aacultwatch: The AA Group

Question 2:

“Would the Fellowship review and re-affirm what constitutes an AA Group, within the Fellowship in Great Britain with specific reference to Traditions 4 - 6?

Background

Consider the contribution to the carrying of the message, financial and practical implications when deliberating each question.”

Extract:

“I disagree with ….....’s view that “…groups do not have to be part of the AA Service structure or be part of (or in harmony with) their local intergroup...” This appears to be an increasingly common misconception of AA Tradition which is being dangerously propagated at all levels. This viewpoint may be appropriate when considering isolated groups in remote areas of the world where there is not yet an existing local service structure in the form of an intergroup, but it is not an appropriate viewpoint to apply to groups in populated areas where there are already established AA groups and intergroup. On the one hand this misguided viewpoint gives those in the service structure at all levels a convenient excuse to look the other way when they ought to take appropriate action, and on the other hand, it gives some group leaders a misguided belief that they have sheer license to do as they please. This attitude is not AA Tradition according to Bill W.

“Obviously, if any individual, group, or regional committee could take an action that might seriously affect the welfare of Alcoholics anonymous as a whole or seriously disturb surrounding groups, that would not be liberty at all. It would be sheer license; it would be anarchy, not democracy.” (Bill W. “Tradition Four” AA Grapevine March 1948. The Language of the Heart page 81)

Tradition One states that each individual “is but a small part of a great whole; that no personal sacrifice is too great for the preservation of the fellowship.” It can be understood from this that an AA group is but a small part of a great whole. This is a matter of fact. It is not a matter of choice. Tradition One also states: “As we had once struggled and prayed for individual recovery, just so earnestly did we commence to quest for the principles through which A.A. itself might survive. On anvils of experience, the structure of our society was hammered out.” It can be understood from this that an AA group is not only but a small part of a great whole, but that this great whole is now the AA world service structure; of which all AA groups are part. This is a matter of fact hammered out on the anvils of experience. It is not a matter of choice.

Some group leaders may well mislead new AA members to think that as a group they do not have to be part of the AA service structure or in harmony with the intergroup. This does not mean that the group is not part of the AA service structure. It simply means that under such misguided leadership a group is a disintegrated and dysfunctional part of the AA service structure. It doesn’t take too much imagination to see that if enough groups were to elect dysfunctional leadership and who were then to become disintegrated with the AA service structure, that this structural dysfunction at intergroup level could threaten the very survival of the whole fellowship.

An intergroup is an AA group. Within its own affairs of all the AA groups within its geographical boundary, each intergroup is autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or AA as a whole. It is free to act according to the intergroup conscience. There is no obligation in Tradition one for an intergroup to call a group of alcoholics an AA group, if as a group, they have another purpose or affiliation. In some cases, there will be the duty under Tradition One, and warranty five for the Public Information committee to inform professional agencies and the general public of misuses of the name Alcoholics Anonymous.

While I would agree with …......’s comment that “an AA group does not stop being an AA group because someone else says so.” It stops becoming an AA group when it has another purpose or affiliation. This much is clear in AA Traditions and warranty six: “…finally that 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.” (Extract from Concept XII, warranty six). http://www.aa.org/pdf/products/en_bm-31.pdf

The need to remove the AA name from such a dual purpose group is obvious according to Bill W: “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. AA Grapevine February 1958. The Language of the Heart page 225) “

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS Incidentally the anonymised individual referred to above (as in “.......'s view”) is a member of the Plymouth Road to Recovery cult group – so no surprises there! This is a group whose members have so mangled the traditions – to their own advantage – that these are barely recognisable any more!

Saturday, 2 March 2013

Conference Questions (2012) forum discussion (contd)

Question 2:

“Would the Fellowship review and re-affirm what constitutes an AA Group, within the Fellowship in Great Britain with specific reference to Traditions 4 - 6?

Background

Consider the contribution to the carrying of the message, financial and practical implications when deliberating each question.”

