Never Stop Questioning Institutions
Balancing Trust and Reform in a Changing World
“Authority without wisdom is like a heavy axe without an edge, fitter to bruise than to polish”
- Anne Bradstreet
Institutions ought to be trusted. That is how societies endure. It is how they prosper. This trust comes from a strong track record and solid principles. The principles can be seen as the foundation of the Parthenon, while the track record makes up the pillars and roof. If the track record lacks, then damage is done, but the institution can be rebuilt from the memory of its greatness. But if the principles are lost, then the whole thing crumbles. Perhaps some institutions ought not exist anymore. Some others are built on sand and silt. There is a constant need to repair them and fill in the cracks, but no shortage of people to carry the load. One important aspect of enduring civilizations is the destruction, or at least ending the repair, of certain institutions. So when is it necessary to do so?
In the most recent episode of Missing Pages, I discussed how slavery was not an invention of the European colonialists. It was a part of the human story reaching back thousands of years. It shifted and changed over time, but the idea of regarding to a person as property was common. The foundations of this institution were well grounded and allowed for many different pillars to be built and even new rooms to be attached. It was originally used to facilitate the massive plantations on the Caribbean islands and grew constantly as the market demanded evermore sugar. Harsh punishments were enacted in order to ensure the profits never slowed down. By the 1600s, who was allowed to be owned wasn’t clear, so new laws and theories had to be created to justify it. It morphed from a religious justification to a racial one in the English colonies, for instance, when the masters did not want to release their converted slaves. In short, a logical progression led to the enmeshing of chattel slavery in the colonial world of the 18th century.
It is clear to us now that the ideals of the Enlightenment contradict the practice of slavery. But, to the colonist, if he could read at all, the new theories applied to him, not his barbarous property. The laws in place only reinforced this belief. Who is he to question that which has been in place for thousands of years? His father did it. Is his father a bad man for doing so? There is a sort of momentum that can take over institutions. One may not trust her own intuition that something is wrong if the institution is strong and has authority. It is extremely difficult to think through these issues down to first principles. That is why the church, the government, and other institutions are given the authority to think through these problems. Sometimes allowing this moral authority can backfire, though.
The laundry list of abuses made by the Catholic Church throughout history is an evergreen example of this problem. From the selling of indulgences, to the priest rape scandals, there is an endless catalog of abuses of power. Religions and cults are ripe for exploitation and the authorities in the Church can be far too eager to exploit. But the destruction of religion in modern societies is likely one of the reasons for the rising malaise. One should not allow institutions to run free with no checks. However, knowing what will replace it allows us to decide whether it is worth keeping at all.
Exploitation is not exclusive to religious leaders, either. Take the signatories of the Manifesto of the Ninety-three. This document was written and signed by ninety-three scientists, intellectuals, and other prominent Germans in 1914. They gave their full support to the German cause during World War I and urged their countrymen to do the same. They used their standing to propagandize for the German government, far beyond their purview. They exploited the trust they were given and the damage it incurred, regardless of any regret, is unforgivable. A group of highly trusted people taking part in propaganda is a massive moral failing and ought to elicit calls for them to lose their standing. However, take it one step too far and extreme anti-intellectualism can lead to the rise of totalitarian governments.
In 2020s America, there is no shortage of crumbling institutions. Or at the very least, large cracks have emerged. Legacy media organizations, the intelligence apparatus, the police, the Supreme Court, the education system, hell, even the presidency, have lost the trust of the American people. Granted, each one of these lost a specific group and the cracks didn’t emerge all at once, but they are all in the spotlight. Some of these had pretty large structural problems to begin with, but certain events and current leadership have exacerbated the problem. That can happen when the patients begin to run the asylum. Those repairing the cracks have no memory of what it looked like in the first place. So it has become a simulacrum of the myriad memories of the re-builders. While this has been a slow descent, there has been no event in recent history more catalyzing than the pandemic.
Along with the continuous scandal creation of the four previous years, it opened the eyes of many who had been sitting on the sidelines. For some, they opened them so far their eyes fell out and became blind to the truth. But for many, they merely transferred their trust to new sources. Trust has been transferred from mainstream news to independent newsletters and twitter accounts. They bought their own guns rather than rely on the police. They became more selective in their children's education. These actions were not done on a whim or because of disinformation. They saw the institutions they were supposed to trust lie to them. They saw a president, and later a Supreme Court justice face spurious accusations with no ramifications for the accusers.
