The AA Preamble – contd

Here it is:

“Alcoholics Anonymous is a fellowship of men and women who share their experience, strength and hope with each other that they may solve their common problem and help others to recover from alcoholism.

The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking. There are no dues or fees for AA membership; we are self-supporting through our own contributions.

AA is not allied with any sect, denomination, politics, organisation or institution; does not wish to engage in any controversy; neither endorses nor opposes any causes. Our primary purpose is to stay sober and help other alcoholics to achieve sobriety.”

(our emphasis)

From the above it may be seen that AA forms NO affiliations or alliances with ANY of these organisational categories (which would, of course, include Alanon and Alateen – no exemptions are indicated here)

According to AA traditions:

“6.—Problems of money, property, and authority may easily divert us from our primary spiritual aim. We think, therefore, that any considerable property of genuine use to A.A. should be separately incorporated and managed, thus dividing the material from the spiritual. An A.A. group, as such, should never go into business. Secondary aids to A.A., such as clubs or hospitals which require much property or administration, ought to be incorporated and so set apart that, if necessary, they can be freely discarded by the groups. Hence such facilities ought not to use the A.A. name. Their management should be the sole responsibility of those people who financially support them. For clubs, A.A. managers are usually preferred. But hospitals, as well as other places of recuperation, ought to be well outside A.A.—and medically supervised. 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.”

(our emphasis)

Again it may be seen from the above that AA (and its constituent groups) does not associate itself with any organisation either explicitly or implicitly.

Further:

“10.—No A.A. group or member should ever, in such a way as to implicate A.A., express any opinion on outside controversial issues—particularly those of politics, alcohol reform, or sectarian religion. The Alcoholics Anonymous groups oppose no one. Concerning such matters they can express no views whatever.”

From this it is quite clear that AA members are free to express their views on any subject they wish (including the conduct of the fellowship) and in any forum they wish subject only to the above proviso. Moreover the argument of 'no controversy' (so frequently deployed by those who wish to shut down all debate within AA) applies only to “outside controversial issues” eg. politics, alcohol reform, or sectarian religion. With regard to 'inside' controversial issues ie. those relating to newcomer abuse, sexual exploitation etc these are (and indeed should be) entirely appropriate subjects for discussion (and action). For our part we are fervent exponents of the notion that 'dirty linen' should be thoroughly exposed to full public scrutiny. This may appear rather unseemly but tends to have an accelerative effect on reform ie. it gets dealt with so much more rapidly!

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS To use “comment” system simply click on the relevant tab below this article and sign in. All comments go through a moderation stage

Now here's a thought!

Maybe a bunch of flowers will do!

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

AA Conference Questions 2014 (contd)

AA Conference 2014 Committee No. 1 Q 2

(See the new aacultwatch forum)

“In the William White interview with Mark Gilman, William White describes the emergence of "recovery" as a "new organizing paradigm." http://www.williamwhitepapers.com/pr/2011%20England,%20Mark%20Gilman%20Interview.pdf I think the pressure of this new organising paradigm was first felt in AA around 1968, ten years after Chuck Dederich founded the Synanon cult.  Besides pervading the US addiction treatment industry in the decades since, Synanon infiltration of AA was also widespread in the late 60s and early 70s. For those interested, I have posted a number of AA Grapevine articles 1968-1979 relating to Synanon in the ‘General’ section of this forum under the thread title “Synanon AA cult groups.” The following are extracts from 1968. They and the other articles can be read in full on the other thread or in the AA Grapevine Archive http://da.aagrapevine.org/

AA Grapevine Editorial, March 1968: “The Winds of Change” “New kinds of AA meetings .... there is within AA growing pressure to discover new ways to resolve those emotional and spiritual problems… ….Three articles in this issue, on the next eight pages, illustrate that pressure. We predict that there will be more such articles in future Grapevines. There is exciting ferment today in the fields of psychology and psychiatry…”

“40-hour Marathon Meetings” (AA Grapevine, March 1968) “. . .The long hours in marathon bid fair to open the heart. . IT'S EASY to assume that we aren't going to see much change in the AA way of doing business in years to come. There are signs this is much too easy an assumption. From the East Coast and the West Coast come separate reports[1] of a new kind of small, intense AA meeting, not confined to AA members, but including anyone who will abide by the rules of the meeting… …The quintessence of the new kind of meetings is the "marathon." Evidently the idea for these comes most directly and recently from the programs for narcotics addicts called Synanon and Daytop… …. The climate of Synanon and Daytop, as best one can tell from reports and from minimal direct exposure, is much closer to the tone and intention of the fifth chapter of AA's Big Book than are most AA meetings today. While AA has waxed genteel, and eager to avoid discussion of unpleasant truths, drug addicts are willing--indeed obliged--to go to any lengths of honesty to be rid of their sociopathic or psychopathic behavior patterns….….Thus the marathon--forty hours of continuous meeting with a five-hour sleep-break halfway through…. ….thirty-five hours has proved barely sufficient for the "Fifth Steps" of some sixteen people assembled for the adventure…..”

