Talk:Institutionalisation/Archive 1

Untitled
A firssdst attempt to describe this complex and major social and historical phenomena. Glad to get the first go and surprised no one has tried before. I confidently expect that those who follow can fill in all the missing references to the Poor Laws, Corn Laws, Public Assistance Acts, Industrial Schools and so on, but that isnt really my field of expertise. 217.155.192.14Excalibur217.155.192.14

I am glad you 'had a go' - unfortunately I do not agree with your premise that this is the meaning of institutionalisation. You have attributed a specific negative meaning derived from the word's negative connetations in Great Britain. I looked up this article wishing to know about the general premise of the concept of institutionalisation, not a British historical appraisal! I suggest it be re-written in a more general form.

I agree with the comment above. I think institutionalisation baically either means the embedding of norms, values, relationships and patterns of interaction into social institutions, or in quite a different sense committing someone into an institution such as a mental facility. The first case is of more theoretical interest, since the meaning of the latter is obvious!  In any case, I made some changes to neaten up the page 203.214.56.12 16:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me add that I feel the stuff on the historical issues in Britain is largely clutter, but I left it all there anyway for goodwill. :) 203.214.56.12 16:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

this is a good start for a nice article, but it needs a lot more work to bring up to standard.

I quite agree - as the origator of the article, and as an untutored author to this worthy tome, I knew that a lot more work and thought was needed, and on reflection that is probably still the case. The problem, as always, it finding the time! As regards the negative connotations, I suppose that all human organisations - including this one! have their critics, but to me institutions epitomise the attempt to stifle create conformity and the human spirit, and the same kind of arguments apply as those hotly disputed articles on the [Nazis] - how can anyone really be an apolologist for something so clearly controlling and "wrong"? Excalibur 18:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

As the principals of our organization are cautiously looking forward to institutionalization, I came upon this article. The thing that bothers me is the lack of citing sources. If I am to try to get a better grasp of what the principals of my organization have in mind, I don't find the points of view of wikipedia authors helpful. Claims were made this way and that about institutionalization, but sources were never given. Example: "It has been suggested by some by some writers . . .". That really doesn't mean anything without citation.

Unifying spelling, US vs. British
The article's title used the British spelling but the lead section and body used the US one. Judging from most of the surrounding language and not wishing to move the article unnecessarily, I unified it to British spelling. I can't guarantee that I didn't miss a word or two, though.

I also added a redirect from "institutionalised", as there was already "institutionalized". --elmindreda (talk) 02:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Moving content to subsection of 'institution'
For the sake of forming a coherent article I am merging the best content from this article into a subjection of the institution article. I am intentionally being bold here. The article receives very little attention in general and would, I think, benefit from being part of a unified page. --Tomsega (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I tried to fix the lead. the rest is still unfortunately incoherent Bhny (talk) 02:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the whole thing should be merged into a subsection of the Institution article. Maybe that will help it get some attention, since as it stands it is not only almost completely unverified but also very POV, representing a very negative view of institutions - the article literally only focuses on the bad. As for now I have stuck an original research template at the top, since as I said in my edit description, virtually all of this is someones original research.--87.114.154.138 (talk) 02:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been bold and removed some of what seemed to be the more blatant POV and original interpretation, but the article is still almost completely unverified.--87.114.154.138 (talk) 02:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

This article should be divided into several. There is not connection between institutionalizing a person and institutionalization that happens with organizations. Further, as pertains to organizations, typically, institutionalization just happens; a natural phenomenon. It happens because what was once a movement has now become a norm that needs or wants reform. I have no examples of any organization that desires to be institutionalized. I am American, but it seems that even the Royal family has to evolve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CSFowler1962 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Three Different Subjects
This article does not differentiate between the different meanings of the word institutionalisation/institutionalization, i.e. One meaning refers to the legal process of consigning individuals to institutions, i.e. to mental or rehabilitative organizations created for the purpose of either "curing" or managing individuals with one or more identified physical or mental disability that renders them incapable of fending for themselves in some sort of acceptable manner. This is a legal process.

A second meaning is sociological and refers to the process of normalizing something, that is, to make it the norm.

A third meaning, not currently addressed in this article,  refers to the process by which organizations move from focusing their energy and resources on addressing the purpose for which they were created to the maintenance of the organization itself--which are usually differing goals. Thus, an organization originally created to provide assistance for individuals with some specified need allocates less of its effort and resources toward the external meeting of that need than it does to the preservation of the organization. This is seen as a natural evolution of organizations. This is an organizational theory.

Recommendation: These differing meanings should be separated and each given a separate entry and identified on a disambiguation page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.239.121.213 (talk) 11:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)