Institutional Knowledge
Are the concepts of agentive function, constitutive and regulative rules, and collective intentionality able to explain all institutional facts?
To answer this question, it is necessary to clarify the definition of each term. In this case the term we have to focus on is "institutional facts." Just like "social reality," these facts cannot exist without any human interactions. As the term itself indicates, these are the facts that can be recognized in a particular institutional set up. This means that the facts that only the members of this particular institution or institutional community can understand and shared together within their community. These are the facts that are based on the "human agreement." And those "humans" are the members of the community.
One of the typical examples is the fact showed as monetary reality. For, the function and the value of money heavily rely on the "institutional fact" supported mainly by the "constitutive rules." Let's say, a piece of one thousand pesos bill is not the same value as this piece of paper naturally has. We do not consider one thousand pesos bill merely as a piece of paper that can be used as a piece of scratch paper. Rather, we consider that by using this piece of paper we can enjoy dinner in a certain restaurant. Why can we think that way and why is that possible? The answer is simple. It is because there is a certain human agreement regarding the function and the value of this particular piece of paper on which some letters and pictorial symbols authorized by the Philippine government are indicated. This agreement or collective intentionality can transform a piece of paper into the piece of one thousand pesos bill. What we see in this transformation is an institutional fact. And the function/value of one thousand pesos bill is called "agentive function."
Thus, if you consider one thousand pesos bill as merely a piece of paper, this means that you are not the member of the above-mentioned institutional community. Or else, supposedly you are just a small boy and have not yet fully recognized the given institutional fact, participated in the institutional community, or aware of the constitutive rules. Without constitutive rules and institutional facts, one cannot understand the agentive function of the institutionally given items (in this case one thousand bill pesos bill) and what one can see is "non-agentive function" – a sort of naturally given attribute of the item. Without constitutive rules, coins are just considered as pieces of metal; they cannot have such agentive function as "coins." Here we have to notice the fact that the term, "considered," is specifically used. It can be also replaced with "interpreted," "recognized" or "regarded." The point is that in using these verbs we can notice that the function and the value of any items is what is "constructed" in the internal domain of humans. When a piece of paper has the function/value of one thousand pesos, while such indicators are supported by the "printing features" on the surface of this piece of paper, the fundamental part is really based on the collectively agreed internal domain of each member. Since everyone in this community agrees and believes such particular function/value of this piece of paper, it can be transformed into one thousand pesos bill. Because of such agreement and belief, non-agentive function (a piece of paper) can be converted into agentive function (one thousand pesos bill).
Incidentally there is some case that both non-agentive function and agentive function are almost similar each other. One of the typical examples is a gold coin. In this case such naturally given character (the rareness or the preciousness of gold itself) has heavily influenced the value/function of gold coins as such. If "gold coins" are not made of gold, they are no longer gold coins. More strictly, they are no longer considered as gold coins. This is a case of non-agentive function. To see the value of the given item, one needs not have any constitutional rules, but regulative rules alone. Having a closer and more careful attention to this case, however, we also have to notice that the value/function of gold is to some extent based on the institutional fact. This means that gold coins have the value/function, because we also agree and believe the value/function of "gold-ness." The value of gold looks somehow universal throughout almost any human races, and yet we should notice that this value is also a given social fact. The clear example to prove this is that a newborn baby does not understand the value/function of gold. The baby can understand such value/function only when she has fully participated in her society. Thus, the reason why gold coins can be regarded as an example of non-agentive function is that while this value is also based on our collective intentionality, the institutional knowledge to support the value/function of gold coins are naturally given and quite concrete unlike pieces of one thousand pesos bill of which value/function is based more on the abstractive or conceptual institutional knowledge. The more society is being institutionalized and highly systematized, the more its institutional knowledge is sophisticated. We can say that using paper bills is more advanced than relying on gold coins as far as the institutional knowledge is concerned.
