An individual enters the world without knowing what to do. Over the years, those around them inform them of their limits. Once they understand their limits, they become free. Through language, which is itself a structure created by limits, they achieve even more freedom. Institutions stand at the top of this process, defining the boundaries of both individuals and society through their inherent power.
Institutions are victims of their own power, unable to maintain balance.
Every state, NGO, religion, or company eventually falls victim to its own power. If those at the bottom are not given enough freedom, there will be no one to rise to the top. Often, those who do rise have not done so because they understand limits but because they disregard them. Underdeveloped societies, failing companies, and forgotten religious institutions suffer because they either overly restrict their foundation or fail to establish sufficient boundaries.
Institutional power is oppressive; mechanisms must exist to prevent it from crushing individuals.
Unlike families, institutions impose strict and often harsh limitations. While a child can escape the limitations of their family, the state’s limits encompass the family as well, covering every aspect of life. We often hear about individuals who rise from difficult families to achieve success, but very few emerge onto the world stage from societies burdened by excessive limitations. The state, by virtue of its legitimate power to exercise force and evade repercussions, necessitates the establishment of mechanisms to prevent its abuse. If a state outlaws a word or image, you cannot possess it. However, if your family opposes something, their influence is limited to persuasion. In a family, you might complain to your mother about your father, or to your father about your grandfather, but in the state, there are courts.
Judicial oversight is crucial to prevent the abuse of state power. However, if the judiciary is not independent and has become politicized, the state’s future is bleak. Like unclaimed land, it will inevitably be overtaken by undesirable forces and exploited. Independent control mechanisms must be in place. If the legislative, executive, and judicial branches are not independent, citizens will either be overly restricted or unable to adapt to the limits imposed. Even in monarchies, there must be a limiting force, such as religion, to check the institution’s power. Most companies allocate time in meetings for employees to speak up because they recognize the importance of feedback from the lower levels. These kinds of rules are necessary to maintain balance.
Institutions must set boundaries but also allow for growth.
The biggest mistake institutions make is akin to the mistake individuals make: resorting to simple answers should raise suspicion. Comforting answers should trigger doubt. Many states lose their citizens due to their simplistic and reductionist approaches. Banning something may seem like an easy solution, but life is complex, and such limitations often cause more harm than good. Dealing with people is necessary—after all, that is what life is about.
In the modernization journey of the Ottoman Empire, the state assumed it could only adopt military innovations from the West, neglecting the need for comprehensive reform. While accepting new weapons, they banned theater, failing to realize that progress was not that simple. Compulsory and unpaid military service was introduced, and taxes were shifted from produce to money, limiting citizens. At the same time, developments that could have liberated and naturally evolved society were suppressed. For instance, the patriotic play Vatan Yahut Silistre by Namık Kemal was banned and Kemal himself was imprisoned in Cyprus because the play stirred emotions among the public. This kind of restriction was unacceptable, and because the creative destruction inherent in progress was mishandled, the state gradually weakened.
Institutions should strike a delicate balance with their limits.
Education is the process of imparting limits. Letters and sounds are meaningful because they have certain limits. Units of measurement are useful because they have defined boundaries. Individuals become livable beings when they have limits. There should be no unlimited individuals because the act of living together imposes boundaries. Similarly, no state should be limitless; it must impose limits on its own power.
Institutional education should be as liberating as possible.
No state wants to grant complete freedom to its citizens. Every state needs a labor force, soldiers, and people who can serve its needs. However, some states have established mechanisms that classify and place individuals into hierarchical positions where freedom can be granted to certain groups. States that create such a fluid structure within society thrive, while reductionist states that rely on simplistic solutions fall behind, as they fail to utilize human potential. Especially when it comes to education provided by the state and religion, which are inherently restrictive, liberating measures are now necessary.
Given that the state’s power is immense and rigid, reforming its educational system is particularly difficult. We are still being forced into the 19th-century paradigm of training the working class. The current education system often evaluates intelligence based on one’s ability to follow orders. Yet, we possess an intuitive, imaginative side that doesn’t always conform. Beyond our minds, we have muscles, eyes, and hands. Some people contribute to society by being idle or by rebelling. These individuals require a more individualized approach, which can only be harnessed by an organized state.
Religion and the state must avoid becoming a laughingstock.
When governments attempt to erase political opponents from the internet or religious leaders offer antiquated analogies on topics requiring scientific knowledge, both the state and religion become laughable. Making declarations in areas they cannot and should not engage in erodes institutional seriousness. Institutions must also know their limits. Institutions that want to be taken seriously should not meddle in individuals’ personal matters. There are more important tasks for institutions to address.
