The Tyranny of Structurelessness

[droqen]

Regarding Jo Freeman's
"The Tyranny of Structurelessness"

[droqen]

I read this once before. I'm reading it again more closely.

[droqen]

intro summary
- the desire for "structurelessness" arose as a reaction to "the over-structured society in which most of us found ourselves"
- the "structureless" group (and related(?) "informal conference") has limitations, is not good for all things a group might wish to accomplish
- for the women's liberation movement to "grow beyond these elementary stages of development", structure is necessary

[droqen]

FORMAL AND INFORMAL STRUCTURE summary
- "structureless" groups are impossible
- they allow the strong or the lucky to gain power over others by emergent, unconscious, or intentional informal structures
- informal structures are not transparent, and may be confusing to those to whom they are not apparent
- for everyone in a group to be able to participate, the structure must be transparent
- explicit structure will not erase the informal structure
- "structureless" is in quotes because it is impossible: rather, it refers to a group's sole structure being "informal, or covert"
- informal or covert structure forms the basis for elites.

[droqen]

THE NATURE OF ELITISM summary
- an elite is a small group of people who have power over a larger group of which they are a part
* usually: elites are covert, and have no accountability to the larger group
- elites are not conspiracies and are not deliberate attempts to take a group over for their own ends
- elites are friendships ("networks of friends")
- when only one friendship exists in an otherwise unstructured group, they may not want to be elites, but they are elites
- a healthy situation is two friendships competing for formal power under some structure

[ AN ASIDE: Reading this is so frustrating. Is this essay seriously something people take seriously? I'm using the words that the author put onto the page: "In a Structured group, two or more such friendship networks usually compete with each other for formal power. This is often the healthiest situation[..]" Like WHAT AM I READING??? How is that situation healthy or desirable? "[..] as the other members are in a position to arbitrate between the two competitors for power and thus to make demands on those to whom they give their temporary allegiance." This sounds like hell on earth. Who writes an essay against friendship? ]

[droqen]

- elites are covert and informal. they are not invisible. others can see that the elite exists (they listen to and treat one another better) and feel the consequences of not being part of the elite.
- friendships are covert and informal. they are not invisible. others can see that the friendship exists (they listen to and treat one another better) and feel the consequences of not being part of the friendship.

[ i'm not sure how to summarize this best: elite and friendship seem to be almost synonymous, the author uses them nigh interchangeably, although they have wildly different connotations to me. i will try to use the arguably neutral 'friendship-elite' from here on ]

- friendship-elites generally formed around traditional female characteristics
- friendship-elites formed more easily between women married to New Left men
- these common requirements have changed over time (this article written in 1971)
- each individual friendship-elite has standards that don't tend to change
- friendship-elites' standards tend to concern one's "background, personality, or allocation of time"
- an effective movement's standards should concern one's "competence, dedication to feminism, talents, or potential contribution to the movement", but friendship-elites generally do not (see previous bullet point)
- it takes too much time and effort for an overworked person to join a friendship-elite, but it is necessary to do so in order to have power (Jo writes, "to have a voice in the decision-making", not "to have power")
- Unstructured groups are totally governed by friendship-elites, which may be bad because then the group is not a meritocracy

[droqen]

THE "STAR" SYSTEM summary
- society and the press want to hear one person summarize the opinions and feelings of a group
- the movement has not selected any person to provide such a summary
- when one person's personal opinions and feelings are broadcast, this latent desire results in that one person's perspective being seen, or held up as, such a summary
- inaccurate summaries make people mad at each other
- in particular: {the person whose opinions and feelings have been broadcast, or the "star"} and {those who feel misrepresented by outsiders' acceptance of this person's opinions and feelings, or the "movement"} lead to "stars" and "movements" cutting ties with one another.

