Cult of Sponsorship

24/03/09

A response to our entry on 9/03/09 "Some "sponsorship" guidelines taken from a Primary Purpose website" - and our reply
 

From: ........... To: aacultwatch.co.uk
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:23:48 -0500
Subject: Re: sponsorship

Thank you for drawing my attention to your concerns about our website on Sponsorship. Sorry for the delay ...... We do not believe or deem ourselves to be a cult. The guidelines were drafted up by myself and inserted in the spirit of clarifying what the real mean of sponsorship could mean for some of us in the carrying AA's message. ......... I am proud of my work on this website and the work we do locally. In all of the time our group has been in service we have had no official complaints through AA, ......... Having said because there appears to much in conflict of what the guidelines suggest compared to what you write, I am taking the said page off the site until it is modified or taken to my current sponsors. Best to you all

---

Our reply:

John Doe (aacultwatch.co.uk)
24 March 2009 07:50:13
..........

Dear .....

Thank you for your reply. We should make it clear that we have absolutely no problem with any group (or individual) carrying whatever message they like to whoever they like in whatever fashion that they like. That is their business. However, and as no doubt you are aware, there are currently AA groups in the UK (and elsewhere) who are claiming to be transmitting the AA message as it is related in the book "Alcoholics Anonymous" and then go on to present something that bears but the faintest resemblance to that text. The two central issues that give us the greatest cause for concern are those relating to sponsorship and the medication issue. We have already covered the sponsorship issue sufficiently (we think you will agree), and the medication question is already covered on the aacultwatch website. However ....... an AA member can sponsor any way they like, even in ways which we might not consider to be ethical, and for that matter, any AA member can be sponsored in any way they like - what we will not go along with is when people seek to gain legitimacy for those approaches by claiming the Big Book as an authority, or by stating that theirs is the only "true" AA message, and that other people are therefore necessarily wrong. As far as we are concerned the Big Book clearly indicates the way in which it is suggested AA members treat newcomers (Chapter Seven) and an attentive study of the text will reveal that members are in no way handicapped if they suffer from other issues unrelated to alcoholism (grave emotional problems etc). If a group wishes to advise its members that the only way to get sober is to do handstands whilst reciting the Declaration of Independence, we may doubt their sanity, but whatever floats your boat! But if they go on to claim that this is something that derives from the Big Book, or that this forms part of the programme of AA - it is at this point that we take issue.

We have to say that from our preliminary reading of some of the views expressed on sites falling within the category 'Primary Purpose' (Dallas etc) where claims are being made for the efficacy of their methods (undemonstrated) and consequent assertions about AA's supposed decline, it is there we seriously part company. As far as we're concerned the only authoritative text outlining the recovery programme of our Fellowship is the Big Book, without addition or subtraction. Members may choose to use other literature (conference approved or not) but when it comes to the recovery programme the basic text is quite explicit about its purpose and its methods. Its authority derives from the collective experience of the first group of alcoholics, and subseqently confirmed by those who have followed its suggestions.

Whereas we do not doubt the good intentions of some members, (including yourselves) good intentions are not enough. As William Blake indicated, "The road to hell is paved [with them]". Our sole concern is to ensure that the AA message is not subject to revisions which involve exploitation of our newest and most vulnerable members, the newcomers, nor poses any kind of risk to the health and indeed, lives, of those members who are dually diagnosed.

We would be the last to discourage members (or groups) from carrying the AA message as it is communicated in the basic text but there are great dangers when superadditions are placed alongside that exposition, which may suggest to someone who is not familiar with the programme that these also form part of its content.

For our part we do not wish to cause anyone distress nor undermine the efforts of people such as yourself who are simply doing their best to help others, but we do caution anyone running a website of the possible dangers of carrying content which seriously breaches AA traditions or that suggests that any AA member has any legitimate claim to exercise authority over another member. Our function is to carry a message, not dictate it.

We trust that you remain well

Regards

The Fellas

9/03/09

Some “sponsorship” guidelines taken from a Primary Purpose website

Prologue

We recently came across a set of guidelines (presented in the form of questions) posted on a website run by a Primary Purpose group. The guidelines seem to emanate from a member associated with the Dallas Primary Purpose group. (We have listed some of these below, together with our criticisms).