Knowing such developmental sequence of institutional knowledge, we can also see how our institutional facts have been changed or evolved. For example, in the primitive and tribal community the number of community members is not so many. It is said that the maximum number of such tribal community is more or less one hundred fifty. This is the biologically limited or regulated maximum number of the community members in which each of them can recognize a kinship based face-to-face relationship. If the population increases, let's say, if the number of the members has become more than two hundreds or nearly three hundreds, then such tribal community has to be divided into two tribal groups so as to maintain such kinship based face-to-face relationship.
In this community level their constitutive rules are quite simple. While the kinship system itself might be complicated in its mathematical sense as Levi-Strauss pointed out, the inter-subjective world of each member, in other words, their own institutional fact is still primitive. This means quite non-agentive. The leader is almost the same as the father or grand-father of the members. The membership is almost the same as the brother-ship and sister-ship. The fact that you are the part of the community kinship in one way or another means you are or can be considered as the member of the community. In this community level, it is easy to understand the meaning and the context of membership just as it is easy to understand the value of gold. In this level, the constitutive rules are still similar to relative rules. The rules can be understood in one's experiential perception.
For some reasons – probably to cope with the tough natural environment or to win the inter-tribal wars, there were the necessity to establish the huge community that can embrace a number of tribes. Since such huge community had to be emerged, aside from the kinship another kind of institutional knowledge was needed so as to maintain the trans-tribal membership to share the more sophisticated and complicated institutional facts among the members. While this tendency itself can be called "institutionalization" in considering the tribal community was not yet institutionalized, we can also consider this as the change of the mode of institutional knowledge/fact from kinship to some sort of charismatic leaders, religious doctrine, democratic nation-sate, etc.
The emergence of trans-tribal, huge community means that of the empire, the world religion, and eventually the nation-state (probably the trans-national globalization must be the recent emergence of the quite new institutional knowledge/fact). In these huge communities we have to maintain a sort of abstractive concept of institutional knowledge and constitutive rules to identify our own membership. If you believe that you are the member of the empire state and devote yourself to the charismatic leader of this empire, then even if you have not met the leader directly, somehow you can fully trust him or even you can die for him. It is because this particular institutional fact has been imbedded in you and consciously or unconsciously you behave and live in your life based on this fact that is supported by the constitutive rules. Probably this charismatic leader might have certain non-agentive feature such as leader-like physical appearance or voice tone etc. But more than that, what makes the leader charismatic and lets all the members follow even blindly is the institutional fact imbedded in all the members. Just like you never doubt that the piece of paper you hold is one thousand pesos bill, you never doubt he is your leader and saver for everything of you as long as you live in the midst of such institutional facts and holds the constitutive rules consciously or unconsciously.
In the same way we can see how the religious community functions and has its own value in providing the particular identity to each member. In this case, the institutional knowledge is more abstract and conceptual. If there is a specific doctrine and principle that explain the inter-subjective worldview in one way or another, no matter how it may be irrational, or no matter how it might be harmful, as long as it has been imbedded in the mind of each member as the institutional knowledge and as the constitutive rules, that is the only world where each member live, survive and will be saved. It has been imbedded in each member. If you are the member of this particular religion and have the tendency of being fundamentalist, it seems to you that the function/value of this principle provided by this religion is neither constitutive nor agentive (though it is constitutive and agentive from the point of view of non-members), but rather for you it is relative and non-agentive. For, in your inter-subjective worldview, that religious truth is seemingly naturally given just as gold-ness of gold. Just like water can be boiled or plant grows with water and sunlight (these are regulative rules and non-agentive functions), for you the religion that you believe is the only world you live, survive and will be saved.
Thus, as you notice, the confusion between constitutive rules / agentive functions and regulative / non-agentive function tends to create the fundamentalist's religious worldview or narrow-minded ideology, etc. Moreover, in recognizing these terms and articulations and realizing that our social fact has been internally constructed and relied on such institutional things, we can avoid the clash among the pre-modern religious, ethnocentric worldviews. Indeed, the problem of these conflicts is that the truth I believe in the world where I live must be the truth you believe in the world where you live and if you do not accept my truth and the world I live, then you will not be saved or else I will kill you. If, however, we can realize that the truth we believe is based on the institutional knowledge and supported by our consciously or unconsciously agreed agenda, then we can overcome those unfortunate, even cruel clashes that can be seen even this time everywhere on the globe.
