💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › cathy-levine-the-tyranny-of-tyranny.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 23:15:30. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: The Tyranny of Tyranny
Author: Cathy Levine
Date: 1979
Language: en
Topics: feminist, Jo Freeman, organization
Source: Retrieved on May 5th, 2009 from http://www.angelfire.com/id/ASP/UNTYINGTHEKNOT.html
Notes: Originally published in “Black Rose”, number 1, Spring/1974 (Rising Free Collective). Article by Jo Freeman originally published in the “Berkeley Journal of Sociology”, 1970, reprinted by ORA and the Anarchist Workers Association in 1972.

Cathy Levine

The Tyranny of Tyranny

Part I. The Tyranny of Tyranny

An article entitled ‘The Tyranny of Structurelessness’ which has

received wide attention around the women’s movement, (in MS, Second Wave

etc) assails the trend towards ‘leaderless’, ‘structureless’ groups, as

the main — if not sole — organisational form of the movement, as a

dead-end. While written and received in good faith, as an aid to the

movement, the article is destructive in its distortion and maligning of

a valid, conscious strategy for building a revolutionary movement. It is

high time that we recognise the direction these tendencies are pointing

in, as a real political alternative to hierarchical organisation, rather

than trying to nip it in the bud.

There are (at least) two different models for building a movement, only

one of which does Joreen acknowledge: a mass organisation with strong,

centralised control, such as a Party. The other model, which

consolidates mass support only as a coup de grace necessity, is based on

small groups in voluntary association.

A large group functions as an aggregate of its parts — each member

functions as a unit, a cog in the wheel of the large organisation. The

individual is alienated by the size, and relegated, to struggling

against the obstacle created by the size of the group — as example,

expending energy to get a point of view recognised.

Small groups, on the other hand, multiply the strength of each member.

By working collectively in small numbers, the small group utilises the

various contributions of each person to their fullest, nurturing and

developing individual input, instead of dissipating it in the

competitive survival-of-the-fittest/smartest/wittiest spirit of the

large organisation.

Joreen associates the ascendency of the small groups with the

consciousness-raising phase of the women’s movement, but concludes that,

with the focus shifting beyond the changing of individual consciousness

towards building a mass revolutionary movement, women should begin

working towards building a large organisation. It is certainly true and

has been for some time that many women who have been in

consciousness-raising groups for a while feel the need to expand their

political activities beyond the scope of the group and are at a loss as

to how to proceed. But it is equally true that other branches of the

Left are at a similar loss, as to how to defeat capitalist, imperialist,

quasi-fascist Amerika.

But Joreen fails to define what she means by the women’s movement, which

is an essential prerequisite to a discussion of strategy or direction.

The feminist movement in its fullest sense, that is, as a movement to

defeat Patriarchy, is a revolutionary movement and a socialist movement,

Placing it under the umbrella of the Left. A central problem Of women

determining strategy for the women’s movement is how to relate to the

male Left; we do not want to take their, Modus Operandi as ours, because

we have seen them as a perpetuation of patriarchal, and latterly,

capitalist values.

Despite our best efforts to disavow and dissassociate ourselves from the

male Left, we have, nonetheless, had our energy. Men tend to organise

the way they fuck — one big rush and then that “wham, slam, thank you

maam”, as it were. Women should be building our movement the way we make

love — gradually, with sustained involvement, limitless endurance — and

of course, multiple orgasms. Instead of getting discouraged and isolated

now, we should be in our small groups — discussing, Planning, creating

and making trouble. We should always be making trouble for patriarchy

and always supporting women — we should always be actively engaging in

and creating feminist activity, because we ail thrive on it; in the

absence of feminist activity, women take to tranquillizers, go insane

and commit suicide.

