Freeman wrote “The Tyranny of Structurelessness” in response to her experience as an activist in the feminist movement in the 70s.

At that time, many radical feminist groups did away with formal governance structures, and moved to a fluid informal decision-making process that reflected their enthusiasm to build support networks composed of friends or “sisters”.   The rejection of formal structure was partly due to a conscious rejection to the patriarchal hierarchies many women had suffered through in other social movements.

In this seminal essay Freeman argues that the total abandonment of structure is not wise.  Her argument is that decisions and inequities still exist, despite the absence of formal structures, and it is far easier to examine, critique, and improve formal acknowledged governance structures than it is to reform unacknowledged ones.

In my experience, I have seen many new activists reject structure on the grounds that it is not in line with the “friendly tone” they want to set in the group.  Often the people who don’t want structure are the people who are friends with a lot of other people in the group, and therefore don’t always notice who is being excluded.  I do not see structure as bad in itself; rather I am concerned of undemocratic structures.  I also agree with Freeman that a lack of structure can be just as exclusionary as a hierarchy.

I believe we can and should find a middle ground and develop governance structures that are healthy, equitable, and democratic.  I am currently writing a guide for activists and advocacy groups on developing democratic governance structures.  There’s not a lot written on this topics, but some good resources that I have found include:

- Lakey et al’s book on Grassroots and Non-Profit Leadership,
- Gastil’s Democracy in Small Groups, and
- Dressler’s Consensus Through Conversation

Share →