AA MINORITY REPORT 2017 (revised)

Click here
Showing posts with label Conference 2013. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conference 2013. Show all posts

Friday, 20 December 2013

The mysterious case of the missing conference question forum


You may not have noticed but the AA (GB) conference question forum has gone AWOL, it is no more, it has vanished, sucked mysteriously into some black hole which usually only GSO York can penetrate. But strange to say even this august body doesn't seem to be aware of its sad demise. According to the AA website (the only official website for AA in this country) the forum is still up and running:



Curiouser and curiouser! One enterprising member, however, had observed its parting and duly contacted the powers-that-be (but not a Higher Power!) to find out what had happened to the errant debating chamber. They received the following reply which they then passed on to us:

"Dear .......,

thank you for your support request.We decided not to run the Conference Forum this year for a few reasons:

1.    The Electronic Communications Sub-Committee is short on members who have the time to moderate the forum.

2.    The forum somewhat does not fit in with the Conference structure, where members views are heard at Group level, taken to Intergroup and then to Region for the Region's Delegates to bring to Conference in York. Discussion on an open forum is not part of that structure.

3.    The 2013 forum seemed to encourage the wrong type of debate and this does not encourage unity especially on a public facing site which  could bring AA into disrepute.

This decision was not taken lightly but the man hours of moderating for a very few members posting over the last few years does not seem a good use of ECSC time.

Regards,

…...... (ECSC)"

Comment: We'll let you reflect on the implications of this response.... Of course there'll be more to follow shortly!

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS Our thanks to the AA member for their contribution

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

Monday, 16 December 2013

Conference Questions (2013) forum discussion (contd)



Question 2:

Would Conference consider what response can be given to Groups who refuse to accept the group conscience of Intergroup/Region?

[See also: The Traditions, Preamble and Concepts]

I think if groups which refuse to accept the group conscience of the intergroup / region are affiliated directly or indirectly to any of the following outside enterprises or their literature, then they do not qualify to be AA groups. They ought not be listed as AA groups, nationally or locally. Dick B (International Christian Recovery Coalition Inc; Freedom Ranch Maui Inc.) Joe McQ (Founder, Serenity Park Treatment Center, Recovery Dynamics); The Primary Purpose Group of Alcoholics Anonymous Dallas, Texas (Myers R., Origins Recovery Centres Alumini Services Department; Chris R. Origins Recovery centres Alumini Services Department and Director of Alumini Services La Hacienda Treatment Centres) Wally P. (aabacktobasics, Faith with Works Publishing Inc.) Father Joseph C. Martin® (Father Martins Ashley Treatment Center, Ashley Inc.) Wayne B (The Last Mile Foundation Inc.) Hazeldon publications. The watered down programs of these self-appointed AA teachers and historians, their outside publications, and the material their organisations put on the internet are not AA. ”


Cheerio

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

Tuesday, 10 December 2013

Conference Questions (2013) forum discussion (contd)



Question 2:

Would Conference consider what response can be given to Groups who refuse to accept the group conscience of Intergroup/Region?

[See also: The Traditions, Preamble and Concepts]

In reply to the comment “Nothing - intergroup is a group of servants - they serve, they don't rule.” I think these excerpts from AA literature might provide some useful background to trusted servants at all levels of the service structure as to how trusted servants serve and how the question in this topic might be answered.

“For fear of controversy, our leadership should not go timid when lively debate and forthright action is a necessity. And for fear of accumulating prestige and power, we should never fail to endow our trusted leaders with proper authority to act for us. Let us never fear needed change. Certainly we have to discriminate between changes for worse and changes for better. But once a need becomes clearly apparent in an individual, a group, or in AA as a whole, it has long since been found out that we cannot stand still and look the other way. The essence of all growth is a willingness to change for the better and then an unremitting willingness to shoulder whatever the responsibility.” - Bill W. (Responsibility Is Our Theme, AA Grapevine, July 1965,The Language of the Heart p 334)

The Australian General Service Conference 2010-2011

Topics for the 2011 General Service Conference 2011 (AA Around Australia September 2011, page 7)

"Topic 002/2011
The National Office of AA Australia should not supply AA literature to the Central Service Office (CSO) located in Richmond, Victoria which names itself as ‘Alcoholics Anonymous Victoria’ and ‘AA Victoria’ until that CSO changes its registered business and trading name to one which more appropriately describes its function and role in our fellowship.

Topic 003/2011
The Central Service Office (CSO) located in Richmond, Victoria which names itself as ‘Alcoholics Anonymous Victoria’ and ‘AA Victoria’ should not be reinstated on the National AA website, nor be part of the 1300 AA AA telephone system, until it changes its registered business and trading name to one which more appropriately describes its function and role in our fellowship."

Area D. Delegates Report 2011 (Extract)

"3. On the matter of the Richmond office, Conference rescinded its 2010 directive to the General Service Board to have a legal injunction issued and, instead, authorised the GSB to take whatever actions it deemed necessary to fulfil its legal responsibilities to protect the registered trademarks and the literature licensing agreement. This means that it will be the Board rather than Conference who decides if, and what, legal action needs to be taken. Apart from this change in regard to the authorising of legal action the Conference position in respect of the Richmond office remains unchanged. The relevant decisions are as follows:

The 2010 Conference decision rescinded by the 2011 Conference was:

Advisory Action #058/2010:
"Conference resolved, after considering all information provided, that the General Service Board should instruct Matthew Rouse, Lawyer, to proceed to take out an injunction in the Federal Court against the Central Service Committee of AA Victoria to oblige them to comply with earlier requests by the General Service Board’s solicitor, i.e. to cease using trademarks owned by the General Service Board, to cease selling exclusively licensed copyrighted literature and to cease publishing defamatory material about the General Service Board."

The 2011 Floor Action Conference decision adopted by Conference is:

Advisory Action xx/2011:
"The General Service Conference supports the General Service Board in taking whatever action is deemed necessary to fulfill its legal responsibilities to protect the registered trademarks and literature licensing agreement. The Conference also supports the General Service Board in taking whatever action is deemed necessary in the interests of the Fellowship to attend to matters relating to circulated misinformation affecting the General Service Structure and public liability insurance concerns."

Conference Topics 002/2011 and 003/2011 relating to the Richmond Service Office: These topics were not heard as Conference felt them unnecessary consequent to the adoption of the above Advisory Action."

Area H Delegate’s report 2011 (Extract)

“The A.A. Victoria situation was given the highest of priorities with the entire afternoon set aside to discuss this issue.
The Chairman of the General Service Board gave a detailed outline of the latest developments to bring the Conference up to speed and went to great lengths to assure the Conference that the GSB did not have a clear position and was seeking clarification from the Conference on how to best proceed.
There were a number of questions asked in relation to various details that the Chairman of the Board provided in his report as well as a series of comments by individual Delegates and Trustees who have had personal “on the ground” experiences of this difficult issue. A number of ideas were discussed as to how to best proceed, with the following actions being taken.
1. Advisory Action 058/2010 which involved the Legal Injunction against A.A. Victoria was unanimously rescinded to be replaced with a new Advisory Action which was to be drafted and voted on in another session later in the Conference.
2. A statement expressing the overall view of the 53rd Conference was also to be drafted and voted on at the same time as the above new Advisory Action. The statement to include a raft of points in an attempt to convey the views of Conference and send a clear message regarding the Conference position to the Fellowship.
3. It was further decided that the two Topics 002/2011 and 003/2011, both involving A.A. Victoria and originally set down for discussion in this session, would be held over and discussed, if necessary, at the same time as the above two proposals.
I expressed the view that I did not see a connection between these two Topics and the discussion that took place during the session, that I believed they should be discussed and voted on regardless of the outcome of the other A.A. Victoria proposals.
I also expressed the view that I believed we could both bring A.A. Victoria back into the tent, and be crystal clear, as to the repercussions of any actions undertaken by them, that would put in jeopardy the things for which the GSB is legally responsible to protect; things such as Copyright etc.
I also asked a question regarding the Deed of Release mentioned in both the Victorian Resolutions and Chairman of the Board’s most recent report, which was adequately answered.”