The Primary Purpose faction believe (among other things) that the reason why AA membership numbers have remained largely static since the 1990s, and recovery rates have fallen since AAs inception (their claim which is based both on a false premise, and the misinterpretation of statistical data), is because the Fellowship of AA has essentially become diluted by people who are not alcoholics, and as a direct result of this the AA “message” has become similarly enfeebled.

It is almost inevitable that a proportion of AA members are not in fact alcoholics as defined in the book “Alcoholics Anonymous” (or Big Book – slang term used by AA members for that work). Within that text there is reference, both overt and implied, not only to different types of drinkers, but also different types of alcoholics. Given the complexity of the issue (coupled with the tendency of alcoholics to exhibit the most extreme forms of denial when it comes to diagnosing their own condition) it would seem entirely irresponsible to add to the confusion by factoring in yet more opinions on who is and who isn't an alcoholic. The definition generally employed within AA for a “real” alcoholic is as follows: “We alcoholics are men and women who have lost the ability to control our drinking. We know that no real alcoholic ever recovers control.” (AA, 4^th ed. p. 30); so this is the one we shall employ; we now have one definition of what it means to be a “real” alcoholic. However, the decision as to whether a person is or is not an alcoholic is determined by self diagnosis (according to AA). This self assessment may be based on one's one experience as well as the comments and actions of others such as family members, employers, friends, work colleagues etc and - on coming into AA - the testimonies of other AA members – but not the judgement of other members! But the final conclusion (which is frequently arrived at over a period of some time, and not infrequently accompanied by relapse) is solely the province of the individual concerned. The opinions, views, beliefs, etc of others are irrelevant when it comes to this life or death decision. There is nothing, we repeat NOTHING, in the basic text which suggests that any member of AA has the power or right to decide who is or who is not an alcoholic and further, who is and who is not an AA member. They are, of course, entitled to hold whatever views they like, but they do not possess the right to pass judgement (and quite possibly a death sentence if they get it wrong) and attempt to enforce that view upon another human being. However, and as may be seen below, the proposed solution on the part of the Primary Purpose faction to this “dilution” is the employment of the role of “sponsorship” in “filtering out” these fraudulent alcoholics; ie. the right to decide whether another member is suitable or not now lies within the function expressed by that term.

Now to the “ad nauseam” item: firstly, there is no reference as such to “sponsorship” in the Big Book. The term is not used once, not at all, nowhere indeed does it appear. However, the activities of that role are predominantly communicated in the Chapter “Working With Others”. (Note: that the chapter heading is not “Directing Others”, “Controlling Others”, “Running Other People's Lives”, “Deciding whether Others Live or Die” etc. It actually says “Working With Others”. Furthermore we draw your attention to that little word “With” for so much is conveyed in that one, tiny, monosyllabic byte - “with”. It is a preposition and means – among many other things - “nearness, agreement, connection, by, beside, among, on the side of, in the company of.....” None of these terms implies control, but rather cooperation).

The Primary Purpose faction claim that they present the programme as it is laid out in the Big Book. We would argue that they do not. In fact what they present is the Big Book programme, but modified to reflect their own prejudices. Every text is open to interpretation since each individual approaches it, not as a “tabula rasa”, but with a particular orientation defined both by their nature and their nurture (see below). However there is a point where the discrepancy between interpretation and the objectively presented data is so wide that one no longer resembles the other. This is the case with the Primary Purpose presentation of the recovery programme. The methods employed by both the cult groups and the Primary Purpose faction bear little resemblance to anything described in the Big Book, either in spirit or substance. It is our view that both factions seek to gain authority for their agenda by hijacking the AA name, and legitimacy for their approach by claiming that it derives from the Big Book.

Furthermore, and despite their protestations of adherence to the Traditions, it requires only the most cursory of readings of their websites (and derived literature) to conclude that these groupings place personalities well above any residual principles that they may hold. Indeed, their philosophies (if they can be credited with such a degree of coherence) revolve mostly around a set of individuals who claim some acquaintance with the Big Book, steps and traditions, who then go on to demonstrate - and most convincingly - an ignorance of the subject that can only be accurately described as surreal, so distant is their interpretation from any sane reading of these principles.