The other extreme from inactivity, which seems to plague Politically

active people, is over-involvement, which led, in the late ’60s, to a

generation of burnt-out radicals. A feminist friend once commented that,

to her, “being in the women’s movement” meant spending approximately 25%

of her time engaging in group activities and 75% of her time developing

herself. This is a real, important time allocation for ‘movement’ women

to think about. The male movement taught us that ‘movement’ People are

supposed to devote 24 hours a day to the Cause, which is consistent with

female socialisation towards self-sacrifice. Whatever the source of our

selflessness, however, we tend to plunge ourselves head-first into

organisational activities, neglecting personal development, until one

day we find we do not know what we are doing and for whose benefit, and

we hate ourselves as much as before the movement. (Male

over-involvement, on the other hand, obviously unrelated to any

sex-linked trait of self-sacrifice, does however smell strongly of the

Protestant/Jewish, work/ achievement ethic, and even more flagrantly, of

the rational, cool, unemotional facade with which Machismo suppresses

male feelings.)

These perennial Pitfalls of movement people, which amount to a

bottomless Pit for the movement, are explained by Joreen as part of the

‘Tyranny of Structurelessness’, which is a joke from the standpoint that

sees a nation of quasi-automatons, struggling to maintain a semblanceof

individuality against a post-technological, military/industrial

bulldozer.

What we definitely don’t need is more structures and rules, providing us

with easy answers, pre-fab alternatives and no room in which to create

our own way of life. What is threatening the female Left and the other

branches even more, is the ‘tyranny of tyranny’, which has prevented us

from relating to individuals, or from creating organisations in ways

that do not obliterate individuality with prescribed roles, or from

liberating us from capitalist structure.

Contrary to Joreen’s assumption, then, the consciousness-raising phase

of the movement is not over. Consciousness-raising is a vital process

which must go on, among those engaged in social change, to and through

the revolutionary liberation. Raising our consciousness — meaning,

helping each other extricate ourselves from ancient shackles — is the

main way in which women are going to turn their personal anger into

constructive energy, and join the struggle. Consciousness-raising,

however, is a loose term — a vacuous nothingism, at this point — and

needs to be qualified. An offensive television commercial can raise a

women’s consciousness as she irons her husbands shirts alone in her

house; it can remind her of what she already knows, ie that she is

trapped, her life is meaningless, boring, etc — but it will probably not

encourage her to leave the laundry and organise a houseworkers’ strike.

Consciousness-raising, as a strategy for revolution, just involve

helping women translate their personal dissatisfaction into

class-consciousness and making organised women accessible to all women.

In suggesting that the next step after consciousness-raising groups is

building a movement, Joreen not only implies a false dichotomy between

one and the other, but also overlooks an important process of the

feminist movement, that of building a women’s culture. While,

ultimately, a massive force of women (and some men) will be necessary to

smash the power of the state, a mass movement itself does not a

revolution make. If we hope to create a society free of mate supremacy,

when we overthrow capitalism and build international socialism, we had

better start working on it right away, because some of our very best

anti-capitalist friends are going to give us the hardest time. We must

be developing a visible women’s culture, within which women can define

and express themselves apart from patriarchal standards, and which will

meet the needs of women where patriarchy has failed.

Culture is an essential part of a revolutionary movement — and it is

also one of the greatest tools of counter-revolution. We must be very

careful to specify that the culture we are discussing is revolutionary,

and struggle constantly to make sure it remains inveterately opposed to

the father culture.

The culture of an oppressed or colonised class or caste is not

necessarily revolutionary. America contains — both in the sense of

‘having’ and in preventing the spread of — many ‘sub-cultures’ which,

though defining themselves as different from the father culture, do not

threaten the status quo. In fact, they are part of the ‘pluralistic’

American one-big-happy-family society/ethnic cultures, the

‘counter-culture’. They are acknowledged, validated, adopted and ripped

off by the big culture. Co-opation.

The women’s culture faces that very danger right now, from a

revolutionary new liberating girdle to MS magazine, to The Diary of a

Mad Housewife. The New Woman, ie middle-class,

college-educated,mate-associated can have her share of the American Pie.

Sounds scrumptious — but what about revolution? We must constantly

re-evaluate our position to make sure we are not being absorbed into

Uncle Sam’s ever-open arms.

