At a few meetings of AA and Al-Anon, the format includes each attendee sharing briefly how they 'feel', right at the start of the meeting. I'm all for active inclusion, and round-robin or tag formats can be excellent. I do wonder about the utility of inviting public disclosure of emotional states. Such states are not instructive for others, and I'm skeptical of the wisdom of prompting unboundaried people to disclose, on the hoof, unprocessed private matters to a group of people of mixed acquaintance: there are almost certain to be people one does not know, and I, for one, am careful about disclosing such details to complete strangers. We are encouraged to share experience, strength, and hope on the topic of alcoholism (or the equivalent) and recovery. Disclosures of innermost conditions might be best reserved for friends, sponsors, psychotherapists, and clergy.
Setting these questions aside, I'd like to examine how this was once portrayed to me. Someone suggested that they liked this format very much, because it allowed 'people without a voice to be vulnerable'.
Pathos is defined by Wikipedia as:
The quality or property of anything which touches the feelings or excites emotions and passions, especially that which awakens tender emotions, such as pity, sorrow, and the like.
Now, what the chap apparently meant, when we strip away the pathos, is this: it allows 'people who do not normally share to express themselves candidly'. That's the denotational content, and that's fine. I actually support that idea.
Let's turn to the pathos aspect.
Firstly, let's look at how the above words generate pathos.
People without a voice create the image of people who cannot communicate orally because they have no vocal apparatus or such apparatus is damaged. That would, indeed, be a terrible state to be in. One would rightly feel sorry for such a person. To be vulnerable suggests defencelessness, helplessness, and weakness. It suggests that the individual is a poor creature, not on a par with others, with no agency, open to attack from all sides. The image here is of a baby fox whose mother has been killed by a fox hunt, of a hedgehog approaching a motorway, of an infant left on a doorstep.
Now, the pathos is quite unnecessary. Worse than that, it distorts reality, strips the individual in question of agency and therefore responsibility, and actually reinforces the ego states that recovery seeks shatter.
Regarding the people without a voice, there is the implication that such individuals are being actively excluded from contributing at meetings. Occasionally, AA and Al-Anon meetings do have hand-picked sharing, but it's rare. When that's the case, that's per the group conscience, and anyone who does not like that format need not attend. Generally, at meetings, one speaks up or raises one's hand. The standard line is, 'Please come in and share. The meeting is now open.' It is quite untrue, therefore, that anyone is being prohibited or prevented from sharing. The suggestion that they are is actually an attack on the group, misrepresenting what is going on. This is one of the main mechanisms of the ego: I'm in a bad way, and it's your fault not mine. The truth is: the people who do not normally share are choosing, meeting by meeting, to stay silent. No one is forcing this: this is their choice.
Projecting out the responsibility for not sharing onto everyone else in the room (either the group itself or the others who do share) not only represents an attack but also strips the individual of agency and responsibility. They're not responsible for their not sharing: others are. And it's up to others to do for the individual what they should be doing for themselves, namely learning to raise their hand, overcome fear through right action, and speak up.
Why might someone not share? Well, it requires concentration and effort, so laziness is one reason. It might be because the individual genuinely believes they have nothing to add. This is sometimes genuine but usually a fig leaf for fear of what others will say. The problem is really vanity: the fear that one's image will be tarnished, or the irrational fear of attack.
This dovetails nicely with the question of vulnerability.
In speaking candidly in a meeting, one is not thereby becoming vulnerable. In meetings, people do not generally cross-share, and people are almost universally compassionate. Attack is almost unheard-of. Meetings are not debating societies or annual general meetings where you could well be exposed to vilification. The most that could happen is judgement.
What's the truth about judgement? Firstly, everyone is observing everything all the time, and that entails judgement as well. Not necessarily condemnation, but certainly judgement. The mind naturally measures incoming information against the existing body of information, values, precepts, etc. The judgement we're enjoined to avoid in recovery is the condemnation of persons or excessive moralisation. Ideas can and must be assessed: significant discernment is required. Discernment can be entirely neutral and detached emotionally and entirely respectful of the person, as distinct from their words, behaviour, or ideas.
When one shares, some people will like it, and some people won't. And the same applies in reverse. Fair's fair!
If candid sharing, because of very sensitive content or because the individual is impaired and unable to look after themselves, is genuinely opening them up to danger, then such vulnerability should be discouraged not encouraged. If the danger is real, do not make yourself vulnerable. If it is not, sharing is not being vulnerable.
Here's how I was encouraged to share when I was new:
- Everyone has something to offer, including you, so offer it.
- Put your hand up to share or speak up at the earliest opportunity: once you've shared you can sit back and enjoy the rest of the meeting.
- Giving not getting is the guiding principle, so give by sharing.
- To feel part of AA, participate fully. Help set up the room. Talk to people. Share.
- Don't worry about what other people may think or say.
- It doesn't have to be good: you'll get good only if you practise.
- Sharing something is always better than sharing nothing.
- You learn as much from bad shares as from good ones: your own or others'.
- You're responsible for your own recovery: no one is going to recover you for you.
- If your heart is pounding: let it; share anyway.
- Literally nothing bad will happen if you share, so go for it!
If someone is having difficulty sharing, I would suggest the following:
- No one is standing in your way. We all have voices: our job is to use them.
- There is nothing vulnerable about sharing, because you are safe.
- You're not weak, helpless, or defenceless: you've got God on your side.
- Ask God for help and dive in!