larlet-fr-david-cache/cache/2020/542585b2d85213911f91b498a643e010/index.md

title: The Tyranny of Stuctureless
url: https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm
hash_url: 542585b2d85213911f91b498a643e010

<p><em>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 <u>Notes from the Third Year</u> (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 <u>The Second Wave</u> (1972). This early version
in movement publications was authored by Joreen. Different versions
were published in the <u>Berkeley Journal of Sociology</u>, Vol. 17,
1972-73, pp. 151-165, and <u>Ms.</u> 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. 
</em></p>

<hr>

<p>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.
</p>
<p>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.
</p>
<p>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.
</p>
<p>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.</p>

<h2>FORMAL AND INFORMAL STRUCTURES</h2>

<p>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.
</p>
<p>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.
</p>

<p>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.</p>

<h2>THE NATURE OF ELITISM</h2>

<p>“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.
</p>
<p>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.
</p>
<p>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.
</p>
<p>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.
</p>
<p>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.
</p>
<p>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.
</p>
<p>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.
</p>
<p>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).
</p>
<p>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.
</p>
<p>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.
</p>

<p>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.
</p>
<p>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.
</p>
<p>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.</p>

<h2>THE “STAR” SYSTEM</h2>

<p>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.
</p>
<p>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.
</p>
<p>This 
  is one main source of the ire that is often felt toward 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 own desires.
</p>
<p>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.</p>

<h2>POLITICAL IMPOTENCE</h2>

<p>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. 
</p>
<p>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:
</p>
<ol>
<li><em> It is task oriented</em>. 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.
</li>
<li><em>It is relatively small and homogeneous</em>. Homogeneity is necessary 
  to insure that participants have a “common language” for 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.
</li>
<li><em>There is a high degree of communication</em>. 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.
</li>
<li><em>There is a low degree of skill specialization</em>. 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.
</li>
</ol>
<p>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.
</p>
<p>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.
</p>
<p>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.
</p>

<p>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.
</p>
<p>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.
</p>
<p>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.
</p>
<p>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.
</p>
<p>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
    groups have no way of drawing upon the movement’s vast resources to
    support its priorities. It doesn’t even have a way of deciding what
    they are.
</p>
<p>The
    more unstructured a movement it, 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.
</p>
<p>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.
</p>
<p>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
    insures that the movement is as ineffective as possible. Some middle
    ground between domination and ineffectiveness can and must be found.
</p>
<p>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.</p>

<h2>PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRATIC STRUCTURING</h2>

<p>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.
</p>