3 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 an
by hosh 13y 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. "
This assertion is not quite true.
When I think of "structure", I am thinking of deliberate, conscious, and rational attempts to create a sort of rigid ... structure. What he is describing is better termed as "dynamic".
I make this distinction because I've typically found (as a man), men tends to think and work with structures more often than with the dynamics... the natural ebb and flow of a group without a "structure".
When you start thinking about accomplishing a goal (whether a man or a woman) as a group, you start talking about structure, or "process" or any number of those words. That's when you use a particular part of the consciousness to drive and coordinate efforts. So when you start trying to look at what the group can do, accomplish, or its utility, you naturally start looking at structure, and perhaps even imposing structure.
Dynamics, or flow will happen regardless of whether we consciously attempt to structure the group or not. When you're not aiming for a particular goal, you can simply just be with the group, to feel and experience the way the group comes together and disperses. There is great wisdom in this, something that has been obscured because it doesn't produce anything that can be easily quantified.
I know programmers have talked about "flow" or "zone", about teams that have "gelled". These are all related to the wisdom of being, rather than that of doing. "Flow state", or "zone" is that sweet spot where your effort becomes effortless because you've relaxed into the flow while ... flowing to the goal. Flow states are one of the experiences we can have with consciousness, and you get there by first relaxing and getting more in touch with being ... and dropping some of your fixation on structure.
In truth, you see this play between structure and dynamic, between effort and flow. It's just that, most of us are so fixated on the doing and the structure, we are no longer aware of the natural dynamic. This is something I've noticed many (not all) women naturally understand this, and generally, men are pretty clueless about. When men typically encounter this, men will argue about it until we are blue in the face; usually, the women will agree, thus reinforcing this fixation. Women's liberation, in my opinion, is less about liberating women, and more about whacking men with a clue-by-four.
- ayelton 13y ago"What he is describing is better termed as "dynamic"." The author of this essay is a woman.
- amirmc 13y agoThe author's premise is that when people interact, 'structures' always form (it's in the same section you quoted from). It's same way that one could argue that 'politics' is always present, when two or more people must work together. You can't really claim her assertion isn't true simply by using your own definition of the term.