The question of women’s culture, while denigrated by the arrogant and

blind male Left, is not necessarily a revisionist issue. The

polarisation between masculine and feminine roles as defined and

controlled by male society, has not only subjugated women, but has made

all men, regardless of class or race, feel superior to women — this

feeling of superiority, countering anti-capitalist sentiment, is the

lifeblood of the system. The aim of feminist revolution is for women to

achieve our total humanity, which means destroying the masculine and

feminine roles which make both men and women only half human. Creating a

woman’s culture is the means through which we shall restore our lost

humanity.

The question of our lost humanity brings up the subject that vulgar

Marxists of every predilection have neglected in their analysis for over

half century — the psycho-sexual elements in the character structure of

each individual, which acts as a personal policeman within every member

of society. Wilhelm Reich began to describe, in narrow, heterosexual,

male-biased form, the character armour in each person, which makes

people good fascists or, in our society, just good citizens. Women

experience this phenomenon every day, as the repressed feelings,

especially obvious among our male friends, who find it so difficult to

express or even ‘expose’ their feelings honestly. The psychic crippling

which capitalist psychology coerces us into believing is the problems of

the individuals, is a massive social condition which helps advanced

capitalist society to hold together.

Psychic crippling of its citizens makes its citizens report to work,

fight in wars, suppress its women, non-whites, and all non-conformists

vulnerable to suppression. In our post-technological society, every

member of which recognises this as being the most advanced culture, the

psychic crippling is also the most advanced — there is more shit for the

psyche to cut through, what with Jonathan Livingston Seaquil and the

politics of ‘You’re okay, I’m okay’, not to mention post-neo-Freudians

and the psycho-surgeons. For the umpteenth time, let it be said that,

unless we examine inner psychic shackles, at the time we study outer,

political structures and the relationship between the two, we will not

succeed in creating a force to challenge our enemy; in fact, we will not

even know the enemy. The Left has spent hours and tomes trying to define

the ruling class; tee ruling class has representative pigs inside the

head of every member of society -thus, the logic behind so-called

paranoia. The tyranny of tyranny is a deeply-entrenched foe.

Where psychological struggle intersects political involvement is the

small group. This is why the question of strategy and tactics and

methods of organisation are so crucial at this moment. The Left has been

trying for decades to rally people into the streets, always before a

number sufficient to make a dent exist. As I.F. Stone pointed out, you

can’t make a revolution when four-fifths of the people are happy. Nor

should we wait until everyone is ready to become radical. While on the

one hand, we should constantly suggest alternatives to capitalism,

through food co-ops, anti-corporate actions and acts of personal

rebellion, we should also be fighting against capitalist psychic

structures and the values and living patterns which derive from them.

Structures, chairmen, leaders, rhetoric — when a meeting of a Leftist

group becomes indistinguishable in style from a session of a US Senate,

we should not laugh about it, but re-evaluate the structure behind the

style, and recognise a representative of the enemy.

The origin of the small group preference in the women’s movement -and by

small group I refer to political collectives — was, as Joreen explains,

a reaction against the over-structured, hierachical organisation of

society in general, and male Left groups in particular. But what people

fail to realise is that we are reacting against bureaucracy because it

deprives us of control, like the rest of this society; and instead of

recognising the folly of our ways by returning to the structured fold,

we who are rebelling against bureaucracy should be creating an

alternative to bureaucratic organisation. The reason for building a

movement on a foundation of collectives is that we want to create a

revolutionary culture consistent with our view of the new society; it is

more than a reaction; the small group is a solution.

Because the women’s movement is tending towards small groups and because

the women’s movement lacks direction at this time, some people conclude

that small groups are to blame for the lack of direction. They wave the

shibboleth of ‘structure’ as a solution to the strategic stalemate, as

if structure would give us theoretical insight or relief from personal

anxieties. it might give us a structure into which to ‘organise’, or fit

more women, but in the absence of political strategy we may create a

Kafkaesque irony, where the trial is replaced by a meeting.

