Why We Still Create Institutions
It is no secret that trust in American institutions is incredibly low. This is more than just a general skepticism of the government; it extends over almost every institution in our society. What is fascinating about this predicament is that we still continue to create and support institutions. Some of them rise and fall before being replaced, but we still find ways to organize ourselves to achieve specific purposes, even with the recognition that we are probably skeptical of the entire construct of an institution and are likely aware of the fact that the institution will probably disappoint us at some time. The question then becomes why we bother building institutions in the first place, and I have to believe that most of it comes back to practicality.
When we care about big things, we realize we will need assistance in achieving our goals. We like to say that one person can change the world, and there is some truth to that. Sometimes, one person does provide the spark that spurs other people to action. However, in order for the change to be actualized, after that first spark, many more people have to get involved. Consider the Revolutionary War. You could argue that the unknown person that fired the first shot heard around the world at Lexington changed the world. That would be partially true, but the fighting would not have continued if only one person fired a shot. If there were no institutions already in place in America and Great Britain to wage war, the war would not have happened. It is not necessarily wrong to recognize the impact of individuals, particularly as initial causes or symbolic leaders, but in order to make meaningful change, we understand that there needs to be a framework built of more people and an appropriate amount of resources to continue what was started.
Another practical element behind the creation of institutions is that change takes time. When thinking about the abolitionist movement in the United States, slavery did not just end overnight. It took years and years for people like Frederick Douglass, William Lloyd Garrison, Harriet Beecher Stowe, and many others to get to the point where the abolition of slavery was seen as a possibility. These people had to use whatever support they could gather to influence the institution of the United States government, and while they were ultimately successful, it took time. Another abolitionist, John Brown, led the takeover of the armory at Harper’s Ferry and was eventually hanged for his attempted rebellion. He died before seeing the abolition of slavery, so if he didn’t have the institutional power of the movement behind him, which was much more of an ideological institution as opposed to any formal organization, everything would have come to a halt. Because change takes time and people play parts for certain times, it is essential that the ideas and the foundation of the movement are established in some entity that allows it to thrive beyond any one individual.
Lastly, institutions have a centering effect that can bring together people who are different in so many ways to work towards a specific cause. Protestants and Catholics have been opposing abortion together for decades despite having many theological differences. If absolute conformity were required, the pro-life movement and many of the individual organizations within it would fall apart. Creating separate institutions for specific causes allows people to unite where they can while respecting the fact that there will also be places where they differ.
We may not like institutions very much as a society, and we may get frustrated when they disappoint us. However, I don’t think we will stop creating them or being a part of them anytime soon because they are the means to the ends that we desire.