Reflections on collective beliefs and the credence of institutional forms
We inherit beliefs just as we inherit institutions.
The former contribute to shaping the latter, while the latter, in turn, influence some of our beliefs.
It is because we give credence to them, but also because they contribute to reinforcing that credence, that institutional forms can emerge, endure, and be passed on over time.
How do collective beliefs and institutional forms mutually influence one another?
Our relationship with reality cannot be reduced to what we perceive or experience.
As illustrated by Plato's Allegory of the Cave, the appearances and representations to which we are exposed and with which we become familiar contribute to what we hold to be true.
Our relationship with reality therefore involves not only perception and experience, but also the interpretations we construct from them.
‍
These interpretations are, in turn, shaped by the sociocultural environment in which we live.
Through the language by which we name reality, the forms of interaction to which we are exposed and become accustomed, the social norms we internalize, and the symbolic systems and values within which we evolve, we inherit interpretive frameworks that contribute to shaping these representations and make some of them appear self-evident.
Some of these representations, when they are held to be true without their correspondence to reality necessarily being established, may be described as beliefs.
Â
In certain sociocultural contexts, for example, individuals may be more inclined to regard as self-evident the belief that “private property constitutes a legitimate way of organizing the ownership of resources”, whereas other contexts may foster different understandings of ownership and the use of resources.
Some of these interpretive frameworks are transmitted from one generation to the next, contributing to the continuity and shared character of certain collective beliefs.
Some of these beliefs may then crystallize into practices and institutional forms.
The crystallization of certain collective beliefs through institutionalization
Not all beliefs, however, take institutional form.
Among the plurality of beliefs and understandings of reality that coexist within a society, some nevertheless become embedded in practices that gradually stabilize and gain collective recognition.
Â
Sociologists Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann offer a valuable framework for understanding this process through their analysis of institutionalization in The Social Construction of Reality (1966).
Repeated action, embedded in a particular relationship to reality, becomes habitual; similar actions are subsequently typified and reciprocally recognized.
Certain practices, together with the collective meanings associated with them, thus acquire sufficient stability to crystallize into linguistic, social, symbolic, legal, political, economic, or normative institutional forms.
By gradually acquiring the appearance of an objective reality existing independently of individuals, institutionalization contributes to reinforcing their stability, legitimacy, and transmission.
Â
The institution of marriage provides a concrete example of this process.
The belief that “marriage is naturally the union of a man and a woman” may, in many societies, have contributed to legitimizing its restriction to heterosexual couples. Similarly, certain beliefs regarding the respective roles of women and men may have contributed to legitimizing unequal rights within marriage.
Their incorporation into legal systems gradually embedded these beliefs within enduring institutional forms, thereby contributing to the appearance of their self-evidence and permanence.
The reciprocal influences between collective beliefs and institutions
Berger and Luckmann show that the process of institutionalization does not end with objectivation. Once objectified, institutional forms are gradually internalized by individuals.
Because they come to be perceived as natural or self-evident, they progressively reinforce the credence accorded to them, thereby preparing their influence on the beliefs of future generations.
Anthropologist Mary Douglas extends this line of thought by showing that, once internalized, institutions do not merely come to be accepted: they also contribute to structuring the interpretive frameworks through which we understand reality and can thus shape some of our beliefs.
« Institutions systematically direct individual memory and channel our perceptions into forms compatible with the relations they authorize »
—– Mary Douglas, How Institutions Think
Returning to the previous example, the evolution of marriage across many societies, nevertheless shows that while legal provisions relating to marriage may contribute to reinforcing the credence accorded to certain beliefs, social norms, and taboos, this influence does not operate in only one direction.
The emergence of new collective beliefs and representations of marriage, family, or gender relations can, in turn, come into tension with existing institutional forms and gradually erode the credence accorded to those institutional forms.
‍
Philosopher Cornelius Castoriadis provides a way of understanding this dynamic through his distinction between the instituted and the instituting.
The instituted refers to what is already established, stabilized, and reproduced; the instituting refers to a society’s creative capacity to bring forth new meanings capable of challenging and transforming the existing order.
This process of transformation is, however, neither automatic nor linear.
The instituting does not necessarily prevail over the instituted: as guarantors of a certain collective stability, institutional forms may resist new meanings, absorb them, reformulate them, or neutralize them.
‍
Yet this capacity for resistance also has its limits. When too great a gap emerges between collective beliefs and institutional forms, the latter may gradually fall into disrepute.
Paradoxically, their capacity to evolve through engagement with the instituting may also contribute to their endurance and, in some cases, help prevent more radical ruptures.
‍
‍
Liste ordonnée
Liste non ordonnée
Text en gras
Mise en emphase, italique
If you would like to connect, collaborate, or share perspectives, feel free to get in touch with us.
