What Do You Mean No Crosstalk?
August 21, 2008 by Mark
Filed under Diseases & Conditions
Thanks to my friend Alex;
What Does ‘Crosstalk’ Have to Do with Our Primary Purpose?
[Reprinted From Box 459 - published bi-monthly by General Services Office of Alcoholics Anonymous]
Just what is this thing called “crosstalk”? Why are concerned A.A.s writing to the General Service Office for clarification about it? And, bottom line, what does it have to do with our primary purpose: “to stay sober and help other alcoholics to achieve sobriety”?
The word has been with us at least since 1887. Webster’s 10th Edition defines crosstalk as “unwanted signals in a communication channel caused by transference of energy from another circuit”- as when, for instance, two members sitting side by side at an A.A. meeting carry on a private, yet not so quiet, conversation or when one member interrupts another rudely or inappropriately. But this is not the kind of crosstalk that members are asking about; specifically, it is traceable to a list of guidelines for behavior at AA meetings — erroneously attributed to “World Service” that appears in 1992 in a central office newsletter and has since been reprinted and circulated more widely.
The guidelines state, in part, that “Any comments, negative or positive, about another’s share, experience, life, program or remarks are crosstalk–that is interference.”…”The only appropriate comment about anyone else’s share–a speaker’s or another member’s — is ‘Thank you for your share.’” “A member may talk about his or her own experience as it relates directly or indirectly to another’s share, but should not refer to that person’s share. Even comments such as ‘When you talk about… it reminded me of my own experience…’ are possibly inappropriate.”
The so-called guidelines did not emanate from the General Service Office. What random investigation reveals is that they may have filtered into some A.A. groups through members who also attend other Twelve Step recovery groups. For example:
(1) In its literature, one fellowship includes a boxed item head, “Suggested Announcement Regarding Crosstalk & Feedback (adopted (1/13/87).” It reads: “In sharing during meetings, we proceed in an orderly, respectful manner. The chairperson (or speaker) will call on people to share. We do not interrupt one another or engage in discussion - this is called ‘crosstalk.’ While we encourage expressions of identification with a speaker and appreciation for speakers, we also do not judge or comment on what people say or tell them what to do - this is called ‘feedback.’”
(2) Another anonymous organization, in its “Suggested Meeting Format,” asks attendees “to please not interrupt someone else’s sharing, not to make comments about other people’s statements… and to talk only about yourself.”
Although many self-help groups emulate A.A.’s Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, their practices often differ from ours in other respects. As they may have discovered in adapting the A.A. program to their own needs, what’s sauce for the goose may be poison for the gander. Says Anne T., of Rome, New York, who belongs to AA. and also attends meetings of a different fellowship: “From the very beginning, one drunk talking to another has made the A.A. program go round. But in meetings (of the other fellowship), I feel, it makes sense to refrain from crosstalk. People are trying to free themselves from extraordinary shame. When someone shares in response to something I’ve said, that’s okay, but only so long as there’s not even a hint of censure, belittlement, scolding or preaching, all under the guise of sharing. Knowing there’s no risk of judgment makes me feel safe.”
Looking at the subject from an AA’s point of view, a G.S.O. staff member says, “Comparing notes, many of us realized that nonjudgmental suggestions we had received in meetings in response to something we had shared, was very beneficial to our recovery. It is how we learn, and that’s what ’sharing experience, strength and hope’ is all about. Also, there is a thin line between guidelines and rules; and experience suggests that in A.A.’s ‘benign anarchy,’ rules, rigidity and attempts to control don’t work very well.” Whether an individual A.A. group chooses to include the crosstalk ‘guidelines’ in its meeting format is entirely up to its group conscience to determine, of course. But please do not say that such guidelines came from the General Service Office.“
Thanks for the thought-provoking post! Although “…please talk only about yourself” would render my homegroup mute!!
I have a real problem with crosstalk, it wakes up feelings about being abused and battered, like I have to be silent or disappear to be safe. I finally figured out what’s at the bottom of it. Telling another person what they think, what they feel, what their motivations or intentions are, or what they should do, is a way of playing God. ONLY GOD can look into someone’s heart. No other person can walk into my head or heart, take a little look around, make an assessment, and come back and give a report. And I don’t have that ability either. So when I say things to my partner like “You don’t care about my feelings!” — how the heck do I know that? I’M NOT GOD. But how often have you heard things like: “That doesn’t hurt,” or, “You have nothing to cry about,” or, “You’re making a big deal out of nothing”…? EVEN IF these statements were true on the surface, they are LIES because the underlying assumption is that I *can* see into someone else’s interior — when I can’t. The healing core of the program to me is to remember that I AM NOT GOD. I need to report MY OWN FEELINGS, not imagine or claim to know what’s inside others. And it hurts when others play God on me because it’s what I call a “body snatch.” It’s a way of trying to reach inside me, push “me” aside, then turn me into a puppet for their movie, telling me my motivations, feelings and thoughts, but not giving a sh*t about who I really am. And oftentimes I have done NOTHING to bring this on, when suddenly my soul is under attack and I’m having to fight to retain my sovereignty. It’s traumatizing, painful, pointless, and BUILT ON A LIE.
I had a sponsor for awhile who would also bury her controlling language inside statements like “We alcoholics are all this way,” or, “We all have this habit”…. What right does she have to lump everyone into a “we” and speak for everyone? It’s hurtful. It erases people’s individual realities. This is how I now see crosstalk. I don’t go to any meetings where it’s allowed, and I try to practice expressing my own feelings, with language referencing my own interior — it’s hard, it’s not what I learned from my sick parents. My challenge is currently knowing what to do when someone does slip into crosstalk. It hurts a lot, and it’s very uncomfortable, but I don’t know how to address it. I can’t really leap up and yell, “Stop that!!” in the group, but I get angry at how abusive it is to claim Godhood over anyone else.
