Cathy Levine

(Artículo que apareció por primera vez en Black Rose, número 1 y luego fue reeimpreso
por el Rising Free Collective.)

La tiranía de la tiranía
En un artículo titulado "La tiranía de la falta de estructura", que ha recibido gran
atención en el movimiento de mujeres (en MS, en Second Wave, etc.) se ataca la
tendencia hacia la "falta de líderes" y la existencia de "grupos desestructurados" como si
fuera la principal -si no la única- forma orgánica del movimiento y la plantea como un
callejón sin salida. Aunque escrito y recibido con buena fe, como una ayuda al
movimiento, el articulo es destructivo porque distorsiona y calumnia una estrategia
válida y consciente para construir movimientos revolucionarios. Es tiempo de que
reconozcamos como una alternativa política real la dirección a la que apuntan estas
tendencias, antes que impedir que aparezcan.

Hay por lo menos dos modelos diferentes para construir un movimiento y Joreen sólo
da cuenta de uno: una organización de masas con un control fuerte y centralizado, como
un partido. El otro modelo, se basa en pequeños grupos de asociación voluntaria.

Un grupo grande funciona como una suma de partes en la que cada miembro funciona
como una unidad, un engranaje de la rueda de la organización más grande. El individuo
está alienado por el tamaño y se ve relegado a luchar en contra de los obstáculos que
genera el tamaño del grupo, por ejemplo esforzándose por asumir un punto de vista
aceptado por todos.

Por otro lado, los pequeños grupos, multiplican la fuerza de cada uno de sus miembros.
Al trabajar colectivamente entre pocas personas, los pequeños grupos utilizan al
máximo la variada contribución de cada integrante. Lo que permite alentar y potenciar
los aportes individuales, en vez de perder tiempo en la competencia por la sobrevivencia
del más apto, más astuto o agraciado de la organización.

Joreen asocia la influencia de los pequeños grupos con la fase del despertar de la
conciencia en el movimiento de mujeres. Sin embargo concluye que al desplazar el
centro de atención desde la conciencia individual hacia la construcción de un
movimiento revolucionario de masas, las mujeres deberían implicarse en la
construcción de una gran organización. Este planteamiento es cierto y durante algún
tiempo muchas mujeres que han participado en grupos de despertar de la conciencia
sienten la necesidad de expandir sus actividades políticas más allá del rango de acción
de este tipo de grupos, pero se sienten confundidas sin saber qué hacer. Aunque es
igualmente cierto que otras corrientes de izquierda también están confundidas y no
saben como derrotar al capitalismo, al imperialismo, al casi fascismo norteamericano.

Joreen, no obstante, no logra definir lo que entiende por movimiento de mujeres,

requisito indispensable para debatir la estrategia o dirección a seguir. El movimiento
feminista, en su sentido más pleno, en tanto movimiento para derrocar al patriarcado, es
un movimiento revolucionario y socialista bajo el alero de la izquierda. Un problema
central para que las mujeres determinen las estrategias del movimiento de mujeres es
cómo relacionarse con la izquierda masculina; no queremos hacer nuestros sus modus
operandi porque los consideramos una perpetuación de los valores patriarcales y
capitalistas.

A pesar de nuestros mejores esfuerzos por renegar y apartarnos de la izquierda

masculina, no lo hemos logrado del todo. Los hombres son capaces de organizar la
forma en que tienen sexo: mucho apuro y luego el "portazo y gracias nena". Las mujeres
deberíamos edificar el movimiento del modo en que hacemos el amor: gradualmente,
implicándonos constantemente, esforzándonos sin limitaciones y, por supuesto,
orgasmos múltiples. En vez de sentirnos desanimadas y aisladas ahora, deberíamos estar
en nuestros pequeños grupos debatiendo, planeando, creando y problematizando.
Deberíamos estar siempre generándole problemas al patriarcado y apoyando a las
mujeres; deberíamos estar siempre comprometiéndonos y generando accionar feminista,
porque todas nos fortalecemos con ello. Sin un accionar feminista, las mujeres caen en
los tranquilizantes, se enferman y suicidan.