Now we really have no problem with any individual - or collection of individuals - holding whatever beliefs they want, and acting in accord with these. If you really do need to control someone else's life because your own is in such a degree of disarray, then so be it. If you cannot be bothered to think for yourself and would much rather leave that cumbersome chore to someone else, then similarly, that is the course you have chosen. If you want a second or third hand recovery programme and you are not worth the best, then again, that is your choice. What we do have a problem with is that these views, and consequent methods, are palmed off as those conveyed in the Big Book. As is customary at this point, we suggest to those who seem to be ignorant of the subject under discussion, get a copy of the Big Book and read it. If you can find any reference to sponsorship in the basic text, then let us know, because you've probably got the only copy in existence that has such an inclusion. If you can find anything in the text that indicates that AA members tell other AA members what to do, again let us know, because your copy has got be a valuable collector's item, so rare an example must it be. If there is anything in the text that says that AA members cannot recover if they are on medication, again put us right on the subject – and so on and so forth .... But we will hazard a guess on this one – you won't because you can't. And now the questionnaire:

---

'Dear sir or madam,

We recently came across this particular section on your website relating to sponsorship. As you are no doubt aware there is considerable concern in AA about the fashion in which this function is being conducted in some quarters (most notably by those who are referred to sometimes by the label, the “Visions” cult). We have taken particular interest in the matter, prompted both by personal observation of this type of sponsorship as well as numerous reports (predominantly from newcomers) giving accounts of their mostly adverse experience. With reference to your list of questions (which we quote in part below) we would take issue with some of your guidelines. We appreciate that each individual is free to sponsor in any way they see fit (and hopefully that liberty extends to each sponsee, to choose the manner in which they are sponsored). However, you have published a set of guidelines on the matter, and in Question One have indicated that the Basic Text for Alcoholics Anonymous plays a central role in the whole matter. On that basis there are a number of inconsistencies in your list which we would like to point out.

So in that spirit:

Firstly, and not wishing to labour the point excessively, there is no mention as such of “sponsorship” in the basic text (although that function is described throughout the book, most notably in “Working with Others). However we believe that this is a point worth reflecting upon.

"Q1. Have I HONESTLY had a Spiritual Awakening, Experience or Psychic change as a direct result of having followed the clear-cut directions in the Basic Text for Alcoholics Anonymous?"

With reference to Q1, it should be noted that spiritual awakenings manifest in different forms and at different times. Appendix II, “Spiritual Experience” (BB, p. 569 3^rd ed) refers to the work of William James, the author of “Varieties of Religious Experience”. It is clear from this research that spiritual experiences have certain common features but also vary considerably in their expression. It is not easy to verify such experiences and the matter, by necessity, is primarily subjective. It is also made clear in the same section of the basic text that people undergoing such experiences are sometimes unaware themselves that they have undergone such. Therefore it is a difficult matter for anyone to necessarily conclude that they have experienced one. In some traditions (notably Zen Buddhism) it requires the confirmation of a enlightened teacher to assure their pupil that they have indeed made some kind of breakthrough in their “spiritual” (strictly speaking the use of the term “spiritual” in the Buddhist context is invalid - Buddhists do not believe in spirits or souls, or even in the existence of God in the sense of a supreme deity) development (this is a rather mysterious process of empathetic qualification which we're not even going to pretend to say we understand). Therefore your first question may be regarded as potentially impossible to answer, especially if the self assessment is to be honest.

"Q2. Do I clearly understand that my REAL (sole) purpose in living by the Spirit of the Twelve Steps is to fit myself to be of maximum service to God and the people He places in my life?".

