Background: In Toronto Canada a new era of AA stewardship is sweeping AA Intergroup. It is the era of governance, enforcement and homogeneity of a controlled interpretation of the message of Alcoholics Anonymous. If Bill Wilson were here today and still recording AA's legacy, he would surely have drawn upon this example of what we should not do in his Berenstain Bears essay style that the Twelve Traditions are full of.
In Toronto, agnostic AA groups were carrying the message to nonbelievers that don’t subscribe to an interfering or intervening god. Some believers don’t like the idea of agnostic AA and stay away. Other members found it refreshing and the new meeting renewed their enthusiasm for AA. Everything was fine. Like AA worldwide, agnostic groups in Toronto took their place along other AA groups as rights-bearing equals, just as agnostic groups have done in AA since the mid-1970s. Toronto’s first agnostic group offered an agnostic interpretation of AA's Twelve Steps, removing “God.”
Members voted with their bums – the modest meeting grew, the group gave out eight one-year medallions in the first 18 months and two more agnostic groups opened their doors to likeminded AA members and newcomers In Toronto. The group was also home to a half-dozen 20 year+ AA long-timers.
Intolerant believers saw the presence of agnostic groups in the meeting directory as a threat—not to their own beliefs of course, but as always, there fear was on behalf of the fragile newcomer. A plot was hatched to find the groups guilty of an AA crime and excommunicate them. Intergroup did toss the agnostic groups from the directory and the Intergroup steering committee struck the agnostic groups from participation on the Intergroup floor, leaving no means of appeal – at least not by the directly affected parties.
The groups that were dumped were alleged to have violated an AA rule--they read and distributed an interpretation of the Twelve Steps without the word “God.” Is there such a rule that trumps group autonomy? No but they just borrowed some wording from our Service Manual that limits the power of the General Service Board or Conference. GSO can’t change the Steps or Traditions without the OK of 75% of AA groups. Nowhere in this service manual does it suggest that this is a mandate to over-rule group autonomy.
Al-Anon, a refuge of sober second thought, adopted a three-fold filter that Socrates is credited with offering us: Is it true? Is it fair? Is it useful? The agenda at Intergroup was hurried. We had to get these groups voted out before the May printing (2011) of the Greater Toronto Meeting List. In fact, we were out of meeting lists. Requests from groups were not being met because we couldn’t print new meeting lists until Intergroup rushed this motion through to oust agnostics from the Toronto AA lexicon. The reification of a singular pure message of recovery would be the hallmark of Toronto's new style of Intergroup governance.
The vote wasn’t even close; agnostic AA isn't AA enough for Toronto. In the rush, these three questions were never asked – is it true that groups aren’t allowed to read their own interpretation of the Twelve Steps? Is it fair that an AA service structure can or should pass judgment on the merits of a group recognized by General Service Office as a legitimate AA group? Was it useful for newcomers to replace unity with uniformity.
Indianapolis, Des Moines and, from what I hear, Boston have wrestled with this same debate? Is bigotry or preservation at work when new rules are added and enforced? Bill Wilson’s AA was and is one of reducing barriers to entry – not putting them up. In a Toronto General Service District Committee meeting the following essay was presented as a discussion piece on AA’s Twelve Concepts:
Concept V : “Through our world service structure, a traditional “Right of Appeal” ought to prevail, thus assuring that minority opinion will be heard and that petitions for the redress of personal grievances will be carefully considered.”
Bill W quotes a French nobleman, De Touquerville who visited North America to witness the new Republic. As noted by Wilson, the nobleman offered the new democracy some advice, "The greatest threat to democracy would always be the tyranny of apathetic, self-seeking, uninformed or angry majorities. Only a truly dedicated citizenry, willing to protect and conserve minority rights and opinion, could guarantee the existence of a free and democratic society.”
When unpopular opinions are forbidden and minorities are scapegoats, De Touchqerville would view these signals as a society in decay. Are we a “truly dedicated citizenry?” Is AA in our area apathetic? Have we ever been part of a self-seeking, uninformed or angry majority that imposed our will on a minority? Concept V – the minority opinion is our best chance of not falling prey to this kind of complacency.
The General Service Conference may seem like they take forever to get anything done. Hearing the opinion of the minority is something that AA goes to great lengths to ensure. Often when a two-thirds vote could easily be obtained the floor, agonizingly waits to hear what everyone has to say. The minority can alter the will of the majority.
