The military feelings are too deeply grounded to abdicate their place among our ideals until better substitutes are offered than the glory and shame that come to nations as well as to individuals from the ups and downs of politics and the vicissitudes of trade. Ask all our millions, north and south, whether they would vote now were such a thing possible to have our war for the Union expunged from history, and the record of a peaceful transition to the present time substituted for that of its marches and battles, and probably hardly a handful of eccentrics would say yes. Those ancestors, those efforts, those memories and legends, are the most ideal part of what we now own together, a sacred spiritual possession worth more than all the blood poured out. Yet ask those same people whether they would be willing, in cold blood, to start another civil war now to gain another similar possession, and not one man or woman would vote for the proposition.
It was written up for Notes from the Third Yearbut the editors did not use it. It was then submitted to several movement publications, but only one asked permission to publish it; others did so without permission.
The first official place of publication was in Vol.
This early version in movement publications was authored by Joreen. Different versions were published in the Berkeley Journal of Sociology, Vol. This piece spread all over the world. Numerous people have edited, reprinted, cut, and translated "Tyranny" for magazines, books and web sites, usually without the permission or knowledge of the author.
The version below is a blend of the three cited here. The source of this idea was a natural reaction against the over-structured society in which most of us found ourselves, and the inevitable control this gave others over our lives, and the continual elitism of the Left and similar groups among those who were supposedly fighting this overstructuredness.
The idea of "structurelessness," however, has moved from a healthy counter to those tendencies to becoming a goddess in its own right. For the early development of the movement this did not much matter. It early defined its main goal, and its main method, as consciousness-raising, and the "structureless" rap group was an excellent means to this end.
The looseness and informality of it encouraged participation in discussion, and its often supportive atmosphere elicited personal insight.
If nothing more concrete than personal insight ever resulted from these groups, that did not much matter, because their purpose did not really extend beyond this.
At this point they usually foundered because most groups were unwilling to change their structure when they changed their tasks. Women had thoroughly accepted the idea of "structurelessness" without realizing the limitations of its uses.
People would try to use the "structureless" group and the informal conference for purposes for which they were unsuitable out of a blind belief that no other means could possibly be anything but oppressive.
If the movement is to grow beyond these elementary stages of development, it will have to disabuse itself of some of its prejudices about organization and structure. There is nothing inherently bad about either of these. They can be and often are misused, but to reject them out of hand because they are misused is to deny ourselves the necessary tools to further development.
We need to understand why "structurelessness" does not work. 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.
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. 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.
‘They came with a battering ram.” Cindy Archer, one of the lead architects of Wisconsin’s Act 10 — also called the “Wisconsin Budget Repair . Free tyranny papers, essays, and research papers. The Concept of Tyranny in Literature - The Concept of Tyranny in Literature All social contract theorists and classical thinkers understand tyranny to be someone (or government) with unrestrained power that is unjust or unfair to the body, it governs. when they are too democratic. And right now, America is a breeding ground for tyranny. Illustration by Zohar Lazar As this dystopian election campaign has unfolded, my mind keeps being tugged by a.
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.
It is used as frequently, and for the same reasons, as "pinko" was used in the fifties. It is rarely used correctly.And so in New York, a revolution fought under the banner of expunging monarchical tyranny resulted in a new form of tyranny: the tyranny of the majority over a powerless, unpopular minority.
Origin of name. Modern Chinese sources often give the personal name of Qin Shi Huang as Ying Zheng, with Ying (嬴) taken as the surname and Zheng (政) the given timberdesignmag.com ancient China however the naming convention differed, and Zhao (趙) may be used as the timberdesignmag.com modern Chinese names, the nobles of ancient China had two distinct .
THE TYRANNY of STRUCTURELESSNESS by Jo Freeman aka Joreen. The earliest version of this article was given as a talk at a conference called by the Southern Female Rights Union, held in Beulah, Mississippi in May The Moral Equivalent of War William James Introduction.
The war against war is going to be no holiday excursion or camping party. The military feelings are too deeply grounded to abdicate their place among our ideals until better substitutes are offered than the glory and shame that come to nations as well as to individuals from the ups and .
Free tyranny papers, essays, and research papers. The Concept of Tyranny in Literature - The Concept of Tyranny in Literature All social contract theorists and classical thinkers understand tyranny to be someone (or government) with unrestrained power that is unjust or unfair to the body, it governs.
A Note and a disclaimer. The Note: This great book should really be read by timberdesignmag.com is difficult to describe why it so great because it both teaches and .