Clarity Statements

[Gmoney]

I don't wanna play with you anymore, Andy. I'm taking my ball and going home.

[kj3880]

I do wanna play. I don't see anything wrong with a healthy debate on this topic.

As a relative newcomer, compared to Andy and Garry, I have come to a few of my own conclusions. Now that Garry has bowed out, I expect Andy will give me some feedback:

I have decided that I will adopt a policy of loving acceptance regardless of how any person identifies themself. It still strikes me as odd that someone would come into NA, and identify as a member but not as an addict, but OK. Why the Andas? Why the Specifics, like "I'm So-and-so, a crack-head." Why say you are an alcoholic and an addict (unless you are brand new and don't know that it is one disease)?

I wouldn't feel comfortable identifying as "KJ, a gamblng addict" at GA, for instance, because I truly hate gambling, just don't get the draw of it at all. But I bet I could identify as just an addict there, and fit right on in talking about obsession, compulsion, unmanageability, and the way up and out with stepwork. And then the people in that meeting might be able to listen and to identify, and to get some help if I carried the message, rather than waste time and brain cells trying to figure out if they are like me enough to benefit from my methods.

So why don't people just identify as addicts, so we can focus on the similarities between all of us and not the differences? Wouldn't it be more thereaputic for us all? For both the speaker and the listener? Wouldn't it help them to fit in rather than give their disease a way to wiggle out on a technicality?

I'm not arguing to try to get people banned from meetings, or even to get them corrected in meetings, when they identify differently. What I'm suggesting is that people learn to identify as addicts as they learn other aspects of the program. As part of their first step work with a sponsor. When they learn that they really are addicts. I just think it is helpful to know who you are, what disease you have, and that you share it with the other people in NA. At least, it helps me. JMO.

Love,
KJ

[Paulie]

I have decided that I will adopt a policy of loving acceptance regardless of how any person identifies themself.

Well that is good . That is one of the many things we learn, acceptance.

So why don't people just identify as addicts, so we can focus on the similarities between all of us and not the differences? Wouldn't it be more thereaputic for us all? For both the speaker and the listener? Wouldn't it help them to fit in rather than give their disease a way to wiggle out on a technicality?

Personally KJ when someone identifys themselves as a word or words other than just addict, it really doesnt sway my attention one way or the other. If I find their words funny I may laugh. But in my experience over the years for me and the woman I have sponsored, it really doesnt make much differnece.

And I have a question, just because some says 'my name is bob and I smoke crack' rather than 'my name is bob and I am an addict', who am I to say that they are not identifying themselves in the correct way. The correct way for who, you, for me? what about the correct way for them. It is not for any of us to say or to rate if they understand the disease or not.

rather than waste time and brain cells trying to figure out if they are like me enough to benefit from my methods.

enough to benefit from my methods? you are gonna have to explain that statement to me KJ. I am in the rooms to learn from other experience, strenght and hope and share mine.

[kj3880]

My "methods" of stepwork, or using tools of recovery. It is my way of referring to the ways I've used or not used tools of recovery and my "methods" are part of my experiences. That is my way of saying "tools of recovery." Paulie, are you now thinking I am not using correct terminology? Correct for whom, you and the women you sponsored, whom you also always seem to speak for? What about the correct terms for me? Sensing a little judgy mcjudgment here.

KJ

[Paulie]

I dont speak for them KJ, I share here what I share with them, there is a differnece. OUCH!!!

I was not talking about your terminology, I was asking a question, I didnt understand that is all KJ.

But ya know as I read this back, you are right, I guess I was being a bit judgemental in trying to point out you being judgemental of how others announce themselves. If how someone announces themselves at meeting influences how you share your methods of recovery with them, well I think I will keep my opinion on that to myself.

It truly is none of my business.

