The following thoughts were inspired by a discussion I had at work today, particularly on how we want to market our brand versus market our customer (who happens to be the "average" citizen).
If we think about "work" or large amounts of physical or mental energy dispensed on a focused task, we can imagine that it might involve the following to reach critical scale:
- A workforce;
- A communicative function;
- Some capital;
- The ability to transcend time; among other things.
Both individuals and institutions can have a workforce; the individual has him or her self and institutions have members or employees. Both individuals and institutions can have a communicative function; the individual has voice and and institution has the media. Both institutions and individuals can have capital as well.
Considering this basic list, it seems the only difference between institutions and individuals is factor # 4 - the ability to transcend time. While individuals are limited by their life spans (and subsequently by the different abilities age provides as it comes), institutions can be passed from one individual to another.
Further questions arise though: What happens when an institution works contrary to the sustainability of workforces, communication and/or capital? (Would it still survive?) How do you measure the lifespan of institutions? Did institutions exist even before modern definitions of employment, communication, capital or even time? And finally, is there a 5th element of self criticism that needs to be considered here as well, or is it a conflict of interest for institutions to think of ending themselves?
Comments
Post a Comment