Every now and then a couple of AA members will get together and after the standard enquiries – How’s it going? Who’s doing what to whom? Have you heard about …. (fill in the gaps)? How are the meetings going? Have you seen ….? there will follow something along these lines.
Dave: “Still doing the treasurer’s job then at such-and-such meeting?”
Mike: “Yeah”
Dave: “You’ve been treasurer there for how long?”
Mike: “God. I’ve lost track. I tried to pass it on to someone else about 3 years ago but no bugger’d take it? Still I’ve saved up enough now for a trip to Las Vegas. But don’t tell anyone. (laughs) What about you? Doing the secretary’s job at ….?”
Dave: “Yes. Same as you. I’ve done three stints there now. I’ve just about run out of people to do chairs. I’ve asked everyone I know – some of them are regulars every year. I might have to go down the pub later and drag someone away from the bar. God we’ve heard Joe’s story so often now that we know it off by heart”.
“Yeah. It’s always the way isn’t it. 10% of us do 90% of the work”
They part with a sigh and a joke and that’s about it. It isn’t too much of a problem and everyone likes a good moan and it’s called "other’s people’s apathy".
But at higher levels of the service structure we don’t think that is what is happening at all.
It has been common knowledge for some time that a relatively small proportion of the fellowship runs our society. The same people turn up in a range of different jobs, just rotating with each other, year in and year out. Most of the time it’s done with good heart since, after all, the main beneficiary is the person himself or herself. But there’s just a little bit of needle here and there and the muttered comment “Bloody apathy”. There are the standard speeches laid out before us of the values of service and the usual responses – business as usual. Up to this point it has not really been a major problem. However because of this flaw AA has always been up for grabs to any set of individuals who were sufficiently determined and organised enough to make the attempt; and that time has now arrived. It’s been building slowly for a number of years now but critical mass has been achieved and unless action is taken then the Fellowship that we have known will cease to exist. Some might think that that is a good thing – we don’t.
The problem revolves around the notion of apathy; but only other people’s apathy – never our own. Since dictionaries have been employed so readily recently to muddy the waters let us employ one following the intention for which they were designed; to rectify our terminology – or get words straight. Apathy means: want of feeling, passion or interest. One thing is quite clear: there is no shortage of feeling or passion in AA; so that can’t be it. This leaves one component: interest. This is a word with many meanings most of which we will not bore you with – if you have a dictionary you can find out for yourself. However there is one particular description that seems most relevant – ie. a state of engaged attention, and the keyword is “engaged”. Now we put the dictionary down and look at the actual state of affairs. 90% (or so) of our fellowship is not “engaged” with what is going on within it. They are not particularly interested; the next question is why?
Here are some thoughts on the matter:
Firstly, for the average newcomer to AA (if he or she is really serious about it) their main concern is that of survival. The primary goal for these people is simply not to die and for that reason, and quite rightly, the only thing that they really need care about, or be engaged in, is the pursuit of that aim. AA recognises this and ensures that everyone knows that the first target is to stay away from one drink one day at a time – or for whatever time period they can manage.
After a little while, the newcomer becomes aware that there is a recovery programme which, according to our experience, will enable them to remain drink free and lead a reasonable life. They may or may not choose to adopt that approach – that is up to them. For those who follow this course they may find that it is not so difficult after all to remain drink free and that life can be handled with a bit of help from your friends and a Higher Power of your understanding. Up to this point the main concern of the new person revolves primarily about himself or herself although they have begun to gain an understanding that occasionally they might like to help someone else who has been in a similar predicament.
Now that the immediate pressure of imminent death is off they have a greater emotional stability and a clearer mind and they start to become more aware of the unifying traditions of the Fellowship and commence to form some notions about them. Bit by bit they discover that maybe they are a good idea especially when they see examples where these guidelines are ignored and the ill consequences that follow from this. They may also start to understand that part of the programme may involve some kind of job in AA helping out and that this may benefit them more than the people that they might be serving. However they also have families, jobs, etc and such responsibilities mean that they have to make choices about what to do with their time and energy. Most individuals will find a balance that suits them – ranging from virtual non-involvement with AA at any level to almost a full time career in the Fellowship – again the choice is theirs.