[Lily]

[Missybuns]

I see a contradiction here:

I have decided that I will adopt a policy of loving acceptance regardless of how any person identifies themself.

followed by:

So why don't people just identify as addicts, so we can focus on the similarities between all of us and not the differences? Wouldn't it be more thereaputic for us all? For both the speaker and the listener? Wouldn't it help them to fit in rather than give their disease a way to wiggle out on a technicality?

[andyaddict]

Originally Posted by kj3880

Now that Garry has bowed out, I expect Andy will give me some feedback:

I have decided that I will adopt a policy of loving acceptance regardless of how any person identifies themself.

So why don't people just identify as addicts, so we can focus on the similarities between all of us and not the differences?

Wouldn't it be more thereaputic for us all? For both the speaker and the listener?

Wouldn't it help them to fit in rather than give their disease a way to wiggle out on a technicality?

Love,
KJ

You mentioned that you decided to practice loving acceptance, yet the afterward doesn't seem to reflect that decision. True acceptance doesn't require our thirst first be quenched to practice it, does it?

The first thing I always try to teach first is that one does not get too caught up with that word "identify" or "identification." Try to find an alternate word, I use "introduce." When using the English language dictionary, the context in which "identify" is used during this topic doesn't fit very well.

Now, first and foremost is that we need not change the outside world, we need only change ourselves. This is a philosophy taught over and over throughout our literature and program. The concept is most easily applied to the "differences vs. similarities" dilemma. This begs the question: Why should the burden of finding similarities be placed on THEM rather than US?

Point being, if someone chose to "introduce" themselves as a doughnut addict, why couldn't YOU look for the similarities rather than requiring conformity on THEIR part for you to see their similarities. See, this would require YOU to apply the principles embodied in the Twelve Steps and Traditions to solve this dilemma - isn't that how this program is supposed to work anyway?

Wouldn’t it be self-righteous of not only us but the program itself to expect or even suggest that others conform? NA is a spiritual NOT self-righteous program is it not? I always send the non-believers to page 63 of It Works: How and Why to refresh themselves on the topic of self-righteousness.

Anyway, before I type myself to death, let me know if any of this makes any sense or if this has raised any NEW questions.

a

[kj3880]

I think that some faulty logic is at play. Fr'instance, if you make the assumption, as many seem to do in this program, that loving acceptance of all requires the acceptor to turn off his/her brain and adopt a policy of complete lack of critical thought. And no, I'm not talking about the critical thought where we criticize others. I'm talking about the kind where we think about and analyze what is truly the best or most helpful way to do things. Critical thinking is part of what helped our forefathers to come up with some traditions. I guess they thought about what would serve recovery best. They didn't advocate kicking people out if they didn't adhere strictly to the traditions, but they still thought enough about them to write them out and incorporate them as suggestions for individuals and groups to follow. NA makes many suggestions, traditionally. It is commonly suggested that newcomers attend 90 in 90. We certainly shouldn't shun anyone who doesn't (although I was shunned by several members for just this lack of adherance, due to a heavy work schedule in early recovery) but it's still a good suggestion. We can accept lovingly the people who don't do 90/90, while still holding forth that 90/90 is a good idea, probably the best thing to do for yourself in early recovery. Just the fact that we continue to suggest that people do this doesn't mean that we shun those who don't do it.

Just as the fact that we could continue to suggest that people identify as addicts in order to reap the benefit of a rudimentary form of surrender and more complete identification doesn't mean we shun those who decide to identify otherwise.

I guess I could turn off my brain, turn off the only thing that I know, that what seems to work for most addicts in NA just seems to work for me. And from what I have seen so far, for other addicts. There may be some exceptions, I just haven't met them. But then, I've only been around for a couple of years, so I may meet some exceptions as time goes by.

We want to land a newcomer in the middle of NA, from what I've heard, to make them feel a part of. I don't know a quicker way of feeling a part of then everyone admitting we are all just like the rest of the people in the room. It would be nice if everyone arrived at NA with a fully intact sense of self-esteem, unbothered by others' opinions, but I haven't seen anyone come in like that. It would also be nice if there were meetings where nobody was ever judged on anything, but completely accepted, regardless of their lack of adherence to tradition and social more, but I've never seen a meeting like that, either.