The lack of political energy that has been stalking us for the last few

years, less in the women’s movement than in the male Left, probably

relates directly to feelings of personal shittiness that tyrannize each

and every one of us. Unless we confront those feelings directly and

treat them with the same seriousness as we treat the bombing of Hanoi,

paralysis by the former will prevent us from retaliating effectively

against the latter.

Rather than calling for the replacement of small groups with structured,

larger groups, we need to encourage each other to get settled into

small, unstructured groups which recognise and extol the value of the

individual. Friendships, more than therapy of any kind, instantly

relieve the feelings of personal shittiness — the revolution should be

built on the model of friendships.

The omnipresent problem which Joreen confronts, that of elites, does not

find solution in the formation of structures. Contrary to the belief

that lack of up-front structures lead to insidious, invisible structures

based on elites, the absence of structures in small, mutual trust groups

fights elitism on the basic level — the level of personal dynamics, at

which the individual who counters insecurity with aggressive behaviour

rules over the person whose insecurity maintains silence. The small

personally involved group learns, first to recognise those stylistic

differences, and then to appreciate and work with them; rather than

trying to either ignore or annihilate differences in personal style, the

small group learns to appreciate and utilise them, thus strengthening

the personal power of each individual. Given that each of us has been

socialised in a society in Which individual competition with every other

individual is the way of existence, we are not going to obliterate

personal-styles-as-power, except by constant recognition of these

differences, and by learning to let differences of personal style exist

together. Insofar as we are not the enemy, but the victims, we need to

nurture and not destroy each other. The destructive elements will recede

gradually as we grow stronger. But in the meantime we should guard

against situations which reward personal style with power.

Meetings award prizes to the more aggressive, rhetorical, charismatic,

articulate (almost always male). Considering how much the various

derivatives of the term ‘anarchism’ are bandied about, very few people

in the Left have studied anarchism with any seriousness. For people

priding themselves on cynicism about social taboos, we sure are sucked

in by this taboo against anarchism.

Like masturbation, anarchism is something we have been brought up to

fear, irrationally and unquestioningly, because not to fear it might

lead us to probe it, learn it and like it. For anyone who has ever

considered the possibility that masturbation might provide more benefits

than madness, a study of anarchism is highly recommended — all the way

back to the time of Marx, when Bakunin was his most radical socialist

adversary... most radical, because he was a dialectical giant step

beyond Marx, trusting the qualities of individuals to save humanity.

Why has the Left all but ignored anarchism? It might be because the

anarchists have never sustained a revolutionary victory. Marxism has

triumphed, but so has capitalism. What does that prove, or what does it

suggest but that maybe the loser, up to this point is on our side? The

Russian anarchists fiercely opposed the very revisionist tyranny among

the Bolsheviks that the new Left would come to deride with sophomoric

callousness, before their old Left parents in the ’60s. Sure, the old

generation of American Leftists were narrow-minded not to see capitalism

regenerating in Russia; but the tunnel vision with which we have charted

a path of Marxist-Leninist dogma is not something to be proud of either.

Women, of course, have made it out of the tunnel way before most men,

because we found ourselves in the dark, being led by the blind men of

the new Left, and split. Housewife for the revolution or prostitute for

the proletariats; amazing how quickly our revision restored itself. All

across the country independent groups of women began functioning without

the structure, leaders and other factotems of the male Left, creating

independently and simultaneously, organisations similar to those of

anarchists of many decades and locales. No accident either.

The style, the audacity of Emma Goldman, has been touted by women who do

not regard themselves as anarchists... because Emma was so right-on. Few

women have gotten so many men scared for so long as Emma Goldman. It

seems logical that we should study Emma, not to embrace her every

thought, but to find the source of her strength and love of life. It is

no accident, either, that the anarchist Red Terror named Emma was also

an advocate and practitioner of free-love; she was an affront to more

capitalist shackles than any of her Marxist contemporaries.

Part II. Addendum: The Tyranny of Structurelessness by Jo Freeman

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 form of the movement. The

source of this idea was a natural reaction against the overstructured

society in which most of us found ourselves, 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

over-structuredness.