Extract:

“In reply to …....... Most of the tiresome group problems and hair splitting, nit picking discussions on traditions that I have seen over the years have involved drug addict alcoholics trying to bend AA to their way of liking, instead of them trying to find solutions to problems other than alcohol outside the fellowship. The leaders of problem groups in my area, besides claiming to be alcoholics, have also been drug addicts. I think it would be a good idea in general, if multiple drug addicted alcoholics asked themselves “What is my primary addiction?” and then go to a fellowship, or to a professional who can help them iron out the mental twists associated with that addiction. I also think alcoholics who have not been addicted to drugs ought to be asking the same question of others “What is your primary addiction?” then, if drug addicts, suggest they may need help with mental twists associated with their drug addictions elsewhere. When it comes the sole purpose of an AA group, experience has shown that AA cannot help nonalcoholic drug addicts who may have drunk alcohol. AA can only help multi addicted alcoholics with their alcoholism.

The traditions are paradoxical and what is said in one tradition can be used to argue against what is said in another. They are a set of related principles that need to be taken as a whole. There are two themes within the Traditions concerning liberty, one is for the AA group, the other is for the individual AA member. Throughout the Traditions the currents of these themes run parallel to each other, but in opposite directions. Each tradition tightly restricts the AA group’s freedom to a single purpose with no other affiliation, while at the same time affording the individual AA member almost unlimited freedom of thought and action. It appears to be very easy for some people to confuse these themes and then to use them to invert the principles of the Traditions. This inversion of Traditions can be seen in groups that apparently believe that they can do as they please as a group, whilst at the same time, restrict their individual group member’s liberty to a religiously precise dogma.

“In AA, the group has strict limitations, but the individual has scarcely any.” (Bill W. AA Grapevine February 1958. The Language of the Heart page 225).“

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Thursday, 21 February 2013

Conference Questions (2012) forum discussion (contd)

Question 2:

“Would the Fellowship review and re-affirm what constitutes an AA Group, within the Fellowship in Great Britain with specific reference to Traditions 4 - 6?

Background

Consider the contribution to the carrying of the message, financial and practical implications when deliberating each question.”

Extract:

“The question is clear enough and the background is sufficient (and does not exclude additional citation)

“The Traditions have these words to say on Groups in AA.

Tradition 3 (Long Form). Our membership ought to include all who suffer from alcoholism. Hence we may refuse none who wish to recover. Nor ought A.A. membership ever depend upon money or conformity. 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 4 (Long form). With respect to its own affairs, each A.A. group should be responsible to no other authority than its own conscience. But when its plans concern the welfare of neighbouring groups also, those groups ought to be consulted. And no group, regional committee, or individual should ever take any action that might greatly affect A.A. as a whole without conferring with the trustees of the General Service Board. On such issues our common welfare is paramount.”

(Source: GUIDELINES for A.A. in Great Britain - Revised January 2000 No. 1)

Tradition 3 may be divided into two parts: firstly that which relates to membership of AA as a whole; secondly what constitutes an AA group as such (but qualified). The first part includes only one proposal – that membership is open to anyone “who suffer[s] from alcoholism” (self diagnosed). Their membership cannot be restricted on any other ground. These may, in turn, form an AA group (subject only to the above constraint but see Traditions 1, 2, 5, 6, 9 and 10).

Tradition 4 deals with group autonomy (but qualified and not unrestricted)

From this it follows that membership of AA (and consequent individual participation in the fellowship) should be distinguished from membership of an AA group (and its collective participation in the fellowship); the two are not necessarily the same. One can be a member of AA without being a member of a particular AA group or groups. Moreover this (almost) unrestricted right of AA membership does not imply or entail that any group (composed solely of AA members) has a correspondingly unrestricted right to call itself an AA group. Tradition 3 above clearly indicates otherwise. Therefore whereas an alcoholic may declare themselves to be a member simply because they say so (and quite rightly) the same does not apply to an AA group. These two basic concepts should not be indiscriminately conflated.

The question as to WHO decides whether an AA group is one or not relies mostly on Traditions 1 and 4. The first makes clear the priority of the “whole” over the 'parts'. If members singly (or collectively) act in such a fashion as to threaten the “common welfare” then the interests of the “whole” must take precedence. If the former continue to act irresponsibly then the latter will be obliged to take action; there really is no other choice. Tradition 4 moreover makes it clear that group autonomy is subject to consultation in some instances. Again if no consultation takes place and/or our “common welfare” is again threatened then the “whole” is presented with same choice.

