Honest (and dishonest) sharing

"The pledge : 'When anyone, anywhere reaches out for help, I want the hand of AA to be there, and for that I am responsible'

Tradition 5: 'Each group has but one primary purpose - to carry its message to the alcoholic that still suffers'

Something I have found key recently is the need for honesty. Honesty for me is one of the main components within recovery. To admit what we were, and are, is a huge step forward - only when we do this can we truly start to recover.

Honesty must also be carried forth when sharing at meetings. I have attended certain groups where the sharing is uniform and all too squeaky clean. It is important to be aware of what you are sharing and how this will affect the newcomer. I have experienced meetings where the sharing from the core of the group is all the same. Everyone has been rocketed into the 4th dimension. How everything is just perfect. How they have a life beyond their wildest dreams. Quite often there is a heavy emphasis on the book, sponsorship, with an undertone that if these avenues are not explored something unpleasant will happen to the poor newcomer. Though I am an advocate of the big book, the steps and a sponsor, ramming it down some poor newcomer's throat, in my honest opinion, serves as nothing more than repelling them away and damaging the reputation of the majority of AA people who genuinely care.

I have experienced people sharing about how the groups they were in were all sharing about how great things were - the person concerned was puzzled as they did not feel that way. In my view I don't feel that it is possible to have sunshine beaming from every pore all day every day. No one can never have a bad day. Sometimes when I hear this uniform drivel it smacks of religious frenzy. Whether the individuals are aware of the detrimental effect this manufactured, repetitive spiel has on newcomers is another debate entirely. I know it's not good though.

The obstacles and sometimes painful experiences that sobriety throws at us do not disappear simply because we have taken the steps and worked the programme. It is important to recognise that as we live life on life's terms we find that yes, real life can be bloody hard at times. It is important that we stay positive, but also reflect that this recovery business can be bloody hard work at times. What I have seen as a result of the uniform 'happy, joyous and free' gang is that newcomers come in, can't relate to feeling great all day every day and assume one of two things - 1) That whatever is going on they can't get it because they don't relate to the drones sharing and 2) That because they don't feel that way all day every day - AA must be a load of cobblers and they go on their merry way confused and back out of the door. In my experience, meetings where people are brutally honest are shunned and deemed 'sick' - their crime, telling it how it really is. Why is this?

There is no doubt in my mind that AA works, and life does get better, but a reality check is also needed.

On the level of personal responsibility, I feel that it is also our duty to be very cautious about becoming part of a group within a group. I feel it can be damaging on 2 fronts. It can alienate the newcomer entirely and lead to them leaving the group and possibly AA. I have also seen instances where the individual goes down the dishonesty route. They want to become part of the inner circle and therefore share dishonestly just to fit in. After all - the big book says ' no man wants to admit that he is bodily or mentally different from his fellows'. Being caught in this rut also discourages regular members from attending other meetings - thus denying them a mix and range of different views and sharing, denying them the experience or a bigger range of human experience in AA. In cases like this, the path really does become narrower, and eventually so do people's viewpoints.

Don't get me wrong, a good dose of common sense and balance is always a great remedy for the above, but we are talking about people who are new to the fellowship and may well be desperate.

I hope the above points are valid for anyone reading.“

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

Cheers

The Fellas

News from Eastbourne and Sheppey

"Hello. My name's ....I was in the fellowship since last January at the Eastbourne “There is a solution” AA group. I found that certain practices were being used and having looked at your site - it is a very big issue. I'm glad to say that this meeting has now moved ..... I would be happy to go into what has gone on within this group...

I feel very strongly about this situation within AA. I've seen quite a few people join the "There is a solution" meeting only to realise it seems to be a religious Christian only meeting. I myself have been intimidated to the point I don't go to real AA meetings. I stood up to the main GSR who takes the group as a whole to church - her choice of church, to meetings that they sit and try to take over - the sick meetings as they call them. I've been told by a person who was sacked twice from the group as being evil! - trying to stop their meetings .... this made me feel like leaving .....I've been told by them when I was part off to not go alone to SICK meetings, stop my medication prescribed by my GP, to keep ringing newcomers everyday, put pressure on them to stay in the group. You are instructed to read Joe Mq [circuit speaker] 12 steps and other non AA material. Also forced to a talk given by American speaker in Croydon in the summer at a cost of £15 per ticket. A friend was forced to kneel and pray to god or leave group! A person who was forced to go to church, baptised even though does not believe in god and then sacked when pressure was too much they drank again. The list goes on. I hope that this in some way helps you. Many thanks for your time"

We've also been informed by another AA member that a group has set up in Sheppey (West Kent) going under the title of Road to Recovery. We've no confirmation yet whether this group forms part of the cult network which uses the AA name as a cover for its activities - but the group title is rather suggestive - we'd be happy to receive any further information which either refutes or confirms that connection

Cheers

The Fellas
(as usual our thanks to the contributors)

"Here is the story about Irma Livoni....

.....Each year around this time I try to tell this true story about what happened not just on Dec. 7th, 1941 (Pearl Harbor Day), but what happened to one of the few women who was in AA at that time, and about a letter she received in the mail, on Monday, December 8th, which virtually kicked her out of AA......

In Dec of 1984, I had been sober for 2-1/2 years, and working with my sponsors Bob and Sybil Corwin since January of 84. Sybil had gotten sober in March of 1941, so at the time she was 43 yrs sober. We were driving home from a meeting and she asked me the date (to her it was just Sunday). I told her it was Dec. 8th, and that yesterday (Dec. 7th) was the anniversary of Pearl Harbor Day.

She said "Matt, have I ever told you about Irma Livoni?"

"Nope, who is she?"

She said, "Well, when we get back to the house, come in for coffee and I'll tell you a story about AA history and some of the reasons we have tradition 3. Oh, and by the way Matt, did you know that the literature specifically protects 'queers, plain crackpots, and fallen women, and since you and I are at least two out of those three, we should be especially grateful for tradition 3? I'll show you it when we get home."

