Autonomy – Not Self-will — From the April 1990 Grapevine

A political science professor at the University of Missouri once said, “The reason that the Constitution of the United States has been so successful for more than 200 years is that it is so general and so flexible that people don’t feel they have to change it every time they have an argument.” I have come to believe that there might just be some of that flexibility in our Traditions, particularly Tradition Four.

Through the years I have learned to take arguments about the Traditions, or instances of using a given Tradition to support a personal position, with a little grain of salt. As Bill W. explains Rule 62 in Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, let’s not take ourselves too damn seriously.

I’ve learned to laugh just a little through the years because I have been around long enough now to hear some pretty good cases on both sides of any given controversy. I’ve heard the same Tradition used as support for arguments on both sides of the question.

This is the real beauty in the Traditions. They have survived intact, even more so than the U.S. Constitution, in spite of the many ways we as individuals have used and misused them on our A.A. travels.

Many other times I have heard an argument supported with one part of a Tradition while the second part is completely ignored. This phenomenon seems to occur quite often in Tradition Four: “Each group should be autonomous except in matters affection other groups or A.A. as a whole.”

Autonomy most often seems to be used as an argument to explain or defend why a group ought to do what a certain member wants it to do. It occurs to me that the framework that we build around autonomy is the same framework the we build around self, which the Big Book warns us we must get rid of if we are to expect a life of sobriety and serenity. In other words, we often use autonomy to get our way.

I remember a wise old-timer saying to me many years ago that the most important thing that we had to remember about our relations with each other in A.A. is Tradition One: that everything we do and say should have our common welfare uppermost in our minds and be in support of A.A. unity.

He went so far as to say that when a group sits down to discuss a given controversy and to have an informed group conscience, that everyone should have the right to know that the meeting is taking place and to say anything they want. But, he said, the group should not feel that it has to take a vote – usually, the group conscience just emerges. If a group is really striving for a group conscience, they won’t even be talking about the controversy after a few minutes. They’ll be discussing how each of them is so important to the other, and how much they would be willing to sacrifice of “their own way” to preserve the unity of the group.

And so it is with Tradition Four, I believe. It should not be used so much to strike home the point that a group can do anything it darned well wants to. It should also remind us to ask ourselves, in the context of all the Traditions: “Is this decision good for all the groups around us? Will we hurt someone? Are we helping the A.A. Fellowship as a whole?”

It just appears sometimes that our old habits of trying to concentrate on what makes us different still prevail over concentrating on what makes us similar, what will give us unity, and what will aid in the survival, growth and well-being of the Fellowship.

It seems to me that the biggest part of A.A.’s growth and success in almost fifty-five years has been that is has clung firmly to its singleness of purpose, and has not tried to be all things for all people. Because of that, even though groups from different parts of the United States and Canada may have different local customs, they are still basically carrying the same and single message of A.A. recovery to the newcomer.

Through trial and error, we A.A.s have found two very important facts about ourselves and about Tradition Four. First, we have discovered that we must take responsibility for ourselves if we are to recover and have complete freedom, or autonomy within our groups. So we cannot use autonomy for selfish means.

Second, we must depend on each other or die alone. No heritage from our A.A. predecessors is so precious and so clear. We cannot look inward when we talk about autonomy. We must look always to the greater good. There is no one else who will care for the survival of the Fellowship if we do not. We know our own lives depend on the well being of all the groups and all the members if the Fellowship and its members are to survive.

I believe any document, whether it’s the Constitution or the Traditions of our Fellowship, which has survived all trials and remained for the common good of many people, is spiritual in its nature and its origins. Tradition Four exemplifies in its true meaning this spiritual foundation of our Society.

Taken in this context, all that we do and say should be for the good of the greatest number. The future of the Fellowship and our own futures depend on it.
Richard B. Iselin, NJ
via The Grapevine, Apr. 2006

An Open Letter to Intergroup
Thank you for sending me your Intergroup flyer. I really enjoy reading it and passing it on to other members in the home group. There’s always good things in it we can use to improve our group. I/We thought the articles on the Steps, Traditions and Concepts were a great idea. And some sense of humor to remind us to keep it simple. All in all it’s a great flyer. You guys are doing a great service. God loves you and so do I.

Two little bits that were given to me I like to pass on. Use them if you’d like to.

First one is: “No one cares how much you know, as long as they know how much you care.”

Second one is: “You whom is asked, much is given.”

Well, friends, take care of each other and stay sober.
Go to meetings and share the love.
God bless, Mike M., San Diego