[Reader-list] Narcissism / Faith / Models

[Ravi Agarwal]

Dear Jeebesh and Taha,
Sorry I have not been following the disucssion, but cannot help observing. I
am not sure if institutional models of any sort have a 'natural flow' where
their existence on their own is ratification of a acceptance. There is a
fair degree of autonomy for the development of institutions per se, even
though overall boundaries may be legally or socially defined. Else why would
there be so much difference in modes of carrying out similar tasks even when
the types of institutions are similar. All banks are not the same, nor are
all charitable institutions or even all companies. They vary as widely as is
possible. Of course, in an outer sense they need to follow the same set of
rules, to confirm to the larger model they are part of. But culturally they
can be different.

On the overall types of models which are legally allowed, even this varies
from one economy to another. In fact some institutions like the stock
exchange need to have similarities only since they need to interact with
each other across economies and ensure capital flows. This changes as this
need for interaction increases, as economies become more open or global. And
besides fulfilling this function, their is not much 'social debate' about
these forms. In fact there is acceptance, and this may be a given. Even
issues of transparency and requirements of 'openness' become conditions of
operation, but not challenges per se to thier essential forms. The world we
inhabit is so deeply instituionalised that there is no scope for a real
challenge except in cases of deep crisis, and even that limit is
questionable.

It will be interesting to examine if the current forms of institutions we
now inhabit are not lodged and have evolved in a discourse based in social
power relationships. The building of institutions was also carried out by
capital and the need for social control in one way or another, and not about
serving all equally. The case of the largest chemical industry today in the
world and its roots and relationship with the second world war and its often
gruesome needs is one case. Today they are all a given, and hence all we
talk about is reform, not restructuring. It may be that what provides
stability today, in a political and even emotional sense, is itself resting
on arbitary foundations, and infact become the main barriers to change.

To me it is rather strange that some of the biggest and most trusted names
in the institutional world, the ones which have halos around them can 'blip'
out of existence from one day to another. That is unbelievable. It reflects
the belief and trust in institutions, we have without knowing what is the
real nature of the beast, so to say.
best
ravi


On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 10:33 PM, Taha Mehmood
<2tahamehmood at googlemail.com>wrote:

> Dear Jeebesh
>
> How can an institution otherwise come into being if not by taking into
> cognizance other experiments in institutional building? And if they were to
> suggest some further ways to conduct social or economic or political
> process
> then what is so wrong in that? I agree that wall street was not able to
> hold  on to an illusion of a robust economy but should a failure to sustain
> a willing suspension of disbelief act as another 'model' to snatch any
> further 'model making' agency from this beautiful institution.
>
> In many ways I find the existence of robust stock exchanges within a
> country, cathartic. Do they not act as channels to dispel collective
> nervous
> anxieties of social mobility and a greater share in re-distribution of
> private income?
>
>  It is true that a stock exchange cannot be a true representative of the
> socio-economic health of a nation but is it not true, that at the same
> time,
> a stock exchange can, in a way, project an image through rough indicators
> about how a nation is faring as far as its biggest private industries are
> concerned?
>
> You write-
>
> These models had percolated to all forms of social
> organization (e.g grant making bodies) and has had consequences on the
> ways life choices, effectivity etc was written and imagined.
>
> So? Would you not like to believe that even if these models have
> 'percolated
> to all forms of social organization', there must have been innumerable
> occasions when core arguments, procedures, processes contained in this
> model
> must have had some amount of 'resistance'. I wonder what makes you so
> disapproving of 'models'?
>
> Warm regards
>
> Taha
>
> dear Taha,
>
> I would think  it more about a  consensus that accumulates around some
> visions and modalities in some institutions and schools of thought.
> This then can have consequences . It more a speculation. I thought the
> obsession around "models" that this report pointed out was interesting
> to reflect on. These models had percolated to all forms of social
> organization (e.g grant making bodies) and has had consequences on the
> ways life choices, effectivity etc was written and imagined.
>
> warmly
> jeebesh
> - Show quoted text -
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
> subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>