Selznick (1949, etc.) defines an institution* as something that has been infused with value beyond its rational purpose. We usually talk about institutions with respect to organizations or practices – arguing, for example, that the TVA had become institutionalized because its employees, beneficiaries, etc. actually gave a shit about what happened to it as the TVA. We can think of all sorts of organizations that have this feature – my high school, for example, universities, states, etc. I was thinking about the definition today because I was packing all my worldly belongings in the process of moving and I noticed that I took much, much more care with a small subset of things than I did with the rest. Playstation 2? Throw it in a box. The Super Nintendo? Wrap it lovingly, making sure each game is safe. So, I thought I’d write up a brief list of the things that are most institutionalized for me**. This post is oddly personal, so feel free to skip it if you don’t like reading that sort of thing.
I’m probably forgetting one or two, but those are the most salient. Oddly, no single book comes to mind. I love all my Borges books, but I could easily purchase more copies of them. None (as physical instantiations) have been infused with value beyond their rational purpose, even though the books (as sets of ideas and linked words) mean a great deal to me. My books as a whole I feel very protective of, however, and I am simultaneously embarrassed and proud of the ridiculous number I’ve purchased in the past several years. Alright, off to store my things in yet another basement.
* Roughly, my books are all packed, along with my other possessions.
** In an Actor-Network-like argument, I would say that I strongly associate with certain objects that form a part of myself, while other possessions are more distant and used more instrumentally – I don’t care what happens to most of my things, but I do care what happens to some of them, and those that I care about thus form a strong part of myself-as-network. Enh, might be misreading ANT a bit here. I’ll let you know next term.
***A slightly different photo than the one linked.
A (Budding) Sociologist's Commonplace Book 
Ben
/ July 30, 2009This seems like a weird definition/application of ‘institutions’. Particularly as it’s just you, not a group of people, attaching meaning (mostly nostalgic) to objects. Hihgly individual/personal meaning to private objects at that. And I’m not sure that objects can be institutions anyway. Isn’t this more like fetishizing?
Anyway, moving really sucks. And the ever growing collection of books makes it much worse. Good luck with it.
I’ll be interested to see if you do any posts on networks, and in particular if you look at the Emirbayer & Goodwin crtique.
Dan Hirschman
/ July 30, 2009Ben – you’re right. I’m stretching the definition a fair bit – I was trying to frame the post rather than seriously apply the idea of an organization (or practice) as institution to my personal relationship with my possessions. My favorite definition of an institution comes from Jepperson (1991) in the “Orange Book”. It’s something like, a socially constructed, routine reproduced rule or program. Jepperson is writing in the new institutionalist tradition rather than the old, and is doing different things with the concept. But he does a nice job of discussing the ins of and outs of what goes into an institution – everyone understanding what something means and the like. That being said, as R.W. Connell notes (I think), even our relationships to ourselves are social.
But I don’t think it’s the same as fetishizing, at least not in a Marx, Commodity Fetishism sense. I don’t know much about the actual literature on fetishism beyond that though.
I read E&G last year and I remember not being super impressed with the argument but I no longer remember why. If I get a chance, I’ll skim it over again.
Ben
/ August 3, 2009Hi Dan,
I think that fetishizing is just attributing power to inanimate objects. Freud concentrated on the sexual fetish, Marx went off in a different direction with the commodity fetish. But at the more general level it is attributing power to objects, whether it be a religious object like a crucifix or an idol, or superstitious objects (even lucky undies).
Thanks for the Jepperson tip. Very good timing, I’ll look it up. Enjoy the ASA.