|
The Tyranny of
Structurelessness
[revised version]
During the years in which the women’s liberation movement has been taking shape, a
great emphasis has been placed on what are called leaderless, structureless groups as the
main — if not sole — organizational form of the movement. The source of this idea was a natural reaction against the
overstructured society in which most of us found ourselves, the inevitable control this
gave others over our lives, and the continual elitism of the Left and similar groups among
those who were supposedly fighting this overstructuredness.
The idea of “structurelessness,” however, has moved from a healthy counter to
those tendencies to becoming a goddess in its own right. The idea is as little examined as
the term is much used, but it has become an intrinsic and unquestioned part of
women’s liberation ideology. For the early development of the movement this did not
much matter. It early defined its main goal, and its main
method, as consciousness-raising, and the
“structureless rap group” was an excellent means to this end.
The looseness and
informality of it encouraged participation in discussion, and
its often supportive atmosphere
elicited personal insight. If nothing more concrete than personal insight ever resulted
from these groups, that did not much matter, because their purpose did not really extend
beyond this.
The basic problems didn’t appear until individual rap groups exhausted the virtues
of consciousness-raising and decided they wanted to do something more specific. At this
point they usually floundered because most groups were unwilling to change their structure
when they changed their tasks. Women had thoroughly accepted the idea of
“structurelessness” without realizing the limitations of its uses. People would
try to use the “structureless” group and the informal conference for purposes
for which they were unsuitable out of a blind belief that no other means could possibly be
anything but oppressive.
If the movement is to grow beyond these elementary stages of development, it will have
to disabuse itself of some of its prejudices about organization and structure. There is
nothing inherently bad about either of these. They can be and often are misused, but to
reject them out of hand because they are misused is to deny ourselves the necessary tools
to further development. We need to understand why “structurelessness” does not
work.
Formal and Informal Structures
Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such thing as a
“structureless” group. Any group of people of whatever nature
that comes together
for any length of time for any purpose will inevitably structure itself in some fashion.
The structure may be flexible; it may vary over time; it may evenly or unevenly distribute
tasks, power and resources over the members of the group. But it will be formed regardless
of the abilities, personalities, or intentions of the people involved. The very fact that
we are individuals, with different talents, predispositions, and backgrounds, makes this
inevitable. Only if we refused to relate or interact on any basis whatsoever could we
approximate structurelessness — and that is not the nature of a human group.
This means that to strive for a structureless group is as useful, and as
deceptive, as to aim at an “objective” news story, “value-free” social
science, or a “free” economy. A “laissez
faire” group is about as
realistic as a “laissez faire” society; the idea becomes a smokescreen for the
strong or the lucky to establish unquestioned hegemony over others. This hegemony can
so easily be established because the idea of “structurelessness” does not prevent
the formation of informal structures, only formal ones. Similarly
“laissez faire” philosophy did not prevent the economically powerful from
establishing control over wages, prices, and distribution of goods; it only prevented the
government from doing so. Thus structurelessness becomes a way of masking
power, and within the women’s movement it is usually most strongly advocated by those
who are the most powerful (whether they are conscious of their power or not).
As long as the structure of the group is informal, the rules of
how decisions are made are known only to a few and awareness of power is
limited to
those who know the rules. Those who do
not know the rules and are not chosen for initiation must remain in confusion, or suffer
from paranoid delusions that something is happening of which they are not quite aware.
For everyone to have the opportunity to be involved in a given group and to participate
in its activities the structure must be explicit, not implicit. The rules of
decision-making must be open and available to everyone, and this can happen
only if they
are formalized. This is not to say that formalization of a structure
of a group will destroy
the informal structure. It usually doesn’t. But it does hinder the informal structure
from having predominant control and makes available some means of attacking it
if the people involved are not at least responsible to the needs of the group at
large.
“Structurelessness” is organizationally impossible. We cannot decide whether to
have a structured or structureless group, only whether or not to have a formally
structured one. Therefore the word will not be used any longer except to refer to the
idea it represents. “Unstructured” will refer to those groups which have not
been deliberately structured in a particular manner.
“Structured”
will refer to those which have. A structured group always has
formal structure, and may also
have an informal, or covert, structure. It is this informal structure, particularly in unstructured groups, which forms
the basis for elites.
