Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Are the 12 Traditions of 12 step groups a good model for non leader, community oriented movements?

Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 25, 2011, 2:34 p.m. EST by AstraStarr (71) from New Paltz, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

this is a quick general interpretation- that could be gleaned from- but has many useful concepts imo

Observe- neutralized versions of the 12 step preamble and traditions: by: One New York Activist

One—Our common welfare should come first; recovery depends upon unity.

Two—For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority— our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern.

Three—The only requirement for membership is a desire to be a member. Nor ought ' membership' ever depend upon money or conformity. Any two or three people gathered together may call themselves a group, provided that, as a group, they have no other affiliation.

Four—Each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or the movement as a whole.

Five—Each group has but one primary purpose—to carry its message.

Six—A group ought never endorse, finance or lend the name to any related facility or outside enterprise, lest problems of money, property and prestige divert us from our primary purpose. We think, therefore, that any considerable property of genuine use to us should be separately incorporated and managed, thus dividing the material from the goal. A group, as such, should never go into business. Secondary aids, such as clubs or hospitals which require much property or administration, ought to be incorporated and so set apart that, if necessary, they can be freely discarded by the groups. Hence such facilities ought not to use our name. Their management should be the sole responsibility of those people who financially support them. While a group may cooperate with anyone, such cooperation ought never go so far as affiliation or endorsement, actual or implied. A group can bind itself to no one.

Seven—Every group ought to be fully self-supporting, declining outside contributions. The groups themselves ought to be fully supported by the voluntary contributions of their own members. We think that each group should soon achieve this ideal; that any public solicitation of funds is highly dangerous, whether by groups, clubs, hospitals, or other outside agencies; that acceptance of large gifts from any source, or of contributions carrying any obligation whatever, is unwise. Then too, we view with much concern those treasuries which continue, beyond prudent reserves, to accumulate funds for no stated purpose. Experience has often warned us that nothing can so surely destroy our heritage as futile disputes over property, money, and authority.

Eight—We should remain forever nonprofessional, but our service centers may employ special workers. We define professionalism as the occupation of 'the work' for fees or hire. But we may employ people where they are going to perform those services for which we might otherwise have to engage others. Such special services may be well recompensed. But our usual voluntary work is never to be paid for.

Nine- We, as such, ought never be organized; but we may create service boards or committees directly responsible to those they serve. Each group needs the least possible organization. Rotating leadership is the best. The small group may elect its secretary, the large group its rotating committee, and the groups of a large metropolitan area their central or inter group committee, which often employs a full-time secretary. The trustees of the General Service Board are, in effect, our General Service Committee. They are the custodians of our Traditions and the receivers of voluntary contributions by which we maintain our General Service Office at New York. They are authorized by the groups to handle our over-all public relations and they guarantee the integrity of our publications. All such representatives are to be guided in the spirit of service, for true leaders are but trusted and experienced servants of the whole. They derive no real authority from their titles; they do not govern. Universal respect is the key to their usefulness.

Ten—We have no opinion on outside issues; hence the group name ought never be drawn into public controversy.

Eleven—Our public relations policy is based on attraction rather than promotion; we need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio and films. Our public relations should be guided by the principle of attraction rather than promotion. There is never need to praise ourselves. We feel it better to let our friends recommend us.

Twelve—Unity is the foundation of all our Traditions, ever reminding us to place principles before personalities; that we are actually to practice a genuine humility. This to the end that our great blessings may never spoil us; that we shall forever live in thankful contemplation to each other.

12 Comments

12 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by thebeastchasingitstail (1912) 12 years ago

The traditions that AstraStarr reworked here are the principals that AA uses to structure its organization. Basically, a guideline for getting things done.

The op is not suggesting that OWS turn into a 12 step group, just that their structure AA uses for making group decisions could be easily adapted by the OWS movement.

The group structure is really effective and it fits with OWS ideas about direct democracy and consensus.

The way the national organization serves but does not govern each autonomous group is also a useful concept.

Thank you, AstraStarr for taking the time to do this. It should be discussed at a GA and/or posted on the NYCGA site.

[-] 1 points by AstraStarr (71) from New Paltz, NY 12 years ago

i would go back and replace some of the terminology with the term solidarity now that i reread

[-] 1 points by CarlaW (67) 12 years ago

This is interesting, I will have to think about it a while.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 12 years ago

This is not necessarily the best of ideas; we're here to effect change in the country rather than in individual people, and to do that we're going to have to roll up our sleeves and get political at some point. Otherwise we become part of the furniture.

[-] 1 points by AstraStarr (71) from New Paltz, NY 12 years ago

noted- but their are some really good ideas to GLEAN from it- specifically the parts about non affiliation, unity, trusted servants, rotation of duties and so on... remember these were written by a group that has existed since 1935 with no leaders and no profits and is 100% volunteer..... thats a great track record.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 12 years ago

OK, fair enough. I also agree that certain aspects of the AA model might work to keep OWS growing, relevant, and popular: not permitting ourselves to be absorbed into an existing organization is definitely a good idea, as is rotating our leaders and holding them immediately accountable for their decisions. My only complaint (maybe this is not relevant to your post in particular, if it isn't I'm sorry) is that an explicitly apolitical model and mission statement would take away our most important avenue for making change happen.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago
[-] 1 points by ChristopherABrown (550) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

I think it is important to realize that the nwo does not want Americans to be able to know how to identify a leader, so they've promoted that group decisions are going to be adequate. Not so. This group on this forum cannot even have a rational discussion without nwo trolls working to create cognitive dissonance. Or confusion with mass dilution.---

Accordingly, the same thing happens on the ground UNLESS the disruption is tested for functionality in reality. Mostly, tour society is conditioned to not allow that because the nwo schools haven't taught enough for them be able to interpret reality and the reason it is as it is.

[-] 1 points by thebeastchasingitstail (1912) 12 years ago

Yes! I've posted about this a couple of times!

They could certainly be adapted for leaderless movement purposes.

12 step groups do amazing things and get stuff accomplished.

They maintain a national structure, continuity and consistency without any "marketing" campaigns or charismatic leaders.

Their ideas for group process, structure & organization are proven to work, there's a track record spanning decades.

[-] 1 points by Rockyj (2) 12 years ago

NO!

[-] 1 points by AstraStarr (71) from New Paltz, NY 12 years ago

rocky did you read it?

[-] 0 points by metapolitik (1110) 12 years ago

The 12 steps are a tool to brainwash people into:

A) Believing in god

B) Giving up power over their own lives

C) Buying books

Here's 1 (one) step:

Take some personal responsibility.