{"id":195992,"date":"2026-06-27T22:22:21","date_gmt":"2026-06-28T06:22:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=195992"},"modified":"2026-06-27T08:47:11","modified_gmt":"2026-06-27T16:47:11","slug":"sociologist-john-w-meyer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=195992","title":{"rendered":"Sociologist John W. Meyer"},"content":{"rendered":"

John W. Meyer<\/a> (born 1935) is an American sociologist whose work reshaped the study of organizations, education, globalization, and institutional change. He founded world society theory and helped build sociological neo-institutionalism. His central argument cuts against the common view that organizations and states arise mainly as rational answers to local needs or economic pressure. Meyer holds that they take their shape from globally shared cultural models, models that define what counts as a legitimate government, university, corporation, profession, or person. His scholarship became an influential body of work in contemporary sociology and changed research in organizational studies, comparative education, political sociology, international relations, and management.<\/p>\n

Meyer earned a bachelor’s degree in psychology from Goshen College<\/a> in 1955, a master’s degree in sociology from the University of Colorado<\/a> in 1957, and a Ph.D. in sociology from Columbia University<\/a> in 1965. He studied at Columbia when the department led empirical and structural sociology, shaped by Paul Lazarsfeld<\/a> (1901-1976) and the rising use of quantitative research. His early work asked how institutional settings, colleges and universities above all, shape what individuals believe and value. Those studies pointed toward the question that occupied the rest of his career: the relationship between organizations and culture.<\/p>\n

In 1966 Meyer joined the faculty at Stanford University<\/a>. He stayed more than three decades and became Professor Emeritus of Sociology in 2001. He also holds emeritus status, by courtesy, in Stanford’s Graduate School of Education<\/a>. Under him Stanford became the leading center for institutional analysis. He trained generations of scholars who carried his theories across disciplines. His students and collaborators, among them Francisco O. Ramirez<\/a>, Ronald L. Jepperson, David John Frank, Patricia Bromley, John Boli, and Evan Schofer, came to be known as the Stanford school of institutional analysis, an influential research tradition in modern sociology.<\/p>\n

Meyer’s earliest large contributions came in the sociology of education<\/a>. Scholars at the time treated education as an instrument for producing economically useful skills. Meyer argued that schools also work as cultural institutions, that they create standardized ideas of citizenship, merit, authority, and personal development. With Ramirez and others he showed that educational systems across the world come to resemble one another despite sharp differences of political institution, economic development, religion, and culture. He read those similarities as the spread of globally accepted models of modern education rather than separate national answers to local problems.<\/p>\n

His central theoretical breakthrough came in the 1970s with sociological institutionalism. In the 1977 article “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony,” written with Brian Rowan<\/a>, Meyer argued that organizations often adopt formal structures to gain legitimacy rather than to improve efficiency. Schools, corporations, hospitals, government agencies, and nonprofits take up practices that society regards as modern, rational, and professional even when those practices have little measurable effect on performance.<\/p>\n

The concept of rationalized myths sits at the center of this argument. Meyer drew on Max Weber<\/a> (1864-1920) while breaking from Weber’s deterministic account of bureaucratic growth. Modern societies, Meyer argued, share deep beliefs about what a rational organization should look like. Strategic plans, performance metrics, diversity initiatives, accreditation procedures, auditing systems, and elaborate administrative offices often enter an organization because they signal rationality and professionalism. He called them myths because society assumes they represent effective practice whether or not anyone has shown them to work, and treats that assumption as settled even where the evidence is absent.<\/p>\n

The same article introduced decoupling, an influential idea in organizational sociology. Organizations separate their formal structures from their daily operations. In public they conform to institutional expectations and adopt the accepted rules and procedures. Inside, they keep running according to practical need. This insight changed organizational theory by showing that legitimacy often weighs as much as efficiency, sometimes more, in explaining how organizations behave.<\/p>\n

