Bill Wilson talking about the Traditions - Tradition Two

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous ...and rather fond of the Traditions too!)

Democracy? Almost - but not quite!

Well we recently trundled on down to the Plymouth Road to Recovery (cult group) site for one our periodic albeit infrequent inspections (after all 'misery is optional' isn't it!). These little trips are generally made in the hope that we might discover an outbreak of sanity had occurred amongst the 'pointed headed ones' - Ever the optimists! Apart from the usual banalities we discovered this 'gem' (?) which illustrates perfectly both the confused thinking that exists within the cult and their almost infinite capacity to mangle any idea to suit their own twisted agenda.

This particular example relates to the cult's version of Tradition 2. Firstly AA's version (short form – which incidentally in this instance is longer than the long form!): 

“Two – For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority – a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern”. 

The cult's version, however, seems to be: 

“Two – For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority – a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern – except when they feel like it!” 

So according to the group's commentator (who goes to great (but unconvincing) lengths to demonstrate his own independence of thought and action): 

“As a group we may vote on these ideas and on occasions the decision may not go the way of the old-timer or elder statesmen of the group. This doesn't make the group conscience wrong; it is our loving God expressing himself in our group conscience.” 

So far so good. But he continues: 

“However, we do sometimes get the leaders standing fast on matters of importance and using whatever means possible (Concept 9). That sometimes means having sponsees vote the same way, or whatever means possible on things that will affect the group and/or carry a message. We sometimes don't agree but our leaders do tend to have good foresight.” 

(our emphases) 

Some questions arise here? 

Who decides what constitutes a matter of importance? (Go on! Take a guess!). Moreover if God's will is apparently (and correctly) made known in the first instance (where the decision “may not go the way of the old-timer or elder statesmen of the group”) how is it that this appears not to be the case in the second instance ie. “on matters of importance”? 

From this it would seem that for all trivial questions God can be relied upon to deliver 'the goods' via the group conscience. However on more substantial matters His judgement may be regarded as sometimes faulty and called into question by the “elder statesmen” (how pretentious can you get!). Moreover in the latter case it would appear that “whatever means possible” might need to be employed to correct the Omniscient Being's deficiency” 

“whatever means possible” is repeated twice in the above extract sounding to us quite chilling in its possible implications! This seems to equate to that most dubious of rationalisations employed frequently by the 'ethically challenged' ie. that the means justify the ends. Is there no constraint upon these expedient measures other than their 'possibility'? Certainly none is indicated. In this connection Concept IX is cited as the basis for this questionable approach. Naturally in our endless quest for the truth we decide to check out the aforementioned Concept in an attempt to locate this phrase. 

We were pretty thorough in our investigations (as you would of course expect) not only reading the relevant section (The AA Service Manual Combined with the Twelve Concepts of World Service, 2012-13 edn, pp. 34-40), but also using the “Find” function to look for the phrase and even its component words. Nowhere did we find the expression “whatever means possible” within this part of the document nor indeed in any other section. The word “means” occurs four times, “possible” the same, and“whatever” not at all. There is nothing to suggest therefore that “whatever means possible” (or anything similar) are at all sanctioned here. This expression is strictly a figment of this particular “elder statesman's” imagination - or perhaps we should say merely the 'wet dream' of a control freak fantasist! In fact a thorough reading of the Concept (and in particular its inclusion of the essay by Bill Wilson entitled “Leadership in AA: Ever a Vital Need”) suggests the precise opposite. 

Moreover it is interesting to note in this connection the following extract which serves to demonstrate the disparity between the principles presented in the Concept and the practices adopted by the cult 'leadership' generally: 

“Somewhere in our literature there is a statement to this effect: “Our leaders do not drive by mandate, they lead by example.” In effect we are saying to them: “Act for us, but don't boss us.” 

This is something of a contrast to the approach outlined by our cult “elder statesman” which includes “having sponsees vote the same way” '[having' is a cult euphemism for 'directing'] or indeed their whole ethos summed up in their dictat “do exactly what he [your sponsor] tells you”.

(screen shot from cult website run by David C) 

As for leadership “by example” it would probably be better to look elsewhere than seek such exemplars amongst the cult leadership. One need look no further than the antics of the so-called 'leaders' in the Plymouth Road to Recovery cult group (Wayne P, Alexis K, Jon F) to discover that there is nothing here of any value to emulate. 

Finally, the moral of our tale: If you wish to gain a good understanding of the Traditions, Concepts, Steps, guidelines etc you might try reading them for yourself rather than relying on such poor commentaries as those presented by the various 'experts' hailing from the Plymouth Road to Recovery cult group (or indeed any such anywhere!). And if you need some kind of template for recovery again we suggest you will probably be more likely to find this at almost any AA meeting than amongst the cult membership, a group who as a rule favour image before substance and for whom dogma and hypocrisy have become central guiding principles. 

