An organizationalist repudiation of
anarchism
Review by Jason McQuinn
from Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed
The Tyranny of Structurelessness by Jo Freeman (Workers� Solidarity Movement,
POB 1528, Dublin 8, Ireland, 1989; Also available from the web site: http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/wsm/) 5 pp., no price listed, pamphlet.
Not too surprisingly, whenever
organizationalist, leftist anarchist tendencies cast about for justification
for their amalgamations of anarchist theory with leftist politics, they
invariably seem to latch on to Jo Freeman�s now quite dated essay titled The
Tyranny of Structurelessness. In fact, the recently spreading infatuation
with the Organizational Platform of the Libertarian Communists by Peter
Arshinov, Nestor Makhno et al amongst some less self-critical and more
leftist anarchists has led to quite a proliferation of anarchist web sites
featuring Freeman�s not-too-veiled attack on anarchist theories of
organization.
The avowedly platformist Workers Solidarity
Movement in Ireland has both released yet another edition of the essay as a
pamphlet, along with making this edition available for .pdf download from its
web site. A quick Google internet search netted 322 hits for the essay, where
it appears to be by far most popular on anarchist web sites, primarily leftist
sites�like the
"International Anarchism web pages," the NEFAC web site, the Onward
web site�and archives like the Spunk Library site. It�s also still
popular as a more explicitly anarchist-bashing reference�on web sites
like Ken Knabb�s Bureau of Public Secrets, the World Socialists site,
reformist/statist Green sites, the International Socialist Organization (ISO)
web site, and a few sundry authoritarian or reformist pacifist sites. While it
may still ultimately be cited the most as a now somewhat curious historical
document from the early days of the feminist movement revival of the late 1960s
and early 1970s. Since the essay is really an attack on the "structureless
groups" of the consciousness-raising stage of the feminist movement, these
latter citations obviously make the most sense, especially if one actually
reads the document.
A nutshell description of Freeman�s essay on one
anarchist web site (www.anarchism.ws/) is given as: "Why
organisations need some structure to ensure they are democratic." But�at least since
the demise of the consciousness-raising stage of the feminist movement�everyone
already agrees with Freeman that the whole issue of structure vs.
structurelessness was always a red herring. All social groups, whether they�re formal or
informal, have some sort of structure. The actual argument of the essay would
more accurately be stated as "Why formal political organizations are
better than anarchistic forms of organization." For this reason alone when
self-described anarchists uncritically cite this essay or load it onto their
web sites it is somewhat akin to uncritically citing Marxist-Leninist or
Stalinist tracts on the necessity for political parties. This is confused and
nonsensical at the best; at worst it is simply a betrayal of anarchist
principles.
As the bizarre title, The Tyranny of
Structurelessness, hints, the essay reads like a closely argued, but
incomprehensibly unreal and illogical stab at sociology by a paranoid
schizophrenic. The fear of freedom, friendship and community, as well as the
fetish for sterile, reified, rule-bound relationships (drained of all
spontaneity and vitality) oozes from almost every page. It goes without saying
that the author is not, nor has she ever been, an anarchist. From the text, one
gets the impression that she doesn�t think anarchy could ever be a possible
social goal for any rational person, much less that it could ever actually come
to pass. She did participate in the Berkeley Free Speech Movement long
ago. But, as a biographical sketch indicates, she did so as a critic of
the radicals. She also participated in the civil rights movement and the
rebirth of the feminist movement, but again, never as any kind of radical
libertarian. She is now a political scientist and lawyer with an ongoing
interest in the highly reified world of political parties, where
"tyranny" is no longer such a problem for her since there are no
insidious "structureless groups" to worry about!
From some of the author�s
autobiographical comments and from the type of people typically attracted to
her arguments, it becomes clear that The Tyranny of Structurelessness
primarily appeals to bookish, socially-incompetent�or anti-social�people
interested in politics, but unsure of themselves or unwilling (or unable) to
negotiate social relationships which aren�t based on written rules of order with
formal roles. The ambiguities, spontaneity and informality of mutual
friendships and communal relationships tend to provoke anxieties in such people
that the security, hierarchy, leadership and discipline of authoritarian
organizations are designed to relieve.
Freeman�s fundamental insight in the essay is
that informal groups are susceptible to power struggles involving many of the
pitfalls more commonly and easily observed in large, formal organizations. And,
of course, not many people would disagree. But in her mind the ever-present,
looming dangers of small, informal groups always dwarf the minimal problems
that so rarely pop up in formal organizations like political parties! You see,
the latter have explicit rules, formal leaders and agreed-upon membership roles
that maximize effectiveness while minimizing the irresponsible, elitist,
undemocratic excesses to which informal groups are so defenseless.
For any genuine anarchists these arguments will
appear as paranoid, schizoid and nauseatingly opportunistic as they do when
they are parroted in authoritarian leftist publications (and web sites like
that of the ISO), where they are used like clubs to bash those nasty, undisciplined,
but dictatorial anarchists who don�t ever give authoritarian socialists a
fair chance to be elected into leadership positions in the anarchist movement.