I laughed out loud, as Sybil had a great sense of humor, and she had been a taxi dancer, back before she got sober, you know one of those "10 cents a dance" ladies, and she was divorced twice, and was a single mom, as well as an alcoholic back then, so the term "fallen woman" was something that hit close to home. She had told me that it was very different back in the 30's and 40's for a woman to be an alcoholic. Sybil said It was a time when women wore hats and gloves, and "respectable women" were not usually found in a bar, or at "whoopie parties."

Our Thursday night step study had voted to not cover the traditions after we got to step 12, so I figured they must not be very important and thought I'd probably be bored with the conversation, but she got my attention telling me that "queers, crackpots and fallen women" were mentioned, so I agreed to come in for coffee. Besides Sybil had been sober longer than I had been alive. I didn't argue with her very much.

Sybil got down her copy of the big book. She said, I want you to find the traditions in there, and read me tradition 3. It was a 1st. Edition Big Book. Thicker than mine. I said, "Is this why they call it the Big Book?" She said, "Exactly, Bill had it printed on big paper, with big margins around the type, so that people would think they were really getting something for their money." I looked in the back of the book, where I thought the traditions were, but couldn't find them. "I can't find them, Sybil." "Exactly. That's because we didn't have any traditions back in 1941 when I came in. And Matt, AA was in mortal danger of destroying itself, which is why we have traditions now." Then she had me find them in my 3rd. Edition B.B. and in my 12 &12. I didn't read it all, just the caption heading, and then she started telling me the story of IRMA LIVONI....

Irma was a sponsee of Sybil's. She also became a member in 1941, just after Sybil. Sybil took her into her home. (Sybil told me that many people's bottoms were very low then, no home, no job, no watch, no car, nothing). Sybil said it was different then for a woman to be an alcoholic. That most of them had burned all their bridges with their families, and were looked down upon, even more so than male alcoholics. Sybil said she watched AA help Irma get sober, watched AA help Irma get cleaned up, watched AA help Irma get her first job in sobriety, and watched AA help Irma get her first apartment in sobriety. Then she said that on Dec. 5th, 1941, a self-appointed group of the members signed a letter to Irma and mailed it on that Friday, Dec 5th,2days before Pearl Harbor.

Here is a copy of the letter:

ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS

Post Office Box 607
Hollywood Station,
Hollywood, California

December Fifth, 1941

Irma Livoni
939 S. Gramercy Place
Los Angeles, California

Dear Mrs. Livoni :

At a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Los Angeles Group of Alcoholics Anonymous, held Dec. 4th, 1941, it was decided that your attendance at group meetings was no longer desired until certain explanations and plans for the future were made to the satisfaction of this committee. This action has been taken for reasons which should be most apparent to yourself.

It was decided that, should you so desire, you may appear before members of this committee and state your attitude. This opportunity will be afforded you between now and December 15th, 1941. You may communicate with us at the above address by that date. In case you do not wish to appear, we shall consider the matter closed and that your membership is terminated.

ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS,
Los Angeles Group

Mortimer Joseph
Frank Randall
Edmund Jussen Jr
Fay D. Loomis
Al Marineau


I was stunned. "How could they do this, Sybil?"

"Because we didn't have any guidelines, any traditions to protect us from good intentions. AA was very new, and people did all sorts of things, thinking they were protecting the fellowship."

Sybil then said to close my eyes and imagine my being in the following setting. Sybil explained that Dec. 7th, 1941 was Pearl Harbor Day (a Sunday). She said that that Sunday night everyone in LA was afraid that Los Angeles would also be attacked and bombed. There was a citywide blackout, people were so terrified. She said that on Monday Dec. 8th., President Roosevelt gave the speech that talked about "the date that will live in infamy" and that we were now at war with Japan and Germany. She said, that was the day that Irma received her letter. There was only one meeting in the entire state of California when Sybil came in, in 1941. By December there may have been two or three, but Irma had nowhere else to go, no one else to turn to. No other group in California that she could ask for help. Sybil said, "Imagine only one or two meetings in your entire state, and being shunned by your family, and by society, and by the only group of people who were on your side, your AA group. Imagine them shutting the door on you and sending you such a letter, Matt." I shivered at the thought of it. It was Christmas time, the stores were decorated and now poor Irma was all alone. I thought about how it was in 1984 with 2000 meetings a week to choose from in Southern California. and then I imagined having no other help for a hopeless alcoholic.

Sybil told me that Irma never came back to another meeting, left AA and died of alcoholism. She wrote to Bill about the incident, and I cannot tell you that this is the reason that the following is a part of the 3rd. Tradition, but it certainly seems to apply. From Tradition 3, page 141: ... that we would neither punish nor deprive any AA of membership, that we must never compel anyone to pay anything, believe anything, or conform to anything? The answer, now seen in Tradition Three, was simplicity itself. At last experience taught us that to take away any alcoholic's full chance was sometimes to pronounce his death sentence, and often to condem him to endless misery. Who dared to be judge, jury and executioner of his own sick brother?"

JUDGE JURY AND EXECUTIONER... I remember looking at those words again and again, and they seemed to get larger and larger.

JUDGE, JURY AND EXECUTIONER,
JUDGE, JURY AND EXECUTIONER,
JUDGE, JURY AND EXECUTIONER,

I hadn't really noticed EXECUTIONER when I had read it the first time at my 12 &12 study group. Again I felt so bad for this poor lady.

Wow, those words really had a different meaning than when I had read the traditions before. So here it is, 23 years later, and each December 7th and 8th I always think about Irma Livoni, and how lucky I am, that we have traditions now. I also think of how lucky I was to have met Sybil and so lucky that she appointed herself my sponsor.

Years later I realized how everything she ever taught me was like gold. But in 1984 I had no idea who Sybil really was or how lucky I was to have her as my sponsor. She was like a piece of living history, but I really didn't realize how valuable that was in explaining WHY we do some of the things we do (like the story she told me about how they never said "Hi Sybil" and no one said "Hi my name is Matt and I'm an alcoholic" back then). Besides being one of the first women in AA, Sybil was the first woman west of the Mississippi. She also became the head of LA's central office for 12 years, and she became close friends with Bill and Lois. She and Bob even used to go on vacation with them. She used to tell me all sorts of stories about Bill Wilson and things he said to her. He was very interested in how AA would work for women, as there were very few women worldwide in AA back in 1941. Marty Mann came in before Sybil did, but very few stayed sober....