KJ

[Missybuns]

keep coming back KJ

I know my perception changed the more I kept coming back.

[Lily]

I have attended open NA meeting in which an Alcoholic was in attendance and introduced himself as such. My husband attended the night I received my cake. And just said Ken. I have also been in attendence where people did not know whether or not they were an addict and also I can think of 2 parents who showed up with their kids. I just don't think we need to suggest people call themselves addicts. I think only they can call themselves such. When I arrived in NA I was still introducing myself as an addict/alcoholic because I didn't know any better. I didn't learn there not to say that, but on these boards.

I think if you made that suggestion then you would have to add on all sorts of other clauses, unless you are not an addict or visiting trying to figure out if you are an addict, a family member, I think it could go on and on.....

I really am not trying to be argumentative with you KJ I just don't agree with that suggestion, that's all.

I think it would be a form of control in a way and we just need to let people be people. I can't believe you were shunned for not doing 90 in 90. I too did not take the suggestion of 90 in 90. I have a hubby that works nights, and a little kid. Heck we don't even have a meeting every day in Central WI area. Only 3 a week now. I never felt guilty about it either.

just my opinion.

[andyaddict]

Originally Posted by kj3880

Dang it all, I want some answers. Letting go of the debate, can someone tell me why it bothers me to my very soul when people can't just identify as "I'm so-and-so, an addict."

I would say, to the best of my knowledge, you would find those answers in doing some introspection (like a 4th step) on what ethnocentrism and self-righteousness means to you or does for you.

These are two qualities that we all posses in various degrees, yet for the recovering addict we can not work to overcome something we are unaware of or are unwilling to admit we suffer from. Remember, it is nearly impossible to spot self-deception without outside help.

I know page 63 from It Works: How and Why does a good job at defining self-righteousness, it is then reintroduced during the essay on spiritual principles in the Third Tradition. Check it out and see if it is anything that might help you through this topic KJ, one which you suggest bothers you to your very soul.

Ethnocentrism is more of a sociological term, but is nothing more than self-righteousness practiced at a group level. Webster defines ethnocentrism as characterized by or based on the attitude that one's own group is superior.

Here the group that is perceived as superior is the ones that "got it" by introducing themselves only as addicts and further exacerbated by insisting on other exclusive NA language to boot.

Remember now, NA is supposed to be an "inclusive" and "spiritual" fellowship with only ONE membership requirement. This whole language debacle creates more of an "exclusive" (acceptance based on conformity) and "religious" (indoctrination of ritualistic dogma) congregation.

Again, let me know if this helps or not.

a

[andyaddict]

I just did a 6000 mi road trip, and not once did I hear a conformity statement dictated in a meeting. Lot's of people introducing themselves (not identifying) as various adjectives. And guess what? NA didn't explode, nobody died, and a whole BOAT LOAD of addicts are living in harmony rather than being bothered to their very soul about this topic.

Imagine that.

a

[Gmoney]

Good for you, Andy.

[andyaddict]

Originally Posted by navysteve

I have yet to meet anyone who left a meeting and got high because of the way someone announced themselves at a meeting. When I work one on one with another I explain why "I" announce myself as an addict only in an NA meeting. How they announce themselves is their business.

This same problem goes on in AA too, it is pointless. But at the core I agree with you, where I disagree is the attention given to how "others" practice this program. If I focus on having something to offer rather than what is going wrong in the meeting I tend to sleep better at night. I had to give up fixing stuff I am not qualified to...

If we are to be examples of recovery to the newcomer, then should we let words have this much power?

Originally Posted by Gmoney

I agree with you again Steve. I must have a fever or something...

Originally Posted by Gmoney

I posted the link to that bulletin earlier in ths thread (and too many times to count here at SR!!) LOL!!

