Institutions, Memes, and Choice

Looking Deeply at Communication and Power

Whenever we communicate, we affect the influential power of different institutions, corporations, and ideas. In order to affect the most good in human society, we must be especially careful with our verbal and monetary choices as to not lend our support to harmful beliefs or organizations.

Santa Claus as an Institution

A belief is support of a given proposition’s validity.
If you believe in Santa Claus, then you value the proposition that Santa Claus is real.

My nephew believes in Santa Claus and he changes his behavior accordingly. He wants presents, and when he remembers Santa Claus, he changes his behavior because he wants Santa Claus to give him presents on Christmas.

My nephew is making a rational decision here, wouldn’t you make the same? If you are willing to make rational assumptions about the nature of the universe and change your behavior, that is a belief.

An institution is a collection of beliefs that exists in the thoughts of humans in a group. An institution is a non-physical structure of beliefs that shape and constrain individual behavior. These can be laws, social conventions, and norms. Catholicism any religion or ideology is an institution. There is no central building for these institutions, even if you destroyed the Vatican, assassinated the Pope, and burned every crucifix necklace, the institution of Catholicism would exist because it exists in the minds of all of us.

Imagine a heat map of every proclamation of belief in Santa Claus between November 1st and December 25th 2021.

Now imagine the tens of thousands of golden-arches around the world indicating a McDonald’s restaurant is nearby.

Santa Claus is not those blips on a spreadsheet. Neither is the McDonald’s corporation is not those arches. But those arches are manifestations of a powerful, invisible entity that legally exists because of the billions of dollars behind it. And, every single utterance of “Santa Claus”, every single cookie left by the fireplace, and every single man dressed in red wearing a fake white beard are all indications that something gargantuan is lurking in our culture.

Here is another relevant analogy of institutions, a naturalistic one: I learned recently that mushrooms are only part of an organism, and are not distinct. They are in fact, the spore-bearing fruiting body of a fungus. This fungus exists throughout the soil in an area and the mushrooms shoot up out of the soil. Analogously, institutions are the fungus, their manifestations are the fruiting body. Whenever you hear carolers singing “…He’s making a list, He’s checking it twice…” you can think about a toadstool blooming in a shadowy meadow and remember that there is a large fungal network underneath the soil.

Validity

Validity is the quality an institution needs more than anything else. And the more people that think an institution is valid, the more powerful it gets and the more it can spread. This is only one of the ways that institutions spread, of course. Let’s define the word, because it has multiple meanings and both meanings are what institutions need, or else they will fade away from our modern culture.

1.      Validity is the quality of being logically or factually sound.
2.      Validity is the state of being legally or officially binding or acceptable.

If a belief makes sense logically, it is not doubted, and holds up against criticism. Clearly Santa Claus is real if there is evidence to support his existence.

a.      Your parents say he is real
b.      You met someone claiming to be him at the mall
c.       There was a bite out of the cookie you left by the tree on Christmas morning, along with presents from ‘Santa’

To the average child, this is more than enough evidence needed to support their belief in Santa Claus’s existence. In that child’s mind, the institution is valid, though they are not thinking at the level of institutions, just as people. Within their brain is the synaptic fungus which can bloom into a declaration of belief and possibly spread to another child or at least bolster a fellow believer’s faith in the existence of Santa Claus. That believing child is spreading this belief by sharing stories with other children, or entrenching in the wake of doubters (see older kids).

Now let’s move onto the second part of the definition, being legally or officially binding or acceptable. Belief in Santa Claus is not legally defined, nor is making proclamations or spreading memes[1] about him or his existence. Though the legality of belief in Santa Claus is not defined, it is strictly defined in terms of cultural validity. An older child that professes belief in Santa Claus will likely be mocked until they give up the belief, and any adult that professes genuine belief in Santa Claus will be considered insane and will likely face monetary and social penalties as a result due to people not wanting to associate with him and employers firing him. It is just not acceptable.