“Tenth/twelfth Step Meetings” (AA Grapevine March 1968) “We are not here to talk about. . .inventory; we're here to do the taking. SEVEN people, five men and two women, sit in a circle in a living room behind closed doors. The leader speaks: "Since Joe is here for the first time, let me explain how this meeting runs. This is basically a Tenth and Twelfth Step meeting. Each of us is here to do three things: first, take an inventory of how he is doing in his practice of the program; second, invite the rest of the group to help him with the inventory by pulling him up in areas where he is off the beam but doesn't see it; and third, tell the group what he is going to do, with God's help, to put right what he has been doing wrong. "There is no limitation on rough language. We say what is to be said the best way we can, whether four-letter words are involved or not. Just one caution--don't use this freedom to show off or make the ladies blush. No one is going to be impressed."

The leader continues, "The one basic rule of this meeting is that we stick to the principle of rigorous honesty with ourselves and with each other. There are twenty-three hours in the day for being nice. In this hour, we drop that… …"A couple of final points: There are no observers in this meeting; everyone here is here to participate. What is said in this room stays here; some of it will be rough. We are not here to talk about how to take inventory; we're here to do the taking... … The circle is completed in an hour and twenty minutes. The meeting is closed with the Lord's Prayer… ….First, they are not, I repeat not, group therapy. They are God and group (in that order) therapy--and, believe me, that's a far different kind of animal. Second, there is really nothing new about them. They hark back directly to the practice of the first AA members. In that sense, they represent a renewal of the early spirit of the movement….””

Note: Conference Questions can be downloaded in pdf from the GSO (GB) website. They are on pages 5-11, AA Service News, Issue 157, Winter 2013 http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org.uk/download/1/Library/Documents/AA%20Service%20News/157%20Winter%202013.pdf

Conference 2014 background material can be found on the GSO (GB) website. Follow the “Background Material for Conference 2014” link in the Document Library. http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org.uk/Members/Document-Library

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS To use “comment” system simply click on “Comments” tab below this article and sign in. All comments go through a moderation stage

Alcohol research

The Affiliation Motive and Readiness to join Alcoholics Anonymous, Trice HM, Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Vol. 20 (No.2), June, 1959

“Numerous alcoholics have responded to Alcoholics Anonymous upon first exposure, often without subsequent “slips.” Still others react neutrally, or even antagonistically, and remain unattracted to the group and its program for sobriety. The contrast is frequently startling. On the one hand, Jim after going to his first meeting, attends steadily, readily adjusts to the continuous give and take of the casual A.A. atmosphere, and appears to give up his drinking without unusual difficulty. The observer gets the impression that in the A.A. group he has satisfied his emotional needs more effectively than he was able to do through his alcoholism. On the other hand, Bill M. tries the same group under quite similar conditions but reacts adversely, showing only a mild and superficial attraction. He goes a few times but tends to keep to himself at meetings; finds a host of competitors for the A.A. group such as job requirements, family commitments and church affiliations; and soon begins to drink again.

What accounts for this contrasting behavior? A previous study has attempted to compare the experiences and attitudes of affiliates and nonaffiliates during three phases of the affiliation process: before going to any meeting at all, at the time of initial contact with a group, and after attending meetings for a few weeks. In two areas, particularly, there was sharp differentiation between the two groups. The affiliates, in contrast to the nonaffiliates, regarded themselves, before they ever attended a meeting as persons "who often shared their troubles with others." Furthermore, after attending meetings for a few weeks, the affiliates - in much greater numbers than the nonaffiliates - were attracted to the casual, informal interactions that occured before and after the formal A.A. meeting. These two findings suggested that a stronger emotional need for social acceptance existed among affiliates than among nonaffiliates. Apparently an "affiliation motive was aiding those who successfully joined A.A. but was relatively weak in those alcoholics who did not.”

See also Links and downloads

PS For AA Minority Report 2013 click here

 

PPS To use “comment” system simply click on “Comments” tab below this article and sign in. All comments go through a moderation stage

Tradition One – a question?

Extract from the aacultwatch forum (old)

“Short Form:

"One—Our common welfare should come first; personal recovery depends upon A.A. Unity."

Long Form:

"1.—Each member of Alcoholics Anonymous is but a small part of a great whole. A.A. must continue to live or most of us will surely die. Hence our common welfare comes first. But individual welfare follows close afterwards."