The notion that an AA group may function (as such) completely independently of the AA service structure is merely disingenuous (quite apart from being impractical). It ignores completely Traditions 1, 3 and 4. For example Tradition 3 indicates the central criterion for an AA group: “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.” The key phrase here is “no other affiliation” - this does not imply 'no' affiliation. A group that refers to itself as an “AA” group explicitly affiliates itself with AA generally, and one might reasonably assume therefore with both the AA fellowship and AA programme. Why in this case would such a group not wish to be part of the service structure, and even more interestingly, why should it not seek to be in “harmony with” other “neighbouring groups” (under Tradition 4) as represented by, for example, the local intergroup? If its objectives, methods etc are so at odds with these latter then why again would such a group wish to affiliate itself with AA in the first place?

The principle of non-affiliation is in fact referred to in two of the traditions:

Tradition 3: ”........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 6: “.......While an A.A. group may cooperate with anyone, such cooperation ought never go so far as affiliation or endorsement, actual or implied. An A.A. group can bind itself to no one.”

In both instances there is a context but neither of these subtract from the fundamental principle so clearly stated in the conclusion to Tradition 6 viz. “An A.A. group can bind itself to no one” (other than self-evidently – and definitionally - AA itself). This principle is exemplified in the AA preamble but not limited by this.

It can be seen from the above that any AA group can indeed organise a convention (or anything they like) within the terms of Tradition 3 but then this is not the applicable tradition. Tradition 4 (see above) indicates that consultation ought to take place prior to any such planned action. But again it begs the question why would any AA group wish to organise something without consulting all of the affected groups (ie. “neighbouring groups”) via the most appropriate service structure – the local intergroup? Similarly this tradition covers advertising on websites, announcements etc. (and indeed the very existence of these websites).

[Definition of terms:

Affiliate: To become closely connected or associated
Co-operate: To work or act together toward a common end or purpose
Institution: an established custom, law, or relationship in a society or community]

A collection of AA members may decide to co-operate towards any end they like (ie. as a collection of individuals who happen to be AA members). But an AA “group” has “but one primary purpose” and its attendees (members and visitors) need meet only one membership requirement. Moreover within the context of AA there is only one reason why members should “band together” ie. to fulfil that “one primary purpose” (Tradition 5). If an AA group should direct its efforts towards any other goal (subsidiary or otherwise) it becomes a “dual” or even “multi purpose” group and has therefore set aside that tradition. Even if a group merely advertises such events it is actively “endorsing” these and therefore has itself chosen to disregard Tradition 6. But generally the operative tradition here is, I repeat, primarily Tradition 4, and not Tradition 3.

With respect to the distinction to be drawn between the notions of “affiliation” and “co-operation” reference should again be made to Tradition 6:

“While an A.A. group may cooperate with anyone, such cooperation ought never go so far as affiliation or endorsement, actual or implied. An A.A. group can bind itself to no one.”

Here it would seem that these concepts lie along a continuum with co-operation placed at one end and affiliation or endorsement located at the other. If a group pursues some objective other than our primary purpose ie. the promulgation of sectarian practices and beliefs, financial enterprises (e.g. paid circuit speakers, recovery courses, retreats etc – and see here Tradition 12) or even simply endorses (actual or implicit) them (via notices, advertisements etc) then it is in breach of Tradition 6 (as well as Tradition 5). Co-operation should be limited to information provision on the part of AA (or AA groups) but with no suggestion of endorsement.

Finally the notion of differing “common interest collections” represents presumably groups of members (who happen to be in AA) but who are pursuing interests which diverge from our primary purpose. Such “collections” are according to our own traditions not AA groups. Moreover groups which endorse their activities are again in breach of Tradition 6.

