Not-God (51 page)

Late 1986 witnessed A.A.’s General Service Board picking up the topic in a calmer atmosphere. Wariness of offending reminded of the need for sensitivity, but signs emerged that A.A.’s trustees had learned from members’ practice. In unanimously urging greater efforts to reach those underrepresented in Alcoholics Anonymous, the Board report concluded by quoting: “A black respondent put it succinctly: ‘Don’t be snowed by “I’m different.” We’re all different, our disease is our alikeness — it makes us unique.’ ”
¹⁰⁷

Throughout its history, Alcoholics Anonymous has dealt with the clinging to the sense of being “different,” the claim to some kind of “unique” condition that sets one off from other alcoholics, primarily under the heading of “other problems.” The fellowship confronted four types of “other problems” during these years, although none of them for the first time: other chemicals, other disorders, special groups, and family groups.

The group conscience of individual A.A. groups was not always consistent, especially concerning those addicted to chemicals other than alcohol. In general, the resolution foreshadowed in the 1940s and worked out in the 1960s held: alcoholics also addicted to other chemicals were welcomed at A.A. meetings so long as they spoke mainly about alcohol. Those who did not consider themselves alcoholics were referred to Narcotics Anonymous. Over time, this division inclined some who considered themselves both alcoholics and addicts and who wished at meetings to discuss both problems to form “dual-purpose groups.” The 1973 General Service Conference ratified the A.A. World Service practice of neither listing such groups in A.A. directories nor accepting contributions from them. Dual-purpose groups were not recognized as A.A. groups — an understanding strongly reaffirmed in the 1979 General Service Conference discussion of “A and P” — alcohol and pills — groups.
¹⁰⁸

Although 1979 Conference approval of the pamphlet “Problems Other Than Alcohol” seemed to settle the matter, many 1983 delegates nevertheless indicated that their “biggest problem” was still “addicts who attend closed [A.A.] meetings” — a situation that seemed not at all changed since 1972.
¹⁰⁹
And the 1987 General Service Conference saw fit to adopt Advisory Actions making available for reading at the beginning of A.A. meetings service pieces emphasizing “singleness of purpose.”
¹¹⁰
But perhaps the most telling evidence that this remains an unsettled issue was the action of the 1987 General Service Conference in choosing “Our Singleness of Purpose — Key to Unity” as the theme for 1988’s General Service Conference meeting.

Because of A.A.’s ready generosity in allowing its Twelve Steps to be borrowed and adapted, groups designed to help those who suffer other obsessive-compulsive disorders went their own way with a minimum of confusion. Gamblers, overeaters, and sex addicts, although at times occasioning raised eyebrows, lived A.A.’s Twelve-Step program without intruding upon its strictly alcoholic fellowship. Individuals who found themselves eligible for more than one of these or any of the over one hundred other groups that used the Twelve Steps generally found it possible to attend meetings of both groups without blurring the distinction between their disabilities.
¹¹¹

“Special groups” of those who were primarily A.A. members posed a different problem. By definition, an Alcoholics Anonymous group is open to all alcoholics.
¹¹²
Some groups, however, as well as some meetings, in the 1970s began listing themselves as “men’s” or “women’s” or “gay,” for example. The 1974 General Service Conference affirmed that all A.A. groups that so wished should be listed in A.A. directories, an acceptance applied explicitly to “gay groups” at that time and reaffirmed by the 1977 General Service Conference. Delegates in 1979 explored historically the distinction between “special
composition
and special purpose” groups, clarifying also the difference between a
group
, which traditionally had to be open to all A.A.s, and a “meeting,” which could cater to some special interest.
¹¹³
All A.A. groups and meetings serve the
purpose
of sobriety, although some meetings are attended primarily by those with some particular shared interest, such as sobriety for women or sobriety within a gay life-style. Although not a pressing issue, the topic’s consistent reappearance among the Ask-It Basket questions suggests that clarity on the issue of “special groups” yet eludes many members.
¹¹⁴