La otra forma de inactividad que amenaza a los que participamos en política, es la

sobreimplicación que desembocó en los sesenta en una generación de activistas
radicales agotados. Una vez me comentó una amiga feminista que para ella estar en el
movimiento implicaba "pasar el 25% de su tiempo en actividades grupales y 75% en
actividades desarrollándose ella misma". Este item es importante y real para el
movimiento de mujeres por lo que debemos pensar en ello. Ya que el movimiento
masculino piensa que los participantes del movimiento deben dedicar las 24 horas del
día a la Causa, algo totalmente coherente con la socialización femenina en vistas al
autosacrificio. Hundimos nuestra cabeza en las actividades organizacionales,
descuidando nuestro desarrollo personal, sin importar cuál sea la causa de nuestra
dedicación al resto. Finalmente, un día, descubrimos que no sabemos lo que estamos
haciendo, ni para quien lo hacemos; el resultado es que terminamos en un estado de
autodesprecio similar al que teníamos antes de ingresar al movimiento. (Por otro lado la
sobreimplicación masculina, obviamente que no motivada por ningún autosacrificio de
género, huele intensamente a la ética judía/protestante/trabajo/logro, e incluso a la
fachada "racional", fría, no emocional, con la cual el machismo suprime los
sentimientos de los hombres).

Estos escollos perennes del movimiento popular, que representan un pozo sin fondo
para el movimiento, los explica Jo Freeman como parte de la "Tiranía de la
desestructura", lo que es una broma en el contexto de una nación de semiautómatas que
luchan por mantener una apariencia de individualidad en contra de un aparataje
militar/industrial postecnológico. Por el contrario lo que definitivamente no necesitamos
más son estructuras y reglas que nos den respuestas fáciles, alternativas prefabricadas
sin espacio para nuestras propias formas de vida. Lo que está amenazando a la izquierda
femenina y aún más a las otras corrientes, es 'la Tiranía de la Tiranía', que ha impedido
relacionarse con los individuos o generar organizaciones que no eliminen la
individualidad con roles preestablecidos y liberarnos de las estructuras capitalistas.

En contraposición al supuesto de Joreen, la fase del despertar de la conciencia no ha

acabado. El despertar de la conciencia es un proceso vital que debe continuar entre
aquellos comprometidos con el cambio social; mediante la liberación revolucionaria.
Despertar nuestras conciencias es de todas formas una idea amplia, una vaguedad, y
necesita ser clarificada. Una ofensiva comercial televisiva puede despertar la conciencia
de las mujeres en tanto la mujer plancha sola en su hogar la ropa de su marido; le puede
recordar lo que ya sabe, que está entrampada y su vida no tiene sentido, que está
aburrida, etc. pero probablemente no la animará a que deje el lavado y organice una
huelga de trabajadoras del hogar. El despertar de conciencias es una estrategia de la
revolución y debe ayudar a las mujeres a traducir su insatisfacción personal en
conciencia de clase y posibilitar que las mujeres organizadas sean accesibles a todas las
mujeres.

Con la propuesta que hace Joreen de que el próximo paso después de los grupos
despertadores de conciencia es la construcción de un movimiento, ella no solo opone
falsamente el uno al otro sino también pasa por alto un importante proceso del
movimiento feminista: construir cultura de mujeres. Aún cuando se requiere una fuerza
masiva de mujeres (y algunos hombres) para enfrentar al poder del estado, un
movimiento de masas no hace la revolución por sí mismo. Si esperamos crear una
sociedad libre de la supremacía masculina después de derribar al capitalismo y construir
el socialismo internacional, sería mejor que empezáramos a trabajar en ello de
inmediato, ya que algunos de nuestros compañeros anticapitalistas nos van a dar mucho
que hacer. Debemos generar una cultura de mujeres visible dentro de la cual las mujeres
puedan definirse y expresarse aparte de los patrones patriarcales y que satisfaga las
necesidades de las mujeres no cubiertas por el patriarcado.

