We recently received a communication
from a member of another 12 step fellowship indicating the kinds of
problems they are encountering with their own cult groups. Note the
similarities:
We quote:
“The characteristics of these
meetings are very similar to the ones described on this site [ie.
aacultwatch];
- Over controlling sponsorship
- Leading from the front
- Censoring of sharing - only the solution - not the reality
- Shaming of those who slip
- Limitation or insistence on service as reward or punishment
- Sponsors telling sponsees not to attend or if they must attend not to give service to certain other meetings
- Criticism and name calling to deter members from going to other meetings - aka lack of unity
- Support cliques
- Silly names - 'There is a solution' instead of just the town and day
- Feature chairs - with applause
- Advice given by sponsors on medication
- Undermining of those in national service posts in Intergroup by non-cooperation
- Avoidance and secrecy from fellowship initiatives
- Enticing members from other local meetings
- Cherry picking of sponsees more likely to succeed and rejection of others
- Rejection of our fellowship's primary text and insistence on only reading the Big Book even though they pretty much say the same thing and everyone has to awkwardly translate the text from alcohol to another addiction to read it.
- Big book studies ( I have only been to one - never again)
This is already having an effect on a
lot of our meetings but we cannot prove that they are breaking
tradition and so cannot exclude them from Intergroup or prevent them
from being part of the fellowship and using the fellowship name and
infrastructure.
I am concerned with women in the
fellowship ….... Meetings local to these cultish meetings
report newcomers being snatched and have an inability to fill service
positions due to all the regulars being prohibited to serve. Those
who have the sense to escape find it hard to get sponsorship
elsewhere and of course are terrified of not having a sponsor.
It is beginning to feel as though our
fellowship is in fact two different fellowships under the same
banner. They certainly are as different to us as another
fellowship might be.”
Our response:
“Hi …....,
Thank you for the mail. We're certainly well aware that similar problems exist in other fellowships eg. NA and CA. Because of the increasing crossover between them (due to dual addiction etc) no fellowship is completely isolated and therefore any dubious trend in one is likely to migrate to the others. For example East Kent at one time had some serious problems with a CA member [Harry K] who decided AA wasn't doing it right. He's largely been neutralised now partly through exposure on our site but mostly through the efforts of local members who were simply not prepared to put up with his conduct any more. Most of what we call cult groups are based around an individual or a small clique. Where we have good evidence of misconduct we're quite happy to target these individuals and undermine their credibility. We prefer not to focus too much on 'personalities' but unfortunately this is the driving force behind these types of groups. They don't possess a 'group conscience' as such but rather an individual 'conscience' masquerading as the former.
It's worth noting a frequent defence employed by these groups is the much misquoted Tradition 4. ie. their so-called 'autonomy'. What a lot of people in the fellowships don't realise is that groups are not unconditionally autonomous. They are accountable for their conduct not merely to themselves but to other groups and even the fellowship as a whole. Similarly the cult play a lot on members' fear of disunity in order to silence opposition or deflect criticism. But appeasement doesn't work. In order to ensure long term unity conflict and confrontation are sometimes necessary before things really get out of hand. Again the 'yellow card' is frequently cited to silence opposition. The most effective method we have found for combating cult groups is the dissemination of information. When people start voicing their concerns openly (especially in service fora) then the cult are forced on the defensive. They will try practically anything (including lying) to defend what is finally indefensible. They are generally unable to deploy any valid arguments in support of their dogma because these don't exist. Making sure people (especially newcomers) are aware of conference approved literature (and read it) goes a long way to protecting them from the warped versions supplied by cult members. But reversing the impact of cult dogma is going to take time - it won't happen overnight. But ignoring the problem simply isn't an option any more as AA is slowly (very slowly!) beginning to grasp. The cult are going to be around for some considerable time yet - and they should never be underestimated.
If we can be of any assistance please let us know. We'll be only to happy to help in any way we can”
Thank you for the mail. We're certainly well aware that similar problems exist in other fellowships eg. NA and CA. Because of the increasing crossover between them (due to dual addiction etc) no fellowship is completely isolated and therefore any dubious trend in one is likely to migrate to the others. For example East Kent at one time had some serious problems with a CA member [Harry K] who decided AA wasn't doing it right. He's largely been neutralised now partly through exposure on our site but mostly through the efforts of local members who were simply not prepared to put up with his conduct any more. Most of what we call cult groups are based around an individual or a small clique. Where we have good evidence of misconduct we're quite happy to target these individuals and undermine their credibility. We prefer not to focus too much on 'personalities' but unfortunately this is the driving force behind these types of groups. They don't possess a 'group conscience' as such but rather an individual 'conscience' masquerading as the former.
It's worth noting a frequent defence employed by these groups is the much misquoted Tradition 4. ie. their so-called 'autonomy'. What a lot of people in the fellowships don't realise is that groups are not unconditionally autonomous. They are accountable for their conduct not merely to themselves but to other groups and even the fellowship as a whole. Similarly the cult play a lot on members' fear of disunity in order to silence opposition or deflect criticism. But appeasement doesn't work. In order to ensure long term unity conflict and confrontation are sometimes necessary before things really get out of hand. Again the 'yellow card' is frequently cited to silence opposition. The most effective method we have found for combating cult groups is the dissemination of information. When people start voicing their concerns openly (especially in service fora) then the cult are forced on the defensive. They will try practically anything (including lying) to defend what is finally indefensible. They are generally unable to deploy any valid arguments in support of their dogma because these don't exist. Making sure people (especially newcomers) are aware of conference approved literature (and read it) goes a long way to protecting them from the warped versions supplied by cult members. But reversing the impact of cult dogma is going to take time - it won't happen overnight. But ignoring the problem simply isn't an option any more as AA is slowly (very slowly!) beginning to grasp. The cult are going to be around for some considerable time yet - and they should never be underestimated.
If we can be of any assistance please let us know. We'll be only to happy to help in any way we can”
(our edits – to preserve
anonymity)
Cheerio
The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
Cheerio
The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
