Every organization is made up of humans who make its decisions and are responsible for its success or failure, but these institutions tend to have a suprahuman quality. Although created and staffed by humans, decisions are not made so much by people as for them, out of the logic of institutional life itself...– Walter Wink
Emergent theory teaches that “something emerges from nothing but…” For example: Atoms emerge from nothing but the fundamental particles.
I’m fascinated by the question what emerges from the interactions of humans? I do not think it is at all a stretch to say that something new does emerge from the interactions of humans. In fact I think many new things have emerged from the interactions of humans. We have a telling phrase that we use of “things taking on a life of their own.” I have come to think that things do in fact take on a life of their own. What I want to focus on particularly right now is what happens when things do in fact take on a life of their own, and after taking on a life of their own, also take on as their the primary goal – their own survival. Maybe we could call this the goal of Institutional Survival.
I would say a key in discerning that an institution having taken on a life of its own has made its own survival its primary goal is that the institution becomes indifferent to the humans from which it has emerged, in many cases the very humans which the institution emerged to serve.
For me a central passage in thinking about this is Jesus’ teaching on the Sabbath, “The Sabbath was made for humans, not humans for the Sabbath.” The following could have been said about the Sabbath: The Sabbath was understood as a part of creation – in fact we could go farther with the Sabbath – it was blessed and holy (likely - it is wise to say this also about all of creation). However, the institute of the Sabbath had taken on a life of its own and was bent on its own survival. It is easy to miss what is happening and think this is a problem with religious people (and there is something to this), but I want to argue here that there is more to it than this. I am arguing with Walter Wink in the quote above – that the institution of the Sabbath itself was the driving force in the moves the religious leaders were making. Don’t miss what Jesus is saying: the Sabbath was made (I would say it is fair to say that that the Sabbath emerged) to promote human flourishing, but instead of promoting the flourishing of humans the Sabbath had taken to fighting for its one survival and demanding that it be served. The Sabbath was consuming people in the service of itself. This is the quintessential sign of institutionalism – the will of the institution to survive at the expense of humans.
I have said that things/institutions having taken on a life of their own, may take as a primary goal their own survival. William Stringfellow has a darker view:
the moral principle which governs any institution--a great corporation, a government agency, an ecclesiastical organization, a union, utility, or university--is its own survival. Everything else must finally be sacrificed to the cause of preserving the institution, and it is demanded of everyone who lives within its sphere of influence--officers, executives, employees, members, customers, and students--that they commit themselves to the service of that end, the survival of the institution.
This relentless demand of the institutional power is often presented in benign forms to a person under the guise that the bondage to the institution benefits the person in some way, but that does not make the demand any less dehumanizing...
...In the end, the claim for service which an institution makes upon an individual is an invitation to surrender his or her life in order that the institution be preserved and prosper. It is an invitation to bondage.
I think Stringfellow’s view maybe a little dark – but just a little. If an institution has made its own survival its primary goal I think Stringfellow is dead on. In the days to come I want to look more at the moves that institutions having taken on a life of their own make in the service of their own survival. For now I can not emphasize this enough – I think institutions emerge as real beings that are every bit as real as you and I and they can become very much bent on their own survival. I want to flag this as we dream about a new community: From our interactions in attempting to launch a new community something new will quite possibly emerge, and we must be attuned to the fact that the real newly emerged entity could very easily take on its own survival as its primary goal.
Emergent theory teaches that “something emerges from nothing but…” For example: Atoms emerge from nothing but the fundamental particles.
I’m fascinated by the question what emerges from the interactions of humans? I do not think it is at all a stretch to say that something new does emerge from the interactions of humans. In fact I think many new things have emerged from the interactions of humans. We have a telling phrase that we use of “things taking on a life of their own.” I have come to think that things do in fact take on a life of their own. What I want to focus on particularly right now is what happens when things do in fact take on a life of their own, and after taking on a life of their own, also take on as their the primary goal – their own survival. Maybe we could call this the goal of Institutional Survival.
I would say a key in discerning that an institution having taken on a life of its own has made its own survival its primary goal is that the institution becomes indifferent to the humans from which it has emerged, in many cases the very humans which the institution emerged to serve.
For me a central passage in thinking about this is Jesus’ teaching on the Sabbath, “The Sabbath was made for humans, not humans for the Sabbath.” The following could have been said about the Sabbath: The Sabbath was understood as a part of creation – in fact we could go farther with the Sabbath – it was blessed and holy (likely - it is wise to say this also about all of creation). However, the institute of the Sabbath had taken on a life of its own and was bent on its own survival. It is easy to miss what is happening and think this is a problem with religious people (and there is something to this), but I want to argue here that there is more to it than this. I am arguing with Walter Wink in the quote above – that the institution of the Sabbath itself was the driving force in the moves the religious leaders were making. Don’t miss what Jesus is saying: the Sabbath was made (I would say it is fair to say that that the Sabbath emerged) to promote human flourishing, but instead of promoting the flourishing of humans the Sabbath had taken to fighting for its one survival and demanding that it be served. The Sabbath was consuming people in the service of itself. This is the quintessential sign of institutionalism – the will of the institution to survive at the expense of humans.
I have said that things/institutions having taken on a life of their own, may take as a primary goal their own survival. William Stringfellow has a darker view:
the moral principle which governs any institution--a great corporation, a government agency, an ecclesiastical organization, a union, utility, or university--is its own survival. Everything else must finally be sacrificed to the cause of preserving the institution, and it is demanded of everyone who lives within its sphere of influence--officers, executives, employees, members, customers, and students--that they commit themselves to the service of that end, the survival of the institution.
This relentless demand of the institutional power is often presented in benign forms to a person under the guise that the bondage to the institution benefits the person in some way, but that does not make the demand any less dehumanizing...
...In the end, the claim for service which an institution makes upon an individual is an invitation to surrender his or her life in order that the institution be preserved and prosper. It is an invitation to bondage.
I think Stringfellow’s view maybe a little dark – but just a little. If an institution has made its own survival its primary goal I think Stringfellow is dead on. In the days to come I want to look more at the moves that institutions having taken on a life of their own make in the service of their own survival. For now I can not emphasize this enough – I think institutions emerge as real beings that are every bit as real as you and I and they can become very much bent on their own survival. I want to flag this as we dream about a new community: From our interactions in attempting to launch a new community something new will quite possibly emerge, and we must be attuned to the fact that the real newly emerged entity could very easily take on its own survival as its primary goal.
No comments:
Post a Comment