I learned that night that no one can get kicked out of AA. We can ask a disturbing wet drunk that he needs to settle down or we might have to ask him to step outside for that day, but we don't vote to kick anyone out forever. And we don't shun people because our guidelines, our traditions tell us that no one has to believe in anything (they don't have to be like me) and they don't have to conform to anything(they don't have to dress a certain way, or have no facial hair, or pay anything). Even if I get drunk again, I am still welcome at any AA meeting.....

So that's the story about Irma Livoni. Feel free to pass this along to anyone you know who might be interested in knowing a bit about how and why the traditions got started. I think it sort of puts a face on tradition 3: the face of a woman I never knew, who got kicked out of AA. Who got drunk and died.....

Thank God for Tradition 3, and thank God for all of you. I truly appreciate and cherish all the people in this group.

Best AA love to you all,

Matt"

VAUXHALL: LONDON BEGINNERS

The latest addition to our Pantheon of Shame:

Area: GREATER LONDON
Town: VAUXHALL
Day: THURSDAY
Postcode: SW8
Time: 19.00
Group Name: VAUXHALL: LONDON BEGINNERS
Open or Closed: All mtgs 'open'.
Address: Ashmole Community Hall, 2 Meadow Rd SW8



This group is up to its old tricks again - yet another promotional event featuring named guest speakers and with a £7.00 charge for the privilege of listening to some "personalities" recycling the latest perversion of the AA message. The colourful, if not garish, flyer (see above) promoting this event helpfully points out that:

"There are many AA conferences/conventions held around the world. A common misconception of these gatherings is that they are regular AA Meetings. Conventions and Conferences are special events, which require a substantial amount of funding. This convention is self-supporting. Attendance is voluntary and as responsible AA members, we pay our own way".

Apparently this rationale is intended to justify charging for entry. Well they've got one thing right - this little shindig can by no stretch of the imagination be considered a "regular AA meeting" if an AA meeting at all! Again an attempt is made to blur the lines between what constitutes an AA meeting and what might be considered a business meeting or a purely social event. There is nothing to suggest in the promotional material that members are not in fact being charged to go to a meeting. In AA conventions there is a clear separation between the two, the cost of running the AA meeting met by "voluntary contributions", and any other charges (relating to the provision of entertainment, food, beverages etc) being separately itemised, and comprising a ticket price. In this fashion no AA member is excluded from attending an AA meeting per se for whatever financial reason. It is open then for each person to decide whether they wish to attend any accessory activities but these latter fall within the province of "outside issues" and therefore subject to the usual economic constraints.

Just for the hell of it we've listed the AA traditions this group has broken (and this purely on the basis of the flyer):

One, Two, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Ten, Eleven, Twelve

Not bad! Only 9 traditions out of 12 - must try harder!

Cheers

The Fellas

(our thanks to the AA member who drew our attention to this)

PS The good news - apparently attendance at this event is "voluntary" - Phew! What a relief!

"Criticism as Deviance and Social Control in Alcoholics Anonymous"

An interesting article from the Journal of Contemporary Ethnography

Click here to download

(our thanks to the AA member who drew this to our attention)

A Meditation Course

This is a meditation course (sent to us by an AA member) which we thought was particularly well presented and simply explained. The course can be located here.

We hope you enjoy it

Cheerio

The Fellas


(our thanks to the AA member for their contribution)

Gresham's Law and Alcoholics Anonymous - a critique

According to that age-old tradition – you're waiting for a bus and none appears – and then – just as you're about to give up – a whole convoy arrive!!! And so...

“Gresham's Law and Alcoholics Anonymous” was originally published in July 1976 in "24 Magazine" (author unknown), and subsequently updated in 1993 by Tom P, Jnr.

(The essay itself – henceforth abbreviated to GLAA - can be accessed via the internet by putting the title in a search engine. There are a number of versions available but they differ mostly in format rather than content)

To clarify: Gresham's Law states essentially that "Bad money drives out good". In this context the “law” is cited to exemplify the view (propagated mostly by the fundamentalist tendencies both within and without AA, and including the Primary Purpose movement) that Alcoholics Anonymous' programme (and its application) has undergone a progressive weakening or dilution since the inception of the Fellowship, and this has been accompanied necessarily by a reduction in recovery rates. According to some sources this essay serves as one of the crucial supports to that argument. We were somewhat surprised, therefore, on reading the piece, to discover how much of it was based on the author's opinion, and how little upon any substantial evidence in support of its contentions. The few references to any kind of statistical data are, as far as we can discern, either unsupported by research (independent or otherwise) or gross misrepresentations (or perhaps, more charitably, misinterpretations) of these figures. As a work of speculation it has little merit; as an analysis it has none.

Essentially the essay purports to demonstrate a number of factors which apparently “explain” why recovery rates (and quality of sobriety) are much reduced since the origination of AA in 1935.

Firstly the author asserts that in the early days of AA (ie. from its inception but prior to the publication of the book Alcoholics Anonymous in 1939) “a more rigorous and demanding” programme was practised, one largely derived from that of the Oxford Group, and which consisted of their initial framework of six steps plus the Four Absolutes. Moreover this approach placed a great deal more emphasis on belief and reliance upon God (the last term to be interpreted according to traditional orthodoxy since the Oxford Group was an attempt to return to (as they understood them) fundamentalist Christian principles), a practice which was intended to lead to a “spiritual experience”.

Secondly, that subsequently, the programme's presentation and application have been progressively “diluted” and “secularised”, its principles “sugar coated”, that it has translated from a “directive” to a “suggestive” mode of emphasis, and , moreover, the expression “spiritual experience” has been replaced by “spiritual awakening” as the primary objective - and consequence - of implementing the 12 Steps, and all this due to a shift within AA (by cause and effect) from the originally more demanding approach to the present largely watered down version.

The author of GLAA further argues that AA practitioners may be characterised as falling under three main categories: “strong”, “medium” and “weak” (and also, by analogy, “strong-cup-of-tea”, “medium-cup-of-tea”, or “weak-cup-of-tea” types). The “strong” variety represents those who adhere most closely to the programme in its 'original' form, and who place a greater emphasis on implementing its principles. The “weak” type is characterised by those who have substituted mere participation in the AA fellowship (ie. meeting attendance) but this accompanied by little or no application of its principles ie. the twelve Steps. Finally the “medium” category falls somewhere between these two extremes (the author also refers to the “weak” type as “COWD AA” (“copped-out and watered-down AA")).

