Abstract
This paper examines the social mechanisms by which elite figures within institutions are progressively insulated from the moral evaluation that would ordinarily apply to their conduct. Where the preceding papers have analyzed formal institutional structures, the present paper attends to the social processes that operate alongside and often beneath those structures, producing the conditions under which exemption and weaponization can flourish. The argument proceeds through four interlocking analyses: the dynamics of prestige shielding, by which accumulated reputation functions as a barrier against the recognition of present misconduct; the operation of elite networks, in which the relationships among prominent figures across institutions produce reciprocal patterns of mutual protection; the imperatives of status preservation, by which both elites and those connected to them develop powerful motivations to suppress information that would threaten the standing the connections confer; and the construction of social environments in which the ordinary mechanisms of moral evaluation are systematically attenuated for those who occupy elevated positions. The paper demonstrates that moral insulation is not primarily a psychological phenomenon affecting individual elites but a sociological phenomenon affecting the entire social environment within which elites operate, and that the dynamic therefore cannot be addressed through interventions that target only the individuals while leaving the surrounding social environment unchanged.
I. The Social Construction of the Untouchable
The papers preceding this one have examined the formal mechanisms of institutional life: the gap between formal and informal power, the operation of discretionary enforcement, the construction of procedural asymmetries, the patterns of selective discipline, the strategic deployment of standards. Each of these analyses has attended to features of institutional structure that produce predictable patterns of elite exemption and weaponization. The analyses have been institutional in their focus, and they have located the mechanisms producing the relevant patterns within identifiable features of organizational design and practice.
But institutions are not, in their ordinary operation, autonomous structures that produce their effects independently of the social environments in which they exist. The institutional mechanisms described in the preceding papers operate within social fields, and the social fields themselves contribute substantially to the conditions under which the institutional mechanisms produce their effects. An institution that has constructed strong formal accountability mechanisms can find that those mechanisms are silently neutralized by the social environment within which they operate. An institution that has weak formal mechanisms can find that they are nevertheless rendered functional by a social environment that supplements them with informal pressures toward accountability. The institutional analysis is therefore incomplete without an accompanying sociological analysis. The present paper undertakes the sociological component of the analysis that the institutional papers have prepared.
The specific sociological phenomenon to be examined is the construction of the untouchable: the gradual social process by which certain individuals become exempted not merely from particular institutional procedures but from the ordinary social mechanisms of moral evaluation that would otherwise apply to their conduct. The untouchable is not a person whose conduct has been formally protected from review. He is a person whose conduct is no longer subjected to the ordinary evaluative processes that the surrounding community applies to others. The exemption operates beneath the level of formal review because it operates before formal review can be initiated. The conduct that would prompt evaluation in another case is, in the case of the untouchable, not registered as conduct requiring evaluation at all. The social environment has filtered the perception itself, with the consequence that the untouchable can engage in conduct that would be straightforwardly identified as problematic in another case without the surrounding community ever quite recognizing it as such.
The construction of the untouchable does not require any conscious decision by any participant in the process. It emerges from the cumulative operation of several social dynamics that operate semi-automatically once certain conditions have been established. The dynamics can be examined separately, but their operation in any given case is integrated, and the cumulative effect exceeds what any individual dynamic could produce. The papers preceding this one have established that elite exemption is structurally produced rather than primarily a matter of individual moral failing. The present paper extends the analysis by establishing that the structural production of elite exemption itself depends upon sociological dynamics that operate within the social environments in which the institutions exist.
The biblical anticipation of this analysis is present in the prophetic literature’s treatment of how the religious leadership of Israel came to occupy positions in which their conduct was no longer subject to the ordinary evaluation that would have applied to others. The Lord’s denunciation of those who built the tombs of the prophets and garnished the sepulchres of the righteous, while themselves filling up the measure of their fathers who killed the prophets, identifies a specific pattern in which the social environment of religious veneration had produced figures whose contemporary conduct was no longer evaluable by the same standards that had been applied to the conduct of their predecessors. The very respect accorded to the institution they administered had become the mechanism by which their own conduct was placed beyond evaluation. The pattern the Lord denounced is the pattern this paper proposes to examine in its contemporary forms.
