Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.

“We are there to sweep off our side of the street, realizing that nothing worth while can be accomplished until we do so” (Page 77, Big Book)

“My friend promised when these things were done I would enter upon a new relationship with my Creator” (Page 13, Big Book)

This comes in the context of Step Nine.

If I do not get my relations with others straightened out, I will feel guilt, and guilt produces fear of retribution—ultimately from God.

Guilt thus causes one to hide from God (think of the Garden of Eden).

One cannot hide from God and seek God’s constant input at the same time.

This is why amends are required for the new relationship with God promised in Bill’s Story.

As with any other Step Eight, in a Step Eight on a relationship, I write out the things I did wrong that I shouldn’t have done, and the things I failed to do I should not have done. Here are some items I would not put:

“I should not have got into the relationship.”

Unless the fact of the relationship was demonstrably wrong, e.g. it was an extramarital affair, the person was genuinely vulnerable, the person writing the Step Eight was systemically violent, there was a gross abuse of power, or there was some other specific factor, this conclusion is hard to draw fairly. If a relationship persisted for a while, there was likely some good, and to draw this conclusion is to deny the good. It also effectively criticises the other person’s decision to get into it. Just because it turned out badly does not mean it was not fair to give it a go, and it is not reasonable to judge the decision based on hindsight. Even if one had mixed feelings at the time, that’s common and not a reason for not giving a relationship a go. If everyone waited until they were certain, few would get into relationships, and such certainties often involve folly or self-deception in any case and turn out to have been unreliable. The fact is that one did get into the relationship, and so there must have been more evidence in favour of getting into it than not getting into it. It is thus virtually impossible to fairly judge such a decision with so many upstream factors, so many downstream consequences, and another person with their factors and consequences. The assertion is also much like the teenage complaint, “I wish I had never been born.” Life is better than non-life; relationships are better than sitting in a room on one’s own until one is ‘well’. Of course most early relationships are a catastrophe, but that is how people learn. One has to have relationships to learn how to do them properly, and there is value in that experience.

“I should have got out of the relationship earlier.”

This is compromised on the same grounds as the previous item. In addition, just because it did not work out does not mean it might not have. People turn around the most desperate situations. When a company is trading insolvently, it is actually obliged under company law to continue to trade if there is any reasonable possibility of trading out of the insolvency and then paying back all the creditors. One does not shut up shop at the first sign of financial difficulty, or no one will be paid. It’s a gamble, but it’s a moral gamble.

“I did not love him/her.”

This is such a hopelessly vague statement it does not mean anything. There are many forms of love, and clearly there must have been one or more forms of love for one to be in the relationship with the person out of the many billions on the planet. One might not have loved them in accordance with a television ideal, but one apparently loved them more than anyone else. There is also the false assumption that a particular type of relationship has to have a particular type of love, and that type of love must both be present constantly and must never be overshadowed by other feelings. Does one love the person? Depends on what time of day you’re asking.

“We discuss them with someone immediately and make amends quickly if we have harmed anyone.” (Chapter Six, Big Book)

Here is a list I find helpful for identifying precisely how I have harmed someone.

• Physical injury
• Damage to or theft of property
• Monetary loss
• Deprivation of time
• Interference, intrusion, and nuisance
• Unnecessary negative emotion
• Impaired or ruptured relationship with the individual
• Impaired or ruptured relationship with a third party
• Reputational harm
• Loss of opportunity for usefulness
• Deprivation of due help
• Help that deprives others of responsibility
• Misdirection from a position of authority

 

SEPARATING CAUSE AND EFFECT

• Make a clear distinction between actions one takes (the chief subject matter of Step Eight) and the effect on others (which is what triggers the Step Nine).
• If one writes out the effect, and the sentence starts with the word ‘I’, followed by a verb of which I am the subject, I have merely elaborated on the action; I have not described the effect.

