GSR – General or Group?
The abbreviation GSR in the UK translates to “Group” Service Representative. The abbreviation GSR in other countries and in Bill W’s, one of the original founders of AA, writings translates to “General “Service representative.
Why is that in the UK we have chosen to have a different meaning for one of the most, if not the most important service positions in our whole AA structure.
Bill W said it himself
“The strength of our whole AA service structure starts with the group and with the
General Service Representative (GSR) the group elects. I cannot emphasise too
strongly the GSR’s importance.”
Page 80 AA Structure Hand book UK
Ironically also on page 80 of the AA service hand book just above Bills quote is the heading “Group” Service Representative.
So why and when did “General” change to “Group” in the UK?
Going back through conference reports from 1966 to 1986 there is a mixture of the use of “Group” Service Representative and “General” Service Representative used in questions and in the reports. Then in 1986 a workshop was held at conference in the evening. One of the topics of discussion at this workshop was the understanding of what GSR meant. No info is provided about the discussion.
A year later in 1987 there is a section in the conference report (589/590) that reviews the drafts of amended guidelines 1,2,3,5 and 6. In the sections of this review are the words -Delete “General” and Insert “Group” and Change “General” Service Representative to “Group” Service Representative. So it looks like the decision to change “General” to “Group” was possibly decided in a literature committee or a committee of some sort and then the words were changed to suit this decision.
Going back in time to 1975 the formation of regions happened and another layer of AA was added. The GSR’s were not required to attend region. Previously before region formation GSR’s attended their Intergroup and voted in delegates. Delegates went to conference and reported back to their Intergroup. This changed with the formation of regions to delegates being voted in by region officers and one delegate from region covering a certain area.
In 1997 a well written article in the conference report (904) from London Region talks of group’s alienation from region and of the belief that region is not truly answerable to the groups of that region. This was due to GSR’s not attending region. GSR’s stayed at their groups and Intergroup and a representative from Intergroup attended region. The article goes on to talk about groups being alienated from conference as every group does not have access to every delegate so therefore the groups are not fully being heard and delegates are not fully answerable to the groups of the regions they represent.
The conclusion of the London Regions article states that the London region adopted a new model where all GSR’s attended a pre and post conference meeting where all GSR’s are entitled to vote on conference questions and vote delegates in or out. At the time of writing this, I am unsure if this is still how London region is structured.
With the formation of regions the GSR was required to do less in the AA structure for their groups.
Whilst we do trust our trusted servants from Intergroup to go forth and take and bring information from region, this extra layer puts more distance between region and conference from the groups. For a long time a question at region was “What can region do for the groups”. Region is so far away from the groups because the GSR’s do not attend, or vote, or are able to bring their individual group consciences to region. Conference is further away still as the process does not involve the GSR’s questioning and voting in delegates with their group’s conscience in mind.
Since 1997 there have been other questions to conference querying the use of the word “Group” Service Representative and each time the response from conference is to keep the use of “Group” as it suits the UK service structure. Which as the UK service structure currently stands, I think is correct. Currently the GSR carries out service at their group and their Intergroup. After that we have another layer of service officers who attend the other meetings.
So why did Bill W, founder of AA, give the GSR the title “General”?
Because that’s how Bill envisioned the GSR would work as the structure changed and grew. So the GSR could carry out the General service of the group at all levels, therefore always making sure the groups are fully informed through their GSR that their group has chosen to represent them all the way to conference where the fellowships links with GSO.
GSO is called the General Service Office as it carries out the general service for the fellowship. The fellowship is really the groups. So should it be the Group Service Office?
What effect this is having on the AA UK fellowship time will tell, it was recognized some years ago as an issue.
Do the groups not want the ultimate authority as it was laid out by Bill W to protect the AA fellowship from becoming a seat of perilous power and wealth? Are we as ex drunks too lazy and want other people to make our decisions for us, as it is easier?
Bill W was quite a visionary; he certainly got a lot of things correct in his writings. Did he get the GSR part wrong? Or is it just wrong for us UK alcoholics? Are we different?
Alcoholism does not differentiate in any way, should our worldwide structure?