The Nature of Elitism
“Elitist” is probably the most abused word in the women’s liberation
movement. It is used as frequently, and for the same reasons, as “pinko” was
used in
the fifties. It is rarely used correctly. Within the movement it commonly refers to
individuals, though the personal characteristics and activities of those to whom it is
directed may differ widely. An individual, as an individual, can never be an
elitist, because the only proper application of the term “elite” is to
groups. Any individual, regardless of how well-known that person
may be, can never be an
elite.
Correctly, an elite refers to a small group of people who have power over a larger
group of which they are part, usually without direct responsibility to that larger group,
and often without their knowledge or consent. A person becomes an elitist by being part
of, or advocating the rule by, such a small group, whether or not that individual is
well known or not known at all. Notoriety is not a definition of an elitist. The most
insidious elites are usually run by people not known to the larger public at all.
Intelligent elitists are usually smart enough not to allow themselves to become
well known; when they become known, they are watched, and the mask over their power is no
longer firmly lodged.
Elites are not conspiracies. Very seldom does a small group of people get together and
deliberately try
to take over a larger group for its own ends. Elites are nothing more, and nothing less,
than groups of friends who also happen to participate in the same political activities.
They would probably maintain their friendship whether or not they were involved in
political activities; they would probably be involved in political activities whether or
not they maintained their friendships. It is the coincidence of these two phenomena which
creates elites in any group and makes them so difficult to break.
These friendship groups function as networks of communication outside any regular
channels for such communication that may have been set up by a group. If no channels are
set up, they function as the only networks of communication. Because these people
are friends, because they usually share the same values and orientations, because they talk to each
other socially and consult with each other when common decisions have to be made, the
people involved in these networks have more power in the group than those who don’t.
And it is a rare group that does not establish some informal networks of communication
through the friends that are made in it.
Some groups, depending on their size, may have more than one such informal
communications network. Networks may even overlap. When only one such network exists, it is
the elite of an otherwise unstructured group, whether the participants in it want to be
elitists or not. If it is the only such network in a structured group it may or may not be
an elite depending on its composition and the nature of the formal structure. If there are
two or more such networks of friends, they may compete for power within the group, thus
forming factions, or one may deliberately opt out of the competition, leaving the other as
the elite. In a structured group, two or more such friendship networks usually compete
with each other for formal power. This is often the healthiest situation,
as the other
members are in a position to arbitrate between the two competitors for power and thus to make demands of those to whom they give their temporary allegiance.
The
inevitably elitist and exclusive nature of informal communication networks of
friends is neither a new phenomenon characteristic of the women’s movement nor a
phenomenon new to women. Such informal relationships have excluded women for
centuries from participating in integrated groups of which they were a part. In
any profession or organization these networks have created the “locker room”
mentality and the “old school” ties which have effectively prevented women as a
group (as well as some men individually) from having equal access to the sources
of power or social reward. Much of the energy of past women’s movements has been
directed to having the structures of decision-making and the selection processes
formalized so that the exclusion of women could be confronted directly. As we
well know, these efforts have not prevented the informal male-only networks from
discriminating against women, but they have made it more difficult.
Because elites are informal does not mean they are invisible. At any small group
meeting anyone with a sharp eye and an acute ear can tell who is influencing whom. The
member of a friendship group will relate more to each other than to other people. They
listen more attentively, and interrupt less;
they repeat each other’s points and give
in amiably; they tend to ignore or grapple with the “outs”
whose approval is not necessary for making a decision.
But it
is necessary for the “outs” to stay on good terms with the “ins.” Of
course the lines are not as sharp as I have drawn them. They are nuances of interaction,
not prewritten scripts. But they are discernible, and they do have their effect. Once one
knows with whom it is important to check before a decision is made, and whose approval is
the stamp of acceptance, one knows who is running things.
Since movement groups have made no concrete decisions about who shall exercise power
within them, many different criteria are used around the country.
Most criteria are along the lines of traditional female
characteristics. For instance, in the early days of the movement, marriage was
usually a prerequisite for participation in the informal elite. As women have
been traditionally taught, married women relate primarily to each other, and
look upon single women as too threatening to have as close friends. In many
cities, this criterion was further refined to include only those women married
to New Left men. This standard had more than tradition behind it, however,
because New Left men often had access to resources needed by the movement —
such as mailing lists, printing presses, contacts, and information — and women
were used to getting what they needed through men rather than independently.
