

RE: The “Tyranny of Structurelessness” - 001sky
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/jason-mcquinn-a-review-of-the-tyranny-of-structurelessness-an-organizationalist-repudiation-of

======
001sky
Some quick background:

1) At first I thought this was a joke

2) It's actually not completely insane

3) Reference title as summarized here:

“Why organisations need some structure to ensure they are democratic.”

4) Or more fully:
[http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/hist_texts/structurelessnes...](http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/hist_texts/structurelessness.html)

5) YMMV on all of the above.

_________________

The counter argument to (3) is summarised as:

"In actuality, the potential problems...[of] informal groups, are much more
prevalent, virulent and destructive in large, formal organizations."

~~~
dalke
No, it's not a joke. It does contain ad hominems, starting with "As the
bizarre title ... incomprehensibly unreal and illogical stab at sociology by a
paranoid schizophrenic." and including "primarily appeals to bookish,
socially-incompetent — or anti-social — people", and "Kafkaesque critique".
Those made me dislike reading the critique.

Nor do I like the critiqued points. Consider #1: "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!"

While Freemen actually points out: "All of these procedures take time. So if
one works full time or has a similar major commitment, it is usually
impossible to join simply because there are not enough hours left to go to all
the meetings and cultivate the personal relationship necessary to have a voice
in the decision-making. That is why formal structures of decision making are a
boon to the overworked person. Having an established process for decision-
making ensures that everyone can participate in it to some extent."

That is, Freemen doesn't claim that informal group structure is occult (in
fact, Freeman says informal structure always happens), only that it take time,
and as such limits some people from being involved in the decision making
process. Freemen also claims that when the informal group structure is aligned
on friendship lines, it may be less politically effective.

(FWIW, I can't figure out which definition of "occult" was meant in the
critique: "hidden" or "esoteric"? An informal structure is hidden if there are
any communications which are hidden from all of the members. Since nearly all
organizations have some hidden communications, I don't think this is the
intended meaning. But "esoteric" isn't correct either, since Freemen says that
informal group structure always happens.)

As for #2: "An individual, as an individual, can never be an elitist". I have
a hard time understanding that part of the Freemen essay. I think it requires
knowing more about how "elite" was used in 1960s feminism, since the term in
the Freemen essay is itself a critique of the wider usage. I don't have that
knowledge. But I can read "individual, as an individual" as meaning "an
individual who is not part of a group" or "an individual who doesn't have any
special influence over the group." This might be, for example, a famous author
who is not associated with a specific group but whose ideas are still
influential. It appears that Freemen does not want to consider that person
part of the "elite."

So instead, Freemen gives a definition of elite ("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") but goes from that broad definition directly to how it applies in a
political group ("Elites are nothing more, and nothing less, than groups of
friends who also happen to participate in the same political activities.")

The author of the critique is correct in saying that the second definition
doesn't apply to "capitalist elites, political elites or international
elites." But I think a charitable qualification of Freemen would rewrite the
second sentence as "Elites _in a given political organization are_ ..")

The author of the critique isn't so charitable as to try to understand the
"quite dated" 1960s context of the term, nor allow that the term might be used
in a much more limited context.

This holds too for the start of #3 "her strange quotes around ‘Star’". The
Freemen text explains the "ire that is often felt toward the women who are
labeled "stars." This occurs "when the press presumes that [certain people]
speak for the movement" even though the "movement [did] not select its own
spokeswomen." The quotes around "star" emphasize that this is an external
decision of who the stars are, and not something that people in the movement
wanted. While the critique doesn't try to understand what the "strange" quotes
might mean. This is a mark of a poor critique.

The critique goes on to say "For Freeman, only stars created in the context of
informal groups are really bad.", but Freemen doesn't say that. Freemen
doesn't say that stars in the context of formal groups are not also bad. Only
that there are negatives when it occurs in the context of an informal group:
1) there is no mechanism to replace a 'star' who is not really aligned with
the group's goals, and 2) because the 'star' stands out, "women put in this
position often find themselves viciously attacked by their sisters." I'll bet
these women were even called "elite", even when the stars weren't part of the
power structure.

Finally, #4, "Freeman thinks that informal groups are politically impotent."
Except Freeman doesn't say that. The relevant quote is "Some groups have
formed themselves into local action projects _if they do not involve many
people and work on a small scale_. But this form restricts movement activity
to the local level; it cannot be done on the regional or national." (Italics
mine.)

The better line for the critique would have been "Freeman thinks that informal
groups are politically impotent _on the regional and national scale_." The
critique goes on to say "libertarian organizations can and have accomplished
everything necessary for individuals and communities to live in free,
egalitarian, convivial societies". You'll note though that this doesn't
contradict Freemen, as Freemen says that informal groups _can_ work on an
individual and community level.

Thus, I do not believe the critique is well argued.

