From Infoshop.org, on a page entitled: “Debunking Nonsense in the Anarchist Movement: Correcting misconceptions and misinformation promoted by anarchists”

“The Tyranny of Structurelessness”
One of the more ignorant things promoted by anarchists as anarchists is an essay titled “The Tyranny of Structurelessness” which was written by feminist activist Jo Freeman in the early 1970s. The anarchists that promote this essay often do so out of frustration with small groups, which are often controlled by disorganization and the unfamiliarity of anarchists with anarchist group process. The probem with this essay is that Freeman was an authoritarian leftist who wrote the essay to attack the anarchistic consciousness-raising groups being organized by feminist women at that time. Freeman was in favor of building mass parties in the Leninist mode and was alarmed at the anarchist ideas taking hold among radical women. An anarchist named Cathy Levine wrote a response, “The Tyranny of Tyranny”, which defended small anarchist groups. The irony, of course, is that contemporary anarchists are using an anti-anarchist essay to criticize problems in their groups and organizations! It is far better to actually talk about group process problems than to wave a decontextulaized essay over people’s heads.

Joreen aka Jo Freeman might well have been an authoritarian feminist. But, she also had some really good points about the womens movement of the time that are equally applicable to the anarchist movement today. The Tyranny of Structurelessness and The Tyranny of Tyranny are both works that I’ve republished several times and distributed far and wide. Both have much to say about the many problems associated with organising in either structured or non-structured groups.

I first came across The Tyranny of Structurelessness through a Sydney-based anarchist group called Love and Rage. They’d republished the pamphlet before I got involved, though I wasn’t really curious to read it until I was searching for answers as to why our little group didn’t function all that well. Y’see, it wasn’t just the anarchy and lack of leadership that was getting us down. It was the surplus of leadership (especially from the males) that was holding us back. Not that we actually invested them with a power to act, to speak, or make sole decisions - oh no! That would’ve been creating a hierarchy. At the time I responded to this unseen menace by arguing to elect office bearers - because that would at least create in our minds the structure that we had allowed to exist in fact. Having officials would at least have allowed us to recall them when they fucked us over, which they did. Many times.

I found the analysis of the “Star System” in The Tyranny of Structurelessness to fit the situation I was in perfectly. We had allowed ourtselves to create a hierarchy that we couldn’t control because we would not allow ourselves to name it.

Women are trained to have trouble with naming. Naming our bodies is an old taboo. If I can’t say “cunt”, how can I love my cunt? How can I fight sexual abuse when there are no words to describe it with? If I can’t name gender privilege, then I can’t call it out and I can’t convince others they have a right and responsibility to do so too. So for me, it is vital to recognise the substance of a relationship and name it accordingly. Just because we call ourselves ‘anarchist’ doesn’t mean we actually are practising anarchism. If we discard the analytic tools that allow us to criticise our own actions, our own structures (or lack of structures), then we can’t progress away from the capitalist, domineering relationships we are brought up with toward the open and trusting relationships we would like to create.

Much of Joreen’s analysis is anarchist-friendly, if not actually anarchist. Let’s face it, there isn’t a crush of contenders when it comes to active, contemporary anarchist-feminist theorists. We take what we can get and use it for our needs:

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 the sense of satisfaction of doing a good job.
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 and what is happening, the more politically effective one can be.

Much of The Tyranny of Structurelessness rings all too true for me and my compas. The star system, the friendship system, the ear-to-the-ground system - they all work fine when you’re on the inside. But what if you’re not? What if you’re excluded because you’re just not cool enough? Or just not friends with one person? Or you need to work, and can’t be available all the time to become friends with everyone? Or what if you’re a woman and the males of the group use the informal nature of the collective to make decisions without you?

Whether Joreen made this analysis out of fear of anarchist methods, or concern for ungovernable privilege doesn’t matter to me. Infoshop.org’s “corrections” of the this pamphlet don’t amount to anything more than trot-bashing. Its easy to say “don’t read this - its written by an authoritarian”. Its harder to actually come to terms with the rational critiques made of anarchist organising methods. Its harder to answer those critiques, and its hardest of all to accept that there might be some truth in them.

Infoshop.org isn’t debunking myths about anarchism, they’re re-bunking myths about the womens movement. Slabs of the 1960s / 70s womens movement might have been truly anarchist, but there were also strong currents of all flavours. There was misandry, there was polyamoury, there was lesbian power and macrobiotics. There was the anti-war movement that engulfed everything. To invalidate one pamphlet because it was written by a young authoritarian is a ludicrous! Half the left at that time were authoritarian (and half still are). But its also a bit authoritarian to discount their genuine attempts at analysis for the fact of their authoritarianism alone.

Infoshop’org’s criticism is also simply rude. It calls reading and distribution of The Tyranny of Structurelessness “one of the more ignorant things promoted by anarchists”. How can this kind of statement be justified alongside an intro proclaiming that “Infoshop is a site for all anarchists”. All anarchists, except women who find value in the writings of Joreen? Oh please! How can we be anti-authoritarian and call people “ignorant” for finding a pamphlet useful?

Anarchists need to take on critiques of anarchism. I’m concerned that Infoshop.org talks about how “contemporary anarchists are using an anti-anarchist essay to criticize problems in their groups and organizations” as being somehow bizzarre. I can’t see the problem with that. These problems are there (yes, they are). Responding to criticisms in this way is a bit like sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling “la la la la la”. It won’t make those problems go away - it will just alienate the people who see and are affected by those problems.

Is it just me, or is it really likely that the people who are accused of “wav[ing] a decontextulaized essay over people’s heads” are probably women talking about how informality can disempower them within their anarchist collectives? If they’re going first to a feminist text, they probably are women. In response, I can say that its much better to sit and have a think about why people are going to an “authoritarian” feminist essay for answers to the collective’s problems instead of just talking about it, than it is to have a rant about how feminist texts aren’t to be trusted because they’re all written by authoritarians anyway.

There are at least 2 kinds of authority. Power to and power not to. Power not to address patriarchy. Power not to take others seriously because they’re reading the ‘wrong’ texts. Power not to include and engage those who feel they have a genuine problem with group process.

Perhaps someone using The Tyranny of Structurelessness has hit a nerve?

Further reading: You might also want to look at The BITCH Manifesto, by Joreen, which has some good points (and some less-than-good points). Then search out “No Bath But Plenty Of Bubbles” (an oral history of the UK Gay Liberation Front) by Lisa Power for some context, great protest techniques and class conflict within the gender / sexuality movement.

Disclaimer:
1. I’m not in the Joreen fanclub.
2. I have talked about “Infoshop.org” here as the author of the page I’m responding to because it isn’t signed by anyone in particular.
3. I never said I was perfect, or spelled correctly, or typed well.

Meaningless word-junky point-scoring
10 points for mis-use of the word ‘ironic’! BINGO!