II. Prestige Shielding
The first social dynamic that produces moral insulation is prestige shielding, the process by which accumulated reputation functions as a barrier against the recognition of present misconduct. Prestige is, in this analysis, a social asset that an individual accumulates through a long history of recognized accomplishments, contributions, and demonstrations of competence. Once accumulated to a sufficient degree, prestige produces effects that go beyond simply marking the individual as accomplished. It alters the way in which the surrounding community perceives the individual’s subsequent conduct, with the consequence that the individual operates in a different perceptual environment from that within which others operate.
The mechanism by which prestige produces this perceptual alteration can be described in several stages. First, prestige produces a presumption of competence that extends to the individual’s subsequent actions. The person who has accomplished much in the past is presumed to know what he is doing in the present, and the conduct that might prompt questions in another case is given the benefit of the doubt because the individual’s track record provides a basis for assuming that he has reasons for what he is doing that may not be apparent to observers. Second, prestige produces a presumption of good faith that filters the interpretation of ambiguous conduct. The person whose history demonstrates substantial contribution to worthy purposes is presumed to be acting in good faith in his present conduct, and the conduct that might be interpreted as problematic in another case is reinterpreted, in the case of the prestigious individual, as well-intentioned even when its surface features would suggest otherwise. Third, prestige produces a social cost for those who would challenge the individual’s conduct, since the challenger is implicitly questioning the judgment of the entire community that has previously honored the individual. The challenger must overcome not only the question of whether the conduct is actually problematic but also the question of why he is taking a position contrary to the apparent consensus of the prestigious individual’s standing.
The cumulative effect of these three mechanisms is that the prestigious individual operates within a perceptual environment that is systematically more favorable than the environment within which others operate. His conduct is interpreted more charitably. His ambiguous actions are given more benevolent constructions. His critics face higher barriers to making their case. The advantages compound over time, since each successful navigation of a potentially problematic situation adds to the prestige that will protect him in the next situation. The prestige that begins as a recognition of past accomplishment becomes a shield against present accountability, and the shield grows stronger with each use.
The dynamic is particularly pronounced when the prestigious individual occupies a position of religious leadership. The accomplishments that have produced his prestige typically include the public articulation of moral and spiritual teaching that has affected the lives of those who have received it. The community that has been affected has a substantial investment in the value of what they have received, and an investment in the value of what they have received is, by implication, an investment in the credibility of the figure who delivered it. To question the present conduct of such a figure is implicitly to question the value of his past teaching, and the community’s reluctance to do so is not merely an artifact of personal regard but a defense of the spiritual investments the community has made in receiving his teaching. The prestige shield is therefore reinforced by the community’s own interest in maintaining the validity of what it has received from the figure whose prestige is now functioning as the shield.
The mechanism produces, in extreme cases, the recognizable phenomenon in which a prestigious religious leader is observed to engage in conduct that would, in another case, prompt immediate institutional action, and yet the action does not follow. The conduct is not denied; it is not ignored; it is simply not constructed as the kind of conduct that warrants action. The community has developed an interpretive framework within which the figure’s actions are systematically construed in ways that protect the prestige that protects them, and the framework operates without any conscious decision by anyone in the community to construct it. The framework is the cumulative artifact of the prestige shield itself, operating through the community’s perceptual processes to produce the perceptual outcomes that the prestige requires.
The biblical critique of this dynamic appears with particular force in the prophetic confrontations with kings and priests examined in White Paper 1. The prophet’s vocation is precisely to refuse the prestige shield, to insist that the conduct of the prestigious figure be evaluated by the same standards that would apply to anyone else, and to bear the social costs that this refusal produces. Nathan’s confrontation of David in 2 Samuel 12 is the paradigmatic case. David has accumulated immense prestige through his accomplishments. The prestige protects him from the ordinary social mechanisms that would have evaluated his conduct in the matter of Uriah and Bathsheba. Nathan’s confrontation breaks the shield, not by direct accusation but by the construction of a parable that produces, in David’s own evaluative faculty, the judgment that the shielded conduct deserves. The narrative pattern is instructive. The prestige shield is so strong that even the prophet must approach indirectly, working through the prestigious figure’s own perceptual mechanisms rather than confronting him with direct accusation that the shield would have deflected. Once the shield is broken, the figure recognizes the conduct for what it is. Until the shield is broken, even the figure himself does not recognize the conduct, because the perceptual environment within which he operates has filtered the recognition that would have occurred in another case.