CAUSING OTHERS TO ACT VS INVITING OTHERS TO ACT

• If the effect on someone else consists in an action they took that they otherwise would not have taken, make a distinction between necessitated actions (e.g. one takes an overdose, which necessitates someone else calling an ambulance) and voluntary actions (e.g. I suggest shoplifting and Sally decides to join in the endeavour, or I gossip to Sally, and Sally engages in the gossip): I make amends for the former, because I put the other person out / caused them unnecessary worry; in the latter case, I might make amends for placing them in that position in the first place but I am not making amends for anything they did or the consequences of those actions following their decision to take up the action.
• Influence, encouragement, etc. is harmful only where one is in a position of power because the other person is younger, more junior, or impaired in some way; here, the degree of assumed agency on the other person’s part must be taken into account; the same applies to any relationship where there is a power imbalance, but be careful not to patronise or infantilise the other person in one’s consideration of Step Nine.
• Where the other person is entirely complicit in a joint endeavour, an amend is usually inappropriate, because it implies we have condemned them as well as ourselves and they usually do not believe they did anything wrong; to the extent that they do, they will take responsibility for that and will treat the suggestion that our offer or invitation forced their hand or induced them to act immorally as insulting and demeaning: we just don’t have that sort of power.

MATERIALITY

• A materiality threshold is required in Steps Eight and Nine. Although Step Nine does say that we make amends to all people we harmed, the notion of harm in Step Eight must include an assessment of materiality. Trivial items need not and should not be made amends for, for instance forgetting a piece of information someone had related, being a few minutes late for something, etc. These were wrong but not significant enough to constitute harm. Harm is properly speaking substantial in some way: it will have elicited marked annoyance or anger, material loss, inconvenience or nuisance, or have altered the relationship; items that the person had entirely forgotten about by the time of the amend were likely too trivial for a Step Nine; anything recalled—even if the person had not been personally troubled and / or had entirely gotten over the incident or forgiven it—are good candidates for Step Nine. Theft and other misappropriation, if noticed or known about, do not have a materiality threshold: anything borrowed must be returned (or the return must be offered); consumables (e.g. a lick of someone’s butter from the fridge) might reasonably be excepted from this. Malice or deliberate harm, however petty, is typically worthy of an amend, though.

IMPACT VS HARM

• In Step Eight, I find it helpful to trace through the consequences of all of my actions, in terms of the material effects, the emotion effects on the individuals, the changes in course they caused, the changes in relationships they caused. These I would call the ‘impacts’. Having established these, I might note that, if they are negative at all, they are harmful in a strict sense, but they might not be harms for the purpose of Step Eight because they are too trivial, transient, forgotten, or with the normal bounds of ordinary human interactions and would be absurd, priggish, and scrupulous to make amends for now. Such negative impacts that do not meet the materiality threshold for harm are often remembered more out of embarrassment or damage to one’s own image or reputation than because the conscience is really pricking. Even if impacts identified fall outside the scope of harm or are trivial, their tracing is an important part in the due diligence of Step Eight, as it helps train one in understanding the laws of cause and effect and of moral responsibility.

THE THREE RESPONSES TO THE DISCOVERY OF WRONGFUL BEHAVIOUR

• Firstly: Outright amend. This is due where I caused extensive, repeated, protracted, or deep annoyance, distress or other negative emotion; where I caused significant extra work, nuisance, inconvenience, or other trouble; cases of material or financial harm; cases of physical harm; behaviour that affected the relationship over time and was not promptly forgiven and forgotten; cases that were not dealt with adequately at the time.
• Secondly: Apology. If I’m quick, I can get in the apology. Apologies can have a shelf-life, and, after a certain time, the incident has been entirely forgotten and left no trace. If one misses the boat, that’s that.
• Thirdly: Tactical learning. Whether neither an amend or an apology is due, there is almost always a lesson for future adjustment of attitude and action.