With reference to the above question we observe that the wording “maximum service to God” is taken from the basic text. In that context it would be clear to any member of AA that such a term is to be understood in the way in which it is usually presented in the Fellowship – “A God of your understanding”. References throughout the book refer both to God in typically orthodox terms (reflecting both the times and the beliefs of the authors of the text) but also in a fashion which is by no means familiar within a Christian context eg. “Higher Power”, “a Power greater than ourselves”, “God idea”, “Creative Intelligence”, “Spirit of the Universe”, “Realm of Spirit”, “your own conception of God”, “Great Reality”, “Broad Highway” and so on. The basic text goes to considerable lengths to ensure that the reader fully understands that the key factor is their own unique spiritual conception: “Most of us think this awareness of a Power greater than ourselves is the essence of spiritual experience” (BB, p. 570). It then goes on: “Our more religious members call it “God-consciousness” thereby returning to a more orthodox reference. However the juxtaposition of the two statements makes it clear that the authors recognised that not every potential member of AA necessarily conceives of God in the “religious” sense, orthodox or otherwise. The fact is that not everyone's conception of God falls neatly under the label “God” or for that matter “He” and the writers of the BB understood that fact. Your guidelines however do not present the concept within this context and suggest that this conception must fall into a “religious” form. We refer you to the Foreword of the Second Edition (BB, p. xx): “Alcoholics Anonymous is not a religious organization”. Therefore someone new to AA, and reading your guidelines, might form the impression that he or she should adopt an orthodox religious view, and it would also imply that the only qualified sponsors would hold similar such stances. We do not believe that this position is either supported by the text, or by the Fellowship for that matter.

"Q5. When given the opportunity to help someone, do I consider it a boost to my ego or do I genuinely accept that I am doing His work by taking full responsibility for an alcoholic's life?"

Good question but see comments above with reference to God concept.

"Q6. Do I fully understand that my sole role and responsibility is to guide the new prospect, who ask for my help, to learn and experience the clear-cut directions in our Basic Text? Nothing else?"

We would debate the use of the term “guide”. If “guide” means “lead by example”, no problem. If guide means “direct”, then big problem. We refer you to “Working with Others” and the Traditions on this area. Further, whereas it is possible to “guide” someone to learn something new eg. share your understanding and experience of the recovery programme, it is quite impossible to guide them in deriving their own experience. By definition “it is as it is”.

"Q7. Do I insist that if I help them follow the clear-cut directions in our program, they too will also insist that the newcomers they will reach will do likewise?"

We are not aware of any source in the basic text that either explicitly or implicitly suggests that any member has the right, duty, obligation, responsibility etc to insist that anyone does anything, much less that they should in turn do the same. “Our book is meant to be suggestive only” we believe is the key principle that governs, if we may use that term, the manner in which the programme is transmitted. There are within “Working with Others” qualifications as to whether one should or should not persist in one's efforts with a “prospect” but there is absolutely no suggestion that any conditions such as are mentioned above are attached to the sponsor/sponsee relationship. This is very dangerous territory.

"Q8. Do I really explain the real problem of the alcoholic through the Big Book or do I give my own version of "AA" as if to make out smarter and wiser than the first one hundred, who wrote the Big Book?"

We regard it as epistemologically impossible not to have one's own version of the recovery programme. That is to say that each person arrives at their own conception of the programme as it is transmitted both by written and spoken word, not to say by observation of their own and others' experience, within a unique set of conditions embodied within them, that is to say according to their own personality. If it was the case that everyone understood the programme in exactly the same way there would be absolutely no dissent, and for that matter no growth. To give the simplest possible example it cannot even be assumed that any two people have precisely the same conception of the colour “red”, let alone a complete unanimity on such a complex and profound structure as that which is communicated in the recovery programme. Further, who's to say that there are not members who are smarter and wiser than the first one hundred? After all they were just alcoholics like us.

"Q9. Do I truly hold my proteges' accountable for program work or do I enable them by accepting their excuses?"

The same comment applies with reference to Q9 as to Q7. By what right does one AA member hold any other AA member accountable for anything? “....we had to quit playing God” (p. 62). However we can see nothing wrong with discussing a situation with someone, and exploring the potential outcomes of various courses of actions – this is what adults do with adults.

"Q11. Do I understand the real seriousness and vital importance of taking the newcomer through the twelve steps as soon as possible AND as quickly as possible?"

Again we refer you to Appendix II. Nowhere in the text does it refer to a schedule to be adhered to. The only reference that we can find for this lies in the aforementioned Appendix: “What often takes place in a few months could seldom have been accomplished by years of self discipline”. There are references to “delay is dangerous” etc and it would be irresponsible certainly to suggest that the matter is not serious, or that remedial action should not be applied, but only according the capacities and motivation of the individual concerned. Again we suggest that you examine Working with Others more carefully. We refer you to that chapter: “Sometimes a new man is anxious to proceed at once, and you may be tempted to let him do so. This is sometimes a mistake. If he has trouble later, he is likely to say you rushed him”. It should be clear from this chapter that the initiative always lies with the newcomers, that he or she should never be rushed, that sensitivity to their condition should always take precedence, and further: “You will be most successful with alcoholics if you do not exhibit any passion for crusade or reform. Never talk down to an alcoholic from any moral or spiritual hilltop; simply lay out the kit of spiritual tools for his inspection. Show him how they worked with you. Offer him friendship and fellowship. Tell him that if he wants to get well you will do anything to help.”