The General Service Conference (Great Britain) 2002, Committee 5, Question 3, Topic: Trusted Servants

Question: “How well is the transfer of delegated authority understood at group, intergroup and regional level within our structure? Is the trusted servant provision fully understood? Make recommendations.”
Answer: “The transfer of delegated authority is, in general, poorly understood at all levels. In addition the trusted servant provision is not fully understood.” (This followed by the committee’s recommendation)

Trusted servants do not rule, however they are not expected to do nothing. Nor are the so called "elder Statesmen" at group level. Trusted servants are empowered with delegated responsibility and authority within the Twelve Concepts from World Service and Tradition Two. They are trusted and expected to use it. If these issues are sorted out by trusted servants and the “elder statesmen” in the intergroup as they have been in the past, then this topic might not needed to have come to conference. No society can function without authority and trusted servants in AA are expected to provide this authority in their delegated capacity. GSRs in particular ought to appreciate their role is that of a trusted servant in AA World Service. They have a duty to AA World Service as well as their group. “First let’s remember that the base of our service structure rests on the dedication and ability of several thousand GSRs…” (Concept IX)

For practical historical advice in answering this topic, I suggest trusted servants at all levels read the following the article “How Drug Abuse Turned Into Mistreatment.” This can be found online using those search terms. It describes how AA trusted servants used their delegated responsibility and authority against the founder of the Synanon cult. This type of action has been taken in the past to protect AA unity and is what AA members at intergroup level ought to be doing today. Trusted servants in AA groups are trusted to lead their groups according to AA principles. If dictators of groups lead their group in such a way as not to qualify for AA membership then they need to be informed that their group does not qualify for AA membership. I think AA members at group level need to respect and support the delegated authority of trusted servants at intergroup, region, board, and conference levels. Those serving at conference, board and region levels ought to also actively respect and support delegated authority of trusted servants at intergroup level.

Area D Delegates report can be found online in “D-Liberation” Vol 3, Jan 2012 on the Alcoholics Anonymous Area D, Southern Region website
Area H Delegates report can be found online at the Alcoholics Anonymous Area H website under “Area Assembly Minutes and Reports”
AA Around Australia September 2011 can be found online using those search terms. ”


Cheerio

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

Monday, 2 December 2013

Conference Questions (2013) forum discussion (contd)



Question 2:

Would Conference consider what response can be given to Groups who refuse to accept the group conscience of Intergroup/Region?

[See also: The Traditions, Preamble and Concepts]

With reference to the 2002 Conference recommendation on Registering Group Details (Committee 1 Question 2) in particular, taking note of the minority opinion, I suggest Groups/ meetings are only registered by GSO on the national meetings directory and GSO website if they are registered through the intergroup. I also suggest that in keeping with Tradition Nine and Tradition Four that GSO is made directly responsible to the ultimate authority in the AA group conscience within intergroups on this matter of registering group details. If it is the conscience of a two thirds majority of the AA groups within an intergroup that a group’s purpose is beyond that at which the intergroup can call it an AA group as defined in Traditions Four, Five, Concept XII, warranties Five and Six, then GSO ought to trust the ultimate authority of the intergroup conscience and remove such groups from the national directory if requested. The local intergroup public information, health and probation liaison would then be freed to inform the general public of misuses of the AA name as outlined in Concept XII Warranty Five by notifying agencies in the area which might refer newcomers to any group in question; suggesting they not make referrals to the group in question. I do not think these local public information liaison services can uphold this warranty if GSO registers such groups independently of the intergroup. Besides protecting the AA name, this action would also protect AA from possible future legal action by newcomers who might claim abuse in groups which may be using coercive sponsorship techniques prescribed in outside published literature. I think our responsibility is reminded to us in Guideline 17:

“In terms of AA Tradition, it is the responsibility of all of us to ensure that the carrying of the message, whether to prospective or new or vulnerable or established members, is done honestly and decently. We also understand that our Twelve Traditions including that of Group autonomy does not place Groups or members above the law, and that when individuals act injuriously to others they are legally accountable. This will, of course, be generally understood in that our First Tradition reminds us that all members and Groups have a responsibility in respect to the common welfare and protection of the individual member.” (Extract, Guideline 17)

“Failure to challenge and stop inappropriate behaviour gives the offender permission to repeat the offensive behaviour and encourages others to follow suit.” (Extract, Guideline 17)

“that care will be observed to protect all minorities” (Extract, Concept XII, Warranty Six)

2002 Committee 1, Question 2 Conference recommendation:

“This committee recommends that new groups should register with GSO through intergroups and that all groups should confirm their details annually through their intergroups in order that up to date information may be maintained in the Where to Find directories. Groups can of course, send this information directly to GSO, but this may mean that local intergroup information is not kept up to date. This recommendation was passed by the Committee with a two-thirds plus majority.

There is a minority opinion that in order to be included in the Where to Find directories new groups should register through their intergroups and that all groups should confirm their details annually through their intergroup.”

There is a vitally important qualification for AA membership which applies to an AA group. Groups that do not meet this qualification cannot insist they be called AA groups. Any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call themselves an A.A. group provided that, as a group, they have no other purpose or affiliation. If they do have another purpose or affiliation then an intergroup may not call them an AA group if it deems this to be appropriate. There is no obligation for an intergroup to accept any group of alcoholics as an AA group. There is however, a duty in Concept XII, Warranty Five to inform the general public of misuses of the AA name: “Whenever and however we can, we shall need to inform the general public also; especially upon misuses of the name Alcoholics Anonymous.” (Concept XII, Warranty Five)

The following gives the qualification for group membership. I think it is also the point at where there is the exception in Tradition four “Each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or A.A. as a whole.”

"Our membership Tradition does contain, however, one vitally important qualification. That qualification relates to the use of our name Alcoholics Anonymous. We believe that any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call themselves an AA group provided that, as a group, they have no other affiliation. Here our purpose is clear and unequivocal. For obvious reasons we wish the name Alcoholics Anonymous to be used only in connection with straight AA activities. One can think of no AA member who would like, for example, to see the formation of “dry” AA groups, “wet” AA groups, Republican AA groups, communist AA groups. Few, if any, would wish our groups to be designated by religious denominations. We cannot lend the AA name, even indirectly, to other activities, however worthy. If we do so we shall become hopelessly compromised and divided. We think that AA should offer its experience to the whole world for whatever use can be made of it. But not its name. Nothing could be more certain." (Bill W., extract, “Tradition Three”, AA Grapevine, February 1948, The Language of the Heart pp 79-80)

“Any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call themselves an A.A. group provided that, as a group, they have no other affiliation” (Tradition Three)

“Finally, any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call themselves an A.A. group provided that, as a group, they have no other purpose or affiliation”. (Concept XII, Warranty Six)

"And also, if various hippie addicts want to form their own sort of fellowship along AA lines, by all means let us encourage them. We need deny them only the AA name, and assure them that the rest of our program is theirs for the taking and using--any part or all of it.” – Bill W. (Extract of a Letter to an AA member; “The Traditions in Action” AA Grapevine March 1971)

“But obviously, such a dual purpose group should not insist that it be called an AA group nor should it use the AA name in its title.” (Bill W. “Problems Other than Alcohol” AA Grapevine February 1958; The Language of the Heart pages 222-225).

“Some years ago, numbers of AAs formed themselves into ‘retreat groups’ having a religious purpose. At first they wanted to call themselves AA groups of various descriptions. But they soon realized this could not be done because their groups had a dual purpose: both AA and religion”. (Bill W. ‘Problems other than Alcohol,’ AA Grapevine February 1958; The Language of the Heart page 222). ”


Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Thursday, 28 November 2013

Conference Questions (2013) forum discussion (contd)



Question 2:

Would Conference consider what response can be given to Groups who refuse to accept the group conscience of Intergroup/Region?

