During a discussion I was responded to me with:
There is NO such thing as “leaderless” organisation amongst humans - period.
and I don’t know what to make of it. I don’t have enough first-hand experience with anarchist organizations to refute it but I have read and watched enough anarchist media to doubt this claim.
(Edit: probably should have mentioned: This was told to me by another anarchist who I’ve seen in this com. So I don’t think this was due to ignorance.)
My main inspiration for my own beliefs comes quite a lot from the youtuber andrewism. Because the way he describes anarchism speaks to me. It’s hopeful and constructive focusing on the things we can build instead of the things we must defeat, something that very much resonates with a naive pacifist like me.
He has made a video on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYVWbj8naBM.
And he does a good job of listing all of the different ways of leadership, until ending with the idea that leadership could be used as a way to start enforcing authority, and that constant vigilance is needed to oppose it. He therefor argues to view leadership not as a position, but as a practice that is shared across everyone.
There is also this comment under the video that I think is relevant:
I think that calling it a “guide” instead of a “leader” would properly convey the idea. Why is a guide a guide? Because of their local (or niche) knowledge, e.g. somebody who guides you around a museum. There is no inherent authority caught in the word, as you are simply choosing to listen to them concerning a specific context.
There is also this text: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-all-cocoons-are-temporary
Which I remember really resonating with me but I can’t remember most of the specifics so I guess I’ll need to re-read it at some point.
This was told to me by an anarchist who is in this com. They seem knowledgeable about anarchism so I don’t think this is ignorance. Rather a genuine disagreement on what leadership is or its role in anarchism.
They also said this:
I’ve found it helps, when discussing leadership, to first establish what it means, since it’s easy to talk past one another if your ideas of leadership don’t match.
For example, some define leadership in terms of accountability or responsibility for outcomes, others by who reports to whom, others simply by appearances (e.g. figureheads), and still others by authority, power, clout/legitimacy, social capital, knowledge/experience, or simply influence.
Generally speaking, although I like considering influence (because it has allowed me to recognize many exceptional leaders I would have otherwise missed) ultimately, as it pertains to any official leadership role, I will always build my definition around responsibility, because that is the bottom-line burden of leadership. No self-interested person should ever want to lead unless there’s a cause or goal great enough to make it worth carrying that burden. That’s why many good leaders seem reluctant to take on a leadership role, then act as servants or stewards when they do.
From that perspective, I agree with your friend. You will never find any group effort, project, or any type of organization without some form of leadership, because they will always need at least one person willing to take responsibility for outcomes.
Yes. Even in a group of peers, leaders inevitably emerge. Unelected, unappointed but still leaders in those situations. As long as they lead by consent and are answerable. There’s nothing wrong with that. An abject absence of leadership in all aspects/scopes is generally unnatural and uncommon.
Elections etc are a whole other can of worms
I disagree with @Septimaeus@infosec.pub & @Eldritch@piefed.world 🧵. Words and their usage have meaning, esp. with a quo.
Anarchism can have initializers, guides, inspirers, instigators, accountants, entasked, burdened, responsible, etc., but having authority over others, “power, clout/legitimacy, social capital, knowledge/experience, simply influence,” servitude, stewardness, and electors are not principals of organizing though anarchist praxis.
I noted how they sidetracked my examples of emergent organization without any leadership involvement.
In a purely intellectual discussion that has merit. But in general layman’s terms any one of those could be seen as leadership, by leaders. In a discussion, it’s a good idea to have an idea of the level of understanding of the participants. And trying to speak to their level. Otherwise you risk talking passed them and confusing them. Which is generally not what you want.
It’s a distinction between natural leadership and those formally empowered as an officer in a hierarchy of power.
You’re in an anarchist community. You are extremely familiar with our vernaculars, and that of “laymen.” Both use “leadership” to mean exactly what “laymen” dictionaries define.
I am not so sure why you keep sidetracking the leaderless organizations that emerge out of common interests and responsibilities that I listed.
We disavow leadership in praxis for necessities and demand. When something needs doing we act on it. Leaders need not exist.
It sounds like we agree.
Leadership as responsibility or accountability, in the manner of a service, contribution, or sacrifice, is definitely a longstanding layperson definition. At least in the West and in the English language.
Leadership as authority is IME only used in might-makes-right paradigms or children’s games. I only see it used that way unironically among RWA types, and occasionally by non-native English speakers whose concept of “leader” is based on a translated word that’s much closer to the English word “ruler.”
I only offered the other examples to demonstrate how broadly people’s ideas about leadership vary. The reason “influence” strikes me as an interesting notion of leadership is that it’s useful for recruiting potential leaders.
The reason it’s useful is that many with leadership potential are reticent to answer the call to lead (often because of the burden of responsibility or fear of failure) yet they are deeply invested in the cause, evidenced by their instinct to influence others and guide them to successful outcomes (“backseat driving,” “leading from the shadows,” etc) which, while helpful, is suboptimal. It is better that they take responsibility for the objective instead of attempting to use others’ agency as proxy.
That’s the only reason I said I like to consider that notion of leadership often. My definition is primarily tied to responsibility.
Which dictionary?
Then use those words instead🤦♀️. E.g.
etc. etc…
The problem with citing dictionary is because they are based on current status quo. When I used it as a reference I got “Let’s not let liberals define the words we use” and I agree with that. We need an anarchist dictionary that’s wildly used to solve these problem. Every anarchist has their own path, and they have different words. We should try and consolidate as much as possible to a dictionary.
🤦♀️ reread my🧵.
Both dictionaries use the same meaning for “leadership.”
Septimaeus just wants to change his definition when we already have better vernaculars for his desired “laymen” diction.
I’m not sure what you mean. My definition has remained constant.
The top definition in your link directly above describes leadership as exhibiting the qualities and characteristics of a leader. It’s not an authority-oriented definition at all. In fact it sounds like a virtue-oriented one.
I said “layperson.” But re: said “vernaculars” versus my “desired diction“ maybe you’re right. Maybe the word leadership is just too damn confusing for the commoner to use responsibly. Perhaps they need smarter people like you to tell them which words are correct and which are forbidden. Let me know how it goes.