I'm a bit confused because I've been faulted for "crosstalking" at an A.A. meeting. To be helpful, I responded to someone's comments; it semed appropriate to make a direct and informative response at a Big Book Study meeting.
Can one discuss something in an A.A. discussion meeting without having it considered inappropriate crosstalk?
I've served on boards of commissioners and boards of directors. Whenever we had a "discussion", a subject was presented and people shared their observations, recommendations, comments, or suggestions, depending on the issue. When one person made a statement, it was proper for another person to respond with a comment, criticism, counterpoint, or words of support.
What is the difference between discussion and crosstalk?
One dictionary says crosstalk is an "incidental, subordinate, or secondary conversation." That suggests either wandering off on a related or unrelated direction or starting a competing side-conversation while the group continues to speak to the main point. As I understand discussion, it should always focus on the subject of the discussion.
Does the definition of "crosstalk" suggest digression into a minor, casual, or subordinate issue? Would an example be shifting the subject to paint when the original subject of discussion was "a black car"? Would another example be if two fellows in the group began a private conversation about a car one of them once owned?
Perhaps someone can clarify why some people believe crosstalk is either a direct response, a contradictory remark, straying off the subject or an inconsiderate, impolite whispering among a few of those attending a meeting.
The latest word on "crosstalk" from AA's General Service office
[Emphasis added]
What’s ‘Crosstalk’ Got to Do with Sobriety Anyway?
Like an odd apple the term “crosstalk” keeps bobbing up where A.A.s come together. What is it? Why do concerned, sometimes confused groups keep asking the General Service Office for clarification about it? And above all, what does it have to do with our primary purpose—“to stay sober and help other alcoholics to achieve sobriety”?
Says past Chicago delegate (Panel 53, 2003-04) Don B: “When I came to A.A. in 1981, I joined a group led by an oldtimer who was nearly 20 years sober at the time. There were two basic ‘guidelines’—only we called them rules:
(1) You cannot interrupt the guy who is interrupting.
(2) If you look up and you are the only one left, lock the door when you leave. You talked too long.”
Back then, he recalls, “interruptions were frequent and sometimes contentious. More than one time I thought for sure we’d have fisticuffs. But, no, things would invariably simmer down, and the one getting scolded would say something like, ‘I guess you‘re right. I do need more meetings.’ ” In the Chicago area today, Don adds, “we have some very large groups; one draws as many as 500 people. With this type of participation—not to mention the positive fallout from increased sponsorship, which sees most new members led through the Steps in a reasonably short time—there’s no room for disruptive crosstalk, nor is it tolerated.”
Crosstalk means different things to different people. Some groups define as crosstalk or interference any comments, negative or positive, about another’s sharing other than, “Thank you for your share.” Members are welcome to talk about their own experience as it relates directly or indirectly to another’s sharing, but are asked not to refer directly to that person’s comments.
This does not appear to be the case at the 79th Street Workshop in New York City. Comments member Susan U.: “If two people start talking back and forth intrusively, then the chair has been known to say, ‘No crosstalk!’ But sharing of one’s own story is always welcomed.” Noting that “until the 1990s the word wasn’t even in A.A. vocabulary,” Susan cautions against rigidity: “There are no rules in A.A., just customs and the conscience of each autonomous group.” She suggests that “there is a thin line between guidelines and rules; and experience shows that in A.A.’s ‘benign anarchy,’ rules, rigidity and attempts to control don’t work very well. On the other hand, the nonjudgmental sharing we receive at meetings in response to something we have said can be beneficial to our recovery. It’s how we learn to live sober, productive lives, and that’s what sharing our experience and strength is about.”
Jan P., of Spokane, Washington, reports that “crosstalk as it pertains to exchanges between members is not a problem with us. In many instances, people are trying to free themselves from extraordinary shame, and our members by and large share from their own experience. But they don’t give advice—and there’s no hint of censure, belittlement, scolding or preaching under the guise of sharing. In my experience, knowing there’s no risk of judgment is what makes recovering alcoholics, especially newcomers, feel safe and gives us the courage to share.”
Jenny P., who is Jan’s daughter and also lives in Spokane, has found that crosstalk of a giving nature is “sort of a language of the heart. It occurs with familiarity and can be very helpful. If members know one another well, as they tend to in small groups, they feel comfortable about saying, ‘I’d like to add something to what Jane said….’ To me the key is comfort and the hope that sharing one’s experience in recovery will help another alcoholic to stay sober and face life’s challenges with greater ease.”
Reprinted from Box 4-5-9 Vol. 52, No. 4 / August-September 2006 p. 5-6 with permission of A.A. World Service, Inc.