La cultura es una parte esencial del movimiento revolucionario y es también una de las
herramientas más importantes de la contrarrevolución. Debemos ser muy cuidadosas en
especificar que la cultura de la que estamos hablando es una revolucionaria y que
confronta constantemente a la cultura del padre.

La cultura de una clase oprimida o colonizada no es necesariamente revolucionaria:

Norteamércia contiene (en el sentido de "tener" y en el sentido de "impedir la
propagación") 'muchas subculturas', que aunque se definen diferentes a la cultura del
padre, no amenazan el status quo. De hecho son parte de una Norteamérica
"multicultural", una-gran-familia-feliz de culturas etnico/sociales, la "contracultura".
Ellos han sido validados, admitidos, adoptados o comprados por la gran cultura. Lo que
llamamos cooptación.

La cultura de las mujeres, desde un nuevo círculo de liberación hasta la revista MS,
pasando por la Bitácora de una Dueña de Casa Loca, enfrenta ese verdadero peligro
justo ahora. La Nueva Mujer, es decir: de clase media, universitaria, emparejada con
algún hombre, puede obtener su trozo del pastel norteamericano. Suena bien pero ¿qué
pasa con la revolución? Debemos reevaluar constantemente nuestra posición para
asegurarnos que no estamos siendo acogidas en los brazos siempre abiertos del Tío
Sam.

El tema de la cultura de las mujeres, aunque denigrado por la ciega y arrogante

izquierda masculina, no es necesariamente un tema revisionista. La polarización entre
los roles femeninos y masculinos en tanto definidos y controlados por la sociedad
masculina, no sólo ha subyugado a las mujeres sino que ha hecho que todos lo hombres,
sin importar clase ni raza, se sientan superiores a las mujeres. Este sentimiento de
superioridad junto con contrarrestar los impulsos anticapitalistas, es la espina dorsal del
sistema. El objetivo de la revolución feminista es que las mujeres conquisten la
humanidad plena, lo que significa destruir los roles masculinos y femeninos que hacen a
los hombres y a las mujeres, humanos a medias. Recuperaremos nuestra humanidad
perdida creando cultura de mujeres.

El tema de nuestra humanidad perdida muestra aquello que los marxistas comunes han
descuidado en sus análisis durante más de medio siglo: los elementos psicosexuales en
la estructura del carácter de cada individuo, que actúa como un policía interior, en cada
miembro de la sociedad. Wihlem Reich describió en forma estrecha, heterosexual y
centrada en lo masculino la armazón del carácter en cada persona y cómo los transforma
en verdaderos fascistas o en buenos ciudadanos. Las mujeres experimentamos este
fenómeno a diario que se manifiesta en la represión de los sentimientos, especialmente
obvio entre nuestros amigos varones, para quienes es muy difícil expresar o incluso
"exponer" sus sentimientos honestamente. La tara psíquica con la que la psicología
capitalista nos coacciona, es problema de los individuos, es una situación social que nos
afecta a todos y que ayuda a la sociedad capitalista avanzada a mantenernos en el
mismo saco. Las taras psíquicas de los ciudadanos logran que trabajen, que peleen en
las guerras, que repriman a sus mujeres, a los no-blancos y a todo los inconformistas
susceptibles de ser reprimidos. En nuestra sociedad postecnológica, todo sus miembros
la reconocen como la cultura más avanzada, aunque las taras psíquicas sean también las
más avanzadas, sin duda ahora hay mucha más mierda para la psique como el "yo estoy
bien, tú estás bien" de Jonathan Livingstone Seagull y su política, sin mencionar a los
postneofreudianos y a los cirujanos psíquicos.

Por enésima vez, permítasenos decir que hasta que no encaremos nuestras cadenas
psíquicas internas, cuando estudiamos las externas en las estructuras políticas y las
relaciones sociales, no lograremos crear una fuerza que amenace a nuestro enemigo, es
más ni siquiera sabremos quien es el enemigo. La izquierda ha perdido horas y mucho
papel intentando definir a la clase dominante; pero la clase dominante tiene sus
representantes carceleros dentro de la mente de cada miembro de la sociedad, por eso la
lógica que hay detrás se llama paranoia. La tiranía de la tiranía es un enemigo
profundamente fortificado.

