Good piece. I think it is particularly relevant to what kind of critique we use for legacy organizations. Being from the former Soviet Union, where all organizations were under the heavy supervision of the government, I can now see how ideology can blind and undermine even the most respected legacy institutions. But you made a good case for preservation and continuation.
Thanks! In a way, the uncritical bashing of “legacy” prevents the good critique that could improve and even change those organizations. The main point is this: the critique of legacy is not intended to say something about the organization being critiqued, but about the critiquer.
Well said. The ongoing changes of the last three generations that has now not only occurred but broken apart old paradigms of structure and stability in communal life leaves us in a perilous position as a people here, elsewhere and in Israel. I might add to all this the corrosive role and preeminence of individuality as opposed to institutions — legacy or otherwise. Even a basic pillar like the “right to vote” has been called into question as a broken institution with meaningless language, thereby threatening the very stability of the ultimate institution — our fragile democracy. Frightening times.
Thanks! Yes, there’s a thin line between a legitimate critique of institutions, and self-serving, grand-standing opposition to “legacy”, which is nothing but an attempt at power-grabbing.
Good piece. I think it is particularly relevant to what kind of critique we use for legacy organizations. Being from the former Soviet Union, where all organizations were under the heavy supervision of the government, I can now see how ideology can blind and undermine even the most respected legacy institutions. But you made a good case for preservation and continuation.
Thanks! In a way, the uncritical bashing of “legacy” prevents the good critique that could improve and even change those organizations. The main point is this: the critique of legacy is not intended to say something about the organization being critiqued, but about the critiquer.
Well said. The ongoing changes of the last three generations that has now not only occurred but broken apart old paradigms of structure and stability in communal life leaves us in a perilous position as a people here, elsewhere and in Israel. I might add to all this the corrosive role and preeminence of individuality as opposed to institutions — legacy or otherwise. Even a basic pillar like the “right to vote” has been called into question as a broken institution with meaningless language, thereby threatening the very stability of the ultimate institution — our fragile democracy. Frightening times.
Thanks! Yes, there’s a thin line between a legitimate critique of institutions, and self-serving, grand-standing opposition to “legacy”, which is nothing but an attempt at power-grabbing.