As the movement has
changed through time, marriage has become a less universal criterion for effective
participation, but all informal elites establish standards by which only women
who possess certain material or personal characteristics may join. They
frequently include: middle-class background (despite all the rhetoric about relating to
the working class); being married; not being married but living with someone; being or
pretending to be a lesbian; being between the ages
of twenty and thirty; being college educated or
at least having some college background; being “hip”; not being too
“hip”; holding a certain political line or identification as a
“radical”; having
children or at least liking them; not having children; having certain “feminine” personality characteristics such
as being “nice”; dressing right (whether in the traditional style or the
antitraditional style); etc. There are also some characteristics which will almost always
tag one as a “deviant” who should not be related to. They include: being too
old; working full-time, particularly if one is actively committed to a
“career”; not being “nice”; and being avowedly single (i.e. neither
heterosexual nor homosexual).
Other criteria could be included, but they all have common themes. The characteristics
prerequisite for participating in the informal elites of the movement, and thus for
exercising power, concern one’s background, personality, or allocation of time. They
do not include one’s competence, dedication to feminism, talents, or potential
contribution to the movement. The former are the criteria one usually uses in determining
one’s friends. The latter are what any movement or organization has to use if it is
going to be politically effective.
The
criteria of participation may differ from group to group, but the means of
becoming a member of the informal elite if one meets those criteria are
pretty much the same. The only main difference depends on whether one is in
a group from the beginning, or joins it after it has begun. If involved from
the beginning it is important to have as many of one’s personal friends as
possible also join. If no one knows anyone else very well, then one must
deliberately form friendships with a select number and establish the
informal interaction patterns crucial to the creation of an informal
structure. Once the informal patterns are formed they act to maintain
themselves, and one of the most successful tactics of maintenance is to
continuously recruit new people who “fit in.” One joins such an elite much
the same way one pledges a sorority. If perceived as a potential addition,
one is “rushed” by the members of the informal structure and eventually
either dropped or initiated. If the sorority is not politically aware enough
to actively engage in this process itself it can be started by the outsider
pretty much the same way one joins any private club. Find a sponsor, i.e.,
pick some member of the elite who appears to be well respected within it,
and actively cultivate that person’s friendship. Eventually, she will most
likely bring you into the inner circle.
All
of these procedures take time. So if one works full time or has a similar
major commitment, it is usually impossible to join simply because there are
not enough hours left to go to all the meetings and cultivate the personal
relationships necessary to have a voice in the decision-making. That is why
formal structures of decision-making are a boon to the overworked person.
Having an established process for decision-making ensures that everyone can
participate in it to some extent.
Although this dissection of the process of elite formation within small groups has been
critical in perspective, it is not made in the belief that these informal structures
are inevitably bad — merely that they are inevitable. All groups create informal
structures as a result of interaction patterns among the members
of the group. Such informal
structures can do very useful things. But only unstructured groups are totally governed by
them. When informal elites are combined with a myth of “structurelessness,”
there can be no attempt to put limits on the use of power. It becomes capricious.
This has two potentially negative consequences of which we should be aware. The first
is that the informal structure of decision-making will be
much like a sorority — one in which
people listen to others because they like them and not because they say significant things.
As long as the movement does not do significant things this does not much matter. But if
its development is not to be arrested at this preliminary stage, it will have to alter
this trend. The second is that informal structures have no obligation to be responsible to
the group at large. Their power was not given to them; it cannot be taken away. Their
influence is not based on what they do for the group; therefore they cannot be directly
influenced by the group. This does not necessarily make informal structures irresponsible.
Those who are concerned with maintaining their influence will usually try to be
responsible. The group simply cannot compel such responsibility; it is dependent on the
interests of the elite.
The “Star” System
The idea of “structurelessness” has created the “star”
system. We live in a society which expects political groups to make decisions and to
select people to articulate those decisions to the public at large. The press and the
public do not know how to listen seriously to individual women as women; they want to know
how the group feels. Only three techniques have ever been developed for establishing mass
group opinion: the vote or referendum, the public opinion survey questionnaire, and the
selection of group spokespeople at an appropriate meeting. The women’s liberation
movement has used none of these to communicate with the public. Neither the movement as a
whole nor most of the multitudinous groups within it have established a means of
explaining their position on various issues. But the public is conditioned to look for
spokespeople.
