Leaderlessness plus rapid growth doomed the SDS movement.

Evidence

But because of the loose and “participatory” nature of SDS, there was no formal process for integrating and educating new members. They had paid intentionally little attention to organizational questions. In some cases, the new recruits (who were never actually recruited) simply set up their own new chapter somewhere, without ever speaking with the old guard. Gitlin came to the conclusion that both leaderlessness and unexpected, rapid growth spelled the end of the movement. By 1967, some protesters were complaining about “structure freaks,” those who wanted to have any organization whatsoever. — Vincent Bevins, If We Burn, 75

Categorization

• XREF: Previews Bevins’s later chapters on Occupy and 2019-20 movements that also rejected leadership and structures. — connects to: Widespread individual exit strategies undermine collective mobilization and perpetuate subordinate status. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology: Key Readings, 2747; Mutual distrust plus SDS maximalism killed Frankfurt’s experiment in shared departmental governance.

Broader Connections

• Widespread individual exit strategies undermine collective mobilization and perpetuate subordinate status. #expands (0.75) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2747
• Mutual distrust plus SDS maximalism killed Frankfurt’s experiment in shared departmental governance. #exemplifies (0.72)