but rarely the second! We quote:
“Each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or AA as a whole.”
(our emphasis)
The cult likes the first part – it gives them licence (apparently) to do what they like. But they really don't like the second part at all since their so-called 'internal' conduct frequently does affect “other groups or AA as a whole” ie sponsee abuse, interference in the doctor/patient relationship etc.
(see here for a further discussion)
Finally “education” and “peer pressure” are not necessarily two mutually exclusive notions. Unfortunately the latter is the only recourse when the 'students' remain so unwilling to learn (either from their own experience or from others)
Cheerio
The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
PS We're thinking of bringing out an English to cult language dictionary. Any suggestions? We thought one entry might be:
“leadership” (English): “dictatorship” (cultese)
• By clear example of Concept 5 in action, by granting a voice to the minority opinion and not allowing the AA service structure to be a tool of simple majority. Extended discussion due to a minority opinion may well turn a simple majority into a more unanimous decision, or just show that the majority has taken everything into consideration.
• It seems that in the growth of AA in GB the insertion of 14 Regions into the structure in 1980 has created a distance between groups and conference. Thereby weakening Concept 1. ‘The final responsibility and the ultimate authority for AA world services should always reside in the collective conscience of our whole Fellowship.’ But the Fellowship has a duty to fully inform itself, and not rely on Intergroups and Regions to take their decisons [sic]. Information is available but not always read and understood, so that hasty, ill informed decision can become too frequent. We cannot allow ‘ignorance, apathy and power seeking’ to break down our democratic system.
• “Unity must come from a choice to tolerate, not from a demand to conform.”
Unity does not just come from conformity but from accepting non-conformity, especially in AA. The level of conformity required for AA to function effectively is remarkably low. The hardest thing in AA is to work successfully with people whose conscience contradicts my own. It is this difficulty which often leads fearful members cry out “We need more unity!” when in fact all we need is more courage and tolerance.
The whole point of the idea of a conscience is that we are not required to conform to another person’s or group’s conscience. As far as “trusting” a group conscience: trust can be earned through sustained successful leadership, not through pressuring people to trust the majority. Quite as important to our unity is allowing the voice of the minority to be well heard, and the voice to exist freely in opposition, no matter what the majority of people believe or decide.
It is the free decision of each individual in AA whether they will sacrifice their conscience on a matter to the conscience of another or to the majority, and peer pressure does not help this process, only education and experience does.”
Comment: Some admirable sentiments expressed here. Unfortunately in the case of this particular group (and not a few like it) these are hardly ever actually translated into action. Even the language employed within the cult has an entirely different and even contradictory meaning from that used within AA or wider society. 'Tolerance' in cult circles refers to that virtue practised by EVERYBODY ELSE. After all it's a well known fact that they (the cult) are ALWAYS RIGHT... and the remainder – AA – are ALWAYS WRONG. It is WE who should tolerate their bad conduct and never the reverse. It is we who should put up with their abuse of newcomers - never they who should amend their ways. If a cult group or member should elect to denigrate the fellowship and represent AA members as “Beano” readers ie. not quite up to grasping the profundities of the recovery programme unlike Wayne P (Plymouth R2R cult group) et al, then it's up to us to turn the other cheek and take it on the chin! (to mix only a couple of metaphors!). If the cult (the minority) don't get their way at conference what do they do? Do they smile and accept the conscience of the majority with good grace? Hardly.... Rather they react with anger and even threatening behaviour (An incident at Conference)(Jon F, Alexis K from .. guess! Plymouth cult group!). Or if that fails to work well there's always the 'bore them to death' strategy! c/o David “The Icon” C (yet another cult stalwart!). Tolerance in the cult is entirely a one way concept! Us to them!
Now we come to “conformity”. Well here at least cult members are probably the best qualified to comment on this concept (and the worst on its antithesis). In their mouths “suggested” means “directed”. Remember these groups engage in “glorification of the individual” and “sponsor worship” (Dr Bob's words). Their central tenet may be summarised thus: “do exactly what your sponsor tells you” (David “The Icon” C). In other words – CONFORM! The concept of non-conformity (or autonomy) only comes into play when it suits the cult agenda. Hence their emphasis on the “minority view” (if it's theirs) and their frequent reference to the first part of Tradition Four but rarely the second! We quote:
“Each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or AA as a whole.”
(our emphasis)
The cult likes the first part – it gives them licence (apparently) to do what they like. But they really don't like the second part at all since their so-called 'internal' conduct frequently does affect “other groups or AA as a whole” ie sponsee abuse, interference in the doctor/patient relationship etc.
(see here for a further discussion)
Finally “education” and “peer pressure” are not necessarily two mutually exclusive notions. Unfortunately the latter is the only recourse when the 'students' remain so unwilling to learn (either from their own experience or from others)
Cheerio
The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
PS We're thinking of bringing out an English to cult language dictionary. Any suggestions? We thought one entry might be:
“leadership” (English): “dictatorship” (cultese)