Question:  If it is the case that our common welfare should come first, but that this same common welfare is necessarily constituted as an aggregate of "small" individual welfares, and if even one of those "small" individual welfares is adversely affected, and thereby diminished (by say bullying on the part of a cult sponsor, discrimination on the basis of dual diagnosis etc) then surely the aggregated "common welfare" is similarly reduced. Therefore should it not rather be said that "individual" welfare and "common" welfare are correspondingly important and therefore it would be inaccurate to say that one should "follow close afterwards" ie. neither can be afforded a greater priority on this basis.  Therefore the assertion that in some instances the "greater good" (in this case AA unity) may have to be sustained at the cost of a "lesser evil" (eg. the unnecessary suffering of a minority of members, or even a single member) cannot be valid?”

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS To use “comment” system simply click on “Comments” tab below this article and sign in. All comments go through a moderation stage

PPS For new aacultwatch forum see here. Have your say!

The AA Preamble – contd

Here it is:

“Alcoholics Anonymous is a fellowship of men and women who share their experience, strength and hope with each other that they may solve their common problem and help others to recover from alcoholism.

The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking. There are no dues or fees for AA membership; we are self-supporting through our own contributions.

AA is not allied with any sect, denomination, politics, organisation or institution; does not wish to engage in any controversy; neither endorses nor opposes any causes. Our primary purpose is to stay sober and help other alcoholics to achieve sobriety.”

(our emphasis)

Tradition 7 makes clear the basis of all of AA's finances:

“Seven—Every A.A. group ought to be fully self-supporting, declining outside contributions.” (short form)

“7.—The A.A. groups themselves ought to be fully supported by the voluntary contributions of their own members. We think that each group should soon achieve this ideal; that any public solicitation of funds using the name of Alcoholics Anonymous is highly dangerous, whether by groups, clubs, hospitals, or other outside agencies; that acceptance of large gifts from any source, or of contributions carrying any obligation whatever, is unwise. Then too, we view with much concern those A.A. treasuries which continue, beyond prudent reserves, to accumulate funds for no stated A.A. purpose. Experience has often warned us that nothing can so surely destroy our spiritual heritage as futile disputes over property, money, and authority.” (long form)

Since AA is no more than the sum total of its groups and members this principle should apply to AA collectively, and to every part of its service structure. We refer you here to this question proposed (unsuccessfully) for consideration by the GB conference (2014):

(Unfortunately the committee omitted to elaborate on precisely which part of the cited background information was incorrect. As far as we can determine the figures quoted are accurate). What is clear, however, is that a substantial part of AA's revenues derive from the profit from literature sales. These do NOT constitute voluntary contributions. They are voluntary only in the sense that people may choose to buy the literature or not. However the amount paid is not determined by the buyer but by the vendor. As such they fall outside the term “contribution”. To contribute is “to give (support, money, etc) for a common purpose or fund”. It is not to a sum exacted in fulfilment of a legally binding contract for sale. Moreover:

Source: The Charity Commission (226745 - The General Service Board of Alcoholics Anonymous (Great Britain) Limited)

You will see from these accounts (required by law) that under “Income” there are three sources listed: “Voluntary”, “Trading to raise funds” and “Investment”. For accounting purposes, at least, “Voluntary” (ie. members' contributions) is considered to be a completely separate entity from “Trading” (ie. literature sales). You will also note the amounts involved: “Voluntary” accounts for £890,000 whilst book sales make up £510,000 (a not inconsiderable portion of total income).

From this it is quite clear AA is NOT fully self-supporting through the voluntary contributions of its members.

(We will be coming back to this conference question in the near future)

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS To use “comment” system simply click on “Comments” tab below this article and sign in. All comments go through a moderation stage

care.data – your medical records will soon be up for sale!

We are making a small but important digression from our usual themes but the information contained below is of such significance (and of particular interest to alcoholics and to addicts generally) we believe it is worth it.

The government is currently planning to create and implement two data bases: care.data and the Summary Care Record. 

“care.data and the Summary Care Record (SCR) are two entirely separate projects."

care.data in a nutshell:

• “care.data is not anonymous
• Sensitive and identifiable information is going be extracted from your GP records and uploaded to Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC) databases
• Sensitive and identifiable information has already been extracted, and will continue to be extracted from your hospital records and uploaded to HSCIC databases
• You will not be asked for your explicit permission or consent before these extractions take place
• The two sets of your information will be combined into one database and subsequently released, in various formats, to organisations within and outside of the NHS
• You will not be asked for your explicit permission or consent before your uploaded data is released to these organisations
• The information is not going to be available to doctors and nurses, and so will not be used to provide direct medical care
• The HSCIC will keep your uploaded information indefinitely - it will never be deleted, but continuously added to
• Information about you will not be released or sold in just an aggregate (unidentifiable) format
• You cannot control when, to whom, for what purposes, and what specific information uploaded from your GP record the HSCIC releases about you
• You cannot specify that your information is only used for the purpose of medical research”

On the other hand the Summary Care Record (SCR) is “a national centralised database of medical information (allergies and medication, initially) extracted and uploaded from patients' GP records. This project's aims are to make this information potentially available to emergency doctors (in A&E and GP out-of-hours centres countrywide).”

