Scott 2001 study overview

Institutional Property and Process The concept of the institution may on the surface seem very simple and concrete. Particularly, we recognize that this term refers to some established organizational or cultural framework within which members and actors will tend to exhibit institutionally endorsed or enforced behaviors, customs, symbolic considerations and experiential observations derived from a common basis. But with respect to the notion that institutions are a considerably important building block in societies and within cultures, it must recognized that the impact and importance of institutionalization is far too complex to be understood according to the ideas expressed above. This is the reason for Scott's article, which is primarily concerned with the more complex and nuanced considerations for that which 'institutions' imply. Particularly, Scott is concerned with the 'institution' in relation to its human factor when he works to resolve whether an institution is 'property' or 'process.' Ultimately, we find that most agreeably, Scott takes the measured approach by arguing that quite in fact, the institution should be understood as both. This is a point which resonates with the reader, who recognizes the relationship described by the social theorist. This seems to generally be a discussion as to weather human beings are a function of institutions or vice versa. The former possibility would dictate that the property quality of institutionalization is the outcome of social characteristics and human proclivities. Such is to say that the institution is a condition of the society forged by the people and groupings living there within. The process is the reverse of this relationship, in which human behaviors and individual actions come to be seen as somehow relating to or motivated by the conditions of being institutionalized or pursuing deinstitutionalization. In the research by Scott, the drive to define these conditions does not descend into a drive to evaluate them against one another. Instead, the account here finds most agreeable the author's decision to reflect on how these conditions both relate to the natural importance of human activity in defining the concept. Importantly, he builds his case on the sociological theories of those who preceded him. To this extent, he remarks at one juncture, "as Giddens (1984) states, 'institutions by definition are the more enduring features of social life... giving solidity to social systems across time and space.' Institutions exhibit these properties because of the process set in motion by regulative , normative, and cultural cognitive elements." (Scott, 1) In other words, the implications of the institution are essentially reciprocal. It is only rational that property and process should exist within the context of a cycle. The human aspects of an institution, whether it be a sustained cultural group such as a global religious faith or a corporation with a century of organizational development behind it, there are aspects of society which are going to inevitably impact the ways the people behave. For instance, with the adoption of Civil Rights in the United States, institutions which might have previously resisted integration will in the half-century since their inception, likely come to have reflect the integrative qualities of society. In turn for this reflection of a social property, processes would adjust with regard to the approach of institutionalization. The symbolic creation of meaning which Scott references throughout his discussion will ultimately remove many of the stigmas and simultaneous obstacles by which minority groups can hope to achieve equality. This example reflect the fact that the concept of the institution is a distinctly human one which has taken on a systems-level proportion based on its permanence, its permeation and its power. As a result, institutional property and process are engaged in a constant exchange, with human interactants functions as the grease in the gears.