Originally Posted by Gmoney

I think Andy just read this thread and posted his old NA Way article again on this subject. (yawn)

Originally Posted by Gmoney

I could probably take the time to write a lengthy essay on [1] how and why clarity statements are not in conflict with any of our traditions, [2] how a mere "suggestion" regarding NA language is no more of attempt to pressure anyone than the suggestion to attend meetings, work steps, or adhere to Traditions, [3] how there is no control issue behind the suggestion, and [4] how unity doesn't always mean uniformity...but I won't.

Originally Posted by andyaddict

Ok then, you seemed to almost boast at how you could write a persuasive essay that would easily counter that pile of $hit I dumped. Here's a challenge, write it.

Originally Posted by Gmoney

I do not have to prove or disprove ANYTHING to satisfy your ego or my own. I refuse to take the flimsy bait. Your challenge holds no value for me...I'll pass.

ok then

Originally Posted by Gmoney

The NA Clarity Statement

There has been much debate in recent years over whether the NA Clarity Statement that is read in NA meetings across the globe is inappropriate or contradictory to the spiritual principles of the NA Traditions.

<snip>

Autonomy in NA gives groups the freedom to act on their own to establish an atmosphere of recovery, to serve their members, and to fulfill their primary purpose.

tflms,
G

[Gmoney]

Check this out, Andy...agreeing with NavySteve on one thing doesn't negate my views on another. I'm open to multiple views, like: [1] it's okay with me how you refer to yourself in an NA meeting...I won't criticize you or try to force you to share like me, and [2] it's okay for groups to use a clarity statement if they want to...doing so doesn't violate or compromise our 12 traditions. I don't drink energy drinks, but I won't try to stop you from doing it. If you notice (and maybe you didn't), Steve talked about:

When I work one on one with another I explain why "I" announce myself as an addict only in an NA meeting.

That's one point I agreed with. What I also agreed with is that I have no experience with knowing of anyone who went and got high as a result of how someone else introduced themselves. So I miss your point in re-posting my words. Maybe you could "clarify" or offer some "conformity." One of the problems with posting excerpts of what others say is that the context or intent is sometimes missed or overlooked. Some use that tactic to manipulate or control the views of others. Not you, though.

And btw, your challenge still holds no weight, but when you're finished patting yourself on the back and taking credit for my post, let me know...ok?

[andyaddict]

Narcotics Anonymous is designed to be a spiritual program; a Conformity Statement contradicts many of our most fundamental spiritual principles such as acceptance, patience, tolerance, open-mindedness and unconditional love.

A Conformity Statement is not Acceptance:

As members, Acceptance is one of the most influential principles supporting our Unity. Unity in Narcotics Anonymous is not the same as uniformity. Conformity to beliefs and values, be they right or wrong, runs contrary to the principles supporting Tradition One. Accepting one another where we are, as we are, is the cornerstone we need to build a strong and lasting fellowship.

A Conformity Statement is not Patience:

Patience in our fellowship calls us to give others the time to come to their understanding of the NA program in their own time. Patience, if practiced and applied, demonstrates that we, collectively, allow God to remain in charge, that our fellowship trusts His plan, and will not hastily try to manipulate what God has in store for others.

A Conformity Statement is not Tolerance:

Tolerance reminds us that judgment is not our task. Tolerance of qualities, even those we feel uncomfortable with, can do nothing but increase our chances of being helpful when they are ready for our help, not a minute sooner. Tolerance, in action, offers us the opportunity to achieve serenity in the midst of the storm, this is a much more powerful message than efforts driving toward political correctness.

A Conformity Statement is not Open-mindedness

The spirit of open-mindedness would call on us to be open to understanding the thoughts, feelings, and actions of others. How each and every one of us chooses to introduce ourselves is an extremely personal choice and position in our recovery. Our individual introduction. coupled with the internalized nature of our disease. is the first step in the process of surrender – a principle found in abundance throughout our First Step. The principle of open-mindedness allows us to lend others the freedom to practice their process of surrender in their own way, it allows us the latitude to understand that they are here for the same results, and that verbiage should not be a deterrent to that process of identification.

