The Irony of Institutions

Leaders who sincerely desire positive changes and are facing large, intransigent obstacles can often carelessly attack the "institutions" that they perceive as blocking their progress. In some cases going as far as to develop the idea that even having institutions is a bad thing. One might express a fear that an efficient and purposeful ministry or movement may become "institutionized" and therefore rendered ineffective. The irony is that one should be so fortunate as to see a favorite cause become an institution. Such an event would be a real credit to the value of their endeavor. In fact question any cause that does not have the substance to ever become an institution or part of an existing one. If it doesn't pass that test then the cause is likely the latest fad, or a misjudged or misaligned idea.

Most likely these people really intend to speak out against bureaucratic traits or purposelessness. Some may think my distinction is minor, legalistic or even a nit-pick on the use of language, but I will counter this while proving my main point about institutions at the same time. Such critics should consider the purpose behind the insitution of language and the need to keep it free from bureacracy and purposelessness. Our language can be rendered ineffective by those who do not value its purpose and make valid distinctions in how it is used. We should be concerned when distinctive words are being used in a redundant fashion (such treating institutional and bureaucratic as synonyms). We should be alarmed when someone asserts a privilege to independenlty use a word in their own manner of choosing (i.e. nominalism). In the other direction, we should also be concerned when some people will not let a language adapt to handle new situations and contexts. One could say that these attitudes and misues of the institution of language are either bureacratic or purposeless.

Further irony is supplied when one argues that the the average person does not want such distinctions but rather what is needed are the results or practicality that a proposed cause can deliver. It is argued that distinguishing and recognizing institutions just gets in the way and those who attempt to do so are accused of being elitist. But here is the classic peril of focusing on ends at the cost of means, for it is likely those institutions being ignored may help support the cause rather than hinder it (if the cause is any good). For the sake of "efficiency" one can render an institution bureaucratic or purposeless. Who wants a trial that is so speedy that guilt beyond reasonable doubt is ignored? While elitist has come to mean 'snobby', the actual word 'elite' is quite positive. Generally, one could consider elitist as a charge against those who act elite but are not. Elite implies highly skilled, or superior attributes like intellect. So a proponent of cause rather than understand the institutions would seek the easier path of moving forward by degrading the institutions and charging those who seek to understand as being elitists.

Consider the definition of institution, a custom, practice, relationship, or behavioral pattern of importance in the life of a community or society.

So consider some of our societal institutions. With the exception of anarchists and wild-eyed libertatians, do we despise government or governments that are corrupt? Do we despise a system of justice or the inconsistent or delayed application of justice? Do we despise lawmaking bodies, or the self-interested and poorly compromised making of laws? Do we despise taxes more or wasteful use of money?

A good institution establishes a good practice or pattern that helps form the community that adopts it. Because we believe in justice, we desire to set up a good judicial institution, so that justice can be a formative part of our community. The problem occurs when enough people lose sight of the institution's purpose and practice, and allow those with selfish interests to abuse the institution and make it bureaucratic and tarnished from it's intended purpose.

So we should be cautious in despising and maligning institutions. We may be wiser to call for the reclarifying of purpose and reestablishing a commitment to their value, if such institutions have come under neglect. These institutions are to be formative to us and should be shaping the character of the community. Hypocrisy is to say you believe in the values of an institution and then allow it to decay in its application.

"Luke, I'm your Vader"

What's worse? Finding out that Vader is your father, or that your father is Vader?

I've been reading (and listening) to a fair amount of books and interviews that fill in the frequently missed but important details of American history in foreign affairs. I think many high school history teachers (the good ones) give nuanced hints at these details but both time and sensitivity to backlash cause them to rush through topics like the Spanish-American war, and by the time they get to covering the 1950s there is not enough time left in the year to discuss America's overthrow of the democratic Iranian government with any detail.

So with just the nuances about these events, it left me with the general sense that these were minor details to the bigger picture. Sure the US is not perfect, but certainly we are well intended and beneficial to the rest of the world in the long run. I could rationalize that at least things worked out better for everyone; who wants to change it now?

However, as I enter the historical details of American foreign policy, things change quickly when you find out more about your own nation's true character, and the presence of systemic "dark-side" faults. Terms like imperialism and militarism being applied to the USA no longer rings as hollow. An honest look at these terms' definitions and comparing the USA with past empires (British, French, Roman), leads one to a realization that I am a citizen of an imperial nation. Sure, I didn't see this easily and sure some think being an empire is good. However, is it not reasonable that most citizens of the Roman Empire were so wrapped up in their national rhetoric and its benefits that they developed a myopic view and justification where they could only view their nation in a predominately positive light? The typical Roman, like the typical American, probably saw their nation as a positive hegemon of good and progressive ideals and providing the obviously needed oversight of other nations. They also probably excused their nation's own "few" faults as pragmatic realities or minor imperfections in executing the vision. The American citizen today, needs to step outside of his or her national identity; we can't do that by stepping outside of the current time like we can do with the Roman identity (i.e. hindsight), but we can put ourselves in the position or "shoes" of other nations where we can more objectively understand our own nation's faults and the criticisms laid against America.

So as I find out how brutal and unjustified the Philippine-American War was (did you know there was such a war?), I began to realize that my "fatherland" who I grew up thinking was fairly noble has a dark-side, and not just a few quirks. In the Star Wars fantasy, Luke was raised in an environment where while oppressed by the empire, he was able to discern good, so that when he encountered his evil nemesis, Lord Vader, he had to initially reject him as his father and then saught to redeem him. But what if you grew up with seeing Vader as good because you were the unwitting beneficary of the oppressive environments and considered the empire's methods as necessary and even good. I think it is a more difficult path to finally recognize that your father is the detestable Vader and attempt to pull yourself away, much less even attempt to redeem your Vader-father, then to find out that the detestable Vader was once your father but you have nothing to be ashamed of yourself. Maybe the citizens of many western-european countries are feeling more like the latter today, because they only have to read about their "father" once being a Vader (i.e. empire) rather than actually having a father who still is a Vader.