So we're in those early stages of organization these days with the bike Organizing (the first usage being the "putting things in order" version and the latter being the advocacy-outreach/power-to-the-people version). It's a small group, with a limited agenda. I'd like to think that the most important reason for it to exist is to make it easy for friendly folks to meet other friendly folks and get out and ride together. But at last fall's inaugural group "event" ride (other than the weekly Sunday rides), the turnout was high enough that it seemed like there was reason, and motivation, and enough people interested/concerned that it could become something more than "just" getting together to ride.
In these early stages, it's a lot of ideas floating around. What to do, how to do it, who should do it, etc. And there's the rub. With a small grass-roots group of concerned citizens, everyone should have an equal voice. There's no authoritarian figure running the show, because the show doesn't exist without the small group of concerned citizens. But if everyone has an equal voice, the conversation is more like a crowded bar - lots of fragments of topics, dynamically floating from one to the other. And while a couple people hit it off, most people go home unchanged from when they walked in - other than having spent their time and money.
I was agonizing for a while about this. A sympathetic friend, to whom I would bitch and complain, would occasionally challenge me to show leadership/ownership and forge ahead in the group. Ostensibly, her thesis was that the chaos was because no one was willing to stand up and take responsibility, so no one knew to whom to look - thus the chaos. But the tradition of authoritarian organizations that shut out minorities (read: gender, race, sex, religion) won't work here. But "structurelessness" doesn't really work either. She left me a copy of an article that's apparently canonical when it comes to the organizational challenges of second-wave feminism. The Tyranny of Structurelessness by Jo Freeman makes good points about how intending a perception of a flat structure can easily lead to a structure more corrupt and elitist than one vertically/pyramidally organized. I found myself nodding along with it - it's not just the bike group, but the small companies I've worked for exhibit similar sorts of dysfunction.
While few people are interested in the formalities of by-laws and the like, sometimes they are necessary.
The criteria of participation may differ from group to group... 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.
and when it's a group in the early stages, but with ambition, I find:
As long as friendship groups are the main means of organizational activity, elitism becomes institutionalized.
So what do I take away from the article?
Well, secretly I whisper to myself "hey look, all this time - you're more than not wrong about the world, you were right again." But more importantly that there's no reason to try to subjugate my instincts just because they were the indoctrinations by the straight white male oppressor. And just because I'm perceived as the straight white male oppressor with a shave and a haircut doesn't mean that I need to endear myself by putting on a uniform of disconformity or antitraditional style to fit in. There are plenty of ways of being effective, including the ones already known. I've advised others to "just be who you are" - I should have been listening to myself more. I don't need to put on an affected display of fairness fetishization to be even-handed and respectful of peers. The truth will be known. Eventually, always. Structure and organization can respect the individual, and if the individual "wants in" to a particular part of the structure, the way in is obvious to all.
Ever tried eating the entire apple? OK, not the stem, but instead of throwing the core of the apple out, just eat the whole apple. I've changed my habit: start at the bottom and eat THROUGH the apple. Like karate - punch THROUGH the board. You don't even notice that there's a slight texture change. Sure, spit out the seeds if you want, but if you aren't dealing with a "core", you don't get juice all over your face and hands, you don't have to look for a garbage can, etc. etc. Give it a try sometime.
From a book on population/resource issues called "The Ostrich Factor"... something that seems as good an explanation as any other for political/cultural division between communities, cultures, religions, nations: "Extremism appears to lead to clear cut decisions, whereas moderation embarrasses us by emphasizing problems that are yet to be solved."
When did "owning a home" become the "American Dream"? Who sold us this load of bullshit?