WHAT I’M LEARNING ABOUT MYSELF

• The process of Step Eight not only is necessary to prepare for Step Nine; it is also useful in revealing to me my own maladjustments. Let me explain:
• As I go through a situation, how I think others did react or might have reacted often sheds ample light on my own reaction patterns. These might include:
  • Taking one small incident and allowing it to colour my whole appreciation of the person
  • Touchiness, sensitivity, swiftness to take offence or chide, emotional immaturity, impatience, intolerance, suspicion, assuming the worst, victimhood, blame of others for what is my own responsibility, and lack of forgiveness
  • When I engage in an activity with someone, blaming them for ‘inducing’ me to engage in it, as though I had no choice or agency.
• Thus the material written in the Step Eight becomes an inversion of my Step Four resentment inventory: I’m essentially imagining the impact based on my own resentfulness. The absurdity is often more striking in the Step Eight than it was in the Step Four.
• One must move away from this towards assessing how a regular person or the person in question, with their actual emotional profile, might have reacted or did react.

EVIDENCE OF HARM

• A lot of speculation is involved in Step Eight, but, except in cases where one did not witness the person’s response or one is dealing with a very discreet person, one usually has evidence of harm.
• Evidence is not required, however, where the action is axiomatically (by its nature) harmful (malice or wilful harm, punitive or angry action, unwanted and inappropriate sexual intrusion or worse, gross dereliction of duty, physical injury including neglect and including to animals, damage to property, theft of money or property, etc.)
• If there is no evidence, however, there is usually no harm.
• Evidence might be:
  • The person saying they were upset, inconvenienced, angry, etc.
  • This being reported by a third party.
  • Actual conflict.
  • Cold-shouldering, frostiness, coolness, or other alterations in the person’s behaviour or that of third parties.
  • Christmas and birthday cards stopping, opportunities drying up, communications reducing in their frequency or narrowing in their content.
  • Actual changes in the course of events after the incident, compared to what was usual or expected.
  • Interventions.

SPLITTING OUT

• Where the harmful act was a form of communication, one often has to split out various elements, to judge the communication effectively.
• For instance:
  • Content
  • Style, tone, and packaging
  • Audience
  • Mode (email, telephone, in person)
  • Context
• In each case, one is looking for which side of the appropriate–inappropriate divide the behaviour falls on.
• With each, specify what happened, and whether there was a legitimate ‘instead’ in the situation.

HOW TO TELL WHETHER SOMETHING WAS RIGHT OR WRONG

• There are three basic reasons some behaviour was wrong:
• Firstly, the act was immoral.
• Secondly, the act breached custom or etiquette.
• Thirdly, the act was unwise given the specifics of the situation and the person(s) involved.
• Always be clear what principle was breached, if any.

Some of George Orwell’s principles on how to write well:

• Never use a long word where a short one will do.
• If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
• Never use the passive where you can use the active.
• Never use ... a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

These are very helpful for inventory, e.g.

“Mrs Jones. She’s a nut—she snubbed me. She committed her husband for drinking. He’s my friend. She’s a gossip.” (Chapter 5, Big Book)

When I follow these principles, the inventory is quick, easy, and clear.

Sometimes, I rush at step work and do an imperfect job (to say the least), either ignoring or overriding instructions, suppressing possible avenues of investigation, cutting corners under the guise of ‘keeping it simple’, wanting at all costs the process to be over, but with the belief I have actually completed the mission. I will justify this on the grounds that I am keen, committed to the programme, and the good student sitting at the front of the bus.

The truth of the situation is that I am performing the task in question in order to avoid the task in question. I do not want to look. I do not want to sit with the discomfort of seeing my beliefs, thinking, and behaviour (and the consequences thereof in my life and in that of others) in a stark light. I do not want to sit with confusion or uncertainty. I do not want to be trepidatious of all of the dark areas lying beyond immediate sight.

The two ways of avoiding the process are to avoid the process altogether or to give the appearance of keenness whilst refusing to really look and see and satisfying myself with pat, rote, borrowed, glib, self-abasing, self-indulgent, bloodless, analytical, historical, or wordy answers or observations, all of which are different ways of avoiding calling the spade the spade.

The solution is to sit with the material until it settles down, ensuring that it is not only concise and punchy but also complete, accurate, and entirely honest. Only once my eyes have completely accustomed themselves to the dark can I be sure that I am really seeing everything in the room.

Progress is measured not by how quickly I ‘get through the Steps’ or how many boxes I can tick or how many paragraphs I can read or how many third columns I can write but by the fundamental change in how I think that flows from these exercises. A month spent on one inventory item, if that changes how I think, is worth more than a month spent on one hundred inventory items that leaves me completely unchanged in my approach to belief, thought, and action.