III. Elite Networks
The second social dynamic that produces moral insulation is the operation of elite networks: the relationships among prominent figures across institutions that produce reciprocal patterns of mutual protection. Where prestige shielding operates upon the perceptual environment surrounding an individual elite, elite networks operate upon the relational environment that extends across the institutional landscape in which multiple elites are connected to one another. The two dynamics are related but distinct. Prestige shielding can operate even in the absence of strong network connections, and elite networks can operate even in cases where the individual elites involved do not possess particularly high individual prestige. The two dynamics often reinforce one another, but the analysis of each requires attention to its specific operation.
Elite networks develop through the ordinary processes by which prominent figures come into contact with one another. Conferences, joint projects, shared institutional affiliations, common educational backgrounds, and the various other occasions on which the prominent encounter the prominent produce, over time, the dense webs of relationship that constitute elite networks. The networks are not, in most cases, the products of conscious organization. They emerge from the structural features of elite life, in which the same relatively small set of people repeatedly find themselves in the same places, engaged in the same projects, and addressing the same questions. The repetition produces familiarity, and the familiarity produces the relational substance from which the networks are constituted.
Once established, elite networks produce effects that extend beyond the convenience of personal acquaintance among the prominent. They produce patterns of mutual protection in which the members of the network function as protective agents for one another in the various situations in which protection is needed. The mechanism is straightforward: a member of the network who learns of potentially damaging information about another member typically declines to spread the information, to act upon it, or to support institutional processes that would address it. The decline is not, in most cases, the product of explicit calculation. It is the product of the relational sensibility that has developed through the network’s operation, in which damage to one member is felt as damage to the network as a whole, and the network as a whole has an interest in the protection of each member.
The protective function operates through several specific mechanisms. The first is the suppression of information. Damaging information about a network member tends not to circulate through the network with the same velocity that comparable information about a non-member would. The members who learn the information treat it as confidential by default, share it only with those who can be trusted to handle it appropriately, and decline to amplify it beyond the immediate circumstances in which it has arisen. The information is therefore less likely to reach the institutional bodies that would be required to act upon it, and the network member is correspondingly less likely to face institutional consequences.
The second mechanism is the construction of favorable narratives. When information about a network member becomes sufficiently public that it cannot be suppressed, the network typically responds by constructing narratives that frame the conduct in the most favorable possible light, that emphasize contextual factors that mitigate the apparent severity, and that direct attention toward considerations that distract from the central question of what the member actually did. The narratives are not, in most cases, deliberately constructed acts of dishonesty. They are the natural outputs of the relational sensibility that filters the network members’ perceptions of one another. The favorable construction is the construction that comes naturally to those who know the figure personally, who have worked alongside him, who have invested relationally in him, and who are therefore predisposed to see his conduct in the most charitable light available.
The third mechanism is the deployment of network resources in defense of members under institutional scrutiny. When formal processes are initiated against a network member, other members of the network typically mobilize on his behalf through a variety of means: provision of character references, public statements of support, internal advocacy within the institutions conducting the process, professional reciprocity with those involved in the adjudication. The mobilization need not be coordinated through any explicit central direction. It emerges from the parallel operation of the same protective sensibility across multiple network members, each of whom contributes what he can to the member under scrutiny through the channels available to him. The cumulative effect is the application of substantial network resources to the defense of any single member, with the corresponding reduction in the likelihood that institutional processes will produce outcomes adverse to the member’s interests.
The fourth mechanism is the reciprocal expectation that protection extended will be protection received. The member who has been protected by the network in a moment of difficulty is expected, when the occasion arises, to extend comparable protection to other members of the network when they face their own moments of difficulty. The reciprocity is not, in most cases, articulated explicitly as a debt to be repaid. It is internalized as part of the relational sensibility that constitutes network membership. The member who failed to extend protection when called upon would be recognized, by the network, as having failed in the relational obligations of membership, and the recognition would alter his subsequent standing within the network. The reciprocal expectation therefore operates as a powerful incentive for continued participation in the protective dynamics, since the alternative is the loss of standing that would expose the individual to the risks against which the network had previously provided insulation.
