I surfed into this article by Wendell Barry today -- and there are some things about it that really resonated with me...

He writes:

People in movements too readily learn to deny to others the rights and privileges they demand for themselves. They too easily become unable to mean their own language, as when a “peace movement” becomes violent. They often become too specialized, as if finally they cannot help taking refuge in the pinhole vision of the institutional intellectuals. They almost always fail to be radical enough, dealing finally in effects rather than causes. Or they deal with single issues or single solutions, as if to assure themselves that they will not be radical enough.

to me, he articulates many of the problems that i associate with participating in institutions (as well as social movements). In some ways "movements" are, i'm sure, more dangerous, because identity is more precarious for any given individual, and the sanctions of the group may be less anticipated -- and therefore more harsh -- than when within the protectively rigid structure of an organization.

Mandy and I are talking about these issues in our independent study -- and in my Mass Media class we were talking about how the emergence of the autonomous self was one of the precursors for celebrity culture -- that we had to be alone in order to need celebrities...

but the questions and issues seem to me to be so deeply intertwined with my, with anyone's quest for legitimacy, our need for importance, our desire for meaning, our direction for work...

are there institutions or movements with which we want to align our life force?

but if we don't, we're just nothing. we can't exist in the world...

one more reason that being a prophet is a dangerous profession...