(our emphasis)

"Q12. If the prospects who comes to us under the third tradition and we respond in kind through the fifth tradition; but the prospect still lacks the willingness to follow directions - am I honest enough to tell the new person that this may not be the fellowship or program for them and therefore, we need no longer invest precious time helping them? Remember alcohol is the great persuader?"

This is quite clearly not the approach indicated in the Big Book. An individual might quite reasonably conclude that they are not able to help someone – and for whatever reason that they might choose. But again, by what right does any alcoholic tell another that this may not be the fellowship or programme for them. This may well be the case but that is the choice of the new man or woman, not us: “quit playing God”. Further the idea that we are going to actually inform them that we are “no longer [going to] invest precious time helping them” is a statement that could not be more guaranteed to ensure that they never return. Again we propose a careful reading of Chapter Seven – there is not the slightest suggestion there of such a stance to be adopted towards another member.

"Q13. And finally, is my current sponsor still giving me what I want - accountability and effective counsel as | grown along Spiritual lines? Or is my sponsors' Spiritual Malady "sponsoring" me or killing me with opinions, unsolicited advice or demands?"

Finally, the last question seems to operate in contradiction to some of the former, especially with regard to “demands”. There seem to be a lot of demands, both implied and otherwise, in the rest of the questions.

If it is the case that the programme that you are seeking to communicate is in fact the one that is detailed in the basic text of Alcoholic's Anonymous (and with specific regard to the role of “sponsorship”), then we would suggest that you reconsider your guidelines accordingly and at least bring them into line with those discussed in the above mentioned chapter, both in letter and in spirit. If is not the case that you are seeking to communicate that programme but one that derives from a different source then it would be more appropriate to indicate that on your website

Regards

The Fellas"

7/01/09

The question of sponsorship

Only last week one of the cultwatch team was casually flicking through a recent copy of Share magazine (the official magazine of Alcoholics Anonymous in England & Wales). Familiar as they are with some of the cult players it became quickly evident that a disproportionate number of the articles on display had been submitted by members from cult groups. Apart from a few familiar names the key identifying feature was the repetitive refrain which ran something like this: “…. and I was given six suggestions by my sponsor …” and so forth. Now Share magazine has never been accused of being one of the more exciting publications available, but this recurring theme, together with the almost templated and standardised effusions of gratitude directed towards that divine figure “the sponsor”, engendered a feeling of deja vue akin to the Groundhog Day experience; a never-ending and identically repetitious event leading to precisely the same consequences. Or to put it in mildly Churchillian terms: never in the field of human endeavour have so many repeated the same thing to so little effect. Of course the key feature in this litany of devotion is that core component to the six suggestions: 

“Sponsor 

 It is suggested that you phone daily and do exactly what your sponsor tells you. If you don’t have a sponsor, look upon every meeting you go to as a chance to find one.

NB If anything is unclear, ask your sponsor.”

(quote from cult website – by the way, whoever came up with that suggestion clearly hasn’t got past Step Two).

Now as we recall there’s a section in the Big Book which goes something like this: “Half measures availed us nothing” (p. 59, online edition). We further recollect that there are twelve things suggested in the Big Book – we think they’re called the Steps. Now six things are precisely half of twelve. So we reckon that these six cult suggestions are just half measures and simply not up to the grade. And now some thoughts on the question of sponsorship from a member of AA:

---

"The cult of sponsorship

Here’s the way I see it. People generally come to AA because they and/or someone else have got to the point that they recognise that alcohol is, in some degree, a problem for them, and that AA may represent some kind of solution. They may not have recognised the full implications of their condition (if they indeed suffer from the disease of alcoholism), or have clarified their motivation in attending AA or have arrived at any kind of conclusion as to how they want to proceed; none of this is my affair. My contribution to this event in their lives is to share my experience, strength and hope with them where appropriate and where necessary. This input comprises my experience both as a drunk and as a recovered alcoholic, my successes and my failures, the spiritual resources that I have acquired as a result of putting into action certain principles, and the fact that it is quite easily possible for an ex-drunk to remain sober, one day at a time for a lifetime (so far); if they should choose to use this information that is entirely their business. Similarly they may ignore it, adapt it, deny it, refute it etc; none of this is my concern. Once I have transmitted my experience of the AA message that is the end of the matter, and the limit of the extent of my powers. The rest is up to them and their Higher Power (as they may or may not understand it).