That being said, an institution can be objectively factual or not, it is only helpful for an institution to be factual and backed by hard evidence for further propagation purposes, and it is not essential even then.

The institution of Santa Claus is a very powerful one because it does not require its supporters to believe in Santa Claus’s actual existence, just that the belief should be spread. If belief was required for support, then U.S. General Jim “Mad Dog” Mattis would be ordering a Seal Team 6 raid on the North Pole to enlist this magical man to create toys to pay down the national debt! General Mattis does not believe in Santa Claus’s existence when he tells his child that Santa Claus exists, but he does believe that children should be told that Santa Claus exists. This is another institution, one that both he and his child support, but because of different evidence (General Mattis because he believes it’s fun for kids to believe, and his son because, well, Santa’s real for crying out loud!)

Corporations are a little different from cultural institutions in this sense, because corporations need direct monetary support to be valid. They can go bankrupt and die out whereas beliefs never disappear completely. But, because they exist even without the need for cultural approval, corporations which are frowned upon by most people can still exist, because those same people support greater institutions such as a belief in a system of laws.

In the 21st century, the institution of money is implicitly supported by almost everyone on the globe. We all agree that these metal coins, pieces of marked paper, and number signs have value. We take it for granted, but that’s only because the institution of money has gained traction over thousands of years. Without the existence of money, McDonalds or any large-scale corporation would have a hard time existing.

Interestingly, at the abstraction that time is money, the distinction between cultural institutions and monetary-bound corporations disappears: if you are spending your time singing a Christmas carol you are essentially doing unpaid labor for the Santa Claus corporation.

Institutional Support Chains: Overview

Continuing with the discussion of parental proselytization of belief in Santa Claus, there are more elements at play than just one jolly old legend. No element of culture exists in a vacuum, and this includes beliefs or institutions.

When proclaiming Santa Claus’s existence, there is a greater institution being supported, the institution of Christmas as a valid national holiday.

And beyond this, there is an even greater institution which is supported, Western Culture as a valid way of living.

At a certain degree of abstraction, a father’s simple request to his son to “make sure to leave cookies out for Santa tonight” supports the power structure behind the institution of… Using a 12-month calendar, English as the dominant language, Parental dominion over their children, and many more.

See the below chart: Starting with the belief on the left, a simple belief will (unless explicitly stated and sometimes even still) lend support to more abstract beliefs or institutions.

Example of Institutional Support Chains

Institutional Support Chains: Fast Food

I do not like McDonald’s. The food is unhealthy, it makes me feel sick, and knowing I’m monetarily supporting this soulless mega-corporation instead of a local mom-and-pop deli makes me feel shameful. Too bad! I still go there because it tastes good and it’s convenient. When I do, the corporation of McDonald’s benefits from my money and can use it to further its own interests, which are to expand or entrench its territory. Not only that, but people see me carrying the McDonald’s to-go bag and are reminded of their cheap, salty food and are more likely to spend money at McDonald’s, which—if they do—further helps the corporation. If it’s 11:45 and I’m enjoying a McChicken in a crowded room and I, God forbid, exclaim how good it is, then I have essentially become a super-spreader for the McDonald’s virus, a walking billboard for the corporation.

The McDonald’s Corporation benefits from these memes. It is in its best interest for the shareholders to use accrued money to build more franchises, advertise, and pay marketing teams to create more catchy slogans. It is in their best interest to make their food smell good (and recognizable) so that it travels and encourages more people to buy.

Despite my belief that McDonald’s is not a good corporation, I lend them validity by choosing to spend money there. The same goes for Walmart[2]. The same goes for any number of businesses whose actions do not align with my values but whose services are, in a moment of hunger, laziness, or broke-ness worth the cognitive dissonance.

Institutional Support Chains: Avoidance of Harmful Institutions

Let’s talk about something I’ve seen in the news lately, free speech rights on the internet.

