Functionaries: Institutional Theory without Institutions

Abstract

In conceptualizing institutions, theorists tend to resort to conceptual metaphors of ᴄᴏɴᴛᴀɪɴᴇʀs or sᴜʙsᴛᴀɴᴄᴇs. We argue these construals are responsible for difficulties analysts encounter in conceptualizing the sources and mechanisms behind institutional change. We propose ᴅɪsᴛʀɪʙᴜᴛɪᴏɴ as a more effective foundational metaphor for institutional analysis. From this perspective, institutions are conceived as non-random dispersals of activity and knowledge across people and not as containers encasing persons or substances endowed with an essence. Most of a population may know how to take interactional advantage of an institution but few know how to keep institutions going and are therefore usually powerless to change them. This means those who do have the requisite operational knowledge and engage in the required upkeep activities, whom we refer to as “functionaries,” play pivotal roles in institutional change and reproduction. We revise theories of institutional entrepreneurship around the role of functionaries, and distinguish between two ideal types of institutional change.

Stiftungen der Gesellschaft

“…Um der Evolution auf die Sprünge zu helfen, ist mitunter kleinteilige, Beharrlichkeit erfordernde Organisationsarbeit nötig, die im Schatten der Scheinwerfer geleistet wird, die im Falle philanthropischer Organisationen auf die charismatischen Führungsfiguren gerichtet sind. In diesem Sinne entwickeln Stoltz et al (2019) die Figur der »Functionaries«. Die systematische Ausbildung eines lokalen Kaders von Funktionären diene als »Träger« kultureller Muster, deren weltweite Diffusion ein zentrales Thema unterschiedlicher Ansätze des (Neo-)Institutionalismus darstelle (ebd.…”

What is implicit culture?

“…This distribution dimension takes the place of the usual 'individual/social' (or 'social/ non-social') distinction in classical social and cultural theory. Notably, the distribution dimension should not be (ontologically) interpreted using an unhelpful 'levels' analogy (Stoltz et al, 2019). Both widely and narrowly distributed practices have a single location and 'level' (people's bodies, or body/artifact couplings), and the only thing that varies is 'widespreadness' (Reay, 2010).…”

“…Generally, suppose X is any reasonably complex physical or artifactual kind or cultural domain (e.g., plumbing, electromagnetism). In that case, X is less implicit for experts in that domain (Collins, 2010), or the 'functionaries' in charge of keeping it going, such as plumbers or physicists (Stoltz et al, 2019), than it is for the laity. This is due to the social distribution of knowledge and cultural skills (Reay, 2010), the division of linguistic labor (Putnam, 1975), as well as the concentration of expertise among a select few (Weber, 1913(Weber, /1981.…”

“…First, practices may be distributed narrowly, with the limiting case being a single person (Weiss, 1973), or widely, with the limiting case being all people (D'andrade, 2001), with most of the interesting cases (to social scientists) located in‐between—as in Mauss's (1973) ‘techniques of the body.’ This distribution dimension takes the place of the usual ‘individual/social’ (or ‘social/non‐social’) distinction in classical social and cultural theory. Notably, the distribution dimension should not be (ontologically) interpreted using an unhelpful ‘levels' analogy (Stoltz et al., 2019). Both widely and narrowly distributed practices have a single location and ‘level’ (people's bodies, or body/artifact couplings), and the only thing that varies is ‘widespreadness’ (Reay, 2010).…”

“…When it comes to laws, regulations, edicts, and the like, what is explicit for a small cadre of professional functionaries such as lawyers and judges is (totally or partially) implicit for the laity (Stoltz et al., 2019). In modernity, social life comes to be governed by increasingly elaborate rule systems with more aspects of social life acquiring a permanently implicit status for the vast majority of people.…”