ABSTRACT
Key features of organising non-hierarchically which have emerged from the first-hand accounts in the previous chapter are the need to manage relationships between individuals and the group, and between the group and other actors; to create and maintain commitment; to enhance the competence of participants; and thereby to ensure the survival of the social order. It is argued that these activities are features of any setting in which organising takes place. What distinguishes organising within the women’s movement is the clearly articulated and widely accepted system of values which informs the way in which fundamental organising activities are carried out. It is because the concern here is to move beyond descriptions of non-hierarchical organising as ‘spontaneous’ or ‘natural’, predicated as these are on particular assumptions about human nature, and to get closer to how non-hierarchy ‘works’, that the discussion is grounded in organisation theory. It is therefore accepted that some readers will perceive gaps, while others will prefer development in areas which are here underdeveloped, and it does mean that the case material is available to different readings in relation to different theoretical bases. Most obviously, perhaps, the literature on social movements, voluntary associations and self-help groups attends to aspects of social life which in terms of their defining characteristicslack of monetary incentives, oppositional stance and skill and information sharing-clearly have some parallels with the organising efforts of the women’s groups described in chapter one. On the other
hand the main interest of much of this literature is in developing comprehensive classificatory schemes, and, with a few notable exceptions (for example, Rothschild-Whitt’s (1982) work on collectivist-democratic organisations and Freeman’s (1975, 1984) work on the women’s movement in the USA), the concern of a great deal of the social movement literature in particular is to attempt an assessment of the political effectiveness of social movements rather than to understand their characteristic forms of organisation (Brown, 1989). This observation applies as much to studies of the women’s movement (for example, Coote and Campbell, 1987, Dahlerup, 1986) as to other social movements. However, in other respects the wealth of anecdotal evidence describing experiences of organising in the women’s movement which was reviewed in the previous chapter both broadens the empirical base of the study and is useful in drawing attention to areas which are seen as problematic-a source of questions if not an answer to them.