In an effort to curb white supremacy and hate speech on their platform, the corporation of twitter has rules about what kind of communication is allowed on their platform. It does not want to be sued for aiding in violence or perpetuating systems which lead to violence. Furthermore, the shareholders likely have moral qualms about hate speech due to cultural institutions present in our modern society.

By looking at the above flow-chart you can see that a simple profession of belief in twitter moderation policy appears to lend power to institutions which have historical led to actual violent acts being committed.

This might lead some people to want to not only alter their ideas about free expression on twitter, but about their support for the institution of free speech as a whole. If the existence of free speech as a cultural norm lends power to harmful institutions like the usage of hate speech against different ethnic groups, or to white supremacy as a whole, then shouldn’t it be banned outright?

I’m going to assume most people would choose to reduce rather than increase the prevalence of hate crimes, so why do most people not support abolishing the 1st amendment? They should be ashamed of themselves! They are contributing to violence!

Of course, this issue is more complex than a simple flow-chart could describe. There are many competing pros and cons in a decision to support a belief, and there are so many more downstream institutions at play in this discussion than are pictured. Even within the institutions in the above flow-chart there are minor institutions which are each in need of specific labeling. White supremacy is an especially difficult institution to delineate because it is a changing ideology which, like all ideologies, has many facets.

The main reason I brought up this example is that it shows that there are downstream abstract effects of every single belief, some are harmful. There are also universally beneficial institutions that receive power by an individual having the right to express certain beliefs.

Every belief has downstream effects when realized through action. Through specificity in our expression of our beliefs we can direct which abstractions and institutions receive power. This requires extensive explanation so that words are not misconstrued, which coincidentally is usually impossible to do in a single tweet.

Institutional Support Chains: Entertainment

Let’s talk about Disney. It’s a separate corporate entity in a different business than McDonald’s but it is similar to McDonald’s in size. In 2021 McDonald’s had $50 billion in assets, and Disney had a whopping $200 billion. For comparison, the Vatican has $4-8 billion. Disney spreads wildly through entertainment, mainly movies. Disneyland, Disneyworld, Disney+, acquired media properties, action figures, lunch-boxes, etc. all these expand the power of this corporation.

Because of more than a century of media dominance, Disney has considerable power to influence behavior, most obviously in that it influences adults to make monetary decisions on behalf of their children. These are decisions of purchasing tickets to Disney theme parks, subscribing to Disney+, or buying a specific type of toy for their kids. Less obviously, Disney influences behavior in terms of imposing certain values on its audience through entertainment.

These values are closely aligned with Judeo-Christian principles. The values of love, kindness, honesty, karmic justice, and fairness are embodied by the protagonists, who are usually good-looking and likeable. The values of greed, unfairness, wrathfulness, and others are embodied by the villains who are typically ugly. Children see these stories played out in front of them and learn to curb their impulses for violence and selfishness in favor of maturity and higher values which adults generally support.

An adult may have a rambunctious four-year-old who they can pacify by plopping in front of the television. They know that the child will absorb the morals of the shows and emulate the actions of the characters they watch, so they select for content that they assume proliferates values that they like. By choosing Disney movies or Disney-purchased intellectual properties they are supporting the Disney corporation.

As of yet, Disney has done nothing to show me that they are not worthy of support, except for being the most powerful entertainment company in the world. I’m skeptical of large corporations which can and do lobby to change laws in their favor.

If you support generic Judeo-Christian values being taught to children, but do not support the dominance of this $200 billion company in the realm of entertainment, then you may want to consider unsubscribing from Disney+ and choosing a smaller, vetted entertainment platform that produces content with similar values. You could also pirate Disney movies, but that indirectly supports the power of the Disney corporation by further entrenching them in the collective consciousness. The institution of Disney characters exists beyond the bounds of the corporation.

All art proliferates beliefs to consumers. Even nonsensical, experimental, or nihilistic art has a message, and if you’re thinking about it, it’s affecting your beliefs. Thus, we should support art that supports us.