From these foundations Meyer built world society theory, also called world polity theory. He set aside accounts of globalization that rest mainly on military power, markets, or state interest. Modern society, he argued, organizes itself around a shared global culture. International organizations, scientific communities, professional associations, universities, nongovernmental organizations, and international law produce accepted models of what a modern society should become. These cultural frameworks define legitimate forms of governance, education, environmental protection, scientific research, human rights, gender equality, and economic development. Nation-states adopt these forms because conformity to global models raises their standing in international society, often more than because the forms solve any practical problem.<\/p>\n

Among Meyer’s deepest contributions is his account of actorhood. Modern individuals, organizations, professions, universities, and nation-states are institutional creations. He rejects the assumption that autonomous actors exist by nature. World society constructs them as legitimate entities that hold rights, responsibilities, interests, and agency. Modern individuals come to see themselves as autonomous decision-makers responsible for shaping their own lives. Organizations face the expectation that they pursue strategic goals, measure performance, and show accountability. This construction of actorhood helps explain the worldwide spread of human rights, professional expertise, organizational accountability, and democratic citizenship.<\/p>\n

Meyer’s empirical research documented institutional convergence across nations. With John Boli, Ramirez, John Thomas, and others he showed that newly independent states set up nearly identical ministries, constitutions, statistical agencies, educational systems, scientific organizations, and legal frameworks regardless of economic capacity or political tradition. His research on environmental governance found the same pattern. Countries across the world created environmental ministries and adopted conservation policies at almost the same time. The change owed little to ecology. Protecting the environment had become part of the accepted definition of a legitimate modern state.<\/p>\n

Across his career Meyer held that globalization is cultural as much as economic. Scientific research, higher education, professional standards, human rights, environmental regulation, and organizational management run more and more on universal models that cross national borders. These frameworks shape government policy and individual identity alike.<\/p>\n

In Hyper-Organization (2015), written with Patricia Bromley, Meyer returned to his earlier themes in light of recent change. Modern organizations no longer offer symbolic compliance with institutional rules while ignoring them in practice. Growing demands for accountability, transparency, auditing, measurement, and regulation have built elaborate systems devoted to documenting an organization’s own legitimacy. Universities, corporations, governments, and nonprofits pour resources into compliance offices, consultants, accreditation reviews, reporting systems, and performance metrics. The modern organization has become hyper-organized and has taken institutional expectations inside to a degree without precedent.<\/p>\n

Meyer also widened his account of the modern individual. World society constructs the person as an autonomous, rights-bearing, self-managing actor responsible for informed choice across every part of life. This understanding of personhood has fed the worldwide growth of psychotherapy, human resource management, self-help movements, legal rights, educational credentialing, and personal development programs. The individual learns to hold agency and to perform the prescribed role of an autonomous actor.<\/p>\n

Meyer’s influential publications include “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony” (1977), “World Society and the Nation-State” (1997), “Globalization: Sources and Effects on National States and Societies” (2000), World Society: The Writings of John W. Meyer (2009), Hyper-Organization (2015, with Patricia Bromley), The University and the Global Knowledge Society (2020, with David John Frank), and Institutional Theory: The Cultural Construction of Organizations, States, and Identities (2021, edited with Ronald L. Jepperson). His article “The Societal Consequences of Higher Education,” written with Evan Schofer and Francisco O. Ramirez and published in Sociology of Education in 2021, extended his long analysis of education as a global institution.<\/p>\n

Meyer’s influence reaches past sociology. Political scientists use world society theory to explain the spread of constitutions, environmental regulation, and human rights regimes. Organization theorists draw on his concepts of legitimacy, institutional isomorphism, rationalized myths, and decoupling. Comparative education scholars rely on his framework to account for the global expansion of mass schooling and universities. International relations scholars fold his ideas into constructivist theories that stress norms and international culture.<\/p>\n

