For instance, “networks” don’t “institutionalise” only through processes of formal incorporation etc. Simply having a history — a set of shared references, memories, solutions to past problems, a shared vocabulary, etc. — turns a “network” into an “institution”. You don’t need a board of directors and a bank account to have an institutional memory. And hierarchies are inevitable, whether formalised or not. “Networks” seem to privilege those members who speak louder, type faster, or have better access to the network’s very medium.

A successful network will grow to the point where it becomes chaotic without institutional procedures and rules. In a network of ten, it’s possible to pay attention to every member. In a network of a hundred, that’s difficult. In a network of a million, it’s impossible. And the loudest of that million don’t necessarily have the most original ideas, the most interesting information, the most radical insights. A thoughtful and self-aware institution, on the other hand, can consciously craft mechanisms to identify and amplify quieter voices that are lost in the hubbub of the network.

The really interesting and useful and difficult task, it seems to me, is to figure out how these different organising principles can complement each other — how to create a hybrid that combines the most efficient qualities of both “institutions” and “networks”.

But of course you already know that!