“My AA Is Not a Cult” – a riposte

A member kindly drew our attention to the above article which recently appeared in The Fix 25/4/14.

It commences thus:

“It is facile, cruel and technically incorrect to use the word "cult" to describe any particular AA group; it also mirrors the dynamics that laid the ground for our 12 Traditions in the first place.”

The author (Michael Anderton – a pseudonym) then goes on to give a brief history of AA's development suggesting that schisms of one sort or another have always existed in the fellowship and that indeed such “diversity” is inherent in its non-governmental structure. The point is also made that technically the term 'cult' does not necessarily carry a negative connotation, an interpretation with which we agree. (For our part our employment of the term refers specifically to 'destructive cults' - there would be little point in our campaign otherwise!). The writer moreover seems to suggest that because there is no single “consistent” definition of the term this somehow invalidates its usage. But this same argument could be applied to almost any concept. Does this mean that all such are equally insusceptible to analysis ? Hardly. But we'll leave you, our readers, to determine this question for yourselves.

From the start the language employed in the piece is highly emotive. Frequent references to 'mud slinging' etc are made which further implies that any such criticism must fall into that category. The possibility that the 'mud' already adheres to the object in question is barely debated. But finally Anderton seems to believe that it's business as usual in AA. Nothing much has changed and therefore there's really no need for anyone to be much concerned about cults, destructive or otherwise. It'll all get sorted out somehow without any effort on anyone's part. A miracle!

He then cites an article in support of his argument which appears on a well-known cult (dare we use the word!) website run by the Road to Recovery group based in Plymouth (GB): “We Don’t Swallow Spiders” or to give it it's full title: “We Don’t Swallow Spiders: The Myth of AA Cults”. (We have already discussed this on the aacultwatch website. See Oooh! Spider swallowing! ….... Nasty!). Here every attempt is made by the author to distance the group from any possible association with a 'destructive cult' and moreover minimise the suggestion of any adverse effects (much as the author of the above piece seeks to do).

Anderton then goes on to proposes that these groups are “not a cohesive “they”” and therefore it is inaccurate to portray the 'cult' as possessing some kind of monolithic structure. However the very website he cites in his article includes a section (speakers) which demonstrates the precise contrary.

[You will note that of the 42 speakers listed above no fewer than 31 originate from within the group itself with two contributions by Clancy I (Pacific Group) (although one of these was recorded at the Guildhall in Plymouth and not at the group's main location), one from Dundee's Beginners' Group, one from Tavistock, two from the Specific Group (Las Vegas), three from London (one of whom we suspect hails from the Brick Lane Big Book study group), one from Motherwell Primary Purpose, one from a Primary Purpose group in France, another from a Primary Purpose group in Purley and finally one from Los Angeles. Apart from the evident exclusivity of these recordings it is clear that there are, contrary to Anderton's assertions, significant interactions between different parts of the cult)]

He also makes reference to an online “Cult directory” (we assume he's referring to ours - see here, here and here – if not we'd be delighted to hear from the publishers!) as further evidence of the AA 'police' in action. Interestingly the vast majority of groups listed in our directory are taken from existing listings already published elsewhere on the web by the groups themselves. It would seem they're interacting quite a lot (even exclusively). Thus the Primary Purpose movement has been publishing a directory of their affiliated groups right back to April 2006 (source: Wayback Machine). Pre-dating this even is the Back to Basics directory going back to at least July 2002 (source: Wayback Machine). The IntoAction version dates back to March 2007 (same source). All of these pre-date our own directory which in its most basic form was not published until March 2009. (Of the remaining entries (mostly Great Britain) all of these were added to our directory solely on the basis of either direct observation or reliable evidence supplied by credible AA members.)

Throughout his article Mr Anderton appears to take great pleasure in bandying the word “freedom” about but seemingly with only the most primitive grasp of its meaning, For him it would seem to mean unlimited licence, an unalloyed liberty to do as you may see fit on any occasion. As usual we had recourse to our dictionary unwilling ourselves to take such 'liberties' with the word. There we found the following:

“1. The condition of being free of restraints.

2. Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.

3.

a. Political independence.

b. Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action; civil liberty: freedom of assembly.

4. Exemption from an unpleasant or onerous condition: freedom from want.

5. The capacity to exercise choice; free will.”

(Source: The Free Dictionary)

From our direct observations as ex-cult members (and therefore not based on anecdotal reports) the cult (in its various forms) stands for the precise opposite. These groups do indeed engage in the “arbitrary exercise of authority” over those newcomers unfortunate enough to fall under their sway sparing no opportunity to impose their “onerous condition[s]” upon the latter whilst circumventing constantly their victims' “exercise [of] choice”. According to Mr Anderton's world view it would seem that freedom is only to be enjoyed by the appointed few!

Finally he makes reference to his own (and his sister's) experience of “intimidation” and “naming and shaming” at the hands of the AA 'police' (citing these as contributory factors to to his sibling's - and others' - subsequent relapse). No mention is made, however, of those on the receiving end of the cult's 'ministrations' who have as a direct consequence suffered quite unnecessarily with some even attempting suicide (in some instances succeeding) because of the obtuse dogma followed by these fanatics eg. their anti-medication stance (more on this subject to follow shortly).

From the above we have to conclude that Mr Anderton's article represents no more than an 'apologetic' (and a rather transparent one at that!) comprising a whole 'shoal' of 'red herrings' intended to minimise the devastating impact these rogue groups and individuals have on the most vulnerable in our midst. Complacent he may be but we remain determined to expose the corruption which exists within the fellowship. As it is sometimes said in AA: “God may move mountains but bring your own shovel!”

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)