The tyranny of "structurelessness" PDF Print E-mail
Tuesday, 30 November 1999 00:00

by Jo Freeman

The question of how we should work through our debates as activists is one of the main issues that last year confronted the growing anti-war movement. As socialists we have always argued for majority-based decision making as the best way for coalitions and groups to organise.
But doesn't this contradict our commitment to democracy? Aren't consensus based decision making and informal organisation the most democratic ways of going about our work? In this article, written as a response to similar arguments in the women's movement in the early 1970s, American feminist, scholar and author Jo Freeman looks at some of the issues around "consensus" and "structurelessness."
 
A full text of "The Tyranny of Structurelessness" is available on Jo Freeman's website
 
© Jo Freeman
Reprinted by kind permission of the author
 
 
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 the sole - organisational form of the movement. The source of this idea was a natural reaction against the overstructured society in which most of us found ourselves and 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 form 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 foundered, because most groups were unwilling to change their structure when they changed their ideas. Women had thoroughly accepted the idea of "structurelessness" without realising 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 organisation and structure. There is nothing inherently bad about either of these. They can 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 structure
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 to 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 also be easily 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, 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 formalised. This is not to say that formalisation 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 make available some means of attacking it if the people involved are not at least responsible to the needs of the group at large.
 
"Structurelessenss" is organisationally 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 that have not been deliberately structured in a particular manner. "Structured" will refer to those that have. A structured group always has a formal structure and may also have an informal, or covert, structure. It is this informal structure, particularly in unstructured groups, that forms the basis for elites.
 
 
The nature of elitism
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 friendships 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 phenomenon that 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 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 aren't. And it is a rare group that does not establish some informal networks of communication through the friendships that are made in it.
 
Some groups, depending on their size, may have more than one such informal communications network. Networks may even overlap. Only when one such network exists, it is the elite of an otherwise unstructured group, whether the participants in it want it 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 and, thus, to make demands on those to whom they give their full or temporary allegiance.
 
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 members 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.
 
 
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's 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.
 
Some groups, if they do not involve many people and work on a small scale, have formed themselves into local action projects. 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 virtually pare themselves 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 non-gregarious are at a distinct disadvantage. As long as friendship groups are the main means of organisational activity, elitism becomes institutionalised.
 
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 organisation that stresses small, inactive discussion groups among friends, the worst problems of unstructuredness will not be felt. But this style of organisation 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 that 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.
 
 
Principles of democratic structuring
Once the movement no longer clings tenaciously to the ideology of "structurelessness," it is 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 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 that 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:
 
  • Delegating specific authority to specific individuals for specific tasks by democratic procedures. Letting people assume jobs or tasks only by default means that 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 that cannot so easily be ignored.
     
  • 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 the ultimate say over how the power is exercised.
     
  • Distributing authority among as many people as possible 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 learn different skills.
     
  • Rotating tasks among individuals. Responsibilities that are held for 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 them. Conversely, if tasks are rotated too frequently, the individual does not have time to learn to do her job well and acquire the sense of satisfaction of doing a good job.
     
  • Allocating 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 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 demoralising. 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.
     
  • Diffusing 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.
     
  • Providing 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. Member's 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 institutionalise 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.