AA MINORITY REPORT 2017 (revised)

Click here

Monday 5 January 2015

The Synanon cult infiltration of AA (Grapevine articles 1968-1979)(contd)



Extracts from the aacultwatch forum (old)

Dear Editors:” AA Grapevine June 1968 Vol. 25 No. 1 http://da.aagrapevine.org/

"I believe there are 'winds' and 'winds' and some of them are far from beneficial.

Those winds again: In the March issue of the Grapevine, under the general head "Winds of Change," there were three articles and an editorial concerning new kinds of meetings devoted to telling the total truth about oneself in a group. Not very many editorial features in the Grapevine produce as much comment in the form of letters and full-length manuscripts as this one has. Some but not all of the comment is contra--contra the idea of such meetings, and contra the editorial, which found in them a kind of harking-back to AA's beginnings in the Oxford Group. Herewith we print what had come in up to the printer's deadline for this issue, in the form of a super "Letters to the Editors" section. It warms our editorial heart to see such interest in Grapevine pages.--The Editors

It is traditional in AA to qualify when one speaks at an open meeting, and since the Grapevine is an open forum, I will start by stating that I have had fourteen years of uninterrupted sobriety. I have also served in nearly every AA service capacity, from coffee-maker up to and including Trustee of the AA General Service Board. In these various AA activities, I have, of necessity, both spoken and listened all over the AA world, and in the process have gathered a good deal of cross-section AA experience.

It is against this background and as an AA member deeply concerned with the AA Grapevine as an AA service tool, that I wish to address myself in candid disagreement with its editorial policy as expressed in the first eleven pages of the March Grapevine, entitled "Winds of Change."

I am all for "Winds of Change." Not to be would put me in the invidious position of defending the status quo, the Establishment, the "good old days and ways." But--and it is a very large but--I believe there are "winds" and "winds" and some of them are far from beneficial. Change in the name of progress can sometimes be seriously damaging: e.g., the "winds" that have polluted the air of our cities.

I find myself sadly but inevitably making this analogy in my reaction to the section which the editors have featured under their "Winds of Change" banner in the March issue of the Grapevine.

In the editor's introduction to this section, they state, ". . .There has grown up a tendency, even allowing for the Fifth Step [my italics], for many AAs to attempt a spiritual life based on new principles without anything like adequate elimination of 'old ideas' and the behavior that resulted from them." I do not know, of course, how the editors arrived at the statistical evidence permitting this categorical generality, since they themselves did not document it. However, from my own experience based on fourteen years of attendance at Twelve Step meetings at my own and many other AA groups, I would have to reject this assumption as false or, at the least, very dubious.

I do not feel that further comment is needed on the editorial introduction to the three "Winds of Change" articles, since it is clearly just what it states: an introduction with a strongly implied, affirmative sponsorship of the viewpoint of the writers involved.

So, in order of appearance, let us first concern ourselves with the "Forty-hour Marathon Meetings." The content of this material is concerned with the advantage of rigorous "honesty" that must accrue if the participant in this therapy is to benefit. So let us be honest. On page 5, paragraph 2, the writer states "Evidently the idea for these (marathons) comes most directly and recently from the programs for narcotics addicts called Synanon and Daytop." Would it not be more in keeping with "honesty" if the author had given details on his attendance at such meetings in an "AA setting," where any personal interest he may have in furthering use of marathons might have appeared? He does indeed describe, in the last paragraph of his article, the type of alcoholic who appears to find this therapy most beneficial, namely, "the long-term slipper--the AA failure." If the author is such a "slipper" and he finds that forty hours of alcoholic talkathons "bid fair to open his heart," then more power to him. But let us have a few clarifying statements for the AA "seeker" or newcomer, who may feel that he has strayed into the wrong pew if he reads this GV issue.

The fact is that programs for narcotic addicts are primarily concerned with young people from urban ghetto areas--our most tragic and underprivileged minority groups. They just do not represent the much larger alcoholic population, and indeed it is for this reason that both Synanon and Daytop have modified the AA program, just as we, in our turn, had to depart from the Oxford Group and evolve our own recovery principles, which are greatly different.

This reference brings me to the "quintessence" of the point of view expressed by the writers on the marathon and on the Fifth Step meetings. The writer of the first states that the "climate" of the addict's marathon is "much closer to the tone and intention of the fifth chapter of AA's Big Book than are most AA meetings today." He further suggests that "thirty-five hours has proved barely sufficient for the 'Fifth Steps' of some sixteen people assembled for the adventure." The Seeker Anonymous of the "Fifth Step Meeting" article suggests (page 8, paragraph 4) that there should be a Fifth Step group that should be "open and mixed"--parents, spouses, children, etc. Well, I would like to suggest to both of these writers that they first read the Fifth Step itself: "Admitted to God, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs." Are these two members proposing a new Fifth Step? How would they like to define it?--since they are clearly purposing to change it. In the book Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, the exact reason for the wording of this Step in this precise way has been unmistakably spelled out by Bill W. Any investigation of AA history or of Bill's written and spoken words would have elicited the historical fact that it was because of the "Absolutes" of the Oxford Group that Bill realized very early in AA that "open confession" and Absolute Truth, Honesty, etc. could not, would not work for the alcoholic. It was on this very issue that AA in its formative days split from the Oxford Group, and Bill is the first to say that without this split we would not have survived. Clearly, the writers of these two articles have read a different AA history and different AA literature, and have had different experiences--indeed, they appear to have heard a different Bill W. than I have.

Finally we come to the third article of the group: "Tenth/Twelfth Step Meetings." The "seven people" he is describing presumably fit into the category described by the first writer: "long-term slippers--seasoned AA failures." As in the case of the other two writers, this one, too, seems to feel that the Steps as written and defined in the official AA literature are inadequate.

Many have tried, but none have yet succeeded in rewriting or reilluminating the original wordings and intentions of the Twelve Steps as set down by Bill W. It is not surprising to hear this record, played again. This is the rewriter's privilege, and if he has helped his own "hang-ups" on sex or anything else by this private version of the Eleventh and Twelfth Steps--then bully for him! I would, however, like to observe that there have always been special groups in AA--men's discussions, women's ditto, Eleventh Step groups--the list is endless and fills any special need that I, at least, can- think of. I am not condemning special groups as such. They fill a very vital need.

What I object to here are the sweeping generalities, such as on page 10: "All of us are sick in the same way." Well, if there is anything I have learned in fourteen years in this program, it is the nonsense of this remark. We all indeed have the same sickness--namely, alcoholism--but we are no more sick "in the same way" than are the sufferers from any other illness. The miracle of AA is that it can and does embrace our different "ways."

However, what I find most dangerous in "Tenth/Twelfth Step Meetings" is the statement on page 11: "First, they are not, I repeat not, group therapy. They are God and group (in that order) therapy." How, I would like to ask, can the author be so sure about God being there? "Direct pipelines" have long been the classic syndrome of delusion, but they are usually clinical in nature and individual. Does the author suggest that his group has a group pipeline? Personally, I find God, as I understand Him, in every AA meeting, but I would find it more than presumptuous, and indeed frightening, to believe that I could evoke Him. Grace comes to us AAs, it seems to me, unbidden. It is one of the sources of our mysterious process and one we never presume to have earned. I, therefore, find this kind of spiritual arrogance out of place in an official AA magazine which is read by vulnerable newcomers. It is even possible that many of them and many of us still find our main "hang-ups" quite solvable within the framework of the AA program if we truly and continuously remain a viable part of its mainstream.
....
.. New York"

(our edits)

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 Join us on Diaspora* here

No comments:

Post a Comment