Cult of 'personality'

Extracts from the aacultwatch forum (old) 

“Well I'm delighted to hear that my post has contributed to a clearer perception on your part. I would be interested to hear though in what precise respects your understanding has progressed e.g. with reference to Tradition Five, the quotes from the Big Book, the promises etc?

With regard to my “ad hominem” argument it would seem to me quite impossible not to focus here on the personal conduct (and therefore personalities) of the cult members since this goes to the very heart of the issue. The systematic bullying, coercion and manipulation that constitutes “carrying the message” cult style is essential to defining its orientation, and this derives directly from the personal proclivities of those who may be termed its 'leaders'. This 'type' is most adequately described (and with due admonition) in Chapter 5 (BB) in the section subsequent to the”three pertinent ideas” ie. Step 3. If ever a profile might be presented as to what defines (and impels) a cult leader it is here, detailed in these few paragraphs – and with the summation: “the alcoholic [cult leader] is an extreme example of self-will run riot, though he usually doesn't think so.” The 'cult of personality' is again demonstrated in the injunction so widely applied within this aberrant movement – and here I quote directly from cult literature:

"Sponsor

It is suggested that you phone daily and do exactly what your sponsor tells you"

(my emphasis)

and, 

“NB If anything is unclear, ask your sponsor.”

(both quotes taken from a widely employed cult website)

Clearly this is a recipe for disaster if you take into consideration the personality type described in Step 3. 

Note; although 'ad hominem' arguments are frequently listed under logical fallacies it might be worthwhile consulting the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem and specifically:

"The ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy,[2][3][4] but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.[5]

The philosopher Charles Taylor has argued that ad hominem reasoning is essential to understanding certain moral issues, and contrasts this sort of reasoning with the apodictic reasoning of philosophical naturalism.[6]"

I would propose that the abusive conduct of the cult certainly falls into the category of “certain moral issues” and for the reasons given above.

Finally I am familiar with the 'elephant metaphor'. In that case those unfortunates had no choice as to their blinded condition. We, however, do!”

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

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