The cumulative effect of these four mechanisms is the construction of a relational environment in which the members of the elite network operate under significantly different conditions of accountability from those who are not members of the network. The non-member who encounters difficulty faces the difficulty largely alone, relying upon whatever individual resources he possesses and whatever institutional protections may be formally available to him. The member encounters the same difficulty with the full machinery of network protection deployed on his behalf, with the corresponding reduction in the likelihood that the difficulty will produce outcomes adverse to his interests. The difference is not merely incidental. It is the systematic operation of the protective sensibility that constitutes the network, and it produces the patterns of differential accountability that this volume has been examining throughout.
IV. Status Preservation
The third social dynamic that produces moral insulation is the imperative of status preservation, the powerful motivations that develop in both elites and those connected to them to suppress information that would threaten the standing the connections confer. The dynamic operates upon a wider population than the elite networks examined in the preceding section. It extends beyond the immediate network of prominent figures to include all those whose own status depends, in some measure, upon their connection to the prominent. Spouses, children, staff members, donors, board members, students, protégés, and various others who derive standing from association with the elite all have status interests in the preservation of the elite’s reputation, and the cumulative weight of these distributed status interests produces a substantial expansion of the protective dynamic.
The mechanism by which status preservation operates can be illustrated through the case of an institutional figure whose reputation begins to come under question. The figure himself has obvious status interests in the preservation of his own reputation, and his behavior reflects these interests. But the figure is not the only party with status interests at stake. The staff members who have built their careers around association with the figure stand to lose their own standing if the figure’s reputation collapses. The donors who have contributed significant resources to the figure’s work have an interest in maintaining the perception that those resources were well-deployed, which requires the maintenance of the figure’s reputation. The board members who have endorsed the figure’s leadership have an interest in the validation of their judgment, which depends upon the continued credibility of the figure they have endorsed. The students or protégés who have advanced under the figure’s mentorship have an interest in the continued value of the credentials and connections that the mentorship has produced, which depends upon the figure’s standing. Each of these parties brings to the question of the figure’s reputation a substantial status interest of his own, and the cumulative weight of the distributed interests produces a powerful collective motivation toward suppression of information that would threaten the figure’s standing.
The suppression operates through patterns of communication that systematically privilege protective interpretations over critical ones. Conversations among those connected to the figure tend to emphasize his contributions, to downplay difficulties, to frame ambiguous information in protective terms, and to identify those who raise concerns as marginal or unreliable. The patterns are not, in most cases, coordinated. They emerge from the parallel operation of the protective sensibility across the distributed network of those with status interests at stake. Each participant in the network contributes to the protective communication through the conversations that he conducts, and the cumulative effect across all participants is the construction of a communicative environment in which protective interpretations dominate and critical interpretations are marginalized.
The dynamic is particularly potent when the status interests at stake are not merely social but financial, professional, or vocational. The staff member whose continued employment depends upon the figure’s continued standing has a more pressing interest in the figure’s reputation than does the casual acquaintance. The donor whose substantial financial commitment would be retrospectively questioned by the figure’s fall has a more pressing interest than does the casual contributor. The protégé whose own career has been built upon the figure’s recommendations and connections has a more pressing interest than does the more loosely affiliated student. The intensity of the protective sensibility correlates with the intensity of the status interest at stake, and the most intensely interested parties are correspondingly the most active participants in the protective dynamics.
The phenomenon produces, in its developed forms, the recognizable pattern in which a figure whose conduct has long been the subject of concern within his immediate circle is nevertheless presented to the broader community as beyond reproach. The information that would have disturbed the broader community’s perception of the figure has been systematically suppressed by the inner circle whose status interests required suppression, and the broader community is left with the protective construction that the inner circle has produced. The eventual revelation, when it comes, frequently shocks the broader community precisely because the protective dynamics have operated effectively over extended periods to conceal what the inner circle has long known. The shock is then often followed by the recognition that the information had been available to those with access to it for considerable periods, and that the failure of the information to reach the broader community had been the product of the protective dynamics that the present analysis has been examining.
