Not-God (53 page)

Many found both humor and honor in the House of Seagram paying tribute to Alcoholics Anonymous by lowering the three flags adorning its Montreal headquarters to half-staff for the duration of the A.A. convention.
¹⁴⁸
For the thousands who attended, the Sunday morning “Spiritual Meeting” seemed to tap the deepest roots of their sense of “the spiritual.” Overall, the centrality of A.A.’s own story suffused the whole convention and became permanently enshrined in the “Family Album and Souvenir,”
Fifty Years With Gratitude
, which in its reproduction of over a hundred newspaper clippings and old photographs recalled their history to A.A.s and A.A.s to their history.

Perhaps of greater ultimate significance than the 1985 anniversary convention in the story of Alcoholics Anonymous as it will be written fifty years from now was a very different project that began in December of the same year. From at least two distinct directions — one officially public, the other resolutely private — individuals became involved in ventures designed to carry the A.A. message to the Soviet Union. Alcoholics Anonymous had existed in Poland since 1959, four Poles making a memorable appearance at the Montreal convention.
¹⁴⁹
The fellowship had begun there informally and initially without official notice, much less sanction. Political problems plagued Polish A.A., as attested by the Polish National Service Board delegates’ inability to attend the 1986 Ninth World Service Meeting in Guatemala City and the public letter sent to them by that gathering.
¹⁵⁰

The Russian initiatives were different. The first, a joint project of the National Council on World Affairs and the American-Soviet Dialogue on Common Problems, involved visits between American alcoholism experts and members of the Russian Temperance Promotion Society, a prohibition group.
¹⁵¹
Three American experts, who were not identified with Alcoholics Anonymous, first visited Russia in August of 1986. Earlier, in April, and later, in October, other individuals specifically (but not officially) identified as A.A. members visited the Soviet Union, somewhat under the auspices of a totally different project styling itself “Creating A Sober World.” According to one participant’s report, “questions ranged from what we meant by ‘higher power’ to who had paid our way and, ‘What do you mean by unstructured and no leaders?’ “
¹⁵²

Many difficulties dogged the participants in both ventures, but a door had been opened. Although the Russian experts’ 1987 return visit was postponed from April to May and involved stops in Washington, D.C., Cleveland and Akron, Ohio, southern California, and Minneapolis—Saint Paul rather than New York City, A.A. and Al-Anon representatives did make presentations at the Washington stop. Some who knew of the venture shied away, fearing political implications. Others dreaded more that the push of some American alcoholism entrepreneurs to get on the Russian bandwagon would jeopardize the small beginnings so slowly accomplished. A.A.’s official non-involvement plus the way of thinking inherent in its program’s way of life meanwhile seemed likely to prove all the more effective a way, in such circumstances, of carrying its message in the long run. That promise seemed closer to fulfillment in late 1987, when a G.S.O. staff member joined the group of alcoholism experts on their second Russian visit.
¹⁵³

Both the Montreal convention and the “Creating A Sober World” initiative had their “down” sides — the logistical confusion of the former and the more seriously disruptive jockeying for prestige and advantage in the latter. Of more significance for A.A.’s story, however, were two other 1985 occurrences. Both were rooted in A.A. history: they flowed, albeit diversely, from the Akron-New York differences that went back to the fellowship’s earliest origins. Just before the 1985 convention, Alcoholics Anonymous discovered that the copyright to the first and second editions of the book
Alcoholics Anonymous
had expired without being renewed. Over the same months, a group styling itself “The Founders Foundation” announced purchase of the Ardmore Avenue building that had been the home of Dr. Bob Smith and its intention to turn that house into a shrine.

“The Big Book Problem,” as it quickly came to be called, raised two important concerns: the integrity of the A.A. program and the threat that loss of literature income would pose to the financial stability of A.A. World Services. The second concern had its own two aspects: A.A.W.S. had a responsibility both “to protect an important source of revenue to the fellowship and to fulfill our obligation to Lois Wilson and her estate.” A 1963 agreement between A.A.W.S. and co-founder William Griffith Wilson had stipulated reciprocal obligations after Bill’s retirement, making provision to pay Wilson’s royalties to Lois after his death. Copyright loss thus jeopardized A.A.W.S. legally as well as financially.
¹⁵⁴

As always in such legal matters, the details of the copyright problem verge on the arcane. The best brief summary is Tom J.’s as he reported to the 1986 General Service Conference:

G.S.O.’s Services Director went on to detail the anxieties aroused by this turn of events — and a further complication:

On August 26, 1985, Alcoholics Anonymous World Services and Lois B. Wilson signed an agreement holding each other blameless for the copyright loss and protecting the rights of both parties. Meanwhile, as word of the C.T.M. effort spread through the fellowship, members disturbed by its “distasteful promotion” declined to support the venture by buying its book. The G.S.O. staff had apparently not realized it at first, but the main market for A.A. literature was and would always be A.A. members.

