Introduction
Blog post 134 tentatively proposed that leeway may open when people encounter signs that another person, institution, or narrative remains connected to lived reality. Facts, arguments, and narratives do not necessarily lose their importance. Yet they may become less effective when they appear detached from reality as experienced by those receiving them.
The discussion primarily focused on individuals. Yet a question naturally follows: Could something similar apply to institutions?
Continuity systems
Blog posts 129 and and 130 introduced the concept of continuity systems. Continuity systems provide enough stability for people to orient themselves in reality. They create predictability, recognition, and a sense of normality.
Institutions are among the most visible continuity systems in contemporary societies. Governments, schools, universities, public administrations, courts, media organizations, and other institutions help maintain social continuity.
The question is whether continuity systems merely shape how people relate to reality, or whether continuity systems themselves must continuously maintain a relationship with reality.
Legitimacy
Institutions depend on legitimacy. Part of this legitimacy emerges from procedures, expertise, legal authority, and formal mandates. Yet these elements alone do not always seem sufficient. Many contemporary criticisms of institutions do not begin with disagreements about specific decisions. Instead they often begin with a perception that institutions have become detached from reality.
People sometimes complain that institutions no longer understand everyday life. That they speak a language that feels abstract. That they rely on indicators, procedures, frameworks, and metrics that no longer correspond to lived experience. Whether such criticisms are justified is not the immediate question.
The interesting question is why this criticism appears so frequently. Perhaps institutions, much like individuals, are judged not only by what they know but also by whether they appear connected to reality.
The attraction of the concrete
This possibility may help explain a recurring tension in public life. Scientific findings are often nuanced. Evidence accumulates gradually. Conclusions remain probabilistic. Uncertainty remains visible. Lived experiences often appear differently. They are immediate. Concrete. Emotionally salient. Easy to communicate. A parent describing a child’s struggles with social media. A teacher describing disruptions in a classroom. A doctor describing recurring patterns among patients. A student describing feelings of anxiety. These experiences do not necessarily invalidate scientific evidence. Yet they often possess a quality that statistics alone may struggle to communicate. They feel real.
The question is whether institutions sometimes respond not only to evidence itself but also to the perceived reality carried by such experiences.
Fact-speaking and belief-speaking revisited
Blog post 30 distinguished between fact-speaking and belief-speaking. Perhaps the distinction becomes more complicated when viewed from the perspective of institutions.
Fact-speaking provides evidence, accountability, and reasoned argument. These functions remain indispensable. Yet institutions may also require some form of belief-speaking. Not in the sense of replacing evidence with conviction, but in the sense of remaining visibly connected to lived experiences. If institutions become exclusively fact-speaking, they may risk appearing detached from reality. If institutions become exclusively belief-speaking, they may risk abandoning evidence. The challenge may therefore not be choosing between the two. The challenge may be preserving a visible connection between them.
The temptation
In this interpretation, institutions may face a temptation similar to that faced by individuals. Individuals seek continuity by defending ontologies. Institutions may seek legitimacy by demonstrating proximity to reality.
Sometimes this may be beneficial. Institutions may become more responsive to experiences that were previously ignored. Sometimes it may be problematic. Institutions may become vulnerable to symbolic politics, moral panics, or highly visible experiences that overshadow more complex evidence. The same mechanism could therefore strengthen or weaken democratic governance.
A tentative question
Perhaps the issue is not whether institutions should follow evidence or follow experience. Perhaps the deeper question is how institutions can remain visibly connected to lived reality while preserving the discipline that evidence requires. Blog post 134 proposed that leeway opens when reality remains visible.
If so, perhaps institutions face a similar challenge. Not merely producing knowledge. Not merely producing decisions. But continuously demonstrating that the realities they describe remain connected to the realities people experience. Whether this interpretation is correct remains an open question. Yet if continuity systems require legitimacy, and legitimacy increasingly depends on appearing connected to reality, then institutions may not stand outside the dynamics discussed in the blog posts. They may be participants in them.
An answer to the question
This interpretation raises a practical question. How can institutions remain connected to lived reality without becoming captive to the most visible, emotional, or politically salient experiences?
One possible answer runs throughout this blog. Rather than asking institutions to choose between evidence and experience, it may be possible to create procedures that continuously connect the two. This is one of the basic premises of the Saufex project.
From this perspective, democratization and decentralization are not primarily normative goals. They are feedback mechanisms. They allow institutions to encounter a wider range of lived experiences rather than relying exclusively on expert abstractions or on the most visible voices in society. The aim is not to replace fact-speaking with belief-speaking. Nor is it to replace expertise with popular sentiment. The aim is to create conditions under which evidence and lived experience remain in continuous contact.
If blog posts 129 through the current one are pointing in the right direction, then this contact may be important for a simple reason. Institutions, much like individuals, may lose leeway when reality becomes difficult to see. Democratic participation may therefore function not only as a source of legitimacy, but also as a way of keeping institutions in contact with the realities citizens experience, enabling a form of democratic autopoiesis in which continuity is maintained through continuous encounters with reality.