In the previous post, I introduced the concept of an 'institution' as it relates to societal survival. In this post in the Global Sustainability series, which I have called Institutionality, I will clarify what I mean by an 'institution'. Also, to ensure complete clarity, I will take a page from political parties, and I will employ the use of a capitalization (i.e. "Institution") when I mean an 'institution of societal survival' rather than just a generic use of a word.
In the Societal Survival post, I discussed Family and Religion (into which I also lumped some forms of patriotism) as Institutions. Further, I suggested that at certain population scales, each of these Institutions become limited in their ability to function as the predominate means of societal survival. But what did I really mean by a 'means of societal survival'?
I actually meant exactly what the term appears implies and a little bit more. As such, I would like to define an Institution as:
An overarching social structure, technological process, or concept in a society that disconnects the need of individuals (and/or groups of individuals) to resolve conflicts from the use of violence, especially when the violence involves killing others in the society, and as a result simultaneously (1) decreases the likelihood that the society will self-destruct and (2) increases the ability of members of the society to work together in order to accomplish tasks that actively improve the chances the society will survive.The first contingent result in the definition provides a means to avoid self-destruction. The second contingent in the definition provides a means for the society to grow stronger over time. Without meeting both contingents, an institution (note the small "i") does not really function as an Institution even if it provides some of the same Institutional benefits. For example, let us consider professional sports leagues. They exist in many societies, even ancient ones (e.g. the bread and circuses of the Roman Colosseum), and it could easily be argued that they meet the first contingent, because by providing entertainment they can distract participants from their conflicts with others and/or provide a non-murder based venue for rivalries. However, for the most part, professional sports leagues typically do not increase the ability of the individual participants or the society as a whole to accomplish a task beyond simple entertainment or winning the game. Thus, while professional sports leagues possess some Institutional qualities, they are not full fledged Institutions.
Now, before we discuss today's most dominant Institutions, I need to point out the role that perception and purpose play in the definition of an Institution.
To start with the latter, the purpose or perceived purpose of individuals as they participate in the Institution (or the ceremonies or traditions related to the Institution) are not relevant to ability of the Institution to serve its Institutional purposes. That is, for example, the members of a particular religion may be participating in their religious ceremonies for their own reason (e.g. 'to serve God's will' or 'to get into heaven') but as a side effect that religion acts as the Institution of Religion by discouraging murder and violence by listing such acts as sins or proclaiming they are contrary to God's will. Thus, an Institution can function as an Institution regardless of the purpose, intention, or motivation of its participants.
With regard to the former, it is important to note that the definition revolves around likelihood and chance. Thus, even if members of a society perceive an Institution as functioning well in its Institutional capacity (e.g. members of society believe that the institution is working towards the betterment of the society or mankind as a whole), that does not make it so. This is due, in large part, to the fact that is impossible to predict with great accuracy what any factor (or group of factors) may or may not cause a society to ultimately collapse. In fact, the matter is further complicated because the past success of an Institution does not necessarily guarantee its future Institutional utility, because we only have one version of history to observe and the scale of a society's population - and as we will discuss later, the scale of our impact on the environment - is constantly shifting.
Unfortunately, this means attempting to discern the probability that Institutional factors will ensure survival, is a bit like a scientist trying to develop a comprehensive scientific theory of gravity solely based on an observation of just one apple dropping out of one particular tree on one specific planet while the apple is still falling. The scientist may be able to guess that objects will tend to move towards each other, but it is unlikely that the scientist will be able to determine with any certainty the rate at which the apple will accelerate toward the planet or the effect that the mass of the planet plays in the equation, let alone any of the subtle effects such as wind resistance or quantum mechanics.
Finally, before moving on, I want to note that the introduction of a new Institution does not necessitate the undoing of older Institutions nor does it erase the societal complexities created by older Institutions. In fact, to the extent that we can use history as a guide, for newer Institutions to succeed they need to either work within or along side of the framework developed by the older Institutions. For example, even though the introduction of Religion needed to override the desire of families to resolve their conflicts through violence in order to be successful as an Institution, the introduction of Religion did not destroy Family as an Institution. However, it should be likewise noted that older Institutions tend to evolve and change in response to outside pressures (e.g. what Family was 5,000 years ago is not necessarily what Family is today). Furthermore, the degree to which an institution (or a particular version of an Institution) functions Institutionally can shift without necessarily impacting the ability of the institution to exist or serve its other non-Institutional purposes. As a result, the entire Institutional equation must be considered to be in a state of flux.
In the next post, I will briefly discuss the evolution of one of modern society's dominant Institutions: Government.
Cheers,
Sean
Table of Contents for the Global Sustainability series:
No comments:
Post a Comment