The idea of ‘Structurelessness’, however, has moved from a healthy

counter to these 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 method as consciousness-raising, and the ‘structureless

rap group’ was an excellent means to this end. Its looseness and

informality encouraged participation in discussion and the 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.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 floundered

because most groups were unwilling to change their structure when they

changed their task. Women had thoroughly accepted the idea of

‘Structurelessness’ without realising the limitations of its uses.

People would try to use the structureless’ group and the informal

conference for purposes for which they were unsuitable out of a blind

belief that no other means could possibly be anything but oppressive.

If the movement is to move beyond these elementary stages of

development, it will have to disabuse itself of some of its prejudices

about organisation and structure. There is nothing inherently bad about

either of these. They can 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.

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 coming

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 and 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.

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 easily be established because the idea of

‘structurelessness’ does not prevent the formation of informal

structures, but 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 it is usually most

strongly advocated by those who are the most powerful (whether they are

conscious of their power or not). The rules of how decisions are made

are known only to a few and awareness of power is curtailed by those who

know the rules, as long as the structure of the group is informal. Those

who do not know the rules and are not chosen for initiation must remain

in confusion, or suffer from paranoid delusions that something is

happening of which they are not quite aware.

For everyone to have the opportunity to be involved in a given group and

to participate in its activities the structure must be explicit, not

implicit. The rules of decision-making must be open and available to

everyone, and this can only happen if they are formalised. This is not

to say that formalisation of a group structure will destroy the informal

structure. It usually doesn’t. But it does hinder the informal structure

from having predominant control and makes available some means of

attacking it.

‘Structurelessness’ is organisationally impossible. We cannot decide

whether to have a structured or structureless group; only whether or not

to have a formally structured one. Therefore, the word will not be used

any longer except to refer to the idea which 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 a formal structure, and may also have an

informal one. An unstructured group always has an informal, or covert,

structure. It is this informal structure, particularly in unstructured

groups, which forms the basis for elites.

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 in the ’50s. It is never 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 ‘elite’ because the only

proper application of the term ‘elite’ is to groups. Any individual,

regardless of how well-known that person is, can never be an elite.

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.

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.

The ‘outs’ they tend to ignore or grapple with. The ‘outs’ approval is

not necessary for making a decision; however 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

pre-written 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.

Elites are not conspiracies. Seldom does a small group of people get

together and try to take over a larger group for its own ends. Elites

are nothing more and nothing less than a group 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 groups

and makes them so difficult to break.

These friendship groups function as networks of communication outside

any regular channels for such communication that may have been set up by

a group. If no channels are set up, they function as the only networks

of communication. Because people are friends, usually sharing 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.

Some groups, depending on their size, may have more than one such

informal communication 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. The other members are in a position to arbitrate between the

two competitors for power and thus are able to make demands of the group

to whom they give their temporary allegiance.

Since movement groups have made no concrete decisions about who shall

exercise power within them, many different criteria are used around the

country. As the movement has changed through time, marriage has become a

less universal criterion for effective participation, although all

informal elites still establish standards by which only women who

possess certain material or personal characteristics may join. The

standards 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 age of 20 and 30, 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 certain ‘feminine’ personality characteristics such as being

‘nice’, dressing right (whether in the traditional style or the

anti-traditional 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 (ie neither heterosexual nor homosexual). Other criteria could be

included, but they all have common themes. The characteristic

prerequisite for participating in all 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 organisation has to

use if it is going to be politically effective.

Although this dissection of the process of elite formation within small

groups has been critical in its perspectives, it is not made in the

belief that these informal structures are inevitably bad — merely that

they are inevitable. All groups create informal structures as a result

of the interaction patterns among the members. 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 like a sorority: one in which people listen to others because they

like them, 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.

The ‘star’ system

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.

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 the press can interview when

it wants to know the movement’s position on a subject, these women are

perceived as the spokespeopie. 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.

This is one source of the tie that is often felt towards the women who

are labelled ‘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 they speak for the movement ... Thus the backlash of the

‘star’ system, in effect, encourages the very kind of individual

non-responsibility that the movement condemns. By purging a sister as a

‘star’ the movement loses whatever control it may have had over the

person, who becomes free to commit ail of the individualistic sins of

which she had been accused.