A Conformity Statement is not Unconditional Love:

Unconditional Love is the substance that can nourish the most desperate and dying addict. Any person coming in needs our love, encouragement and support, not criticism, correction, or rejection. Our love, without the placement of conditions for conformity, gives them the opportunity to lower their defenses so that they can more readily accept what we have to offer, a program that can offer them freedom from active addiction.

a

[Gmoney]

Luckily we don't have a "Conformity Statement" in NA. But many groups do use a Clarity Statement for reasons overlooked by those that oppose them.

Narcotics Anonymous is a spiritual program, yet NA doesn't define what spirituality means for it's members, nor does it define spirituality at all. To state that a so-called "Conformity Statement" (which really doesn't exist...but let's play along) isn't specific spiritual principles is really irrelevant and a no-brainer - it's like saying honesty isn't anonymity. Of course it isn't. Neither is willingness the same as action or compassion.

It may be easy for some of us to talk about acceptance, but trying to connect acceptance with unity can be a stretch. Just as we don't come in the doors of NA "brimming" with honesty, open-mindedness or willingness...acceptance isn't something we all have in abundance - whether we are new to NA or members with extensive experience in the program. The unity that's referred to in our 1st Tradition springs from the fact that we have unity of purpose: to recover and help each other stay clean. This is the primary "need" that represents the cornerstone of our fellowship and our program. A group that has unity allows each addict to carry "the message" in his or her own unique way, yet "the message" is one of recovery from the disease of addiction; not multiple diseases or the message of other fellowships, rehabs & treatment facilities. Any claim that a clarity statement is contradictory to our 1st Tradition is unfounded when our common welfare is considered - as opposed to those who promote their personal agendas. In NA, we have acceptance in varying degrees - one thing we don't have to accept is addicts dying from the disease of addiction. And just because a group decides to include a clarity statement with their readings doesn't mean they don't practice acceptance. It could simply mean they "accept" that you don't know the difference between this fellowship and others, and they "accept" the responsibility to teach or inform you that there is a difference.

What many of us often forget is that it is our beliefs and values that have to change in order to recover. And the program of NA is about helping us to do just that. So to say that any vehicle that influences or promotes that change is contradictory to a tradition is flawed logic and suggests that the 12steps are also in conflict with our traditions.

Patience is also something that often takes time to acquire. Everyone doesn't have it, nor do we all get it at the same time. Nonetheless, groups that include a clarity statement aren't guilty of lacking patience - it would be very presumptuous to insinuate such a thing. The same patience we, as members of NA, practice when we refer to the 12 steps as our solution (over and over) is employed when we offer a clarity statement to help those who are uninformed that NA is a fellowship of addicts freely helping one another to recover from the disease of addiction. It is often said in our meetings that God works through people, and our 2nd Tradition tells us that a loving HP is our ultimate authority guiding our decisions. Many of us ignore the reality that God's will is done whether we like it or not. It certainly isn't my place to say that a clarity statement isn't part of a HP's plan. Open-mindedness allows me to consider that it just very well may be.

Tolerance isn't the same thing as ignorance or indifference. NA is a fellowship and program in its own right, and many tend to jump to conclusions and assert that anything pro-NA is anti-everything else. The entire NA program is self-promoting, self-endorsing and self-advocating. A clarity statement is simply another tool used by many NA groups/meetings to educate those in attendance of NA's "singleness or purpose", not to judge, criticize or hasten the process of others. As I said previously, a clarity statement cannot do such things...misguided individuals can try. If NA did not constantly stand up and reiterate its purpose, program and message...it would very likely dissolve into not having a purpose, program or message. Reminding others what NA is and does, isn't the same as intolerance.