Finally - and as a consequence - this “dilution” has resulted in falling recovery rates, and even when these are sustained it is asserted the quality of recovery, or “sobriety”, falls far short of what it could be.

It should be commented here that the first clue as to the author's flawed perspective, (and more revealing perhaps of his underlying bias) lies in his use of the “cup-of-tea” analogy:

“By 1941 (which was the year my father, Tom P. Sr., came into the Fellowship) it was possible to distinguish three variant practices of the AA program, which we have labeled the strong-cup-of-tea, medium-cup-of-tea and weak-cup-of-tea approaches.”

He later goes on to expand on these categories which may essentially be boiled down to his own summary:

“There are three ways to work the program of Alcoholics Anonymous.

1. The strong original way - proved powerfully and reliably effective over fifty-eight years.

2. A medium way - not so strong, not so safe, not so sure, not so good, but still effective.”

And lastly,

“3. A weak way, which turns out to be really no way at all but literally a heresy, a false teaching, a twisting and corruption of what the founders of Alcoholics Anonymous clearly stated the program to be.”

Firstly, the notion that these “variant practices” may be reduced to a comparison of “tea strengths” is dubious in itself. It cannot, for example, be asserted that there is any particular inherent virtue in whether tea be taken strong or weak; this is rather a matter of taste. It follows therefore that what the author may actually be illustrating in this presentation is not so much the efficacy of the respective practice but rather a reflection of his own predilections ie. his own tastes. Moreover, underlying his assumption that there can be only one effective way to practice the programme (the “strong-cup-of-tea” method) is the belief that every alcoholic must necessarily be of the same temperament, of the same constitution, at the same stage of the progression of the illness of alcoholism, and of course, and somewhat trivially, inclined towards the same tastes. This is quite patently a perspective at odds with actuality. For example, and as a comparison, it may be that an individual has a malign cancer. The condition may be labelled as a type of cancer, it may manifest in one part of the body or another - or many - and at varying degrees of development. No one is going to suggest that the treatment administered is necessarily to be identical for every patient. Rather the remedial action, where this is possible, is applied according to what is requisite rather than dependent merely on the inclination of the doctor, or at least we hope so. These variations are, in part, acknowledged within the author's “medium” category where the programme is practised with some vigour - but in a somewhat selective style - and with the caution that this practice may, over time, slip into the “weak-cup-of-tea” category. He does not seem, however, to consider the possibility (although this is implicit in his discussion of the “medium” approach) that practitioners of the programme might just as easily shift from “strong” to “weak” as in reverse (assuming of course that everyone needs to apply the “strong” or even “medium” approaches to remain sober in the first place).

However, this aside, we will now consider the line of his argument:

It is uncontested that there was a gap between the origins of AA and the publication of the basic text of our society, the book “Alcoholics Anonymous”. Moreover it is accepted that the original format of the programme derives from the Oxford Group (which is evident from the structure and wording of their own six step framework). Additionally his outline of the development of the Fellowship is non controversial. However where we are inclined to part company is with his subsequent interpretation of events leading to the “dilution” of the AA message.

At the outset he argues that the Twelve Steps as they were formulated: “contradict the secular psychological axiom that where the level of performance is low, you must set a low level of aspiration in order to gain a positive result in life”.

Furthermore:

“According to the secular psychological view, the only practical approach for the early AA's to have taken would have been as follows: to put together a program which aimed certainly no higher than alcohol abstinence and a return to life as it had been in pre-alcoholic days, to life as ordinary men and women of the world.

However, these wild and woolly early AA's, these psychologically illiterate off-scouring and rubbish of the world, these newly-sobered-up drunks, set out to become totally committed men and women of God”.

It is evident from the above quotes that the author sets little store by ordinary psychological methods. This low valuation would seem to revolve around the stated “psychological axiom” (an axiom, to remind those of you who have forgotten, is a self evident truth, a universally received principle, a postulate, an assumption). For our part we are not aware of any such axiom nor do we consider the statement above to incorporate anything within it which is at all self evident. In fact it seems rather to be an expression of prejudice more than anything else. At best it can be considered an assumption, a simple speculation, but one as yet untested. Additionally the idea that anyone within a social science would be prepared to present such a statement as being “axiomatic”, when even those within the “hard” sciences (their subject matter being far more amenable to such generalisations) would hesitate to accord to a “fact” such weight, seems to us entirely beyond what is reasonably credible. Again we have to assume that this statement itself represents nothing more than an assumption, or more simply, an opinion. However, he goes on to argue (somewhat ironically), and in contradistinction to this limited “secular” approach, that these “newly-sobered-up drunks, set out to become totally committed men and women of God”. This, of course, immediately begs the question: If they were already sobered up then why was it necessary for them to commit themselves to God, or, for that matter, do anything more than they had already done? We have to assume, therefore, that this preliminary “sobriety” comprised no more than mere physical abstinence from alcohol, and did not meet all the other criteria constituting what he later on describes as “permanent recovery” (whatever that might be!) (It should be noted here that the term “sober” or “sobriety” within AA is applied sometimes to refer to physical abstinence, but also to the quality of life consequent upon that. The first is relatively easy to assess; it is objectively verifiable (or falsifiable). The latter, however, is rather a question of “value”, and therefore, by definition, impossible to “quantify”, other than indirectly, and by inference; we would argue finally it is a wholly subjective “fact”).

His argument proceeds in a similar ironical fashion, but now introducing the notion that the authors of the Big Book would need to “sugar coat” this pill if it were not to dissuade newcomers from accepting this “God-centered,, psychological heretical....” and so forth. Thereafter in his exposition the relevant passages are cited from the book 'Alcoholics Anonymous' including that section from Chapter Five: “Many of us exclaimed, “What an order....” through to “….. We claim spiritual progress rather than spiritual perfection.” It is also proposed by the author of GLAA that Bill and Dr. Bob (the co-founders of AA) further “sugar-coated” the pill by their repeated use of the term “suggested” (and its variants) throughout the basic text in order to avoid “frightening new prospects”, and again an explanatory extract is presented from Chapter Five: "Here are the steps we took, which are suggested as a program of recovery" to support this argument.

