Institutions monopoly on meaning

Recently I’ve been reading David Bollier's work on the commons in "Free, Fair, and Alive." He spends a good chunk of the first half outlining the importance of language and ontology. Bollier emphasises that the way we conceptualise and define the world around us—our ontologies—profoundly influences the structures, policies, and practices that emerge. A more accessible way to think of ontology is "ways of being," such as "Indigenous ways of being."

Now I know what you’re thinking. An article on ontologies, I don’t have time to read academic flummery. But ontologies are not merely abstract ideas; they change what we think is possible and what options are available to us. If we have a restrictive worldview, we may not be able to imagine viable alternatives that are more just and equal. I’ve read a bunch of stuff on ontology in the past that has gone over my head, so this is my attempt to connect it more tangibly to our day-to-day work and make it actionable.

Here we go…

In modern society, institutions often monopolise the definitions of essential concepts like health, justice, and education, imposing rigid frameworks that prioritise compliance and standardisation. This monopolistic approach leaves little room for individuals and communities to define these concepts for themselves or for multiple definitions to coexist, posing significant dangers to societal wellbeing and individual autonomy, touching upon deep ontological questions about how we view the world, and what limits that places on how we approach problems.

Ivan Illich writes a lot about this, you may have noticed his name popping up a bit if you have been following these posts. He writes about institutions as tools. His definition of tools is broad, he sees them as any human-made thing we use as a means to an end. A hammer is a tool, equally a health care system is a tool. The problem is when the means and end get confused. The tool is enforced, and people lose their choice to define the means or the end. The dominant ontology rejects other ways of viewing the world. The solution? What Illich calls Convivial Tools, or tools (institutions) that are made to empower choice rather than enforce a single worldview.

Bollier's work on commoning references Illich's approach. So too does Escobar in his writing about the 'pluriverse' or a world that doesn't accept a singular dominant worldview. Sanders and Stappers in their seminal book on co-design "Convivial Toolbox" also nod to this notion. All of them agree, that we need to create tools, institutions and technologies that enable diversity rather than demand conformity. This is what co-design is built on, a belief that one size does not fit all and that people should have a role in defining how they want to be in the world. Think about health as an example, think about the myriad of ways that people define what being healthy means to them. Now think about the way that the health system defines and legislates for health outcomes. It doesn’t leave a lot of room for people’s own interpretation and often imposes its own on people.

When institutions rigidly define the ends, such as health, justice, and education, they impose a singular, often reductive, understanding of these complex concepts. This imposition affects how we understand and experience these aspects of our lives. In design, an affordance refers to the properties or characteristics of an object that indicate how it can be used. Bollier argues that like designed objects, ontologies also have affordances. To put it simply, viewing things in a certain way makes certain approaches more likely. To a hammer everything looks like a nail, to a healthcare system everything looks like an illness. The institutional definitions of health, justice, and education come with specific affordances that shape our interactions and possibilities. And when these definitions and ontologies are enforced and legislated, it makes change very difficult.

Here are some examples;

1. Education: Standardisation vs Creativity

In education, institutions often impose rigid definitions that emphasise measurable outcomes and standardised testing. This approach reduces education to a series of metrics, ignoring the broader purpose of education—to cultivate wisdom, critical thinking, and personal growth. By defining education narrowly, institutions limit the potential for diverse educational experiences that nurture different aspects of being. The affordances of this ontology encourage a focus on uniformity and compliance, discouraging innovative teaching methods and personalised learning.

I rebelled strongly against this when I was in school, and had to go through a process of relearning the joy of learning. I was lucky that I had deep creative passions that helped me rekindle this joy, but many live with the lifelong scars of not feeling "good" or "smart" enough because their particular flavour of intelligence doesn't fit into the dominant definition. This continues to play out when we look at who gets to be an “expert” and who merely needs to be consulted.

2. Health: Measurable Outcomes vs Holistic Wellbeing

In healthcare, institutional definitions frequently focus on measurable outcomes such as survival rates and readmission rates. This focus on metrics reduces health to physical well-being and ignores the ontological dimension of health as a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being. Holistic approaches to health, which consider the whole person, are often sidelined in favour of treatments that improve statistics. The affordances of this health ontology promote a biomedical model over a biopsychosocial model, leading to a fragmented understanding of health and wellness. Despite the mounting evidence that social connection is one of the biggest determinants of health, we continue to take a medicalised approach that siloes the social and the medical.