In actuality, the potential problems Freeman is
most worried about in informal groups, are much more prevalent, virulent and
destructive in large, formal organizations. However, the believers in and
proponents of such groups simply don�t bother to worry about them there,
partly because other problems particular to formal organizations are more
obvious, and partly since such people are and were never really worried about
the fundamental problems of personal and social freedom in the first place�only in their
reified, political representation (and thus falsification).
Freeman specifically focusses her Kafkaesque
critique on four problems.
(1) She alleges that "structureless"
or�for our
purposes here�small, informal libertarian groups function as a
"smokescreen for the strong or the lucky to establish unquestioned
hegemony over others." This is because "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." And
"For everyone to have the opportunity to be involved in a given group...the
structure must be explicit, not implicit." Obviously, the problem alleged
can potentially happen�once in a great while. It is equally obvious that it�s much more
common (because it�s probably a hell of a lot easier) for "the strong or
the lucky to establish unquestioned hegemony over others" by starting or
taking over formal organizations. After all why bother with blowing
"smokescreens" to hide a shaky hegemony over a small, informal group
when it�s easier to insinuate yourself into powerful roles in formal
organizations? Freeman�s claim that the reason why some people allow themselves to
be dominated by others is that only those doing the dominating know the
informal group structures is ridiculous on its face. Informal group structure
isn�t occult. It�s a function of
intersubjective negotiation and mutual expectations. People who allow
themselves to be dominated in informal groups will also allow themselves to be
dominated in formal groups�and probably more easily and often in the
latter simply because a structure for domination is going to be much more often
present from the outset!
(2) Freeman alleges that elitism is much more of
a problem in small, informal groups than it is in formal organizations. Her
reason for this is essentially the ludicrous definition she gives to elitism:
"Elites are nothing more, and nothing less, than groups of friends who
also happen to participate in the same political activities." For this
reason, "An individual, as an individual, can never be an elitist"
(because an individual isn�t a group of friends!). And thus,
there must not be any great problem with capitalist elites, political elites or
international elites, unless there really are groups of friends involved
"who also happen [my emphasis] to participate in the same political
activities." And this stupidity was written by a then future political
scientist! Talk about blowing "smokescreens" to hide hegemony! For
Freeman we only need to worry about elites made up of friends in informal
groups. Everything else in more "democratic" formal organizations
like political parties is so egalitarian that it doesn�t even need to
be mentioned.
(3) Freeman argues that the "�Star� system"
[her strange quotes around �Star�] was created by "the idea of
structurelessness." Even assuming that she is restricting her analysis to
the feminist milieu, such an argument makes little or no sense in a
spectacular-commodity society in which star systems abound in just about every
sphere of public life, and yet none of the other spheres are so terribly
burdened with informal organizations as was the feminist milieu of the 1960s
and 1970s. Once again, many of the potential problems she describes with the
star system are just as prevalent or more prevalent where formal organizations
are the rule. But that doesn�t concern her. For Freeman, only stars
created in the context of informal groups are really bad.
(4) Freeman thinks that informal groups are
politically impotent. Obviously, in the sense of participation in the formal,
statist political system this is going to be true. Forming political parties
and mass organizations, or raising millions of dollars in corporate
contributions are never going to be what informal groups are good at. However,
as any anarchist knows, libertarian organizations can and have accomplished
everything necessary for individuals and communities to live in free,
egalitarian, convivial societies�both long-term in hunting and gathering
communities and more transitorily in modern revolutionary periods. Just because
anarchist groups are often small and informal, it doesn�t follow that
they can�t or haven�t employed elements of formal
organization whenever and wherever they�ve been appropriate and necessary.
Finally, Freeman recommends a short list of
"principles of democratic structuring." Here, at last she actually
has something to say, although most of her suggestions are just as appropriate
(or moreso) for informal groups as for formal ones and will work with either.
She suggests the lot system, which has been used by informal anarchist groups
many times historically. Then there is "delegation" of "specific
tasks," "rotation of tasks," "allocation of tasks along
rational criteria," "diffusion of information to everyone as
frequently as possible," and "equal access to resources needed by the
group." Each of these suggestions are far more commonly accomplished by
informal libertarian groups than by any but a small number of the most radical
of the formal organizations of the world, including formal anarchist
organizations. And they can be recommended for any organization, whether it�s formal or
informal.
The two suggestions Freeman makes that I don�t list above
are explicitly based on authoritarian assumptions�"distribution of authority among as
many people as is reasonably possible" (anathema to anarchists in the
sense of political authority that she apparently includes in her meaning) and
"requiring all those to whom authority has been delegated to be
responsible to those who selected them." Tell that to the politicians you
elect, suckers! Given her decades of work within the Democratic Party Freeman
remains oblivious to the much more widespread and devastating tyrannies of
capitalism, statism and organizationalism.
As a critique of informal anarchist
organization, it should be obvious that The Tyranny of Structurelessness
is a complete dud. As an anti-anarchist rant it will always have its uses for
anti-anarchist politicians of all stripes, but for genuine anarchists it will
remain a useless document functioning as a "smokescreen" for the
multitude of potential abuses inherent in formal organizations of all kinds
(including anarchist organizations), and especially in intentionally
authoritarian formal organizations. We need to be on guard for authoritarian,
hierarchical, dominating and exploitative relationships in every sphere of
society. Just don�t expect too find many of these in informal organizations.