In my area, it is often said that we can use tolerance as an excuse for letting members die (being inactive). If I see you about to step in front of an oncoming train, I can tolerate you killing yourself or I can take on the responsibility of helping you to save your life by informing you that the train is coming. Clarity statements cannot be intolerant, but individuals can.

Our literature tells us that open-mindedness is the ability to entertain an alternative perspective without jumping to conclusions of right or wrong. But it is empathy that allows us the capacity to understand the feelings or experience of others. Although open-mindedness allows us to consider opposing positions, it doesn't prompt us to abandon our own. NA is a fellowship of addicts and our message is NA's opinion. Our message isn't drug-specific and neither is our 1st step. Our 1st step tells us that, not only are we powerless over drugs, but we're also powerless over our disease as well. Initially, how we introduce ourselves may very well indicate our level of understanding and "internalization" of the nature of the disease of addiction. As stated already, a clarity statement isn't in conflict with any spiritual principle - specifically, open-mindedness. As a matter of fact, it exemplifies it by recognizing that there are those who do not have a clue of NA's position on the disease concept of addiction. And contrary to the notion asserted in the previous post, the 1st step in the process of surrender isn't a specific way of introducing one's self...it is the admission of complete defeat born of desperation. We learn how to introduce ourselves via numerous vehicles: observation, comprehension, and assimliation (to name a few) Although "verbiage should not be a deterrent to that process of identification," the reality is that it often is and each group has the authority to help eliminate that deterrent via a clarity statement.

Unconditional love is practiced when we share and care the NA way. A clarity statement, although often seen as redundant, can be an effective tool for educating our members (and potential members) about the disease of addiction and help them to focus on our similarities instead of our differences. It would be foolish to ignore that repetition is a fundamental means in teaching. With the variety of substances we became addicted to, we practice unconditional love by not being drug-specific in our message or our sharing. Clarity statements do not criticize, reject or correct any persons...they can't. Too often, we take the negative behavior of a few and globally assign negativity to things associated with those few. According to this logic, NA should abolish the 12 steps because we have members who are "stepologists." NA should eliminate the 12 Traditions because we have "NA Nazis" or "Traditions Police." I doubt very seriously if we should throw out the baby with the bath water when it comes to the clarity statement. To always focus on what select members "may" do or have done negatively in the past, disregards the positive aspects and positive intent of a clarity statement. It is fairly obvious that many groups in NA have not been influenced by the fear mongers who insist that a clarity statement is in conflict with the principles of NA.

G

[Timebuster]

I have to say you two keep the forum interesting. A lot of good stuff here though. I personally don’t have a problem with the clarity statement.

andyaddict Certified NA Counselor. I know it’s a joke andy. But, that’s one heck of a clarity statement.

I

[andyaddict]

The “Conformity Statement” is not a piece of literature that came from our service structure, it is not approved for reading or distribution like NA literature, it was voted down both during the ’99 and ’06 World Service Conference cycles, and furthermore it implicitly states strong opinion on an outside issues. It is divisive in a way that hinders our unity by highlighting member's differences rather than nurturing similarities. It does not attract unity but promotes uniformity and/or conformity as there can be no other reason for the implementation and dictation of one.

It promotes self-righteousness, closed-mindedness, and ethnocentrism within the fellowship. It undermines the principle of mere desire and confuses the newcomer leading them to believe that desire is not enough to be welcomed and treated with mutual respect in Narcotics Anonymous. Its motive is organization through the very implication of language specificity.

And, if it were a form of "service" structure that chooses to employ such an abomination, they have then stepped from the boundaries of service and are treading close to government as the inference that members out to conform to language specificity is not service but government.

It's about control my friends, about self-righteous control. It’s not about individual freedom of expression and but about egoistic compliance. With it our differences are not our strength but potentially the greatest weakness we have, promoting infighting and disintegration as we maintain the practice of ousting increments of spirituality from the God given program of Narcotics Anonymous.


a

[kj3880]

What is ethnocentric about the clarity statement?