Political impotence

Unstructured groups may be very effective in getting women to talk about

their lives; they aren’t very good for getting things done. Unless their

mode of operation changes, groups flounder at the point where people

tire of ‘just-talking’ and want to do something more. Because the larger

movement in most cities is as unstructured as individual rap groups, it

is not 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 emotion and few results. Unfortunately, the consequences of all

this motion are not as innocuous as the results, and their victim is the

movement itself.

Some groups have turned themselves into local action projects, if they

do not involve too many people, and work on a small scale. But this form

restricts movement activity to the local level. 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 of a small group, the

non-gregarious are at a distinct disadvantage. As long as friendship

groups are the main means of organisational activity, elitism becomes

institutionalised.

For those groups which cannot find a local project to devote themselves

to, 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

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 criticising 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 dislikes for

the sake of the larger goals. There are limits placed on the compulsion

to remould every person into our image of what they should be.

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 in the movement either turn in on themselves and their sisters or

seek other alternatives of action. There are few alternatives 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 co-operative group effort. Other women drift out of the

movement entirely because they don’t want to develop an individual

project and have found no way of discovering, joining or starting group

projects that interest them. Many turn to other political organisations

to give them the kind of structured, effective activity that they have

not been able to find in the women’s movement. Thus, those political

organisations which view women’s liberation as only one issue among many

find the women’s liberation movement a vast recruiting ground for new

members. There is no need for such organisations to ‘infiltrate’ (though

this is not precluded). The desire for meaningful political activity

generated by women by becoming part of the women’s liberation movement

is sufficient to make them eager to join other organisations. The

movement itself provides no outlets for their new ideas and energies.

Those women who join other political organisations while remaining

within the women’s liberation movement, or who join women’s liberation

while remaining in other political organisations, in turn become the

framework for new informal structures. These friendship networks are

based upon their common non-feminist politics rather than the

characteristics discussed earlier; however, the network operates 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. 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 orientated networks are

rarely willing to be merely ‘sororities’ as many of the old ones were,

and want to proselytise 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. Many

of these informal elites have been hiding under the banner of

‘anti-elitism’ and ‘structureless-ness’. To counter effectively 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

rationalise the exclusion of the members of the other informal structure

by such means as ‘red-baiting’, ‘lesbian-baiting’ or ‘straight-baiting’.

The only other alternative is formally to structure the group in such a

way that the original power is institutionalised. 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 strutured does not

alter their operation much, though the institutionalisation of the power

structure does not 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 ‘structureless-ness’ makes them reluctant

to change tactics. The more unstructured a group it is, the more lacking

it is in informal structures; the more it adheres to an ideology of

‘structurelessness’, the more vulnerable it is to being taken over by a

group of political comrades.

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 only the groups that can organise a

national activity are nationally organised groups. Thus, it is often the

structured feminist organisations that provide national directions for

feminist activities, and this direction is determined by the priorities

of these organisations. Such groups as National Organisation of Women

and Womens Equality Action League and some Left women’s caucuses are

simply the only organisations 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 organisations. They don’t even have a way

of deciding what the priorities are.

The more unstructured a movement is, the less control it has over the

directions in which it develops and the political actions in which it

engages.

This does not mean that its ideas do not spread. Given a certain amount

of interest by the media and the appropriateness of social conditions,

the ideas will still be diffused widely. But diffusion of ideas does not

mean they are implemented; it only means they are talked about. Insofar

as they can be applied individually they may be acted upon; insofar as

they require co-ordinated political power to be implemented, they will

not be.

As long as the women’s liberation movement stays dedicated to a form of

organisation which stresses small, inactive discussion groups among

friends, the worst problems of unstructuredness will not be felt. But

this style of organisation has its limits; it is politically

inefficacious, exclusive and discriminatory against those women who are

not or cannot be tied into the friendship networks. Those who do not fit

into what already exists because of class, race, occupation, parental or

marital status, or personality will inevitably be discouraged from

trying to participate. Those who do not fit in will develop vested

interests in maintaining things as they are.