The dynamic produces particular complications when the parties whose status interests are at stake include the figure’s own family members. The family members who have invested their own identities in association with the figure face the most intense conflict between the protective sensibility and any countervailing commitments to honesty about the figure’s conduct. The conflict is intensified by the genuine love and loyalty that family relationships ordinarily produce, which provide both an emotionally compelling motive for protection and a culturally honored justification for it. The family member who suppresses information about the figure’s conduct can frame the suppression as the protection of the family, the preservation of the figure’s legacy, the avoidance of unnecessary pain, or any of several other justifications that draw upon the moral resources of family loyalty. The suppression nevertheless contributes to the moral insulation that protects the figure from the accountability his conduct would otherwise require. The biblical anticipation of this complication appears in the narrative of Eli, examined in White Paper 3, whose failure to discipline his sons was at one level a failure of paternal love and at another level a structural sin that the prophet identified as warranting the most severe possible judgment. The family relationship that ordinarily produces the moral resources for honest engagement can, under the conditions of status preservation, produce the moral resources for sustained suppression. The same relationship can serve either purpose, and the determination of which purpose it actually serves depends upon factors that the present analysis has been examining throughout.
V. The Social Environment of Insulation
The three dynamics examined in the preceding sections — prestige shielding, elite networks, and status preservation — do not operate independently of one another. They combine to produce a social environment within which the elite figure operates under conditions of moral insulation that no single dynamic could produce on its own. The combined effect is the construction of a social field within which the ordinary mechanisms of moral evaluation are systematically attenuated for those who occupy elevated positions, and within which the figures themselves can operate without encountering the social signals that would, in another environment, prompt the recognition that their conduct had crossed lines that ought not to be crossed.
The social environment of insulation has several recognizable features that distinguish it from the ordinary social environment within which most people operate. The first feature is the filtering of feedback. The elite figure receives, from the surrounding social environment, feedback that has been systematically filtered for content that does not threaten his standing. Critical observations are softened or omitted before they reach him. Concerning information is held back by those who possess it. Honest evaluations are replaced by the social courtesies that the elite environment demands. The figure operates within a feedback environment that systematically misinforms him about the actual perception of his conduct, and the misinformation contributes substantially to his own perception that his conduct is acceptable. The pattern is not, in most cases, deliberately constructed; it emerges from the cumulative effect of the protective sensibilities of those who interact with the figure. But the cumulative effect produces, in the figure’s own perception, a distorted picture of how his conduct actually appears to those who observe it, and the distortion supports the continuation of conduct that an accurate picture might have prompted him to alter.
The second feature is the substitution of substitute audiences. The elite figure who interacts primarily with other elites, with those whose status interests are tied to his own, and with those whose perceptual environments have been altered by his prestige shield is interacting with an audience that systematically responds to his conduct in ways different from how the broader community would respond. The audience laughs at jokes that the broader community would find offensive. The audience accepts assertions that the broader community would question. The audience approves of decisions that the broader community would oppose. The figure, calibrating his conduct to the audience he encounters, develops a sense of what is acceptable that is systematically miscalibrated relative to the standards of the broader community. The miscalibration is not perceived as such within the immediate audience, since the immediate audience consistently confirms the calibration that has produced it. The figure can therefore operate for extended periods within his immediate audience without encountering the signals that would prompt recalibration toward the standards of the broader community.
The third feature is the reduction of consequential exposure. The elite figure who operates within the social environment of insulation does not face, in his ordinary daily life, the consequences that his conduct would produce for others. The administrative inconveniences that would burden the ordinary member are managed by staff who handle them on his behalf. The social awkwardness that would attend the ordinary member’s missteps is smoothed over by the protective network. The financial consequences of poor judgment are absorbed by institutional resources that would not be available to others. The reputational consequences of public mistakes are managed by communications professionals whose work is to construct the narratives that minimize damage. The figure therefore experiences a substantially attenuated relationship between conduct and consequence, and the attenuation contributes to a perception that his conduct does not produce the consequences that, in another case, would prompt the figure to reconsider.