Most people will be quite happy to help out at group level – and a considerable proportion of these will, if only out of curiosity, investigate intergroup etc. However what they will find there seems more complex and more distant from the ordinary workings of the groups to which they are accustomed. The jargon will be quite unfamiliar, the procedural processes difficult to follow and the whole tone of the business more akin to the kinds of political forums which may not appeal. They may conclude that perhaps this kind of stuff is better left to those who like this kind of thing – the committee man or woman, the politician, the lawyer. So far from being apathetic they have made a decision based upon an awareness of their own capacities and temperaments and decided where they are best suited to serve. However they do believe that these structures and the people who participate in them are fully accountable to those they serve ie. the membership of AA.
All large organisations have a tendency to centralise power, evolve bureaucracies, and create rules (in our case “guidelines”, “suggestions”) both formal and informal. As time goes by the central organisational structure becomes more and more isolated from the people that it is supposed to serve. As this structure becomes more complex it becomes less and less accessible to its clientele, and a whole new rank of individuals is required to interpret its workings and enable its functioning; this is what is happening in AA. Most of the membership does not understand the workings of this bureaucracy. They don’t know the mechanisms by which it operates, how to communicate with it, how to influence it; in fact how to interact with it at all. They become increasingly dependent on those who have mastered the intricacies of the machine to honestly and responsibly conduct the business of the Fellowship at that level but with no accurate means of assessing the effectiveness or integrity of their conduct. This central structure becomes virtually autonomous and starts to set its own agenda. It begins to serve its own interests that become increasingly divorced from those of the wider organisation.
We have a system in AA of representatives and delegates. The former are a relatively straightforward matter. They carry the will of the people that they represent to the next level up – they are mouthpieces and channels of communication. Delegates however are another matter – they are given the authority to make decisions on behalf of those they speak for without necessarily consulting with them – they are trusted servants – but are they? We would argue that it is in the interests of the bureaucracy to minimise the impact of “representatives” and accentuate the influence of “delegates” – decision-making can be more and more centralised and therefore more easily controlled.
It is argued that a parliamentary democracy is more appropriate than pure democracy since it is impractical for an MP for example to consult with his/her 100,000 constituents individually. But you can be quite sure, if they are any good, that they will have access to some sources of information about the predominant concerns of their electorate – and they can only afford to ignore those up to a point. In our case we have GSRs who probably only represent a dozen or so individuals on average. They have both the opportunity and means to consult regularly with their constituents – in fact they can do it every single week if they attend their home group. It is entirely practical for the group to ensure that their GSR knows precisely what their views are on a whole range of subjects. Further the technology exists to keep every single member of AA fully informed about everything going on in AA in every part of the organisation. Of course it is up to them to sift through the deluge of information but it is not beyond our wit to devise systems that assist people in this process. There is no reason why every member of AA should not fully participate in the decision making process at every level and the will of the group be communicated to the next level up and so on. There is in fact little need for delegates at all. There is a need for clearer and simpler communication and fewer levels of bureaucracy beyond those absolutely indispensable for implementing the policies laid down by the broad membership of AA. (Incidentally there is no real justification for officers of intergroup to hold a greater voting weight than ordinary members of AA. Their function should be that of a civil service carrying out the wishes of the membership).
In contradistinction to what should be what has taken place in West Kent is an example, a brutal one at that, of what happens when the bureaucracy, (highjacked by the cult) goes into action, unopposed and unaccountable. We were given a clear demonstration of what happens when the machinations of the bureaucracy, using a terminology and citing authority with which most of the membership are completely unfamiliar, acts in support of a purpose that is completely at odds with the principles of AA. This was done covertly and deceitfully, and solely with the intent of overriding the decisions reached by properly constituted group consciences, after moderate and intelligent debate, who made up their own minds about what they wanted intergroup to do. The bureaucracy together with the cult had different ideas – the casualties in this case were truth, integrity and finally democracy.
If the membership of AA really believe that they can affect the decision making of AA at every level – that their voice counts – then you will have an “engaged” fellowship. Without that then what is labelled as “apathy” will continue – which only serves the interest of the bureaucracy and the cult.