[See also: The Traditions, Preamble and Concepts]

As background to this topic I thought it would be good to include some archive AA Grapevine articles relating to the Synanon cult, since history tends to repeat itself. I think it will always be a challenge for each new generation of AA to continue to repeat constructive history, rather than the destructive; especially in this present time when there is a movement in AA using an outside published watered down history and sponsorship guides which claim the AA program has been watered down and claim to be the “original” program, but are in fact themselves watered down versions with personal opinions of the authors harping back to the Oxford Group; combining “tough love” treatment center program sponsorship with Big Book Study. As far as I am concerned the only original, unwatered down AA program and history is published by AA World Services Inc. and AA Grapevine Inc.

From the extracts of the AA Grapevine articles: “Dear Editors”, (June 1968) and “The Enemy of Continuing Sobriety” (March 1975) it can be understood that the operation of Tradition Two in AA is reliant on the expression of individual AA member’s consciences. Without this expression and leadership in AA to counter the expression of divisive change, there is no active principle in Tradition Two. A silent expression in our group conscience is no expression in our group conscience.

The extracts from the AA Grapevine article “40-hour Marathon Meetings” shows how some AA groups were being influenced by the Synanon Cult in 1968. The introduction to the Twelve Concepts for World Service reminds us all that “We are sure that each group of workers in world service will be tempted to try all sorts of innovations that may often produce little more than painful repetition earlier mistakes. Therefore it will be an important objective of these Concepts to forestall such repetitions by holding the experiences of the past clearly before us.”

“40-hour Marathon Meetings” (AA Grapevine March 1968) (Extracts)
". . .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 purpose of these meetings is self-inventory: how I am doing now……
….The main emphasis is on truth--the whole truth, not the abridged version which has become expected and appropriate at AA open meetings. Ah, you say, that's all very well, but you surely don't mean the whole truth, do you? Sex, perversions included. Thefts. Slanders. The really nasty stuff?
Evidently those proposing the new meetings do mean just that: the whole truth, including all the etceteras, as corrective for an AA which is tending to become conventional, even evasive. They propose the whole truth as a resource especially for those with a terrible burden of guilt which they can no longer lay down in public in AA.
As one reads the history of AA, it seems evident that in the beginning, among the close, small groups of the first days, any guilt could be unloaded. The price for freedom from the guilt was willingness to change, willingness to stop doing whatever was producing the guilt--starting with stopping drinking…..
…….The new meetings are designed to put all those participating in them in a position to furnish real help to a member wanting to change. The group is going to ask him for a commitment to stop whatever he is doing wrong, and it will expect him to report back regularly to the group on progress--admitting failure, without breast-beating, when he has failed…….
…….You're alarmed, you say? This is much too much invasion of privacy by the group? Not so. Remember, one is a member of the group by free choice. One is in the group precisely to get the help the group offers. …….
……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. Both of these came out of AA, as a matter of historical development, but they are changed in important ways from the original AA program. The parentage is still evident, however, and nowhere more so than in the appeal to rigorous honesty. 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. In two experiences of mine--one in a non-AA and one in an AA setting--thirty-five hours has proved barely sufficient for the "Fifth Steps" of some sixteen people assembled for the adventure. Marathons, unexpectedly, do not prove physically exhausting. One gets a second wind after eight or ten hours. (Food is provided at regular mealtimes.)………”

1*See Pages 6 and 9 --Ed.
Anonymous”
 

“Dear Editors:" (AA Grapevine June 1968) (Extracts)
"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”

“………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…….
……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." M. V. B. Chappaqua, New York
 

“Around AA - Items of AA Information and Experience” (AA Grapevine March 1968) (Extract)
Bootstrap Operations
“….These experiences of these people, some of them in the service professions like social work and the ministry, some of them part of bootstrap operations like Alcoholics Anonymous and Synanon, some of them just ordinary traffic cops, bus conductors, doctors, lawyers, or Indian chiefs, demonstrate that the new morality of self-indulgence (which is really the absence of any morality) is at the outset a sheer fraud; that the older program of virtue for its own sake is far more difficult to follow but much more rewarding in the end.”
John Mulholland and George N.
 

“I Have Walked down Those Same Streets” (AA Grapevine September 1971) (Extracts)
To a daughter in trouble comes this message of love--a sharing of experience to remind and comfort us all
"DEAR ALLISON:
This is probably the hardest and most important letter I have ever had to write. I am trying to communicate to you that I not only love you and care about you, but truly understand your problems--because I have had similar troubles in my own life……..
…..For me, Alcoholics Anonymous was the answer. For you? This is something you must decide for yourself. The Synanon program and the experiments conducted at Day-top both have been successful for many. Would either help you? Well, go and find out…….
…Mother”

“About Alcoholism - Alcoholism Information, Research and Treatment” (AA Grapevine May 1972) (Extracts)
"Alcoholism and other addictions as they affect women will be the theme of the Spring Conference of the Michigan Alcohol and Addiction Association, to be held May 7-8-9 at the Pantlind Hotel in Lansing, Mich….
…..Two panel discussions, both under the theme heading "The Addicted Woman," will consider different types of drug addiction. Alcohol will be the concern of the first, with an all-female panel comprising four AAs and one Al-Anon. Heroin and other "hard drugs" will be discussed by a Synanon panel.
For further information, write: Box 61, Lansing, Mich."

“The Enemy of Continuing Sobriety” (AA Grapevine March 1975) (Extracts)
"There are many esoteric practices that lead us into self-indulgence. AA is a program for reducing ego
SOME YEARS ago at a participation meeting, I heard a young man hold forth on "not going for this 'Get rid of your ego' stuff." He was deliberately trying to build up his ego, develop more self-awareness, express himself, cultivate his own me-ness. I disagreed with and was made uneasy by this line of thinking……
…..A currently fashionable phrase keeps popping up lately among the AA people I see: people-pleaser. Those who claim this designation are always "former" people-pleasers. Now they are pleasing themselves, thinking of what they want to do, and being "good" to themselves. One of the "former people-pleasers" blithely stated one evening at a meeting on the topic of tolerance that, since joining AA, she had learned to become intolerant; that is, she no longer had to tolerate anything she didn't like….
…..I refer the "people-pleasers" to page 61 of Alcoholics Anonymous: "He may be kind, considerate, patient, generous; even modest and self-sacrificing. . . .The show doesn't come off very well. He begins to think life doesn't treat him right. He decides to exert himself more. He becomes, on the next occasion, still more demanding or gracious, as the case may be. . . .What is his basic trouble? Is he not really a self-seeker even when trying to be kind? Is he not a victim of the delusion that he can wrest satisfaction and happiness out of this world if he only manages well?. . .Our actor is self-centered--egocentric." In fact, "doing for others" may be a form of domination--i.e., selfishness.The Big Book doesn't fool around at way stations of subtle forms of ego-feeding. It goes straight to the source of our troubles: self-centeredness……
…..In Alcoholics Anonymous, I think we rather consistently do just what the Al-Anons were talking about: stick to the Twelve Steps. But occasionally one does hear remarks like those I reported at the start of this article. For example, transactional analysis is big in this area now, and we frequently hear references to the "games" people play. Existentialist philosophy was in style some years back; then Esalen-type groups were in. And the Synanon games had their day…..
……..Nevertheless, old Alcoholics Anonymous has gone right along, year in and year out, disregarding current fads, providing nothing but the basic and bluntly realistic message that it started out with. Let's face it--most of us, after we have been detoxified or the hangover has worn off, are perfectly capable of taking in that message, even if we refuse, or are too weak, to act on it immediately. The AA program may seem simplistic to people who enjoy intellectualization or mechanistic "game" theories, and its diagnosis of selfish self-indulgence and "self-will run riot" as key factors in alcoholism may be distasteful. But if you want to get well and stay well, we have in AA an approach, a method, a therapy, that is different from and more effective than any other I have encountered in all my years of reading and studying in the field of psychology, starting long before Alcoholics Anonymous was born, and continuing ever since."
B.M. Saratoga, California

