Reading: Quiet Rumours (Dark Star Collective) / Untying the Knot (CS), The Tyranny of Structurelessness (Jo Freeman/Joreen), The Tyranny of Tyranny (Cathy Levine) To contextualise: How Nonviolence Protects the State related tags: #HNvPtS
Untying the Knot
Ironically, despite the fact that these were long-term concerns of the anarchist movement, it took feminists to show how libertarian organisation could look. “Feminism is what anarchism preaches,” wrote Lynne Farrow in 1974. A little simplistic, perhaps, but it was certainly true that the feminist practice of small, leaderless groups was an anarchist ideal.
Perhaps ironically, I have never gotten the feeling that most of the feminist organising was intentionally small or leaderless. If you read between the lines of most of these essays, you quickly start recognising that a lot of people who started small groups did not want them to be leaderless (and in fact, wanted to be leaders). I'd say, rather than being simplistic, Farrow was overly idealistic.
The Tyranny of Structurelessness
It early defined its main goal, and its main method, as consciousness-raising, and the “structureless” rap group was an excellent means to this end. The looseness and informality of it encouraged participation in discussion, and its 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.
Or, and this comes from being part of small groups, some people overtook the groups and the time meant to be working on certain things (whatever those things were). I have tried working on numerous projects, scheduled meetings to be held to work with interested members, and have had people overrun them with their own needs while ignoring others.
And while I do not mind providing support, some people do intend to use themselves as a way to create a wedge within the group. This is not the fault of “structurelessness” (though, it is a misnomer and an intentional piece of disinformation to say that horizontally organised groups are without structure, as... horizontal is a structure), but it is a fault of people not recognising the situation around them or asking for permission. This has most often happened with people who attempted to trauma-bond with someone in the group, which has created an ally who excuses their behaviours.
Wanting support for trauma is fine, but using your trauma to supersede everything or everyone else? Isn't. It's an intentional distraction, a form of manipulation.
If the movement is to grow 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.
Yes, but mistaking “no leaders” or “temporary leaders for certain goals” with “having no structure” is a basic category error.
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.
This is a thing that I've seen, but I've also seen it in formally organised institutions. This, again, isn't just a problem of leaderless groups with horizontal structures.
In horizontally organised groups, this is something that I admit people need to be prepared to dismantle and recognise on their own. I have seen this in numerous anarchist spaces, particularly with regards to newcomers (and also definitely weaponised against immigrants).
But I've also seen this in workplaces where managers will prefer people who've befriended them over people who've just got on with their work; we've been watching it with electoral parties for ages, as the conservative old guard refuses to let anyone new with more “progressive” values participate.
This is something to perpetually watch out for and to unlearn in ourselves; our friends can be wrong and can do wrong. This is something that has been well-known and well-trodden in abuse support networks, which are often small and leaderless groups.
(Joreen acknowledges this point, and it really kind of renders her essay moot. Like, what's the point of talking about the tyranny of (perceived) structurelessness when you admit that these are behaviours that are enacted in other spheres of life and are... still problematic there, too? It's sort of like a refusal to engage in the actual systemic elements at play, which aren't going to magically disappear in groups responding to systemic bigotries and rights.)
While many of these things are found in anarchafeminist organising, I'm not sure why Joreen's essay is one that people took inspiration from... especially when anarcha-feminists definitely produced critique of the groups they were in that were far more specific to what was happening... and also recognised that the status quo happens within our spheres all the time.
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.
... So society coerces groups to maintain the structures that people are fighting to not use... And in order to not use them, we have to use them because interfacing with the public requires it.
Makes no sense, tbh.
This is part of the unlearning process. But if anarchists are reading this and going “Yeah, makes sense,” then I have to wonder to what degree they are prepared to fight for anarchic ideals rather than move into social democracy.
This has several negative consequences for both the movement and the women labeled “stars.” First, because the movement didn’t put them in the role of spokesperson, the movement cannot remove them. The press put them there and only the press can choose not to listen. The press will continue to look to “stars” as spokeswomen as long as it has no official alternatives to go to for authoritative statements from the movement. The movement has no control in the selection of its representatives to the public as long as it believes that it should have no representatives at all.
First: Those women can (and should) abdicate their apparent stardom. If they had learned anything about horizontal organising, they would've done this rather than continuing to speak for others. They would push the media to other people and continue refusing to speak until the (presumably mainstream) media either leaves them alone or moves on. The simple fact that they did not do this highlights an issue with them as well as with society at large.
If those women do not step down as “stars,” the movement can speak over them. They can (and should) shut them out until they actually engage on the terms of the (presumably) horizontally organised group. Ostracisation is a useful tool, and it can be applied to public speaking as long as reasons are given.
Groups splinter over things like this, and they should. It's unhealthy behaviour, and it's something that we all need to recognise as something to unlearn. Spokespeople are not necessary.
Second, women put in this position often find themselves viciously attacked by their sisters. This achieves nothing for the movement and is painfully destructive to the individuals involved. Such attacks only result in either the woman leaving the movement entirely-often bitterly alienated—or in her ceasing to feel responsible to her “sisters.” She may maintain some loyalty to the movement, vaguely defined, but she is no longer susceptible to pressures from other women in it. One cannot feel responsible to people who have been the source of such pain without being a masochist, and these women are usually too strong to bow to that kind of personal pressure. Thus the backlash to the “star” system in effect encourages the very kind of individualistic 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 then becomes free to commit all of the individualistic sins of which she has been accused.
This reads like every “why I left the Left” essay I've ever read from someone who became a right-wing grifter, if I'm honest.
It also requires asking a set of simple questions that will help people figure out how to behave: “Why is she being attacked? In what ways? Is she actually being attacked or is she being criticised and refusing to take the critiques seriously?”
If a person can answer these questions with functional answers (“She is being criticised, not attacked, because she keeps setting herself up as a spokesperson and is doing nothing to deflect or redirect it”), then you know that this person is not really being attacked by her “sisters.” (I hate this form of solidarity; it's ludicrous and abusive.)
If you can't answer these questions (“I don't know”), then perhaps you should reflect on your own values and engage with people around you (“Do you know why?”) and then decide what feels most proper. Usually, if I can't answer this question, then I can recognise that the attacks are attacks.
But we don't learn these skills; we have to figure them out. Just like we don't learn to actually take critique from our peers, and many people take it as an attack even when it's constructive criticism.
Unstructured groups may be very effective in getting women to talk about their lives; they aren’t very good for getting things done.
Right, all the highly structured groups are very effective at “getting things done.” /s
The Tyranny of Tyranny
Small groups, on the other hand, multiply the strength of each member. By working collectively in small numbers, the small group utilizes 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.
Well, at least Levine correctly points out the difference between small groups and large organisations that Joreen was loathe to acknowledge.
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 semblance of individuality against a post-technological, military/industrial bulldozer.
This is just a well-written line. I'm not sure I entirely buy it, but the writing is good.
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.
Ouch. But also, this is still a very real thing that is very felt.
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.
Yes, but it's also ironic that she is the only woman most people ever know. And also that she wasn't exactly seen as a threat, unlike Lucy Parsons (whose library was stolen by US intelligence after her death).