When I write out Step Eight, I write out the background, what I did, what I should have done instead, and who suffered and how.

Here are some tips.

Background

• This should be enough information to understand the actions but no more
• It should be presented in a sequence of bullet points (or dashed points or similar)
• Ask with each item: does the reader need to know this to understand the action and judge whether or not the action accorded with standards of morality and custom?
• Do not include any other information, as otherwise you're giving the reader extra work and distracting from what is important
• Do not pre-empt the action, the 'insteads', and the harms, in other words there is no need to describe the action in the background and also under 'action'

Action

• This should record all key actions I took in the situation
• They should be in the order they were taken
• They should be clear, concrete, concise, and complete
• They should be the actions as apparent to others
• They should not be abstract characterisations of the actions
• If verbal, they should, however, be the substance of the 'message' not the words, as the words themselves can be hard for the reader to 'get behind' to access the message
• We're not interested in motivation
• We're not interested in internal state

Instead

• This should present what I should have done instead at each juncture in the sequence
• The instead should be just as clear, concrete, concise, and complete as the action
• The 'insteads' should match the actions, in the same order, preferably
• They should not be general codes of conduct: they should be specific to the situation
• They should reflect a positive alternative action, not merely not plus a restatement of the action
• We're not interested in internal state

Harm

• This should show the practical ways in which (an) other(s) suffered in the form of:
• Altered conditions (i.e. practical effects)
• Negative emotions (say which)
• Some speculation is required, but the speculation must be realistics
• Avoid abstraction or generalisation: be specific
• The description should discuss the person only, not merely reiterate the action or the instead: a distinction must be made between cause (action and 'instead') and effect (harm)

With all areas

• This is an art not a science, so there are times where some of the above principles have to be breached to effectively communicate the situation
• There are innumerable situations that might be thus discussed, so a little flexibility with the above is going to be required to achieve a good final result
• Stand in the shoes of the reader and consider this: would a reader instinctively understand each element of the description and how it fits into the whole?
• If not, a brief description in parentheses (round 'brackets') immediately after the item in question, in the same point, can remedy the logical gap

... can be found here.

99% of discussion of other people is ordinary, good-natured, and harmless.

1%, if that, crosses the line, and it's this we're going to term gossip.

If gossip is damaging in some way, it might be warranted to call up the person one gossiped to and retract the content. Such cases must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

In such cases, there is a natural time-limit on retraction, as it's exceptional for the content of gossip to be remembered beyond a few days.

Damaging gossip would be where actual harm has flowed (e.g. from misrepresentation, outright lying, breach of confidence), e.g. in the form of conflict, harm to business interests, damage to reputation, etc. There is also the general harm of the 'bad taste left in the mouth' and the building of relationships on the foundations of unloving thoughts.

Where real harm has been done, which is usually where the gossip has breached its banks and flooded the landscape, direct and overt amends must be made.

Otherwise:

(1) Stop it

(2) If the person is brought up in conversation again, (a) speak well of them or (b) be silent

(3) If gossip is going on around you, quite invisibly redirect conversation to another topic.

Why must we be thorough?

The surgeon, in cleaning out a wound, removes all foreign bodies.

Foreign bodies cause pathological reactions in the body.

The defects and unmade amends are foreign bodies.

They do not belong.

That's why we feel bad about them.

We're having diseased reactions to what does not belong.

I suppose it's technically possible to go through life acting perfectly in every situation, never putting a foot wrong, never ruffling feathers, never causing upset, never causing a problem. I'm certainly not that person, and I've never met that person.

