When we first come into A.A.
we find here, as we have observed
before, a greater personal freedom than any other society knows. We
cannot be compelled to do anything. In that sense this society is a
benign anarchy. The word "anarchy" has a bad meaning to most of us,
probably because one of its excitable adherents long ago threw bombs
around Chicago. But I think that the gentle Russian prince who so
strongly advocated the idea felt that if men were granted absolute liberty
and were compelled to obey no one in person, they would then
voluntarily associate themselves in a common interest. Alcoholics
Anonymous is an association of the benign sort the prince envisioned.
Here, Bill W. contrasts the "gentle Russian prince" Kropotkin with the
Chicago anarchists at the time of the Mayday tragedy of 1886. In another place,
a recorded talk, he contrasts Kropotkin with Emma Goldman. Clearly, he had
more than a superficial knowledge or anarchism and anarchist history. And
finally, Bill W. asserts that AA (although made up largely of non-anarchists) is
the fulfillment of Kropotkin's anarchist vision.
The wary reader may have guessed that this essay would conclude with the
strong urging that alcoholic anarchists abandon their prejudices and join the
AA band wagon. However, it is just as likely that by now you will not be
surprised that my point is not to bring the anarchist to AA, but rather to bring
AA to anarchists.
If you will grant that Alcoholics Anonymous is, in some sense, an anarchist
organization, or at least a non-authoritarian organization, then you can agree
that it is likely the world's largest, at over two million members, world wide. It
also may be the world's most effective anarchist organization: A.A. has
persisted for over seventy-five years, and has groups and members in over fifty
countries around the world. These days, mental health clinicians tend to focus
on cognitive-behavioral therapy and/or drugs for whatever ails us, so there is
less enthusiasm for AA among clinicians than in past decades - the
theoretical climate is not friendly to A.A.'s "spiritual" approach. Still, there is no
other approach to alcoholism that has been shown to be more effective.
In any case, this essay is not interested in AA as an approach to
alcoholism - we have been looking at what kind of organization A.A. is. And in
this respect, anarchists and other decent non-authoritarian folks would do well
to study AA's structure, it's decision-making procedures, it's literature and it's
culture. The Nazis showed us how to take ordinary human beings and turn them
into monsters; AA can show us how to take ordinary human beings - us - and
encourage us to be our better selves - to relate on the basis of voluntary
association, common interest, and mutual aid.
- An Anonymous Anarchist
@ 2010, First Draft
"Benign Anarchy":
Voluntary association, mutual aid and
Alcoholics Anonymous:
Liberals and leftists, atheists and anarchists have made various criticisms
of Alcoholics Anonymous and the other Twelve Step fellowships that AA has
inspired: It's proportionately male-dominated, and therefore sexist; the A.A.
basic text, the "Big Book" is written in sexist and heterosexist language; the
Twelve Steps use the word "God," and therefore are irrational; AA "requires" or
pressures its members to believe in a traditional God; AA is a cult.
What these criticisms usually have in common is that they are based on a
cursory inspection, or superficial understanding of the AA fellowship, program,
and literature. This brief essay will offer a few excerpts from AA literature, and
describe A.A.'s decision-making structure, in order to show not only that AA is
bases on non-authoritarian principles, but also that the architect of A.A.'s
organizational structure, co-founder Bill W., studied and borrowed explicitly from
anarchist texts in laying out the structure and guidelines for the organization.
It is no surprise that these critics seldom understand A.A.'s principles, texts
and organization: AA is a complex social phenomenon, with many different
aspects. In some ways, it varies over time, and from place to place. Few AA
members are actually well-versed in all of the relevant material. They tend to
learn the parts necessary for them to do whatever is right in front of them, just
as many non-alcoholics do.
There are two explicitly non-authoritarian guidelines from the A.A. literature
that are familiar to most AA members. Whereas .the Twelve Steps are the
suggestions for individual people who wish to stop drinking, the Twelve
Traditions are guidelines for how AA groups may be conducted. Traditions
Two and Four address authority and autonomy, respectively.
Tradition Two states, "For our group purpose there is but one ultimate
authority - a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience.
Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern."
In a superficial reading, this may sound pretty scary to leftists or atheists, or the
"spiritual not religious" person: God is the "ultimate authority," and God is clearly
male! Here, it must be understood that the diction, the words chosen, reflect the
time when the Traditions were written (the 1940s) and the culture of the author,
Bill W., who was a World War I veteran born in the nineteenth century.
If we look beyond the words to the meaning, we see that the clearest
directive here concerns the authority of AA members over one another: "Our
leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern." This is explicit and c1ear-
being a the treasurer, secretary, or facilitator of an AA group gives one
member NO authority over any other. And what of the first sentence? We
should note that when the "God" word is used in the Twelve Steps, it is always,
and each time followed by the phrase "as we understood Him," which is always
underlined or italicized for emphasis. Simply consult AA.'s basic texts,
Alcoholics Anonymous (aka, the "Big Book") or Twelve Steps and Twelve Tra-
ditions if you have any doubts about the absolute freedom of each member to
decide what they wish to believe about the "God question."