The late Barry L, author of “Do You Think You’re Different” and “Living Sober” was a GSO staff member in 1973 and 1974 and tells of the story when the Conference had to decide if Gay meetings could be so identified in AA directories. The mood of the floor was dead-set against the idea. Remember that homosexuality was still a felony and gay men and women were spoken of as deviants.
In Barry’s 1985 World Conference talk in Montreal he recalls, “The discussion in 1974 went back and forth, back and forth for two days and two nights. Much of the agenda was wiped out. I remember one man saying, ‘I guess if this year you list the sex deviants, next year you’ll list the rapists AA groups.’
“A delightful woman from one of the northern States or maybe Canada, standing about three feet tall, came to the middle microphone and pulled it down to her face and said, ‘Where I come from alcoholics are considered deviants.’ The chairman astutely saw that the mood of the floor had changed and he asked if anyone wanted to call the question. The vote was cast and only two delegates voted against the gay and lesbian groups inclusion; it was almost unanimous, 129 votes to two.”
Every generation thinks it has found some new threat to AA sustainability. If I were to bring up the topic of a group changing the wording of the Twelve Steps, you might think I am talking about AA literalists vs agnostic groups at Toronto Intergroup Circa: 2011. While it is true that here in Toronto, what the minority calls “group autonomy,” a resounding majority of Toronto Intergroup reps call grounds for dismissal. Fifty-five years ago, AA had a different attitude towards minority rights and group autonomy.
A poignant story comes from the mid 1950s as AA was reaching alcoholics around the world, where the God belief that dominates AA culture was not shared by many. Bill Wilson was quite clear about the liberty for individual groups in his Chapter on Unity from “A. A. Comes of Age.” Buddhists announce to AA that they would love to be part of AA, yet they would be replacing the word “god” with “good” so that the practice of the Steps could be compatible with their non-theistic belief. In 1957, Bill writes:
“To some of us, the idea of substituting ‘good’ for ‘God’ in the Twelve Steps will seem like a watering down of A.A.’s message. But here we must remember that A.A.’s Steps are suggestions only. A belief in them, as they stand, is not at all a requirement for membership among us. This liberty has made A.A. available to thousands who never would have tried at all had we insisted on the Twelve Steps just as written.” (from Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age, page 81)
Today’s Toronto Intergroup convincingly disagrees with our cofounder. Voting out atheists has surely increased the popularity of Intergroup participation. Intergroup is generally represented by 40 to 50 of Toronto’s 200+ groups. We got 82 bums in seats to keep two nonconforming groups from returning to Intergroup participation and to vote out a new deviant group.
AA stewards have come out of the woodwork to see and participate in AA democracy – or at least AA democracy minus Concept V. When agnostics were first banished from the meeting list last May, AA’s “Right of Appeal” might have included this reading of AA history from Comes of Age. The reading might have made it clear that the exact wording of our Twelve Steps are neither law nor orthodoxy. Intergroup could have been reminded that not only has it always been permissible for each group to do as it chooses, but this autonomy has always made AA bigger and better, reaching the hand of AA out to all who suffer.
But in May of 2011, the groups that were voted against were voted out of Intergroup. The voice of the minority was buried as the meeting names were stroked off the Intergroup list of members.
The AA Service Manual states that “When a minority considers an issue to be such a grave one that a mistaken decision could seriously affect AA as a whole, it should then charge itself with the duty of presenting a minority report.”
Bill goes on to say, “minorities frequently can be right; that even when they are partly or wholly in error they still perform a most valuable service, when by asserting their ‘Right of Appeal,’ they compel a thorough debate on important issues. The well-heard minority, therefore, is our chief protection against a, misinformed, hasty or angry majority.”
In an AA without Concept V, unpopular opinions or ways of doing things are suppressed or eradicated, uniformity replaces unity and our AA becomes a culture of conformity, burying the tapestry that preceded it. This is the natural consequence of apathetic, self-seeking, uninformed or angry majorities that resist scrutiny.
AA must also be protected from an angry, self-seeking minority. What if secular AA demanded that their way was right and all of AA should shape up with a more inclusive Twelve Steps that doesn't speak of a creator in the Judeo/Christian language of "God." Should all of AA change to accommodate the beliefs of the few? No it should not. Autonomy in AA rests with individuals and the groups. But an AA held hostage by special interest groups would be no more palatable than a minority discriminated against by the majority. Bill Wilson thought long and hard about these things: What is true, what is fair and what is useful? Long live Concept V.
