“In a culture that generally celebrates empowerment and self-esteem, A.A. begins with disempowerment. The goal is to get people to gain control over their lives, but it all begins with an act of surrender and an admission of weakness. In a culture that thinks of itself as individualistic, A.A. relies on fellowship. The general idea is that people aren’t really captains of their own ship. Successful members become deeply intertwined with one another — learning, sharing, suffering and mentoring one another. Individual repair is a social effort.
In a world in which gurus try to carefully design and impose their ideas, Wilson surrendered control. He wrote down the famous steps and foundations, but A.A. allows each local group to form, adapt and innovate. There is less quality control. Some groups and leaders are great; some are terrible. But it also means that A.A. is decentralized, innovative and dynamic.”
So says David Brooks, the thoughtful commentator at the New York Times, in this column, now nearly two years old. Brooks gets three pieces of AA that I have been trying to emphasize now for several months: first, the admission of powerlessness, second the crucial role of community, third, the nontraditional nature of 12 Step leadership, based on service and not power. I often say that “others call AA and the other 12 Step Programs ‘self help,’ but those of us inside know better.”