However we are now informed that:

“When the Twelve Steps were first being formulated by Bill and Dr. Bob and an editorial committee from Akron and New York - Bill, Dr. Bob and the entire committee conceived of the Steps as instructions, not as suggestions. When the idea of presenting the Steps as suggestions came up, Bill for a long time flatly opposed it.” But finally - and reluctantly - Bill agreed to the "suggestions" approach.

(It seems curious from the above (and unexplained) that where there was such apparent unanimity with respect to the “directive” approach out of of nowhere apparently comes the “suggestive” mode, and it is this latter which is subsequently adopted, though with some misgivings – allegedly – on the part by Bill W).

The author then goes on to assert the language employed in the first part of Chapter Five “would be utterly appropriate as a preamble to a set of action directions, but is not as nearly as fitting as an introduction to a group of suggestions.” He then goes on to quote that section:

“Rarely have we seen a person …....... Here are the steps we took...”

together with his own emphases to exemplify this more “directive” approach.

The author of GLAA then proceeds to give a brief account of the early expansion of AA, and including the period when the Big Book was being written. Apparently it was at this time, and then seemingly quite spontaneously: “It suddenly became attractive, in a way it had not been before when the fellowship was smaller and more intimate, to ease up a bit on the idea that all the principles should be practised all the time by all the members. More and more emphasis began to be placed on the fact that the Steps were to be considered as suggestions only. At this time, and through this set of circumstances, the "cafeteria-style" - take-what-you-like- and-leave-the-rest-out - approach to the Twelve Steps came into practice.

And it seemed to work. It turned out that many newcomers could get sober and stay sober without anything like the full and intensive practice of the whole program that had been considered a life-or-death necessity in the early years. In fact alcoholics in significant numbers began to demonstrate that they could stay off booze on no more than an admission of powerlessness, some work with other alcoholics and regular attendance at AA meetings.

This is not to say that all AAs began to take this very permissive approach to the Twelve Steps. A great many continued to opt for the original, full-program approach. But now for the first time the workability of other, less rigorous approaches was established, and a tendency had emerged which was to become more pronounced as time went on.”

The author then outlines his categories, ie, strong, medium or weak AA.

In brief:

Strong – a thorough going and continuing implementation of the 12 Step programme in its entirety. ie. “Strong AA was the original, undiluted dosage of the spiritual principles.”

Medium – commencing perhaps with some verve, but subsequently employing an abridged version of the Steps, and generally easing up “....(due to encroachment of business engagements, social activities and other baggage that went along with the return to normal life in the workaday world).”

Weak – missing out “big chunks of the program totally and permanently. Their approach could be summarised as: "All you need to do to stay sober is go to meetings and stay away from the first drink".

Moreover,

“....weak AAs who were successful in staying sober were pretty faithful meeting-goers. Since they were doing so little with the principles, their sobriety and their survival depended more exclusively than did those of the strong and medium AAs on constant exposure to the people of AA.”

He then goes on to argue that the medium approach is of some value, as a kind of springboard for the more “reluctant beginners”, but additionally that this can lead to “sliding back into weak AA”.

But:

“Weak AA has none of the redeeming features of medium AA. Weak AA is clearly at odds with the program as outlined in the Big Book. Weak AAs bases itself on a flat and un-negotiable refusal to work with vital recovery principles. Weak AA cops out and stays copped out on most of the Twelve Steps. Weak AA waters down the program to the point where there really is no program. A more accurate term than "weak AA" would be "copped-out and watered-down AA" - COWD AA for short.”

Now the author wades into even deeper speculations:

According to his interpretation “COWD” AA has, over time, come to displace strong AA and its message. He proceeds to account for this tendency by the increasingly confident and strident approach of the COWD adherents, and upon the “more relaxed and tolerant, less strident, less defensive,” strong AA adherents. Gradually “weak AA” became the 'in' thing, and “strong AA came to be regarded - not universally, but widely - as a bit stodgy and a bit passé.”

Annoyingly, or so it would seem, the adherents of the weak version of AA were able to remain sober, and this despite the “....introduction to the Twelve Steps”, where it is stated, “we thought we could find an easier, softer way, but could not”, which “was an unequivocal assertion that it was necessary to practice all the Steps.”

And now we have reached 1993, and according to the author “precious few AAs continue to attempt seriously and consistently to do these things on a daily basis - not after their first months of sobriety in the Fellowship.”; “weak” or “COWD AA” is the order of the day.

But then the surprise. After an earlier claim, that “many” weak AA adherents are getting (and staying) sober, it now appears that this is no longer the case: “weak AA, in very many cases, really doesn’t work. Weak AA brings about a far less profound life alteration than strong AA does. In many cases, the change which weak AA produces is not enough to crack the alcoholic pattern, and results in an apparent recovery which does not last but sooner or later eventuates in a relapse into drinking. And in many cases where weak AA does succeed in producing lasting sobriety, these weakly sober AAs peter out into lives of depression, anxiety, bitter resentment and real despair, just like nearly all the other merely dried-out drunks in history.”

The above quote exemplifies the two (interrelated) interpretations of what constitutes sobriety, and moreover the manner in which the author of GLAA shifts from one to the other as the mood (and his argument) takes him. On one hand we have “sober” as in simple, physical abstinence, and on the other “sober” signifying a certain quality of life but contingent upon that physical abstinence. Moreover, there is no real precision advanced here for what constitutes the “many cases” in the above quote. We have to assume that it means a minority for otherwise the term should be replaced by “most” ie. as in “a majority”. But how large is this minority? If it is a small minority then surely this cannot be used as a support for the argument ie. the smaller the minority the less statistically valid that sample becomes. But no figures, not even approximations, are offered to support this assertion. We have to assume that if there were such data they would be cited but, and from its absence, we are left rather with a estimate based on nothing but the author's impression (or opinion). However, if this imprecision fails to generate much confidence, the subsequent analysis can only provoke an even greater sense of disappointment. Again we are presented with the term “many cases” ( but still undefined) where “weak AA”, although producing lasting sobriety ie. physical abstinence, leads only to an inferior quality of life. Even if one were to accept this was the case it is difficult to determine whether this undoubtedly miserable condition derives from failing to implement spiritual principles, or may depend rather on the objective circumstances of those concerned, or indeed upon their even more particular subjective condition i.e. underlying psychological states unrelated to prolonged alcohol abuse, or perhaps the emotional constitution of the individual in question. To apply a blanket diagnosis to all and sundry, and in such an indiscriminate fashion, simply exemplifies a overly simplistic assessment of the general - and particular - human condition. Or to sum it up: You can't blame it all on alcoholism.

