#structurelessness

This means that to strive for a structureless group is as useful, and as deceptive, as to aim at an "objective" news story, "value-free" social science, or a "free" economy. A "laissez faire" group is about as realistic as a "laissez faire" society; the idea becomes a smoke screen for the strong or the lucky to establish unquestioned hegemony over others. This hegemony can be so easily established because the idea of "structurelessness" does not prevent the formation of informal structures, only formal ones. Similarly "laissez faire" philosophy did not prevent the economically powerful from establishing control over wages, prices, and distribution of goods; it only prevented the government from doing so. Thus structurelessness becomes a way of masking power, and within the women's movement is usually most strongly advocated by those who are the most powerful (whether they are conscious of their power or not). 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 curtailed to those who know the rules. Those who do not know the rules and are not chosen for initiation must remain in confusion, or suffer from paranoid delusions that something is happening of which they are not quite aware.

AC6262, 15 January 2019

foreground ex The Anthropocene : The Human Epoch (2018) to the right, one row forward, ex Spike Lee's BlacKkKlansman (2018)

epigram from an (unknown) neighbor's reading, the phrase being coined by Jo Freeman ca 1970 her text here; see also

—

“Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such thing as a structureless group. Any group of people of whatever nature that comes together for any length of time for any purpose will inevitably structure itself in some fashion. The structure may be flexible; it may vary over time; it may evenly or unevenly distribute tasks, power and resources over the members of the group. But it will be formed regardless of the abilities, personalities, or intentions of the people involved. The very fact that we are individuals, with different talents, predispositions, and backgrounds makes this inevitable. Only if we refused to relate or interact on any basis whatsoever could we approximate structurelessness -- and that is not the nature of a human group. This means that to strive for a structureless group is as useful, and as deceptive, as to aim at an "objective" news story, "value-free" social science, or a "free" economy. A "laissez faire" group is about as realistic as a "laissez faire" society; the idea becomes a smokescreen for the strong or the lucky to establish unquestioned hegemony over others. This hegemony can be so easily established because the idea of "structurelessness" does not prevent the formation of informal structures, only formal ones. Similarly "laissez faire" philosophy did not prevent the economically powerful from establishing control over wages, prices, and distribution of goods; it only prevented the government from doing so. Thus structurelessness becomes a way of masking power, and within the women's movement is usually most strongly advocated by those who are the most powerful (whether they are conscious of their power or not). 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. Those who do not know the rules and are not chosen for initiation must remain in confusion, or suffer from paranoid delusions that something is happening of which they are not quite aware.

For everyone to have the opportunity to be involved in a given group and to participate in its activities the structure must be explicit, not implicit. The rules of decision-making must be open and available to everyone, and this can happen only if they are formalized. This is not to say that formalization of a structure of a group will destroy the informal structure. It usually doesn't. But it does hinder the informal structure from having predominant control and make available some means of attacking it if the people involved are not at least responsible to the needs of the group at large. "Structurelessness" is organizationally impossible. We cannot decide whether to have a structured or structureless group, only whether or not to have a formally structured one. Therefore the word will not be used any longer except to refer to the idea it represents. Unstructured will refer to those groups which have not been deliberately structured in a particular manner. Structured will refer to those which have. A Structured group always has formal structure, and may also have an informal, or covert, structure. It is this informal structure, particularly in Unstructured groups, which forms the basis for elites.”

If someone asks me, “What is open source software?”, I have an obvious answer: “Software that is licensed as open source and makes its source code available for users to review, modify and share.”  Ditto “What is open science?”, to which I’d respond: “Science that is made available to review by anybody and available to reproduce by anyone with the necessary skills and equipment.” 

It’s important to note that open source software and open science can be created by ‘closed’ communities.  A secretive company that makes all of its employees sign NDAs could create open source software and “throw it over the wall” periodically to users, ignoring all bug reports and feature requests.  An elite group of researchers could work in isolation and only after finishing publish all their materials in an open access journal. 

That this doesn’t often happen is a testament to the way our values express themselves in all aspects of our lives.  Someone who believes strongly in open access is unlikely to enjoy participating in a secret scientific cabal, for instance.  But the conflation of ‘open products’ with ‘open communities’ can cause problems when people assume that all they need to do to foster an open community is create a specific kind of product licensed in a specific kind of way.

Now, secret scientific cabals are obviously not ‘open’, so most open-aspiring communities are unlikely to adopt that structure.  But what structure will they adopt?  Too often the answer is none.  While a lack of formal structure may work for some small projects, it can also cause significant problems, problems which subvert the open and egalitarian aims of community members.

Jo Freeman’s classic essay, The Tyranny of Structurelessness, explains why a lack of formal structure does not prevent structure from emerging:

Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such thing as a structureless group. Any group of people of whatever nature that comes together for any length of time for any purpose will inevitably structure itself in some fashion. [...] The very fact that we are individuals, with different talents, predispositions, and backgrounds makes this inevitable. Only if we refused to relate or interact on any basis whatsoever could we approximate structurelessness -- and that is not the nature of a human group.

[...]

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. Those who do not know the rules and are not chosen for initiation must remain in confusion, or suffer from paranoid delusions that something is happening of which they are not quite aware.

For this reason, many ‘structureless’ communities are less open than even formally structured closed communities.  While the latter may have a high barrier to entry, for instance employment at a specific company, at least the route to meaningful participation is clear.

Perhaps you are already convinced that a formal structure for your community is desirable.  Excellent!  Back to our earlier question: which structure?

The same egalitarian impulses which can lead a person to reject formal structure might also inspire someone to say, “Let’s let the community decide what structure to use!”  While, again, this may work for some projects, especially small ones, it can also cause problems.  I see two reasons for this.

First, the process of choosing a community’s structure can be enormously complex.  It is a task which requires the cognitive ability to compare multiple abstract systems and select from among them that which best fits your project and community.  It also requires the interpersonal social ability of communicating with members of the community to gauge enthusiasm for the proposed structure.  If there are pre-existing tensions within the community, you need to know of them and how to navigate them.  And of course, you need to feel empowered to do all of this individually or collectively.

Which brings me to the second problem.  In some ways, “We’ll let the community choose the structure!” just kicks the issue of structurelessness down the road a bit.  Because what does it mean for the community to choose the structure?  Which structures will be considered?  How will community members give feedback?  Who determines who a ‘community member’ is as this phase?  Who is organizing the feedback process?  How will a decision ultimately be made and where does that power come from?  You end up needing to pick a structure in order to pick a structure.  It’s turtles all the way down.

In the best case scenario, however, these two problems cancel each other out.  Few people are willing or able to take on the social and cognitive burden of setting up an initial structure.  Therefore members of a community may be relieved rather than upset when someone steps in to propose an initial structure without consulting them first.  So long as that initial structure is itself an open structure, people will often greet it with open arms.

But what makes something an open structure, if it’s not the fact that it creates an open product nor the process by which the structure was adopted?  That is, shall we say, an open question.  ;)  Here’s one possible answer:

An open structure is transparent.  Governance work is done, wherever possible, in open channels: forums, mailing lists, logged chats or in-person meetings where notes are taken.  A maximally transparent structure doesn’t just take notes, it also summarizes them for ease of reading and crafts communications channels like announcements-only mailing lists where people can learn about major decisions without having to weed through information that’s irrelevant to them.

An open structure is accountable.  It gives community members clear routes to making small and large changes to both the outputs of the structure and to the structure itself.  For instance, a structure may have a founding charter from which it derives its authority, and that charter may specify that changes can be made to the charter given a vote of 3/4ths from members, membership being a role also defined by the charter.

An open structure is inclusive.  Participation in the community and in the governing structure is limited by behavior rather than by irrelevant personal characteristics such as employment by specific organizations, a lack of educational credentials, or demographic differences like race and gender.  To be clear, the characteristics I just listed are only commonly irrelevant.  Communities formed around an identity or requiring specific skillsets only taught in certain credentialing programs may find them quite relevant.  Restricting membership based on those characteristics may make a community comparatively less inclusive, but they should still be considered under the broad umbrella of ‘open’.

Without a formal structure, it can be difficult for newcomers to tell if a given community is transparent, accountable, and inclusive, and near impossible for them to trust it will remain so. 

Why would an informally structured community that is currently transparent, accountable and inclusive ever lose those attributes?  There are many reasons, but chief among them is the fact that each of the values I listed above exists in tension with other important and desirable values.  For instance, ‘transparency’ exists in tension with ‘privacy’.  ‘Accountability’ exists in tension with ‘stability’ and ‘efficiency’, as the work of holding leaders accountable can cause unpredictable changes and slow the development process down.

I see ‘inclusivity’ as existing in tension with a phenomenon that I don’t have a pithy one-word label for, and it is the inclination to prioritize the needs and desires of those who are doing most of the work.  Like ‘privacy’ and ‘efficiency’, this inclination is an inherently positive thing and something that open communities need to respect.  If there’s one person doing 90% of all translations for your documentation, for instance, her opinions on how to change the translation process should count for more than any other random member of the community.  But how much more?

Open communities may value transparency over privacy, accountability over stability and efficiency, and inclusivity over prioritizing individuals based on behavior, but they should not always and in all cases do so.  Where they draw the line is a judgment call, and having formal discussions and structures which address these tensions help to make this a conscious and ongoing judgment, rather than a hidden and outdated one.

Together with popularization of blockchain we can notice revived calls for decentralization of national and international governments, their reboots, or even their dissolution. But such calls lack fundamental understanding of how our governments operate, their role in our global society, and what all in fact regulate and control our existence beyond just governments.

One of the things that I think we’ve inherited from the ‘60s is a habit of seeing the cultural space as the space in which we do business and make change. And the trouble with that is that it makes it very hard to negotiate things like class or race or distribution of the kind of social goods that come from business.

Power to people is a really good way of ignoring the structural differences between kinds of people. Structurelessness is a problem. And it’s less of a problem when you share cultural similarities with other folks, or genotypic or phenotypic similarities. So Stewart Brand’s circle tends to look a lot like Stewart Brand. It tends to be mostly white, often male. And that’s true for many elite Silicon Valley leaders. I don’t think that shared cultural similarity is a sufficient structure. It results in bad distribution of resources. It gets very hard to get resources to people who are different than yourself. I think our challenge is to find ways to reach out to folks who are different than ourselves, not to build clusters of likeminded people.