El grupo pequeño es donde se conecta la lucha psicológica con la participación política.

Es por eso que los temas de táctica y estrategia y los métodos de organización son tan
cruciales en este momento. Durante décadas, la izquierda ha estado intentando sacar a la
calle a la gente, siempre y cuando existiera un número suficiente para provocar algún
efecto. Como lo planteaba IF Stone, no se puede hacer la revolución cuando más de la
mitad de la población es feliz. Tampoco debemos esperar a que cada uno se radicalice.
Por un lado, debemos plantear constantemente alternativas al capitalismo a través de
cooperativas de alimentos, acciones antiempresariales y acciones de rebelión personal,
pero también debemos combatir las estructuras capitalistas psíquicas y los valores y
formas de vida que de ellas derivan. Las estructuras, los presidentes, los líderes, la
retórica… cuando una reunión de izquierdistas se vuelve indistinguible en el estilo de
una sesión del senado, no debemos reírnos sino reevaluar la estructura que hay detrás
del estilo y reconocerla como una representante del enemigo.

El origen de la preferencia por los pequeños grupos en el movimiento de mujeres - y por

pequeños grupos me refiero a colectivos políticos - fue, como lo expuso Joreen, una
reacción en contra de la organización jerárquica y sobreestructurada de la sociedad en
general y de los grupos masculinos de izquierda en particular. Pero la gente no se da
cuenta de que reaccionamos en contra de la burocracia porque nos priva de la gestión,
como el resto de esta sociedad. Y en vez de reconocer nuestra locura volviendo al redil
estructurado, nosotras que nos rebelamos en contra de la burocracia debemos crear
alternativas a la organización burocrática. La razón para construir un movimiento
basado en los colectivos es que queremos crear una cultura revolucionaria coherente con
nuestra visión de una nueva sociedad; es más que una reacción; los pequeños grupos
son una solución.

Debido a que el movimiento de las mujeres tiende, en este momento, hacia los pequeños
grupos y que carece de dirección, algunos concluyen que los pequeños grupos son
culpables de la falta de dirección. Ellos enarbolan el arcaísmo de la "estructura" como la
solución al jaque estratégico, como si la estructura nos pudiera dar la comprensión
teórica o el alivio a las ansiedades personales. Nos puede dar una estructura en la cual
"organizarnos" o reunir más mujeres, pero en ausencia de estrategia política podemos
estar generando una ironía kafkiana donde el proceso sea reemplazado por la reunión.

La falta de energía política nos ha estado acechando durante los últimos años, aunque en
menor medida en el movimiento de mujeres que en la izquierda masculina,
probablemente se relaciona directamente con sentimientos de insatisfacción personal
que tiranizan a todos y cada uno de nosotros. A menos que confrontemos estos
sentimientos directamente y los tratemos con la misma seriedad con la que tratamos el
bombardeo de Hanoi, la paralización que provocan los primeros impedirán que
tomemos medidas en contra del segundo. Más que hacer un llamado a reemplazar los
pequeños grupos por grupos estructurados más grandes, necesitamos alentarnos unas a
otras para ubicarnos en pequeños grupos desestructurados que reconozcan y emulen el
valor del individuo. La amistad, más que cualquier terapia, alivia inmediatamente los
sentimientos de insatisfacción personal. La revolución se debiera construir siguiendo el
modelo de la amistad.