The author moves on to expound further on the progressive undermining of the sudden “spiritual experience” mode, one which would result in “permanent abstinence [which] will automatically occur as a blessed and life-saving-by-product”, and further asserts that this was: “ how it happened with Bill. That was how it happened with Dr. Bob. That was how it happened with the first hundred members. That was how the authors of the Big Book saw it would have to happen with EVERYONE.” (our emphasis)

The point is then hammered home, equating such an experience with only one result, this to be summed up as: “no spiritual experience – no recovery.”

It is at this point in the discussion that the following 'insight' is presented: that a “major shift in [AA] philosophy occurred”. Apparently this was reflected in the respective roles of “recovery principles and the recovery Fellowship in AA”, this taking place apparently, “Sometime between 1939, when the [Cleveland] Plain Dealer articles were published, and 1941, when the [Jack] Alexander piece ran in the [Washington] Post”.

Essentially as the fellowship of AA grew in numbers so did the availability of contacts, and gradually recovery became based rather upon meetings' attendance than “undergoing a real spiritual conversion”. Here the AA member rather stayed sober “largely off the power of the pack”.

It is at this point in the exposition we are introduced to two more categories of alcoholics:

“One, the sober-by-conversion alcoholics - those who, as the result of working the Steps, had had a spiritual experience and become transformed human beings, seriously involved with regenerative life and ideas, as contrasted with the two, sober-by-imitation alcoholics - those who had remained essentially the same type of people they had been before coming into AA, except that they had joined a new organization, made a new set of friends, and given up drinking in conformity to their new social setup”.

Moreover, the term “spiritual experience” came to be supplanted by that of “spiritual awakening” reflecting (according to the author of GLAA) the view that the former was “ too narrow and prejudicial against the less-profound life changes resulting from the mimesis-oriented AA, which were coming to be the majority recovery pattern in AA”, and he cites here the relevant section 'Appendix II Spiritual Experience' beginning with “The terms “spiritual experience” and “spiritual awakening” are used …. this conclusion is erroneous …..”

This section is contrasted with the more forthright exposition of “God-commitment” as exemplified at the beginning of Chapter Five. Although he himself expresses some recognition that such a qualification is itself to be welcomed, that spiritual change need not necessarily be in the form of some “sudden upheaval”, nevertheless this, together with the “clear, strong and unmistakable implication - by the indirect , defensive, almost apologetic treatment of the whole subject of religious and spiritual experience”, resulted in the aforementioned dilution of spiritual principles. Finally: “The founders of the Movement were responding to the spiritual problem by lowering the spiritual level of aspiration of the society, a move they could not make in the early days, but could make, and even felt they must make, now that the society had become large and gained a reputation for respectability and reasonableness.”

From this it is asserted that this qualified approach led to AA “dividing into two camps”: the “strong-cup-of-tea” and the “weak-cup-of-tea”, this unnoticed apparently by everyone except the author of GLAA.

The assumption underlying this argument is that these modifications occurred to accommodate AAs' new found “respectability and reasonableness”. It might equally be asserted that the reasons for these shifts in emphasis (rather than in substance) might rather be attributed to:

a broader range of experience - as AA membership expanded in numbers and diversity i.e. to include those who did not derive their approach directly from the Oxford Group, or indeed from any outside religious organisation, but who rather got and stayed sober (physical abstinence) within the context of the Fellowship, their direct experience accordingly modified - and refined - the original model of recovery.

a greater depth of experience – this factor is related to the above but derives from an increasing average longevity of sobriety (again physical abstinence).

a recognition that if AA were to be a truly inclusive Fellowship it would have to drop those explicit references to - and associations with - theologies, practices, perspectives etc which were directly related to outside organisations (including religious, and therefore encompassing both the Oxford Group and its fundamentalist Christian based approach).

a recognition that as a result of the lessening stigma associated with alcoholism (in part due to the efforts of AA itself) people were, and in increasing numbers, seeking assistance at an earlier stage of the progression of the disease (if one accepts the disease model), and that therefore the therapeutic or 'spiritual' measures required to support a “remission” from this chronic condition were correspondingly less drastic, and moreover “half measures” might in fact “avail us” something after all, and that so-called “weak” or “medium” AA might be just as effective in some cases as “strong” AA.

an expansion in membership, together with a corresponding geographical dispersion, resulted in increased numbers of meetings, which in turn gave the membership easier access to each other via this particular medium. Whereas this did not eliminate the need for formal 12 Step work ie. contacting potential AA members at their own homes (always at the newcomer's request), or via a neutral venue, AA meetings became the main vehicle for transmitting its message. Therefore meetings became more significant than they had been in the past for carrying out this function, a fact which might account for the increasing focus on meeting attendance as a basis for sustaining recovery.

the displacement (partial) of the term spiritual “experience” by spiritual “awakening” again suggests a pragmatic reform, and one based upon the “experiences” of existing AA members rather than on some palliative compromise intended to ease less committed members into the recovery programme. It is, indeed, recognised by the author of GLAA himself that this modification was useful, and that not all spiritual experiences needed to be of some dramatic or sudden nature, and that they could manifest in the another form, ie. the gradual, “educational” variety. Therefore we are quite unable to fathom the author's objection to this redesignation, the terminology employed being virtually synonymous.