AA member	·         Be a leader by example only ·         Be one of many with one share in AA ·         Oppose no one—stand for, not against ·         Share my experience and the result—do not insist on a 'right way' ·         Be discreet about what I share with whom ·         Be kind about those not present ·         Be mindful about who is listening to anything
Friends	·         Give my time ·         Give my attention ·         Be kind
Teacher	·         Plan lessons carefully ·         Mark homework diligently but not obsessively ·         Do not have expectations— so do not get annoyed when students do not meet them ·         Pay attention to their needs in classes

Level 1: Immediate harm

Material, financial, physical, emotional harm
Taking people's time
Reputational harm
Intrusion (nuisance, interference, overstepping boundaries)

Level 2: Relationship harm

Damage to the relationship (e.g. a single argument causes immediate emotional harm but severs the relationship for five years)

Level 3: Spiritual harm

Increasing a sense of fear, guilt, and separation
Misleading people spiritually
Blocking growth through through care-taking or enabling
Failing to use opportunities to help others grow spiritually

In Step Eight, I look at the different types of harm I cause.

Level one: point of impact

Physical injury
Damage to or theft of property
Monetary loss
Deprivation of time
Interference, intrusion, and nuisance
Unnecessary emotional suffering
Harm to relationships with third parties
Reputational harm

Level two: relationship level

Damage to the relationship: sometimes the incident is minor, but it causes a rupture in the relationship, and it is the rupture that is the harm. That rupture also deepens the sense of separation and perception of others' hostility, coldness, or distance.

Sometimes one of the person's other relationships is harmed, too (e.g. through me sowing strife or suspicion).

Level three: spiritual harm

Standing in the way of someone's development: if I remain enmeshed in an enabling situation that prevents someone from hitting a rock bottom or learning to develop their own resources, I am blocking their development.

I am also doing the same if I fail to offer help that is genuinely needed to develop.

Misdirection: especially in recovery, I can either misdirect when I disturbed or mistaken or, maybe worse, when I set a bad example through my conduct.

Increasing separation: any action which divides rather than joins, including by encouraging separation, hostility, and ill-natured opposition in discussions.

If someone read my Step Eight, would they have sufficient detail to assess the situation?

If the potential harm was something I said, was it the content or the tone?

If a conversation 'went wrong', precisely which contributions of mine were inappropriate?

Was the conduct actually morally wrong or in breach of some social convention, or was it simply tactically unwise given the context plus the individual concerned?

Was the action predictably wrong, or do I think it was wrong just because of the outcome or reaction?

Did bad timing contribute to or even cause the problem?

In short, why do I think this action was wrong?

Re Q2:

What rule or principle underpins my view of what the right thing to do would have been?

Is that rule or principle universal or particular to particular contexts?

What is the scope of those contexts?

What is my evidence or experience that this rule or principle firstly is observed and secondly is morally or otherwise conventionally valid?

Have I considered all possible alternative courses of action?

Have I thought each of them through, mentally playing out the scenario in the light of my knowledge of the person?

In short, why do I think this action would have been right?

Re Q3:

Was there a genuine loss (e.g. financial or material, a change in circumstances, a change in the course of someone's life)?

Is the harm solely emotional suffering of some description (including anger)?

To what extent did that loss or suffering arise because of the other person's contribution to the situation?

In other words, did I cause a storm on a perfectly still day, or did I open the lid on an already seething cauldron?

Would anyone else have suffered or been harmed the same way, or was this person particularly sensitive, unprocessed, immature, vulnerable, or otherwise susceptible?

Was the relationship with the person damaged?

These questions are for consideration and meditation.

Once they have been considered and meditated on, review the three Step Eight questions and present a finalised Step Eight in this format, with sufficient reasoning for a third party (a sponsor or other reviewer) to be able to help you come to a final view.

Introduction: General context of the relationship and the situation

(1) What action did I take? [Answer]

(2) What should I have done instead? [Answer]

(3) Who suffered as a result, and how? [Answer]

The only step you can complete perfectly, is it said, is Step One.

I would question this statement.

Step One is an admission. What is a perfect admission? Presumably an admission without any caveat, proviso, or reservation. Certainly, the Big Book says that there must be no reservation whatsoever. So far, so good.

However, what we’re dealing with in Step One is an alcoholic mind. An idea that can be clear, and wholeheartedly accepted, at ten past eleven in the morning can be joined by other, conflicting ideas by four-thirty in the afternoon, and completely displaced by seven in the evening.