Cheerio 

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Tradition Two, Grapevine, May, 1952, Bill W

See also Links and downloads

Editorial: On the 2nd Tradition, Grapevine, January, 1948, Bill W

See also Links and downloads

A Minority report (continued)(2)

“The incidents with Chuck D. and “Our promoter friend” show that in the past, cult groups in AA have been stopped before they could even begin by active intervention of “trusted servants” and “elder statesmen” upholding A.A. Traditions. They recognised the link between figureheads and “degeneration into a cult.” (Jack Alexander article about AA, page 23) In other words, the rise of a “tyranny of very small minorities invested with absolute power.” (Concept V). These “trusted servants and” “elder statesmen” in the 1940s and 1958 were therefore evidently “prudently ever on guard against tyrannies great and small.”(Concept 12, warranty six). They also clearly understood the Traditions to be principles upon which the survival of the fellowship depends, rather than “just suggestions.” They evidently understood it to be their responsibility and duty to be active guardians of Traditions by informing “Traditions violators that they are out of order” (Concept 12, warranty five). They evidently understood their duty of care to protect a vulnerable minority from coercion and abuse, “That care will be observed to respect and protect all minorities,” (Concept 12, warranty 6). They evidently understood their responsibility and authority as “trusted servants” that they were trusted to actively guard the principles of AA Traditions and assert their leadership in Tradition Two, to perform the “duty of leadership, even when in a small minority, to take a stand against a storm,” (Concept IX), - The upholding of Tradition Two, of which Bill W. was later to go to great lengths to explain in the Twelve Concepts for World Service in 1962:

“…All of this is fully implied in A.A.’s Tradition Two. Here we see the ‘group conscience’ as the ultimate authority and the ‘trusted servant’ as the delegated authority. One cannot function without the other” (Concept X) “Hence the principle of amply delegated authority and responsibility to ‘trusted servants’ must be implicit from the top to the bottom of our active structure of service. This is the clear implication of A.A.’s Tradition Two” (Concept II) “Trusted servants at all A.A. levels are expected to exercise leadership, and leadership is not simply a matter of submissive housekeeping” (Concept VII) “Leadership is often called upon to face heavy and sometimes long-continued criticism” (Concept IX) “All around us in the world today we are witnessing the tyranny of majorities and the even worse tyranny of very small minorities invested with absolute power” (Concept V) “that care will be observed to respect and protect all minorities… …That our Conference shall ever be prudently on guard against tyrannies, great and small, whether these be found in the majority or in the minority” (Concept XII: Warranty 6). “Feeling the weight of all these forces, certain members who run counter to A.A.’s Traditions sometimes say that they are being censored or punished and that they are therefore being governed. It would appear however, that A.A.’s right to object calmly and privately to specific violations is at least equal to the rights of the violators to violate. This cannot accurately be called a governmental action” (Concept XII, warranty 5).

In contrast to the leadership described above, recent history reveals the apparent lack of it, perhaps a 20-30 year trend toward liberty above that of our common welfare, leading to a “tyranny of apathetic, self-seeking, uninformed, …..majorities” (concept V), this in turn, has led to the presence of figureheads, and the motivation for an “even worse tyranny of very small minorities invested with absolute power” (concept V), and in some groups, a “degeneration into a cult” (Jack Alexander article about AA, page 23). This has resulted in abuse of the vulnerable and bad press for AA, as reported in the Independent (UK) and in the Washington Post (USA).

The difference between good service leadership and no leadership at all in the face of rising dictators, spells the difference between future A.A. unity and anarchy. If A.A. continues the current trend in autonomous groups, “personality before principle” speaker recordings, lectures, guides and trinket business, then this may eventually lead to a systemic failing of the “but one ultimate authority” in Tradition Two. The experience of the disintegration of the Washingtonian movement (Language of the Heart page 5; Tradition 10, Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions page 180-183) predicts the future:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washingtonian_movement

If, on the other hand, A.A. opts for A.A. Tradition, “Each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or AA as a whole”, then the exception to group autonomy in Tradition 4 implies that “elder statesmen” and “Good Service Leaders” (concept IX) will face their responsibility to intervene when necessary. As Synanon cult leader Chuck D recalled 1958: “They made things difficult for us… ... and we never went back to A.A. again.” And as Bill W. recalled his encounter with “Our promoter friend”: “We assured our well-meaning friend that we would certainly uphold his right to free speech. But we added that he ought to uphold ours, too. We assured him that if his “lectures” went on air, we would advise every A.A. group of the circumstances and ask them to write strong letters… ... … letters of a kind the sponsor might not like to receive.” (A.A. comes of Age page 131)”

Comment: The emphasis in this section is clearly upon the moral responsibility of “leaders” to LEAD (by example), to have the COURAGE to SPEAK OUT when they witness corrupt practices, to CHALLENGE those who would abuse their power, and finally to DEFEND AA and its principles against those “personalities” who would subvert our fellowship. However we would go further than this and argue that it is the duty of every AA member to actively uphold our traditions, and that when they witness evil they should oppose it; failure to act, to look the other way, is no longer an option. Cult leaders have demonstrated time and time again their utter contempt for our principles. They are more than willing to set these aside or indeed pervert them in pursuit of their sole aim: personal power. Their victims constitute the most vulnerable section of our fellowship - the newcomers. We are manifestly failing in our duty of care to these and if we continue to do so why should we expect others to place their trust in us; we simply would not deserve it. The writing is very clearly on the wall. If we do not learn from the lessons of the past then history will surely repeat itself..... Either we shape up or ship out!

