⚘ Branches: Scavenging the word “bourgeois”
Learning about History means understanding that we can choose to protect institutions either for for what they do or for what they are.
Everything that exists today as a product of humanity has its roots in particular intentions. Even human-caused phenomena that came into being accidentally can often be traced back to the the cascading effects of a particular intention, like kicking a pebble down a hill.
When it comes to the institutions that govern our ways of being in the world together (whether political, social, or cultural), none of them descended from the sky as if God-given. They all emerged from coordinated human decisions and actions.
Before any institution became firmly established in a society’s collective consciousness, it first had to justify its existence by proving its effectiveness in accomplishing what it was meant to do. If we study the history of the idea of democracy, we understand that it emerged at a specific moment and place, from the minds of individuals who discussed it and sought to realise it by articulating it to their fellow Athenians and persuading them it was a good idea.
The institution of democracy might be an extreme example, made more complex by its disappearance in ancient times and its resurgence in the modern age. But the underlying point remains that today it is wise to ask ourselves whether we defend something because of its name’s weight or because of what it actually does.
The worse choice is to fiercely protect it for what it is without even knowing what it is supposed to do (or was meant to do in its design). In most cases, form and function were synchronised at its inception, diverging courses over time as events gradually distorted its capabilities (or its intention) to manifest its original purpose.
Hence, when we protect an institution for what it is, we might be diverting our attention from making what it was supposed to do, but no longer quite does, happen. We might need to realise its original purpose through other means, often by transferring the heart of these primary purposes into the pulp of new institutions, born from people in the here and now.
But there is also a case to be made for protecting an institution for what it is today, even if it has drifted from the function that once earned its venerated reputation. In such cases, we are protecting its slot within the larger system of institutions that govern a society. We protect that role and keep its designated space undisputed until a better use for that role gradually develops.
It’s like the idea of a nation, or a tradition, or a political party. People pay attention to it. They unify under its banner, and protect it simply because it is what it is, even when doing so might be to their detriment. That slot it occupies serves as a rallying point, a gravitational force for attention, granted massive amounts of benefit of the doubt.
Institutions can be as vast as a system of government, and as small as a monthly neighbourhood ritual. We are constantly handling this instability between what they are and what they do, especially when weighing whether we want a change, and how much of it. Too much change might very well revive its original utility, but it might also erode the trust and rallying power that its name carries.
✵
Leave a Reply