The perfect execution of Step One would be such an admission which, 24 hours a day, for the rest of one’s life, remains perfectly untainted by any contradictory or conflicting thought. Frankly, I seriously doubt that anyone in AA has managed to keep their minds clear of any thoughts that contradict or conflict with Step One, for the rest of their lives.

In fact, it’s axiomatic that AAs, even those who are well recovered and decades sober, will exhibit moments (at the very least), if not hours, days, weeks, months, or years, of self-will, thus back-tracking brazenly on the second part of Step One, the admission that ‘we’ (the ‘small s’ self) cannot (successfully) manage our own lives.

Pretty much everyone I have sponsored, when completing Step One, whilst confident to proceed on the basis that its two propositions are true, concedes the presence and allure of stray thoughts. In fact, the presence and allure of such thoughts is precisely the insanity that the remainder of the steps is designed to combat, so one could expect the elimination of such thoughts only in tandem with the completion of the remainder of the Steps. If their permanent and perfect elimination were secured by the mere taking of Step One, the remainder of the steps would not be necessary.

So, my view is that taking Step One perfectly is an ideal, not an attained state.

Can other steps be taken perfectly? Steps Two, Three, and Six are unmeasurable, and Steps Four, Ten, Eleven, and Twelve are open-ended, with almost unlimited possibilities for expansion in time and scope. Let’s cross those off the list of steps that might be taken perfectly.

That leaves us with Five, Seven, Eight, and Nine.

Seven is a good candidate for perfect step-working. It’s a pivot point in the Steps, a one-off moment, and either one has said the prayer sincerely or one has not. So, Step Seven can be worked perfectly (although one might rightly argue that ‘humbly’ has degrees, and that no one is perfectly humble).

Steps Five, Eight, and Nine, provided that we use what in auditing would be called a ‘materiality threshold’, can be completely perfectly, and a failure to do so will likely result in relapse.

When auditors audit a firm’s accounts, they are not looking for every single error; they are looking for errors that result in material misstatement of the accounts. A threshhold is applied, below which errors are ignored as immaterial.

Similarly, in Step Five, every single manifestation of every character defect (in thought, word, and deed) is not trotted out. To do so would be impossible (for reasons of memory alone) and counterproductive: the purpose of the steps is not to stay locked in self-examination but to clear a path to allow God’s power to flow through us into right action on His behalf for our fellows.

A perfect Step Five is one in which the individual conveys all of the character defects she or he has, and character defects, in enumeration, are finite. The St Augustine Prayer Book contains a great listing, and that’s comprehensive but reassuringly finite. Apart from ‘twists of character’, we are to convey ‘dark crannies’ of the past. I take this to be the shameful and difficult secrets. Again, these are finite. If one works down from the worst, one fairly soon arrives at a point where the remaining secrets are merely minor indiscretions, and there is essentially nothing left hiding in the closet that has not in substance been conveyed already.

In practice, therefore, it’s perfectly possible to effect a perfect Step Five.

Similarly, with the judicious application of a materiality threshold, Step Eight is finite, and that sets the bounds of Step Nine: either one has done one’s utmost to set right these wrongs or one has not. The result is measurable, and perfection is thus attainable. The perfection is not one of outcome but effort.

In my case, the threat of relapse did not subside until I had done a reasonably good job on Steps Five, Eight, and Nine, and in particular the entry into the world of the spirit did not occur until, some years later, I completed Steps Five, Eight, and Nine much more satisfactorily, in each case leaving nothing significant inside that was not conveyed and, where applicable, amended.

It is very fashionable to make amends to yourself, because, after, isn't it yourself you've harmed the most? Sometimes the authority cited is the later AA literature, for which, read: more evolved.

Let's leave aside the fallacy that, when two ideas are presented, the latter is superior because it was presented afterwards; let's also leave aside the opposite fallacy, namely that the original idea is superior with all later ideas somehow watered down or bleached of significance.

Let's instead examine principle.

First of all, what is the intention behind Steps Eight and Nine per the book Alcoholics Anonymous? It is clearly to resolve relationships that are damaged because we have harmed people and not righted the wrongs. It is self-evident that an amend therefore requires a relationship to obtain. It is furthermore clear from the instructions that the amend takes the form of an admission of wrong and a sincere expression of goodwill in attempting to right the wrong.