“About Alcoholism” (AA Grapevine June 1975)
"Two Hospital Programs
Many of these items are contrary to AA philosophy. Their publication here does not mean that the Grapevine endorses or approves them; they are offered solely for your information.
A combination of the approaches used by Synanon and Alcoholics Anonymous has led to development of a third type of treatment which can be especially effective with both narcotics and alcohol abusers.
Samuel W. Anglin of the Veterans Administration Hospital in Washington, D.C., noted that the combined treatment is of special value for recovering narcotics addicts who develop a dependency on alcohol, and for polydrug abusers. The approach has been used at the hospital for more than a year "with a relatively high degree of success," he reported.
Among specific benefits he cited were
The former addict's problems of overcoming loneliness and gaining social growth are eased by participation in the recovery network of Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous; Synanon's intense behavior-modification techniques speed up the alcoholic's realization he is an alcoholic and not just a "heavy drinker"; with the combined treatment, costs are dramatically reduced, since only one facility, one staff, one training program are required. Self-help aspect also leads to cost reduction; in the single setting, individuals receive preventive education on a variety of drugs they may not be familiar with and are also more likely to encounter individuals from other generations and other cultures."
The Journal (Addiction Research Fou)

“Are There Magic Answers?” (AA Grapevine June 1979) (Extracts) "He found what he needed in the AA program"
"WHEN I CAME into AA fourteen years ago, it was fashionable for some members to go to other groups outside AA for "extra" help……
….I finally went to Recovery, Inc., and Synanon and Daytop Village and group therapy and Overeaters Anonymous, and quickly stopped going to all of them. I belonged in AA. By the time I went elsewhere for magic answers, I had already begun to find them in the program of Alcoholics Anonymous, which is tailored perfectly for me. I was then sober long enough to realize that compulsively joining other groups was not the answer"….. E. S. Manhattan, New York


For information on the Synanon cult and its derivatives internet search “Synanon” “Straight Inc.” “Daytop Village” and “The Dark Legacy of a Re-hab Cult” I think There needs to be a greater understanding of the cultic influence that has shaped the drug and alcohol treatment industry since drug and alcohol rehabilitation programmes have been using modified Twelve Step programs combined with derivatives of the confrontational “tough love” models from the notorious Synanon cult. I also think there needs to be a greater understanding of how this continuing cultic influence in the treatment industry is feeding back into AA. ”

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Saturday, 23 November 2013

Conference Questions (2013) forum discussion (contd)



Question 2:

Would Conference consider what response can be given to Groups who refuse to accept the group conscience of Intergroup/Region?

[See also: The Traditions, Preamble and Concepts]

Regarding …..'s comment, I think there needs to be more of an understanding of the difference between “minority opinion”, “minority groups” and a “tyranny of very small minorities invested with absolute power” because there are three types of minority in AA. “Minority opinion” and a “tyranny of very small minorities invested with absolute power.” are both described in Concept V. One is to be heard, the other guarded against. “Minority groups” are described in Dr. Bob and the Good Old Timers chapter XIX, “Minority groups within A.A. gain acceptance.” These “minority groups” refer to the inclusion of individual alcoholics belonging to social, religious and ethnic minority groups in society at large, including minority groups such as the physically disabled.

“Minority opinion” is to be heard; individual alcoholics belonging to “minority groups” are to be protected, as stated in Concept XII, warranty Six: “that care will be observed to protect all minorities” However, groups that are a “tyranny of very small minorities invested with absolute power” are to be guarded against, as stated in Concept XII, Warranty Six “…that our conference will be ever prudently be on guard against tyrannies great and small, whether these be found in the majority or in the minority.”

Concept V also states that “…the greatest danger to democracy would always be the “tyranny” of apathetic, self-seeking, uniformed, or angry majorities.” that “The well-heard minority, therefore, is our chief protection against an uninformed, misinformed, hasty or angry majority.” 

Because an apathetic, self-seeking, uninformed, misinformed, hasty or angry majority in a society can create a power vacuum in which there is no authority in the majority, this vacuum will inevitably be filled with “..the even worse tyranny of very small minorities invested with absolute power.” The well-heard minority therefore also protects against the rise of “a tyranny of very small minorities invested with absolute power.”

I agree with …..... Allowing power driving narcissistic personalities to mislead AA groups of largely uninformed or misinformed newcomers in defiance of the wider AA group conscience is not helping these individuals with their illness but enabling it to flourish. It is also enabling a “tyranny of very small minorities invested with absolute power” to flourish. Relating this to Dr. Harry Tiebout’s description of the personality traits of the typical alcoholic, in “THERAPEUTIC MECHANISM OF ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS” (Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age Appendix E:b) If an alcoholic’s idea of a power greater than himself is simply a romantic concept imagined and rationalised within his own illness of narcissistic delusions of grandeur, then it is up to the wider AA group conscience and those serving in service structure to demonstrate to him the actual reality of a power greater than himself; otherwise Alcoholics Anonymous will have lost its therapeutic mechanism. It will also have lost the binding force of unity in AA; the "but one authority" in Tradition Two.”

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Sunday, 17 November 2013

Conference Questions (2013) forum discussion (contd)



Question 1:

a) Would the Fellowship discuss and share experience of disabled AA members suffering progressive diseases who require a full-time professional carer to accompany them in their AA Home Group meetings?
b) Would the Fellowship discuss the implications within Tradition 12 of the professional carer attending meetings, thus enabling the disabled group member to continue to attend the AA meeting of their choice?
c) Would the Fellowship discuss and make recommendations on how best the special needs of disabled AA members who need professional carers might be met in closed AA meetings?

Background

1. The Information Sheet on AA Special Needs Organisation in the United States:

''SPECIAL NEEDS / ACCESSIBILITIES COMMITTEES''
Some A.A. entities are attempting to meet such needs by forming Special Needs-Accessibilities Committees.
Since the goal is to make A.A. accessible, some committees refer to themselves as Accessibilities Committees. In some localities committees name themselves according to the specific need addressed, such as "Hearing impaired" committee".
When one or more members of an A.A. group have special needs (such as the need for American sign language interpreter or *wheelchair accessibility, or has an illness which prevents them getting to the meeting room or needs special physical help, i.e., getting to the toilet during the meeting, A.A. members from that Group will see their needs are met.
The Members of Special Needs Committees explore, develop and offer resources to make the AA message and participation in our AA PROGRAM AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE WHO REACHES OUT FOR IT.
A G.S.O. Staff member who serves on the Special Needs Assignment is available as a resource and communicates with the local Special Needs Committees. In the interests of good communication and working together, Special Needs Committees are encouraged to keep their area Committees and local central/intergroup informed of their activities.
It is also helpful to work closely with committees handling Public lnformation and co-operation with the Professional Community in terms of keeping the public and appropriate agencies informed about A.A. BEING ACCESSIBLE TO ALCOHOLICS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS.

2. This has been a local experience:
My Home Group has a long term female AA member with 24 years unbroken sobriety who suffers from a progressive disease.
She is unable to walk and has to use a wheelchair. She has valiantly attended her home group meeting regularly for some years since it was first started. She is an ex Journalist, in possession of a brilliant mind which is unaffected by her illness, but unfortunately, she is physically trapped in an extremely poorly functioning body.
When her health deteriorated she made a request to the members of her Home Group, which is a Closed Meeting, for permission for her Professional Carer to be present. There was minor dissent within the Group and the question could not be resolved as it was said that it only takes one member to raise an objection.
This incident has raised very serious, broader present and future issues for ALL AA Group members who may develop a serious progressive disease and who would eventually need a Carer present in the AA meetings.

[See also: The Traditions, Preamble and Concepts]

The background to this question states “This incident has raised very serious, broader present and future issues for ALL AA Group members who may develop a serious progressive disease.” I think the veto rule idea in the background to this question has also even broader very serious implications for the stability of democratic authority in AA generally if this idea were to become widespread.

