User:Sevgi/The Tyranny of Structurelessness

p = paragraph

The Tyranny of Structurelessness

by Jo Freeman aka Joreen

The earliest version of this article was given as a talk at a conference called by the Southern Female Rights Union, held in Beulah, Mississippi in May 1970. It was written up for Notes from the Third Year (1971), but the editors did not use it. It was then submitted to several movement publications, but only one asked permission to publish it; others did so without permission. The first official place of publication was in Vol. 2, No. 1 of The Second Wave (1972). This early version in movement publications was authored by Joreen. Different versions were published in the Berkeley Journal of Sociology, Vol. 17, 1972-73, pp. 151-165, and Ms. magazine, July 1973, pp. 76-78, 86-89, authored by Jo Freeman. This piece spread all over the world. Numerous people have edited, reprinted, cut, and translated "Tyranny" for magazines, books and web sites, usually without the permission or knowledge of the author. The version below is a blend of the three cited here. 

I think this p indicates that the author is criticising the non-permitted publications and is making the readers aware that either it is possible to take her work and use it in any sense or that she would appreciate the occasional question.

I later learned that on Tyranny of Tyranny Caty Levine it is mentioned that the paper has been taken out of context a lot and was used in arguments Jo had not intended to be a part of.

important words:

Permission

reprinted

translated

-

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 over-structured 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 from these groups, that did not much matter, because their purpose did not really extend beyond this.

Here she is pointing out where the need for structurelessness comes from and how people had a thirst for an open platform instead of a 'over-structured society'. She critically defines this idea of non-hierarchy while praising some aspects of it like The looseness and informality of it encouraged participation in discussion

important words:

rap group

looseness

goddess

-

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 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.

She points out that there is evolution to go through for this idea of structureless group setting where we acknowledge where it doesn't work and what it cannot provide.She criticises women as well for accepting the idea without looking too deep into it.

important words:

consciousness-raising

blind belief

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.

I feel really called out with this p, I feel like this immediately sent me to all the social groups I've been a part of one way or another. It also reminds me of the feminist collectives in Istanbul and how they also had this structurelessness claim. I like that Jo also equates the imbalance of relations to a natural outcome of people relating to each other. I find that there is a fondness and cruelty in it which makes life liveable.

important words:

flexible

individuals

?:

predispositions : proneness, tendency

-

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 be so 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.

Other than that she raises concern for the people who are not a part of the non-leaders group that gets to decide or veto things and how that creates an atmosphere of ambiguity that leads to participants not being able to trust some sort of structure that they will be kept in the loop. I really enjoy reading this since it kinda affirms my feelings of some structures I've come across in the past year and was not sure why it felt so terrible to be a part of seemingly great artist communities.

important words:

value-free

?:

laissez faire:'I let you do it'

-

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 make 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.

In this p Jo recognises the impossibilities of including everyone in decision making processes. She reiterates that this is also why a structure will form because there will be decisions to be made, whether the structure is pre-decided or not. This also gives way for small groups to form, which she refers to as 'elites'. I like how she defines and re-defines, choses not to use certain words because she doesn't believe in the reality of those. I think this is a very feminist way of writing where people take words and how they form thoughts really seriously. Not that I think this is a must but it is a layered way of writing that shows a lot of juice.

important words:
explicit X implicit

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.

Here she presets the in-context definition of 'elite' and makes it known that 'within the movement' there are no individuals that are elites, only groups of people. I think this is also to imply once again the movement is very group oriented and everything refers to groups of people, however when a group of people come together the group dynamics are instantly overlooked and the structurelessness is embraced in a way that doesn't conform everyone's way of working together. Collectivity is overlooked when a group of people decide on a purpose to come together upon.

important words:
pinko ?
pinko : Pinko is a pejorative term for a person on the left of the political spectrum. (wikipedia def)

-

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.

I like that at this point, she recognises that she seems like she is about to argue that elite means an individual not a group

important words:
Notoriety: being famous for a bad reason, infamy

-

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.

She defines 'elites' here as a natural formation of friends and recognises there is not a lot of times malintent is involved in elite groups forming.

-

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 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.

The reason these elite groups create imbalance is that they are friends and friends talk to each other whether socially or not, the common ground these people have gives them the confidence, trust and opportunity to raise issues that they have talked about before or take action accordingly, since the rest of the group is scattered.

important words:
orientations

-

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 on those to whom they give their temporary allegiance.

In The Care Manifesto by Jamie Hakim, the community's dynamics are a part of the care system and is carefully structured:

Fourth, caring communities are democratic. They must extend localised engagement and governance through radical municipalism and co-operatives, and rebuild the public sector through expanding and ‘insourcing’ its caring and welfare activities, rather than the outsourcing that accompanies privatisation.

On this p, Jo recognises that 2 is better than 1 and even if they are elites, if there is an option to choose one or the other the option gives power to the people who are not a part of the elites.

important words:
formal power

-

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.

Here she refers to the elitist mentality as a structure formed within patriarchal history, and there are many examples of women/othered people to be left out of main conversations, meetings, social gatherings. She also says that thanks to women addressing this and critiquing the nature of exclusion, it has become more difficult to form these special groups.

-

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.

Respecting each other becomes a core value of elitists and how they interact with each other compared to others in the group. Friends respect each other and they are more 'heard' and hence listened to. It is easy to notice these patterns when you get a chance to observe them. The approval seems to come from a certain point person and that person becomes the contact if the others want changes as well.

important words:

discernible

-

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 charged 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 actively heterosexual nor homosexual).

Marriage, singledom, who you are married to, what kind of single you are, who you relate to defines whom else you might relate to. People form nets that have points of contact and try to stay within the same clique. I think there are viable reasons for that but I can also of course see that this creates less diversity and more conservation, bubble-forming.

important words:antitraditional deviant pretending to be a lesbian group

-

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.

Here Jo critiques why the non-personal aspects of a persons life can't be why they form friendships, elite groups. I think in a political organization some things are already decided and they don't come into play when a group of people need to connect.

-

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 art 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.

Jo deconstructs how to become friends. She gives the same directions that are given in Mean Girls(2004).

important words: fit in

-

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 relationship 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 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.

Working, having no time to socialise, having children or other commitments, other friends makes it harder to fit in the elite group that makes decisions and this creates a class related exclusivity. If somebody could pay for care for kins, they have time to socialise or make time for other types of kinship. This strips them off of the opportunity to be involved in decision making when it comes to bigger groups.

These elite formations are inevitable and it doesn't make them inherently bad but they do need recognition and we need to deal with them in the group. The groups faith in making decision is left up to the elites who are not actually given the responsibility so that also creates pressure for them.

The Star System

-

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 relationship 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 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.

Working, having no time to socialise, having children or other commitments, other friends makes it harder to fit in the elite group that makes decisions and this creates a class related exclusivity. If somebody could pay for care for kins, they have time to socialise or make time for other types of kinship. This strips them off of the opportunity to be involved in decision making when it comes to bigger groups.

These elite formations are inevitable and it doesn't make them inherently bad but they do need recognition and we need to deal with them in the group. The groups faith in making decision is left up to the elites who are not actually given the responsibility so that also creates pressure for them.