Institutional Support Chains: Slogans and Dualism

Let’s talk about slogans.

I believe that black lives matter, don’t you?
I also believe that blue lives matter, assuming that blue lives mean police officers.
So, what bumper sticker should I put on the back of my car?
Maybe I’ll put an All Lives Matter sticker to make sure all my bases are covered.

Unless you are a recent immigrant from Mars you know that there are implicit political meanings to these slogans which people take very, very seriously. People put these messages on their cars where they’re read by thousands of other drivers. Even if it does nothing but raise awareness about an issue, it’s a powerful billboard. More often than not, it serves an identarian purpose. The slogan is probably very important to the driver. This means these individuals incorporate a phrase that’s a few words long into their identity, declaring who they want to attract, repel. Like tribal war-paint.

The problem with slogans (or any phrase used in brief political discussion taking place on bumpers or in a tweet) is that a downstream effect of using them is that they lend power to a dueling cultural group system, liberal vs. conservative. We think in dualities, good vs bad, but life is nuanced, so is politics. I petition that we do everything we can to think outside this singular axis and recognize that political belief is not a binary.

The hardline conservative Republican and the bleeding-heart liberal Democrat smile and shake hands; they don’t agree about everything, but they both agree that the other is the source of all societal ills and they both support a political system dominated by those two parties.

Here I will strongly advocate for your support of the institution of Ranked-Choice Voting which allows people to lend their support for small parties without worrying about ‘wasting their vote’. Look it up here.

Unfortunately for the English language in the 21st Century, certain terms have been so overused by certain groups that they no longer have any meaning and are instead flags being waved on the battlefield. By using a phrase that has been co-opted by these groups you give up your individuality and lend power to an institution which is seeking expansion and power. I recommend avoiding using slogans whenever possible because they are more often a cathartic alignment with an identity group than an advancement of a beneficial institution.

Institutional Support Chains: Memes

Some people claim that Coronavirus was created in a lab. It may have been, and if it was, the scientists should be held accountable for creating something that could spread, induce painful symptoms, and even kill so many people. Though it would be nearly impossible to enforce, I think we should hold people who intentionally create harmful memes accountable as well.

A meme, as explained in an earlier footnote, is not just an image shared on the internet, but is an idea, behavior, joke, or style that evolves and spreads like a virus from person to person. Right now, memes are being transmitted into your brain just by your participation in reading this article. I believe these memes are beneficial and I hope you spread them, but that’s up for debate.

The morality of memes is something which we should consider more as a society. I, for one, think the person who started the ‘punch buggy’ meme should have been sentenced to twenty years hard-time for all the collective violence he inflicted on the shoulders of the world. This is a toxic meme that normalizes casual violence. It is light-hearted, yes, but it lends power to institutions of toxic masculinity, violence as a normal activity between friends, and has the side effect of correlating Volkswagen Beetles with pain which just seems antithetical to the benign shape of the car.

The punch-buggy meme is most popular with kids back when I was a kid, but memes are spread and shared by all age groups all the time which have a range of downstream effects. Most times, memes convey many implicit ideas as well as their foundational idea, being the punch-line.

• A joke about a certain ethnic group which involves a funny accent may seem completely fine, but the downstream effects of this are increased division and tension between races and the reinforcing of an ethnic stereotype which leads to unfair treatment.

• Using common pejorative terms reinforces sexist hierarchies.

• Memes about killing oneself may lead to increases in suicidal ideation in depressed populations.

By sharing a meme with a certain subject matter, you may not condone a given practice, but you raise awareness for it by putting more eyes on it. You are causing others to think about it and perhaps dwell on it, and you give them the opportunity to share it later on.

We are not hard drives on a computer, the memories stored in our brains affect our decision-making, even if we are mature enough to make moral judgements on those items in our memory.

This problem is exemplified in the difficulty in moderation of fringe communities.