While it has consciously not chosen spokespeople, the movement has thrown up many women
who have caught the public eye for varying reasons. These women represent no particular
group or established opinion; they know this and usually say so. But because there are no
official spokespeople nor any decision-making body
that the press can query when it wants to
know the movement’s position on a subject, these women are perceived as the
spokespeople. Thus, whether they want to or not, whether the movement likes it or not,
women of public note are put in the role of spokespeople by default.
This is one source of the ire that is often felt towards the women who are labeled
“stars.” Because they were not selected by the women in the movement to
represent the movement’s views, they are resented when the press presumes
that they speak
for the movement. But as long as the movement does not select
its own spokeswomen, such women will be placed in that role by the press and the
public, regardless of their desires.
This has several
negative consequences for both the movement and the women labeled “stars.”
First, because the movement didn’t put them in the role of spokesperson, the
movement cannot remove them. The press put them there and only the press can
choose not to listen. The press will continue to look to “stars” as spokeswomen
as long as it has no official alternatives to go to for authoritative statements
from the movement. The movement has no control in the selection of its
representatives to the public as long as it believes that it should have no
representatives at all. Second, women put in this position often find themselves
viciously attacked by their sisters. This achieves nothing for the movement and
is painfully destructive to the individuals involved. Such attacks only result
in either the woman leaving the movement entirely — often bitterly alienated — or
in her ceasing to feel responsible to her “sisters.” She may maintain some
loyalty to the movement, vaguely defined, but she is no longer susceptible to
pressures from other women in it. One cannot feel responsible to people who have
been the source of such pain without being a masochist, and these women are
usually too strong to bow to that kind of personal pressure. Thus the backlash
to the “star” system in effect encourages the very
kind of individualistic nonresponsibility that the movement condemns. By purging
a sister as a “star,” the movement loses whatever control it may have had over
the person who then becomes free to commit all of the individualistic sins of
which she has been accused.
Political Impotence
Unstructured groups may be very effective in getting women to talk about their lives;
they aren’t very good for getting things done. It is
when people get tired of “just talking” and want to do something more that the
groups flounder, unless they change the nature of their operation.
Occasionally, the developed informal structure of the group
coincides with an available need that the group can fill in such a way as to
give the appearance that an unstructured group “works.” That is, the group has
fortuitously developed precisely the kind of structure best suited for engaging
in a particular project.
While
working in this kind of group is a very heady experience, it is also rare
and very hard to replicate. There are almost inevitably four conditions
found in such a group:
1)
It is task oriented. Its function is very narrow and very specific, like
putting on a conference or putting out a newspaper. It is the task that
basically structures the group. The task determines what needs to be done
and when it needs to be done. It provides a guide by which people can judge
their actions and make plans for future activity.
2)
It is relatively small and homogeneous. Homogeneity is necessary to
ensure that participants have a
“common language” or interaction. People
from widely different backgrounds may provide richness to a
consciousness-raising group where each can learn from the others’
experience, but too great a diversity among members of a task-oriented group
means only that they continually misunderstand each other. Such diverse
people interpret words and actions differently. They have different
expectations about each other’s behavior and judge the results according to
different criteria. If everyone knows everyone else well enough to
understand the nuances, these can be accommodated. Usually, they only lead
to confusion and endless hours spent straightening out conflicts no one ever
thought would arise.
3)
There is a high degree of communication. Information must be passed
on to everyone, opinions checked, work divided up, and participation assured
in the relevant decisions. This is only possible if the group is small and
people practically live together for the most crucial phases of the task.
Needless to say, the number of interactions necessary to involve everybody
increases geometrically with the number of participants. This inevitably
limits group participants to about five, or excludes some from some of the
decisions. Successful groups can be as large as 10 or 15, but only when they
are in fact composed of several smaller subgroups which perform specific
parts of the task, and whose members overlap with each other so that
knowledge of what the different subgroups are doing can be passed around
easily.
4)
There is a low degree of skill specialization. Not everyone has to be
able to do everything, but everything must be able to be done by more than one
person. Thus no one is indispensable. To a certain extent, people become
interchangeable parts.