And now the consequences:

“The relatively superficial life change which weak AA produces is sufficient to get some alcoholics sober. It is not adequate - it is not effective - it simply doesn’t work - for a very large number of others. This situation is evident both in the “easy” cases and the “hard”cases, that is, those alcoholics who have been very badly damaged physically and mentally before they arrive at their first AA meeting, those whose alcoholism is complicated with drug abuse, crazy sex, criminal or psychotic tendencies, or a hard streak of socio-psychopathology.”

From this we now have some clue as to the use of the above term “many cases” - this can be translated more accurately into “a very large number” though still a little fuzzy for such a serious declaration. And yet again, from the context of the above passage, there is a shift in the use of the word “sober” - here it is being wielded in the qualitative sense rather than “physical abstinence”.

Moreover:

“weak AA simply doesn’t work with the very large population of AAs who are known everywhere as “slippers” - those alcoholics who have developed a pattern of hanging around AA, staying sober for periods, but relapsing repeatedly into drinking.”

Now we have moved from “a very large number” to “the very large population” - seemingly the numbers increase by implication as the author of GLAA warms to his subject. But still he appears unable to put a figure to these “guesstimates”.

The author then goes on to cite the experience of the “East Ridge Recovery Facility in upstate New York. Strong AA is standard practice in the East Ridge group, and this group has a recovery rate of over seventy percent with these so-called AA failures”.

At last we have a number: seventy percent. Unfortunately, and on consulting the website which relates to this facility, we find no such reference to this recovery rate. Furthermore there is no indication of data collection relating to recovery rates etc. We are again left with a “percent” seemingly drawn out of thin air.

And now we come to those “many cases” of recovery where the “watered-down approaches to the Twelve Steps fails to hold up over the long haul. What looked in the beginning like an easier, softer way to maintain happy sobriety yields progressively less and less serenity and real happiness, finally ending in complete reversal of momentum and a relapse into serious personal misery. The end result may be a return to active alcoholism; or it may be a sinking-out into a life of discontented abstinence, marred by some combination of tension, resentment, depression, compulsive sick sex, and an overall sense of meaninglessness. It is a final failure to reap the benefits of the AA program; it is, in the last analysis,a failure to recover.”

In this section the author has fallen back on that old standby “many cases” and again the shifts between the uses of the term “sober” proceed apace.

Now we come to one of the few instances where there are any statistics deployed to support the above assertions, and we hoped quite naturally here for some further clarification on those “many cases” or “a very large number”:

Apparently,

“Two ominous tendencies are noticeable in contemporary AA. One tendency is toward a lower recovery rate overall. For the first twenty years, the standard AA recovery estimate was seventy-five percent. AA experience was that fifty percent of the alcoholics who came to AA got sober right away and stayed sober. Another twenty-five percent had trouble for awhile but eventually got sober for good, and the remaining twenty-five percent never made a recovery. Then there was a period of some years when AA headquarters stopped making the seventy-five percent recovery claim in their official literature. In 1968’s General Service Board published a survey indicating an overall recovery rate of sixty-seven percent. The net of all of this seems to be that as AA got bigger and older, its effectiveness dropped from about three in four to about two in three.”

The first set of figures appears to derive from those cited in the Foreword to the 2nd Edition of Alcoholics Anonymous (the first printing of this edition was in 1955). As we have come to expect the figures quoted are presented unqualified, and state that they relate to “the standard AA recovery estimate.....of the alcoholics who came to AA...”. This seems to suggest that these recovery rates apply to anyone who came to the Fellowship. In fact the figures relate only to those who, in the words of the text, “really tried”. (This point has been made repeatedly elsewhere so we are not going to 'belabour' it again here). The author of GLAA then adduces the 1968 GSB figures, which suggest an “overall recovery rate of sixty-seven percent”, a drop of 8 percentage points. However, in one analysis (How Well Does A.A. Work? An Analysis of Published A.A. Surveys (1968-1996) and Related Analyses/Comments - Don McIntire) it was demonstrated that the original estimates of 75 percent still apply, that is if one qualifies this assessment accordingly.

And now, and apparently defeated by any substantial evidence for falling recovery rates, he shifts once more to his favoured fall back position - a revaluation of the term 'sober' to be employed here in its 'qualitative' function, and which evidence is moreover: “clear enough to any careful observer of the AA scene”: “As the Fellowship grows older its class of old-timers, alcoholics sober ten years and longer, grows. And the question of the staying power of an AA recovery looms ever larger. It is an unhappy fact that growing numbers of these old-timers find the joy going out of their sobriety. Many of them search around frantically for ways to recapture the old zest for alcohol-free living, and many of them end up in such blind alleys as lunatic religions, pop psychological fads, or chemical alternatives like psychedelics, pot, tranquilizers and mood elevators. And many end up either back drinking or sunk in despondency, hostility, bizarre acting-out patterns of one sort or another, or just plain, devastating boredom”.

So - and perhaps quite annoyingly at least for the author of GLAA - it would seem that there are “growing numbers of these old-timers [“ten years and longer”]” (this itself something of a blow to the thesis that recovery rates are declining), but, “It is an unhappy fact that … the joy is going out of their sobriety”. There follows here an extensive list of where these unfortunate fellows are going wrong but - though not unsurprisingly - a dearth of any kind of data to back it up - not even anecdotal evidence - just more opinion.

And we come finally to the proposed solution:

“The answer lies in a return to original, strong AA. It turns out that the men who wrote the Big Book were right after all. It turns out that there really is no easier, softer way. The extra work and commitment demanded by the full-Program approach pays out in enormous and indispensable dividends. The extra work and commitment make sobriety fun, because they do not make sobriety an end in itself.”

Moreover:

“The majority of those who become addicted are people with a mystical streak, an appetite for inexhaustible bliss. We sought in bottles what can only be found in spiritual experience. AA worked in the first place because its Twelve Steps were a workable set of guidelines to real spiritual experience. The growth of the Movement made possible for a time a kind of parasitism in which partial practitioners of the spiritual principles were able to feed off the strength of full practitioners; those who had undergone real spiritual experience.”

