The Tyranny of Structurelessness by Jo Freeman

[Michael Pugliese]

The Tyranny of Structurelessness by Jo Freeman
http://www.spunk.org/texts/consensu/sp000760.html
*=======================================================================*
The Tyranny of Structurelessness, by Jo Freeman, was first printed by the
women's liberation movement, USA, in 1970. It was reprinted in Berkeley
Journal of Sociology in 1970 and later issued as a pamphlet by Agitprop in
1972. It was again issued as a pamphlet by the Leeds women's group of the
Organization of Revolutionary Anarchists (ORA) and then re- printed by the
Kingston group of the Anarchist Workers' Association (AWA). It was later
Published jointly by Dark Star Press and Rebel Press in 1984 in a pamphlet
called 'Untying the Knot - Feminism, Anarchism & Organization', with the
printing done by Algate Press [84b Whitechapel High St, London E1]. This
edition was taken from the AWA edition, but is without the additions to the
text added by the AWA and ORA, or additional text from Dark Star/Rebel
Press.
*=======================================================================*
THE TYRANNY OF STRUCTURELESSNESS
by Jo Freeman
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 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 over-structuredness.
The idea of 'structurelessness', however, has moved from a healthy counter
to these 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 de- fined its main method
as consciousness-raising, and the 'structureless rap group' was an excellent
means to this end. Its looseness and informality encouraged participation in
discussion and the 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 some- thing
more specific. At this point they usually floundered because most groups
were unwilling to change their structure when they changed their task. Women
had thoroughly accepted the idea of 'structurelessness' with- out 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 move beyond these elementary stages of development, it
will have to disabuse itself of some of its prejudices about organiz- ation
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 coming
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 and 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 easily be established because the idea of 'structurelessness' does not
prevent the formation of informal structures, but 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). The rules of
how decisions are made are known only to a few and awareness of power is
curtailed by those who know the rules, as long as the structure of the group
is informal. 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 every- one, and
this can only happen if they are formalized. This is not to say that
normalization of a group structure 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.
'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 which 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 a formal structure, and may also have an informal one. An unstructured
group always has 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 move-
ment. It is used as frequently, and for the same reasons, as 'pinko' was in
the '50s. It is never 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 'elite' because the only proper application of the term
'elite' is to groups. Any individual, regardless of how well-known that
person is, 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.
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. The 'outs' they tend to
ignore or grapple with. The 'outs' approval is not necessary for making a
decision; however 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 pre-written 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.
Elites are not conspiracies. Seldom does a small group of people get
together and try to take over a larger group for its own ends. Elites are
nothing more and nothing less than a group 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 groups 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 people are friends, usually sharing 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
communication 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. The other members are in a position to arbitrate
between the two competitors for power and thus are able to make demands of
the group to whom they give their temporary allegiance.
Since movement groups have made no concrete decisions about who shall
exercise power within them, many different criteria are used around the
country. As the movement has changed through time, marriage has become a
less universal criterion for effective participation, although all informal
elites still establish standards by which only women who possess certain
material or personal characteristics may join. The standards 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 age of 20
and 30, being college-educated or at least having some college back- ground,
being 'hip', not being too 'hip', holding a certain political line or
identification as a 'radical', having certain 'feminine' personality
characteristics such as being 'nice', dressing right (whether in the
traditional style or the anti-traditional 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
characteristic prerequisite for participating in all 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.
Although this dissection of the process of elite formation within small
groups has been critical in its perspectives, it is not made in the belief
that these informal structures are inevitably bad Q merely that they are
inevitable. All groups create informal structures as a result of the
interaction patterns among the members. 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 like a
sorority: one in which people listen to others because they like them, 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 rea- sons. 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 the press can interview 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 tie 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
they speak for the movement...Thus the backlash of the 'star' system, in
effect, encourages the very kind of individual non responsibility that the
movement condemns. By purging a sister as a 'star', the movement loses
whatever control it may have had over the person, who becomes free to commit
all of the individualistic sins of which she had 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. Unless their
mode of operation changes, groups flounder at the point where people tire of
'just talking' and want to do something more. Because the larger movement in
most cities is as unstructured as individual rap groups, it is not 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 emotion 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 turned themselves into local action projects, if they do
not involve too many people, and work on a small scale. But this form
restricts movement activity to the local level. 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 of a small group, the non-gregarious 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 devote themselves to,
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 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
dislikes for the sake of the larger goals. There are limits placed on the
compulsion to remold every person into 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 in the
movement either turn in on themselves and their sisters or seek other
alternatives of action. There are few alternatives 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
co-operative group effort. Other women drift out of the movement entirely
because they don't want to develop an individual project and 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. Thus, those political organizations which view women's
liberation as only one issue among many find the women's liberation 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 by women by becoming part of the
women's liberation movement is sufficient to make them eager to join other
organizations. 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 non-feminist politics rather than the characteristics discussed
earlier; however, the network operates in much the same way. Because these
women share common values, ideas and political orientations, they too become
informal, unplanned, unselected, unresponsible elites Q 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 orientated 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 'structure-
lessness'. To counter effectively 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', 'lesbian-baiting' or
'straight- baiting'. The only other alternative is formally to structure the
group in such a way that the original power 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
not 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 'structureless- ness' makes them reluctant to change tactics.
The more unstructured a group it is, the more lacking it is in informal
structures; 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 only the groups that can organize a national
activity are nationally organized groups. Thus, it is often the structured
feminist organizations that provide national directions for feminist
activities, and this direction is determined by the priorities of these
organizations. Such groups as National Organization of Women and Women's
Equality Action League and some Left 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. They don't even have a way of deciding what the 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 upon; insofar
as they require co-ordinated 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, parental or marital status, or personality will
inevitably be discouraged from trying to participate. Those who do not fit
in will develop vested interests in maintaining things as they are.
The informal groups' vested interests will be sustained by the informal
structures that exist, and the movement will have no way of determining who
shall exercise power within it. If the movement continues deliberately not
to 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. Purely educational work is no longer such an overwhelm- ing need. The
movement must go on to other tasks. It now needs to establish its
priorities, articulate its goals and pursue its objectives in a co-ordinated
way. To do this it must be organized locally, regionally and nationally.
Principles of Democratic Structuring
Once the movement no longer clings tenaciously to the ideology of
'structurelessness', it will be free to develop those forms of organisation
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
organisation. But neither should we blindly reject them all . Some
traditional techniques will prove useful, albeit not perfect; some will give
us insights into what we 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 it is
usefull, 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 excessive 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
politically effective also:
1 Delegation of specific authority to specific individuals for specific
tasks by democratic procedures. Letting people assume jobs or tasks by
default only 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 easily be ignored.
2 Requiring all those to whom authority has been delegated to be responsible
to all 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 the 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 an opportunity to have responsibility for specific tasks and
thereby to learn specific 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 a 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' programme rather than the 'sink or swim' method. Having a
responsibility one can't handle well is demoralising. Conversely, being
blackballed from 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 Qthe 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
Qwithout the group participating. The more one knows about how things work,
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 or a darkroom owned
by a husband) can unduly influence the use of that resource. Skills and
information are also resources. Members' skills and information can be
equally 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 be
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 .