Finally, can our leaders be automatically regarded as trusted servants? – certainly not in West Kent Intergroup. And what about in the rest of the country?
Dave: “Still doing the treasurer’s job then at such-and-such meeting?”
Mike: “Yeah”
Dave: “You’ve been treasurer there for how long?”
Mike: “God. I’ve lost track. I tried to pass it on to someone else about 3 years ago but no bugger’d take it? Still I’ve saved up enough now for a trip to Las Vegas. But don’t tell anyone. (laughs) What about you? Doing the secretary’s job at ….?”
Dave: “Yes. Same as you. I’ve done three stints there now. I’ve just about run out of people to do chairs. I’ve asked everyone I know – some of them are regulars every year. I might have to go down the pub later and drag someone away from the bar. God we’ve heard Joe’s story so often now that we know it off by heart”.
“Yeah. It’s always the way isn’t it. 10% of us do 90% of the work”
They part with a sigh and a joke and that’s about it. It isn’t too much of a problem and everyone likes a good moan and it’s called "other’s people’s apathy".
But at higher levels of the service structure we don’t think that is what is happening at all.
It has been common knowledge for some time that a relatively small proportion of the fellowship runs our society. The same people turn up in a range of different jobs, just rotating with each other, year in and year out. Most of the time it’s done with good heart since, after all, the main beneficiary is the person himself or herself. But there’s just a little bit of needle here and there and the muttered comment “Bloody apathy”. There are the standard speeches laid out before us of the values of service and the usual responses – business as usual. Up to this point it has not really been a major problem. However because of this flaw AA has always been up for grabs to any set of individuals who were sufficiently determined and organised enough to make the attempt; and that time has now arrived. It’s been building slowly for a number of years now but critical mass has been achieved and unless action is taken then the Fellowship that we have known will cease to exist. Some might think that that is a good thing – we don’t.
The problem revolves around the notion of apathy; but only other people’s apathy – never our own. Since dictionaries have been employed so readily recently to muddy the waters let us employ one following the intention for which they were designed; to rectify our terminology – or get words straight. Apathy means: want of feeling, passion or interest. One thing is quite clear: there is no shortage of feeling or passion in AA; so that can’t be it. This leaves one component: interest. This is a word with many meanings most of which we will not bore you with – if you have a dictionary you can find out for yourself. However there is one particular description that seems most relevant – ie. a state of engaged attention, and the keyword is “engaged”. Now we put the dictionary down and look at the actual state of affairs. 90% (or so) of our fellowship is not “engaged” with what is going on within it. They are not particularly interested; the next question is why?
Here are some thoughts on the matter:
Firstly, for the average newcomer to AA (if he or she is really serious about it) their main concern is that of survival. The primary goal for these people is simply not to die and for that reason, and quite rightly, the only thing that they really need care about, or be engaged in, is the pursuit of that aim. AA recognises this and ensures that everyone knows that the first target is to stay away from one drink one day at a time – or for whatever time period they can manage.
After a little while, the newcomer becomes aware that there is a recovery programme which, according to our experience, will enable them to remain drink free and lead a reasonable life. They may or may not choose to adopt that approach – that is up to them. For those who follow this course they may find that it is not so difficult after all to remain drink free and that life can be handled with a bit of help from your friends and a Higher Power of your understanding. Up to this point the main concern of the new person revolves primarily about himself or herself although they have begun to gain an understanding that occasionally they might like to help someone else who has been in a similar predicament.
Now that the immediate pressure of imminent death is off they have a greater emotional stability and a clearer mind and they start to become more aware of the unifying traditions of the Fellowship and commence to form some notions about them. Bit by bit they discover that maybe they are a good idea especially when they see examples where these guidelines are ignored and the ill consequences that follow from this. They may also start to understand that part of the programme may involve some kind of job in AA helping out and that this may benefit them more than the people that they might be serving. However they also have families, jobs, etc and such responsibilities mean that they have to make choices about what to do with their time and energy. Most individuals will find a balance that suits them – ranging from virtual non-involvement with AA at any level to almost a full time career in the Fellowship – again the choice is theirs.
