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.