Executive Summary

Institutions—be they governments, corporations, religious organizations, or social movements—frequently experience cycles of upheaval, reform, and consolidation. A notable pattern is that anti-elite or anti-establishment sentiment arises at moments of crisis, only to fade within the institution itself as new elites consolidate power. This paper examines the psychological, cultural, and structural mechanisms by which institutional memory of prior abuses and the impetus for reform dissipate, allowing new elite classes to emerge that replicate many of the same hierarchical dynamics as those they replaced.

We argue that this process is neither inevitable nor immutable but reflects deep-seated tendencies in human social organization, combined with specific vulnerabilities of institutional cultures. Recommendations are offered for improving institutional memory and accountability to mitigate elite capture over time.

Introduction

Institutions are created to solve collective problems and to restrain power in ways that serve the common good. Yet history repeatedly demonstrates that over time, institutions often become self-serving, dominated by elites who prioritize their interests over those of the wider community. Reform movements, revolutions, and internal uprisings periodically break this grip, often invoking populist, anti-elite sentiments to re-center the institution on its founding principles.

But within a generation—or even less—these same institutions tend to ossify again. Anti-elite rhetoric diminishes, complacency returns, and new elites emerge, often indistinguishable from the old in their behavior. This “institutional amnesia” raises a pressing question: why are people inside institutions so quick to forget the lessons of their own history?

The Dynamics of Institutional Memory Loss

Institutional memory is more than just archives and records. It is the shared, lived awareness of how and why the institution exists, including the abuses and misuses of power that shaped it. Memory loss happens on multiple levels:

1. Psychological Mechanisms

Normalcy Bias: Once reforms are implemented, people quickly adapt to the new status quo, assuming the threat of elite domination has been eliminated. Memories of struggle seem less relevant and emotionally salient as immediate danger recedes. Cognitive Dissonance: Those who join institutions after a reform often want to see themselves as part of a virtuous and functional system. Critiquing the system contradicts their sense of belonging and purpose, so past abuses are minimized or forgotten. Generational Turnover: Newcomers are less likely to internalize stories of institutional failure unless they are intentionally taught. Oral traditions and informal mentoring tend to fade when there is no structured way to pass them on.

2. Cultural Mechanisms

Official Histories and Sanitization: Institutions often rewrite or sanitize their histories to promote legitimacy and morale. Stories of elite excesses are recast as “growing pains” or “necessary evils,” which dampens the memory of what was fought against. Myth-Making and Hero Worship: Once an anti-elite movement succeeds, its leaders are often mythologized as founders of a new order rather than as opponents of the old one. This encourages loyalty to the new elite rather than skepticism of all elite power.

3. Structural Mechanisms

Consolidation of Power: Even in reformed institutions, power tends to concentrate because it enables efficiency and coordination. Without safeguards, the newly empowered individuals and factions become indistinguishable from previous elites. Selective Recruitment and Promotion: People who succeed in institutional hierarchies tend to be those who adapt to, rather than resist, prevailing norms. This self-selecting process re-establishes a deferential culture over time. Resource Dependencies: Institutional actors often rely on the favor of superiors for career advancement, funding, and protection, which discourages ongoing critique of elites.

Why Anti-Elite Sentiment Fades

Anti-elite sentiment thrives on shared outrage and immediate stakes. Once reforms are implemented, the immediate threat feels distant and diffuse, while ongoing resistance feels costly and risky. The narrative shifts from “us versus them” to “we are now in charge,” and self-interest drives the internal constituency to accept or aspire to elite status themselves.

Furthermore, without active cultural reinforcement—rituals, stories, symbols—people within institutions forget that the very structures they operate in are vulnerable to the same distortions they previously opposed.

The Emergence of New Elites

New elites emerge because hierarchy is never fully abolished—only transferred or reshaped. The mechanisms of elite re-formation include:

Gatekeeping Functions: Control over recruitment, promotion, and access to resources enables a small group to accrue disproportionate influence. Network Effects: Social and professional networks inside institutions naturally privilege certain actors, creating informal hierarchies even when formal hierarchies are flattened. Institutional Inertia: Large, complex institutions tend toward bureaucratic consolidation, which necessitates leadership structures that become new loci of elite power.

These factors are compounded when the culture of vigilance erodes, leaving no meaningful checks on elite behaviors.

Recommendations

While the tendency to forget institutional lessons and allow new elites to form is strong, it is not inevitable. Institutions can implement safeguards to preserve memory and constrain elite capture:

1. Institutionalize Memory

Create archives, oral history projects, and commemorations that explicitly document past abuses and reforms. Embed these lessons into training and orientation programs.

2. Decentralize Power

Build in mechanisms of distributed decision-making and rotating leadership to avoid entrenched elites. Strengthen horizontal accountability by empowering independent review bodies.

3. Foster Critical Culture

Encourage a culture of internal critique, whistleblowing, and questioning authority. Protect dissenters and minority viewpoints from retaliation.

4. Intergenerational Continuity

Deliberately mentor new generations in the stories and principles that motivated past reforms. Encourage direct intergenerational dialogue.

Conclusion

Institutions exist to serve their communities, but without vigilance, they drift into serving their elites. The fading of anti-elite sentiment and the emergence of new elites are not simply failures of individual character but reflect deeper psychological, cultural, and structural dynamics.

By understanding and addressing these dynamics, institutions can foster a healthier relationship between leadership and membership—one in which vigilance is constant, memory is preserved, and elites remain accountable to the mission rather than to themselves.