Breaking news! Share magazine actually prints something worth reading!

Yes. It's true! We cannot tell a lie. But you could have knocked us over with a feather! Now we must confess we'd hardly describe ourselves as habitual readers of this production. Indeed the only time we have recourse to this particular journal is if we're suffering from an unusually bad case of insomnia. Experience has taught us that merely to peruse this journal for a matter of moments induces a kind of coma, an effect that could not be equalled by even the most powerful of chemical soporifics. Indeed so bland generally are its contents that even the most dedicated and enthusiastic of its readers could not possibly remain awake beyond the five minute mark! A major contributor to this effect is the many articles emanating from Plymouth. Indeed large parts of the magazine are frequently devoted to outpourings from this cult group, (Road to Recovery) whose offerings consist mainly of the usual homilies to their GOD the SPONSOR”; he or she who MUST BE OBEYED. So repetitious is this mantra that a kind of drowsiness descends upon those so exposed, an effect we can only attribute to the sheer mind-numbing tedium induced by its constant recitation. Occasionally this narcoleptic tendency can partly be offset by recourse to the regular ravings of Dennis from Ealing (yet another sponsee of David “The Icon” C) who seems to have been well and truly “rocketed” - although no one is entirely sure where! So you can imagine our … well shock and awe … upon reading this next contribution:

“IN RESPONSE TO HARRY A

I would like to reply to the article from Harry A, 'Be clever enough to be stupid' (September 2012 Share). I found it very thought-provoking. Firstly I was wondering how he managed 25 years in AA before 'Big Book thumper' 'in Dallas, Texas, [Primary Purpose cult] his words, not mine, entered his life. A man armed with the facts? Wasn't anyone armed with the facts before then?

I found it very insulting too (do I say it? Yes, I will), to mainstream AA. All these so-called special and different AA types that only have 'Rolls-Royce' sponsors, in my humble opinion, are run on ego and are bullies hiding under the cloak of AA.

These men 'armed with facts' intimidate vulnerable, sick people and continue to tell AA members to come off their medication. This is not the AA I was brought up with and love. My sponsor walks beside me, suggests and doesn't bully and has taken me through the Steps from the Big Book.

These men 'armed with facts' should remember Tradition One: 'Our common welfare should come first; personal recovery depends on AA unity.' Bill W said AA will fall apart from within. I pray that this will not happen, but if certain behaviour from certain groups continues, Bill W's word will become a reality. I don't want this to happen because if AA dies I will surely die too. What is the solution?

…........ (14 years sober)”

Well after picking ourselves off the floor we continued to stare at the letter in shocked disbelief. How on earth .. we asked ourselves.. had a piece of genuine honesty found its way into the pages of Share? This must be a misprint! We could only conclude the editor must be on holiday and that one of his/her mischievous minions had slipped this by under the Share radar. The editing process usually ensures that only the most 'politically correct' pieces find their way into these hallowed pages (?). Oh surely there will be hell to pay when the “cat” returns to find this particular mouse at play! Hardly daring to tear our eyes away from this missive with trembling hands we carefully applied the scissors and subtracted the section from the remainder of the page. One of the office juniors was despatched post haste to acquire the most expensive picture frame he could find and in no time at all it was suspended in all its glory, adorned in gold upon the office wall. Silently we gazed with adoration at its syllabic magnificence. Indeed so striking was its effect it might only be compared to the Second Coming! Even now as these words are being typed we glance upwards from time to time to take inspiration and comfort from one who has dared to speak the truth! Long may they live and prosper!

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous – and still just about hanging on!)

PS Our usual thanks to the member who pointed us in the direction of this masterpiece!

Behind the façade........

“Hello again,

Yes I know, another email! I'm sorry but I haven't been able to stop reading your website today. I've been in AA for over 6 years now and have experienced many of the groups discussed in your blog. From the Westway meetings, to Plymouth, to Vision for you (my sponsor originates from them) to the Pacific Group.... I've been reading as much as I can. …...