By the mid-1980s, that issue pressed hardest in the particular area of family groups. As early as January 1971,
The A.A. Grapevine
reported on “Family Discussion Groups,” describing a particular open meeting format. By the time of the 1972 General Service Conference, concern over the listing of family
groups
led A.A. World Services no longer to list them in the Alcoholics Anonymous World Directory. As the
Final Report
noted: “It is suggested that the word ‘family’ not be used in the name of an A.A. group; if A.A.s and their non-alcoholic mates wish to meet together on a regular basis, it is suggested they consider these gatherings ‘meetings’ and not A.A. groups.” One reason for that decision and A.A.’s refusal to list “family groups” in its World Directory derived from “discussion of the problem last fall with Al-Anon, who felt that the word ‘family,’ long identified with their fellowship, should not be used in the name of A.A. groups.”
¹¹⁵

Although at times disruptive of Al-Anon meetings in some areas, individuals styling themselves “children of alcoholics” or “adult children of alcoholics” have thus far posed little threat to Alcoholics Anonymous itself. Reports of A.A. members who attend both A.C.O.A. and A.A. meetings suggest that the former’s psychological emphasis can usefully complement the latter’s spiritual approach, at least for those sufficiently grounded in the spiritual to be able to recognize that difference.
¹¹⁶

The difference between the psychological and the spiritual underlies another contrast important not only for distinguishing between Alcoholics Anonymous and such more recent groups as A.C.O.A. but also because it clarifies varying expressions of a constant reality within A.A.’s story: the difference between A.A.’s resolute non-professionalism and the multitudinous styles of professionally guided group therapy increasingly available to the variously disabled. The most reputable pushers of A.C.O.A. insights caution about the need for professional guidance. Indeed, unlike groups such as Overeaters, Gamblers, and Sex Addicts Anonymous, A.C.O.A. originated as a professional concept.
¹¹⁷

In a summary so brief it verges on caricature, the psychological approach focuses on
push
forces (“drives,” “conditioning”); the spiritual attends to
pull
forces (“meaning,” “virtue”). Focusing on what one
can
do, the social scientific style aims to effect change. Rooted in the admission of creatureliness, of powerlessness and unmanageability, spirituality emphasizes becoming willing and then humbly asking to be changed. Most practitioners of healing in fields related to alcoholism acknowledge the need for both the psychological and the spiritual, recognizing them to be complementary rather than in conflict. But the different emphases lead to diverse approaches and, at times, to styles difficult to harmonize. Reflecting a tension as ancient as culture itself, those who view themselves primarily as masters of hard-earned knowledge and those who find their first identity as recipients of the gift of wisdom tend to view each other warily. Academics and artists usually respect, but rarely understand, each other.
¹¹⁸

Yet from the time of Doctors Silkworth, Kennedy, and Tiebout, A.A.’s success attracted professional attention. Increasingly over the years, that attention merged into respect. Setbacks to that process, such as Margaret Bean’s scathing analysis reducing Alcoholics Anonymous to ignorantly sick dependence and the Tournier critique of “ideology,” were offset by Bean’s later revision of her interpretation and by the insights suggested by her Harvard colleagues John Mack and Edward Khantzian. George Vaillant’s continuing work was meanwhile ratifying empirically much of what had been impressionistic A.A. lore.
¹¹⁹

Three landmarks in the evolving relationship between professionals and members of Alcoholics Anonymous occurred during the period between 1971 and 1987. The first was the 1971 General Service Conference, at which a G.S.O. representative succinctly stated A.A.’s fundamental, historical point: Alcoholics Anonymous has a “program that works for most of those who want it. The ‘pro’ can
help
the alcoholic want it.” Also in 1971, a committee on professional relations was created, distinct from the Public Information Committee. In 1974, its name was changed to the C.P.C. Committee — Committee on Cooperation with the Professional Community.
¹²⁰