The Summary Care Record does seem to serve some clinical purpose although there are still questions to be answered as to the sufficiency of data security. What safeguards are in place to ensure that this information is not leaked (or sold) to outside interested parties? Currently fraud in the NHS is estimated to cost the taxpayer up to £5 billion (yes £5 BILLION!) a year. The sale of such data might prove to be too lucrative an opportunity to pass up so easily!

The care.data scheme, however, serves no clinical purpose and merely represents a 'data mine' ripe for financial exploitation.

The good news, however, is that you can OPT OUT of both if you choose! Simply go along to your local surgery and ask for the two relevant forms. You will need to opt out of each one separately. Opting out of one does not imply opting out of the other. Both forms should be on display. If they're not, ask why not and don't be fobbed off. Alternatively you can download the two forms from these sites, fill them in and take them along to your surgery.

care.data opt out form: pdf format
                                       .doc format 

Summary Care Record opt out form: pdf format 

By opting out two codes are added to your medical records which indicate you do NOT give permission for the data to be extracted. At a later date you may choose to opt in if you so wish. So if in any doubt opt out and research the information provided in the two sources cited below. 

“How can I be certain that my opt-out has been actioned by my surgery, and the codes added to my record?

If your opt-out form, letter, or fax has clearly stated your wish to opt-out of care.data, the codes that you want added, and your name/DoB, then your surgery will action your request appropriately, otherwise it would be in breach of the Data Protection Act and you would have every right to make a formal complaint.

You do not need to confirm that your opt-out has been registered, but if you are concerned that your surgery may not fully understand the process then the easiest way would be to:

• contact your surgery's practice manager (not your GP).
• request that she/he confirms that the opt-out codes have been added to your GP record - email confirmation would probably be easiest

If all else fails, you are entitled to make a subject access request (SAR) to look at your GP records yourself.

Because:

• your GP records are not exclusively electronic records, and
• the codes should have been added to during the 40 days preceding the SAR

your GP surgery must offer you the opportunity to inspect (i.e. view on a computer screen) your records free of charge, rather than providing you with a permanent copy of the records for a fee. Your GP surgery is also obliged to help you access the information within your record that you are looking for.

Faced with having to organise all of that, most surgeries will quickly confirm that the codes have been added.”

Sources: http://www.care-data.info/

Brief version: http://brief.care-data.info/ 

Remember! Neither democracy nor the NHS are safe in the hands of any government. Both are far too important to be left to the dubious care of our elected representatives. Their security (and integrity) depends always on an ever vigilant citizenry. As always the buck stops with US!

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

A pdf version of this entire entry can be downloaded here. Please forward it to your family, friends, work colleagues, and indeed anyone who is interested in maintaining their right to privacy. If we work together we can despatch care.data to the oblivion which it so manifestly deserves! (Note: the pdf contains no references to “The Fellas”, Alcoholics Anonymous etc and therefore your own anonymity will not be compromised).
 

AA Conference Questions 2014 (contd)

AA Conference 2014 Committee No. 1 Q 2

(See the new aacultwatch forum)

“Learning from the US experience of Twelve Step Facilitation continued….

I wonder if Mark Gilman is fully aware of the cultic goings on in the US treatment industry, Congressional inquiries, and that he himself, as a government policy maker in the UK, might be a prime target for indoctrination by thought reform. I think the whole truth and magnitude of the Synanon cult’s ongoing influence in addiction treatment in the USA has still yet to be fully evaluated by the scientific community. The following are extracts from papers by Richard Ofshe, professor of Sociology at University of California, Berkeley, concerning Synanon and coercive persuasion.

“ Synanon, drawn from Ofshe” University of Nebraska; School of Criminology/Criminal Justice

“If we have learned anything in this field of criminology, it is that any one of us is capable of doing most anything. Given the right (or wrong) system of social controls and rewards, social expectations, personal circumstances, peer pressures, contingencies of the moment, and perceived personal threats, we are capable of engaging in both remarkable as well as horrific activities…” http://www.unl.edu/eskridge/cj496index.html

"Coercive Persuasion and Attitude Change" Richard J Ofshe Encyclopedia of Sociology Vol. 1 http://attachments.wetpaintserv.us/wh2Cjr4E38HgFqqmUdfXng==99651

“Thought-reform programs have been employed in attempts to control and indoctrinate individuals, societal groups (e.g., intellectuals), and even entire populations….”