Last year I was teetering on my breakdown and my home group was becoming more and more of a chore to attend. All the old crap about keeping your emotions and problems out of meetings still haunted me. I felt like a failure for feeling this way. I had embarked on the first proper relationship in my life and the consequences of not knowing how to relate in one became apparent very quickly. I had no-one to turn to. I didn't want to share in meetings about it, I didn't want to talk to anyone about it, I trusted no-one. I kept this charade going. Pretending I was dealing with it... the thing is, I’ve been doing that ever since I came into AA. It started in the Road to Recovery meetings.

Those meetings have hindered so much of my development. Thank god I found my partner and a very responsible and trustworthy therapist. Both him and her have given me a real life not a pretend fantasy life. It's that old cliché of - if you think it's so, then it will be it. What a load of crap. Magical thinking eh. Not being able to cope with pain was the bedrock of my recovery and the backbone of the R2R Groups... What I mean by that is the R2R meetings were obsessed with good upbeat stories, lots of smiles, lots of happiness, great chairs, sparkly eyes, laughter, jokes...what they despised was reality, problems, thoughts of suicide, drinking again, relapsing, money worries, REAL LIFE ISSUES!! I got used to this. I liked it so much. My life had been full of devastation and depression. So when I entered these meetings it was only natural that I would fall under their alluring spell. In the end the spell began to wear off. I didn't fully wake up though... no, that happened last year.

My partner used to be an investigative journalist and when we first got together he challenged my thinking more than anyone had ever done. I was living in a protective bubble fooling myself that I was living or even happy. I was focusing on helping so many people and I put myself always to the back of the queue. I was out 5 nights a week around London meeting this person and that person. Then at the weekend I was so exhausted that I would sleep from Friday to Sunday night before I had to start it all over again. Working 40 hours a week also. It was ridiculous... something had to give and it was me. I was signed off work last year and started the hard and painful task of facing up to real life. I'd been putting it off for years.

I probably wasn't ready to read your blog then, but now I’ve got some sort of life now which has meant I’ve been re-evaluating my relationship with AA. What it means, where I go next, what's the road ahead? It's tough actually. I still have those old tapes running around my head. Even in my meeting I felt emotionally blackmailed into being the 'perfect' AA'er! Members would regularly say that they thought it was disgusting when they found out people didn't do 12 stepping calls. Or how effing rude it was if people didn't shake people's hands or make an effort to talk. I found this judgement particularly hard to swallow. I wanted to shout at this person (many decades sober too!) to say, "what if that man/women had lost their family today?? And all they needed was somewhere to feel safe so they didn't drink?" The bull that I heard in a lot of meetings really got to me.

It felt more like a pub than a meeting. People joking with each other whilst others shared. Silly giggling and snide remarks. I would watch the expressions of newcomers and visitors. Some looked dumbfounded. They didn't know whether to laugh or walk out. The people with mental illnesses were also looked down upon. Tutting or general rudeness if they disrupted the meeting somehow. Allowing people to be verbally violent and aggressive in meetings and finding it funny was typical. But love and compassion for someone who was obviously very sick was lacking. I couldn't stomach it any more. Funny enough not one person from that meeting ever checked to see how I was doing. I was one of the so called 'star' group members. Not that I wanted that accolade. So when I went off even sicker at …...... I heard nought, nothing, nada! Fellowship my arse... the obsessive reminders of the need to be part of a 'fellowship' is only ever on the group's or individual's terms.

I've had a mish-mash of experiences since I came into AA. Not all of them bad and not all of them good. The jury is still out on my future in AA. I still check in with some of the most vulnerable AA'ers and some of my old sponsees. I just like to say I’m thinking of them now and again so they know someone in the world is. Personally my health and …... are my priorities right now. I've been incredibly absorbed in doing life how others told me to do it. I'm interested finally in finding my path and my way of life. I don't care any more if it doesn't 'satisfy' the elders. I haven't turned my back on AA but I certainly won't be pushed into something I haven't considered.

What is the future of AA? The cults have infiltrated so much the last 20 years with little apprehension. It's disturbing to think that the problem has been left to fester like Japanese knot weed. And if you have any experience with this weed you'll know that it slowly takes over things and kills it without so much as a hello or goodbye. And it's next to near impossible to destroy. I never knew what the word Cult really meant, I always assumed it was of an extreme murderous nature. But then when I’ve watched how innocuous and subtle certain personalities can be and what devastation they leave I’m under no illusion that the Westway, Ealing, Greenwich, Plymouth, Bristol and the notorious Pacific Groups are all poison.

Will York or New York Head Quarters do anything? Can they do anything? It's scary to think that our most vulnerable individuals in society are out there being abused and used as we speak and no-one is doing enough to help them.

Keep up the great work, all the best …..”

(our edits)

Our response:

"Hi....

Again thanks for the emails. …........ And thank you for the Share extracts. We were aware that Happy Dennis is a frequent if somewhat saccharine contributor to them (as well as the Plymouth gang etc) [so much so that perhaps Share magazine should be renamed the Plymouth Road to Recovery Echo!]. Lastly we are always happy to receive information about people's experiences of the cult groups. It serves, in some instances, a cathartic function when you know who you are communicating with has been through the same sort of stuff. A lot of AA members still don't grasp the implications of what these people are up to – but we're getting there!

Your experiences are by no means unusual for those who have had prolonged exposure to the cult meetings. The subtle - and sometimes not so subtle - manipulation does become very wearying after a while. And they are fundamentally dishonest 'showcases' for recovery without any corresponding depth or breadth of message. It is vitally important that people attending AA meetings feel they can be honest about what is going on in their lives – good, bad or indifferent. AA should be a liberating experience for everyone and yet in the cult meetings this is the last consideration. A script has been written for you and you'd better not ad lib it – or else! As for the future ….... that's really in our hands. Either we take responsibility for our conduct – individually and collectively – or AA will simply fall apart. For our part we're pretty optimistic although we think it's going to be a bit of haul getting there. We look forward to hearing from you in the future........”

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

(our usual thanks to our correspondent)

Big Book Sponsorship – so-called?

And so we return to Joe of “Joe and Charlie” fame. This particular duet were particularly noted for their workshops on the Big Book (and trend-setters for the current craze of “circuit speakers” in Great Britain) turning in a number of guest appearances at a range of venues over the years including the Bristol Reunion (Remember! Always place “personalities before principles”!)

Our renewed interest in the pair was sparked by some extracts from a book produced by the former on the subject of “Big Book Sponsorship”, and which we perused eagerly for any insight they might afford us. What was more revealing, however, was not so much the content of this particular function but rather the author's attitude to the nature of the relationship between “sponsor” and “sponsee”.

[Note: We should point out here that the basic text (“Alcoholics Anonymous”) itself does not use the terms “sponsor”, “sponsee” or “sponsorship” even once - nor for that matter does the word “sponsee” appear in any dictionary! However it does give some pointers on how an AA member might communicate the programme of recovery with someone relatively new to the fellowship (most notably in the Chapter “Working With Others”)].

Joe begins his discussion reasonably enough. He argues that the sponsor should “find out about the person through conversation” and that while…. “It's true we all have some important things in common – our inability to drink normally, for instance – [….] everybody is different in other ways. I think we should work with each person in the way that best suits him or her.” Unfortunately this principle is as quickly dismissed as it is introduced. Now we discover that it is also Joe's view that “.....some guidelines (?) do have to be established because we are working with an undisciplined person”, and he goes on to exemplify this practice (including the allocation of assignments with a timetable attached). His basic premise would seem to be that one must assume (and regardless of the specific characteristics of the person with whom he is dealing) the sponsee is “undisciplined” and therefore needs to be treated accordingly ie. “disciplined”. “Discipline” does indeed seem to feature prominently in Joe's interpretation of the AA programme. Later on in the work he cites the book “Alcoholics Anonymous” to support this contention:

“We alcoholics are undisciplined, so we let God discipline us in the simple way we have just outlined.” (AA, p. 88)

On examining this quote it is evident both directly and in context that there is no suggestion whatsoever that this disciplining process should be administered by anyone other than God (Higher Power) or the individual themselves ie. that they should practise SELF-discipline. There is no indication that this regime ought – or must – be applied by another human power eg. a sponsor or indeed anyone else.

Nevertheless, and according to Joe:

“Assignments should be given, and the sponsor should make it clear to the person that assignments have to be done by a specific time. In my experience, this is the best way to work with an alcoholic”.

Now it is unclear here at what point these “guidelines” were translated into “... have to be done...”. A guideline surely is a suggestion and no more, and therefore one is under no obligation to abide by it? (Note: this is a defence frequently raised by the cult when they are themselves seeking to evade the traditions, but only on those occasions where it suits their own egocentric ambitions and not because a more judicious interpretation would lend itself better to the particular and prevailing circumstances). Moreover it is declared not only is this the way to proceed with sponsees but, in “[Joe's] experience, this is the best way to work with an alcoholic”. [Note the use of the indefinite article before the word “alcoholic”. This principle would seemingly apply not to some alcoholics, nor even a majority of alcoholics, but to alcoholics in general].

So which is it? If it is the case that everybody is different then how does it make sense to assume that everyone must be “disciplined” (if at all) in the same way? (ie. “this is the best way to work with an alcoholic”) Or - if everybody is in fact similarly constituted then why bother getting to know them as individuals? Why not just 'process' them 'assembly line' style and have done with it! (this conducted with or without discipline – but probably the former, for after all assembly lines require a set and imposed structure!). On the contrary we would assert that most alcoholics do in fact sustain (or retain) a remarkable level of self-discipline. This may frequently be motivated by rather negative considerations but nevertheless they do manage (often) to indulge in an extremely destructive drinking habit whilst pursuing careers, raising families etc. It may well be in the latter stages of the progression of the disease this tends to disintegrate but that is not to suggest that they are intrinsically incapable of exercising some degree of self control once the drink has finally been put down. We would argue that the relative stability and consistency offered by AA meetings is quite sufficient in itself to restore some level of equilibrium within their lives, and that they can by these means quite easily adjust to a less chaotic and more ordered life style. None of this suggests that they need to be “disciplined” by anybody else. Finally if someone does demonstrate such a level of incapacity we would propose that the better tactic to employ would be to afford them encouragement (and NOT direction or manipulation!), and thereafter progressively greater levels of responsibility (but at their own discretion) within AA eg. via group service positions, which would allow them to acquire sufficient self-confidence and self-respect to bring their own lives back into some order. What they quite categorically do not need is someone telling them “what to do”!

However (and to continue the theme) we present a few more illustrations of the kind of 'guidance' that Joe proposes:

"As sponsors, we know there are certain things we require of a sponsee: he has to be willing to go to any lengths to get sober, and if he expects you to work with him, he has to carry out his assignments and do the things you ask him to do"

"It is also important to work the Steps in sequence and not to draw the work out over too long a time. I have heard of people taking a week or even a month on each Step. That is not an effective approach. This process works better when we work one Step and then immediately work the next. Keep your sponsee moving!"

He gives here an example of Dr Bob taking someone through the first three steps in seconds flat (concluding with a "Get down on our knees" to pray!). He does not indicate whether this particular prospect remained sober thereafter! (This is usually an important factor when considering the efficacy of a method – something which the cult so far have failed miserably to demonstrate with regard to their own 'techniques')

And then:

“Many people don't understand about working with alcoholics [except of course for Joe]. They may say, "Well, alcoholics are so new and unaccustomed to the way we do things that I don't think you can get them to do it". But an alcoholic can do just about anything you make her do. If you insist that she do certain things, she'll get them done. She has to go from undisciplined to very disciplined, and the sponsor is the one who helps her build the bridge between the two".

He then goes on to expand on a treatment centre approach with which he is involved, and the methods applied therein. Discipline and more discipline are the watchwords here. Extraordinarily a minutia of sanity fleetingly returns at this point with at least a passing recognition that this approach may not suit all. However this notion is again brushed aside in favour of..... more "discipline"!

