ORDER VS CHAOS, TRANSGRESSIONISM AND STRUCTURALISM IN BDSM
The greatest problem we encounter in dealing with the conflict between what is called ";Old Guard" and New Leather lies in the fact that the individuals who have written on the subject have, for the most part, approached this topic from an exclusively gay standpoint. This has created a situation in which hets for the most part cannot relate to the experiences being described and therefore are unable to recognize or deal with the fundamental nature of the conflict between the mindsets of the adherints of the two sides, with often disasterous consequences when they surface in het groups. The conflict is in fact far deeper and broader than what is often defined by these writers and it can be broken down into a duel between two catagories of groups, those whose constituent members are looking for and advocating a heavily structured lifestyle and those whose choice of the lifestyle is the result of a desire to transgress social norms. These are the extreme positions and there is a far greater number of individuals involved in BDSM at various levels who do not fit at all into either category, but will, if they spend any time in what is called "the public scene" encounter.
Let us begin by recognizing that we are dealing not with a hard divide but with a continuum here. No one is totally structured in their life or their approach to life and no one can live an existence of total chaos. The difference is in the emphasis, the degree and desires that constitute both the world view and the experience of the participant.
An important factor to consider is that the choice of a particular style of BDSM comes not from BDSM itself but from the total lifestyle and background of the individual. The individual is either emphasizing some aspect of his or her life in the choice style or is reacting to some aspect in that choice. Hence a person from a strict background may choose a heavily structuralist BDSM style because that is the type of life the person is used to, or may go the other way and choose a transgressionist mode in reaction to that life. Therefore, while the external life of the participant is a factor in the choices made, it cannot be said to be a predictable determinant. But there is no question that it plays a role as does social class, relationship experience and education.
Structuralists are often accused of being social reactionaries, at times even compared if not to the mythical figure of Archie Bunker, then to the Nazis. And while this is often accurate, it not universally true. As individuals, structuralists can be no less educated nor committed to social freedom than transgressionists. Structuralists are, however, extremely rule and group oriented. They like having most, if not every, contingency spelled out for them, even to the extreme of how to lace boots. There is a heavy military influence on structuralist groups. There is also an emphasis on formality in relationships and behavior which is not found anywhere in the broader society anymore. (For example, one training class in Old Guard Protocol involved table settings for a formal banquet. New homes (including some very large ones) are often designed without a dining room because formal dinners are no longer commonplace.)
Transgressionists are radicals, though they may actually be politically quite conservative in other areas of their lives. Intolerant of authority and rejecting of hierarchy, they value daring and spontaneity above all else and hold the ideal of order and place in contempt. The SAM (Smart Assed Masochist) and the Brat are desired as subs and bottoms precisely for the qualities they possess that drive structuralists to distraction. The Mad Dom is accorded social distinction for behavior that would have him excommunicated from structuralist circles.
The Structuralists, in their Old Guard manifestation, have been written of quite often, but little attention has been paid to the social roots of transgressionists other than an occasional comment (often disparaging) about the 1960s. Transgressionism as a social force is much older than that and has its roots in what historians term the ";Adversary Culture" of the Victorian era. This adversary culture produced such varying individuals as Oscar Wilde and Aleister Crowley. From the beginning of the 20th century it can be said to be the dominant force in art and literature, as well as in certain areas of academia. In such environments, the breaking of social norms is not merely considered to be an option, it is a normative obligation. In this way transgressionism has become a major, if not dominant, force in the broader culture and a large number of individuals have come into BDSM from a transgressionist social background. Such individuals cannot function in a structuralist environment save as rebels any more that structuralists can thrive in a transgressionist environment.
Leadership in the two communities is vastly different. Structuralist leadership comes from a process, a rising in the ranks as it were. It is a gradual process of work and recognition, which is why awards and titles of various types play such an important role within the structuralist framework. The word of the leader is, if not law, certainly something to be listened to at all times.
