Tradition Four (amongst others) – a discussion
"Four - Each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or AA as a whole".
Long Form
"With respect to its own affairs, each AA group should be responsible to no other authority than its own conscience. But when its plans concern the welfare of neighbouring groups also, those groups ought to be consulted. And no group, regional committee, or individual should ever take any action that might greatly affect AA as a whole without conferring with the trustees of the General Service Board. On such issues our common welfare is paramount"
(pp. 564- 568 Alcoholics Anonymous 3rd ed).(our emphasis)
We thought we'd run over this tradition just one more time for the sheer hell of it, with our usual emphasis on the almost universally omitted second part. It should be pretty clear what this one is about however.
Firstly; an AA group is made up of AA members. An AA member is anyone who has a desire to stop drinking. Anyone who has a desire to stop drinking can declare themselves to be an AA member and no one, not another AA member, not an AA group, Intergroup, Region, Conference, GSO York, a trustee can say otherwise. So if you say you're an AA member, you have a desire to stop drinking, that is the end of the matter. You don't need to fill in any forms, present any references, be sponsored, meet any other requirements, pay any fees etc etc. You don't even have to declare to anyone that you're an AA member because that is your business. Other members might doubt the fact that you're an alcoholic because maybe you don't fit the usual profile; but what they think isn't worth a dime. If you think you are – that's it! That deals with membership of AA. But this also means that as an AA member you are entitled to attend any AA meeting in the world. You should be able to go to any one of them without fear that anyone is going to question your right to be there, either explicitly or implicitly. So if the AA group that runs a particular meeting has added any other criteria to be met by those people attending beyond a "desire to stop drinking", then that group is breaking both Tradition Three and Tradition Four (and a number of others for that matter).
As we have said above, an AA group is made up of AA members. Tradition Three points out: "Any two or three alcoholics gathering together for sobriety may call themselves an AA group, provided that, as a group, they have no other affiliation". So if an AA group conducts itself in such a fashion that suggests that issues other than alcoholism are being addressed then it is also breaking not only Tradition Three but also Tradition Ten and shifting the emphasis away from our primary purpose. We would include within this category those groups that describe themselves in the various 'Where to Find's' as "non restrictive".
(The use of the term "non restrictive" in a meeting's description is a bizarre example of "double think". This theme was explored by George Orwell in his dystopian novel "1984":
"The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them....To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth."
So an AA group that explicitly (or implicitly) restricts the right to attend the meeting it runs (ie. beyond the general membership requirement) but then declares itself to be "non restrictive" is a classic example of semantic juggling, or to put it in blunter terms, hypocrisy).
So an AA member is a member of the whole of the Fellowship of AA. However this should be distinguished from membership of a particular AA group. Since each AA group is autonomous they can quite legitimately decide on who is, and who is not, a member of that particular group. They can set a number of criteria (any that they like) as to who can and who can't participate in the running of that specific group. They SHOULDN'T say who can attend the meeting or not (see above) but the group can decide on who has voting rights in group consciences and business meetings, who gets what job in the group and so on and so forth. They can do anything they like but with at least two provisos. Firstly, they shouldn't break the law. This may seem somewhat obvious but it is worth remembering that AA operates within a broader social structure and has to conduct itself accordingly. And this means abiding by the laws of the country in which it operates. So, for example, to attempt to restrict membership of the group to people of a certain category may well be in breach of race, sexual, or disabilities discrimination legislation etc. Secondly, an AA group should not break AA Traditions.