My recovery programme is derived from what is written in the basic text of Alcoholics Anonymous (The Big Book). It is this recovery programme that I chose to study, reflect upon, absorb and then, according to my capacity, implement. It is within this context that I operate in AA and these are the guidelines that I follow. My relationship with other alcoholics within AA is informed by those principles.

Now to come to the matter of sponsorship. Firstly it should be said that there is no mention of sponsorship as such in the Big Book. However it is clear that the roots of that function (that came to be referred to as ‘sponsorship’) are delineated here. The chapter “Working with Others” contains most of the information relating to that activity though its workings are also discussed in other parts of the book. Nowhere is it asserted in the text that any alcoholic has the power, right, duty, responsibility or obligation to interfere in any aspect of the life of another alcoholic. In fact this absence of power extends even to the decision on the part of an individual to pick up a drink. Should that person succumb to the delusion that he/she can drink safely (if they are an alcoholic) then nothing can be done in this event but to hope that they will live to fight another day; that is to say, we are ‘powerless’ over alcohol.

Now it is quite understandable for someone in the first flush of exultation at having overcome their drink problem that they should enthusiastically set about helping others; indeed this a central support of the recovery process. There is however a significant difference between energetic action and intrusive activity, and for some that distinction is not obvious. I shall cite the relevant section of the Big Book; I am quite sure that you all recall these passages. Most specifically I refer you to the section in Chapter Five dealing with Step Three. Here there is an uncomfortably accurate description of the individual propelled by self-will, and the consequences that follow from that orientation. Pretty well all the steps serve as reminders of the ill effects of a life run on self-will and yet this force is what underlies the “cult of sponsorship”; and it is this that leads to so many ruinous consequences. In the past, and at the individual level, the fellowship has, and can, sustain such damage for its occasions are sporadic and limited. But we now face a situation where this orientation has become embedded in the consciences of whole groups. This intrusive activity has become part of the functioning of these collectives and their membership with respect to newcomers to AA. No longer is it simply a matter that each person lays out the spiritual tool kit at the feet of the new person. No more is it the case that “Man proposes and God disposes”. Now the new man or woman is faced with a whole barrage of thinly disguised ultimata. “Suggestions” are advanced on every aspect of the recovery programme: step formats are “advocated” that bear little resemblance to anything in the text; scheduling is proposed for advancement through the programme with scant regard to individual needs; service commitments cease to be the choice of the individual and are assigned by the hierarchy; “recommendations” are made as to the suitability of some meetings and the unsuitability of others; “opinions” are expressed as to who is “on message” and who is not; inducements are supplied to attend this meeting rather than that meeting and so on. The list, as they say, can be continued “ad infinitum”. But this psychological assault does not end there. It continues into areas that fall well outside what might be described as the legitimate province of AA activity; “advice” pertaining to relationships, employment, religion, child rearing, social activity, therapies etc and perhaps most dangerously culminating in unqualified direction in the use of medications. All of these represent a gross infringement of human liberty and are simple manifestations of self-will magnified into group will.

These groups are personality driven rather than guided by spiritual principles and therefore individual power is wielded to the detriment of the group conscience. This feeble foundation is evidenced by the frequent schisms that result in breakaway groups always claiming the “purer” more “fundamentalist” position. The solutions to these problems are clear. They have always been there and they are called the Traditions, specifically the much misquoted Tradition Four: “Each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or AA as a whole” (my emphasis). It would seem that on the basis of that frequently forgotten second part of the Tradition each individual or group, or intergroup, or region or AA as a whole can act to counter such abuses. Finally, of course, it is for each person to make his or her own decision on the matter. I have made mine.

Anon"