With respect to the example cited of “Alano” clubs I refer here to “Clubs in AA. Are they with us to stay? (originally a Grapevine article but published in “A.A. Tradition—How It Developed (http://www.aa.org/pdf/products/p-17_AATraditions.pdf). Bill Wilson discusses in this article the origin and evolution of the “club” system in the US. Clearly these institutions posed some dilemmas in terms of how they were to be reconciled within AA's structure and principles. To quote: “This tangle slowly commenced to unravel, as we began to get the idea that clubs ought to be strictly the business of those individuals who specially want clubs, and who are willing to pay for them.......that an A.A. group, as such, should never get into active management of a business project.” From these (and subsequent) comments it is clear that the relationship between AA groups and the Alano clubs is not substantially different from that which exists between an AA group and the landlord of a premises hired for the purposes of a group meeting (or IG meeting). The only difference is that the landlords in this instance also happen to be AA members (but not AA groups). No one would indeed suggest that such an arrangement constitutes an “affiliation” or “endorsement”. But a landlord/tenant relationship is not currently the one under discussion. The affiliation principle applies rather where groups seek to “become closely connected or associated” with institutions, movements etc with diverging, or even on occasion related objectives to those of AA . Cooperation might be appropriate (as indicated above ie. the provision of requisite information) but no more than this. The Alano comparison therefore is invalid.

Finally it is unfortunate that the above contributor should descend to such emotive language as “self-righteous AA policemen” or attribute to them such unworthy motives. The provision for the exclusion of groups already exists under our own traditions. Exclusion of AA members is simply not possible according to those same traditions:

3.—Our membership ought to include all who suffer from alcoholism. Hence we may refuse none who wish to recover. Nor ought A.A. membership ever depend upon money or conformity. 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. “

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Tuesday, 12 February 2013

Conference Questions (2012) forum discussion (contd)

Question 2:

“Would the Fellowship review and re-affirm what constitutes an AA Group, within the Fellowship in Great Britain with specific reference to Traditions 4 - 6?

Background

Consider the contribution to the carrying of the message, financial and practical implications when deliberating each question.”

Extract:

“ The introduction to the Twelve Concepts reminds us 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 as entrusted guardians of the fellowship, all AA members are responsible to continually educate each new AA generation of the nature of our traditions, for the unity of the fellowship and for the sake of those to come. True to Concept IX this does in my experience involve nurturing strength of spirit to withstand the occasional and sometimes violently aggressive emotional outbursts from those who find AA Traditions disagreeable or who find them difficult to understand.

Concept IX can be found on pp 34- 40: http://www.aa.org/pdf/products/en_bm-31.pdf

In what constitutes an AA group, its world service workers would discourage its members from describing themselves as “Clean and sober” This is a dual purpose. This may sound a trivial point to some, but it is of paramount importance to secure the future unity of the fellowship. The majority of the group members would actively participate and support their world service workers in such actions. If AA members want to be clean then there are other fellowships that they can join for this purpose. An AA group would not include in its membership non-alcoholic drug addicts from other 12 step fellowships, or a member’s non alcoholic family or friends. It would refer alcoholics with other primary addictions to organizations which can help them with those addictions; and refer their family and friends to Al-Anon.

An AA group would not include in its membership friendly teetotal non alcoholic evangelists from the local church who may have a desire to stop drinking and who might also fancy giving a helping hand to save the souls of alcoholics; this under the misapprehension that AA was originally an attempt to re-create first century Christianity. The attempt to recreate first century Christianity was by the Oxford Group, not AA.

At open AA meetings the group’s trusted world service workers would ensure Tradition Seven is upheld when passing the pot, requesting and ensuring that non alcoholic visitors do not contribute to the group financially. Non alcoholics can attend open meetings as visitors, they cannot become AA members.

“…We took this violent new tack because here and there members had tried to make money out of their A.A. connections, and we feared we’d be exploited. Now and then, grateful benefactors had endowed clubhouses, and as a result there was sometimes outside interference in our affairs…” (Extract from Tradition Seven)

I think there is evidence of various organizations which are exploiting AA and encouraging an amalgamation of AA with other fellowships and treatment programmes in order to provide a “cure all” under the collective title of “12 Step recovery” or “Christian 12 step recovery.” I think there is evidence within the fellowship and AA Grapevine, that the influence of these organizations is detrimentally changing the nature of our society. If these organizations continue to be successful in amalgamating their causes within AA, then it will cause AA to collapse [a reference to Dick B and the International Christian Recovery Coalition among others].