I can only think the veto rule idea might have come from the circuit speaker “Chautauqua orator” lecture imports from the USA, outside published literature, the internet, or a misunderstanding of Concept V. Concept V mentions a power of veto stating that “..no Conference vote can be considered binding on the Trustees of the General Service Board unless it equals two-thirds of a Conference quorum. This gives the Trustees a power of veto in cases where the majority is not great..” The "power of veto" in this part of the concept is dealing with the relationship between Conference and the Trustees of the General Service Board; it is not dealing with the relationship between the majority in an AA group conscience and a dissenting minority, or a “Chautauqua orator” with a big opinion in the AA group conscience. The Concept itself deals with the traditional “Right of Appeal” assuring us that minority opinion has a right to be heard and a right to be carefully considered in group consciences at all levels of the service structure. It does not grant minorities or a “Chautauqua orator” with a big opinion in an AA group the power to veto a majority vote. Such a power of veto could turn the democratic right to express minority opinion mentioned in Concept V into the undemocratic power for a “tyranny of very small minorities invested with absolute power” to dictate to a majority (a “tyranny of very small minorities invested with absolute power” is also mentioned in Concept V). Therefore, if individual alcoholics in a group were to be invested with absolute power to veto, I think some of them would inevitably wind up vetoing themselves all the way up to the top of a pyramid to become dictators of very small minorities invested with absolute power. This would not be good for AA. Imagine the thought of lots of autonomous AA groups lead by dictators running around doing their own thing, not considering the rest of the AA group conscience. No doubt, Bill W’s mention of the French revolution and “De Tocqueville” (Alexis de Tocqueville) the French nobleman and political thinker quoted by him in Concept V made Bill W. aware that each new generation in AA will bring in its fresh crop of would be “Napoleons” and “Madame Bonapartes.” When joined in an AA partnership with others they can present a formidable force. Tradition Two is clear, “For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority….” This ultimate authority is in the democratic vote of the majority. The tradition does not say “For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority - a loving God as he may express himself in our group conscience - and a "Madame" or “Napoleon” who can veto him.”

One could of course substitute “Napoleon” or “Madame” for any of history’s dictators to suit your own preference or to suit the character you wish to depict. Or if you’re a bit of a naturalist observant of the social structure of the North American wolf pack held together purely by animal instincts on the rampage, the leaders at the top of the pack are called the “Alpha Male” and “Alpha Female” or “Alpha Dog” and “Alpha Bitch.” For “Chautauqua orator” See Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age page 130.

This post may have gone a bit “Off Topic” for some I know, but Tradition Three (Long Form) also states “.. Nor ought A.A. membership ever depend on money or conformity..” Therefore I think there ought to be lots of tolerance in AA not only for the physically disabled, but also for the mentally disabled with wandering minds such as myself. I like to troll around the houses to see what’s in the neighbourhood and occasionally spread a bit of muck (preferably bull) around the roses as it makes them flower better. Incidentally, if you’ve ever got a bit tired of reading the Big Book, Traditions, Concept V and Concept IX and want to brush up on knowing the difference between the “politico” and “statesman” in Concept IX and the difference between the “senators” and “elder statesmen” in Tradition Two, Alexis de Tocqueville can be looked up on the internet. Like Bill, I found he was a very interesting chap.”

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Sunday, 10 November 2013

Conference Questions (2013) forum discussion (contd)



Question 1:

a) Would the Fellowship discuss and share experience of disabled AA members suffering progressive diseases who require a full-time professional carer to accompany them in their AA Home Group meetings?
b) Would the Fellowship discuss the implications within Tradition 12 of the professional carer attending meetings, thus enabling the disabled group member to continue to attend the AA meeting of their choice?
c) Would the Fellowship discuss and make recommendations on how best the special needs of disabled AA members who need professional carers might be met in closed AA meetings?

Background

1. The Information Sheet on AA Special Needs Organisation in the United States:

''SPECIAL NEEDS / ACCESSIBILITIES COMMITTEES''
Some A.A. entities are attempting to meet such needs by forming Special Needs-Accessibilities Committees.
Since the goal is to make A.A. accessible, some committees refer to themselves as Accessibilities Committees. In some localities committees name themselves according to the specific need addressed, such as "Hearing impaired" committee".
When one or more members of an A.A. group have special needs (such as the need for American sign language interpreter or *wheelchair accessibility, or has an illness which prevents them getting to the meeting room or needs special physical help, i.e., getting to the toilet during the meeting, A.A. members from that Group will see their needs are met.
The Members of Special Needs Committees explore, develop and offer resources to make the AA message and participation in our AA PROGRAM AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE WHO REACHES OUT FOR IT.
A G.S.O. Staff member who serves on the Special Needs Assignment is available as a resource and communicates with the local Special Needs Committees. In the interests of good communication and working together, Special Needs Committees are encouraged to keep their area Committees and local central/intergroup informed of their activities.
It is also helpful to work closely with committees handling Public lnformation and co-operation with the Professional Community in terms of keeping the public and appropriate agencies informed about A.A. BEING ACCESSIBLE TO ALCOHOLICS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS.

2. This has been a local experience:
My Home Group has a long term female AA member with 24 years unbroken sobriety who suffers from a progressive disease.
She is unable to walk and has to use a wheelchair. She has valiantly attended her home group meeting regularly for some years since it was first started. She is an ex Journalist, in possession of a brilliant mind which is unaffected by her illness, but unfortunately, she is physically trapped in an extremely poorly functioning body.
When her health deteriorated she made a request to the members of her Home Group, which is a Closed Meeting, for permission for her Professional Carer to be present. There was minor dissent within the Group and the question could not be resolved as it was said that it only takes one member to raise an objection.
This incident has raised very serious, broader present and future issues for ALL AA Group members who may develop a serious progressive disease and who would eventually need a Carer present in the AA meetings.

[See also: The Traditions, Preamble and Concepts]

It seems some groups have forgotten AA Traditions and are now on rule making benders with dictators making their own rules up as they go along. Regarding ….....'s and …......’s experience of a minority being able to veto a group conscience decision to make a meeting open, there ought to be no such veto rules in AA groups. This question raises the sort of situation that Traditions and Concepts are supposed to prevent. Over the past two decades I have participated in more group consciences and business meetings than I care to remember. I have never heard of one alcoholic or a minority in an AA group having absolute power to veto the majority vote. I have also read AA literature relating to AA Traditions, Concepts and history more times than I care to remember. I have not yet read anything to suggest that one alcoholic or a minority in an AA group can have absolute power to veto a group conscience decision. The veto rule is the reverse of the democratic principles in Traditions Two and Nine. Minor proposals can be decided by a simple majority vote, major or controversial proposals are best not carried unless there is a two-thirds majority in favour. Either way, the guide to the group conscience ought to be the AA Traditions, group guidelines and Concepts. Adhering to these principles ought to be the overriding factor in any group decision, not based just on the intellectual or emotional froth that bubbles up in alcoholics' heads when they think about what might be the right thing to do. The decision taken by majority vote and no minority in the group has power to veto the majority. If there is discussion on whether the matter ought to be settled by a simple or a two-thirds majority, then this could be decided by simple majority vote.

Referring to "Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age" appendix E:b “THERAPEUTIC MECHANISM OF ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS” by Harry Tiebout M.D., [and see here] I don’t think AA can afford to have groups who exclude alcoholics by pandering to the self-centred desires of those who display the typical alcoholic personality characteristics described by Dr. Tiebout “ a narcissistic egocentric core, dominated by feelings of omnipotence, intent on maintaining at all costs its inner integrity...” If groups do pander to these narcissistic egocentric cores and in so doing allow them to exclude other alcoholics from AA group membership, then AA will have lost its therapeutic mechanism. I think in this case the therapeutic mechanism of Alcoholics Anonymous was lost, both for the physically disabled alcoholic with her need for a professional carer; and for the dissenting minority of mentally ill narcissistic egocentric cores in the AA group who objected to the presence of her carer in a meeting.

The way I see this incident is that in a healthy AA group the request for a professional carer to be present ought to have been resolved in relation to AA Traditions with little debate being necessary. The overriding factor of Tradition Three is clear: “Our membership ought to include all who suffer from alcoholism. Hence we may refuse none who wish to recover….” (Tradition Three (Long Form) Based on this principle the AA group ought to allow the physically disabled alcoholic’s professional carer to be present; it may not refuse. End of debate.

