THE BASICS
In the second column of the Step Four resentment inventory, I write about what someone did that I object to. Here’s a good example:
Name: [agency worker]
Charges:
- Did not send purchase order
- Requested early delivery
- Did not acknowledge reply
- Did not acknowledge delivery
- Underpaid me
Note that none of these charges are more than five words. The total is eighteen words (less than the nineteen-word maximum in the examples in the Big Book).
PRESENTATION
A good way of presenting the second column is set out below. Background should be included only if necessary.
Name: ...
Background:
- ...
- ...
- ...
Charges:
- ...
- ...
- ...
TIPS
- Stick to people wherever possible
- At a pinch write about institutions
- When tempted to write about principles, try and come at the issue with a people example
- The background should be sufficient to understand the charge(s)
- But it should contain the minimum possible information to do so
- Background is certainly necessary where the charge is an action that is normally pleasant or neutral, so the reader understands why this pleasant or neutral action is eliciting outrage or offence
- Use dashed points for multiple elements of the background
- Do not repeat the charge in the background
- Separate each charge as a different item
- Use dashed points for multiple charges
- Do not compound the charges: if you have used ‘and’ you have probably compounded
- Do not compound charges with additional conditions (e.g., beginning with ‘despite’ or ‘whilst’: such background material should be relegated to the background or dropped)
- Do not add the consequences: just state the actions; there’s room for the consequences later
- If it’s very wordy, simplify it
- Don’t get wrapped up in detail: go for the essence
- If an outsider would not understand the detail without extensive briefing, maybe drop it altogether and write about something else
An exception
Normally, we write what the chap(ess) did or what they said. Sometimes, that produces an excessively complex result that would be comprehensible only to someone else who was embedded in that situation and au fait with the politics, the set-up, the history, etc. Sometimes, we are insinuating what someone might mean behind what they say, but an outsider simply will not make the same leap that we are making without being led along the forest trail.
How to deal with this: leap over the detail to the substance but retain the link to the real world in parentheses.
For example:
- Implemented unfair procedures (e.g. [a short phrase to signal the example])
- Insinuated he was management material ([actual words said])
- Thinks he is entitled to my time ([actual act or words said])
The first of these generalises complex events.
The second of these leaps over the words to the message.
The third of these represents my speculation based on their words or actions.
This enables the reader to get to the nub of the resentment without losing the breadcrumb trail to the ‘real world’. When these situations are examined later on in the process, the legitimacy of the generalisation, the validity of the insinuation, and the plausibility of the speculation will be challenged. For the work to proceed without presenting as a valid premise what might be a wild fancy, we need both elements: the essence of the charge plus the words, event, or situation that formed the basis for the charge.
This option should be used as a last resort, however. Some writers of the Step will be tempted to present all charges in this way, thus unnecessarily complicating the inventory and bogging down the process.
Remember, the inventory is an opportunity to take a few examples of one’s grievances to unpack and dissolve them. Which we choose is neither here nor there in itself, as we will be forgiving everyone for everything anyway (which is a spiritual not an intellectual act), and everyone has many more grievances than there is time to write about, so we are always being selective. It is usually possible, therefore, to restrict the writing in Step Four (on twenty people, with a maximum of five charges per person, producing a cap of 100 grievances, which is plenty as a corpus of worked examples) to simple, straightforward situations. Simple cases best illustrate the law, and simple grievances best illustrate the anatomy of resentment, which is really what we are after.
This exception should therefore be applied only exceptionally, and, if the resentments against a particular person are too elusive or manifold to capture simply, maybe pick someone else and write about them.
AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT NOT TO DO
Have a look at my five charges above. For a laugh, let us look at what the wrong way to write about these might be:
Name: [agency worker]
Background:
- Sent me a piece of work with a short deadline that turned out to be more extensive than anticipated
Charges:
- Asked me to proceed with the job without sending the purchase order, which meant that the price was not finally agreed
- Sent me a message asking if a job that was already subject to a tight deadline could be delivered even earlier
- When I politely replied saying that was not possible because the job was much bigger and taking longer, he did not reply
- When I delivered the job early, he did not even acknowledge the receipt of the delivery
- When I asked for the purchase order to reflect the actual rather than the anticipated work, he said that it would reflect the original offer