Leadership in Transgressionist communities is that of a strong personality leading by example, more of a barbarian warlord than an elected leader. The leader is never anything more than the first among equals and everyone expects their voice to have the same weight as everyone else. Experience is desired, but not essential and it is not unknown for someone to come out of nowhere and be considered a leader among transgressionists within a very short time. Scene and social hierarchy play almost no role in transgressionist groups. While it is unusual in the extreme for submissives, even senior ones, to have a serious leadership role in structuralist communities, it is not unusual at all for them to have a major leading role in transgressionist ones.
CONFLICT AND CONTROL
Given the presence of these two cultural extremes, sometimes in the same geographic region, it is inevitable that conflict will arise between their adherints. This conflict is often exacerbated by the fact of an online culture that provides continuous communication, with an opportunity for ongoing debate or argument with little mechanism in place to stop it once it starts. Considering that you have personalities who believe very strongly in what they do, this is hardly surprising.
Group leadership structure, oddly enough rarely plays a significant role in these conflicts, if only because neither the structuralist and transgressionist will stay in a group which emphasizes the other. Conflict usually occurs outside of the organizational group dynamic and most often surfaces when structuralists and transgressionists find themselves thrown into the same location, such as a large play space or scene event because each group will find something offensive in the other.
There are certain flashpoints which can result in open transgressionist/structuralist conflict in such a setting but the most common is the matter of Protocol/etiquette. Structuralists tend to take that very seriously indeed while Transgressionists either are blissfully unaware of it and intend to remain that way, or have already encountered it and reject it out of hand. The more formality the Structuralist is used to, the greater the degree of discomfort that individual will feel around Transgressionists. Leaders and experienced dominants are used to being accorded deference due to their rank in their own environs and it is a shock to find themselves in an environment where that rank is regarded as meaningless if not utterly funny (pity the poor Drummer Boy who found himself among people who immediately thought only of the old Christmas Carol). It can be an even greater shock to find that the title may not so much mean a rank as something criminal, as when an Old Guard Daddy suddenly found himself among people who thought he had just admitted to being a child molestor. One feature of Transgressionist community that Structuralists are often unprepared for is the fact that the titles of Master or Mistress are pretty much laughed at and viewed as something only used by poseurs or professionals. Insistence on such a title in a Transgressionist environment can be disasterous and insisting on deference from another Dominant's submissive can be physically dangerous.
All norms can be points of conflict. As both Structuralists and Transgressionists have hot tempers at times plus a feeling of basic rightness of their cause, any attempt by either side to impose a behavior or any other point of view on the other will be met with heavy and ferocious resistance. No one likes to be told to go to hell and that is what occurs when one group attempts to impose its views on the other. Also, within transgressionist communities, any attempt to impose any norm will be met with strong resistance and total rejection from a significant part of that community. In such an environment, enforcement of norms becomes not merely problematical, it becomes impossible. As the transgressionists by their very nature reject norms as being personally binding, their mere presence in the regional scene community puts the structuralists at a disadvantage because the threat of excommunication has little weight. Anyone they throw out will be welcomed by the transgressionists with open arms. The same also applies to the transgressionists, but short of mass murder it is very difficult to get thrown out of a transgressionist community. They just do not think in those terms and they have usually learned from experience that ostracism will more likely than not backfire in their circle as the offender will gather his or her friends around and create their own clique, if they do not have one already. Certainly no Transgressionist will allow anyone to tell him or her whom they may or may not associate with.
In conclusion, it would seem that constructive dialogue between Structuralists and Transgressionists at the community level (certainly there are many individual friendships between adherints of both sides) may be a waste of time. The gap between them is so wide that it is difficult to see how such a dialogue can be maintained. In fact, in a number of regions it does not exist at all. The most that can be hoped for is a mutual recognition of difference and enough personal restraint to prevent the shouting matches. As of now, the relationship between the two sides can be said to be based on mutual contempt and that seems unlikely to change any time in the forseeable future.