The cumulative effect of these features is the production of a social environment within which the elite figure operates as if he were exempt from the ordinary moral evaluative processes that apply to others. The exemption is not formal. He has not been told that he is exempt; he has not signed any document affirming the exemption; he has not received any explicit communication that the standards do not apply to him. The exemption is produced sociologically by the cumulative operation of the dynamics this paper has been examining, and the figure experiences it not as exemption but as the natural condition of his life. The conditions under which others operate are not the conditions under which he operates, and the disjunction has become invisible to him through the long operation of the environment that has produced it.
The biblical critique of this social environment is severe, and it operates throughout the prophetic and gospel literature. The Lord’s confrontation of the Pharisees, examined in White Paper 2, was not merely a confrontation of individual hypocrisy. It was a confrontation of the social environment that the Pharisees had constructed around themselves, the environment within which their conduct was systematically reinforced by the audiences they had cultivated, their feedback was systematically filtered by the protective sensibilities of those who depended upon them, and their consequential exposure was systematically reduced by the institutional arrangements they had administered. The “broad phylacteries and enlarged borders of their garments” examined in White Paper 2 are, in sociological terms, the markers of the social environment that the Pharisees had constructed, the symbols by which the environment was maintained and the protective dynamics were reinforced. The Lord’s denunciation is therefore not merely a moral evaluation of the individual figures but a structural critique of the social environment within which the figures operated, and the structural critique cannot be addressed by exhortation of the individuals while the environment continues to operate as it has.
VI. The Implications for Remedy
The implications of the sociological analysis for the question of remedy are significant, and they extend the implications drawn from the institutional analyses of the preceding papers. The institutional papers have established that structural reforms within institutional procedures can address some of the mechanisms by which elite exemption is produced. The present paper establishes that the structural reforms within institutions are themselves insufficient if they are not accompanied by attention to the sociological environment within which the institutions operate. An institution that has implemented strong formal accountability procedures can find that the procedures are silently neutralized by the sociological dynamics this paper has examined, and the procedures will be neutralized regardless of the institution’s formal commitments to the standards the procedures are intended to enforce.
The first implication for remedy is that the sociological dynamics must themselves be the object of intentional attention, alongside the institutional structures. The institution that has not asked how its elite figures are situated within the broader sociological environment of prestige, network, and status preservation has not addressed the conditions under which its formal procedures will actually operate. The institution that has asked these questions, and has found that its elite figures are deeply embedded in such environments, has identified a condition that the formal procedures alone cannot address.
The second implication is that addressing the sociological dynamics requires deliberate disruption of the patterns that produce them. The figure whose social environment has been systematically protective for extended periods cannot be brought into a more honest relationship with the perceptions of others through the simple provision of additional accountability procedures. The procedures will operate within the existing social environment, and the existing social environment will neutralize them. The remedy requires the introduction of social relationships that operate outside the protective patterns, the cultivation of feedback channels that are insulated from the filtering dynamics that have produced the existing misinformation, and the deliberate exposure of the figure to consequential conditions comparable to those experienced by others. None of these interventions is easy to implement, and each requires sustained institutional commitment beyond what the figure himself is likely to welcome.
The third implication is that the sociological dynamics affect not only the elite figures themselves but the entire community surrounding them, and the remedy therefore requires attention to the formation of that community. The members of the community who have been participants in the protective dynamics have themselves been shaped by their participation, and the alteration of the dynamics requires the alteration of the formation that has produced them. The staff members, family members, donors, board members, and others whose status interests have produced the suppression of critical information must themselves be brought to recognize the patterns and to develop different patterns of engagement with the figures they have protected. The alteration is, in many cases, more difficult than the alteration of the figures themselves, since the participants in the protective dynamics have not generally recognized themselves as participants in problematic patterns and may resist the recognition when it is offered.
