In many of the world’s liberal democracies—particularly those shaped by the Western Enlightenment tradition—social institutions have historically played a foundational role in upholding the common good. Institutions such as universities, public broadcasters, legal frameworks, and civic associations have functioned not only as providers of services or enforcers of order, but as storehouses of social value: repositories of accumulated knowledge, intergenerational trust, and moral orientation. They have been designed to evolve slowly, deliberately, and responsibly, balancing continuity with necessary adaptation.
This framework of institutional development is deeply rooted in Burkean conservatism, which regards social institutions as organic entities shaped by custom, experience, and practical wisdom. Edmund Burke’s principle—that society is a contract among the living, the dead, and those yet to be born—implies a duty of care. Change, in this tradition, is not to be imposed radically or abstractly, but cultivated in recognition of what has already stood the test of time. Institutions are therefore not simply instruments of administration or political influence; they are moral and cultural ecosystems, requiring stewardship, not conquest.
Yet in our present moment, many of these institutions stand degraded, hollowed out, or fundamentally corrupted. The post-war civic model—rooted in public service, duty, and continuity—has been overtaken by a model that prioritises market logic, ideological instrumentalisation, and short-term gain. The BBC is beset by a crisis of identity and public trust. Universities have been turned into credential mills governed by branding strategies and regulatory micromanagement. Charities and civic groups increasingly drift into performative advocacy, driven by managerialist imperatives rather than sustained communal engagement.
This decay is not merely accidental. It reflects a deeper parasitical mindset—one that sees institutions not as legacies to be preserved and renewed, but as carcasses to be picked over for personal, financial, or ideological gain.
Two thinkers who offer particularly insightful frameworks for understanding this phenomenon are Dr. Gad Saad and Dr. Jordan B. Peterson. While their conceptual models differ, they converge on a shared concern: that modern institutions are being colonised by patterns of thought and action that erode their ability to sustain coherent social life.
- Two Models of Institutional Corruption
- Gad Saad: The Biological Model of Idea Pathogens
Saad draws a powerful analogy from biology. He likens certain ideological movements—particularly those arising from postmodern relativism and radical activism—to parasitical infections. These “idea pathogens” spread through vulnerable institutions by bypassing reason and exploiting emotional and moral guilt. They compromise the cognitive and ethical immune systems of organisations, often under the guise of progress or justice, but with effects that are maladaptive, divisive, and destructive.
Saad’s “ostrich parasitic syndrome” refers to the wilful denial of reality by institutions and individuals who, under ideological pressure, refuse to acknowledge biological facts, empirical data, or contradictory evidence. He is especially critical of the ideological excesses found in some interpretations of gender theory, identity politics, and enforced diversity narratives that abandon rational deliberation for dogmatic assertion.
Dr. Jordan B. Peterson: The Symbolic-Mythological Model
Peterson approaches the issue from the vantage point of evolutionary psychology and archetypal narrative. Institutions, in his model, are expressions of mythic structures—manifestations of symbolic patterns that help individuals and societies orient themselves through complexity. The archetypes of the wise king, the heroic individual, the tyrant, and chaos are not mere literary devices, but psychological and cultural constants that shape our moral and emotional maps.
For Peterson, institutional decay occurs when we lose connection to these archetypal truths. A culture that forgets the hero’s journey or the symbolic function of the father is one that no longer understands how to balance freedom with order, or how to meaningfully initiate individuals into responsibility. Such a culture is vulnerable to nihilism, chaos, and fragmentation, because it lacks shared frames of reference for navigating meaning.
Comparative Table: Saad vs. Peterson on Institutional Erosion
| Aspect | Gad Saad (Biological Model) | Jordan Peterson (Symbolic-Mythological Model) |
| Core Metaphor | Pathogen / Parasite | Archetype / Myth |
| Mode of Invasion | Exploits emotional vulnerability and social conformity | Loss of symbolic structure and archetypal grounding |
| Effect on Cognition | Cognitive hijacking and denial of reality (e.g., ostrich parasitic syndrome) | Fragmentation of meaning and moral incoherence |
| Cultural Mechanism | Spread through institutions via moral coercion and ideological capture | Disconnection from evolved psychological narratives |
| Evolutionary Lens | Maladaptation: bad ideas flourish by exploiting systemic weaknesses | Adaptation: myths and symbols preserve functional behaviours |
| Institutional Consequences | Erosion of critical thought, intellectual conformity, performative morality | Collapse of responsibility structures, rise in chaos and resentment |
| Solution Emphasis | Intellectual hygiene, critical thinking, reassertion of reason | Reconnection to archetypes, moral development through narrative and myth |
| Diagnosis of Present Crisis | Ideological parasitism that disables rational governance | Cultural amnesia and symbolic disintegration |
What both frameworks suggest—each in their own idiom—is that institutions no longer function as sources of renewal, orientation, or social cohesion. They have been invaded or emptied by forces that consume but do not regenerate. They no longer act as living systems capable of reproducing trust and shared purpose across generations.
This raises an urgent question: What is the opposite of the parasitical mindset?
Regenerative Alternatives: Mutuality, Symbiosis, and Generativity
If parasitism is defined by short-term extraction without replenishment, then the countervailing principle must be found in mutualistic, symbiotic, and generative modes of relationship and institution-building.
- Mutualisation implies co-ownership and collective responsibility. Institutions structured around mutual benefit—whether co-operatives, civic trusts, or federated associations—prioritise shared value over hierarchical control or ideological imposition.
- Symbiosis describes systems in which interdependence strengthens all parties. In communication, this means rejecting manipulative or transactional models in favour of dialogic, participatory media that sustains civic trust and understanding.
- Generativity highlights action that creates more than it consumes. A generative institution not only performs its formal function, but contributes to the broader cultural, intellectual, and moral ecology in which society can grow.
This is why Decentered Media champions a model of communication that is not simply instrumental, but foundational. We aim to support media practices that nourish collective identity, enable civic participation, and foster long-term development—not clickbait, not metrics-driven outreach, but meaningful engagement shaped by symbolic responsibility and social imagination.
The Role of the Firekeeper: A Cultural Archetype for Renewal
At the heart of this counter-parasitical vision lies a powerful archetype: the Firekeeper. Where the parasite consumes and abandons, the Firekeeper tends and transmits. They hold and protect the flame—not for their own benefit, but so that others may gather, learn, and carry it forward. They are stewards of continuity, aware that their role is not to dominate but to serve the lineage of meaning, knowledge, and care.
The Firekeeper does not resist change out of fear. Rather, they recognise that not all change is progress, and that the deepest changes are those made in service of a longer memory and a future still to be imagined. This is a calling that lies in direct opposition to the parasitical mindset, and it is one that we believe must now animate the work of communicators, educators, civic leaders, and media producers alike.
Rekindling the Storehouse
Our crisis is not just institutional—it is symbolic, moral, and epistemological. What we face is not merely a shift in policy or funding but a collapse in meaning and stewardship. If the institutions of the modern West are to survive, they must be re-rooted in mutual responsibility, cultural depth, and generative practice.
We must reject the parasitical mindset that exploits, empties, and abandons. In its place, we must cultivate the archetype of the Firekeeper—those who protect the storehouses of social value not for control, but for care. This is not a nostalgic call to return to the past, but a civilisational imperative to carry forward what must not be lost.
Only through this stewardship can our institutions again become places of renewal, coherence, and trust. The flame is still there. But it must be tended—carefully, consciously, and together.