3. Care: Surveillance as the Norm

The concept of care has been increasingly defined by institutions through the lens of surveillance. Institutions impose an ontological understanding of care as constant monitoring and control, overshadowing other forms of care such as community support and familial responsibility. The affordances of this surveillance-based care ontology lead to increased dependency on technological monitoring rather than human interaction and community involvement.

Take for example the current state of Out of Home Foster Care. Children in emergency care are taken to hotel rooms where a series of social workers sit in a room with them to monitor them, but are forbidden from forming relational bonds. Is this care, or emotional abuse?

4. Justice: Punishing Divergence from the Dominant Ontology

In the justice system, institutional definitions emphasise strict adherence to legal standards and procedures. This approach overlooks the essence of justice, which involves fairness, equity, and restoration. A rigid legal system can perpetuate systemic injustices and fail to account for the unique contexts of individual lives, reducing justice to mere legal compliance.

More concerning is how the justice system punishes those who do not fit into the dominant ontological view. Individuals whose behaviours, identities, or lifestyles diverge from the norm are often harshly penalised. For example, people from marginalised communities may face disproportionate sentencing or biased treatment because their existence challenges the established norms. The affordances of this legalistic ontology favour punitive measures over rehabilitative and restorative approaches, limiting the potential for true justice and healing. This results in a justice system that perpetuates exclusion and marginalisation, reinforcing existing power structures and social hierarchies.

The Dangers of Compliance and Standardisation

The push for compliance and standardisation in institutions creates an environment where conformity is valued over creativity and critical thinking. This can lead to negative consequences:

Loss of autonomy: When institutions dictate the definitions of health, justice, and education, individuals lose the ability to make meaningful choices about their own lives. This diminishes their sense of agency and autonomy, fundamental aspects of their being. This isn't about a libertarian view of individual freedom, it's about one’s ability to control how they see and be in the world.

Learned helplessness: Being continually told there is one way to fit into the world and nothing else will be accepted makes it feel like change is impossible. It’s easy to give up.

Erosion of community bonds: Rigid institutional definitions can undermine community-based approaches to care, justice, and education. Communities, which have a deep intuitive understanding of their unique challenges, are often ignored in favour of top-down solutions.

Stifling of innovation: A compliance-driven approach discourages experimentation and innovation. Creative and non-traditional approaches that could lead to new ways of being are stifled when they don't neatly fit into existing understands of how things work.

Resistance and solidarity

I promised to make this actionable. This is a really tough and deeply entrenched area. It’s culture, so it takes time to shift. But here are some tactics.

Question everything: Just because it's always been done that way doesn't mean it's the right way to do it. So many of the things that we hold to be immutable facts are actually just the dominant way of being and knowing.

Create new language: If the language available feels like it is imposing a certain worldview (eg: human resources), then change it. This is not about re-branding the same thing with on-trend words, or creating new exclusionary jargon, but acknowledging that the words we use were not created with plurality in mind.

Design for the Pluriverse: Encourage institutions to recognise and support multiple definitions of health, justice, and education. Allowing different ways of seeing the world (ontological plurality) opens up the possibility space.

Start local: Strengthen the role of local communities in defining and addressing their own needs. Start by asking what does X mean to you, rather than demanding compliance to existing notions.

Foster autonomy: Promote policies and practices that enhance individual autonomy and choice. This requires trust, which the dominant ontological perspective is short on. But self-determination is a motivator of action, and a key factor in wellbeing.

Build micro-utopias: Resisting the dominant way of being in the world can feel impossible. This kind of change isn't going to come from 'top-down' approaches. We can create small groups where new ways of being, knowing and interacting are the norm. By being the change we want to see in the world, we can start to show that different ways of being do and can exist outside and within the dominant worldview.

This is hard stuff, and it can feel hopeless. I made the choice a few years back that ‘ways of knowing and being’ is as if not more important than' ‘ways of doing.’ How we relate to, support each other, and advocate for different ways of seeing the world can start creating pockets of hope, which ladders up to greater change. What Illich calls cultural revolution. It may sound lofty or academic, but that's because the language available has left us without words to adequately describe different ways of being in the world.