While
these conditions can occur serendipitously in small groups, this is not
possible in large ones. Consequently, because the larger movement in most
cities is as unstructured as individual rap groups, it is not too much more
effective than the separate groups at specific tasks. The informal structure
is rarely together enough or in touch enough with the people to be able to
operate effectively. So the movement generates much motion and few results.
Unfortunately, the consequences of all this motion are not as innocuous as
the results, and their victim is the movement itself.
Some
groups have formed themselves into local action projects if they do not
involve many people and work on a small scale. But this form restricts
movement activity to the local level; it cannot be done on the regional or
national. Also, to function well the groups must usually pare themselves
down to that informal group of friends who were running things in the first
place. This excludes many women from participating. As long as the only way
women can participate in the movement is through membership in a small
group, the nongregarious are at a distinct disadvantage. As long as
friendship groups are the main means of organizational activity, elitism
becomes institutionalized.
For
those groups which cannot find a local project to which to devote
themselves, the mere act of staying together becomes the reason for their
staying together. When a group has no specific task (and consciousness-raising is a task), the people in it turn their energies to controlling
others in the group. This is not done so much out of a malicious desire to
manipulate others (though sometimes it is) as out of a lack of anything
better to do with their talents. Able people with time on their hands and a
need to justify their coming together put their efforts into personal
control, and spend their time criticizing the personalities of the other
members in the group. Infighting and personal power games rule the day. When
a group is involved in a task, people learn to get along with others as they
are and to subsume personal dislikes for the sake of the larger goal. There
are limits placed on the compulsion to remold every person in our image of
what they should be.
The
end of consciousness-raising leaves people with no place to go, and the lack
of structure leaves them with no way of getting there. The women the
movement either turn in on themselves and their sisters or seek other
alternatives of action. There are few that are available. Some women just
“do their own thing.” This can lead to a great deal of individual
creativity, much of which is useful for the movement, but it is not a viable
alternative for most women and certainly does not foster a spirit of
cooperative group effort. Other women drift out of the movement entirely
because they don’t want to develop an individual project and they have found
no way of discovering, joining, or starting group projects that interest
them. Many
turn to other political organizations to give them the kind of structured,
effective activity that they have not been able to find in the women’s
movement. Those political organizations which see women’s liberation as only
one of many issues to which women should devote their time thus find the
movement a vast recruiting ground for new members. There is no need for such
organizations to “infiltrate” (though this is not precluded). The desire for
meaningful political activity generated in women by their becoming part of
the women’s liberation movement is sufficient to make them eager to join
other organizations when the movement itself provides no outlets for their
new ideas and energies. Those women who join other political organizations
while remaining within the women’s liberation movement, or who join women’s
liberation while remaining in other political organizations, in turn become
the framework for new informal structures. These friendship networks are
based upon their common nonfeminist politics rather than the characteristics
discussed earlier, but operate in much the same way. Because these women
share common values, ideas, and political orientations, they too become
informal, unplanned, unselected, unresponsible elites — whether they intend
to be so or not.
These
new informal elites are often perceived as threats by the old informal
elites previously developed within different movement groups. This is a
correct perception. Such politically oriented networks are rarely willing to
be merely “sororities” as many of the old ones were, and want to proselytize
their political as well as their feminist ideas. This is only natural, but
its implications for women’s liberation have never been adequately
discussed. The old elites are rarely willing to bring such differences of
opinion out into the open because it would involve exposing the nature of
the informal structure of the group.
Many
of these informal elites have been hiding under the banner of
“anti-elitism”
and “structurelessness.” To effectively counter the competition from another
informal structure, they would have to become “public,” and this possibility
is fraught with many dangerous implications. Thus, to maintain its own
power, it is easier to rationalize the exclusion of the members of the other
informal structure by such means as “red-baiting,” “reformist-baiting,”
“lesbian-baiting,” or “straight-baiting.” The only other alternative is to
formally structure the group in such a way that the original power structure
is institutionalized. This is not always possible. If the informal elites
have been well structured and have exercised a fair amount of power in the
past, such a task is feasible. These groups have a history of being somewhat
politically effective in the past, as the tightness of the informal
structure has proven an adequate substitute for a formal structure. Becoming
structured does not alter their operation much, though the
institutionalization of the power structure does open it to formal
challenge. It is those groups which are in greatest need of structure that
are often least capable of creating it. Their informal structures have not
been too well formed and adherence to the ideology of “structurelessness”
makes them reluctant to change tactics. The more unstructured a group is,
the more lacking it is in informal structures, and the more it adheres to an
ideology of “structurelessness,” the more vulnerable it is to being taken
over by a group of political comrades.