But there were two moments that eroded trust to the point that a large cadre of people will never be won over again. The first occurred on 4 June, 2020. Fewer than two weeks from the killing of George Floyd and a little over two months after the COVID pandemic was in full swing, a group of healthcare workers garnered over 1,200 signatures on an open letter. This letter stated:
Instead, we wanted to present a narrative that prioritizes opposition to racism as vital to the public health, including the epidemic response. We believe that the way forward is not to suppress protests in the name of public health but to respond to protesters demands in the name of public health, thereby addressing multiple public health crises.
For these health officials, standing in a crowded group, unmasked, and unvaccinated was a good way to spend time during a pandemic. The thing is, I agree with this, being outside and not cooped up in your bedroom is a good thing. The problem is that these same people would have been posting screeds arguing that church, even outdoors, was killing grandmas. They took off their doctor jackets and put on their black bloc and assumed they could keep their legitimacy. Social justice activism took over during the summer of 2020 and anything hampering this was giving in to white supremacy. These experts used the trust that they had garnered due to the vital nature of their work and pushed a political cause. They neglected their actual duties to preserve public health; it was irresponsible and wrong.
Lest we assume the unmasking of institutions was over, the activism moved from the broad to the specific. On October 19, over fifty intelligence officials released a report stating that the leaks of Hunter Biden’s laptop had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” This was repeated on the debate stage, along with a denial that his had ever received money from Chinese business partners. After investigations, it is now known that neither of these are true. Furthermore, the former was expressly coordinated to help Mr. Biden get elected. The intelligence agencies involved were able to use their expertise to shape a narrative, and potentially an election. True statements made by the former president were made to look loony. Intelligence gathering is something that normal citizens have no access to, so they trust that these agents are truthful in their reports. To abrogate their responsibilities of bringing light to the truth (even if it was a often a ruse) to influence an election was shameful.
To compare these institutions with slavery would be a mistake and I don’t mean to, but for one aspect: the entrenchment. The intelligence and health institutions are enmeshed heavily in our society. Both can be traced back to much smaller, much more localized, institutions. Their growth has as much to with the growth of the human population and technology as it does the lust for power. At the most basic level, I truly feel that the origin of their missions are sound. But over the decades, and centuries, their missions have crept far beyond their first principles. This is to be expected as they grow, but there needs to be a countervailing force that slows their expansion. That is where trust, and the potential loss of it, comes in.
When individuals entrust institutions they are allowed, then, to use their thinking time on other tasks. People are not forced to heal all of their ailments alone, or enact justice for wrongdoings, or even determine the moral case for owning another human. These tasks are all done for them. As they see the benefits, they entrust in them even more responsibilities. Eventually, though, a tipping point begins to be reached. Mission creep continues unabated and suddenly the health care experts are commenting on cultural climate. Authority is exploited to the point of influencing national elections. Moral and legal arguments are explored so heavily that an entire section of the human race is seen as no more than chattel. It is important to understand when an institution needs to be drawn back and when it needs to be destroyed. Often this can only be revealed by hindsight, but egregious oversteps like the above make it clear far earlier.
All of these examples are just a minuscule scratch in the surface of this issue. As was shown, this problem is not unique to our time and place, it is a constant battle. The contract that we inherited needs to be upheld by both sides. The people must entrust these institutions with some power to manage society, and the institutions must be held responsible. The problem is that many institutions abuse this trust at some point. Greed, corruption, and impotence can lead to institutional failure. It is thus up to us to determine when the authority they hold can stand no longer. It is at this point that we as a society must let it crumble, or tear it down, and hope that this makes way for a more beautiful view. It is hard to know what to do when this occurs, most often this leads to revolution. If it does, one better be careful what she wishes for. Mere change does not always necessitate better outcomes.
We can look to the English and early Americans for examples of a revision to institutions rather than a complete removal. After the English Civil Wars, Britons were well aware of the bloodshed that can come from revolutionary change. So in 1688, when King James II was rushing forward with his dreams of a Catholic tolerant England, and perhaps even a Catholic heir, William of Orange was called upon to take the throne. Thus the crown was secured and the Anglican church was reinforced. Similarly, when the Articles of Confederation proved insufficient, many of the soldiers of the Revolution met again to rebuild the government and learn from their failures. This new government has outlasted nearly all others in the world. It is hard to say if there is a similar group of people today willing to be clear-eyed enough to rebuild, without first wholly destroying, an institution. Perhaps we are too far gone for that to fix the problem. Let us hope that is not the case.