A person is taught that something special distinguishes their overall personality from everyone else. To a lesser extent that describes a truth because humankind is defined by the unique intricacies that make a person function and in some cases thrive. Similarities are often the primary focus of inquiries directed toward the human individual, but is it really possible to find two people that are exactly the same while inhibiting opposite corners of the world? The systemic growth of civilization has gravitated toward massive investments of institutionalization. That describes a proliferating force that promises to introduce a controlled palate of stability based on social standards that are projected from each individual institution. With all of that going on in the background what happens to the identity of the human individual?
Inferiority stands as a spellbinding curse that is used to control the movements of individuals. It is blatantly obvious to observe that a person that tries to face down the enormity of an institution is overwhelmed with a tremendous sense of inferiority, but should that sentimentality deter the inner contrarian that stands opposed to the idea institutionalized homogeneity? In its purest form an institution stands as a sociological representation of a series of collective expectations fabricated by a standing population; those specific expectations are generally reflective of the timeframe in which they are devised, adopted, and incepted. As civilizations expand populations grow and it becomes increasingly difficult to allow individuals to think and function free of any institutionalized force. Survival becomes dependent on our relationship with a social institution and if we don’t have that inevitable demise rests ahead in a not too distant future.
The process of social institutionalization assists with the production of an organized infrastructure for the civilization in question; that in turn produces guidelines which depicts the epigraph of what civilization ought to be from the vantage point of a budding or fully established ideology. What should this suggest about human experimentations made in the name of civilization? As populations proliferate and expand across the vast expanse of the globe will institutions inevitably seize the day putting any kind of conception of human individuality on the sidelines? There is no need for either extremity because in its purest form social sophistication will naturally produce a benevolent institution which is established for the sole purpose of providing for a standing population. That describes one of the greatest forces of human benevolence which can be observed throughout the course of history. At this stage it becomes rather difficult to make a discerning distinction between civilization and the actual institution. Are both one and the same or is there an oscillating relationship that balances both the former and latter?
It isn’t possible to establish a civilization with any longevity without an institution that works toward its sustainment. In comparison the presence of a single social institution isn’t enough to make an entire civilization possible. Within this context there is an overarching conflict of ideas that are waged over inclinations that have every intention to predicate balances of power which otherwise produce social sustainment in the long term. Conceptual ideas that attempt to explain the actual and inner workings of civilization are treated as too abstract and ambiguous simply because it isn’t exactly clear what both classifications of civilization are and what it ought to do for the posterity of the species. A civilization is a type of paradigm that is used to work toward the protection and preservation of an assured sense of posterity guaranteeing a sustainable livelihood for future generations. A standing civilization that gains power, prestige, and prominence staunchly and stubbornly believes that its typified form of civilization will be everlastingly eternal.
The preliminary fabric of an institution is built on that particular exhortation which in this case is holistically euphemistic. Contrary to a civilization, there is no such institution that can function as some sort of all encompassing mechanism that can provide for the needs of a standing population. Why? Each institution that is devised by the architects of civilization is supposed to serve a practical purpose which explains why institutions are uniquely typified based on the needs of the greater population. The basis of that perception suggests that an individual can feel a great sense of uplifting empowerment by employing the institution to assist with their needs of survival. Indeed institutions can function and serve as springboards into the reality of the real world, but that is an idea which is purely situational. Ideas that are made in the name of civilization are enacted upon by individuals that interpret them and naturally the implemented outcome of these ideas has the inherent tendency to differentiate all depending on where that paradigm for civilization is emplaced.
There is no real assurance which suggests that the many institutions which serve the civilization in question will not stifle, hamper, and destroy a citizen’s individuality. The means of institutional implementation rests on the shoulders of the decision makers that line the halls of government; arguably, that is where human individuality matters most. A concluding realization should acknowledge that individuality and institutionalization collides on one specific cause of construct which in this case is all about corroboration. Either an individual uses the institution to elevate their own social status or they become dependent on those that put themselves in such positions for their survival; that describes a generic paradigm that builds into the logic of perpetual servitude. This has the tendency to explain why there is such an immense underclass that builds the bulwark of the mainstream and that distinctively partitions the all pervasive few from the frailness of the many. There is no virtual difference between ideas and inclinations of perpetual servitude and absolute enslavement because both produce a uniformed aftereffect.
If a civilization seeks to develop a greater degree of coherency is institutionalization inevitable? In a preliminary attempt to answer such a daunting question we cannot help but to agree because civilization cannot function on the societal level without institutions that ensure coherent survival; however, what assurances does the individual have that the same series of collective institutions will not capitalize on its pervasiveness in a manner where it transforms a standing population into its own expendable serfs? The most generic method that can ensure institutional transparency to the individual must put the individual before the institution because the former was originally devised to serve the needs of the latter as opposed to the former. Overall, that stands to be true regardless of the eventual fact that a balance of power is inadvertently made during the same “grounding process” as a civilization developmentally expands through phased institutionalization.
-Image is Courtesy of Quivering Daughters-