The fourth implication is that the biblical remedy for these dynamics, articulated most clearly in the prophetic literature and the gospels, requires a degree of moral courage that the sociological dynamics themselves systematically suppress. The prophet whose vocation is to confront the elite figure with the conduct that the social environment has concealed must operate against the entire weight of the social environment that has constructed the concealment, and the social environment will respond to the prophet with the same protective dynamics that have shielded the figure. The prophet will be marginalized, dismissed, characterized as unreliable, and excluded from the networks that confer standing. The cost of the prophetic vocation is substantial, and the substantial cost is the social mechanism by which the protective dynamics maintain themselves. The institution that has not made provision for the prophetic vocation within its life, that has not constructed channels through which the necessary confrontations can occur, and that has not provided protection for those who exercise the vocation has not addressed the conditions under which the sociological dynamics will operate. The protective dynamics will continue. The elite figures will continue to be insulated. The patterns of conduct that the insulation makes possible will continue to develop, until the eventual revelation produces the institutional consequences that the protective dynamics had been delaying.
The papers that follow in this cluster will examine the final dimension of the institutional analysis: the phenomenon of performative sacrifice by which the institution maintains the appearance of shared burden while in fact displacing the burden downward. The performative sacrifice dynamic builds upon both the institutional analyses of the preceding papers and the sociological analysis of the present paper, drawing together the structural and the social dimensions of the broader pattern this volume has been examining. The closing observation of the present paper, before that final analysis of the cluster, is that the sociological dynamics of moral insulation are among the most difficult features of the broader pattern to address, because they operate beneath the level of institutional structure and shape the perceptual environment within which all institutional action occurs. The institution that has not addressed them has left in place the conditions under which the patterns this volume has been examining will continue to produce themselves, regardless of the institution’s formal commitments to the standards the patterns violate. The recognition of this difficulty is not a counsel of despair. It is a clarification of what the work of reform actually requires, and it is therefore the foundation upon which any serious work of reform must proceed.
Notes
Note 1. The sociological concept of prestige used in this paper draws upon the analytical traditions developed in the sociology of social stratification, particularly in the work of Max Weber and his successors, though the present paper does not endorse the broader theoretical frameworks within which these analytical traditions have been developed. The specific observation that prestige functions as a perceptual filter that alters the interpretation of the prestigious individual’s subsequent conduct is sufficiently well-established in the empirical literature on social perception that it does not depend upon any particular theoretical framework.
Note 2. The analysis of elite networks in this paper bears some resemblance to the analytical traditions developed in the sociology of elites, including work by C. Wright Mills and others. The present paper does not endorse the broader theoretical commitments of these traditions, particularly their tendency toward conspiratorial framing of elite behavior. The structural observation that prominent figures across institutions develop relational connections that produce reciprocal protective dynamics is, however, well-documented across empirical studies and can be sustained without commitment to the broader theoretical frameworks within which it has been variously developed.
Note 3. The narrative of Nathan’s confrontation of David in 2 Samuel 12, referenced in the section on prestige shielding, is particularly instructive for the present analysis because it illustrates not only the difficulty of breaking the prestige shield but also the technique by which the breaking can be accomplished. Nathan does not confront David with direct accusation; he constructs a parable that engages David’s own evaluative faculty before David realizes that the evaluation will be applied to himself. The technique recognizes that the prestige shield operates upon the prestigious individual’s own self-perception, and that direct accusation would be filtered through the shield while indirect engagement can sometimes bypass it.
Note 4. The dynamic of status preservation examined in the fourth section has been documented extensively in the empirical literature on organizational behavior, particularly in studies of how subordinates relate to powerful superiors. The recurrence of the protective dynamics across diverse institutional contexts suggests that the dynamic is structural rather than specific to any particular type of organization. The application to religious institutions does not therefore depend upon any claim that religious institutions are uniquely susceptible.
Note 5. The reference to the social environment of insulation as containing systematically filtered feedback should not be taken to suggest that the participants in the filtering are necessarily dishonest. The filtering operates largely beneath the level of conscious decision, through the cumulative effect of countless small choices about what to mention, how to frame, when to remain silent, and how to respond to information that arises in conversation. The participants in the filtering may genuinely believe that they are engaged in the ordinary courtesies of professional life, while the cumulative effect of their parallel behavior is the construction of the misinforming environment the section describes.