Suggest groups hold workshops/Group consciences focusing on pages 222-225, The Language of the Heart, “Problems other than Alcohol.” relating this to AA Traditions.

Extracts from The Language of the Heart pp 222-225 “Problems other than alcohol, by Bill W:

“Now there are certain things that AA cannot do for anybody, regardless of what our several desires or sympathies may be.

Our first duty, as a society, is to insure our own survival. Therefore we have to avoid distractions and multi-purpose activity. An AA group, as such, cannot take on all the personal problems of its members, let alone the problems of the whole world.

Sobriety--freedom from alcohol--through the teaching and practice of the Twelve Steps, is the sole purpose of an AA group. Groups have repeatedly tried other activities and they have always failed. It has also been learned that there is no possible way to make non-alcoholics into AA members. We have to confine our membership to alcoholics and we have to confine our AA groups to a single purpose. If we don't stick to these principles, we shall almost surely collapse. And if we collapse, we cannot help anyone.

To illustrate, let's review some typical experiences. Years ago, we hoped to give AA membership to our families and to certain non-alcoholic friends who had been greatly helpful. They had their problems, too, and we wanted them in our fold. Regretfully, we found that this was impossible. They couldn't make straight AA talks; nor, save a few exceptions, could they identify with new AA members. Hence, they couldn't do continuous Twelfth Step work. Close to us as these good folks were, we had to deny them membership. We could only welcome them at our open meetings.

Therefore I see no way of making non-alcoholic addicts into AA members. Experience says loudly that we can admit no exceptions, even though drug users and alcoholics happen to be first cousins of a sort. If we persist in trying this, I'm afraid it will be hard on the drug user himself, as well as on AA. We must accept the fact that no non-alcoholic, whatever his affliction, can be converted into an alcoholic AA member.”……….

........“I'm very sure that these experiences of yesterday can be the basis of resolving today's confusions about the narcotic problem. This problem is new, but the AA experience and Tradition which can solve it is already old and time-tested. I think we might sum it up like this:

We cannot give AA membership to non-alcoholic narcotics-addicts. But like anyone else, they should be able to attend certain open AA meetings, provided, of course, that the groups themselves are willing. AA members who are so inclined should be encouraged to band together in groups to deal with sedative and drug problems. But they ought to refrain from calling themselves AA groups.

There seems to be no reason why several AAs cannot join, if they wish, with a group of straight addicts to solve the alcohol and the drug problem together. 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. Neither should its "straight addict" contingent be led to believe that they have become AA members by reason of such an association.” (Bill W. AA Grapevine, February 1958, The Language of the Heart pp 222-225)“

(our emphasis)

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Tuesday, 8 January 2013

Conference Questions (2012) forum discussion (contd)

Question 2:

“Would the Fellowship review and re-affirm what constitutes an AA Group, within the Fellowship in Great Britain with specific reference to Traditions 4 - 6?

Background

Consider the contribution to the carrying of the message, financial and practical implications when deliberating each question.”

Extract:

“For some typical alcoholics who have not yet got to grips with the deeper revelations of their malady in Step Five, Love and Service can be rationalised into nonsense. Love and Service can simply be viewed as a means by which the alcoholic can gain personal power and prestige within the fellowship; sometimes money. With this in mind, I suggest AA groups read the following out loud when electing group leaders.

“Characteristic of the so-called typical alcoholic is a narcissistic egocentric core, dominated by feelings of omnipotence, intent on maintaining at all costs its inner integrity. While these characteristics are found in other maladjustments, they appear in relatively pure culture in alcoholic after alcoholic. In a careful study of a series of cases, Sillman reported that he felt he could discern the outlines of a common character structure among problem drinkers and that the best terms he could find for the group of qualities noted was ‘defiant individuality’ and ‘grandiosity’. In my opinion these words were accurately chosen. Inwardly the alcoholic brooks no control from man nor God. He, the alcoholic, is and must be master of his own destiny. He will fight to the end to preserve that position.” (Dr. Harry M. Tiebout. Extract from Appendix E:b, AA Comes of Age, page 311)

“Good Service leaders, together with sound and appropriate methods of choosing them, are at all levels indispensable for our future functioning and safety.” (Extract from Concept IX)

Reaffirmation of what constitutes an AA group should be firmly set within the context of AA Traditions, Concepts and guidelines. They facilitate Love and Service. A cart can’t come before the horse. Our common welfare should come first. Guardianship is part of Love and Service.

“This means that all of us--AA as a whole--are now entirely ready to take over full guardianship of the AA Traditions that guarantee our unity in time to come, and also to take complete charge of those World Services which are the means by which we function as an entire Fellowship, and from which radiate our principal life-lines to those millions all over the globe who still need AA.” (Bill W. “The Significance of St. Louis” AA Grapevine April 1955, The Language of the Heart page 141)

Each AA member is entrusted with the responsibility to be a guardian of the fellowship. When some people talk of service these days I’m not sure if they appreciate that service in an AA group is also AA World Service. This comes with duties and responsibilities to AA as a whole; to guard against misuse of the AA name and to support AA services beyond their group. Group leaders, as AA World Service workers, are trusted with delegated authority to operate the group within AA Traditions, Concepts and guidelines. According to Tradition nine, they are directly responsible (accountable) to those they serve. This service and accountability is two way since they serve both the AA group and AA World Service. In other words, AA group leaders are directly accountable to the intergroup conscience as well as their own group conscience. Hence Tradition four states “Each Group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or AA as a whole.” The meaning of this Tradition cannot be broken in two to make “Each group is autonomous.” “

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Thursday, 27 December 2012

Conference Questions (2012) forum discussion (contd)

Question 2:

“Would the Fellowship review and re-affirm what constitutes an AA Group, within the Fellowship in Great Britain with specific reference to Traditions 4 - 6?

Background

Consider the contribution to the carrying of the message, financial and practical implications when deliberating each question.”

Extract:

“Tradition 4 (long form):

“And no group, regional committee, or individual should ever take any action that might greatly affect A.A. as a whole without conferring with the trustees of the General Service Board. On such issues our common welfare is paramount.”

“Rightly enough, this tradition goes on to say, ‘But when its plans concern the welfare of neighbouring groups also, these groups ought to be consulted.’ Obviously, if any individual, group, intergroup, or regional committee could take an action that might seriously affect the welfare of Alcoholics Anonymous as a whole or seriously disturb surrounding groups, that would not be liberty at all. It would be sheer license; it would be anarchy, not democracy.

Therefore, we AAs have universally adopted the principle of consultation. This means that if a single AA group wishes to take any action that might affect surrounding groups, it consults them. Or, it confers with the intergroup committee for the area, if there be one. Likewise, if a group or regional committee wishes to take any action that might affect AA as a whole, it consults the trustees of the Alcoholic Foundation, who are, in effect, our overall general service committee. For instance, no group or intergroup could feel free to initiate, without consultation, any publicity that might affect AA as a whole. Nor could it assume to represent the whole of Alcoholics Anonymous by printing and distributing anything purporting to be AA standard literature.” (“Tradition Four” Bill W. A.A. Grapevine March 1948, Language of the Heart page 81).

Tradition 10 (Long Form):

“And no A.A. group or member should ever, in such a way as to implicate A.A., on outside controversial issues – particularly those of politics, alcohol reform, or sectarian religion. The alcoholics Anonymous groups oppose no one. Concerning such matters they can express no views whatever.”

Guideline 7, Public Information:

“PI is a co-operative venture and there is no place in it for isolated acts.”

Guideline 19, AA and Electronic Communications:

“To preserve Alcoholics Anonymous’ trademarks and service marks, individuals and AA groups are asked to avoid using certain marks (“AA”; “Alcoholics Anonymous”; “Big Book”) in their domain names.”

“There are no ‘unofficial’ AA websites as such. The only websites which can truly be called AA websites are those endorsed by an official AA body eg: www.alcoholics anonymous.org.uk, Regional and Intergroup websites.”

(The A.A. Service Handbook for Great Britain) http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org.uk/members/index.cfm?PageID=98&DocumentTypeID=21

With reference to …......’s post on page 2, committee 1, Question 1, regarding one intergroup area where a National Health Service trust asked all the AA meetings to leave hospital premises, complaints from GPs and the self promoting activity of one particular group in another area, what constitutes an AA group, according to Tradition Ten would have no opinion on medication;this is an outside issue and a matter for health professionals. According to Tradition 4, it would not “initiate, without consultation, any publicity that might affect AA as a whole.” It would therefore, not engage in self promoting PI activity with outside agencies such as doctors clinics, hospitals, treatment centres etc, without consultation with neighbouring groups, or intergroup; nor would it promote itself via its own website or other internet channels of communication without consultation with neighbouring groups, intergroup and the General Service Board; nor would a group have a website containing the terms “AA”; “Alcoholics Anonymous”; “Big Book”) in its domain name. “Nor could it assume to represent the whole of Alcoholics Anonymous by printing and distributing anything purporting to be AA standard literature.” (Bill W.) Such items would include handouts and 12 step guides etc.

The fact that the official USA GSO entry on a popular self broadcasting internet channel of communication is now listed as 21st item down from the top of the page illustrates how the AA message is becoming garbled at the public level by isolated acts of public information and the production of non-standard literature by groups and individuals. The resultant effect of the modern equivalent to what Bill W. described as the “alarming poser” (AA comes of Age page 130). What constitutes an AA group would place the common welfare of Alcoholics Anonymous as a whole first, it would use A.A. published literature, not outside published literature; It would have no opinion on outside issues, medical or religious. It would discourage any isolated acts of public information and discourage “alarming posers” among its members, or elsewhere in AA.

Concept 1: “We envisaged a uniform A.A. literature, the development of a sound public relations policy….”

Concept 12, warranty five: “If we recognize that religion is the province of the clergy and the practice of medicine is for doctors, then we can helpfully cooperate with both.””

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Saturday, 10 November 2012

Conference Questions (2012) forum discussion (contd)

Question 2:

“Would the Fellowship review and re-affirm what constitutes an AA Group, within the Fellowship in Great Britain with specific reference to Traditions 4 - 6?

Background

Consider the contribution to the carrying of the message, financial and practical implications when deliberating each question.”

Extract:

“Tradition Four

“Tradition Four is a specific application of general principles already outlined in Traditions One and Two. Tradition One states: ‘Each member of Alcoholics Anonymous is but a small part of a great whole.’ AA must continue to live or most of us will surely die. Hence our common welfare comes first. But individual welfare follows close afterward.’ Tradition Two states: ‘For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority – a loving God as he may express himself in our group conscience.” (Bill W, ‘Tradition Four’, AA Grapevine March 1948. The Language of the Heart, page 80).

In reply to ….... I agree the Twelve Traditions provide the answer and regular group consciences are beneficial to understanding where other AA Members are coming from. However, these days there are groups that don’t seem to understand the basic meaning of Traditions Four, One and Two. They appear to see themselves as their own ultimate authority. They do not appear to be able to see much beyond their own group conscience. Or that a group’s decisions can be mistaken, even though these may carry the majority vote of members within the group.

An AA group’s conscience is part of the whole group conscience of Alcoholics Anonymous; each group is part of the whole. If groups hold regular group consciences and make decisions that do not acknowledge that for their group purpose, their one ultimate authority is also the majority opinion of the collective conscience of neighbouring groups and AA as a whole; in other words, if they do not recognize that the decisions and recommendations of their local district/intergroup and the General Service Conference is also their one ultimate authority; then they are no different to the Washingtonian groups. There will be friction between groups, affiliations into this brand of AA and that brand of AA, leading to public confusion, and ultimately dissolution of the whole movement.

What constitutes an AA group, would therefore, sacrifice its own group conscience decisions in favour of the majority opinion of neighbouring groups in the district, intergroup, region and the General Service Conference. There is but one ultimate authority in AA. This is not an AA group, nor is it an individual AA member, nor is it the authors of websites and books.

Given that there are approximately 4,400 AA groups in Great Britain, 93,000 worldwide, only a tiny fraction of ultimate authority is expressed in an AA group conscience, 4.4 thousandths of the whole in Great Britain, 93 thousands of the whole worldwide. What constitutes an AA group would recognize it is but a very small part of a great whole.