If it is accepted that each group is autonomous and can run their own affairs as they please, then their autonomous group membership will from time to time make decisions, and these decisions may occasionally have implications for other groups or AA as a whole. Now we have observed quite ingenious attempts on various cult websites to seek either to reinterpret this Tradition in such a way as to shift the focus of Tradition Four to that of non-affiliation, suggesting that the central reasoning behind this guideline revolves more around relationships between the group and outside organisations and not so much in the conduct of its internal affairs and how these affect other groups or AA as a whole; or even that should the group make such controversial decisions, one always has the choice to go to another group but with the caveat that the dissenter should not then subsequently engage in gossip or criticism of that group's decisions and subsequent actions. It at this point that Tradition One is usually brought into play, citing AA unity as being of primary importance, thereby attempting to suppress any adverse comment by putting the "frighteners" on those who would buy into that particular manipulative strategy (as we understand the term "gossip" it is generally of a frivolous and varyingly malicious nature. Criticism, however, is a different matter, and no attempt should be made to silence it). It is also interesting to observe that the cult itself fails to put into action its own precepts – a frequently common occurrence incidentally. Its members are more than happy to criticise just about every aspect of AA and the activities of AA groups, and indeed the sobriety of AA members. After all. it must be remembered, THEY ARE ALWAYS RIGHT and WE ARE ALWAYS WRONG! But though the Tradition may include such considerations as outlined above, that is not in fact the limit of its scope.
If a group breaks the Traditions it does so generally for two reasons: 1) ignorance; 2) deliberate intent. In the first case - and this is not infrequent - if it is the case that group members don't know that they are breaking a tradition it really is left to members of other groups to point it out to them. However this option does not exist in the second case. Here the group is deliberately breaking the tradition(s) (probably with the assistance of some handy rationalisations). The cult groups would argue ( as they have in fact done) that "every group has the right to be wrong". That is quite true. But only a fool or a rogue would continue to act in error after it has been pointed out to them. In the case of the cult groups the second category quite clearly applies – though the first is by no means entirely absent. They claim to be conversant with the traditions but choose to ignore those that don't fit in with the cult agenda. There seems to be a belief that because a group is autonomous that it should be beyond criticism or indeed any kind of reformative action. This perspective is fostered by the cult groups since it serves their purpose admirably. We quote:
"Once the group conscience has made the decision, then we should conform to it. We don’t have to agree with it, but we should strive to accept it. Also, we should respect the customs of groups that we visit. If the custom of that group is not my liking, I can decide not to go again, but I should not subsequently complain about the group at other meetings. I should mind my own business."
(our emphasis)
and:
"We are all guilty of it at times, but we should watch our tendency to gossip about individuals and groups as it is destructive to the unity of AA as a whole. It breaks Traditions 4 and 1 (as well as just being plain rude)."
(our emphasis)
(both quotes from cult websites)
So it would appear that dissent and discussion may be acceptable within the group (within the bounds set by one's sponsor, of course) but God forbid that anyone should continue that discussion elsewhere or indeed express their views about the conduct of that group to another, still less take any kind of action (and it would never do to be rude!)
However:
"Tradition 1 does not say AA’s in a particular group or area should be unanimous in their opinions, get on blissfully, or not get angry with each other. In fact the Tradition doesn’t even call for groups or areas to remain as a unified whole.”
This viewpoint is expressed by yet another cult member (on yet another cult website). So it would seem that apparently it IS permissible to "get angry with each other", even publicly. (Incidentally this particular line of argument is yet another rationalisation seeking to debase both Tradition One and Tradition Four and thereby deflect criticism away from the cult group in question – The Road to Recovery - Plymouth)
The fact is that the responsibility should remain with AA members to take whatever action they see fit to ensure that AA and its message are not subjected to the perversions presented by the cult groups within AA. For those of you who are not yet acquainted with these we'll give you a relatively brief (thankfully) synopsis. And to make it a bit more entertaining see if you can guess which Traditions the cult are breaking, ignoring, trashing, perverting etc in pursuing their agenda:
1) Discriminatory behaviour towards dual diagnosis AA members – pressure has been put upon some of these to discontinue the use of prescribed medication (frequently contrary to their health professionals' advice) – with occasional tragic consequences. (see elsewhere on site)
2) Group promotion – provision of hot meals, free Big books (and other inducements) etc without due consultation with other groups in the area and with complete disregard for the effects of such promotional activity on those same groups.