Perhaps because of their deeper immersion in the world of competitive business, treatment-center executives recognized that reality more readily. Because of that awareness and because also of their commitment to Alcoholics Anonymous as a program of recovery for the patients they treated, treatment-center publishers such as Hazelden and Comp-Care, although technically capable of producing the A.A. Big Book at less cost than could A.A. itself (because of the fellowship’s royalty commitment), recognized the folly of such a course of action. New discount structures were negotiated both within the fellowship and between A.A.W.S. and others who distributed A.A. literature, but by mid-1986 it had become clear that no one could make money trying to sell A.A. literature that did not flow from Alcoholics Anonymous itself. World Services’ main concern had been met: “The main purpose of A.A.W.S. in respect to the Big Book is to provide it in nearly its present form … to recovering alcoholics without losing money.”
¹⁵⁷

Early in the flap, shortly after the 1985 convention but before the resolution with Lois Wilson and one of the larger treatment centers, even as an IRS auditor was routinely examining the fellowship’s 1963 royalty agreement with Bill Wilson, some members suggested, and some G.S.O. staff pursued, seeking a special congressional act to restore the Alcoholics Anonymous copyright. Individuals met with congressional committee members, but the idea was abandoned — apparently in part because of a U.S. district court decision declaring unconstitutional a similar act passed to protect the literature of a religious group, but also because several of those involved were uncomfortable with the alcoholic familiarity of such an attempt to claim “special” status.
¹⁵⁸

Thus it developed, as 1986 turned into 1987, that what sociologist and non-alcoholic trustee Joan Jackson had reported at the 1986 General Service Conference as her reading of the will of the A.A. membership came to pass:

The most proximate positive result, as the context of Jackson’s remarks suggested, was the late-1986 publication of a paperback version, the twenty-fourth printing, of the third edition of the book
Alcoholics Anonymous
. Delegates to the 1986 General Service Conference approved a questionnaire on that project and authorized A.A.W.S. to produce such a book if the General Service Board so interpreted the results. The 1986 Conference also rejected the idea of producing a fourth edition of the Big Book, “because the story section is still up-to-date,” and advised inquiry into a project until then consistently tabled — determining “the need for a daily reflection book.”
¹⁶⁰

In the midst of the fiftieth anniversary and Big Book copyright flurries, few in A.A.’s New York Service Office much adverted to the “Founders Foundation” and its purchase of Dr. Bob and Anne Smith’s former home. Historical purists winced at the claims that 855 Ardmore Avenue was “The Birthplace of our Fellowship” and that it housed “the Bible Anne Smith read from for the first Meeting for Bill and Bob;” but historical purity was not a chief concern of the project’s “promoters” — a term A. Wesley P. emphasized in his letter announcing the endeavor and soliciting funds to enable more fund solicitation.
¹⁶¹

As had so many things in previous A.A. history, the Founders Foundation project stemmed from the lingering fault line that had in some ways endured, differentiating Akron-oriented and New York-based A.A. from as early as 1937. As Alcoholics Anonymous grew, the geography spread. Today, what may be termed “Akron-style A.A.” embraces much of central and western Florida and the coastal Carolinas, large areas around Houston and Galveston, Texas, virtually the whole state of Arizona, about a 60 percent patchwork of southern California, the southwest side of Chicago (but not that city’s far suburbs except on the northern edge), an irregular ring around Detroit, as well as an uneven pattern embracing mainly the west side of Cleveland and especially the west-side suburbs of that city, as well as most of Ohio to the east, but not to the south, of Akron itself.

Akron-style A.A. is of course A.A.: “The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking” is a tradition adhered to even if the Traditions themselves are sometimes criticized and one gathers the feeling that the “desire” had better be well implemented. One recognizes Akron-oriented A.A. by that greater rigor, by emphasis that what the Big Book terms “the Steps we took, which are suggested as a program of recovery,” are more than
suggested
, by the use of such literature as the pamphlets put out by “A.A. of Akron” (at the time of this writing, from a post office box in South Carolina), by more explicitly Christian talk about “the spiritual,” by the preference for Dr. Bob over Bill W. whenever the topic of “co-founders” comes up, and by the feeling that Alcoholics Anonymous has been in decline at least since the death of Bill Wilson and probably since the death of Dr. Bob Smith, and that the main cause is “those New Yorkers.” Rarely, in other words, is A.A.’s 1930s origin more plainly visible than when New York-oriented and Akron-inclined members explain how they differ one from the other, even as both defend each other’s right to be different, so long as a member does not drink, attends meetings, and works the Twelve Steps.
¹⁶²

And so we return to the motif of difference within the theme of unity, for as this narrative has often illustrated, the convergence of that motif and that theme define the story of Alcoholics Anonymous. A non-event best frames that closing discussion: A.A.’s Nobel Peace Prize.

In early 1986, rumors were rife that the Nobel Peace Prize committee was prepared to nominate Alcoholics Anonymous for that honor, if assured that A.A. would accept. Discussions, all unofficial, canvassed every option except a simple yes. The chief precedent adduced was Bill Wilson’s far from parallel refusal of the Yale honorary degree in 1954. Apparently because Alcoholics Anonymous hesitated, the matter was dropped. Those who had coveted the honor saw that outcome as another casualty of A.A. World Services’ hesitancy to do anything to which some members might object. Others found tradition vindicated and cherished this quiet reminder of fellowship humility.
¹⁶³

For reasons not entirely clear, the 1986 General Service Conference held a “brief ‘What’s On Your Mind?’ sharing session” rather than the traditional, more open and lengthy “Ask-It Basket” — a strange change at a conference at which the fellowship’s retiring top servant decried “rigidity.”
¹⁶⁴
Although the problems associated with the Big Book copyright loss seemed substantially resolved, many among both delegates and G.S.O. staff prepared warily for the 1987 meeting of A.A.’s General Service Conference, which less surprisingly in these circumstances also omitted the Ask-It Basket. The issue of self-support, always touchy, came framed by grass-roots questions challenging group-conscience surveys and the administration of the
A.A. Grapevine
. The old animus between Akron and New York, between coast and heartland, lived on, demonstrating more than anything else the lasting influence of its own origins on the fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous.