Tradition Nine, Grapevine, January, 1953, Bill W

See also Links and downloads

Editorial: On the 9th Tradition, Grapevine, August, 1948, Bill W

See also Links and downloads

Conference Questions (2012) forum discussion (contd)

Committee No. 1

Question 2: 

“Would the Fellowship ask itself the question: “Are there too many meetings and not enough groups?”

Background

Traditions 4, 7

Pamphlet ‘The AA Group’

The Home Group: Heartbeat of AA

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

Extracts

“There are some excellent examples in A.A. literature which could be used as lessons of experience to guide the new AA generation in unity with AA Tradition. These could replace the Little Rock Plan in the “Home Group: Heartbeat of AA.” They are examples of the original AA meetings conducted by what some people today refer as “The First One Hundred” founder members.

The observations were made by psychiatrist Dr. Silkworth, journalist Jack Alexander, and GSO secretary Ruth Hock, in the relatively short time period 1939-1941. This was after the alcoholic groups had separated from the Oxford Group and before the ensuing chaos of the 1940s, when isolated mail order groups such as Little Rock popped up all over the USA, making the programme up on their own without direct guidance from the main body of the fellowship.

Because Dr. Silkworth, Jack Alexander and Ruth Hock were not alcoholics their observations provide a valuable historical insight into the original AA groups, likely to represent a more objective view compared to the possibly subjective memories of some AA old timers, whose truth might have been bent just a little at times by colourful narcissistic imaginations. Not surprisingly, the original AA meetings of the “First One Hundred” were conducted with the least possible organization, which turned out to be what worked best and became Tradition Nine. In the absence of experienced leadership and detached from the main body of AA, other 1940s mail order groups such as Little Rock had to learn by trial and error from their painful mistakes.

In view of outside published literature which targets the fellowship with the promotion of AA meeting formats which repeat the organized and educational mistakes of the 1940s, suggest Conference recommends that AA groups and sponsors use Conference approved literature only. Suggest also, that groups stick to the original AA meeting formats and AA Tradition Nine. These were lessons of experience as to what worked best for the inclusion of all alcoholics whatever their temperament or creed and what worked best for overall AA unity and growth. Groups with the least possible organization in Tradition Nine were unanimously adopted by delegates representing the whole fellowship at the 1950 Cleveland Convention.

Tradition Nine (Long form):

“Each A.A. group needs the least possible organization. Rotating leadership is the best. The small group may elect its secretary, the large group its rotating committee and the groups of a large metropolitan area their central or intergroup committee.”

New York and Akron 1939:

“The fellowship is entirely indifferent concerning the individual manner of spiritual approach so long as the patient is willing to turn his life and his problems over to the care and direction of his creator. The patient may picture the Deity in any way he likes. No effort is whatever is made to convert him to some particular faith or creed. Many creeds are represented among the group and the greatest harmony prevails. It is emphasized that the fellowship is non-sectarian and that the patient is entirely free to follow his own inclination. Not a trace of aggressive evangelism is exhibited.” (Dr. W.D Silkworth M.D. “A new approach to psychotherapy in chronic alcoholism” Journal Lancet, July 1939. A.A. Comes of Age, appendix E:a, pages 304-305)

New York 1939:

“They were structured to the extent that there was always one speaker and Bill- maybe half an hour each - and then a long coffee session, a real get together. We were often there till 12 o’clock, started at eight” She also said, “At that time, we did not go into Step work. Didn’t have 90-days requirements. No birthdays – no recognition was made if you were sober a week or a year. If you felt you would like to speak in a year or in a month or two weeks they let you get up and speak, and they didn’t throw you out if you were drunk, either. They felt it was encouraging, hoping some word would stick.” (Ruth Hock, Secretary, New York General Service Office. Pass it on page 219)

1941:

“If he applies to Alcoholics Anonymous, he is first brought around to admit that alcohol has him whipped and that his life has become unmanageable. Having achieved this state of intellectual humility, he is given a dose of religion in its broadest sense. He is asked to believe in a power greater than himself, or at least to keep an open mind on that subject while he goes on with the rest of the program. Any concept of the Higher Power is acceptable. A skeptic or agnostic may choose to think of his Inner Self, the miracle of growth, a tree, man’s wonderment at the physical universe, the structure of an atom, or mere mathematical infinity. Whatever form is visualised, the neophyte is taught that he must rely on it and, in his own way, to pray to the power for strength. He next makes a sort of moral inventory of himself with the private aid of another person. – one of his A.A. sponsors, a priest, a minister, a psychiatrist, or anyone else he fancies.” (Jack Alexander. Jack Alexander Article about AA pp19-20)

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Tradition Nine

Short form:

"Nine—A.A., as such, ought never be organized; but we may create service boards or committees directly responsible to those they serve."

Long form:

"9.—Each A.A. group needs the least possible organization. Rotating leadership is the best. The small group may elect its secretary, the large group its rotating committee, and the groups of a large metropolitan area their central or intergroup committee, which often employs a full-time secretary. The trustees of the General Service Board are, in effect, our A.A. General Service Committee. They are the custodians of our A.A. Tradition and the receivers of voluntary A.A. contributions by which we maintain our A.A. General Service Office at New York. They are authorized by the groups to handle our over-all public relations and they guarantee the integrity of our principal newspaper, the A.A. Grapevine. All such representatives are to be guided in the spirit of service, for true leaders in A.A. are but trusted and experienced servants of the whole. They derive no real authority from their titles; they do not govern. Universal respect is the key to their usefulness."

Comment: A fairly straightforward pair of statements and mostly unambiguous (although in the case of Alcoholics Anonymous Great Britain the General Service Office is based in York and the home-grown version of Grapevine is Share magazine). The key phrases presented here are "least possible organisation", "trusted and experienced servants" (who do not "govern"), and who are, moreover, "DIRECTLY responsible to those they serve". (our emphasis). "Least possible organisation" does go some way to ensuring that the development of formal power hierarchies and the corresponding evil of bureaucratisation are minimised. Unfortunately we would argue that the trend seems to be in the other direction especially with the establishment of the largely unnecessary Regional structure in Great Britain (which we will discuss in more detail at a later date). Moreover it is difficult to see quite how it is possible for these “leaders” to be “DIRECTLY responsible to those they serve” where there do not appear to be any mechanisms (or even forums) in place by which such accountability might be demonstrated (we assume here that the two concepts ie. responsibility and accountability, are necessarily indivisible.

Finally, of course, such principles (even in their currently attenuated forms) are entirely inimical to the 'philosophy' of those cult groups that have infiltrated the fellowship. Their emphasis on “sponsorship idolatry” (which concept has in many instances been elevated to such a position as to be regarded as an adequate substitute for that of Higher Power) has produced precisely the kind of hierarchy that this tradition was intended to forestall, with an almost 'professional' class of members (and we include here the circuit speaker brigade) who seem to have attributed to themselves not only some kind of “specialist” - if not esoteric - knowledge concerning the programme but assigned to themselves moreover the authority - and the right - to “suggest” (note: “suggest” is cult-speak for “direct”) how AA members should conduct their lives, and with virtually no “nook or cranny” remaining exempt from the scrutiny of these self-appointed “experts”. The arrogance of these individuals has to be seen to be believed but their general lack of any kind of humility or even “true perspective” might easily be summed up (and exemplified) in the words of David B (the originator of one arm of the cult in Great Britain) when he addressed one of his less compliant sponsees with the immortal words: “If I want an opinion from you I'll give it to you”.

Cheerio

The Fellas