[Gmoney]

You're repeating yourself Andy, and saying the same thing over again isn't providing further proof or enhancing your position. You see it one way and I see it another - that doesn't make you wrong and I'm right (or the reverse).

I do find your global generalizations funny, though:

It undermines the principle of mere desire and confuses the newcomer leading them to believe that desire is not enough to be welcomed and treated with mutual respect in Narcotics Anonymous. Its motive is organization through the very implication of language specificity.

I believe you underestimate the ability of newcomers to think for themselves, and you certainly cannot speak for ALL NEWCOMERS. I was a newcomer once and when I heard the clarity statement I wasn't offended, scared away, felt less than, or any of the other things you often refer to.

The “Conformity Statement” is not a piece of literature that came from our service structure, it is not approved for reading or distribution like NA literature, it was voted down both during the ’99 and ’06 World Service Conference cycles,...

I notice you never share "why" it wasn't approved...no opinions, facts please? And as I mentioned previously, each group is autonomous and not governed by what is or isn't approved by the service structure that serves them. Remember?

You like to talk about God a lot. Ever consider that God gave us the Clarity Statement? LOL!!

You got a new angle to try? I've countered your old stuff and you gotta know by now I get a HUGE kick out of it!!

[huntsober]

When I was in treatment they would tie two fellows together with a shoe string when ever they could not get along. Forcing each of them to work together.....I betcha if we could do this yall would be the best of friends.... LoL

[andyaddict]

Originally Posted by kj3880

What is ethnocentric about the clarity statement?

Ethnicity is an important means through which people can identify themselves. An ethnic group is a group whose members identify with one another through a common heritage that is either real or presumed. Ethnic identity is further marked by the recognition of a group's distinctiveness from others and the recognition of common cultural, linguistic, religious, and/or behavioral traits as indicators of contrast to other groups.

Ethnocentrism therefore is the tendency to believe that one's own ethnic group is centrally more important or in some way superior and that all other ethnic groups are measured down in relation to one's own. An individual will then judge other groups in relative to their own particular ethnic group or culture, especially with concern to language, behavior, customs, and/or religion.

The Conformity Statement is a means of influencing and indoctrinating others into a language, behavior, and belief system that is not held by the fellowship of Narcotics Anonymous yet is designed to appear as though it is. Only a small, but vocal, minority of the fellowship believes in such a process of indoctrination. However this group believes so strongly in their rightness of language, behavior, and customs that a special statement should be dictated to others at the opening of meetings.

This statement implies that all others adopt the same language, behaviors, and customs as the ethnocentric group which then leads us into a group sponsored defect of character defined in Step Six of It Works: How and Why known as self-righteousness. Ethnocentrism is the belief system or group think of ethnic superiority - self-righteousness is the action or behavior attributed to ethnocentrism of resting the weight of one’s own values upon the shoulders of others.

andyaddict
Los Angeles

[andyaddict]

In short, you, each of you, are welcomed to not call yourself an alcoholic or use the word sober. Neither do I propose anyone adopt a fellowship statement or even an autonomous group statement saying that you should call yourself an alcoholic. This would compromise or infringe upon individual autonomy would it not?

However, where I feel members cross the line is where they think because they believe something or behave some way that they have the right to dictate those thoughts or beliefs (UNproven methods) to others. Or even worse yet, deceptively make it look as though Narcotics Anonymous endorses such a system or approach.

Here’s my compromise. All I ask is that if anyone wants to adopt such a statement to keep it honest:

Garry, Jane, John, Bill, Sally, and Tim (group members who voted for it) are presented with a dilemma (blah blah blah) ...
Garry, Jane, John, Bill, Sally, and Tim make no distinction between drugs …

Define who "WE" and "OUR" are and don’t implicate "Narcotics Anonymous" in such a statement either, THAT would satisfy nearly every little irk in my body. Groups and committees that dictate these using the word(s) WE, OUR, and Narcotics Anonymous imply in some way that they represent ME and/or NA and that simply isn’t so.

a