DRAFT - Last updated 2025-12-02

On Institutions

Institutions like governments, corporations, churches, universities, military, the media, and legal systems are human-made structures that organize and regulate our societies. They provide frameworks for behavior, establish norms, and facilitate cooperation among individuals.

If I remember correctly, Peter Drucker has written more about institutions. He pointed out that institutions are necessary for large-scale cooperation and that in the past church, state and military were the main institutions that organized society. After that corporations and universities were born.

Science as a tax-funded institution as well as the word “scientist” are relatively recent inventions. The term “scientist” was coined in the 19th century and didn’t reach widespread use until early 20th century.

Their Liberty

One thing that seems striking to me about all of these is how often they claim or emphasize their universality or how they are apolitical or neutral actors in society while demanding autonomy and freedom from external control of influence while wanting to both enjoy being funded by society and to have power over society.

Consider the Freedom of the Press, Academic Freedom, Freedom of Religion for churches, etc. The institutions say that they are apolitical and neutral arbiters of truth and knowledge. But in reality they have their own agendas and biases that influence their actions and decisions. They may claim to be objective and impartial, but they are often driven by political, economic, or ideological interests either by their very nature or through being essentially hijacked by people with agendas of their own.

Ideals vs Reality

Recently on the Yle (the Finnish public broadcaster) news website there was an article from a university professor lamenting how the public is skeptical of science and how there is too much of a demand for science to focus on practical things that help people in their daily lives instead of abstract theories that advance knowledge for its own sake. He argued that in science it is virtuous for scientists to debunk each other’s work and to challenge established ideas.

But science too is vulnerable to institutional biases and power dynamics, such as for example political groupthink. It’s no secret that in many fields the vast majority of people with tenure and their own research groups tilt to the Left politically. One powerful force that shapes scientific research is the pursuit of funding which is often tied to specific agendas and priorities set by funding agencies, governments, or private organizations. This can lead to a focus on certain topics while neglecting others that may be equally important but less likely to receive funding.

Which is similar to how in the media certain narratives and perspectives are promoted while others are marginalized or ignored. This can, and does, create a distorted view of reality and limit the diversity of voices and opinions that are heard.

One funeral at a time

Institutions often change slowly, one funeral at a time, as the informal “Planck’s Principle of Scientific Progress” says. What Planck apparently really said was that scientific truths don’t win over their opponents but get replaced by newer ones through newer researchers being inculcated into them as a part of their professional education and training.

They are made up of people of which especially those with something akin to tenure have little incentive to change the status quo. New ideas and approaches are often resisted by those in power who benefit from maintaining existing structures and practices. Which is understandable in the sense that they have invested time and effort into building their careers within the existing system.

Co-evolution of Groups and Ideas

Do people have ideas or ideas have people? You can compare this to how diseases spread in populations. Perhaps it could be considered co-evolution of biology and culture.

History of institutions is made of movements. Movements seem to work like waves and then ossify into structures. Movements start with the ideas of pioneers and then start to gather followers. As the movement grows, it starts to solidify and stiffen into a tradition which then leads to dogma and orthodoxy that resists change the threatens the established pecking order within the cultural community of the movement.