“…Programs of coercive persuasion appear in various forms in contemporary society. They depend on the voluntary initial participation of targets. This is usually accomplished because the target assumes that there is a common goal that unites him or her with the organization or that involvement will confer some benefit (e.g., relief of symptoms, personal growth, spiritual development, etc.). Apparently some programs were developed based on the assumption that they could be used to facilitate desirable changes (e.g., certain rehabilitation or psychotherapy programs). Some religious organizations and social movements utilize them for recruitment purposes. Some commercial organizations utilize them as methods for promoting sales. Under unusual circumstances, modern police-interrogation methods can exhibit some of the properties of a thought-reform program. In some instances, reform programs appear to have been operated for the sole purpose of gaining a high degree of control over individuals to facilitate their exploitation.

Virtually any acknowledged expertise or authority can serve as a power base to develop the social structure necessary to carry out thought reform. In the course of developing a new form of rehabilitation, psychotherapy, religious organization, utopian community, school, or sales organization it is not difficult to justify the introduction of thought-reform procedures.

Perhaps the most famous example of a thought reforming program developed for the ostensible purpose of rehabilitation was Synanon, a drug treatment program (Sarbin and Adler 1970, Yabionsky 1965; Ofshe et al. 1974). The Synanon environment possessed all of Lifton's eight themes. It used as its principle coercive procedure a highly aggressive encounter/therapy group interaction. In form it resembled "struggle groups" observed in China (Whyte 1976), but it differed in content. Individuals were vilified and humiliated not for past political behavior but for current conduct as well as far more psychologically intimate subjects, such as early childhood experiences, sexual experiences, degrading experiences as adults, etc. The coercive power of the group experience to affect behavior was substantial as was its ability to induce psychological injury (Lieberman, Yalom, and Miles 1973; Ofshe et al. 1974).

Allegedly started as a drug-rehabilitation program, Synanon failed to accomplish significant long-term rehabilitation. Eventually, Synanon's leader, Charles Diederich, promoted the idea that any degree of drug abuse was incurable and that persons so afflicted needed to spend their lives in the Synanon community. Synanon's influence program was successful in convincing many that this was so. Under Diederich's direction, Synanon evolved from an organization that espoused nonviolence into one that was violent. Its soldiers were dispatched to assault and attempt to murder persons identified by Diederich as Synanon's enemies (Mitchell, Mitchell, and Ofshe 1981)”

See also, Synanon in “Extreme Influence – Thought Reform, High Control Groups, Interrogation and Recovered Memory Psychotherapy” RICHARD J. OFSHE. Encyclopedia of Sociology, Vol. 2, 2001 http://find.galegroup.com/gic/infomark.do?&source=gale&idigest=fb720fd31d9036c1ed2d1f3a0500fcc2&prodId=GIC&userGroupName=itsbtrial&tabID=T001&docId=CX3404400125&type=retrieve&contentSet=EBKS&version=1.0”

Note: Conference Questions can be downloaded in pdf from the GSO (GB) website. They are on pages 5-11, AA Service News, Issue 157, Winter 2013 http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org.uk/download/1/Library/Documents/AA%20Service%20News/157%20Winter%202013.pdf

Conference 2014 background material can be found on the GSO (GB) website. Follow the “Background Material for Conference 2014” link in the Document Library. http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org.uk/Members/Document-Library

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS To use “comment” system simply click on “Comments” tab below this article and sign in. All comments go through a moderation stage

Why Alcoholics Anonymous Is Anonymous, January, 1955, Bill W

See also Links and downloads

PS For AA Minority Report 2013 click here 

 

PPS To use “comment” system simply click on “Comments” tab below this article and sign in. All comments go through a moderation stage

New to AA?

Extract from the aacultwatch forum (old)

“[If] you are new to A.A., I’d stick to official online A.A. until you find your feet. And also stick to official AA published literature.

The official online forum is at http://www.aagrapevine.org/

Official USA website http://www.aa.org/

http://www.aa.org/lang/en/subpage.cfm?page=12 (Newcomer information)

Official UK website http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org.uk/

http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org.uk/newcomers/ (Newcomers information)

A range of official AA pamphlets can be viewed online at http://www.aa.org/lang/en/catalog.cfm?category=4

(A web page of the official USA AA website http://www.aa.org/)

What AA does not do can be found in the following pamphlets: A brief guide to Alcoholic Anonymous, What does A.A. not do? (page 10):

http://www.aa.org/pdf/products/p-42_abriefguidetoaa.pdf

Members of the Clergy ask about A.A., What does A.A. not do? (page 18)
http://www.aa.org/pdf/products/p-25_membersoftheclergyaskaboutaa.pdf

“Questions and answers on sponsorship” http://www.aa.org/pdf/products/p-15_Q&AonSpon.pdf gives some useful advice about sponsorship,

A.A. guidelines are clear that “unofficial” A.A. forums and websites are not A.A. websites, therefore they are all private enterprises which should not bear any of the official AA copyrighted logos. Therefore treat them with some caution before you know what you are dealing with.”