“Under the guise of “insider jokes,” humor, or memes, it is possible that hate speech is not recognized as such or is perceived as less harmful. Oftentimes, it cannot be judged as unequivocally criminal and is thus not deleted by platforms. Content that—due to this “milder” perception—also finds favor in groups that do not in principle share the hostile ideas behind it is thus increasingly becoming the norm.” (Link)

Over time, viewers of such memes become desensitized to content that would otherwise inspire them to take action and silence the content and slow its spread. This study found that frequent repetitive exposure to hate speech led to lower evaluations of the victims of hate speech, and increased outgroup prejudice. Clearly, memes have the power to affect our temperament and political views. Even passive viewership of memes has an effect, so we should take the subject as seriously as we take the issue of microplastics in our food affecting fertility.

There is a phrase that you become the average of the five people you spend the most time with. To be overly verbose, I believe your belief-system is formed by finding the socio-political center of the implicit messages of the five million memes you see in your life time. This is true for nations and the world as well as individuals. Memes are amoral blips in our lives, but they add up and affect change like fat cells causing a heart attack. I invite the reader to take an active interest in the person they are becoming and the society that is emerging around us.

Like staying home to prevent the spread of covid-19, the only true way to curb the spread of toxic memes is to be very intentional with each point of contact you have with other people. To be completely secure in your non-proliferation of toxic memes, is by never talking, using words, or even communicating non-verbally through facial expressions and body language. Even smiling when someone says something culturally harmful but funny gives that person incentive to share it with someone else.

This monastic existence may conflict with our ability to survive in a society built on communication. What’s the point of being human if we can’t communicate with other humans? It’s an extreme, of course, the real test of humanity is learning how to communicate intentionally so that you stop the spread of harm and increase the spread of good.

Ideas and viruses adapt to be more and more contagious, so it is inevitable that they will bounce around our connected world in waves. It is only when viruses reach critical mass and we are unable to handle them that we see large scale death, like with Spanish Flu or HIV/AIDS. The same thing happens with institutions; though directly invisible even under microscope, when a harmful institution gains enough cultural validity you also get large scale death: take for example the millions of avoidable deaths caused by Nazism or Communism in the 20th century.

One person’s suggestion to bring out a tedious board game at a party will inevitably lead to everyone playing this unpopular board game if no one offers resistance or suggests a different activity. By speaking out against toxic memes and by spreading memes that reinforce the good in humanity, you inoculate your social circle against ideas that lead to harm.

Stop Eating McDonalds, Start Saying Thank You

Acting with knowledge of cultural institutions and billion-dollar corporations causes a layer of complexity to fall on life. Every decision and purchase is now more nuanced because of your awareness and caution around supporting something which doesn’t support you back.

Though life is complex, the formula for navigating it responsibly is one-size-fits-all, and very simple: If you don’t like something, don’t support it, even indirectly.

Just as many people choose not to shop at certain stores or watch certain celebrities because of their stances on issues. We must similarly boycott certain memes because they lend power to institutions which do not help humanity as a whole.

Similarly, if you do like something, support it, as often as you can and as much as you can.

Buy local! Teach kids to share! Promote your friends! Self-promote! Help people who are going to help others! Donate to causes (once you’ve researched where the money actually goes) that you care about! And embody the values instead of just thinking about them!

---

The institution of individual powerlessness is a very dangerous one. Whether it’s being wielded covertly by large corporations to discourage retaliation against the status quo or is embedded in our culture makes no difference, it’s toxic and takes power away from the each of us. Never forget that every action every action no matter how small has a ripple effect through our culture. It’s possible to make a difference, so make sure it’s the right kind of difference.

---

[1] A meme is an idea, behavior, style, phrase, that spreads by means of imitation from person to person. We use the term ‘meme’ these days to generally mean a funny image you found on the internet, but the term refers to not just images, but sayings, gestures. Making the peace sign, for example, is a meme.

[2] Walmart is the world's largest retailer and employs about 1.5 million Americans, or about 1% of the total private-sector workforce in the US.