Since
the movement at large is just as unstructured as most of its constituent
groups, it is similarly susceptible to indirect influence. But the
phenomenon manifests itself differently. On a local level most groups can
operate autonomously; but the only groups that can organize a national
activity are nationally organized groups. Thus, it is often the
structured
feminist organizations that provide national direction for feminist
activities, and this direction is determined by the priorities of those
organizations. Such groups as NOW, WEAL, and some leftist women’s caucuses
are simply the only organizations capable of mounting a national campaign.
The multitude of unstructured women’s liberation groups can choose to
support or not support the national campaigns, but are incapable of mounting
their own. Thus their members become the troops under the leadership of the
structured organizations. The avowedly
unstructured group has no way of
drawing upon the movement’s vast resources to support its priorities. It
doesn’t even have a way of deciding what those priorities are.
The
more unstructured a movement is, the less control it has over the directions
in which it develops and the political actions in which it engages. This
does not mean that its ideas do not spread. Given a certain amount of
interest by the media and the appropriateness of social conditions, the
ideas will still be diffused widely. But diffusion of ideas does not mean
they are implemented; it only means they are talked about. Insofar as they
can be applied individually they may be acted on; insofar as they require
coordinated political power to be implemented, they will not be.
As
long as the women’s liberation movement stays dedicated to a form of
organization which stresses small, inactive discussion groups among friends,
the worst problems of unstructuredness will not be felt. But this style of
organization has its limits; it is politically inefficacious, exclusive, and
discriminatory against those women who are not or cannot be tied into the
friendship networks. Those who do not fit into what already exists because
of class, race, occupation, education, parental or marital status,
personality, etc., will inevitably be discouraged from trying to
participate. Those who do fit in will develop vested interests in
maintaining things as they are.
The
informal groups’ vested interests will be sustained by the informal
structures which exist, and the movement will have no way of determining who
shall exercise power within it. If the movement continues deliberately to
not select who shall exercise power, it does not thereby abolish power. All
it does is abdicate the right to demand that those who do exercise power and
influence be responsible for it. If the movement continues to keep power as
diffuse as possible because it knows it cannot demand responsibility from
those who have it, it does prevent any group or person from totally
dominating. But it simultaneously ensures that the movement is as
ineffective as possible. Some middle ground between domination and
ineffectiveness can and must be found.
These
problems are coming to a head at this time because the nature of the
movement is necessarily changing. Consciousness-raising as the main function
of the women’s liberation movement is becoming obsolete. Due to the intense
press publicity of the last two years and the numerous overground books and
articles now being circulated, women’s liberation has become a household
word. Its issues are discussed and informal rap groups are formed by people
who have no explicit connection with any movement group. The movement must
go on to other tasks. It now needs to establish its priorities, articulate
its goals, and pursue its objectives in a coordinated fashion. To do this it
must get organized — locally, regionally, and nationally.
Principles of Democratic Structuring
Once
the movement no longer clings tenaciously to the ideology of
“structurelessness,” it is free to develop those forms of organization best
suited to its healthy functioning. This does not mean that we should go to
the other extreme and blindly imitate the traditional forms of organization.
But neither should we blindly reject them all. Some of the traditional
techniques will prove useful, albeit not perfect; some will give us insights
into what we should and should not do to obtain certain ends with minimal
costs to the individuals in the movement. Mostly, we will have to experiment
with different kinds of structuring and develop a variety of techniques to
use for different situations. The Lot System is one such idea which has
emerged from the movement. It is not applicable to all situations, but is
useful in some. Other ideas for structuring are needed. But before we can
proceed to experiment intelligently, we must accept the idea that there is
nothing inherently bad about structure itself — only its excess use.
While
engaging in this trial-and-error process, there are some principles
we can keep in mind that are essential to democratic structuring and
are also politically effective:
1) Delegation of specific authority to specific individuals for
specific tasks by democratic procedures. Letting people assume jobs
or tasks only by default means they are not dependably done. If
people are selected to do a task, preferably after expressing an
interest or willingness to do it, they have made a commitment which
cannot so easily be ignored.
