Institutions get inside you

A piece of research that seems to confirm that having institutions does indeed achieve one of the aims of having them in the first place: they create systems that supervene loyalties and judgements based mainly on in-group loyalties. This gives them the possiblity of, in effect, pushing out 'love your neighbour' to out-group people.

with supportive government services, food security and institutions that
meet their basic needs were very likely to follow impartial rules about
how to give out money. By contrast, those without effective, reliable
institutions showed favoritism toward members of their local community. Strong institutions reduce in-group favoritism -- ScienceDaily:

But then we should note, too, how this isn't something merely external. I first became aware of this explicitly when I started working at Northumbria University and became acquainted with the way that their policy relating to equality and diversity actually had far-reaching effects in that it required that people actually become vigilant about the effects of discrimination, harassment and so forth. Since we spend more time at work than almost anywhere, then the attitudes are brought into our habit-range. So no surprise that one of the conclusions should be this:

In a world with well-functioning institutions, this gets inside of people and actually affects their basic motivations, even when they're in a situation when no one is watching, 

This lends some credence to the possibility that institutions (indeed corporisations) are providentially part of God's pedagogy of the human race. Though of course we need also to recognise the fallenness that shows up in a pedagogy of sin as well as of good-neighbourliness.

Co-operative university

I've found myself musing over the last few months, as you do, about the way that our Higher Education system is being funded and the cultural effects that seems to be having on the enterprise: on students, on institutions, on staff and the relationships. expectations and possibilities created or ruled-out.
My own university, Northumbria's history prompted a further sort of reflection. A major strand of the precursor institutions was a set of educational establishments set up by a Congregational minister and his church to serve the educational advancement of working class and poor families. So my musing was about how a university could run without the business ethos taking over and the whole thing becoming a version of service/product provision for customers. Then I wondered what if students were not positioned as 'customers' or 'consumers' -could that be done?

So I started wondering whether a university could be a co-op. All staff, like the John Lewis Partnership, as genuine economic partners in a truly democratic organisation (see also article on the Uni of Mondragon). Students who, like the customers of the co-op shops, could become members and be paid dividends on their fees. Alumni could remain members, perhaps.

The problem with universities in their current form is that they “treat professionals as employees”, he argues. This means that running difficulties and big decisions are seen as “management’s problem”, not “our problem”.
Give staff a slice of ownership and control and they are more likely to take responsibility, [Mervyn Wilson, quoted from here)

I like the idea that students could become members too. Perhaps that could help the Students' Union to find a fuller and renewed role.

There are already co-operative schools in this country and perhaps they could offer us a glimpse of how it could be.

The co-operative trust model embeds co-operative values and principles into schools. These include open membership, equal democratic participation (one member, one vote) and a clear line of accountability from those who manage the schools to those that use the school and its extended services. Importantly this offers schools the opportunity to involve the wider community in the running of the school, including local people, businesses, voluntary groups, charities, parents, pupils and staff through membership of a ‘Council’ or ‘Forum’. The ‘Council’ appoints trustees to the trust which, in turn, appoints governors to the governing body of the school. The Council plays a pivotal role in delivering the trust’s objectives in accordance with the core co-operative values.  (quoted from here)

Co-operative university seminar | The Co-operative College: This approach offers a new take on debates over privatisation, marketisation and the defence of the ‘public university’ It'll be interesting to hear what the outcomes of the seminar are in a few days time.
PS An article pointing to some of the seminar papers here. One of the slides in the presentation cited gives a useful summary of why bother which seems to pull together the various things that have gone through my mind about the topic.

• Disenfranchisement / Alienation of academic labour (casualization, instrumentalism, performativity, managerialism) 

• Challenge to notion of student as consumer 

• Market volatility, competition, differentiation 

• Alignment of values with governance  perhaps benefits performance & bottom line

And another slide notes an alignment of academic and co-op values: "Co-operative values are (broadly) academic values:
self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity and solidarity"

See also article on the Uni of Mondragon and the New University Cooperative of Canada.

Leaving Christianity in the name of Christ

There are times when I really do have so much sympathy for this: "My faith in Christ is central to my life. My conversion from a pessimistic atheist lost in a world I didn't understand, to an optimistic believer in a universe created and sustained by a loving God is crucial to me,' Rice wrote. 'But following Christ does not mean following His followers. Christ is infinitely more important than Christianity and always will be, no matter what Christianity is, has been or might become."
At the end of the day what keeps me 'Christian' (and 'Evangelical' for that matter) is a cussed refusal to cede the label and the history to the headbangers. But the idea of dissociating from the institutions and the negative stereotypes which are based on viewpoints which I do not share, well, that's very attractive.

I guess the other thing that keeps me is a sense that both Christ gives other Christians to me/us, and we are to learn to receive their gifts. And the mirror image of that: if I depart, then what I have to give is removed from potential influence. Oh and that is assuming that my influence is good; and of course, that's not always to be taken for granted; sometimes I may need the challenge and correction and keeping-me-on-my-toes-ness ...

And then there is the issue of being able to make use of the collective weight of Christian institutions for good. There is no getting away from institutional dimensions of life if we want to use our collective weight for good... individualism is not a plan to improve the world. But, yeah, the downside of that is where we started ...

Anne Rice leaves Christianity – The Marquee Blog - CNN.com Blogs:

 

The end of religion the beginning of faith

This is the point where the issue of religious pluralism founders ultimately. At least so I thought when I was reviewing a book advocating religious pluralism. The thing tends to want to accord religious institutions 'salvific' parity. But what if, as many Christian evangelicals do, you tend to think that religion is a flawed friend of faith, spirituality and salvation, at best?
It means that religious pluralism is flawed by the lack of means to critique religion.

Now this article is not about religious pluralism but rather non-religious Christianity. And it seems to me that such a thing could and should exist. I wonder whether the same shift is possible for other faiths?

What if “religion,” and by this I mean the institutional and organizational form around faith, is no longer necessary for the future of faith?
Religions exist in certainty and sanctity; faith lives in inquiry and fluidity. The reason traditional faiths are having a hard time of things is that the present situation is one in which certainty is suspect and sanctity is being redefined.

Actually, a very interesting mini article from Barry Taylor of Fuller. Another intriguing thing he writes is.

One of the most interesting dynamics of the present time is the collapse of distinction between the sacred and the profane. Contemporary society allows for the “holy” to be found in the most unexpected places. As Christopher Partridge writes, “The new spiritual awakening makes use of thought-forms, ideas and practices, which are not at all alien to the majority of Westerners. They emerge from an essentially non-Christian religio-cultural milieu, a milieu that both resources and is resourced by popular culture.” The future of Christian faith lies in its ability to inhabit this gray world, not attempting to “sort it out” as much as to be available to help others navigate and negotiate the complexities that such a dynamic raises. To “go with the flow” might seem a trite way of describing theological engagement, but a commitment to fluidity and a willingness to swim in the cultural waters rather than insisting on one’s own paddling pool is a necessary perspective.

The interesting thing is also the reactions to this opinion piece. Some people just don't seem to 'get' the idea of separating institution from faith, expression from basis...