I think the group ought to get a grip on the status of the “minor dissent within the group.” In my view they represent the “senators” and “arch deacons” in Tradition Two or the “tyranny of very small minorities invested with absolute power” in Concept V. The presence of a professional carer in an AA meeting does not mean the closed status of the meeting need be changed to the status of a fully open meeting. I think the minor dissent within the group ought to be told about Traditions Two and Three; then if they don't agree, they can be left to become the “bleeding deacons” in Tradition Two if they try to cling on to their power. If this is done, then the “bleeding deacons” might leave the group, or according to Tradition Two they might sooner or later work themselves into such an resentful mental twist that they will get drunk, having had their narcissistic egocentric cores suitably deflated, chewed up and spat out by the majority. Or having accepted AA Tradition and the authority in the group conscience, they might grow through their painful experience of deflation to become more tolerant and compassionate beings to other AA members who may be less fortunate in physical or mental health than themselves. If this is not done then the mental illness in the narcissistic egocentric cores is likely to spread to make the whole of AA rotten. It happened to the Washingtonian Movement. It nearly happened to AA in the 1940s. This is why Traditions were written to guide AA group policy. So called “trusted servants and “elder statesmen” in the group ought to be taking their responsibility for turning the “senators” and “arch deacons” into “bleeding deacons;” otherwise they’ll continue to turn other alcoholics away from AA. In the experience of AA Traditions and Concepts, the narcissistic egocentric cores of the “senators” and “arch deacons” won’t bleed unless they’re made to. (Tradition Two, Concept IX)”

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Tuesday, 5 November 2013

Conference Questions (2013) forum discussion (contd)



Question 2:

Would the Fellowship discuss, share experience and make recommendations whether, throughout AA's service structure, members of special interest groups are sufficiently represented?

[See also: The Traditions, Preamble and Concepts]

Well, …....., you’re certainly entitled to your opinion, as am I. I disagree with yours. There aren’t any women’s groups in my area, but plenty of women in the AA meetings. That’s because the meetings in my area tend to go along with AA traditions and are inclusive to all alcoholics whatever their oddity or special purpose. I guess the women gather in groups to talk about their women alcoholic things outside the meetings over a game of ten pin bowling or something. Or maybe they take up the suggestion in the Big Book on page 74 and talk them over with a doctor or a psychologist. I go along with …... in the above article “A sense of humor seems to be the remedy here--plus the first active practice of a little humility.” “

Thanks ….... perhaps I did misunderstand you. Perhaps you misunderstood me. On the whole I don’t think alcoholics are the best of communicators, but I’m sure our intent is for the best. I’m glad we agree on something. I go along with “live and let live” up to a point, but not beyond the limits defined in Tradition Four; Concept XII, warranties five and six; and guideline 17. I think there are certain times when to say “live and let live” is to avoid social responsibility.

I think the “live and let live” slogan was intended to remind each individual AA member within a meeting to have the humility to tolerate other’s freedom of opinion and speech and to allow them to find their own way as to how they decide to interpret the AA program for themselves. It was not intended for AA members to turn a blind eye to deviance from AA Traditions which protect our common welfare. Contrary to “live and let live” in certain instances, Traditions One, Four, and Concept XII, warranty five call for the right to assert responsible action: “ Privately, however, we can inform Traditions-violators that they are out of order. When they persist, we can follow up by using such other resources of persuasion as we may have, and these are often considerable. Manifested in this fashion, a persistent firmness will often bring the desired result.” (Extract, Concept XII, Warranty Five). This social responsibility in Traditions is broadly summed up in these extracts from guideline 17:

“In terms of AA Tradition, it is the responsibility of all of us to ensure that the carrying of the message, whether to prospective or new or vulnerable or established members, is done honestly and decently. We also understand that our Twelve Traditions including that of Group autonomy does not place Groups or members above the law, and that when individuals act injuriously to others they are legally accountable. This will, of course, be generally understood in that our First Tradition reminds us that all members and Groups have a responsibility in respect to the common welfare and protection of the individual member.” (Extract, Guideline 17)

“Failure to challenge and stop inappropriate behaviour gives the offender permission to repeat the offensive behaviour and encourages others to follow suit.” (Extract, Guideline 17)

On the point of the slogan “live and let live” I think the meaning of this is summed up by the following:

“The paradox is that the member of A.A. approaches his suffering alcoholic brother not from the superiority and strength of his position of recovery but from the realization of his own weakness. The member talks to the newcomer not in a spirit of power but in a spirit of humility and weakness. He does not speak of how misguided the still suffering alcoholic is; he speaks of how misguided he once was. He does not sit in judgement of another but in judgment of himself as he had been”. (Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age p 279)

“Newcomers are approaching AA at the rate of tens of thousands yearly. They represent almost every belief and attitude imaginable. We have atheists and agnostics. We have people of nearly every race, culture and religion. In AA we are supposed to be bound together in the kinship of a common suffering. Consequently, the full individual liberty to practice any creed or principle or therapy whatever should be a first consideration for us all. Let us not, therefore, pressure anyone with our individual or even our collective views. Let us instead accord each other the respect and love that is due to every human being as he tries to make his way toward the light. Let us always try to be inclusive rather than exclusive; let us remember that each alcoholic among us is a member of AA, so long as he or she so declares.” (Extract “Responsibility is Our Theme” AA Grapevine July 1965, The Language of the Heart page 333)

“For example The Twelve Steps are not crammed down anybody’s throat. They are not sustained by any human authority.” (“Rules Dangerous but Unity Vital” AA Grapevine September 1945, The Language of the Heart page 8)

I think within the general theme of the Traditions and Concepts there is the responsibility to guide group policy toward the Traditions. I don’t think it is a matter of ostracizing groups, but informing them of Traditions. If they feel ostracized by an informing of Traditions, then they have made their choice. They can either abide by Traditions or feel ostracised. “Each group has but one primary purpose...” I think it really is as simple as that. If women want to book a hall and have a hen night then that’s fine, just don’t call it an AA meeting, or just list the meeting on the meetings list without the “women’s” bit. That goes for any other "special interest" meeting. I think this because one day a lonely, unemployed, homeless, scruffy, shaking, depressed, smelly and confused, 3’2” high, gay, male, Moslem turned Christian turned Hindu turned Atheist turned Agnostic turned Alcoholic dwarf, who’s having a lot of trouble walking along the pavement without tripping over his beard, and who’s paranoid he’s different from everybody else, is desperate, but has plucked up his courage to get to an AA meeting, might just give that women’s meeting a miss. This, because he looks at “women’s” bit on the meetings list, and fears he won’t fit in. Then gripped with that pit of lonely despair which he knows can’t wait ’til tomorrow, he goes somewhere else and gets drunk. And he never comes back. And nobody in AA knows that he almost came and went. I sometimes wonder how many alcoholics almost come to AA and go, before they even walk through the door. One cannot tell. So I think it’s better to always remember the still suffering alcoholics, because we have to keep AA meetings dead simple for them.”

Comment: In connection with the above guideline perhaps it's time AA groups, intergroups etc adopted and implemented a formal complaints procedure in order to deal with any abuses that fall short of criminal conduct!

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Tuesday, 29 October 2013

Conference Questions (2013) forum discussion (contd)



Question 2:

Would the Fellowship discuss, share experience and make recommendations whether, throughout AA's service structure, members of special interest groups are sufficiently represented?

[See also: The Traditions, Preamble and Concepts]

Extracts:

......- you have a penchant for quoting very liberally from literature, both relevant (Traditions, A.A. Comes Of Age, etc.), and sometimes less so. Just because an article has been published in The Grapevine does not make it gospel. Quite frankly, it is a long time since I have read such tosh. It was nonsense in 1946, and is outdated nonsense in 2013.

We have had three women's groups start up in our area during the last couple of years. In order to comply with our local requirements (for inclusion in our local meetings list) two of them have defined themselves as "non-restrictive". The third is held in a women's refuge into which men are not admitted. Considerable heartsearching took place at the relevant intergroup to decide whether or not this group should be included and the final decision to include it was based essentially on the fact that the group would continue to meet regardless of the approval or otherwise of intergroup, and that, on balance, it was better "in the fold" than out. One of the three has subsequently died through lack of women.”

