.png)
 |
| Sean Southard Class of 2015 |
What do families, churches, businesses, schools, and government have in common? Each one of the groups mentioned is an institution. Religions and businesses call for certain expectations of the individuals that operate within them. Likewise, the same can be said of families, in how a father ought not to beat his wife and children; of schools and government officials, in how they ought not to abuse their power and treat people fairly.
The notion that something is out of place in each of those institutions points to what Hugh Heclo called an “institutional order,” in a 2008 book published by Oxford University Press titled On Thinking Institutionally. In it, Heclo argues that the modern world is almost completely devoid of any sort of institutional thinking – whether those institutions be families, businesses, religions, or even branches of government.
Institutional thinking, Heclo writes, is about developing an appreciative mindset of the institutions a human being inhabits. This process requires that human beings downplay their own individual desires and instead focus on the values valued by a particular institution. Making a normative statement, if an institution is a good one, it can raise our standards. It can train our eyes to look at something bigger and more important than ourselves.
There are occasional bad effects of institutional thinking, but Heclo believes these instances of institutional malfunction are examples of humans failing their institutions.
Heclo offers many examples of good institutional thinkers including none other than the first President of the United States, George Washington. Most familiar with Washington know that he had an acute sense of his place in history which can be seen in his ritualistic approach to laying down his military command and eventually accepting the presidency. He was extremely self-conscious of his role in developing the legacy and values of the American Revolution and its future of the early republic. Washington knew the history of military rule and could have easily ruled with the military’s backing. Yet, he subverted his will to (what he viewed as) the higher one of the establishment of a republican state; he subverted himself to something larger than himself. Arguably, we respect him more because of his ability to think and act institutionally.
Although we may never experience the same type of responsibility that Washington did, certainly we can understand and appreciate his respect for the past and the future. We can try to emulate that sort of thinking in our own lives by examining our thoughts and actions in the institutions in which we live and breathe.
In what everyday institutions do you hold membership? When you think, do you consider an institution’s values and its hopeful future? Just as importantly, do you act upon those institutional dispositions with respect to your inheritance and to steward the gift for future generations?
Sean Southard is a senior McConnell Scholar studying political science and history. He is from Owensboro, Ky.