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS To use “comment” system simply click on “Comments” tab below this article and sign in. All comments go through a moderation stage

PPS For new aacultwatch forum see here. Have your say!

The AA Preamble – contd

Here it is:

“Alcoholics Anonymous is a fellowship of men and women who share their experience, strength and hope with each other that they may solve their common problem and help others to recover from alcoholism.

The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking. There are no dues or fees for AA membership; we are self-supporting through our own contributions.

AA is not allied with any sect, denomination, politics, organisation or institution; does not wish to engage in any controversy; neither endorses nor opposes any causes. Our primary purpose is to stay sober and help other alcoholics to achieve sobriety.”

(our emphases)

As we have already indicated there is only one membership requirement (but this is a necessity): a desire to stop drinking. Moreover this applies to AA as a whole and does not of itself imply membership of a particular group or groups. These may have their own provisions . Each group is free to operate as it wishes (subject to the Traditions – and most specifically Tradition Four). Similarly these Traditions are merely guidelines and not binding on any group. However where groups elect to conduct themselves in such a way as to bring themselves into conflict with other groups or AA as a whole the latter are equally at liberty to act as they see fit (which may include exclusion of the former entities (and their members qua group members) from participation in the service structure of AA at any level, removal from group directories together with appropriate notifications to other agencies etc). We would include, of course, cult groups in this deviant category. Such exclusion naturally does not apply to individual membership of the fellowship as a whole. No member can be banned from AA nor excluded (permanently) on any ground from attending any meeting they wish. Any group which seeks to impose any restriction on attendance at a (closed) meeting other than the above membership requirement is in direct conflict with our central purpose (eg. men only, women only, gay, straight, newcomer, oldtimer etc groups). These, according to their own designation, are NOT AA groups NOR do they run AA meetings

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS To use “comment” system simply click on “Comments” tab below this article and sign in. All comments go through a moderation stage

AA Conference Questions 2014 (contd)

AA Conference 2014 Committee No. 1 Q 2

(See the new aacultwatch forum)

“Learning from the US experience of Twelve Step Facilitation continued….

The Synanon cult philosphy and Hazelden 12 step philosophy

The following are extracts from “Confrontation in Addiction Treatment” William R. Miller, PhD and William White, MA http://www.cafety.org/sites-we-like/755-confrontation-in-addiction-treatment The published paper is also available in pdf: The use of confrontation in addiction treatment: History, science and time for change. White, W. & Miller, W., 2007, Counselor, 8(4), 12-30) http://www.williamwhitepapers.com/pr/2007ConfrontationinAddictionTreatment.pdf

“…Synanon’s role in the history of confrontation in addiction treatment is a crucial one. Synanon’s aggressive confrontation techniques were transmitted to second-generation therapeutic communities (TCs) such as Daytop, Phoenix, Gateway, Gaudenzia, The Family and Walden House, and were then widely diffused into the larger emerging treatment system in the 1970s. The thousands of professionals trained by Synanon and the immense popularity of Synanon’s “game club” (Synanon-facilitated groups for non-addicts) spread confrontational techniques into broader schools of psychotherapy and into the larger human potential movement of the 1960s and 1970s…”

Confrontation in the Minnesota Model

“In the late 1940s and early 1950s, a synergy between three alcoholism treatment programs — Pioneer House, Hazelden and Willmar State Hospital —birthed an approach to the treatment of chemical dependency that was widely replicated in the following decades. Confrontation was not a technique used within the original Minnesota Model, but was gradually introduced in stages. The first stage was the emergence of “tough love” — a concept from Al-Anon that when interpreted within the treatment context, argued that the alcoholic needed to be confronted directly about his or her behavior and held accountable for the consequences of that behavior. An important corollary was the concept of “enabling.” This concept depicted well-intentioned attitudes and behaviors exhibited by those around the alcoholic that, by protecting the alcoholic from the consequences of his or her behavior, inadvertently sustained the alcoholic’s drinking and related problems.  

