Tradition 10

Short form

Alcoholics Anonymous has no opinion on outside issues; hence the A.A. name ought never be drawn into public controversy.

Long form

No A.A. group or member should ever, in such a way as to implicate A.A., express any opinion on outside controversial issues— particularly those of politics, alcohol reform, or sectarian religion. The Alcoholics Anonymous groups oppose no one. Concerning such matters they can express no views whatsoever.

Excerpt from the Twelve Steps & Twelve Traditions

12-Traditions-Tradition-10.mp3

Never since it began has Alcoholics Anonymous been divided by a major controversial issue. Nor has our Fellowship ever publicly taken sides on any question in an embattled world. This, however, has been no earned virtue. It could almost be said that we were born with it, for, as one oldtimer recently declared, “Practically never have I heard a heated religious, political, or reform argument among A.A. members. So long as we don't argue these matters privately, it's a cinch we never shall publicly.”

As by some deep instinct, we A.A.'s have known from the very beginning that we must never, no matter what the provocation, publicly take sides in any fight, even a worthy one. All history affords us the spectacle of striving nations and groups finally torn asunder because they were designed for, or tempted into, controversy. Others fell apart because of sheer self-righteousness while trying to enforce upon the rest of mankind some millennium of their own specification. In our own times, we have seen millions die in political and economic wars often spurred by religious and racial difference. We live in the imminent possibility of a fresh holocaust to determine how men shall be governed, and how the products of nature and toil shall be divided among them. That is the spiritual climate in which A.A. was born, and by God's grace has nevertheless flourished.

Let us reemphasize that this reluctance to fight one another or anybody else is not counted as some special virtue which makes us feel superior to other people. Nor does it mean that the members of Alcoholics Anonymous, now restored as citizens of the world, are going to back away from their individual responsibilities to act as they see the right upon issues of our time. But when it comes to A.A. as a whole, that's quite a different matter. In this respect, we do not enter into public controversy, because we know that our Society will perish if it does. We conceive the survival and spread of Alcoholics Anonymous to be something of far greater importance than the weight we could collectively throw back of any other cause. Since recovery from alcoholism is life itself to us, it is imperative that we preserve in full strength our means of survival.

Maybe this sounds as though the alcoholics in A.A. had suddenly gone peaceable, and become one great big happy family. Of course, this isn't so at all. Human beings that we are, we squabble. Before we leveled off a bit, A.A. looked more like one prodigious squabble than anything else, at least on the surface. A corporation director who had just voted a company expenditure of a hundred thousand dollars would appear at an A.A. business meeting and blow his top over an outlay of twenty-five dollars' worth of needed postage stamps. Disliking the attempt of some to manage a group, half its membership might angrily rush off to form another group more to their liking. Elders, temporarily turned Pharisee, have sulked. Bitter attacks have been directed against people suspected of mixed motives. Despite their din, our puny rows never did A.A. a particle of harm. They were just part and parcel of learning to work and live together. Let it be noted, too, that they were almost always concerned with ways to make A.A. more effective, how to do the most good for the most alcoholics.

The Washingtonian Society, a movement among alcoholics which started in Baltimore a century ago, almost discovered the answer to alcoholism. At first, the society was composed entirely of alcoholics trying to help one another. The early members foresaw that they should dedicate themselves to this sole aim. In many respects, the Washingtonians were akin to A.A. of today. Their membership passed the hundred thousand mark. Had they been left to themselves, and had they stuck to their one goal, they might have found the rest of the answer. But this didn't happen. Instead, the Washingtonians permitted politicians and reformers, both alcoholic and nonalcoholic, to use the society for their own purposes. Abolition of slavery, for example, was a stormy political issue then. Soon, Washingtonian speakers violently and publicly took sides on this question. Maybe the society could have survived the abolition controversy, but it didn't have a chance from the moment it determined to reform America's drinking habits. When the Washingtonians became temperance crusaders, within a very few years they had completely lost their effectiveness in helping alcoholics.

The lesson to be learned from the Washingtonians was not overlooked by Alcoholics Anonymous. As we surveyed the wreck of that movement, early A.A. members resolved to keep our Society out of public controversy. Thus was laid the cornerstone for Tradition Ten: “Alcoholics Anonymous has no opinion on outside issues; hence the A.A. name ought never be drawn into public controversy.”

Excerpt from The Twelve Traditions Illustrated

Please click the link below to open the pamphlet The Twelve Traditions Illustrated and read Tradition Ten or read the image below.

Tradition Ten Discussion Questions

Thoughts on Tradition Ten

So where did the inspiration for this tradition come from? We know from the tradition essay that Bill was aware of the Washingtonians. This was a temperance organisation in America that began in the 1840s. Although it focussed on the personal recovery of alcoholics, there are more differences that similarities in how they encouraged alcoholics to achieve sobriety. The Washingtonians found significant success with a membership of over half a million at its height. They became involved in politics, specifically prohibition and the abolition of slavery. This divided them, diverted them from their primary purpose and the crumbled alarmingly quickly.

The Oxford Groups are another example of this failure to stay on message. The Oxford Groups were a very successful first century Christianity movement that enjoyed success internationally. Even the Archbishop of Canterbury praised them. At their core were the 'four absolutes'; absolute honesty, absolute purity, absolute unselfishness and absolute love. Their leader, Franck Buchman, was active in promoting the Oxford Groups or, as they later became known, The Campaign for Moral Rearmament. After years of working with churches, Buchman realised that he could make more of difference if he were able to gain access to world leaders. He tried on a number of occasions to meet with Hitler in an attempt to put a halt to Naziism. In an interview after meeting Hitler he was quoted as saying, "I thank heaven for a man like Adolf Hitler, who built a front line of defence against the anti-Christ of communism." This was actually a misquote but didn't win him any new converts and affected the reputation of the Oxford Groups internationally.

The Oxford Groups were also heavily involved in business and consequently their core message was eroded further. Today AA is known worldwide and the Oxford Groups aren't. Today they are very far from Buchman's original message and struggle to gain anything like their original traction. So from this experience we can again learn the value of keeping to our primary purpose and avoiding potentially divisive outside issues.