To answer this question, it is necessary to clarify the definition of each term. In this case the term we have to focus on is "institutional facts." Just like "social reality," these facts cannot exist without any human interactions. As the term itself indicates, these are the facts that can be recognized in a particular institutional set up. This means that the facts that only the members of this particular institution or institutional community can understand and shared together within their community. These are the facts that are based on the "human agreement." And those "humans" are the members of the community.
One of the typical examples is the fact showed as monetary reality. For, the function and the value of money heavily rely on the "institutional fact" supported mainly by the "constitutive rules." Let's say, a piece of one thousand pesos bill is not the same value as this piece of paper naturally has. We do not consider one thousand pesos bill merely as a piece of paper that can be used as a piece of scratch paper. Rather, we consider that by using this piece of paper we can enjoy dinner in a certain restaurant. Why can we think that way and why is that possible? The answer is simple. It is because there is a certain human agreement regarding the function and the value of this particular piece of paper on which some letters and pictorial symbols authorized by the Philippine government are indicated. This agreement or collective intentionality can transform a piece of paper into the piece of one thousand pesos bill. What we see in this transformation is an institutional fact. And the function/value of one thousand pesos bill is called "agentive function."
Thus, if you consider one thousand pesos bill as merely a piece of paper, this means that you are not the member of the above-mentioned institutional community. Or else, supposedly you are just a small boy and have not yet fully recognized the given institutional fact, participated in the institutional community, or aware of the constitutive rules. Without constitutive rules and institutional facts, one cannot understand the agentive function of the institutionally given items (in this case one thousand bill pesos bill) and what one can see is "non-agentive function" – a sort of naturally given attribute of the item. Without constitutive rules, coins are just considered as pieces of metal; they cannot have such agentive function as "coins." Here we have to notice the fact that the term, "considered," is specifically used. It can be also replaced with "interpreted," "recognized" or "regarded." The point is that in using these verbs we can notice that the function and the value of any items is what is "constructed" in the internal domain of humans. When a piece of paper has the function/value of one thousand pesos, while such indicators are supported by the "printing features" on the surface of this piece of paper, the fundamental part is really based on the collectively agreed internal domain of each member. Since everyone in this community agrees and believes such particular function/value of this piece of paper, it can be transformed into one thousand pesos bill. Because of such agreement and belief, non-agentive function (a piece of paper) can be converted into agentive function (one thousand pesos bill).
Incidentally there is some case that both non-agentive function and agentive function are almost similar each other. One of the typical examples is a gold coin. In this case such naturally given character (the rareness or the preciousness of gold itself) has heavily influenced the value/function of gold coins as such. If "gold coins" are not made of gold, they are no longer gold coins. More strictly, they are no longer considered as gold coins. This is a case of non-agentive function. To see the value of the given item, one needs not have any constitutional rules, but regulative rules alone. Having a closer and more careful attention to this case, however, we also have to notice that the value/function of gold is to some extent based on the institutional fact. This means that gold coins have the value/function, because we also agree and believe the value/function of "gold-ness." The value of gold looks somehow universal throughout almost any human races, and yet we should notice that this value is also a given social fact. The clear example to prove this is that a newborn baby does not understand the value/function of gold. The baby can understand such value/function only when she has fully participated in her society. Thus, the reason why gold coins can be regarded as an example of non-agentive function is that while this value is also based on our collective intentionality, the institutional knowledge to support the value/function of gold coins are naturally given and quite concrete unlike pieces of one thousand pesos bill of which value/function is based more on the abstractive or conceptual institutional knowledge. The more society is being institutionalized and highly systematized, the more its institutional knowledge is sophisticated. We can say that using paper bills is more advanced than relying on gold coins as far as the institutional knowledge is concerned.
Knowing such developmental sequence of institutional knowledge, we can also see how our institutional facts have been changed or evolved. For example, in the primitive and tribal community the number of community members is not so many. It is said that the maximum number of such tribal community is more or less one hundred fifty. This is the biologically limited or regulated maximum number of the community members in which each of them can recognize a kinship based face-to-face relationship. If the population increases, let's say, if the number of the members has become more than two hundreds or nearly three hundreds, then such tribal community has to be divided into two tribal groups so as to maintain such kinship based face-to-face relationship.