[droqen]

[ i'll have to get back to this later. ]

[droqen]

[ nope, it's not leaving my mind. ]

[droqen]

POLITICAL IMPOTENCE
- Unstructured groups are not good at "getting things done", except under certain circumstances:
- "1) It is task oriented." (the thing the group wants to do is well-defined)
- "2) It is relatively small and homogenous." (i.e. not too diverse)
- "3) There is a high degree of communication."
- "4) There is a low degree of skill specialization." (there is no task that only one person can do, no one is indispensible)
- Unstructured groups for which these circumstances are not true are ineffective at "getting things done"
- to maintain proper "structureless" functioning, friendship-elites exclude those who are not members of the friendship-elite, which means that people outside of the friendship-elite can't participate
- if these were the only organizations, those who can't participate in a friendship-elite can't get things done ("the nongregarious are at a distinct disadvantage")
- if people in a group can't get anything done but they want to do something, they find something to do:
   - e.g. trying to fix the group so that it can get something done
   - e.g. embarking on an individual project and getting their own thing done
   - e.g. they find a different organization to join and get something else done
- if a friendship-elite joins an Unstructured group with an existing friendship-elite, the existing friendship-elite is threatened
- the existing friendship-elite may attempt to covertly ostracize the new friendship-elite
- the existing friendship-elite may attempt to make their informal structure formal, in a way that preserves their power. this does not alter the operation of these groups much.
- an Unstructured group with a weak friendship-elite is vulnerable to being taken over by a new, stronger, friendship-elite.

[droqen]

[ I'm getting some real difficult vibes from the next bit. What is a movement? How does a movement have "control" over itself? A movement is an emergent organism. What does it look like for a movement to lose control? Or is this one of those "smokescreens" that serves to hide the interests of a smaller group or individual? ]

- the less structure a movement has, the less control "the movement" has over what it becomes or what it does
- ideas may spread without being implemented
- unstructured organizations are ineffective
- unstructured organizations exclude people
- those who are included will "develop vested interests in maintaining things as they are"
- if "the movement" does not choose to give anyone power, someone will come take it
- if power is kept "as diffuse as possible," then the movement will not be effective.

[droqen]

[ I'm almost done! Thank goodness. ]

PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRATIC STRUCTURING summary

- don't just copy other organizational structures that exist
- we must experiment intelligently with structure
- but first the illusion of "structurelessness", and the bias against structure, must be out of the way

[ Wait, we're not c opying other organizational structures that exist but this section is literally titled DEMOCRATIC STRUCTURING and then lists seven principles... okay... I'm skipping these principles, you can read them yourself if you're interested, but this is a summary of the goals of those principles as given at the end of the article: ]

- the structures ought to be controlled by and responsible to the group
- power will be held in a way that is "diffuse, flexible, open, and temporary"
- ultimate decisions will be made by "the group at large"
- the group will choose who "exercise(s) authority"

.

[droqen]

I'm open about hating structure. "Destroy all systems!" I say.

That's not really it though. I actually love explicitness, and I love an explicit structure, but the idea of enforcing structure upon people who don't want it, who aren't intelligently consenting to or experimenting with it, that's no good. The word "authority" is a bad one in my books.

I don't trust groups. I don't think I believe in democracy, actually. When Jo Freeman ascribes choice to "the movement" or, especially in the end, "the group," like, nah, No fucking way, freeman, that's not how it works. That's just another "structureless" group subject once again to friendship-elites. Another smokescreen. "The Tyranny of the Majority."

I should say I don't trust large groups. Or in some sense I think it's healthy not to trust large groups, it's impossible to trust large groups in some ways. They are emergent organisms, not human beings.

I want more friendship-elites, or rather, more friendships. After all, they're not an elite if they don't have power over some excluded segment. Rather than rejecting responsibility to an out-group, reject power over them.

As I felt after my first time reading this article, I love the type of 'serendipitous' 'small group' described beneath the header POLITICAL IMPOTENCE (haha):

1) It is task oriented. ("the task . . . basically structures the group")
2) It is relatively small and homogenous.
3) There is a high degree of communication.
4) There is a low degree of skill specialization.

In short, I want to do things with my friends.

[droqen]

free movement within a more rigid structure.