In this essay, Jo Freeman critiques the idea of “structureless” organization in the context of the Women’s Liberation movement of the 1970s. It argues that structurelessness is a myth, that informal structures emerge in the form of a group of elites that exercise power over non-elites, and that the myth of structurelessness prevents non-elites from limiting the power of the elites. Freeman argues that the elites have no direct responsibility to non-elites, leading to decisions that are made for the wrong reason and that the “unstructuctured” organization leads to a politically ineffective group.
Freeman continues by offering some principles to keep in mind when developing a responsibly structured organization. In particular, she advocates experimenting intelligently to find a politically effective organization that is not overstructured.
This is a widely applicable and highly quotable essay. It gives me the “now that you mention it…” kind of effect. It’s not just about the Women’s Liberation movement. It’s not just about political movements. It’s about informal power in any social group. It’s a nice unifying theory. It has me scrutinizing the world around me along with my current and past experiences.
[organization and structure] 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.
Unstructured groups give room for elite-controled organizations.
We cannot decide whether to have a structured or structureless group, only whether or not to have a formally structured one.
the idea [of a structureless group] 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.
Those who do not know the [informal] 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.
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.
An elite refers to a small group of people who have power over a larger group of which they are a a 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
These friendship groups function as networks of communication outside any regular channels for such communication that may have been set up by a group.
Selection criteria for members of the elite are arbitrary:
Other criteria could be included, but they all have common themes… 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.
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.
In-group recruitment is usually socially driven:
Why Structurelessness is harmful:
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.
TBD.
TBD.
TBD.
Q: In Tyranny of Structurelessness, why does Jo Freeman claim that the structureless organization was okay for the initial phase of the Women’s Liberation movement? A: The initial goal was “consciousness raising,” in which personal insight was enough. Later phases demanded more.
Q: In Tyranny of Structurelessness, why does Jo Freeman claim that strucuturelessness (as an idea) is deceptive? A: We cannot decide whether to have a structured or structureless group, only whether or not to have a formally structured one.
Q: In Tyranny of Structurelessness, why does Jo Freeman claim that structurelessness enable elites to maintain control? A: Structurelessness does not prevent the formation of informal structures, only formal ones (that could be put in place to limit the control of the elites).
Q: In Tyranny of Structurelessness, what are the two essential and two typical components of Jo Freeman’s definition of elites? A:
Q: In Tyranny of Structurelessness, why does Freeman claim that communication among elites present a challenge for non-elite participants? A: Communication happens outside of the formal channels of group communication.
Q: In Tyranny of Structurelessness, what is it about elite networks that make them so difficult to break? A: Elite networks are comprised of friends who would likely maintain friendship with or without political activity. They would likely be politically active with or without the friendship.
Q: In Tyranny of Structurelessness, why does Freeman claim that the criteria for membership in the elite group hinder the group’s political effectiveness? A: Selection is normally based on arbitrary social criteria, not suitability.
Q: In Tyranny of Structurelessness, why does Freeman argue that “formal structures of decision making are a boon to the overworked person”? A: Informal procedures demand time that an overworked person can’t afford. (e.g. like how business decisions often get made on the golf course)
Q: In Tyranny of Structurelessness, what does Freeman claim are two harmful consequences of decision making being done by elites? A: 1. Decision making is done by popularity of speaker rather than merit of idea. 2. The elites have no direct responsibility to the larger group.