Comment: Yet another rationalisation (see previous conference question extract) exemplifying the unprincipled indeed hypocritical stance of these 'special interest' groups exacerbated thereafter by an entirely supine response from the local intergroup. A dramatic display of handwringing followed by capitulation on the grounds that they “would continue to meet regardless of the approval or otherwise of intergroup” hardly constitutes 'leadership' in any degree but rather a complete abdication of responsibility (so much for Tradition Four). And these are the guardians of AA tradition? We think not! Such groups should rather be encouraged to function outside the ambit of AA, and discouraged from referring to themselves as AA groups (according to our traditions). There can no objection whatsoever to all manner of recovery groups setting themselves up according to any format they like so long as they don't appropriate the AA name to gain further credibility for their activities. This is simply a form of parasitism.

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Thursday, 24 October 2013

Conference Questions (2013) forum discussion (contd)



Question 2:

Would the Fellowship discuss, share experience and make recommendations whether, throughout AA's service structure, members of special interest groups are sufficiently represented?

[See also: The Traditions, Preamble and Concepts]

Extracts:

Mindful of …...'s comment in committee Six Question Two, that this forum is where those in service can get background to the conference questions, I thought it would be a good idea to include this AA Grapevine article from 1946 as background. Special interest groups have been around for a long time, tolerated rather than encouraged I think. The wisdom in this article as relevant today as it was in 1946. Some things don’t change. I think it would be unwise to have representation of special interest women’s groups in the service structure.

‘Women's Meetings’ AA Grapevine October 1946
NOW that women form an increasing membership in Alcoholics Anonymous, there seems to be a general feeling that they not only have a specialized problem, but, like the purple cow we'd rather see, they are one! Once every blessed so often, a woman comes in, works on the program, learns to tolerate and even to like all her fellow-men-and-women, and in general makes herself an admirable member. But for every dozen who do that, there is a basketful who become a combination nuisance, headache and problem.


Now there are plenty of men who make trouble. But somehow the trouble women cause is either so dramatized, or so disheartening, so shoddy and unnecessary that it seems far larger and more important than it actually is. At any rate, an unfortunate or harmful episode here and there is no longer an isolated experience. And while the writer of this is just one woman A.A. sticking her neck out (and very grateful, thank you, for anonymity in doing so), it is the thoughtful opinion of a number of old-timers, in groups all over the country, that it might be well to recognize the special difficulties that women present and meet them honestly. So this is a symposium, gathered from a number of groups. And letters of opinion and reaction are welcome.

Not Blanket Indictment
Here, then, is a list of perplexities and snags. Because the resulting friction discourages newcomers, and because such matters often cause slips of members well along in sobriety, no one who seriously wants to do the best job possible with and for sick people, should postpone facing the subject. But remember, as you read, that the faults and complaints apply only to some women--to many, perhaps--but not to all. They are not blanket accusations of the sex.

Female Frailties
1. The percentage of women who stay with A.A. is low. Too many of them drop out after the novelty wears off; a few months to a year and a half.
2. Many women form attachments too intense--bordering on the emotional. Best-friends, crushes, hero-worship cause strained relationships.
3. So many women want to run things. To boss, manage, supervise, regulate and change things. Twenty want to decorate; one will scrub or mend what is already around.
4. Too many women don't like women.
5. Women talk too much. Gossip is a cancer to all A.A. groups and must be constantly watched. Men gossip far too much, too. But few men use it for punishment, or revenge, or cutting someone down to size. Once the news value has been absorbed, men generally drop a topic. But women worry the same dead mouse until it's unrecognizable.
6. Women are a questionable help working with men and vice versa. In 12th Step work, the intimate confidences often lead to the pity that's akin to love, and is often mistaken for same. The protective, the maternal, the inspirational interest often lands one or both in a broadside slip--and sometimes in extra-marital experiments, which, however clothed in the glory of "honesty," are disillusioning to many others, and frequently present a troubling question to those who are actually trying to live the 12 Steps.
7. Sooner or later, a woman-on-the-make sallies into a group, on the prowl for phone numbers and dates. Oddly enough, perhaps, she does not wear a placard and is not always easily recognized. Results of her operations can cause havoc.
8. A lot of women are attention demanders. Spotlight sisters. They want to be spoonfed, coaxed, babied, encouraged, teased, praised and personally conducted into recovery.
9. Few women can think in the abstract. Everything must be taken personally. Universal truths, to many women, are meaningless generalities. These women are impatient of philosophy, meditation and discussion. This is the kind of woman who figures "Just let's have this bargain; we'll pay so much faith down and the rest in installments." Which is a deceiving deal, for such buyers are generally the ones who have to watch the collector come and take the piano back.
10. Women's feelings get hurt too often. They rapidly and frequently are misunderstood.
11. Far too many women A.A.s cannot get along with the non-alcoholic wives of A.A. members. They feel ashamed or defiant, and they show it. Often they unwittingly forbid overtures--and then feel snubbed! Lots of A.A. women feel they attend a meeting to be helped--and concentrate to the point of rudeness on non-A.A. contacts. If they behave superciliously toward the non-alcoholic wives of members, they should hardly complain of being treated coolly in return.

Jealousy Crops Up
In a great many cases it is those non-alcoholic wives whose attitude causes the general ill-will. Too often they feel superior--and show it. Some are convinced that alcoholic women are loose morally--or have been and probably will be again! These suspect all women A.A.s as potential rivals. Even when no threat of sex is present at all, a large number of these wives resent closed meetings and the intimate talks and confidences at which no non-alcoholic can be present. They feel left out, hurt, outraged and resentful. And were we in their shoes, might we not find it hard medicine to let our man take? Even were we good sports, we might feel self-conscious in front of these same women. How many women A.A.s stop to realize that?

Before any other consideration, let us remind ourselves again that not all women have the faults mentioned, nor has any one woman all the faults. And human nature being what it is, a number of men have these selfsame faults to a disastrous degree. But somehow, women can cause more trouble, and what is even worse, keep the memory of the unpleasantness alive longer and more acutely.

Not all groups have suffered from having women alcoholics either. But those that have, and the individuals who care (1) that women make a success of recovery, and (2) that they hurt as few people as possible doing it, have given long and careful thought to the difficulties.

Tested and Suggested Solutions 

Here are some of the gems of wisdom--and please write in any thoughts you have on the subject:

A. Women drift away.
This seems to come from four causes:
1. Disapproving, or resentful, impatient, or possessive relatives. No woman will remain long with any interest if she is forever having to defy, or make apologies or take sarcasm from those closest to her.
2. Reaction. When the honeymoon is over and it's a matter of settling down to steady loving work, when the swing of the pendulum goes from excitement, discovery and elation to the extreme of boredom, apathy, distaste, or disillusionment with another member, she is apt to go off the deep end.
3. Ulterior motive for entering A.A. She was not honestly seeking to get well for herself and her life, but for some purpose. Once that goal is achieved, her sobriety and her enthusiasm for A.A. evaporate.
4. She never grasped the full program. She was one of those, perhaps, who found a miracle return of health in the 1st and 12th Steps, plus group therapy. But those who brought her in never sufficiently impressed upon her that there are 11 Steps that mean work on ourselves and only one that means work with others!
Then too, women, while drinking, frequently had the thrill--wholly false, but very convincing at the time--of feeling they were cute, amusing, bright and witty, or full of energy and power. They find sobriety crushingly bleak and their ego bleaker. Since comparatively few have come in at a very young age, most women find the reality of facing up to middle-age or advancing years just too gagging--particularly since they have wasted their capabilities, drinking away time and thought--and are so poorly equipped for maturity.

