Extracts
from the aacultwatch forum (old)
"I
believe there are 'winds' and 'winds' and some of them are far from
beneficial.
Those
winds again: In the March issue of the Grapevine, under the general
head "Winds of Change," there were three articles and an
editorial concerning new kinds of meetings devoted to telling the
total truth about oneself in a group. Not very many editorial
features in the Grapevine produce as much comment in the form of
letters and full-length manuscripts as this one has. Some but not all
of the comment is contra--contra the idea of such meetings, and
contra the editorial, which found in them a kind of harking-back to
AA's beginnings in the Oxford Group. Herewith we print what had come
in up to the printer's deadline for this issue, in the form of a
super "Letters to the Editors" section. It warms our
editorial heart to see such interest in Grapevine pages.--The Editors
It is
traditional in AA to qualify when one speaks at an open meeting, and
since the Grapevine is an open forum, I will start by stating that I
have had fourteen years of uninterrupted sobriety. I have also served
in nearly every AA service capacity, from coffee-maker up to and
including Trustee of the AA General Service Board. In these various
AA activities, I have, of necessity, both spoken and listened all
over the AA world, and in the process have gathered a good deal of
cross-section AA experience.
It is
against this background and as an AA member deeply concerned with the
AA Grapevine as an AA service tool, that I wish to address myself in
candid disagreement with its editorial policy as expressed in the
first eleven pages of the March Grapevine, entitled "Winds of
Change."
I am
all for "Winds of Change." Not to be would put me in the
invidious position of defending the status quo, the Establishment,
the "good old days and ways." But--and it is a very large
but--I believe there are "winds" and "winds" and
some of them are far from beneficial. Change in the name of progress
can sometimes be seriously damaging: e.g., the "winds" that
have polluted the air of our cities.
I find
myself sadly but inevitably making this analogy in my reaction to the
section which the editors have featured under their "Winds of
Change" banner in the March issue of the Grapevine.
In the
editor's introduction to this section, they state, ". . .There
has grown up a tendency, even allowing for the Fifth Step [my
italics], for many AAs to attempt a spiritual life based on new
principles without anything like adequate elimination of 'old ideas'
and the behavior that resulted from them." I do not know, of
course, how the editors arrived at the statistical evidence
permitting this categorical generality, since they themselves did not
document it. However, from my own experience based on fourteen years
of attendance at Twelve Step meetings at my own and many other AA
groups, I would have to reject this assumption as false or, at the
least, very dubious.
I do
not feel that further comment is needed on the editorial introduction
to the three "Winds of Change" articles, since it is
clearly just what it states: an introduction with a strongly implied,
affirmative sponsorship of the viewpoint of the writers involved.
So, in
order of appearance, let us first concern ourselves with the
"Forty-hour Marathon Meetings." The content of this
material is concerned with the advantage of rigorous "honesty"
that must accrue if the participant in this therapy is to benefit. So
let us be honest. On page 5, paragraph 2, the writer states
"Evidently the idea for these (marathons) comes most directly
and recently from the programs for narcotics addicts called Synanon
and Daytop." Would it not be more in keeping with "honesty"
if the author had given details on his attendance at such meetings in
an "AA setting," where any personal interest he may have in
furthering use of marathons might have appeared? He does indeed
describe, in the last paragraph of his article, the type of alcoholic
who appears to find this therapy most beneficial, namely, "the
long-term slipper--the AA failure." If the author is such a
"slipper" and he finds that forty hours of alcoholic
talkathons "bid fair to open his heart," then more power to
him. But let us have a few clarifying statements for the AA "seeker"
or newcomer, who may feel that he has strayed into the wrong pew if
he reads this GV issue.
The
fact is that programs for narcotic addicts are primarily concerned
with young people from urban ghetto areas--our most tragic and
underprivileged minority groups. They just do not represent the much
larger alcoholic population, and indeed it is for this reason that
both Synanon and Daytop have modified the AA program, just as we, in
our turn, had to depart from the Oxford Group and evolve our own
recovery principles, which are greatly different.