In this community level their constitutive rules are quite simple. While the kinship system itself might be complicated in its mathematical sense as Levi-Strauss pointed out, the inter-subjective world of each member, in other words, their own institutional fact is still primitive. This means quite non-agentive. The leader is almost the same as the father or grand-father of the members. The membership is almost the same as the brother-ship and sister-ship. The fact that you are the part of the community kinship in one way or another means you are or can be considered as the member of the community. In this community level, it is easy to understand the meaning and the context of membership just as it is easy to understand the value of gold. In this level, the constitutive rules are still similar to relative rules. The rules can be understood in one's experiential perception.
For some reasons – probably to cope with the tough natural environment or to win the inter-tribal wars, there were the necessity to establish the huge community that can embrace a number of tribes. Since such huge community had to be emerged, aside from the kinship another kind of institutional knowledge was needed so as to maintain the trans-tribal membership to share the more sophisticated and complicated institutional facts among the members. While this tendency itself can be called "institutionalization" in considering the tribal community was not yet institutionalized, we can also consider this as the change of the mode of institutional knowledge/fact from kinship to some sort of charismatic leaders, religious doctrine, democratic nation-sate, etc.
The emergence of trans-tribal, huge community means that of the empire, the world religion, and eventually the nation-state (probably the trans-national globalization must be the recent emergence of the quite new institutional knowledge/fact). In these huge communities we have to maintain a sort of abstractive concept of institutional knowledge and constitutive rules to identify our own membership. If you believe that you are the member of the empire state and devote yourself to the charismatic leader of this empire, then even if you have not met the leader directly, somehow you can fully trust him or even you can die for him. It is because this particular institutional fact has been imbedded in you and consciously or unconsciously you behave and live in your life based on this fact that is supported by the constitutive rules. Probably this charismatic leader might have certain non-agentive feature such as leader-like physical appearance or voice tone etc. But more than that, what makes the leader charismatic and lets all the members follow even blindly is the institutional fact imbedded in all the members. Just like you never doubt that the piece of paper you hold is one thousand pesos bill, you never doubt he is your leader and saver for everything of you as long as you live in the midst of such institutional facts and holds the constitutive rules consciously or unconsciously.
In the same way we can see how the religious community functions and has its own value in providing the particular identity to each member. In this case, the institutional knowledge is more abstract and conceptual. If there is a specific doctrine and principle that explain the inter-subjective worldview in one way or another, no matter how it may be irrational, or no matter how it might be harmful, as long as it has been imbedded in the mind of each member as the institutional knowledge and as the constitutive rules, that is the only world where each member live, survive and will be saved. It has been imbedded in each member. If you are the member of this particular religion and have the tendency of being fundamentalist, it seems to you that the function/value of this principle provided by this religion is neither constitutive nor agentive (though it is constitutive and agentive from the point of view of non-members), but rather for you it is relative and non-agentive. For, in your inter-subjective worldview, that religious truth is seemingly naturally given just as gold-ness of gold. Just like water can be boiled or plant grows with water and sunlight (these are regulative rules and non-agentive functions), for you the religion that you believe is the only world you live, survive and will be saved.
Thus, as you notice, the confusion between constitutive rules / agentive functions and regulative / non-agentive function tends to create the fundamentalist's religious worldview or narrow-minded ideology, etc. Moreover, in recognizing these terms and articulations and realizing that our social fact has been internally constructed and relied on such institutional things, we can avoid the clash among the pre-modern religious, ethnocentric worldviews. Indeed, the problem of these conflicts is that the truth I believe in the world where I live must be the truth you believe in the world where you live and if you do not accept my truth and the world I live, then you will not be saved or else I will kill you. If, however, we can realize that the truth we believe is based on the institutional knowledge and supported by our consciously or unconsciously agreed agenda, then we can overcome those unfortunate, even cruel clashes that can be seen even this time everywhere on the globe.
Comments