While the concepts of tough love and enabling eased the way for the introduction of confrontation techniques, it is surprising that group confrontation would emerge within a model of treatment so heavily influenced by AA. AA and the peer-based lay psychotherapy models that preceded it  were distinctly non-confrontational, with AA even discouraging crosstalk at its meetings. In the AA meeting culture of the 1930s and 1940s, members did not provide direct feedback or advice to one another, but responded to any disclosure by sharing their own related experience. Confrontational therapies are clearly not rooted in the origins and core literature of AA .

Confrontational techniques emerged within Hazelden as staff sought new ways to engage and manage a subset of clients they perceived as having severe characterological problems. In the late 1960s Hazelden began treating younger opiate and polydrug addicts whose behaviors were harder to manage within the treatment milieu. Seeking solutions to this dilemma led Hazelden staff to visit Eagleville Hospital in Pennsylvania which was pioneering “combined treatment” (integrated treatment of alcoholics and addicts). Eagleville had emulated the confrontation techniques of Synanon, Daytop and other early TCs and became the conduit for introducing these techniques at Hazelden. Openness to such confrontation techniques at Hazelden came in part from working with addicts who were perceived as “sicker” and harder to reach.

In 1967, Hazelden started a “Repeaters’ Program” and began using a peer evaluation (“hot seat”) technique within the group therapy session on this unit. In this technique, a member of the group occupied a center chair within the group, and his/her attitudes and behaviors were critiqued by other group members using an inventory sheet of 23 items, 22 of which were character defects; e.g., resentful, prideful. By the mid-1970s, the use of the “hot seat” technique had spread to all units at Hazelden and commonly included the use of derogatory language and labels. This technique was spread into the larger field by former Hazelden staff and the large numbers of people who received training at Hazelden.

In the late 1970s, the use of confrontation was re-evaluated at Hazelden. The use of the “hot seat” in the women’s units was stopped when it came to be viewed as too harsh and disrespectful. The use of confrontation on the men’s units also changed. A new inventory was integrated into the peer evaluation process that included character assets, and the person being evaluated was moved from a center chair to a chair within the group to reduce his or her vulnerability. To emphasize this change, the “hot seat” was re-
christened the “love seat” and an emphasis was placed on the use of “compassionate confrontation.” By 1985, Hazelden was already describing confrontational counseling as a thing of the past:

There was a time when the dominant mode of chemical dependency treatment was based on a “tear ‘em down to build ‘em up” philosophy. . . Counseling sessions sounded disrespectful and dehumanizing. And they were . . .   Patients . . don’t need to be “put down” to deal with symptoms . . they need to be treated as individuals, with the same rights and respect we expect for ourselves. We’re concerned because many treatment programs still use these confrontational techniques. Some even call themselves Hazelden or Minnesota models. It’s true that we once used confrontation. But we found a better way (Hazelden Foundation, 1985)…”

“The scope of the problem is difficult to document. It is hard to know exactly how prevalent the tough love philosophy is and how common its extreme forms are – but sociologist Elliot Currie, who has studied teen residential programs, says the view is so pervasive that he cannot ‘confidently’ say that he knows of any programs which are not influenced by it.” (Maia Salavitz “Help at any Cost, How the Troubled Teen Industry Cons Parents and Hurts Kids”, (Riverhead Books, 2006.) http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Help%20at%20any%20Cost%2C%20How%20the%20Troubled%20Teen%20Industry%20Hurts%20Cons%20Parents%20and%20Hurts%20Kids”

Note: Conference Questions  can be downloaded in pdf from the GSO (GB) website. They are on pages  5-11, AA Service News, Issue 157, Winter 2013 http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org.uk/download/1/Library/Documents/AA%20Service%20News/157%20Winter%202013.pdf

Conference 2014 background material can be found on the GSO (GB) website. Follow the “Background Material for Conference 2014” link in the Document Library.  http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org.uk/Members/Document-Library

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS To use “comment” system simply click on “Comments” tab below this article and sign in. All comments go through a moderation stage

Alcohol research

The “Crisis Cult” as a Voluntary Association: An Interactional Approach to Alcoholics Anonymous, Sadler P, Human Organization, Vol. 38(2), 207-219, Summer, 1977

“In a recent paper Madsen (1974) has indicated that the "crisis cult” concept is useful for understanding some aspects of Alcoholics Anonymous (hereafter, AA). "Crisis cult" typically is used in a specialized way in the anthropological literature, and Madsen demonstrates an awareness of this usage, defining crisis cults as spiritually toned movements, frequently the "last desperate effort by conquered aborigines to negate the destructive power of their conquerors"(1974:27).

It is my contention that Madsen's reference to AA as a crisis cult constitutes the overextension of a useful term. The purpose of this article is to point out limitations of the crisis cult approach and to suggest a broader anthropological perspective for the study of AA. The scheme that will be developed is an interactional one which is well suited for understanding AA as a voluntary association.