Tradition Two, pertaining to the group rather than the individual, refers to
"a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience." We won't
delve into definitions of "love" in this setting, but given that the definition of
"God" is to come from the "group conscience," we must ask what that is? In the
worst circumstances, it is a motion approved by a two-thirds majority, after sig-
nificant attempts to hear and understand all of the views of the group mem-
bers. In better circumstances, it means a special kind of consensus reached
through thorough discussion and cooperative crafting of an action plan that
accommodates the needs and concerns of all group members. The "God" part
means that each member is asked to proceed in a respectful manner, to be
prayerful or reflective or meditative, whatever is appropriate to their individual
beliefs.
Any AA member can tell you that the personal spiritual and religious be-
liefs of AA members are as diverse as those of the whole society: There are
observant members of every world faith, non~prc:fcticing members of all faiths,
as well as atheists, agnostics, pagans, and many "spiritual but not religious"
individuals. Many of these tendencies are acknowledged inthe AA literature.
So, what happens when the members of a group cannot reach consensus,
or when the intent of a two-thirds majority is unacceptable to the minority? This
is one place where AA's Tradition Four comes into play: "Each group should
be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or AA as a whole."
When members of a single AA group cannot agree, the group may split,
and a new group may be formed. The new group, being autonomous, is free to
practice as they see fit on the question that divided the original group. And
while schisms have perhaps been terrible for religion, they are the mechanism
by which AA groups have multiplied and diversified.
What is to be made of the qualification regarding autonomy, "except in
matters affecting other groups or AA as a whole"? If a group is seen to be
affecting other groups adversely, or reflecting badly on AA as a whole, what
happens? Do the AA police show up and confiscate the AA coffee pot that
has become a symbol of AA sobriety? Is there a head office somewhere that
sends a "cease and desist" letter?
There is a an adaptable form letter that has been used since at least the
1950s, and it generally reads "Of course, you are at perfect liberty to handle
this matter any way you please. But the majority experience in AA does seem
to suggest ..." (Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, pp. 173-174).
AA does not call the police on its members, or use the legal system in
any way to compel obedience. AA does have an organizational structure, with
various committees and delegated bodies. But these entities are expressly
prohibited from taking any punitive action against any AA member or group in
the document which guides AA's decision-making, the "Twelve Concepts for
World Service."
AA refers to itself as an "upside-down organization" (AA Service Man-
ual, p.S15) because the autonomous groups are the basic unit upon which the
rest of A.A depends. Each group may send its Representative to the local Area,
which usually covers a large metropolitan area, or half of a state, or an entire
state when the population is sparse. Each Area sends a Delegate to an annual
Conference. This is where the decisions are made that affect AA as a whole.
In order to run AA's publishing house, its General Service Office in New York,
and its monthly journal, the AA Grapevine, a handful of corporations have
been set up. Two things about these corporations must be noted. One, they are
financially dependent upon the AA members and groups, for AA receives no
money from governments, corporations or philanthropists. The only sources of
revenue are member contributions and literature sales.
The second point is that since the General Service Conference began
meeting in the 1950s (AA was formed in 1935), the corporations and their
boards have never gone against the decisions of the General Service Confer-
ence. AA has so far been able to stay with the original intent of its structure
and guidelines. Again, the Representatives, Delegates, board members and
corporation employees are considered "trusted servants" who "do not govern."
As mentioned earlier, these organizational entities and their various com-
mittees are explicitly prohibited from having any authority or taking any coercive
action against AA members and groups. Concept XII of the Twelve Concepts
is made up of a sub-set of guidelines called the "General Warranties of the Con-
ference." Warranty Five directs, "That no Conference action ever be personally
punitive," and Warranty Six sets forth ''That though the Conference may act for
the servi~~ of Alcoholics Anonymous, it shall never perform any acts of govern-
ment ...
Where does this come from, this concern for individual autonomy, the prohi-
bition against punitive measures and "acts of government"? There is a common
sense answer. AA members like to characterize alcoholics as being intensely
defiant people in the face of authority or coercion. In one recorded talk, Bill W.
points out the simple fact that alcoholics wouldn't have it any other way. As defi-
ant people who tend towards conflict and self-centeredness, AA's would tear
apart their own lifeboat, if the principles and structure of AA weren't designed
to diminish and manage conflict.
However, there is another answer more interesting to anarchists, anti-
authoritarians, non-violence advocates and historians. This answer is that Bill
W., co-founder of AA was reading the Nineteenth-century Russian prince and
anarchist theorist, Peter Kropotkin, when he was designing the organizational
structure for AA
Kropotkin's influence is clear from the following quote from Bill W. in AA
Comes of Age, pp.224-225, where he explains the transition from an arrange-
ment in which the co-founders made all of the big decisions, to one in which the
AA fellowship as a whole could be responsible for itself:
Some of us may think that, structurally speaking, we are quite
unique. But this is not entirely so. Our principles of recovery are bor-
rowed, and so are most of our structural ideas. In AA we can see
many of the means by which men and women over the centuries have
tried to unite themselves, and each of these techniques of association
has its assets and its liabilities.