This
reference brings me to the "quintessence" of the point of
view expressed by the writers on the marathon and on the Fifth Step
meetings. The writer of the first states that the "climate"
of the addict's marathon is "much closer to the tone and
intention of the fifth chapter of AA's Big Book than are most AA
meetings today." He further suggests that "thirty-five
hours has proved barely sufficient for the 'Fifth Steps' of some
sixteen people assembled for the adventure." The Seeker
Anonymous of the "Fifth Step Meeting" article suggests
(page 8, paragraph 4) that there should be a Fifth Step group that
should be "open and mixed"--parents, spouses, children,
etc. Well, I would like to suggest to both of these writers that they
first read the Fifth Step itself: "Admitted to God, to ourselves
and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs." Are
these two members proposing a new Fifth Step? How would they like to
define it?--since they are clearly purposing to change it. In the
book Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, the exact reason for the
wording of this Step in this precise way has been unmistakably
spelled out by Bill W. Any investigation of AA history or of Bill's
written and spoken words would have elicited the historical fact that
it was because of the "Absolutes" of the Oxford Group that
Bill realized very early in AA that "open confession" and
Absolute Truth, Honesty, etc. could not, would not work for the
alcoholic. It was on this very issue that AA in its formative days
split from the Oxford Group, and Bill is the first to say that
without this split we would not have survived. Clearly, the writers
of these two articles have read a different AA history and different
AA literature, and have had different experiences--indeed, they
appear to have heard a different Bill W. than I have.
Finally
we come to the third article of the group: "Tenth/Twelfth Step
Meetings." The "seven people" he is describing
presumably fit into the category described by the first writer:
"long-term slippers--seasoned AA failures." As in the case
of the other two writers, this one, too, seems to feel that the Steps
as written and defined in the official AA literature are inadequate.
Many
have tried, but none have yet succeeded in rewriting or
reilluminating the original wordings and intentions of the Twelve
Steps as set down by Bill W. It is not surprising to hear this
record, played again. This is the rewriter's privilege, and if he has
helped his own "hang-ups" on sex or anything else by this
private version of the Eleventh and Twelfth Steps--then bully for
him! I would, however, like to observe that there have always been
special groups in AA--men's discussions, women's ditto, Eleventh Step
groups--the list is endless and fills any special need that I, at
least, can- think of. I am not condemning special groups as such.
They fill a very vital need.
What I
object to here are the sweeping generalities, such as on page 10:
"All of us are sick in the same way." Well, if there is
anything I have learned in fourteen years in this program, it is the
nonsense of this remark. We all indeed have the same
sickness--namely, alcoholism--but we are no more sick "in the
same way" than are the sufferers from any other illness. The
miracle of AA is that it can and does embrace our different "ways."
However,
what I find most dangerous in "Tenth/Twelfth Step Meetings"
is the statement on page 11: "First, they are not, I repeat not,
group therapy. They are God and group (in that order) therapy."
How, I would like to ask, can the author be so sure about God being
there? "Direct pipelines" have long been the classic
syndrome of delusion, but they are usually clinical in nature and
individual. Does the author suggest that his group has a group
pipeline? Personally, I find God, as I understand Him, in every AA
meeting, but I would find it more than presumptuous, and indeed
frightening, to believe that I could evoke Him. Grace comes to us
AAs, it seems to me, unbidden. It is one of the sources of our
mysterious process and one we never presume to have earned. I,
therefore, find this kind of spiritual arrogance out of place in an
official AA magazine which is read by vulnerable newcomers. It is
even possible that many of them and many of us still find our main
"hang-ups" quite solvable within the framework of the AA
program if we truly and continuously remain a viable part of its
mainstream.
…....
…..
New York"
(our edits)
Cheers
The
Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
PS
To use “comment” system simply click on the relevant tab below
this article and sign in. All comments go through a moderation stage