Although Madsen gives an excellent account of some aspects of AA, he does not develop support for his usage of the crisis cult label. Thus he appears to use the term as an attention-getting device rather than as a scholarly assessment.”

See also Links and downloads

PS For AA Minority Report 2013 click here

 

PPS To use “comment” system simply click on “Comments” tab below this article and sign in. All comments go through a moderation stage

Any trusted servants out there?

Extract from the aacultwatch forum (old)

“Another example of Concept IX in action is that of Bill W’s response to protect AA public relations by thwarting the plans of a potential figurehead with a “wonderful vision” and his “message”. Today one only has to replace the word “radio” with “website”:

“An old story, revealing several aspects of A.A.’s public relations problem, comes to mind: One of our pioneer members conceived the idea of starting a group in his city by radio….. So our promoter friend constructed a series of “Twelve Lectures on Alcoholics Anonymous” These were a strange mixture of A.A. and his own religious ideas. He soon put them on air with all the vigour of a Chautauqua orator. Contrary to our expectations, he got a modest result. Inquiries came in and he started a group. Now flushed with success, he was smitten with a wonderful vision..............“We advised him that the trustees felt his message inappropriate for national consumption. So he wrote a hot letter to this effect: “To hell with the trustees, the world is waiting for my message. I’ve got the right to free speech and I’m going on air whether you like it or not.” This ultimatum was an alarming poser. It looked like promotion, professionalism, and anonymity-breaking all in one package.…………every ad man and salesman in Alcoholics Anonymous would soon be selling A.A.’s wares, willy-nilly. We would loose control of our public relations.”………….” We assured our well-meaning friend that we would certainly uphold his right to free speech. But we added that he ought to uphold ours, too. We assured him that if his “lectures” went on air, we would advise every A.A. group of the circumstances and ask them to write strong letters to the sponsoring life assurance company, letters of a kind the sponsor might not like to receive.” The broadcast never went on air.” (AA comes of Age page 130-131)

The incidents with Chuck D. and the AA pioneer show that in the past, cult groups in AA have been stopped before they could even begin by active intervention of “trusted servants” and “elder statesmen” upholding A.A. Traditions. They recognised the link between figureheads and “degeneration into a cult.” (Jack Alexander article about AA, page 23) In other words, the rise of a “tyranny of very small minorities invested with absolute power.” (Concept V). These “trusted servants and” “elder statesmen” in the 1940s and 1958 were therefore evidently “prudently ever on guard against tyrannies great and small.”(Concept 12, warranty five). They also clearly understood the Traditions to be principles upon which the survival of the fellowship depends, rather than “just suggestions.” They evidently understood it to be their responsibility and duty to be active guardians of Traditions by informing “Traditions violators that they are out of order” (Concept 12, warranty five). They evidently understood their duty of care to protect a vulnerable minority from coercion and abuse, “That care will be observed to respect and protect all minorities,” (Concept 12, warranty 6). They evidently understood their responsibility and authority as “trusted servants” that they were trusted to actively guard the principles of AA Traditions and assert their leadership in Tradition Two, to perform the “duty of leadership, even when in a small minority, to take a stand against a storm,” (Concept IX), - The upholding of Tradition Two, of which Bill W. was later to go to great lengths to explain in the Twelve Concepts for World Service in 1962:

“…All of this is fully implied in A.A.’s Tradition Two. Here we see the “group conscience” as the ultimate authority and the “trusted servant” as the delegated authority. One cannot function without the other..” (Concept X) “…Hence the principle of amply delegated authority and responsibility to “trusted servants” must be implicit from the top to the bottom of our active structure of service. This is the clear implication of A.A.’s Tradition Two….” (Concept II) “Trusted servants at all A.A. levels are expected to exercise leadership, and leadership is not simply a matter of submissive housekeeping..” (Concept VII) “Leadership is often called upon to face heavy and sometimes long-continued criticism….” (Concept IX) “…All around us in the world today we are witnessing the tyranny of majorities and the even worse tyranny of very small minorities invested with absolute power….” (Concept V) “…that care will be observed to respect and protect all minorities..…That our Conference shall ever be prudently on guard against tyrannies, great and small, whether these be found in the majority or in the minority..” (Concept XII: Warranty 6). “..Feeling the weight of all these forces, certain members who run counter to A.A.’s Traditions sometimes say that they are being censored or punished and that they are therefore being governed. It would appear, however, that A.A.’s right to object calmly and privately to specific violations is at least equal to the rights of the violators to violate. This cannot accurately be called a governmental action…” (Concept XII, warranty 5).”

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS To use “comment” system simply click on “Comments” tab below this article and sign in. All comments go through a moderation stage

PPS For new aacultwatch forum see here. Have your say!