Maya - I truly hope you get the help you need.
Sadly, I can’t deal with all the wrong assumptions you make and I won’t.
My experience and that of many of my long-term sober friends is not the same as yours.
One thing I’m certain of - your God loves you the same way my God loves me.
I’ve been sober since October 28, 1983. I believe cross-talk has the potential for doing a lot of harm. I’ve been to meetings where someone was attacked in front of the group, seemingly in an effort to “help” that person. It’s pretty harmless when one member empathizes with another, or one person mentions the share of another, but the potential for inflicting pain and shame is great, and AA meetings should be safe for all. Unfortunately, for a lot of people, getting sober is the tip of the iceberg, and many feelings, disorders and mental illnesses surface after physical sobriety is reached. All I know is, when I go to meetings, I want to be able to speak honestly without fearing negative comments by others. If someone wants to speak to me after the meeting, that’s fine. I just don’t want to be made a public spectable, nor do I think anyone else should be either. It’s hard for me to understand how anyone could actually support the practice of cross-talk, but it is up to the group conscience of each meeting. I would not suggest that my sponsees go to meetings were cross-talk is allowed. But it’s up to them.
Thanks for letting me share,
Gail
Gail,
Thanks. My first thought is - how in the world does being “attacked” equate to “many of us realized that nonjudgmental suggestions we had received in meetings in response to something we had shared, was very beneficial to our recovery.”
I’ve seen attacks and they certainly have no place in recovery. But, by God, experience strength and hope most assuredly does!
Those who do the attacking are also to be spoken to outside the meeting and taught that that is wrong.
This is NOT about making anyone a public spectacle!!! Why does anyone perceive this that way???
So, we ought to stop offering help? That’s what this amounts to…
Back to the stone ages.
Hi again Mark,
I hope you don’t mind another comment. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with offering help. I just don’t think it’s always a good idea to allow it within the meeting. Most of the time it’s ok but I’ve seen people really ripped apart by old-timers who thought they knew everything and it’s not a pretty sight. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with talking about yourself, your life, your recovery. And leave the advice-giving and helpful sharing for after the meeting, or before the meeting, or during a phone call.
Thanks,
Gail
I wouldn’t mind if you made comment after comment Gail
Anything to further the conversation of recovery is magnificent!
This is just my personal opinion but “oldtimers” who “rip people apart” simply to offer a know-it-all image ought to be told in no uncertain terms that they are just as close as anyone else to their next drink.
Since when did oldtimers become immune to alcohol? Then gain the right to show no patience or tolerance…
Once again though, that is not crosstalk, that is an attack. We share our ESH and crosstalk is a big part of it, not attacking others.
Mark — Unfortunately, even well meaning people can fall into accidentally playing God. In your comment to me above, you did it also. You said:
“Sadly, I can’t deal with all the wrong assumptions you make and I won’t.
My experience and that of many of my long-term sober friends is not the same as yours.”
You could have left it as — my experience is not the same as yours. Simply saying that. But you made a point to say how “sadly I can’t point out your WRONG assumptions.” Are you God? How can you claim that power? Conveying YOUR experience is what helps — not your judgment of the contents of my head or heart being “wrong”. Express YOUR OWN experience. Quit playing God.
Ya’ know what Maya? There’s something else I won’t do - apologize for my human frailties and imperfections. So sue me because I’m not perfect!
Here’s one more - stop micro-analyzing everyone so they appear to disagree with you and then remember - if you spot it you got it, okay?
If you don’t want to go to a meeting where people are helping each other - DON”T! But don’t blame us for your troubles. We didn’t do to you what was done to you.
So what do you apologize for, if not for judging and hurting someone? I stated a boundary. Don’t tell me what I think or feel, or what my motivations or intentions are. If you cross that boundary, do you expect not to hear about it? And — is it easier to judge and tell me I’m messed up for hurting than it is to welcome me as I am and offer hope and comfort? I can’t imagine what anyone would apologize for if it WASN’T for the impact of their human failings. But forgive me if you’re one of the “recovered, no more apologies required” people. I haven’t gotten to that chapter yet.
I’m going to add this though I’d already published this comment;
I’m re-reading what went on here. You twisted my words. I said “Sadly, I can’t deal with all the wrong assumptions you make and I won’t.” You even repeated that but then you say I said “But you made a point to say how ’sadly I can’t point out your WRONG assumptions.’ That is so typical of someone manipulating words to suit their own agenda! The two statements absolutely do not say the same thing! I can’t deal with it is what I said. I won’t. And now, I’m still not going to!
FYI - I apologize for my wrongdoings and other things but, in this specific situation I will not apologize for my sounding to you like I am playing God. (Yes, I’ve edited that also) That’s what you need to perceive to further your argument and I’m not willing to go along with you.
That is my boundary!
BTW - character assassination is pathetic - ‘But forgive me if you’re one of the “recovered, no more apologies required” people.’ That’s pretty sad… and… we have a step for that that I do practice.
I am conserned that there is a lot of attacking on this web forum. I have read all of the comments and what I see is a group of recovering alcoholics looking for something that they do not like in another recovering alcoholic. One of the things that makes AA work is the unity between alcoholics who share a similar affliction. We should be supporting each other not tearing each other apart.