The late 1970s and especially the international convention of 1980 marked the second milestone, as new data combined with earlier perceptions to ratify an emerging synthesis. The 1977 General Service Conference formalized recognition of alcoholism treatment centers by replacing its Institutions Committee with separate Correctional Facilities and Treatment Facilities committees. Also noteworthy at the twenty-seventh Conference was Dr. John L. Norris’s reminder that A.A.’s basic stance on “outside agencies” had been set forth as far back as 1954, when “the idea of cooperation without affiliation was outlined.”
¹²¹

A.A.’s forty-fifth birthday celebration at its 1980 New Orleans convention signaled acceptance of those understandings by a dual emphasis. From early publicity through the actual convention itself, greater than usual attention was focused on the participation of non-A.A. speakers and on the variety of A.A. members. The twenty-two non-A.A. presenters included “judges, physicians, psychiatrists, clergymen, educators, prison officials, media specialists, government officials, a labor leader, an industrialist and alcoholism agency officials.”
¹²²
Meanwhile, workshops were scheduled for gay members and for young people as well as for doctors, lawyers, and women.

Although the hot, muggy atmosphere of New Orleans over the Fourth of July weekend somewhat muted the conventioneers’ enthusiasm, most found ways of living up to the convention theme, “The Joy of Living.” Walking tours and riverboat trips invited conversational mingling, the culturally diverse city’s graciousness nicely complementing A.A. informality. New Orleans witnessed the first archives presentation of the filmstrip “Markings on the Journey,” which then and in later years brought tears to the eyes and a lump to the throats of viewers sensitive to history. On the Fourth of July itself, the presentation of the first copy of the Italian edition of the A.A. Big Book, the “eleventh in an ever-growing collection of authorized foreign-language Big Books,” highlighted an impressive ceremony in the Louisiana Superdome.
¹²³

If the discussions and workshops held at both the Thirtieth General Service Conference and the 1980 International Convention did not make sufficiently clear the usefulness to Alcoholics Anonymous of its traditional “cooperation without affiliation” relationship with professionals, the 1980 survey results, reported in late 1981 but brought before the General Service Conference only in 1982, filled the gap by supplying the third and final milestone. For the first time in that year, virtually as many newcomers reported being referred to Alcoholics Anonymous by “treatment” or “counselor” as by “an A.A. member.” As the 1982 General Service Conference
Final Report
acknowledged in a special presentation, treatment facilities had become “our largest source of new members.”
¹²⁴

The separate workbooks published in the early eighties confirmed the continuing importance of professionals to Alcoholics Anonymous: Public Information in 1981, Cooperation with the Professional Community in 1982, and both Corrections and Treatment Facilities workbooks in 1985. At the 1986 General Service Conference, a workshop asking “Are We Being Friendly With Our Friends?” replied, “Resoundingly … Yes.” Nineteen eighty-seven’s delegates indeed scented the possibility of a very different danger, recommending as a workshop topic for the 1988 “Our Singleness of Purpose — Key to Unity” Conference: “Are We Being
Too
Friendly With Our Friends?” Meanwhile A.A.’s alertness to the needs of its relationship with professionals continued to be evidenced by “About A.A. — A Newsletter for Professional Men and Women.”
¹²⁵

Within the process of establishing a comfortable stance toward “outside professionals,” Alcoholics Anonymous also moved — although not without continuing ambivalence — toward a consistent position on A.A. members who themselves work as professionals in the alcoholism field. Naming them came first. At the 1970 General Service Conference, “A motion was made and carried that the Twentieth General Service Conference go on record as opposing the use of the title ‘A.A. Counselor.’ “ In both 1973 and 1974, questions from the floor casually referred to such members as “two-hatters,” but the 1975 General Service Conference reported a “consensus reached on terminology” that recommended that the term “two-hatter” should be phased out of Conference-approved literature and replaced by “AA members employed in the alcoholism field.”
¹²⁶

The problem of naming solved, the 1976 General Service Conference offered specific recommendations for A.A. workers in the field: “adequate training; three to five years of good, stable sobriety; sponsor who does
not
work in the alcoholism field.” Suggestions were also tendered “to alleviate some of the problems involved in people coming to A.A. from treatment centers, courts/A.S.A.P. programs, etc.”: