“Civil man is born, lives, and dies in slavery. At his birth he is sewed in swaddling clothes; at this death he is nailed in a coffin. So long as he keeps his human shape, he is enchained by our institutions.” – Rousseau
Institutions, in the modern period, have gained the reputation of purveyors of oppression, restriction, and normative binding. Really, discussion around institutions today revolves around ideas of ‘institutional racism’, anachronistic modes of thought, and criticisms of how the past continues to inhibit progress for today’s society. Yet, we seldom consider the benefits we have gained from these inherited structures, and further how we may continue to live in excellence in accord with them.
Man inherently derives his identity from an institution, be it his church, school, profession, or even sport. In essence, an institution is the binding of tradition, mission, and purpose to a field of habit. We often decry lawyers, doctors, accountants, etc. for their collective manner of action; they seem to act very much alike despite only sharing a profession. But these attributes are ingrained into the persona of their field. A lawyer acts like a lawyer because he has been taught by lawyers and mimics his predecessors in law. A lawyer derives his identity from the sanctity and purpose of the law, invoking figures like Cicero and Aristotle, while clerically thinking of the policy of circumstance. In fact, the idea of a lawyer, though seemingly off-putting in character to most, helps bind delinquent lawyers to a greater form of behavior in representing their field. One may think of Saul Goodman in contrast to his stereotypical lawyer brother, Chuck McGill.
To think institutionally is to first inherit an institution, with its customs, tradition, history, figures, and mission and carry its legacy forward so future generations may not be deprived of the value it has provided. The benefit of such a system of thought is that we are not divorced, in arrogance, from our ancestors nor are our progeny disinherited from the long system of reason which our society has built. Institutional thought drives us to esteem our tradition and act in a manner befitting it, rising above immediate temptations for the sake of our lineage. It is the sort of mode of habit that keeps the world running. Institutional thinkers kept our Church active and able in times of disheartening war and peril; they maintained Japan functioning in the wake of utter defeat in World War II; bankers and clerks aided the Western world function despite being overwhelmed by the black death. It is the “business as usual” model that maintains stability and some form of certainty in the face of absolute fear and turmoil.
In today’s academic schools, we are rather imbued with “critical thinking” skills, prized for its skeptic and ‘rational’ analysis. Often, to think critically is to criticize everything inherited and take nothing as a guarantee. But people do not function like that. We live with assumptions. No skeptic wakes up and devotes his day to analyzing all he eats and all his relationships. He does not question that the world is still turning, that the police will come when needed, that the law of gravity persists, etc. Rather, it is habit that allows us to live our lives efficiently, and habit can only be made with the assumption that there is some consistency in the world. These helpful habits are related to the institutions that operate our world. For example, we as Americans live with the assumption that there is a definable law, a functioning grid, and a trust that we can lend our fellow Americans. So called “critical thinkers” are more preoccupied with questioning our assumptions about everything: is the US really under the rule of law? Can we really trust our neighbors? Does religion really help improve man? Is capitalism fair? Exceptions and circumstances are constantly used by these sophists as justification to undermine every institution that has aided the survival and betterment of man.These questions are useful, but they have their time, place, and certainly must be in respect to the institution rather than in malice.
Yet, institutional thinking does not ask you to receive everything faithfully and blindly, as may be presumed. Rather, what you inherit must be innovated with faithfulness to those who came before and those that will come after you. As Sir William Slim put it, “[t]radition does not mean that you never do anything new, but that you will never fall below the standard of courage and conduct handed down to you. Then tradition, far from being handcuffs to cramp your action, will be a handrail to guide and steady you in rough places.”
Post Scriptum, I wish I were wise enough to have figured these ideas out for myself, but unfortunately not. A great deal of this article is a paraphrase of Hugh Heclo’s exceptional piece: “Thinking Institutionally”, from the Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions. I exhort everyone who finds a modicum of inspiration from this argument to check it out.
References
Heclo, Hugh, 'Thinking Institutionally', in Sarah A. Binder, R. A. W. Rhodes, and Bert A. Rockman (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions (2008; online edn, Oxford Academic, 2 Sept. 2009), https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199548460.003.0037, accessed 1 Apr. 2024.