Collaboration and Hierarchy in the EZLN

CONVERSATION FROM FACEBOOK GROUP

Christopher Hethrington wrote…

Titles and addresses are a factors that impact perception. The leader of El Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional (EZLN) chose to give himself a military title that is lower in rank to others. Subcomandante Marcos’ deliberate decision was strategic and has to do with the intention to create a perception that the organization is collaborative rather than hierarchical [ibid to come]. While he is a sub-commander, there are a number of indigenous commanders and this can also be seen as a way to ameliorate criticisms that an educated elite is leading an indigenous revolution.

Ximin Luo wrote…

i was under the impression that he is *not* the leader of the Zapatistas, and this is what the Zapatistas themselves say. he holds little to no power; he only acts as a voice.

is there any evidence to suggest that the organisation is more hierarchical than collaborative?

Christopher Hethrington wrote…

Yeah, very good point, I should be careful in how I phrase that. It does pose a problem for the communication model though in that there is certainly a perception that he is the leader, even though information from the organisation consistently emphasises that he is not the leader. A deeper reading of the structural approach definitely suggests an exceptionally collaborative organisation. I think the Caracoles speak to that, as do the autonomous zones (each with their own autonomous council).

It is my impression that from a rhetorical standpoint “he only acts as a voice” for the organisation, (just as he “is gay in San Francisco, black in South Africa, […] a Palestinian in Israel, a Mayan Indian in the streets of San Cristobal, […]). From a practical standpoint however, I think he is at the very least a facilitator of sorts, and though he may not be the leader per se, even a collaborative system requires some element of hierarchy, even if it is more organisational than, say, authoritarian.

I think this presents an opportunity to look at the image of Marcos from a semiotic perspective. In this example, the image and perception often don’t correspond to the meaning, in that the message received does not match the intention of that sent.

One difficulty in considering hierarchical and collaborative systems in this case is that there are two organisations apparently under one banner. There is the governance side of the organisation which certainly seems uniquely collaborative (I expect it has had an influence on Hugo Chavez) and there is the military side which is traditionally hierarchical, with levels of authority and the Clandestine Revolutionary Indigenous Committees - General Committee (CCRI-GC) as an overseeing body.

This muddies the waters of perception in the sense that Marcos may be only a spokesperson for the organisation but he is also a “soldier” in the army and he has a rank that is hierarchical.

” Because it is organized as an army, and it fulfills all international regulations for recognition as an army. When the war began, the EZLN did so fulfilling international conventions: it formally declared war, it has recognizable uniforms, ranks and insignias, it respects the civil population and neutral bodies. The EZLN has weapons and military organization and discipline.” (Subcommandante Marcos, web)

This isn’t really an answer, I think it poses more questions.

“Subcommandante Marcos Answers 62 Questions from Civil Society”, Zapatista Discussion Group, Feb 2001, http://zapatistas.net/62/