Additionally he believes that the same sponsor should take the sponsee through Step 5. He asserts that this will determine whether in fact they have done the first three steps adequately. Playing God perhaps!?

Moreover it would seem even the choice of sponsor is not left to the candidate. Guess who? - It's the sponsor's choice!

And so to the next 'axiom':

"An undisciplined person may fight discipline but it has to be enforced to help the person. If he had had that discipline, he wouldn't be in the shape he's in." (Ah! So that's the problem is it? Lack of discipline or as it's otherwise known - willpower). We don't have enough willpower ourselves so we have to rely on ….. whose willpower? Our sponsor's of course! Now what was that bit in the Big Book about human power? Surely Joe must know about it? He is after all something of an expert – isn't he? Ah yes! We remember now. It's the second pertinent point in Chapter Five just before the outline of Step Three: “b) That probably no human power could have relieved our alcoholism”. Maybe that's not in Joe's version of the book? Never mind.....

However Joe relents somewhat at this point recognising that sometimes these undisciplined people might not do "everything we ask them to do". But never mind -onward and upward – and even if you don't like it!

And so he continues (and largely in this vein) through the remainder of the programme (although he does make the point that sponsoring too many people is not a good idea - ie. this demonstrates "ego on the sponsor's part" – now who would have thought it!)

In the last part of the extract there is the usual descent into reminiscences about the good old days etc. Apparently then everybody (or at least in his particular little corner of the fellowship) worked the steps in six weeks. Moreover "Everybody was required to do them." But of course now AA has been infiltrated by backsliders it's all gone to pot! In fact some of them are "not really alcoholics...... [they're] "hard drinkers". ..... They aren't really alcoholic"

(all our emphases)

To conclude - an extract from an article submitted to Share magazine (July 2007 and with the author's permission):

"Are all changes for the better?"

"... in the late 1980s 'authorities' on the Big Book began arriving from America like missionaries. Their 'disciples' were indoctrinated at Big Book weekends and study groups. Some, ablaze with zeal, went around meetings telling oldtimers who were already 'happily and usefully whole' how it should be done! ... I believe these zealots are like religious fundamentalists who insist that the Bible or Koran is the literal, inviolable, revealed word of God. But the spirit blows where it will - not necessarily where a Big Book 'expert' says it should. Some members tell me their recovery has been enhanced by attending a Big Book study; but these extramural courses have also been a source of conflict, tension and division, setting member against member. At meetings I hear new members say, 'I haven't done the Book study yet.' They seem to think it is expected of them. Are these classes in Big Book dogma an example of 'the good as the enemy of the best' in Bill W’s phrase? Certainly, any group insisting that a member study the Book could not call itself an AA group, since 'the only requirement for AA membership is a desire to stop drinking'. There is no requirement on anyone to even read the Book, let alone to study it. Bill W said, 'In AA great suffering and great love are our only disciplinarians - we need no others.' I have no need of a self-endorsed teacher to 'take me through the Book'. We each have to work out our own salvation. The Big Book speaks for itself; anything else is commentary.

 I then quoted from the Service News reprint of the Box 459 article emphasising, "...it is preferable that the individual member or prospect interpret the literature according to his/her own point of view..."; which echoes Bill W's observation, "... every AA has the privilege of interpreting the program as he likes..." (Letter dated 1949, quoted in "As Bill Sees It"); and, "There are few absolutes inherent in the 12 Steps. Most Steps are open to interpretation, based on the experience and outlook of the individual. Consequently, the individual is free to start the Steps at whatever point he can or will..." (Letter, 1966, "ABSI").”

So there you have it!

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Uncontroversial controversy!

