informality benefits the powerful

Feminist Jo Freeman’s “The Tyranny of Structurelessness” examines the ways in which “informality” in organizations—the lack of explicit structure—serves the powerful while appearing to be democratic. Freeman is writing primarily about the feminist movement, but her insights apply to most any group of people. The core of Freeman’s argument is that there is no such thing as a lack of structure, only structures that are more or less formal (or legible) . In the absence of well-defined rules for how decisions get made and power is wielded in a group, those things happen through influence, dominance, and often in secret—all ways that serve the already powerful and privileged.

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.

Structurelessness masks power

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

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.