Rooted in Subconscious
Put this down to rampant vanity if you will but it goes deeper into the subconscious than that, for men too know vanity and dread of age. Add the feminine slow poisons of the Prince Charming dreams, the Cinderella-rags-to-riches, the glamour-girl era, the stay-young-at-least-look-young campaigns that, however disavowed by the thinking woman, are as much a part of her subconscious as air is a part of water. (With exceptions, as to any rule, of course.) With A.A. she faces reality. The reconversion of the biggest war factory is a no more involved job than that!
A. Newcomers (men, too, but particularly women), should be made thoroughly conscious that they are very sick people--far sicker than they fully realize, and that their outlook and viewpoint, their tastes and their judgments are neither what they once may have been--or will be after a tested and sustained period of sobriety. A woman coming into A.A. is usually highly emotional; she has lived through a period of that peculiar kind of abyssmal loneliness that only drinkers can know, and her gratitude and dependency on those who are kind and helpful are apt to be all out of bounds and mistranslated both by herself and others. All her reactions are apt to be intense (even those who reached the lethargic slow-thinking stage can form fixations) and she should guard against any strong attachments, male or female, until she has been sober long enough to have achieved some stability.

With men and women thrown together in varying degrees of recovery from a disease that is charged with emotional disturbance, the pitfalls are many. Any alcoholic has come through a long lonely time of it (generally self-inflicted, but lonely just the same), and affectionate reactions, the old, old rebound, the new return of life and zest, the happy experience of understanding, tolerance and sympathy, have been the cause of too many slips to do Alcoholics Anonymous any bit of good, and have doomed many an individual to total failure in permanent recovery. Newcomers, therefore, should be impressed that we are all sick people in some stage of recuperation.
B. A sense of humor seems to be the remedy here--plus the first active practice of a little humility.
C. This may be due to a specific cause of treachery--or from century old rivalry. For too many generations to count, a woman's only hope of whatever luxury, care, and comfort her world offered, was through favor in a man's eyes. Since success could not always be counted on through our own wiles, there developed a neat technique in cutting our sisters from under--good!

Certainly a change of heart--or a change of viewpoint--is necessary in a sound, healthy, happy mind. Women are a good half of the population, and it behooves us, however slowly, to learn to like, to understand and to help each other; and when we have learned that, to pass on the idea as early as possible to our daughters and female associates.

It's odd and it's wonderful, that many women have learned to like women for the first time in A.A. We have, to begin with, that magical bond of common suffering that joins us in the battle for recovery. It's a suffering that pretty much strips us of the subterfuges and dodges we've practiced so long. We should nurture this basic premise and cultivate loyalty to each other, whatever each other's faults. Nothing, perhaps, will be more salutary to the whole parcel of A.A. problems than a feeling which all A.A. women should seek to establish, sustain and cement--that we stand together. Not against anybody or anything, but most certainly together. And show ourselves and the world that we can, do, and like, to work together.

Women's Meetings
Women's groups are working out successfully in many cities, though fundamentally segregation is somewhat contrary to A.A. principles. Alcoholics are banded together in the fellowship of a basic malady and as a part of our healing we must help each other and like our fellow human being regardless of who or what he or she may be. For women to set themselves up as a special case is questionable to say the least --particularly when one of our chief weaknesses as alcoholics has been to stress the I'm-different-and-nobody-understands-me solitude of thought that leads to desolation. On these arguments, many A.A.s are against women's groups. But there are no rules and regulations in A.A., and a number of women's groups are doing remarkably well. Some women prefer them.

There are others who have managed to straddle this point by forming women's units that have weekly gatherings, meeting in private homes. They are not run as groups per se, but an hour's discussion is held on a previously selected allied topic or a point in the program, after which the main portion of the evening is given to informal talk over refreshments. Thus each woman comes to know a number of others well enough to feel a kinship, to go to meetings with, to phone without a sense of strangeness, and to do 12th Step work with. There can develop a fine feeling week by week of confidence and understanding that is often of great aid in averting a slip.

D. So does everybody, and too often the curb is neither stressed nor practiced. A lot of newcomers earnestly resolve to refrain from gossip --only to be disillusioned by others who gleefully broadcast confidences and embroider details. A "repeater" is something like a Typhoid Mary. Any A.A. who tells intimate secrets and blabs case histories is as false to her trust as a priest or a doctor who would publish a patient's confessional outpourings. Discretion is a valuable lesson to learn; loyalty and kindness are even more so. Nothing should be told unless for the immediate and express purpose of aiding that sick person. We should privately vow never to tell anything without the knowledge of the person who gave the original confidence. If we set the aim that high, our tongues will be pretty well bridled.
E. Those who are sincere in 12th Step work are not apt to approach it with the remotest sense of flirtation, Lord knows. But sex consciousness is not to be denied by those even a fraction more than eunuchs, and if we pray "Lead us not into temptation," it should follow that we do not lead ourselves into it. St. Paul's admonition that we "avoid the appearance of evil" can save much misunderstanding and many false conclusions.

Certainly a woman new to A.A. should be advised to tread lightly --and never singly --with male members. She should be encouraged to work with a man, or get help from a man member only when another A.A. is present, male or female.
This practice of having another A.A. along is a quickly acquired resolution with many women anyway. (Except of course on visits to hospitals or other public places where help or witnesses if needed can be easily summoned).
F. For every lady "tramp" who comes into a group there are several times her number in wolves and would-be wolves. Unencouraged she'll drift rapidly out --or buckle down and do a job. Who are we to judge? We should refrain from judgment and give everyone a full exposure to our ideals. But being open-minded and tolerant does not mean to condone anything verging on loose morals.


The rest of the difficulties stated in this article are due to the particular struggle women have in understanding and acquiring the two foundations of A.A. --humility and honesty. We are born with organs that involve suffering and sacrifice. We find that this inheritance evokes in our fellow man the highest and the lowest of instincts. Is it any wonder that our emotional values, supercharged alternately with fear and desire, are apt to be unstable? Add to that the traditional conditioning of centuries of chattel status --of servitude, of the menial. . .

Recently in the world's history women have emerged as individuals with rights. Few as yet have been fully aware that with rights and privileges go responsibilities and obligations. But when women irk you, keep remembering how very, very recently were they permitted an education, allowed even to sing in a choir, be accepted in a college, or be permitted to own and dispose in their own names.
Until yesterday then, a woman's only way to whatever standing she achieved was chiefly through enticement, cajolery, defiance, subterfuge, the weapon of the deadly tongue, and pandering to man's basest instincts. Honesty comes hard? Humility comes hard? It's small wonder.

On the other hand there are innumerable women of our day (many are in A.A.) whose honesty and innate perfectionism became so ruthless and so intolerant that it led them into drinking. They perhaps more than anyone else have to pick themselves up out of the deepest disillusionment. And they, far more than men, are the ones apt to be most impatient and critical of their slower sisters whose minds and moral standards have had no training for the new so-called freedom.

When we were in favor, in the past, when we pleased, we were praised and flattered and treated tenderly. We instinctively expect such treatment now for whatever we do. Of course our feelings get hurt easily; we are oversensitive--we are cruelly aware of our secret inferiority, and many of us are acutely conscious of our inadequacy to handle freedom.

So let's be patient and understanding, we women, of ourselves and of each other. And let men remember, when baffled, that women are working out of an inheritance of abject slavery.

The real problems aren't so different in the main from those of men. Men perhaps have other basic defects, some harder, others easier to recognize, admit, and discipline. Except that we can be dangerous to each other, thank the Lord who made it so. Let's not kid ourselves. And let's not make a point of it. But let us recognize it --honestly and humbly.

It's true that circumstances alter cases. But not much.

…........
Manhattan, New York “

(our edits and our emphases)

Comment: The above article is no more than a rather protracted (and self contradictory) rationalisation in support of the 'special and different' brigade. Simply substitute gay, straight, black, white, young, old, newcomers, oldtimers etc for “women” - together with a few stereotypical modifications added to further distinguish the category - and you have a ready made template for yet another so-called “special interest” group! Of course the author is quite correct in stating: “.....there are no rules and regulations in A.A ….” . However there is equally no rule or regulation which states that the remainder of AA has to accept their inclusion in group listings or participation in the service structure or indeed their right to refer to themselves as AA groups. The “they're only guidelines” defence cuts both ways! If such a group were to object to exclusion and claim that the traditions prohibits such action the argument may equally validly be made - well the traditions are 'only' guidelines! We don't HAVE to abide by them!

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS We have to say that our very own “Ferret Fanciers in AA”(non-restrictive) recovery group is doing particularly well. But then we, of course, are the exception!