“The group, in turn, found that it had to give up many of its own rights for the protection and welfare of each member, and for A.A. as a whole. These sacrifices had to be made or A.A. could not continue to exist.” (AA Comes of Age page 287)”

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Sunday, 21 October 2012

Conference Questions (2012) forum discussion (contd)

Question 2:

“Would the Fellowship review and re-affirm what constitutes an AA Group, within the Fellowship in Great Britain with specific reference to Traditions 4 - 6?

Background

Consider the contribution to the carrying of the message, financial and practical implications when deliberating each question.”

Extract:

“Tradition Six

“An A.A. group, as such, should never go into business.” (Tradition Six, Long form)

“While an A.A. group may cooperate with anyone, such cooperation ought never go so far as affiliation or endorsement, actual or implied. An A.A. group can bind itself to no one.”(Tradition Six, Long form)

If a group’s purpose is also to be a retail outlet for related facilities and outside enterprise, for example: non A.A. published recovery related literature, recovery merchandise, non A.A. organised workshops and conventions, spiritual retreats, etc; then the group gives these outside businesses “endorsement, actual or implied.” This retailing of outside enterprise in an A.A. group is not using AA name “only in connection with straight AA activities.” Whether the business is being done on a separate table or under the table, it cannot call itself an A.A. group. This is a dual purpose.

Considering the financial and practical implications to this question: the sale of non A.A. material by a retail outlet masquerading as an A.A. group, competes directly with official A.A. literature and audio recordings, diverting money away from the A.A. primary purpose into the hands of outside enterprises that are exploiting the fellowship.

There is also the implication for A.A. unity, the dissipation of the A.A. message and damage to AA public relations:

“Our literature is a principle means by which A.A. recovery, unity, and service are facilitated” (Concept XI). “Suppose, for instance, that during the last twenty five years, AA had never published any standard literature – no books, no pamphlets. We need little imagination to see that by now our message would be hopelessly garbled. Our relations with medicine and religion would have become a shambles. To alcoholics generally we would today be a joke and the public would have thought us a riddle. Without its literature, AA would certainly have bogged down in a welter of controversy and disunity” (Bill W. “A Message from Bill”, AA Grapevine May 1964; The Language of the Heart page 348)

There’s also the human cost of this outside exploitation:

“I am concerned that we are not reaching people who cannot read well or cannot read at all. I am new to the program and making my way through the Steps. I struggle to understand the "Twelve and Twelve," even with a college degree and help from my sponsor and other AAs. Meanwhile, my room-mate, also newly sober and with a grade school education, can't make any sense of her Step workbook and is about to give up. How many people do we lose this way? How many, when asked to read from the Big Book at a meeting, stumble through a few sentences, acutely embarrassed, and never come back? A literature-based program effectively shuts out people who desperately need help but do not have good reading skills…........... We need new ways to reach the still- suffering alcoholic --- ways that do not depend on the written word” (June W. Gaithersburg, Md. “Dear Grapevine, Shut Out” A.A. Grapevine November 2010) http://www.aagrapevine.org/

A.A. does not produce step workbooks, but they have now arrived in the UK, I have recently been given one. It doesn’t surprise me that the newcomer in the USA can't make any sense of hers if it is a copy of the same one that I have been given. I too wonder how many newcomers we’re going to lose in the UK. I think it is fair to say that traditionally the AA message is more a word of mouth programme, one alcoholic talking to another in “the language of the heart”, not literature based. We don’t need the new literature ways, but stick to the A.A.Tradition. What constitutes an A.A. group would not make a requirement for a newcomer to read a work book or the Big Book for that matter, because there is no requirement for AA membership other than a desire to stop drinking; all inclusive to the literate or illiterate. According to Tradition Six, an A.A. group would never give endorsement, actual or implied, to any related facility or outside enterprise such as a step work book.”

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Wednesday, 3 October 2012

Conference Questions (2012) forum discussion (contd)

Committee No. 3

Question 2:

“Would the Fellowship review and re-affirm what constitutes an AA Group, within the Fellowship in Great Britain with specific reference to Traditions 4 - 6?

Background