"When I've raised the concerns I've discussed in this article (Big Bookery, indoctrination, druggie talk in meetings , chanting and hand-holding etc) at group conscience and intergroup meetings I've been accused of violating Tradition Ten by stirring up controversy. But Tradition Ten is about public controversy - i.e. outside issues. There has always been controversy in AA, for example read Bill W's essay on Tradition Three in 12 Steps and 12 Traditions. Another time, commenting on the turbulent 1958 US Conference, Bill observed, "If individuals were deeply disturbed - I say, 'This is fine'. What parliament, what republic, what democracy has not been disturbed? Friction of opposing viewpoints is the very modus operandi on which they proceed. Then what should we be afraid of?" (from As Bill Sees It). A GSB trustee speaking at the 1971 US Conference said, "Honest differences of opinion should co-exist in AA. I suppose it is a miracle there isn't more controversy inside AA." Or as the chairman of this year's British Conference (2007) reminded delegates, "We can disagree without being disagreeable." In 1971 the editor of Grapevine said, "A magazine would be terribly bland if there was never any controversy. In AA there are as many opinions as there are alcoholics. We welcome diverse points of view."

In AA we seek unity - not the unanimity of the graveyard. In any case it is the dissonant practices I have described which generate controversy.

Bill W wrote in Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age, "Within AA I suppose we shall always quarrel a good bit. Mostly, I think, about how to do the greatest good for the greatest number of drunks ... Surmounting such problems, in AA's rather rugged school of life, is a healthy exercise." ...

Grapevine's Statement of Purpose reads in part, "The awareness that every AA member has an individual way of working the program permeates the pages of Grapevine, and throughout its history the magazine has been a forum for the varied and often divergent opinions of AA's around the world ...."

(Share, July 2007)

PS: The US 1971 references are from Not God: a history of AA, by Ernie Kurtz (Hazelden)."

(our thanks to this member for pointing us in the direction of the article)

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

'Shenanigans' in the South West

Quote:　
　
"In my mind there is a bit of shenanigans going on in AA as to how to get certain conventions accepted into the Share magazine listed events and this is one of them. Let me try to explain without getting too tied up.

If a convention wants to be official AA it needs to be sponsored by an Intergroup or Region ( see the AA guideline 15 on Conventions). Some time ago the annual Bristol reunion folk ( now tied in very closely with RTR and assorted types) realised that they could not get the convention into Share as they were not Intergroup sponsored. The way to get around this has become that the people involved within Bristol ( Avon north and south Intergroups) get some of their members serving on Intergroup and lean on the Intergroup to accept a second Convention to be sponsored by Intergroup within the year's business of the area. Thus nowadays in the Bristol Area there are the old established Avon north and south mini conventions - plus the Bristol Reunion advertised in Share. As you are probably aware, the Bristol reunion is put on by the newcomers group and has been going for more than 20 years, always inviting Americans and charging a healthy fee – money always to the same address at Sally's flat in Bristol. The last time I looked the RTR and 1 other group were down on paper as sponsoring events in the area along with the Newcomers group. So you see the Intergroups have had their integrity compromised by these 3 groups.

Now K.... from Ringwood [AA] group used to live in Winchester, he still attends a lunchtime meeting on Tuesdays I think as he works in the town. He and others started this Winchester convention, which has American speaker worship as its guiding principle and £20 a go to get in. He has been cute enough to follow the Bristol lead. This year, for instance, the Northdown Intergroup sponsored (sic) the Winchester convention, a 3 day event, whilst also sponsoring the traditional mini in Basingstoke 3 months later. I noticed that the Winchester convention was highly publicised and tickets were being flogged at south coast meetings - alas the real Northdown mini convention in Basingstoke was quietly enjoyed by the sober AAs in the area without a ticket being offered anywhere. Both conventions were advertised in Share.

Just as in Bristol the Northdown Intergroup is in my opinion compromised by these crafty members messing about with the service structure for their own gain.

By the way, the Northdown mini was on 5th sept. The following day the Solent Intergroup Convention in Southampton was starring the great Clancy I, tickets were bountiful once again at south coast meetings and Wayne and his cohorts from Plymouth were in attendance. K.... has put several of his sponsees into Solent intergroup. thus compromising that one also. Guess what? RTR started the new meeting in Southampton around that time.

The linkage is fascinating."

(our thanks to the AA member who sent in this contribution)