123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355356357358359360361362363364365366367368369370371372373374375376377378379380381382383384385386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400401402403404405406407408409410411412413414415416417418419420421422423424425426427428429430431432433434435436437438439440441442443444445446447448449450451452453454455456457458459460461462463464465466467468469470471472473474475476477478479480481482483484485486487488489490491492493494495496497498499500501502503504505506507508509510511512513514515516517518519520521522523524525526527528529530531532533534535536537538539540541542543544545546547548549550551552553554555556557558559560561562563564565566567568569570571572573574575576577578579580581582583584585586587588589590591592593594595596597598599600601602603604605606607608609610611612613614615616617618619620621622623624625626627628629630631632633634635636637638639640641642643644645646647648649650651652653654655656657658659660661662663664665666667668669670671672673674675676677678679680681682683684685686687688689690691692693694695696697698699700701702703704705706 |
- <!doctype html><!-- This is a valid HTML5 document. -->
- <!-- Screen readers, SEO, extensions and so on. -->
- <html lang="fr">
- <!-- Has to be within the first 1024 bytes, hence before the <title>
- See: https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-html5-20121217/document-metadata.html#charset -->
- <meta charset="utf-8">
- <!-- Why no `X-UA-Compatible` meta: https://stackoverflow.com/a/6771584 -->
- <!-- The viewport meta is quite crowded and we are responsible for that.
- See: https://codepen.io/tigt/post/meta-viewport-for-2015 -->
- <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width,initial-scale=1">
- <!-- Required to make a valid HTML5 document. -->
- <title>The Tyranny of Stuctureless (archive) — David Larlet</title>
- <!-- Generated from https://realfavicongenerator.net/ such a mess. -->
- <link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="/static/david/icons2/apple-touch-icon.png">
- <link rel="icon" type="image/png" sizes="32x32" href="/static/david/icons2/favicon-32x32.png">
- <link rel="icon" type="image/png" sizes="16x16" href="/static/david/icons2/favicon-16x16.png">
- <link rel="manifest" href="/static/david/icons2/site.webmanifest">
- <link rel="mask-icon" href="/static/david/icons2/safari-pinned-tab.svg" color="#07486c">
- <link rel="shortcut icon" href="/static/david/icons2/favicon.ico">
- <meta name="msapplication-TileColor" content="#f0f0ea">
- <meta name="msapplication-config" content="/static/david/icons2/browserconfig.xml">
- <meta name="theme-color" content="#f0f0ea">
- <!-- Thank you Florens! -->
- <link rel="stylesheet" href="/static/david/css/style_2020-01-24.css">
- <!-- See https://www.zachleat.com/web/comprehensive-webfonts/ for the trade-off. -->
- <link rel="preload" href="/static/david/css/fonts/triplicate_t4_poly_regular.woff2" as="font" type="font/woff2" crossorigin>
- <link rel="preload" href="/static/david/css/fonts/triplicate_t4_poly_bold.woff2" as="font" type="font/woff2" crossorigin>
- <link rel="preload" href="/static/david/css/fonts/triplicate_t4_poly_italic.woff2" as="font" type="font/woff2" crossorigin>
-
- <meta name="robots" content="noindex, nofollow">
- <meta content="origin-when-cross-origin" name="referrer">
- <!-- Canonical URL for SEO purposes -->
- <link rel="canonical" href="https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm">
-
- <body class="remarkdown h1-underline h2-underline hr-center ul-star pre-tick">
-
- <article>
- <h1>The Tyranny of Stuctureless</h1>
- <h2><a href="https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm">Source originale du contenu</a></h2>
- <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>
- </article>
-
-
- <hr>
-
- <footer>
- <p>
- <a href="/david/" title="Aller à l’accueil">🏠</a> •
- <a href="/david/log/" title="Accès au flux RSS">🤖</a> •
- <a href="http://larlet.com" title="Go to my English profile" data-instant>🇨🇦</a> •
- <a href="mailto:david%40larlet.fr" title="Envoyer un courriel">📮</a> •
- <abbr title="Hébergeur : Alwaysdata, 62 rue Tiquetonne 75002 Paris, +33184162340">🧚</abbr>
- </p>
- </footer>
- <script src="/static/david/js/instantpage-3.0.0.min.js" type="module" defer></script>
- </body>
- </html>
|