Institution mediated mind

HDCS6 who-is-at jetson.uh.edu
Fri, 22 Sep 1995 10:50:17 -0500 (CDT)

In response to Chuck and Bill's suggestion that we not forget the
positive institutions...part of me wants to say, yes, this is true.
It is better to be proactive than reactive. Part of me says that it
is not. That perhaps the best way to view the phenomenon of institution
mediated mind is from an evolutionary perspective, as completely
neutral. It occurs because it must occur in a technological society
(at least the type of technological societies that we humans have
created), sometimes for good, sometimes for bad (but these are relative
judgments that really have no place in evolutionary theory). The important
thing is not so much to use the knowledge to proactively create good
institutions, but to make people aware that as a species this is where
we have developed to, this is how we now make our decisions, and then
let whatever happens...happen. In many ways I think this perspective
is very important, and one that we have lost in modern educational
theories. We all want to be proactive, to do good, to make the learning
environment better. I think this is good for young children, but I'm
not sure how good it is for adolescents, and especially adults. In many
ways I think it might be better to have a more reactive education for
these age groups. Educate individuals on how they have allowed their
decision making processes (in certain cases) to be co-opted, for good
or for bad, give them the opportunity to throw off the shackles, if they
want of their social education, or at least to know that the shackles
exist, and then let them continue to develop in circumstances. It seems
to me when we focus too much on the proactive we lost this.

There's another point that was raised by Bill, and later Hiroake involving
the idea of institution mediated mind and choice. Exactly how much free
will is there, how much purpose can we really associate with individuals
if it is the institution that is guiding activity. I don't know, but it
seems to me that there is always choice and individual purpose and choice
on some level, but the more dominant the institution in the social system,
the more you forget that the choice is there. To explain this I need
to combine two theorists in a very half baked way (the aforementioned
Leontiev and Habermas). Okay, say you are in a family and you have the
motive of having your family line continue. Your purpose is to teach
your child how to survive. Your goals involve making sure he or she
has all the important survival knowledge. If it is only the family,
you teach your child to draw water and chop wood. All of a sudden
a village sprouts up around you. The idea of survival in the village
becomes more difficult because roles are divided (i.e., division of labor).
You do not know if you any longer have the ability to meet your goals.
Other parents have the same worry. They appoint a teacher. You as a
parent have the same motive, but you give discretion of purpose and goals
over to the teacher. This is a free choice you make, although the increased
complexity of your village, and the ostracism you would face from the
other villagers if you did not make that choice, make the choice more
or less inevitable. Then a city sprouts up around the village. Teaching
survival becomes too complex for the individual teacher. The teacher
goes to the city center and meets with all other teachers, and gives
discretion over purpose and goals to a head teacher. There is the birth
of an educational institution, which "seems" to take on a life of its own.
It may continue to develop like this for years, for decades. But if you
trace it back it goes to individual choice, and it continues to be the
indivdual's choice to participate (even though as the distance between
motive and purpose grows this may not be so obvious). There is an
institution, but the institution is simply made up of individuals
passing purpose on to more and more distributed labors. Which is
why I called it purposeful.

I have written much too much, and I apologize.

Michael Glassman
University of Houston