Most people will be quite happy to help out at group level – and a considerable proportion of these will, if only out of curiosity, investigate intergroup etc. However what they will find there seems more complex and more distant from the ordinary workings of the groups to which they are accustomed. The jargon will be quite unfamiliar, the procedural processes difficult to follow and the whole tone of the business more akin to the kinds of political forums which may not appeal. They may conclude that perhaps this kind of stuff is better left to those who like this kind of thing – the committee man or woman, the politician, the lawyer. So far from being apathetic they have made a decision based upon an awareness of their own capacities and temperaments and decided where they are best suited to serve. However they do believe that these structures and the people who participate in them are fully accountable to those they serve ie. the membership of AA.
All large organisations have a tendency to centralise power, evolve bureaucracies, and create rules (in our case “guidelines”, “suggestions”) both formal and informal. As time goes by the central organisational structure becomes more and more isolated from the people that it is supposed to serve. As this structure becomes more complex it becomes less and less accessible to its clientele, and a whole new rank of individuals is required to interpret its workings and enable its functioning; this is what is happening in AA. Most of the membership does not understand the workings of this bureaucracy. They don’t know the mechanisms by which it operates, how to communicate with it, how to influence it; in fact how to interact with it at all. They become increasingly dependent on those who have mastered the intricacies of the machine to honestly and responsibly conduct the business of the Fellowship at that level but with no accurate means of assessing the effectiveness or integrity of their conduct. This central structure becomes virtually autonomous and starts to set its own agenda. It begins to serve its own interests that become increasingly divorced from those of the wider organisation.
We have a system in AA of representatives and delegates. The former are a relatively straightforward matter. They carry the will of the people that they represent to the next level up – they are mouthpieces and channels of communication. Delegates however are another matter – they are given the authority to make decisions on behalf of those they speak for without necessarily consulting with them – they are trusted servants – but are they? We would argue that it is in the interests of the bureaucracy to minimise the impact of “representatives” and accentuate the influence of “delegates” – decision-making can be more and more centralised and therefore more easily controlled.
It is argued that a parliamentary democracy is more appropriate than pure democracy since it is impractical for an MP for example to consult with his/her 100,000 constituents individually. But you can be quite sure, if they are any good, that they will have access to some sources of information about the predominant concerns of their electorate – and they can only afford to ignore those up to a point. In our case we have GSRs who probably only represent a dozen or so individuals on average. They have both the opportunity and means to consult regularly with their constituents – in fact they can do it every single week if they attend their home group. It is entirely practical for the group to ensure that their GSR knows precisely what their views are on a whole range of subjects. Further the technology exists to keep every single member of AA fully informed about everything going on in AA in every part of the organisation. Of course it is up to them to sift through the deluge of information but it is not beyond our wit to devise systems that assist people in this process. There is no reason why every member of AA should not fully participate in the decision making process at every level and the will of the group be communicated to the next level up and so on. There is in fact little need for delegates at all. There is a need for clearer and simpler communication and fewer levels of bureaucracy beyond those absolutely indispensable for implementing the policies laid down by the broad membership of AA. (Incidentally there is no real justification for officers of intergroup to hold a greater voting weight than ordinary members of AA. Their function should be that of a civil service carrying out the wishes of the membership).
In contradistinction to what should be what has taken place in West Kent is an example, a brutal one at that, of what happens when the bureaucracy, (highjacked by the cult) goes into action, unopposed and unaccountable. We were given a clear demonstration of what happens when the machinations of the bureaucracy, using a terminology and citing authority with which most of the membership are completely unfamiliar, acts in support of a purpose that is completely at odds with the principles of AA. This was done covertly and deceitfully, and solely with the intent of overriding the decisions reached by properly constituted group consciences, after moderate and intelligent debate, who made up their own minds about what they wanted intergroup to do. The bureaucracy together with the cult had different ideas – the casualties in this case were truth, integrity and finally democracy.
If the membership of AA really believe that they can affect the decision making of AA at every level – that their voice counts – then you will have an “engaged” fellowship. Without that then what is labelled as “apathy” will continue – which only serves the interest of the bureaucracy and the cult.
Finally, can our leaders be automatically regarded as trusted servants? – certainly not in West Kent Intergroup. And what about in the rest of the country?
