Group structures & leadership
Some groups may struggle with the concept of structure or be anti-hierarchal altogether, but without strong leadership, and depending on the experience levels of AG members, an AG may become stagnant or not as effective as it could be. AG’s may need to explore and try out different structures, governing systems and decision-making processes before finding what works best for the people and goals of the AG. Consensus is a type of structure and decision-making process that is commonly used within AG’s, but it is not suitable or the best option for all groups. Just like with different forms of activism, some affinity groups may end up using a mix of structures/hierarchies and decision-making processes.
Some basic information on group structures is below, including links to further information on this topic.
Hierarchal organisational structure
Hierarchal structures better define levels of authority and responsibility within an AG by having one person or small group leading and a ranking following of AG members dependent on experience and relevant knowledge. Your AG may have members that feel very strongly about being able to give input and be involved in decision-making (consensus, or leaning toward consensus) and hierarchal structures might make less experienced and/or less vocal AG members feel left out or unimportant, but perhaps not. These are all matters that need to be taken into consideration and efficient meeting and discussion facilitation can help with some the side effects of using a hierarchal structure.
Horizontal or flat structure
Horizontal, or flat, group structures have decentralized leadership, few or no levels of governance/admin/leadership and have transparency of information. This option spreads the responsibility of decision-making as evenly as possible throughout a group, and may have one person or a small group at the ‘head’ of the structure to guide the AG. This may be viewed as a fairer option by many AG’s, but it may need to be considered that this type of structure might require more time & energy and could potentially foster stunted planning, strategizing and success by allowing AG members that have little experience to have just as much decision-making power as more experienced activists. In contrast, it could, perhaps, foster more creative and robust ideas etc. All of these considerations (and more) should be reflected on when deciding on what structure your AG should have.
Matriarchal Structures
*This section has been included in the guide twice due to the importance of this topic being reflected on and considered by individuals and affinity groups.
Members of D.A.M believe that we humans can come together, as a global community, to take a stand against the injustices that occur every single day toward our fellow human beings, toward non-human animals and toward the environment which we all depend on. We believe that empowering girls and women and steering our societal cultures toward matriarchal structures & systems, instead of patriarchal ones, is imperative to reversing much of the damage done to the rights of humans, animals and our environment.
When forming an affinity group, and/or when beginning a campaign, it is foolish to repeat or embed within your AG the very structures and systems we, as activists, oppose and fight against; the systems and structures that create and perpetuate the injustices we gather to address. What is being referred to here is not simply a reversal or flipping upside down of our current (and historic) patriarchal governing systems and structures, but rather a different governing system altogether; a different way of cooperating with each other.
Historically and generally speaking, men have been responsible for creating laws and policies which govern our society socially, economically and politically, and this has resulted in inherent biases creating inadequacies, or inequalities, between humans (and animals and against the environment). We must truly begin to restructure how our society sees, thinks about and addresses these inadequacies.
Matriarchal structures are not new, and you are encouraged to learn more about establishing matriarchal structures within your AG via the links below:
International Academy HAGIA for Modern Matriarchal Studies
Modern Matriarchal Studies (second-congress-matriarchal-studies.com)
More about this topic can be learned by reading Invisible Women – Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men by Caroline Criado Perez.
Patriarch = the male head of a family or tribe.
Matriarch = the female who is the head of a family or tribe.
Patriarchal = relating to or denoting a system of society or government controlled by men.
Matriarchal = relating to or denoting a form of social organization in which a woman is the head.
Consensus decision making
Consensus is a desirable structure for many activists because, when using consensus structures, no one should be forced to go along with an action that they do not agree with and, because all AG members are given the opportunity to have input on strategy, planning, decision-making and other group matters. Consensus-based group structures generally take more time and energy to reach decisions and to take action because the input of all AG members is needed and agreement must be reached before moving forward. Potentially requiring more time, energy and trust is not necessarily a negative regarding using a consensus-based structure, but these potential limitations need to be considered by affinity groups in regards to lengths of meetings and the range of levels of experience within the AG etc.
Learn more about the consensus decision-making process here.
Further information on group structures & leadership
Struggles Over Leadership in the Women’s Liberation Movement by Carol Hanisch