~~~
001sky
Side 1: Informal groups can be manipulated

Side 2: Formal groups can be manipulated

The side #2 arguably is worse because it is at larger scale[ __ __]

[ __ __] And its better hidded: bad actors hide like needle in a haystack.

~~~
dalke
I don't understand your response. I pointed out that the critique of Freemen's
1970 essay is poorly reasoned. It sounds like you want to make a different
point, but you use very different terms and have a different viewpoint while
not making the connection between the two.

For example, Freemen doesn't attribute anything to "bad actors" (saying
instead "Very seldom does a small group of people get together and
deliberately try to take over a larger group for its own ends." and "This is
not done so much out of a malicious desire to manipulate others (though
sometimes it is) as out of a lack of anything better to do with their
talents."), so I don't see how your last sentence all that relevant.

I will hazard a guess: it sounds like you like anarchy, it sounds like the
"Tyranny of Anarchy" is often brought up as why there should be some formal
rules, it sounds like you found a critique against that essay, and therefore
you want to point to that critique as a justification for why that essay
should not be trusted. If so, this is an argument by proxy, using cherry-
picked documents to justify previously decided beliefs.

Even if my guess is completely wrong, I notice that you made a logical fallacy
in your comment just now. There are rarely ever only two sides. There isn't
"informal" and "formal" groups, but a spectrum of rules _and_ a spectrum of
adherence to those rules.

Freemen's lists 7 principles which should guide the development of the rules.
These include "Distribution of authority among as many people as is reasonably
possible.", "Rotation of tasks among individuals", "Equal access to resources
needed by the group", and "Diffusion of information to everyone as frequently
as possible".

These make it harder for your 'bad actor' to hide. You seem to think they make
it easier. Please explain.

~~~
001sky
Yes, I wasn't really taking any positions on either piece. My comments on this
page were more to quickly summarize (in a reasonable way) some of the theme's
involved in the posted article. As I do think they are legitimate (and
interesting) questions.

Some of the limitations (I think in line with your own notes, above) involve
the language and linquistics of how these ideas are presneted. One purpose of
such elementary paraphrasing is to simply cut through that, to the core
elements (at least ones I found interesting).

Stepping back a bit, I appraoch these questions from a form of functionial
structuralism. That is, from the ideas that problems knowable in advance can
be (at least in part) solved through technology. In politics, this is much
like a SW problem: you have "political technology"\--which is a fancy way of
principles and ideas--which helps people organize complexity and prioritize
decisionmaking and routines. At its most abstract basis, this has nothing to
do with "formal organization" or "corporations" or "governemnts", but can be
things so simple as tit-for-tat, memetics, and similar versions of abstract
reciprocity. For example, if we know that trustworthiness is a problem (and
intitively, we have detectors psychopaththy -- and manipulative, unprincipled
opportinism -- its cousing), game theory tells us that tit-for-tat can make
progress on even some difficult game-theorectic problems (prisioners dilemma).

And I think here in these two essays we see people struggling to conceptualize
and evaluate what re real problems. And real/observed anthropological
responses to them.

~~~
dalke
Elementary phrasing does not cut through language and linguistics - it makes
it worse. As the Freemen essay emphasizes, terms like "elite" are used like
"pinko", in my understanding, to delegitimize certain people even when the
terms themselves are so ill-defined as to be meaningless.

That's why Freemen proposed a specific definition of "elite", before
continuing with the essay.

I don't know what you're talking about when you say "problems knowable in
advance ... can be solved through technology." There are many classes of
problem which are impossible - travel to Andromeda within my lifetime, for
one.

Otherwise, since humans have used technology since our species first started,
it seems pretty self-evidence that all solutions will at least in part use
technology.

All essays concerning the real world struggle to conceptualize and evaluate
real problems. No essay can ever be a perfect reflection. So I believe you
expressed a tautology.

I think it's fair to say that "Tyranny of Structureless" is a much better
attempt at trying to describe reality than critique. You can approach your
analysis using any method you like, but if you can't judge the reasonableness
or correctness of the underlying data then your model will suffer from
"Garbage In, Garbage Out." The critique you pointed out is, in my opinion,
mostly garbage.

~~~
001sky
To rephrase:

(1) My post was only to invite people to read the topic !

(2) People are invited to post their own thoughts

(3) I'm happy for people to have their own ideas

(4) There's no debate with me--I take no position here

(5) My only position is--some may find this of interest

(6) A summary: indicative of content, not an evaluation

Everyone has their own style of summary -- mine was merely to eliminate what
might be loaded terms ('elite', 'pinko' etc) and focus more on subject-verb
elements of the plot. And while there are many non-solvable problems in
genral, the class of solvable problems normaly re-quires some form of either
pre-conceptualization or accidental empirical discovery. The latter even then
becomes the former once it is tested. But again, this is just my own
experience.

Perhaps this is a good reason not to annotate HN posts! Something I try to
avoid. But every now and then its good to signal some information lest people
think a submission is trolling based on the title alone or unfamiliarity.

So it's good other people take interst in the subject.

[ps] I probably shouldn't have posted in direct response to your comment, as
it was more a crystalized thought of my own that reading your notes had
suggested. It was not posted to be a critique of your comment, although I
could see how you might perceive it that way. (It would be unfair at that--as
I didn't really respond to you on your terms).

