The Tyranny of Structurelessness 2005

One of the interesting posts over in that thar LiveJournal I've been reading was one from 2002 in which Gordon ranted engagingly about the pleasure of good honest sarcasm and pointed comments when compared with the "passive aggressive, new age, pseudo-therapeutic, bullshit masquerading as 'communication'" found in some hippie groups.

My frustration with this zine [Communities Journal of Cooperative Living] is that I agree with the importance of communication and process (I work and live collectively myself), but this issue mostly presents issues of power and language in a way that would make any sane person run for their lives. Words and phrases like "having a clearing", "checking out a fantasy" (not as titillating as it sounds), "non-violent communication" and "pushing my own buttons" do damage to the language and, in my humble opinion, hide the power of skilled manipulators by creating a new set of rules in the name of clarity and process. Unintentionally funny at times, but mostly useful as a flashing neon sign saying "DANGER! If you’re not a hippie, new-ager, or needy process queen STAY AWAY!"

Go read the subsequent example if this kind of stuff entertains you as much as it does me.

In fact, the answers to most of the problems posed in these pages are all about looking within for answers. Introspection and self-examination have their place of course, but inward looking thought combined with a paranoid obsession with process and "non-violent communication" always leaves me looking for who’s really in control. Tools for "democracy" can become tools of manipulation rather easily, especially as language is rarefied into more and more esoteric constructions. In these situations, it’s usually the most skilled at word games who can keep deflecting issues away from their own actions and towards their feelings.

"When you got mad at me for partying and waking you up, it made me feel that you don’t appreciate all the work I do to make Commune X a wonderful place. It makes me feel like you think I’m a bad person. Do you think I’m a bad person?"

As for process, read "The Tyranny of Structurelessness"  and move on. Even if the author is some reform Democrat these days, It’s the best thing ever written about collective process.

So I did go off and read that fascinating 1970 contemplation of the influence of group structure (or lack of it) on the women's movement. I thought this was a particularly interesting insight and a suggestion as to how the internet may enable the kind of individual communication which promotes philosophical change, but not necessarily political change:

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.

This ability to apply ideas individually is certainly a big part of the success of projects like MoveOn.org and its counterparts elsewhere in the political spectrum, but I don't think the internet solves all problems and allows informally structured groups to apply tremendous and sustainable power.

Consider this:

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.

Is that like or unlike what we find on the Web?

Comments

The Tyranny of Structurelessness

One of the interesting posts over in that thar LiveJournal I've been reading was one from 2002 in which Gordon ranted engagingly about the pleasure of good honest sarcasm and pointed comments when compared with the "passive aggressive, new age, pseudo-therapeutic, bullshit masquerading as 'communication'" found in some hippie groups.

My frustration with this zine [Communities Journal of Cooperative Living] is that I agree with the importance of communication and process (I work and live collectively myself), but this issue mostly presents issues of power and language in a way that would make any sane person run for their lives. Words and phrases like "having a clearing", "checking out a fantasy" (not as titillating as it sounds), "non-violent communication" and "pushing my own buttons" do damage to the language and, in my humble opinion, hide the power of skilled manipulators by creating a new set of rules in the name of clarity and process. Unintentionally funny at times, but mostly useful as a flashing neon sign saying "DANGER! If you’re not a hippie, new-ager, or needy process queen STAY AWAY!"

Go read the subsequent example if this kind of stuff entertains you as much as it does me.

In fact, the answers to most of the problems posed in these pages are all about looking within for answers. Introspection and self-examination have their place of course, but inward looking thought combined with a paranoid obsession with process and "non-violent communication" always leaves me looking for who’s really in control. Tools for "democracy" can become tools of manipulation rather easily, especially as language is rarefied into more and more esoteric constructions. In these situations, it’s usually the most skilled at word games who can keep deflecting issues away from their own actions and towards their feelings.

"When you got mad at me for partying and waking you up, it made me feel that you don’t appreciate all the work I do to make Commune X a wonderful place. It makes me feel like you think I’m a bad person. Do you think I’m a bad person?"

As for process, read "The Tyranny of Structurelessness"  and move on. Even if the author is some reform Democrat these days, It’s the best thing ever written about collective process.

So I did go off and read that fascinating 1970 contemplation of the influence of group structure (or lack of it) on the women's movement. I thought this was a particularly interesting insight and a suggestion as to how the internet may enable the kind of individual communication which promotes philosophical change, but not necessarily political change:

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.

This ability to apply ideas individually is certainly a big part of the success of projects like MoveOn.org and its counterparts elsewhere in the political spectrum, but I don't think the internet solves all problems and allows informally structured groups to apply tremendous and sustainable power.

Consider this:

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.

Is that like or unlike what we find on the Web?

« MetaGrrrl Classics #1: Best product endorsement ever | Main | Giving gifts that really matter »

Blog (noun) A weblog or similar brief journal usually containing links and commentary thereon. Term coined by Peter Merholz.
Visit Typepad or Blogger to start your own. (I began with hand coding, then switched to Blogger when it first became available, then to Movable Type when I wanted more control over my weblog and to have it hosted at a place of my choosing (Hurricane Electric). Now I use Typepad, built by the same folks who made Movable Type and I love it).

You may write to Dinah @ this domain.

Except where otherwise noted all content is copyright 1965-2012 Dinah Sanders. Please do not repost my writing or other creations elsewhere. Instead, copy a tiny bit and link to the rest. Thanks! Images are copyright of their original creators. MetaGrrrl logo and photos by Dinah are copyright 1965-2012 Dinah Sanders. Inkspot Books and the Inkspot logo have been Service Marks of Dinah Sanders since 1993.