Notes:
Hear Barry L's 1985 World Conference talk at 40 years sober, three weeks before his death. Hear it HERE
Toronto Intergroup minutes (click on May 2010, March 2012) Here
Concept V from the AA World Service, The Twelve Concepts by Bill W, page 22 HERE
Berenstain Bears - "this is what you should not do, so let this be a lesson to you" HERE
In Toronto, agnostic AA groups were carrying the message to nonbelievers that don’t subscribe to an interfering or intervening god. Some believers don’t like the idea of agnostic AA and stay away. Other members found it refreshing and the new meeting renewed their enthusiasm for AA. Everything was fine. Like AA worldwide, agnostic groups in Toronto took their place along other AA groups as rights-bearing equals, just as agnostic groups have done in AA since the mid-1970s. Toronto’s first agnostic group offered an agnostic interpretation of AA's Twelve Steps, removing “God.”
Members voted with their bums – the modest meeting grew, the group gave out eight one-year medallions in the first 18 months and two more agnostic groups opened their doors to likeminded AA members and newcomers In Toronto. The group was also home to a half-dozen 20 year+ AA long-timers.
Intolerant believers saw the presence of agnostic groups in the meeting directory as a threat—not to their own beliefs of course, but as always, there fear was on behalf of the fragile newcomer. A plot was hatched to find the groups guilty of an AA crime and excommunicate them. Intergroup did toss the agnostic groups from the directory and the Intergroup steering committee struck the agnostic groups from participation on the Intergroup floor, leaving no means of appeal – at least not by the directly affected parties.
The groups that were dumped were alleged to have violated an AA rule--they read and distributed an interpretation of the Twelve Steps without the word “God.” Is there such a rule that trumps group autonomy? No but they just borrowed some wording from our Service Manual that limits the power of the General Service Board or Conference. GSO can’t change the Steps or Traditions without the OK of 75% of AA groups. Nowhere in this service manual does it suggest that this is a mandate to over-rule group autonomy.
Al-Anon, a refuge of sober second thought, adopted a three-fold filter that Socrates is credited with offering us: Is it true? Is it fair? Is it useful? The agenda at Intergroup was hurried. We had to get these groups voted out before the May printing (2011) of the Greater Toronto Meeting List. In fact, we were out of meeting lists. Requests from groups were not being met because we couldn’t print new meeting lists until Intergroup rushed this motion through to oust agnostics from the Toronto AA lexicon. The reification of a singular pure message of recovery would be the hallmark of Toronto's new style of Intergroup governance.
The vote wasn’t even close; agnostic AA isn't AA enough for Toronto. In the rush, these three questions were never asked – is it true that groups aren’t allowed to read their own interpretation of the Twelve Steps? Is it fair that an AA service structure can or should pass judgment on the merits of a group recognized by General Service Office as a legitimate AA group? Was it useful for newcomers to replace unity with uniformity.
Indianapolis, Des Moines and, from what I hear, Boston have wrestled with this same debate? Is bigotry or preservation at work when new rules are added and enforced? Bill Wilson’s AA was and is one of reducing barriers to entry – not putting them up. In a Toronto General Service District Committee meeting the following essay was presented as a discussion piece on AA’s Twelve Concepts:
Concept V : “Through our world service structure, a traditional “Right of Appeal” ought to prevail, thus assuring that minority opinion will be heard and that petitions for the redress of personal grievances will be carefully considered.”
Bill W quotes a French nobleman, De Touquerville who visited North America to witness the new Republic. As noted by Wilson, the nobleman offered the new democracy some advice, "The greatest threat to democracy would always be the tyranny of apathetic, self-seeking, uninformed or angry majorities. Only a truly dedicated citizenry, willing to protect and conserve minority rights and opinion, could guarantee the existence of a free and democratic society.”
When unpopular opinions are forbidden and minorities are scapegoats, De Touchqerville would view these signals as a society in decay. Are we a “truly dedicated citizenry?” Is AA in our area apathetic? Have we ever been part of a self-seeking, uninformed or angry majority that imposed our will on a minority? Concept V – the minority opinion is our best chance of not falling prey to this kind of complacency.
The General Service Conference may seem like they take forever to get anything done. Hearing the opinion of the minority is something that AA goes to great lengths to ensure. Often when a two-thirds vote could easily be obtained the floor, agonizingly waits to hear what everyone has to say. The minority can alter the will of the majority.
The late Barry L, author of “Do You Think You’re Different” and “Living Sober” was a GSO staff member in 1973 and 1974 and tells of the story when the Conference had to decide if Gay meetings could be so identified in AA directories. The mood of the floor was dead-set against the idea. Remember that homosexuality was still a felony and gay men and women were spoken of as deviants.