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

For the edification of the Chairman (et al) of Poole Intergroup

Extract (in full) from 2010 edition of AA (GB) Guidelines:

“GUIDELINES for A.A. in Great Britain
From the General Service Office, P.O. Box 1, 10 Toft Green, York Y01 7NJ
SERVICE REPRESENTATIVES Revised January 2000 No. 3

GROUP SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE
(GSR)

Bill W said, “the strength of our whole structure starts with the Group and with the General Service Representative (G.S.R.) that the Group elects”. Working via the Intergroup the GSR is the Groups` link with the General Service Conference, through which groups share experiences and voice AA’s collective conscience.

More from Bill W………..

“The G.S.R.- as the general service representative is known - has the job of linking his or her group with A.A. as a whole. The G.S.R. represents the voice of the group conscience, reporting the groups’ wishes to the committee member and to the delegate, who passes them on to the Conference and to the movement. For this, G.S.R.’s need the confidence of the group. They also need a good ear for listening. We all realize whatever “authority” there is in A.A. resides in the group conscience. Because of this, a G.S.R. can determine exactly what a group needs, what a group thinks about a situation, and can pass this information along to where it will be most useful in policy-making. This is a two-way street, allowing the G.S.R. to bring back to the group the problems and remedies that affect A.A. unity, health, and growth. To the extent that a G.S.R. keeps the group informed, then expresses the group conscience, only to that extent can the Conference feel it is acting for A.A. as a whole”. (From “The A.A. Service Manual”)

Responsibilities

The suggested responsibilities are:-

• Share with their group all Fellowship mail, communication and news items.
• Keep members informed about local service activities.
• They may be contacts for referral to carry the AA message.
• GSRs can also help their Group solve problems by drawing upon the facilities of the General Service Office in York where the staff is ready to relay helpful AA experience from all over the World.
• They can help see that up-to-date group information for the AA directory is sent promptly to GSO.
• The GSR is the vital link in the chain of two way communication between the Group and Intergroup. Each represents his or her Group at Intergroup service assemblies, sharing experiences with neighbouring GSRs in workshops and sharing sessions.
• Prior to attending Intergroup Meetings, fully discuss agenda items with the Group.
• Represent and express the Group’s conscience at all Intergroup Meetings. The GSR should faithfully express the Group’s opinions whatever his or her feelings maybe: thus putting principles before personalities.
• Following Intergroup report back to the Group.
• The GSR has a responsibility to attend all such meetings and, if this is impossible, to brief thoroughly an alternate, chosen by the Group to stand in.
• Encourage observers to attend Intergroup in order to foster their interest in the Fellowship and sponsor other members into Service.
• Only GSR’s and members of the Intergroup Committee are entitled to vote at Intergroup meetings.
• It is the GSR’s responsibility to know the Group so well that should unexpected matters come before the Intergroup meeting he or she will have a fair idea of Group’s conscience.

Qualifications

Groups should take due care in electing their GSR, giving particular regard to the following:

• It is suggested that the GSR should have at least two or three years’ continuous sobriety and preferably not hold any other Group office. (It should be remembered that the GSR may be eligible for candidature as a Regional representative or as a Conference delegate).
• The GSR should have a working knowledge of the AA publications referred to in the introduction
• The GSR should have a good knowledge of the structure of AA.
• The GSR should be a regular weekly attender at his or her own Group and therefore be able, should necessity arise, to stand in for any other officer of the Group who is unable to be present.
• The GSR should be prepared to serve for a minimum of two years.”

(our emphases)

Comment:
To reiterate:

“We all realize whatever “authority” there is in A.A. resides in the group conscience”

and under Responsibilities:

“Represent and express the Group’s conscience at all Intergroup Meetings. The GSR should faithfully express the Group’s opinions whatever his or her feelings maybe: thus putting principles before personalities.”

We also refer the Chairman (see here) to the “Structure of Alcoholics Anonymous in Great Britain” (taken from AA website archives). If he and and his associates are unwilling to accept the expressed conscience of the constituent groups of Poole Intergroup then he (and his supporters) have really only one option – to resign! If he (and they) should fail to do so (which we strongly suspect will be the case – this type rarely do!) then a vote of no confidence should be proposed and if carried the intransigent Intergroup officers should be removed from their positions with immediate effect. Whichever line of action is taken failure by this Intergroup to act in accordance with the conscience of the groups brings it (and AA) into disrepute and is a direct breach of Tradition Two. We cite accordingly:

“For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority—a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern.”

Cheers

The Fellas

Tradition Two

Short form:

"Two—For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority—a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern."

Long form (weird but true - in this particular case the long form is actually shorter than the short form):

"2.—For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority—a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience."

(our emphases)

Note: It is the group that makes the decisions - not some individual within the group (leader or not). Moreover there is no "govern" in AA and therefore no "government" and therefore following on from this no "politics" or "politicking". If a group is "run" by an individual, or even a "clique", then it has of necessity NO group conscience