Shawyer dissertation May 2008 final version - The University of ...

were successful networkers: they knew many of the East coast hippie and anti-waractivists, they helped to negotiate between police and the hippie youth in their LowerEast Side neighborhood, and they held public Youth International Party meetings in NewYork’s Union Square at which anyone could speak.The Yippies also rejected the kind of organizational structures that could lead toanger from different nodes in their network. Instead of hierarchies and committees thatmight create resentment from those not involved, the Yippie philosophy was thateveryone could be a Yippie leader, no hierarchy required. The openness of the Yippienetwork was essential. “There is no such thing as a YIPPIE FOLLOWER,” writes Rubinin Do It! “There are 646 ½ million different kinds of yippies, and the definition of ayippie is that he is a LEADER [sic]” (84). Furthermore, the Yippies wanted people totake political action, although they didn’t care too much what tactics they used. “Writeyour own slogan. Protest your own issues. Each man his own yippie,” Rubin advises (DoIt! 84). Without leaders, followers, or a clear hierarchy, and even without a specificoverall mandate, the Yippie network was a mass of individual nodes, each node a personwith his/her own power to communicate with others and take action as desired.The Yippie network therefore included many of the same Leftists and anti-waractivists as those in Mobe’s network: students, hippies, writers, artists, musicians,veterans, and radicals. But the Yippie network differed from Mobe’s organized structuresof committee and chairmen because it rejected hierarchy altogether. Instead of hundredsof different activist organizations and their leaders, the Yippie network would be made ofthousands or even millions of individuals inspired to take political action as they saw fit.70