Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

A Primer on How Institutions Think
A Primer on How Institutions Think
A Primer on How Institutions Think
Ebook73 pages36 minutes

A Primer on How Institutions Think

Rating: 0 out of 5 stars

()

Read preview

About this ebook

Why a series of primers?
These primers provide in depth coverage of the nested form constructs in the book: How to Define the Word “Religion”.
Primers 1 and 2 developed the category-based nested forms discussed in “the meaning underlying the word ‘religion’”.
The next several primer address “the presence underlying the word ‘religion’”. This presence can be appreciated through a fully differentiated model of “humans in our current Lebenswelt”. Humans exist in society. Humans organize. Human live as individuals in community. Each of these modes of existence relate to one another as a nested form:
Society( Organization( potential of Individual in Community))
Primer 3 diagrams the individual in community. Primers 4 and 5 present the organization tier. Primer 6 introduces the institution level of the society tier, starting with an example, the family. Primer 7 reviews How Institutions Think (1986) by British anthropologist Mary Douglas.

LanguageEnglish
PublisherRazie Mah
Release dateApr 28, 2015
ISBN9781942824060
A Primer on How Institutions Think
Author

Razie Mah

See website for bio.

Read more from Razie Mah

Related to A Primer on How Institutions Think

Related ebooks

Social Science For You

View More

Related articles

Reviews for A Primer on How Institutions Think

Rating: 0 out of 5 stars
0 ratings

0 ratings0 reviews

What did you think?

Tap to rate

Review must be at least 10 words

    Book preview

    A Primer on How Institutions Think - Razie Mah

    A Primer on How Institutions Think

    Razie Mah

    Published for Smashwords

    7815 U0’

    2015 AD

    Notes on Text

    The seventh primer further develops the institution level of the society tier, by reviewing How Institutions Think by Mary Douglas (1986: Syracuse University Press).

    Note: Single quotes and italics are used to group words together for easier reading.

    Note: To translate from Ubaid Zero prime (U0') to Anno Domini (AD), subtract 5800

    Table of Contents

    Chapter 1 in My Own Words

    Chapter 2 in My Own Words

    Fleck’s Terminology Comes to Life

    Signs of the Real

    Concluding Chapter 2

    Chapter 3 in My Own Words

    Conclusion of Chapter 3

    The Remaining Chapters Turn the Paradigm Around

    Conclusion

    Chapter 1 in My Own Words

    0001 Thirty years ago, in 7785 U0’, the British social anthropologist Mary Douglas presents the sixth Abrams’ lecture at Syracuse University.

    Frank W. Abrams was a lifelong leader in support of higher education. He played key roles in the Council for Financial Aid to Education, the Ford Foundation’s Fund for the Advancement of Education, and the Alfred E. Sloan Foundation. Undoubtedly, Mr. Abrams was a Progressive, like most leaders of his time. He would not have viewed Mary Douglas as subversive, even though she is.

    Mary Douglas (7721-7807 U0') is that good.

    0002 Her lectures aim to discredit rational choice theory. In its place, she proposes a hybrid of Emile Durkheim's and Ludwik Fleck’s ideas.

    Emile Durkheim (7658-7717 U0’) is a French anthropologist interested in comprehending so-called primitive peoples. Ludwik Fleck (7696-7761 U0’) is a Polish and Israeli microbiologist interested in comprehending how scientific facts are established.

    From these divergent starting points, both arrive at a sociology of institutional thought. My intent is to re-articulate Douglas’s argument within the framework of the three-tiered diagram of the presence underlying the word, religion.

    Emile Durkheim

    0003 Durkheim is interested in the social origins of human thought. Utility may account for some thought, but that is limited to sensible thinking. Utility makes sense in a sensical world. But, the world is not always sensical. There are many features of our world that make no sense at all. So the question might be phrased like this: How do people make the world sensical enough for utilitarian (sensible) action?

    What do I mean by people?

    Do I mean individuals?

    By Durkheim’s time, the concept of the individual has been removed from its original illumination (by early medieval Christians) and placed on its own altar, as a dynamic of post-religionist [enlightenment] theology. The actuality of the individual no longer emerges from and situates the potential of a mystical union with God. Rather, the individual embodies the potential of human fulfillment.

    Post-religionist ideas and institutions emerge from and situate the potential of individual fulfillment.

    0004 This history explains why modern sociologists dismiss Durkheim.

    Durkheim’s theories account for the actuality of individual thought in terms of the potential of ‘something’ that may be called social. To me, the image of

    Enjoying the preview?
    Page 1 of 1