Note 6. The biblical critique of the social environment of insulation, articulated in passing throughout this paper, is most extensively developed in the gospel narratives’ treatment of the religious leadership of first-century Judea and in the prophetic literature’s treatment of the religious leadership of the divided monarchy. The structural similarity between the patterns critiqued in these biblical materials and the patterns observable in contemporary religious institutions provides empirical support for the general analytical framework this paper has offered, though the application of the framework to particular contemporary cases requires the additional work of specific institutional and sociological investigation that this paper has not undertaken.
References
The Holy Bible, King James Version. (1611/Public Domain). Cambridge edition. References in this paper to 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, the prophetic books, Matthew, and the apostolic epistles follow the Authorized Version.
Adams, J. E. (1973). Competent to counsel: Introduction to nouthetic counseling. Zondervan.
Allender, D. B. (1990). The wounded heart: Hope for adult victims of childhood sexual abuse. NavPress.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Doubleday. [Cited for analytical categories regarding social perception; theological framework is not endorsed.]
Bonhoeffer, D. (1939/1954). Life together (J. W. Doberstein, Trans.). Harper & Row. [Cited for analysis of community life; broader theological framework is not fully endorsed.]
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste (R. Nice, Trans.). Harvard University Press. [Cited for analytical observations about social hierarchy; broader theoretical framework is not endorsed.]
Bridges, J. (1988). Trusting God even when life hurts. NavPress.
Calvin, J. (1559/1960). Institutes of the Christian religion (J. T. McNeill, Ed.; F. L. Battles, Trans.). Westminster Press.
Carson, D. A. (2014). Praying with Paul: A call to spiritual reformation (2nd ed.). Baker Academic.
Chrysostom, J. (4th century/1996). Homilies on Matthew (G. Prevost, Trans.). Hendrickson.
Edwards, J. (1746/1959). A treatise concerning religious affections (J. E. Smith, Ed.). Yale University Press.
Ferguson, S. B. (1981). John Owen on the Christian life. Banner of Truth.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday Anchor. [Cited for analytical observations about social performance; broader theoretical framework is not endorsed.]
Henry, M. (1706/1991). Matthew Henry’s commentary on the whole Bible. Hendrickson.
Hodge, C. (1872/1997). Systematic theology. Hendrickson.
Keller, T. (2009). Counterfeit gods: The empty promises of money, sex, and power, and the only hope that matters. Dutton.
Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (1959). Spiritual depression: Its causes and cure. Eerdmans.
Manton, T. (1693/1962). A practical commentary, or an exposition with notes on the epistle of James. Banner of Truth.
Mills, C. W. (1956). The power elite. Oxford University Press. [Cited for analytical observations about elite networks; broader theoretical framework is not endorsed.]
Murray, A. (1895/1982). Humility: The beauty of holiness. Whitaker House.
Murray, I. H. (1987). D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The fight of faith, 1939–1981. Banner of Truth.
Owen, J. (1656/1991). Indwelling sin in believers (W. H. Goold, Ed.). Banner of Truth.
Packer, J. I. (1990). A quest for godliness: The Puritan vision of the Christian life. Crossway.
Piper, J. (1986). Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian hedonist. Multnomah.
Powlison, D. (2010). The biblical counseling movement: History and context. New Growth Press.
Ryle, J. C. (1879/2014). Holiness. Banner of Truth.
Schaeffer, F. A. (1971). True spirituality. Tyndale House.
Sproul, R. C. (1990). Pleasing God. Tyndale House.
Tripp, P. D. (2012). Dangerous calling: Confronting the unique challenges of pastoral ministry. Crossway.
Veith, G. E. (1994). Postmodern times: A Christian guide to contemporary thought and culture. Crossway.
Weber, M. (1922/1978). Economy and society (G. Roth & C. Wittich, Eds.). University of California Press. [Cited for analytical observations about social stratification; broader theoretical framework is not endorsed.]
Wells, D. F. (2008). The Courage to be Protestant: Truth-lovers, marketers, and emergents in the postmodern world. Eerdmans.
Whitney, D. S. (1991). Spiritual disciplines for the Christian life. NavPress.