3) Directing newcomers to avoid going to AA meetings and instead attempting to restrict their contact to cult meetings
4) Circulation of their own Where to Finds in support of point 3)
5) Setting up websites promoting their own agenda with cult approved (not AA conference approved) literature on Steps, Traditions, Concepts, sponsorship etc.
6) Running cult conventions (not associated with any Intergroup or AA group) masquerading as AA conventions
7) Micro management of newcomers together with "microwave" recovery schedules that pay no regard to their basic human rights or their individual capacities.
8) Use of manipulative tactics to coerce and control newcomers that range from threats "you'll die if you don't do it our way" through to blackmail enforced by threatened exposure of confidential information disclosed in a Step Five (moral inventory), "love bombing", sponsorship idolatry ("do exactly what you Sponsor tells you"), exclusion if you fail to adopt the party line, steering committees that manipulate group consciences, poaching (trawling AA meetings, especially newcomers meetings, to pick up new "prospects"), denigrating propaganda about AA meetings ("they're all sick", "they haven't got IT", "diluted AA message" etc etc.. It is apparent from the last that contrary to the cult advice (see quotes above) undermining comments about AA are OK, but not when it comes to the cult groups
9) Misrepresentation of recovery rates. Some groups, notably the so-called Primary Purpose groups, claim (incorrect) recovery rates for AA, that never existed and thereby overstate the efficacy of their methods.
10) Bypassing Intergroups and setting up their own public information structures (without consultation of course).
11) Advertising campaigns (usually through local press and poster campaigns) promoting their own groups (giving out their local contact number instead of the national AA helpline details).
12) Swamping Intergroups with cult officers (plus a backup contingent of "observers" to ensure that the Intergroup remains malleable). This will always remain a problem so long as Intergroup officers continue to have the right to vote and GSRs fail to follow the instructions of the groups that elect them. It is worth remembering in connection with this, that the group can not only vote someone into office, they can vote them out as well.
13) Infiltration of their members into other levels of the service structure – region, conference delegates etc.
14) Breaking AA members' anonymity deliberately in an attempt to intimidate them.
15) Setting up their own newcomers' meetings to ensure that they get speedier access to vulnerable members.
16) Etc etc … fill in the blanks.
So to sum up, (no doubt to your relief).
a) Group autonomy does NOT mean that a group can do what it likes: it is subject to the law of the land, and it is supposed to consult with other groups etc before taking action. Additionally it might also be argued that it is subject to those moral laws (both religious and secular) with which most people are acquainted, in one form or another, the secular equivalent being summarised in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
b) Criticism of its conduct is NOT excluded. The frequently used justification for suppressing adverse opinion is the much flourished Tradition One.
"One – Our common welfare should come first; personal recovery depends upon AA unity".
Long Form
"Each member of Alcoholics Anonymous is but a small part of a great whole. AA must continue to live or most of us will surely die. Hence our common welfare comes first. But individual welfare follows close afterward".
If it was the intention of those who framed this Tradition to provide a justification for suppressing critical commentary then we would be the first to condemn it – the professed and questionable ends of the cult do NOT justify their corrupt means. However the Tradition quite clearly emphasises the term "welfare" both with reference to AA as a whole and to its individual members. If a group and its members are acting in such a way (as exemplified by the cult groups and members) so as to produce detrimental consequences for people coming to AA then this guidelines no longer applies; they are in 'de facto' breach of this Tradition.
c) There is nothing in the Traditions that indicates that AA members are absolved of all responsibility for the conduct of those who use the AA name for their own destructive and ego driven ends. Therefore it is in our view entirely legitimate not only to criticise the conduct of these groups and members and communicate these views to those same individuals but also, where necessary, take action to counter their activity.
C'est ca.
Au revoir
Les Camarades