In Barry’s 1985 World Conference talk in Montreal he recalls, “The discussion in 1974 went back and forth, back and forth for two days and two nights. Much of the agenda was wiped out. I remember one man saying, ‘I guess if this year you list the sex deviants, next year you’ll list the rapists AA groups.’
“A delightful woman from one of the northern States or maybe Canada, standing about three feet tall, came to the middle microphone and pulled it down to her face and said, ‘Where I come from alcoholics are considered deviants.’ The chairman astutely saw that the mood of the floor had changed and he asked if anyone wanted to call the question. The vote was cast and only two delegates voted against the gay and lesbian groups inclusion; it was almost unanimous, 129 votes to two.”
Every generation thinks it has found some new threat to AA sustainability. If I were to bring up the topic of a group changing the wording of the Twelve Steps, you might think I am talking about AA literalists vs agnostic groups at Toronto Intergroup Circa: 2011. While it is true that here in Toronto, what the minority calls “group autonomy,” a resounding majority of Toronto Intergroup reps call grounds for dismissal. Fifty-five years ago, AA had a different attitude towards minority rights and group autonomy.
A poignant story comes from the mid 1950s as AA was reaching alcoholics around the world, where the God belief that dominates AA culture was not shared by many. Bill Wilson was quite clear about the liberty for individual groups in his Chapter on Unity from “A. A. Comes of Age.” Buddhists announce to AA that they would love to be part of AA, yet they would be replacing the word “god” with “good” so that the practice of the Steps could be compatible with their non-theistic belief. In 1957, Bill writes:
“To some of us, the idea of substituting ‘good’ for ‘God’ in the Twelve Steps will seem like a watering down of A.A.’s message. But here we must remember that A.A.’s Steps are suggestions only. A belief in them, as they stand, is not at all a requirement for membership among us. This liberty has made A.A. available to thousands who never would have tried at all had we insisted on the Twelve Steps just as written.” (from Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age, page 81)
Today’s Toronto Intergroup convincingly disagrees with our cofounder. Voting out atheists has surely increased the popularity of Intergroup participation. Intergroup is generally represented by 40 to 50 of Toronto’s 200+ groups. We got 82 bums in seats to keep two nonconforming groups from returning to Intergroup participation and to vote out a new deviant group.
AA stewards have come out of the woodwork to see and participate in AA democracy – or at least AA democracy minus Concept V. When agnostics were first banished from the meeting list last May, AA’s “Right of Appeal” might have included this reading of AA history from Comes of Age. The reading might have made it clear that the exact wording of our Twelve Steps are neither law nor orthodoxy. Intergroup could have been reminded that not only has it always been permissible for each group to do as it chooses, but this autonomy has always made AA bigger and better, reaching the hand of AA out to all who suffer.
But in May of 2011, the groups that were voted against were voted out of Intergroup. The voice of the minority was buried as the meeting names were stroked off the Intergroup list of members.
The AA Service Manual states that “When a minority considers an issue to be such a grave one that a mistaken decision could seriously affect AA as a whole, it should then charge itself with the duty of presenting a minority report.”
Bill goes on to say, “minorities frequently can be right; that even when they are partly or wholly in error they still perform a most valuable service, when by asserting their ‘Right of Appeal,’ they compel a thorough debate on important issues. The well-heard minority, therefore, is our chief protection against a, misinformed, hasty or angry majority.”
In an AA without Concept V, unpopular opinions or ways of doing things are suppressed or eradicated, uniformity replaces unity and our AA becomes a culture of conformity, burying the tapestry that preceded it. This is the natural consequence of apathetic, self-seeking, uninformed or angry majorities that resist scrutiny.
AA must also be protected from an angry, self-seeking minority. What if secular AA demanded that their way was right and all of AA should shape up with a more inclusive Twelve Steps that doesn't speak of a creator in the Judeo/Christian language of "God." Should all of AA change to accommodate the beliefs of the few? No it should not. Autonomy in AA rests with individuals and the groups. But an AA held hostage by special interest groups would be no more palatable than a minority discriminated against by the majority. Bill Wilson thought long and hard about these things: What is true, what is fair and what is useful? Long live Concept V.
Notes:
Hear Barry L's 1985 World Conference talk at 40 years sober, three weeks before his death. Hear it HERE
Toronto Intergroup minutes (click on May 2010, March 2012) Here
Concept V from the AA World Service, The Twelve Concepts by Bill W, page 22 HERE
Berenstain Bears - "this is what you should not do, so let this be a lesson to you" HERE