19
However, structurally, NOW, as well as other women’s organizations, faced what Freeman
describes as the “classic dilemma” inherent to most social groups. NOW members struggled to
maintain national coordination with grassroots participation. The hierarchical structure
necessary for altering the women’s social institu
tions conflicted with the concept of participatory
democracy necessary for pursuing the “democratic nature” of NOW’s goals (Freeman, p.100).
The “classic dilemma” women’s groups faced can be explained by structural models
proposed by Robert Michels in his book, Political Parties (Freeman, p. 100). Once an
organization obtains some type of status in society, a centralized structure emerges. The
bureaucrats have a vested interest in retaining their position in society, as well as the status of
their organization, through the goals they set. Freeman speaks of the structure and lack of
structure which encompass the “classic dilemma” as being a “curious protean medley of
structure and spontaneity” (Freeman, p.101). The hierarchical structure and habit which classify
bureaucratic organizations are not conducive to social movement organizations that lack
financial resources for rewarding their membership and must utilize other incentives. Social
movement organizations must attract membership by offering varying incentives, such as what
Freeman terms “solidary” incentives, specifically friendship, respect, and prestige, and
“purposive” incentives, such as the “value fulfillment,” one’s values are fulfilled by being in a
specific social organization (Freeman, p.101). Freeman cites a social movement’s primary
resource as the “commitment of its members” (Freeman, p. 101). NOW’s successes can be
explained by its “solidary” and “purposive” incentives, both of which promoted participatory
democracy’s bottom- up leadership and resisted the hierarchical structure associated with
bureaucratic organizations.
“Purposive” and “Solidary” Incentives in the Civil Rights Movement
Convention