4 ms·

> 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

by oofnik 4y ago

> 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. https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm

kqr 4y ago
Very important essay. Often misunderstood. It doesn't say "since invisible hierarchies arise anyway we should just as well start with explicit hierarchies." It does point out some common ways for invisible hierarchies to arise, and the challenge is coming up with structures that limit the effect of those. One example I like is that any person can be in any number of working groups they want, but they can only have a say in the working group they are meeting with at the moment. If two working groups are active at the same time, the overlapping members have to choose the one that's more important to them. This ties decision power to physical presence and we all have equal opportunity to be physically present. One person cannot accumulate lots of physical presence to influence a disproportionate amount of work at once.
- teachrdan 4y ago
  Agreed. The original essay is mostly a critique of (white) women's liberation study groups, although the same dynamics can be seen in other groups as well. A good counterpoint is "The Tyranny of Tyranny," which is also a bit dated. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/cathy-levine-the-tyranny-of-tyranny https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/cathy-levine-the-tyr...
avgcorrection 4y ago
No one is advocating for structurelessnes. Or at least not any more. Not (even) anarchists.

by oofnik 4y ago

kqr 4y ago

Very important essay. Often misunderstood. It doesn't say "since invisible hierarchies arise anyway we should just as well start with explicit hierarchies." It does point out some common ways for invisible hierarchies to arise, and the challenge is coming up with structures that limit the effect of those. One example I like is that any person can be in any number of working groups they want, but they can only have a say in the working group they are meeting with at the moment. If two working groups are active at the same time, the overlapping members have to choose the one that's more important to them. This ties decision power to physical presence and we all have equal opportunity to be physically present. One person cannot accumulate lots of physical presence to influence a disproportionate amount of work at once.

teachrdan 4y ago
Agreed. The original essay is mostly a critique of (white) women's liberation study groups, although the same dynamics can be seen in other groups as well. A good counterpoint is "The Tyranny of Tyranny," which is also a bit dated. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/cathy-levine-the-tyranny-of-tyranny https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/cathy-levine-the-tyr...

avgcorrection 4y ago

No one is advocating for structurelessnes. Or at least not any more. Not (even) anarchists.