Problems of Societal Institutions

Betterment = Complexity without Control

Complexity 

Societal institutions are intrinsically desirable and necessary to promote a better life for members of a society. Unfortunately, they are characterized by a complexity that only increases. Over time, institutions generate innovations and proliferate vast numbers of specialist functions, activities and supportive bodies.

Much as we all dislike ever greater divisions caused by specializing, the process is unstoppable because it leads to •higher quality, •greater efficiency and •more safety that, on balance, we crave.

This complexification increases our dependence because the knowledge required to handle an issue or to avoid dangerous errors is beyond any non-specialist. Coordination of specialists and careful communication become essential to manage such a system. While the system contributes to social cohesion, it generates confusion, expense, frustration and bureaucracy.

No Control

There is no external control of institutions. Societal institutions grow via evolutionary pressures and change depends on knowledge, innovation, trial-and-error and deliberate selection. As well as competitive pressures within a society, societies compete with one another and are likely to be culturally colonized (in earlier times physically conquered) by more advanced societies.

Control of powerful vested interests can be impossible. Societal institutions are created through by and for vested interests. Inevitably those at the core of the institution will be become extremely powerful, and may well obstruct change that would be in the public interest. Obstruction may come from one or a few large firms, a business sector, a government agency, a class in society, or just a sizeable part of the population.

There is no underlying hierarchy of institutions. At any moment or in a particular culture, one institution may seem to be taking the lead, but just as social values cannot be ranked, nor can societal institutions. Instead they are inter-dependent and form a mosaic of modules in which all are essential. So there is no ruling institution.

Really? Closed Some may say that the economy rules: but it depends on a trustworthy justice system, on relevant education, on good health, on defense etc. Others argue that politics dominate. But it too depends on education, economics, welfare, government etc. Even government depends on politics, economy, education etc. 

A society needs a balanced evolution of its institutions. A balance of influence ideally develops with now one institution receiving more focus, funds and legislation, and now another. Politics helps clarify how priorities amongst the various needs/institutions should be set. The media helps shape popular opinion and highlights issues within and between institutions. Government brings in regulations and manages communal resources.

Ultimately, no single institution can be starved of funds and attention for too long without causing serious damage to society. Such neglect sooner or later fosters regression to a hierarchical authoritarian ethos.

Distressing Side-Effects

As intimated above, institutions, especially with their growth pains, are not unalloyed in their benefits.

■ Incomprehensibility. The increasing complexity and arcane knowledge render the workings of many components of the institution and the institution-as-a-whole difficult or even impossible to comprehend even in relatively small matters. This makes getting service and negotiating entry-points often confusing or difficult.

■ Subjugation. Just as a person subjugates themselves to a purpose they willingly adopt, an institution subjugates members of society to its mandated goals and claimed beneficial methods. We are trapped in the coils of a system that helps us so much, but only so long as we conform to its rationale and modus operandi.

■ Mis-steps. Because institutions evolve into an unknown future, innovations may not immediately deliver the promised benefits. Sometimes they are just bad ideas. Often the innovation is manipulated to direct gains to a few. In other cases, it takes time to harness its power, or baser elements in human nature encourage exploitation or harm to others.

■Misperception. Each institution works with a simplified and partial model of a human being: the economic man, the consumer, the family member, the welfare recipient, the investor, the voter, the patient and so on. This means that, at the point of service, the provider does not, indeed cannot, consider the whole person. Cross-sectoral team-working may ameliorate some problems but it is never the panacea that is imagined.

Example: ClosedMedical help

Taken together, these problems can lead to frustration, dissatisfaction and ultimately alienation from society. Mental health may be negatively affected.

Apart from working to make arrangements more user-friendly, the only solution appears to be Schopenhauer's: turn to art and spirituality, the former to inspire and entertain, the latter for perspective, acceptance and serenity.

Institutions represent unfinished business. They depend on economic well-being, a belief in progress, and optimism about solutions provided by innovation and technology. Because institutions appear so messy, flawed, and frustrating, it is tempting to think of doing without them or controlling them forcefully. This temptation particularly afflicts politicians and intellectuals.

Governments: When governments seek to reform a social system by centralized bureaucratic control, it is often to avoid public participation, political embarrassment or social change. This sort of control just simultaneously moves society back towards the authoritarian template. Often it makes things worse. Recently some governments have imagined giving a single person the title, Czar—presumably recalling absolute rulers of Russia and forgetting the havoc they wreaked on the populace—to permit imposition of control. It never works.

Intellectuals: Intellectuals remain essential for social movements-PH6G53 which may contribute to institutional evolution. However, they lose status as advisors to the powerful in society because their previously useful unified overview is unworkable. Progress results in a mosaic of institutional modules that bring a non-unifiable plurality of perspectives, none of which deserve dominance. It takes a visionary immersed within and identified with just one institution to envisage a future for that institution. It is impossible for anyone to foresee and advise on the evolution of a multiplicity of evolving institutions.

Institutions, like any group, also depend on certain social forces and personal states for their cohesion. These cohesive factors deserve attention before investigating the work to be done in more detail.

  • Consider the basis for cohesion within institutions.

Originally posted: 18-Nov-2022