2)
Requiring all those to whom authority has been delegated to be responsible to those who selected them. This is how the group
has control over people in positions of authority. Individuals may
exercise power, but it is the group that has ultimate say over how
the power is exercised.
3) Distribution of authority among as many people as is
reasonably possible. This prevents monopoly of power and requires
those in positions of authority to consult with many others in the
process of exercising it. It also gives many people the opportunity
to have responsibility for specific tasks and thereby to learn
different skills.
4) Rotation of tasks among individuals. Responsibilities which
are held too long by one person, formally or informally, come to be
seen as that person’s “property” and are not easily relinquished or
controlled by the group. Conversely, if tasks are rotated too
frequently the individual does not have time to learn her job well
and acquire the sense of satisfaction of doing a good job.
5) Allocation of tasks along rational criteria. Selecting
someone for a position because they are liked by the group or giving
them hard work because they are disliked serves neither the group
nor the person in the long run. Ability, interest, and
responsibility have got to be the major concerns in such selection.
People should be given an opportunity to learn skills they do not
have, but this is best done through some sort of
“apprenticeship”
program rather than the “sink or swim”
method. Having a
responsibility one can’t handle well is demoralizing. Conversely,
being blacklisted from doing what one can do well does not encourage
one to develop one’s skills. Women have been punished for being
competent throughout most of human history; the movement does not
need to repeat this process.
6) Diffusion of information to everyone as frequently as
possible. Information is power. Access to information enhances one’s
power. When an informal network spreads new ideas and information
among themselves outside the group, they are already engaged in the
process of forming an opinion — without the group participating.
The more one knows about how things work and what is happening, the
more politically effective one can be.
7) Equal access to resources needed by the group. This is not always
perfectly possible, but should be striven for. A member who maintains a monopoly
over a needed resource (like a printing press owned by a husband, or a darkroom)
can unduly influence the use of that resource. Skills and information are also
resources. Members’ skills can be equitably available only when members are
willing to teach what they know to others.
When these principles are applied, they ensure that
whatever structures are developed by different movement groups will be
controlled by and responsible to the group. The group of people in positions of
authority will be diffuse, flexible, open, and temporary. They will not be in
such an easy position to institutionalize their power because ultimate decisions
will be made by the group at large, The group will have the power to determine
who shall exercise authority within it.
JO FREEMAN
1970
This article by Jo Freeman (a.k.a.
Joreen) has been widely reproduced, and
deservedly so. Though originally addressed to the early women’s liberation movement,
it remains applicable to other areas of radical struggle. I also recommend it to your
attention as a fine example of theoretical lucidity and modesty. Notice how thoughtfully
Freeman presents the ramifications of this particular issue, setting out the factors that
people need to consider without offering simplistic solutions or indulging in heated
rhetoric. This sounds easy, but it is all too rare in the arena of political debate.
These merits can perhaps be appreciated more clearly by noting the
contrast with Cathy Levine’s response,
The Tyranny of Tyranny.
Levine’s text may at first seem to present a more radical viewpoint, but if you
examine it carefully I think you will see that it actually does little but evade the
issue. Freeman addressed an undeniable problem that was already beginning to be widely
recognized, and drew attention to the important distinction between groups (whether large
or small) that have explicit structures and those that have hidden ones. Instead of facing
this problem, Levine drowns it out with oversimplified platitudes about the evils of large groups and the
virtues of small ones, then goes off on a variety of irrelevant tangential issues. Those
issues may be important in other contexts; and Freeman’s activities and perspectives
may have been less radical in other regards (see her own
autobiographical account of
the period). The point is that at this particular juncture Freeman made an exemplary
theoretical contribution, while Levine’s response is a good example of the opposite
— of ideology and the counterproductive role it always serves.
As far as I know, this piece is not copyrighted. In any case, it was
clearly intended to be freely reproduced and discussed. It
was originally written in 1970; the present version incorporates some
additions and minor revisions made by the author for subsequent reprintings
(1972-1973).
For an examination of some other aspects of women’s situation in
radical movements (particularly within the situationist milieu), see Jeanne Charles’s
Arms and the Woman.
A Japanese translation of this text (including the above
editorial remarks) is online at
www.ne.jp/asahi/anarchy/anarchy/data/structurelessness-j.html (click View >
Encoding > Japanese).
[CROSSFIRE]
|