Part of my PhD work involved exploring the “new institutionalism” that began surfacing in political science departments in the 1980s. Prior to the eighties, the field of political science was fairly anti-institutional. Instead, it was beholden to behaviorism and behaviorism’s emphasis on the motivations of individual actors. Institutions were just big clunky machines we were forced to drive to get where we want. Yet little by little these departments began to realize that institutions are much more dynamic. Actors and institutions implicate and shape one another. Institutions might slow us down, but they also grow and fashion us—our identity and sense of purpose.
The same is true more broadly. People instinctively grimace at the thought of “institutions” because they constrain us. They keep us from moving and growing in ways that feel natural. But look a little closer. Those constraints also facilitate, channel, and stimulate growth. A trimmed rose bush grows. Lines on the road help us reach our destination. Games are most enjoyable when people keep the rules. Mastering a language gives us power. In short, institutions allow for “bounded innovation,” as one political scientist put it. They curtail the excessive, unwieldy growth that ultimately harms the cause, while
To continue...read the full-length post originally published on this site.