Again we are presented with a figure, but one only slightly more specific than those alluded to above, and from which we can at least gauge the minimum value to be over 50 percent. Here it is asserted that a “majority of those who become addicted are people with a mystical streak”. Quite precisely what the author of GLAA had in mind by his use of the term “mystical” is not clear. It is to be assumed that this is in some way connected with the notion of “spiritual” but suggests again the writer's prejudice, ie. in regarding valid “spiritual experiences” to be in some manner linked with this tendency. Both terms are, by nature, subject to considerable interpretation, and it cannot follow that such particular definitions will of necessity converge upon that one determined solely by the author of GLAA. Moreover such a presumption on his part would suggest a remarkably obtuse perspective, or one which might even be regarded as verging on arrogant. To judge from the content of the remainder of the paragraph we would opt to apply the term “arrogant”. Here his withering contempt is clearly exhibited for anyone who applies these principles – or not - in any fashion other than that which he deems to lead to – and exemplify - a “real spiritual experience”. It is these “partial practitioners” who “feed off the strength of full practitioners” thus inducing “a kind of parasitism” within the Fellowship and programme.

“But now, the parasites have already drained the host organism of a considerable portion of its life force, with no benefit to themselves.”

And finally, and rather confusingly, but reiterating the previous themes:

“Complacency, smugness in our record of success, is our greatest enemy. If we as a recovered-addict society are unwilling to reverse our present course, the outlook is clear enough. We stand to recapitulate in less than a century what the great religious communities of the world have spent the last two thousand years demonstrating: that even the very best and highest of human institutions tend to deteriorate in time; and that size in spiritual organizations is often achieved at the expense of the abandonment of original goals and practices.”

We would remind you here that the author of GLAA has gone to some lengths (largely ineffective) to demonstrate the decreasing efficacy of “COWD AA” and yet we are now to beware of a “smugness in our record of success”! This confusion is not only exhibited here but throughout the whole of GLAA. Finally, and again betraying the author's own prejudices, there is reference to the “great religious communities of the world [who] have spent the last two thousand years ….”. This may be a valid statement when it comes to one specific, religious organisation – that of Christianity - but we can think of at least three others, and of comparable significance, which have been around for considerably longer than two millenia.

In conclusion the author of GLAA:

has failed to supply any evidence which lends credence to his argument. The data, where it is presented, is vague or misquoted.

shifts constantly between the two definitions of “sober” moving from the verifiable and quantifiable mode (when the evidence would seem to contradict his assertions) to the qualitative and subjective mode, an area by its very nature inaccessible to measurement, and only to be assessed by direct reporting on the part of those subjects, or inferred behaviourally (neither of which sources he provides).

asserts as fact what IN FACT are merely impressions, opinions, hypotheses, speculations, generalisations, assumptions and prejudices (unsubstantiated), all of which though are quite legitimate areas of human activity, but should hardly figure in any serious analysis of what is finally a very serious question.

We would invite you to consider the following studies (click here for link) which do present the relevant data, and ask you to consider this material (and draw from it whatever conclusions you wish) as a basis for judgement rather than the “kite flying” exemplified by GLAA, and others of its type.


Finally, and on a personal note:

The author of this critique is a member of AA (by this I mean I have, and still retain, a desire to stop drinking – this being the ONLY membership requirement for Alcoholics Anonymous). I have been continuously sober (physically abstinent from alcohol in any form and in any quantity) for a period running into decades now (“one day at a time”). I account for this fact by my regular attendance at AA meetings (which frequency has varied over the years), and my implementation of the recovery programme (as it is presented in the book Alcoholics Anonymous 3rd edn). My understanding of the principles it outlines is based upon direct study, and is, for the most part, unmediated by received opinion. Apart from the first couple of years of my recovery I have undertaken this particular journey without the services of a sponsor (“control freak” or otherwise) finding myself to be entirely capable of doing all of my own thinking, and making my own decisions (leading to successful outcomes or not) as it appropriate to one who makes claim to being an adult. That is not to say that I am unwilling to listen to the views of others, but I take quite seriously the notion that the only Higher Power upon which I can ultimately place any form of reliance is “probably [not] human”. For my part I do not believe in God (orthodox or otherwise), nor do I pray (on my knees or in any other position) for to do so would be to engage in an activity which I would regard as entirely meaningless. I have no difficulty whatsoever in accepting the fact that I am powerless over alcohol, nor that there are (innumerable) Powers greater than myself. In fact, and in my occasional moments of honesty, I would be hard pressed to find much which would constitute a lesser power, and, furthermore, would regard it as nothing short of insane, that I should believe the universe (and its component phenomena) should organise itself according to my will rather than the precise reverse. I have had no “spiritual experience” which could in any way be described as of the “sudden” type, nor am I (and necessarily following on from my statement above) aware of any kind of “God consciousness”, nor possess any sense whatsoever that such an entity exists in my particular universe. I would not even use the term “spiritual” other than according to its present currency within the Fellowship, a term which is so vague as to be almost useless as a means of communicating a concept. A more apt expression would be “holistic” in that my progress within AA has necessitated a complete revaluation of every area of my life, this process having taken place quite naturally, but utilising the structure and concepts presented by the programme, and leading, quite “educationally”, to some rather drastic realisations. None of these would I characterise as “spiritual” nor in any way were these insights associated with any form of “mysticism”. I am by nature a sceptic, and disinclined towards such tendencies unless it be in the form of fiction, which largely I believe to be its proper province. Moreover, and to utilise the categories so imaginatively employed by the author of GLAA, I would place myself in the “weak” to “medium” class of alcoholic, although I would baulk somewhat at applying the “COWD AA” brand to my back. As for the “quality” of my sobriety (the alternative mode) I have remained serenely “unrocketed” into any dimension, fourth or otherwise, being quite sure that an individual of my temperament would suffer greatly from the experience. (Interestingly, at least from my point of view, I am directly acquainted with three individuals – two still alive – all of whom have had what can only be described as dramatic shifts within their psyche – none of these are alcoholic, none are members of AA, and not one of them has any belief in a supreme deity). Otherwise my own life varies according to circumstance (both inner and outer, and therefore entirely as I conceive, and perceive, it), and is replete with such profound questions as those which relate to the nature of existence, purpose, meaning, and, indeed, whether I should have a toasted cheese sandwich now, or go for the easier softer way, and just slap a couple of slices between some bread and to hell with the grill! To put it another way, my sobriety, the quality of my life, is largely my business – it suits me!!

Cheerio

One of the Fellas