With these facts in mind, it is perfectly evident that an amend cannot be made to oneself, unless one is minded to have a conversation, say, in front of the mirror.

It is true that we did harm ourselves. If we were indeed to right that wrong, how would we do it? Well, we would stop drinking, start relying on God, seek God's will to determine the most effective deployment of our time, energies, and talents, and mend our fractured relations with others. In other words, the most effective way to rectify the harm done is to do what we have already committed to doing, namely to take the Twelve Steps.

The first element of making amends, the conversation, is simply not possible without an absurd charade with only one participant.

The second element of making amends, the practical follow-through, is already covered by the fact that one is taking the Twelve Steps. To be of service to others, one necessarily must look after oneself; to make the most of one's life, one necessarily must seek God's will (or, if you like, a humanist equivalent).

The making of amends to oneself is thus a substanceless proposition.

What is equally interesting is the psychology behind the proposition of making amends to oneself. When the idea is presented in meetings, it is usually accompanied by a presentation of all sorts of other ideas such as making amends in God's time not one's own time (for which, read: never), not making amends to exes, not making amends until your motives are entirely selfless, not making amends to people who are just awful, etc. One cannot of course know precisely what another's motivations are, but it is striking how the concept regularly seems to be accompanied by a downplaying of the harm done to others and the overt purpose of Step Nine, plus a renewed focus on self, as though the problem in the past is that we never put ourselves first enough.

It may be the case that we neglected ourselves physically (I feel sorry, for instance, for dental hygienists treating a newcomer AA who has not had his teeth fixed in years), but this was not because we were so selflessly devoted to meeting the needs of others to our own detriment that we failed to look after our own lives; no, the reason we harmed ourselves was because we were bent on more imperious and even more selfish motives that self-care: personal gain, relief, euphoria, and oblivion. Even the genuine martyrs among us had selfish motives: manipulation, punishment, control.

The answer is not, therefore, the cultivation of self but the recognition that if you're in a devil of a state yourself you won't be of use to others, so, to be of use to others, which is the real purpose of Step Nine, you need to attend to the basics of self-care. In other words: put your own oxygen-mask on first before helping others. The mistake, to extend the analogy, is to conceive of the placement of one's own oxygen mask on first as the primary and only objective. Whilst others are suffocating around one, one can lean back, close one's eyes, and enjoy the flow of oxygen-enriched air.

The psychology of the self-amend is thus questionable. By all means, decorate your life with pleasant things and certainly do look after yourself, but don't use this as an excuse to tick the 'Am I taking Step Nine?' box while neglecting the actual substance of Step Nine.

I heard someone say yesterday that it is helpful to divide the Step Eight list into three categories:

1. Amends I am willing to make now.
2. Amends I may be willing to make in the future.
3. Amends I will never be willing to make.

If we haven't the will to do this, we ask until it comes.

The recognition of unwillingness does not license indolence or postponement; rather, it commands concerted action to remove the blocks through prayer, consultation, reading, and consideration of certain principles, which are these:

If I were owed money by the tax authorities, I would not accept the tax authorities saying, 'We do owe you the money, but we've put you on the "never" list, so you can whistle for it.' Similarly, if you order goods and they are not delivered, you complain, because you have a right to them. In the same vein, you owe people amends; the amends are not an act of uncommon generosity but adherence to the most basic principle of human relations: fairness.

There are valid reasons for postponement, but these must be pragmatic and not related to some pseudo-spiritual notion of waiting 'until God shows me what the right time is' or until 'God gives me the willingness'. True enough, God will give you the willingness, but only on the back of vigorous spiritual action by you (as outlined above), which should take days or weeks, not years.

So, the basic principle is this: are you going to live a moral life, or an immoral life? Are you going to seek out companions and sponsors in AA who will challenge you on the morality of your conduct? Or have you surrounded yourself with people who, themselves deficient in the practice of Steps Eight and Nine, counsel the withholding of amends from people who thoroughly deserve them?

