« Social Capital of Blogspace |
Main
| Why I Don't Like Wikis »
April 24, 2003
The Tyranny of Structurelessness
Posted by Clay Shirky
A strong entry in the category of “The Single Best Thing Anyone Has Ever Written on Group Dynamics”, Jo Freeman’s The Tyranny of Structurelessness (PDF version here), written in 1970, is still phenomenal reading. Rather than characterize it, here’s a sample:
“Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such thing as a ‘structureless’ group. Any group of people of whatever nature coming 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 and intentions of the people involved.”
This is one of those documents we should make sure never goes out of scope.
Comments (1)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category:
- RELATED ENTRIES
- › Spolsky on Blog Comments: Scale matters
- › "The internet's output is data, but its product is freedom"
- › Andrew Keen: Rescuing 'Luddite' from the Luddites
- › knowledge access as a public good
- › viewing American class divisions through Facebook and MySpace
- › Gorman, redux: The Siren Song of the Internet
- › Mis-understanding Fred Wilson's 'Age and Entrepreneurship' argument
- › The Future Belongs to Those Who Take The Present For Granted: A return to Fred Wilson's "age question"
1. JamesJayTrouble on April 27, 2004 10:46 AM writes...
Thanks for the pointer... I don't really mean to cause trouble, but may by clarifying the following:
"Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such thing as a 'structureless' group."
Just as, strictly speaking, there is no such-a thang as "unmediated consensus". Just because you can't clearly determine how a consensus is mediated, hardly means that a consensus can be derived with no mediation. Iow, wikis are largely a bogus attempt to make it appear like there's no mediation going on.
"Any group of people of whatever nature coming together for any length of time, for any purpose, will inevitably structure itself in some fashion."
So all the folks who find collaboration "restrictive" (http://www.digitaldeliverance.com/MT/archives/000414.html) can sure be passionate, like a spawning trout is passionate! These folks are passionate also (http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_04_17.html#006866), but I don't recall such a collection of incorrect views assembled in one place, ever. Note how the correct views are "weeded out" by mere head-shaking...
Iow, this is an example of a group of people who have structured themselves in a fashion and, as it happens, around fashion and style as opposed to objectivity and substance. Thus the point is missed that people who can't work with editors are not journalists, no matter how much they pretend they are and no matter if they are also journalists, as well as blah, blah, bloggers. The point is missed that what little blogging that's done which can be associated with journalism is almost exactly identical to the Yellow Journalism of a century ago.. MY haven't we progressed!! (Thus, a poor structure (especially a poor structure which pretends it's structureless) will lead to poor quality, as almost all blogging/pseudo-journalism shows pretty easily.)
I didn't get a chance to read full article yet, but would modify the following:
"The structure will both be flexible and rigid more-or-less, it will vary over time, it will .. unevenly distribute tasks, power and resources over the members of the group. But it may be formed regardless of the abilities, personalities and intentions of the people involved."
I would say (and to me it's painfully obvious) that a group formed regardless of the abilities of the members of the group is going to produce unintended consequences. And this is almost always due to the group's being formed based on personalities and intentions, rather than abilities, right?
Permalink to Comment