The Tyranny of Structurelessness
"The Tyranny of Structurelessness" is an influential essay by American feminist Jo Freeman that concerns power relations within radical feminist collectives. The essay, inspired by Freeman's experiences in a 1960s women's liberation group, reflected on the experiments of the feminist movement in resisting the idea of leaders and even discarding any structure or division of labor. As Hilary Wainwright wrote in Z Magazine, Freeman described how "this apparent lack of structure too often disguised an informal, unacknowledged and unaccountable leadership that was all the more pernicious because its very existence was denied". As a solution, Freeman suggests formalizing the existing hierarchies in the group and subjecting them to democratic control.
Stats for nerds
43recommend
77mentions
69people
2013–2026years
62% recommend38% neutral
Mentions per year
What Hacker News says
- > The Tyranny of Structurelessness
To me this essay was an eye-opener, both because it's well argued and also because it's so obvious once you read it. Even outside the specific niche of feminist groups in the US, who hasn't witnessed this phenomenon in action? Those supposedly flat groups where everyone has a voice, yet it's always the same subset of people who are heard and ultimately influence or direct all decisions? And the unwritten rules who are both invisible and "the law".
- Radical left-wingers subdivide into two groups:
1. Those who intuitively understand power dynamics and endeavor towards a "don't kill, and don't be killed[0]" mentality, even if they understand that the radical change they want is generational
2. People who want to wear the boot
To be clear, every organization and movement has #2. Libertarian conservatives are chock full of Trump bootlickers, neoliberals were basically completely coopted by corporate bootlickers, Free Software activists have an unsavory habit of falling in with whatever RMS says, anarchists have to deal with people who want to break windows for fun, socialists have "tankies" that just want Soviet Russia to invade and oppress, etc.
The book "The Tyranny of Structurelessness" covers this tendency if you want to read more.
[0] There are a lot of Floweys out there.
- Back in 2012, I was the first developer to join Dominic Tarr on Secure Scuttlebutt. I built Patchwork, the first client. If you’re not familiar with SSB, give it a look! It’s an aggressively anarchist technical model. After a year and a half, I had serious concerns about our ability to attract users. I realized that any activist effort needs a theory of change. For a software technology, that’s the market. We need to make better products if we want our technological goal to succeed.
The model we follow is more federal more than confederal. We use strong leadership that can be replaced. We use that in the governance, the technical design, and the execution. We also follow a kind of separation of powers through modularity, and an aggressive focus on the right to exit. SSB was “no authority ever” and it failed to scale. ATProto is “no permanent authority.”
Give the essay The Tyranny of Structurelessness a read sometime. I’ve worked in open source for my entire adult life and I’m now 38. There’s always somebody in charge. It’s not better when you don’t know who.
- The central premise of the article seems to me to be a likely misunderstanding of the problem. I would bet that a Scrum Product Owner who uses a "command and control" leadership style and doesn't know how to properly delegate authority would be doing the same under any other development framework, too.
In general I'm a big fan of the "single wringable neck" principle. I've seen it put to great effect in the hands of a skilled leader, in both Scrum and non-Scrum teams. Better yet, when the leader isn't managing things well, it also leaves no question that they're the one who needs to figure out how to set things straight. Same goes for their delegates.
And for the ICs it makes collaboration easier - and therefore, ironically, enables them to work more autonomously. When everyone unambiguously knows what they're in charge of and what the team's big-picture objectives are, they have everything they need to independently figure out how best to make it happen. And it's also a lot easier to figure out who to talk to when they need to call attention to a problem.
I've seen a lot less luck with shared authority and informal delegation. On the best of days, it turns decisionmaking into an unnecessarily political process. More likely, the team will settle into an informal consensus process that typically operates as "rule by the obdurate" in practice. And when things get tough, the leaders will tend to slide into unproductive bickering that all but precludes actually fixing the problem.
Favorite readings that touch on this kind of thing: The Tyranny of Structurelessness by Jo Freeman, and Turn the Ship Around! by David Marquet.
- Humans have a natural tendency towards social hierarchies. If you don't provide structure people will instinctively create it; so attempting to entirely remove structure from an organization is idealistic and inevitably fails. This usually leads to hidden power structures and counter-productive popularity dynamics. A great classic read about this topic is essay "The Tyranny of Structurelessness" by Jo Freeman: https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm
The simplest way to encode a structure is with a basic hierarchal structure where power gets delegated and directions flow down from a single individual at the top, and information gets filtered and flows up to enable decision making. This is one of the most simplest and common structures you see across society. It is a structure great at quick, efficient decision making, but has numerous flaws that make it suboptimal in many cases. Notably, the single-directional flows means it's particularly bad at self-regulating, and therefore it's susceptible to corruption without a significant outside influence.
However you can leverage systems and technology to engineer and enable novel and durable alternative structures and power dynamics. On a societal level, democracy is a hugely successful example of a system like this. Elections create a loop from the bottom to enable accountability for the person at the top, helping solve a number of failure states. You also have techniques like creating multiple structures that operate in tension, structures that operate entirely via democratic consensus, etc. Each structure has different strengths and weaknesses, and combining them well can be used to create high-functioning governments.
At the level of corporations however, you see minimal exploration of optimal structure. The modern corporation has seen some innovation, but this happened almost entirely at the ownership level, with boards and shareholder elections etc. The actual executive functionality of most companies is almost entirely your standard hierarchy. It beggars belief to think that this would be the optimal operational structure across all industries. The reality is it's the structure that maximizes shareholder control (and therefore shareholder value). Other structures might enable an organization to better serve the market, employees, etc ; but these are not the concerns of the people setting up and funding said corporations.
- Reminds me a bit of that Tyranny of Structurelessness essay, well worth a read.
Related
The Tyranny of Metrics
13 recommend · 19
Business dynamics
9 recommend · 22
Radical Focus
7 recommend · 11
The Open Organization
5 recommend · 7
The Blank Slate
42 recommend · 100
Deep Work
310 recommend · 678
Against Intellectual Monopoly
59 recommend · 133
