Institutional (r)evolution

In arguing that institutions take on a life of their own that readily becomes self-serving Jacques Ellul observes that ‘there is a certain logic in the evolution of institutions which is easily discernible.’ The inference being that institutions tend to possess some common characteristics. While these characteristics can certainly be used for good, they can unfortunately also be used for evil.

As Charles Ringma states, ‘because most institutions are centrally controlled, they are frequently resistant to change from the periphery. Most institutions develop a particular culture. They have a certain history, expectations, way of doing things, and set of goals. These are sometimes jealously guarded even when the stated goals are no longer achieved.’

Moreover, Ringma goes on to suggest, rather worryingly, that institutions can develop a morality that weakens personal responsibility and integrity. ‘Because no one in particular is responsible for what happens in the institution, values can be weakened. Institutions, therefore, must be kept open to change and to be held accountable. Women and men of courage are needed to keep institutions honest and to work for their transformation.’

I’m thankful that I can count as friends such ‘women and men of courage’ who can and do work for transformation.