El problema omnipresente que Joreen confronta, aquél de las elites, no se soluciona con
la formación de estructuras. Contrariamente a la creencia de que la falta de estructuras
lleva a la maquinación, a estructuras invisibles basadas en elites, la ausencia de
estructuras en pequeños grupos de confianza mutua, combate al elitismo en su nivel
básico, el nivel de las dinámicas personales, en las cuales el individuo que contrarresta
la inseguridad con un comportamiento agresivo domina sobre aquel cuya inseguridad lo
mantiene en silencio. Los pequeños grupos que involucran personalmente aprenden
primero a reconocer aquellas diferencias de estilo y después a apreciarlas y trabajar con
ellas. Más que intentar ignorar o aniquilar las diferencias de estilo personal, los
pequeños grupos aprenden a apreciarlas y a utilizarlas; por lo tanto a fortalecer el poder
personal de cada individuo. Dado esto cada uno ha sido socializado en una sociedad en
la cual la competencia individual es la forma de existencia. No vamos a eliminar todos
los estilos personales en tanto poder a menos que reconozcamos las diferencias y
aprendamos a dejar coexistir esas diferencias. Ya que no somos el enemigo sino las
víctimas, necesitamos potenciarnos y no destruirnos unos a otros. Los elementos
destructivos retrocederán en la medida en que nos fortalezcamos. Pero mientras tanto
debemos protegernos de las situaciones que recompensan el estilo personal con el
poder. Las reuniones premian a los más agresivos, retóricos, carismáticos y que se
expresan con más claridad (casi siempre hombres).

Considerando los múltiples y variados derivados del término "anarquismo" que

circulan, muy pocos en la izquierda se han dedicado a estudiarlo con seriedad. Estamos
seguras de que las personas que se enorgullecen de la hipocresía de los tabúes sociales
están imbuidos del tabú en contra del anarquismo.

Del mismo modo que con la masturbación, se nos ha educado para temer al anarquismo
irracional e incuestionablemente, porque no hacerlo podría llevarnos a probarlo,
aprenderlo y disfrutarlo. Para cualquiera que haya considerado alguna vez la posibilidad
de que la masturbación puede proporcionar más beneficios que locura, es altamente
recomendable que estudie también el anarquismo. Remontándose incluso a los tiempos
de Marx cuando Bakunin era su adversario socialista más radical… más radical ya que
había dado un gigantesco paso más allá al confiar en las capacidades de los individuos
para salvar a la humanidad.

¿Por qué la izquierda no ha hecho otra cosa que ignorar al anarquismo? Puede ser a
causa de que los anarquistas nunca han logrado una victoria revolucionaria. El
marxismo ha triunfado, pero también el capitalismo, esto sólo prueba o sugiere que el
perdedor, hasta este momento, está de nuestro lado. Los anarquistas rusos se opusieron
tenazmente a la tiranía demasiado revisionista de los bolcheviques, de la cual se ríe con
socarrona crueldad la Nueva Izquierda ante sus padres izquierdistas de los 60. Es cierto,
la antigua generación de izquierdistas norteamericanos era cerrada de mente, tanto que
no veían que el capitalismo se regeneraba en Rusia; pero la visión sesgada con la cual
hemos esbozado la huella del dogma marxista leninista no es algo de lo cual
enorgullecerse.

Desde luego las mujeres hemos salido del túnel antes que la mayoría de los hombres
porque en la oscuridad, guiadas por hombres ciegos de la Nueva Izquierda, nos
encontramos a nosotras mismas. Dueñas de casa para la revolución o prostitutas para el
proletariado; es impresionante cómo la forma en que somos vistas se refunda a sí
misma. A lo largo de todo el país, los grupos independientes de mujeres comenzaron
funcionando sin estructuras, líderes y otros clichés de la izquierda masculina, crearon
independiente y simultáneamente, organizaciones similares a las de los anarquistas. Lo
que no es casualidad.

El estilo, la audacia de Emma Goldman ha sido adoptado por mujeres que no se

consideran a sí mismas anarquistas… porque Emma avanzaba con los tiempos. Pocas
mujeres han asustado a tantos hombres por tanto tiempo. Parece lógico que deberíamos
estudiar a Emma Goldman, no para seguir cada uno de sus pensamientos sino para
encontrar la fuente de su fortaleza y su amor a la vida. Sin embargo, no es casual que el
Terror Rojo anarquista, llamado Emma Goldman, fuera también una defensora y
practicante del amor libre. Ella desafió las barreras capitalistas mucho más que sus
contemporáneos marxistas.

Cathy Levine

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.

Notes: Originally published in “Black Rose”, number 1, Spring/1979 (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.

Source: Retrieved on May 5th, 2009 from

http://www.angelfire.com/id/ASP/UNTYINGTHEKNOT.html