More musings on Tradition Ten with a little peak ahead into Tradition Eleven . . .
One of our most debated topics as an organization concerns whether the literature should be updated from time to time to make it conform more closely to current mores and values. The most obvious example that comes to mind personally is the fact that "he" or "him" is always used when referring to an unknown third person. A.A. has so far resisted changing anything in the first 162 pages or in the 12&12, believing that because our literature has helped so many people that we may screw things up if we start tinkering with the formula. I always thought using a more gender neutral word to refer to a general person would be a slam dunk and more in tune with the wishes of a lot of women today, until someone wondered how we would handle trans or bi individuals. All of a sudden and just like that the tone of the discussion got a little sharper. We argue for an hour about whether or not to use Kroger or Safeway coffee at the meeting and now we're going to rewrite The Big Book?
Sometimes when we're reading Tradition Eleven and the phrase ". . . we need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio, and films" the reader will add "and the Internet." Seems pretty logical but will the wording ever be changed? Dunno. One of our members postulated that we all need to be careful with social media because it really is changing how we interact with each other as a society. All of a sudden a Facebook friend will post something I really disagree with politically and all of a sudden I'm looking at him (I should probably say her) with a biased, jaundiced eye. There are plenty of people in A.A. who hold personal views that offend me but in a meeting or post-meeting format we're able to put these aside. And these are people who often teach me great lessons.
Willie called me yesterday about a sponsee who is on the opposite side of his political divide. The problem is that he's vocal about his views and constantly brings them up. Willie - long practiced in the art of minimizing controversy when it serves no good purpose - got fed up and reacted angrily along the lines of "I hate that politician and I don't want to talk about him anymore." While that solved the immediate problem he is now disinclined to talk to his sponsee. I think he behaved OK - the fault here is with the newer man (I can say "man" here because it really is a man) who feels he has the right to tell someone else what he believes - but the relationship is feeling some tension, and both of these guys may need something that the other guy has at some point.
I've mentioned that I believe the break away 7 AM group is making more of a political statement than anything, despite the protestations that "I just don't like Zoom meetings" or "It's too hard to get sober without meeting face to face." These are reasonable statements but I've heard so much political posturing from some of these members that I don't really buy it at this point. And there I am sipping from a poisoned A.A. well. While this situation is obviously my problem I'd remind all of us that my actions - whether they're honorable, deplorable, or somewhere in between - can affect other people. I need to remember that I can't simply say whatever I want whenever I want to if I want A.A. to stay strong.
No comments:
Post a Comment