The Tyranny of Stuctureless
The
basic problems didn't appear until individual rap groups exhausted
the virtues of consciousness-raising and decided they wanted to do
something more specific. At this point they usually foundered because
most groups were unwilling to change their structure when they changed
their tasks. Women had thoroughly accepted the idea of "structurelessness" without
realizing the limitations of its uses. People would try to use the "structureless" group
and the informal conference for purposes for which they were unsuitable
out of a blind belief that no other means could possibly be anything
but oppressive.
If
the movement is to grow beyond these elementary stages of development,
it will have to disabuse itself of some of its prejudices about organization
and structure. There is nothing inherently bad about either of these.
They can be and often are misused, but to reject them out of hand because
they are misused is to deny ourselves the necessary tools to further
development. We need to understand why "structurelessness" does
not work.
FORMAL AND INFORMAL STRUCTURES
Contrary
to what we would like to believe, there is no such thing as a structureless
group. Any group of people of whatever nature that comes together for
any length of time for any purpose will inevitably structure itself in
some fashion. The structure may be flexible; it may vary over time; it
may evenly or unevenly distribute tasks, power and resources over the
members of the group. But it will be formed regardless of the abilities,
personalities, or intentions of the people involved. The very fact that
we are individuals, with different talents, predispositions, and backgrounds
makes this inevitable. Only if we refused to relate or interact on any
basis whatsoever could we approximate structurelessness -- and that is
not the nature of a human group.
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.
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.
THE NATURE OF ELITISM
"Elitist"
is probably the most abused word in the women's liberation movement. It
is used as frequently, and for the same reasons, as "pinko"
was used in the fifties. It is rarely used correctly. Within the movement
it commonly refers to individuals, though the personal characteristics
and activities of those to whom it is directed may differ widely: An individual,
as an individual can never be an elitist, because the only proper application
of the term "elite" is to groups. Any individual, regardless
of how well-known that person may be, can never be an elite.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
The
criteria of participation may differ from group to group, but the means
of becoming a member of the informal elite if one meets those criteria
art pretty much the same. The only main difference depends on whether
one is in a group from the beginning, or joins it after it has begun.
If involved from the beginning it is important to have as many of one's
personal friends as possible also join. If no one knows anyone else very
well, then one must deliberately form friendships with a select number
and establish the informal interaction patterns crucial to the creation
of an informal structure. Once the informal patterns are formed they act
to maintain themselves, and one of the most successful tactics of maintenance
is to continuously recruit new people who "fit in." One joins
such an elite much the same way one pledges a sorority. If perceived as
a potential addition, one is "rushed" by the members of the
informal structure and eventually either dropped or initiated. If the
sorority is not politically aware enough to actively engage in this process
itself it can be started by the outsider pretty much the same way one
joins any private club. Find a sponsor, i.e., pick some member of the
elite who appears to be well respected within it, and actively cultivate
that person's friendship. Eventually, she will most likely bring you into
the inner circle.