I am writing about an issue that is arising in the intergroup of one of my 12 step fellowships. This has to do with meetings that are designated BLPOC, in other words for blacks and people of color. These fellowships have been designated themselves as closed to those who are not BLPOC
This discussion has unfortunately been occurring in email. That is often not a very good way of achieving mutual understanding. One of my friends calls it evil mail, because it tends to escalate conflict, Rather than de-escalate it.
As part of this discussion, I have made some comments in emails, which I would like to memorialize here.
An experience I had of exclusion:
I attended a college that was all male until about 2 years before I got there. The decision to go co-ed was controversial amongst alumni and students -- tho not staff. When I was there, I met alumni on the street who told me that they didn't want me there. One of my best friends told me that he wished the college had not gone co-ed. Fraternities wrote nasty songs about us. One of them was called "Our Co-hogs." The college kept the ratio of men to women at 3:1 for a number of years to placate alumni, which meant it was twice as hard for women to get in as men, when I went there.
Yet, my response to this has been to be reluctant to attend all female meetings, because I don't want to be part of a group that makes others feel excluded. I don't want to treat others the way I was treated. I don't understand those who want to emulate their oppressors.
I do sympathize with the complainers against the tradition here, tho, or at least the interpretation of the tradition... but I think the traditions are important.
I also find myself torn by the politics of the day, where Trump supporters, who I tend to strongly disagree with, are much more likely to complain of reverse racism than so-called progressives, who I tend to identify with. Yet, in this case, I don't like the statement that people of a different race cannot attend, so I fear being seen as being like Trump supporters. Even tho 12 step groups are supposed to be non-political, it's been pretty clear that most people in my area are on the progressive side. This makes me want to just crawl into a hole and not say anything.
-----------
Decentralization of responsibility for the traditions
Traditionally, in program, the individual groups are the fellowship. Intergroup and fellowship wide services are service bodies. It's not a top down organization. It's bottom up. Each group is independent. The question is what the service body lists on its website. A group that does not follow traditions is not a 12 step group. At least that has been the attitude of every service body that I know of. Any group is free to do anything it likes, but the service body doesn't have to list them on its website.
-----------
Interpretation of the tradition, in light of historical commentary
FWIW, in another fellowship I am a member of, tradition 3 has always been interpreted to mean that, while a meeting can state a preference for certain types of people, it cannot refuse entry to any member. The term "closed" has always meant that non-members cannot attend (e.g. family members of members, social workers looking to support their clients, students, journalists).
The AA Big Book, the first 12 step literature, from which all 12 step programs are derived, states "Hence we may refuse none who wish to recover." This is the long form tradition currently at p. 563 of the 4th edition, but the introduction to the traditions explains that the long form was the original form enunciated in 1946.
To my mind, to interpret the traditions contrary to their original formulation would take us out of being a 12 step program.
One question is whether an individual group might exclude a member, if there are other groups that would take that member, so that the fellowship as a whole would admit them. I think the answer to that question would be no. Each group is bound to follow the traditions -- not to delegate the traditions to other groups. Therefore I do not believe that a group can exclude anyone who wishes to recover.
Elucidation of details of traditions are typically made with reference to the 12&12. I guess this paraticular fellowship, which is newer, does not have a 12 & 12 yet. The fellowship text does reference the AA 12 & 12 on page 122 in a footnote. With respect to tradition 3, the AA document speaks quite movingly of what led them to this principle. I am enclosing a screen image of part of that discussion, to wit, when you exclude a sufferer you may actually be signing their death sentence. Addiction is a deadly disease. https://www.aa.org/assets/en_US/en_tradition3.pdf
----------------------------
Not yet sent out in an e-mail:
Recovery v Victimhood & Trauma Bonding
I perceive in this discussion of whether BLPOC groups can exclude whites, a sort of self righteous pissing contest. "My suffering is worse than your suffering, therefore you can't talk to me." I find this hurtful.
No one comes into this program unharmed. There are horrendous stories of child abuse, mental illness, physical illness, poverty, loss, and death. Yet, I have been repeatedly cautioned, and have found in my own experience, the dwelling in victimhood and self-pity does not help recovery. Instead focusing on victimhood and self-pity provokes compulsive, self-medicating behavior. Moreover I have been cautioned against trauma bonding. I have been told the trauma bonding is dangerous, because it's more likely to result in dysfunctional relationships.
I would suggest that in your desperate search to protect yourselves, you may actually be protecting yourself from recovery.
Also, this particular fellowship is not a fellowship for purposes of recovery from racism. That is not our stated objective.
#12step #twelvestep #tradition3 #traditionthree #blpoc #reverseracism #racism #twelvesteptraditions #12steptraditions #thirdtradition #3rdtradition
