RE: The “Tyranny of Structurelessness”

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.