There is furthermore the question of drinking again if one does not complete amends, and the equally pertinent question of remaining trapped in compulsive and other unsavoury behaviours whilst the past remains unresolved.

In sum: do not deny lack of willingness, but resolving the lack of willingness is then your number one priority and the number one focus of your AA action, with comprehensive willingness, as expressed by actually doing one's utmost to make amends, as the imminent objective.

Some people examine Step Eight and come to the conclusion that the only harm they have ever done someone is to drink, that, otherwise, they have never done anything wrong.

Unless one is the Second Coming, this is simply not true.

For a basic understanding of harm, see this article:

https://first164.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/what-is-harm.html

To identify more substantively whether one has harmed someone, one can use a good list of character defects, pausing to consider whether, during the course of one's life, one has ever taken the action described; if so, there is harm.

https://first164.blogspot.co.uk/2010/05/st-augustine-prayer-book-transgressions.html

(If one objects to the overtly Christian 'sins', one can skip over those. I'm sure sufficient others will apply for the exercise not to be wasted).

Lastly, one can go through the chapter on Step Eight in the book Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, pausing to reflect on each type of harm described, and asking oneself, again, if one has ever taken the action described; if so, there is harm.

When writing Step Eight, the question arises of what is harm.

Here is a simple guide.

Harm is when, without justification or overriding cause, I give rise to:

(1) Physical suffering
(2) Emotional suffering
(3) Loss of money
(4) Loss of or damage to property
(5) Inconvenience or other 'stealing' of time

The sixth form of harm is harder to understand: it is where I get in the way of another's spiritual growth.

This takes many forms, but here are some examples:

(1) Preventing a crisis when it is in the natural course of things (for instance, letting unacceptable behaviour persist instead of confronting it)

(2) Doing something for someone they should do for themselves (for instance, fostering dependency)

(3) Shielding someone from the consequences of their actions (for instance, preventing someone from hitting a rock bottom).

This should provide a sufficient start.

(1) I am responsible for my attitudes, thinking, and conduct.

(2) I am not responsible for how others respond.

(3) I make amends where possible …

(4) … but recognise that the responsibility for undoing the harm within the other person is God’s, not mine.

(5) I go to God asking for improvement …

(6) … but do not expect myself to do what is God’s job …

(7) … or vice versa.

(8) I do not beat myself up for having a full range of human failings, as that would imply I’m not supposed to have them.

(9) I do not expect others not to have a full range of human failings, for the same reason.

(10) I do not see the presence of human failings in others as a problem that I caused.

(11) I do not see the presence of human failings in others as a problem that is mine to solve.

(12) Imperfection is perfectly in accordance with the design.

‘When an occasion of practising some virtue was offered, he addressed himself to God saying, "Lord, I cannot do this unless Thou enable me". Then he received strength more than sufficient. When he had failed in his duty, he only confessed his fault saying to God, "I shall never do otherwise, if You leave me to myself. It is You who must hinder my failing and mend what is amiss." Then, after this, he gave himself no further uneasiness about it.’

Step Eight instructions

For each person on your Step Four whom you have harmed and anyone else who comes to mind whom you have harmed when you pray to be shown who ought to be on the list, take a separate small sheet of paper or index card and write:

(1) What action you took.
(2) What you should have done instead.
(3) How that person suffered as a result, physically, intellectually, emotionally, spiritually, or socially.

The second question is relevant because not every action that causes suffering causes harm:
e.g.
(1) taking razor blades from a child
(2) an examiner failing a student who has not reached the required standard
(3) leaving a relationship one has no business being in.

Harm can be caused only where we have diverted from the path of right action.

What does not belong on Step Eight: complex analyses of motivation; how we felt; rationales, excuses, and rationalisations; back-story; other people's conduct; what we were thinking at the time.

We want bare facts: our action or, rarely, inaction.

We also do not make amends to ourselves.

The harm we have done to ourselves is best amended by making amends to others and adopting all Twelve Steps as a way of life.

The amend is essentially a conversation. This requires two participants. There is only one of me. I do not need to have a conversation with myself.