ATProto Browser

Record data

{
  "uri": "at://did:plc:woplwzf2pqmlv7n2wnjq5exx/app.bsky.feed.post/3lmzdmgmlkc2l",
  "cid": "bafyreie6ovy62dptkbrj2ljbdyxj2hr3itgkp7ns5ewc6r4cqwuoujwcbm",
  "value": {
    "text": "What's fantastic about the study of institutions is that it allows for us to explore seemingly disparate aspects of our world (identity, governance, work, beliefs) in a congruent and productive manner. \n\nWe're social creatures and they way we build and incentivize our interactions is meaningful.",
    "$type": "app.bsky.feed.post",
    "embed": {
      "$type": "app.bsky.embed.images",
      "images": [
        {
          "alt": "While there is nothing intrinsically wrong with an interest in the individual if it does not neglect the significance and impact of their participation in corporate groups, an institutional approach recognizes the value of seeking to understand how institutions—the palace (i.e., kingship and the court), temples (i.e., priesthoods), and communities of practice (e.g., merchants, the army, mercenary groups, agropastoralists)—shaped the construction of social identities within which individuals participated, with far-reaching sociocultural implications. Approaches that overemphasize the individual or the household are, by contrast, a clear byproduct of WEIRD cultures, where we are inclined to, in the words of Jonathan Haidt, “see a world full of separate objects [and separate individuals], rather than relationships.” Institutions, however, are valuable not simply for the robust material records that they provide, which can be intensively interrogated archaeologically (e.g., the assemblages of palaces, temples, trade colonies), but also because they can often be studied through textual analyses, amplifying our ability to test our hypotheses about the social importance of these institutions. Amorite communities of the Middle Bronze Age offer many institutions for study, from the royal court, to the army, the temple, and diverse communities of practice. Furthermore, in our analyses of these institutions, we are increasingly recognizing that traditional characterizations of power structures, like kingship, cannot be understood simply through the interpretive lens of the tyrannical power of a single individual, even oligarchies, but that we must account for a wider analysis of the networks and institutions that supported rule by these individuals.",
          "image": {
            "$type": "blob",
            "ref": {
              "$link": "bafkreif5ewythk47kdtihccfbhtgc2b4a4j4xoodtq7mel2xwgefpbwh2q"
            },
            "mimeType": "image/jpeg",
            "size": 589676
          },
          "aspectRatio": {
            "width": 1641,
            "height": 1038
          }
        }
      ]
    },
    "langs": [
      "en"
    ],
    "reply": {
      "root": {
        "cid": "bafyreiexyb3tuvblk3pxctxdlw5rbmwcgdulo5jsivruyptimy7bwu6pnu",
        "uri": "at://did:plc:woplwzf2pqmlv7n2wnjq5exx/app.bsky.feed.post/3lmzdmg23qs2l"
      },
      "parent": {
        "cid": "bafyreiexyb3tuvblk3pxctxdlw5rbmwcgdulo5jsivruyptimy7bwu6pnu",
        "uri": "at://did:plc:woplwzf2pqmlv7n2wnjq5exx/app.bsky.feed.post/3lmzdmg23qs2l"
      }
    },
    "createdAt": "2025-04-17T14:41:13.780Z"
  }
}