Institutionalization is necessary but codification into orthodoxy is always a risk.

Evidence

I would like to perhaps make a distinction between the two terms that you use. I am in favor of institutionalization because one needs to go through the organizational moment—the long march through the institutions—to get people together, to build some kind of collective intellectual project. But codification makes my hackles rise, even about the things I have been involved in. People talk about “the Birmingham school” [The Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies at the University of Birmingham] and all I can hear are the arguments we used to have in Birmingham that we never were one school; there may have been four or five but we were never able to unify it all, nor did we want to create that kind of orthodoxy. — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 755 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

Category: Definitional Content

Related

• Institutionalization is necessary but codified orthodoxy is to be resisted. (similarity 0.92)
• Institutionalization enables collective work while codification imposes a false orthodoxy (similarity 0.81)
• The Birmingham school was never a single unified school or orthodoxy (similarity 0.79)
• Interdisciplinarity’s subversive force becomes slack pluralism once institutionalized (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Institutionalization is necessary but codified orthodoxy is to be resisted. #corroborates (0.95)
• Institutionalization enables collective work while codification imposes a false orthodoxy #expands (0.85) — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 755
• Institutionalization of Cultural Studies threatened to depoliticize it. #exemplifies (0.80)