The informal groups’ vested interests will be sustained by the informal

structures that exist, and the movement will have no way of determining

who shall exercise power within it. If the movement continues

deliberately not to select who shall exercise power, it does not thereby

abolish power.

All it does is abdicate the right to demand that those who do exercise

power and influence be responsible for it. If the movement continues to

keep power as diffuse as possible because it knows it cannot demand

responsibility from those who have it, it does prevent any group or

person from totally dominating. But it simultaneously ensures that the

movement is as ineffective as possible. Some middle ground between

domination and ineffectiveness can and must be found.

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. Purely educational work is no longer such an

overwhelming need. The movement must go on to other tasks. It now needs

to establish its priorities, articulate its goals and pursue its

objectives in a co-ordinated way. To do this it must be organised

locally, regionally and nationally.

Principles of democratic structuring

Once the movement no longer clings tenaciously to the ideology of

structurelessness’, it will be free to develop those forms of

organisation best suited to its healthy functioning. This does not mean

that we should go to the other extreme and blindly imitate the

traditional forms of organisation. But neither should we blindly reject

them all, Some traditional techniques will prove useful, albeit not

perfect; some will give us insights into what we 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 emerged from the movement. It is not

applicable to all situations, but it 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 excessive use.

While engaging in this trial-and-error process, there are some

principles we can keep in mind that are essential to democratic

structuring and are politically effective also:

Delegation of specific authority to specific individuals for specific

tasks by democratic procedures. Letting people assume jobs or tasks by

default only means they are not dependably done. If people are selected

for a task, preferably after expressing an interest or willingness to do

it, they have made a commitment which cannot easily be ignored.

Requiring all those to whom authority has been delegated to be

responsible to all those who selected them. This is how the group has

control over people in positions of authority. Individuals may exercise

power, but it is the group that has the ultimate say over how the power

is exercised.

Distribution of authority among as many people as is reasonably

possible. This prevents monopoly of power and requires those in

positions of authority to consult with many others in the process of

exercising it. It also gives many people an opportunity to have

responsibility for specific tasks and thereby to learn specific skills.

Rotation of tasks among individuals. Responsibilities which are held

too long by one person, formally or informally, come to be seen as that

person’s ‘property’ and are not easily relinquished or controlled by the

group. Conversely, if tasks are rotated too frequently the individual

does not have time to learn her job well and acquire a sense of

satisfaction of doing a good job.

Allocation of tasks along rational criteria. Selecting someone for a

position because they are liked by the group, or giving them hard work

because they are disliked, serves neither the group nor the person in

the long run. Ability, interest and responsibility have got to be-the

major concerns in such selection. People should be given an opportunity

to learn skills they do not have, but this is best done through some

sort of ‘apprenticeship’ programme rather than the ‘sink or swim’

method. Having a responsibility one can’t handle well is demoralising.

Conversely, being blackballed from what one can do well does not

encourage one to develop one’s skills. Women have been punished for

being competent throughout most of human history — the movement does not

need to repeat this process.

Diffusion of information to everyone as frequently as possible.

Information is power. Access to information enhances one’s power. When

an informal network spreads new ideas and information among themselves

outside the group, they are already engaged in the process of forming an

opinion — without the group participating. The more one knows about how

things work, the more politically effective one can be.

Equal access to resources needed by the group’ This is not always

perfectly possible, but should be striven for. A member who maintains a

monopoly over a needed resource (like a printing press or a darkroom

owned by a husband) can unduly influence the use of that resource.

Skills and information are also resources. Members’ skills and

information can be equally available only when members are willing to

teach what they know to others.

When these principles are applied, they ensure that whatever structures

are developed by different movement groups will be controlled by and be

responsible to the group. The group of people in Positions of authority

will be diffuse, flexible, open and temporary. They will not be in such

an easy Position to institutionalise their Power because ultimate

decisions will be made by the group at large. The group will have the

Power to determine who shall exercise authority within it.