His work has drawn sustained debate. Critics in world-systems theory and political realism argue that world society theory understates military power, economic inequality, and Western political dominance in the shaping of global institutions. Others hold that Meyer leans too far toward convergence and gives too little attention to local adaptation, resistance, and the reinterpretation of global models. Some comparative sociologists add that the theory privileges the nation-state as the principal institutional actor and passes over enduring regional, religious, and subnational forms of authority. Meyer answers that world society theory sets out to explain the spread of institutional models, not to deny the weight of local variation.<\/p>\n

Meyer received many honors. He was elected to the National Academy of Education<\/a> in 1984. He holds honorary doctorates from the Stockholm School of Economics<\/a>, the University of Bielefeld<\/a>, the University of Lucerne<\/a>, and other institutions, and he has received lifetime achievement awards from several sections of the American Sociological Association<\/a> and from the Academy of Management<\/a>. In 2015 he received the American Sociological Association’s W. E. B. Du Bois Career of Distinguished Scholarship Award, among the discipline’s highest honors. Google Scholar records well over 100,000 citations of his work, which places him among the most cited living sociologists.<\/p>\n

Meyer has kept a low public profile and has preferred scholarship and mentoring to popular commentary. He has stayed active into his nineties. In 2024 he delivered a major lecture for Cornell University<\/a>‘s Center for the Study of Economy and Society, “The Social Impact of a Changing World Society, 1950-2024,” a reflection on the path of world society from the postwar liberal order through neoliberal globalization toward possible post-liberal forms.<\/p>\n

John W. Meyer stands among the important sociological theorists of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. By showing that institutions spread because they carry globally legitimate cultural models rather than because they maximize efficiency, he changed how scholars understand organizations, education, nation-states, globalization, and modern identity. His concepts of legitimacy, rationalized myths, decoupling, actorhood, and world society continue to guide research across the social sciences.<\/p>\n

The Cool Word<\/strong><\/p>\n

In 1961 a young country raises its flag. The ceremony runs to a script no one in the capital wrote. There is an anthem, scored for instruments the army band half knows. There is a constitution with a preamble about the dignity of the human person. There is a cabinet, and in the cabinet a Ministry of Education, though the country has four hundred teachers and one working press. There is a national bureau of statistics, staffed before there are statistics to keep. Foreign advisers in good shoes stand at the edge of the photograph. The new ministers wear suits cut to a pattern set in London and Geneva. They have copied the form of a modern state the way a boy copies the stance of a man he admires, down to the way he holds a cigarette.
\nA continent away, in a seminar room with bad light, a sociologist stands at a whiteboard and names what the boy is doing.
\nHe does not raise his voice. Meyer writes a few words and draws an arrow. The country did not build those ministries because it needed them, he argues. It built them because a legitimate modern state has them, and the world keeps a list. The flag, the bureau, the ministry, the clause about the dignity of the human person: these are credentials. A state assembles them to be recognized as the kind of thing a state is. Students write it down. Some of them spend thirty years proving him right with data from a hundred countries, and the data hold.
\nThis is the calm at the center of his work. A new nation orders up the apparatus of legitimacy the way a man orders a suit, and the suit arrives the same in Accra and Almaty and La Paz. Meyer gives the suit a name. He calls it a model. He calls the belief that the suit signals competence a rationalized myth, and he means no insult by myth. The word, in his hand, loses its heat. A myth is a form the world has agreed to honor, honored whether or not anyone has shown it to work. He says this in the flat voice of a man reading a tide table.
\nErnest Becker (1924-1974) describes the inside of the same scene, and he keeps the heat in. In The Denial of Death he argues that every culture is a hero system, a set of roles and rules that lets a man feel he counts against the one fact he cannot bear, that he dies and rots and is forgotten. The flag, the rank, the cathedral, the ledger, the championship belt: these are the costumes a man puts on to stand up straight in front of the void. Becker writes about terror. Meyer writes about credentials. They are looking at one animal. The animal copies the form of the men he admires because he cannot bear to be no one, and the new nation copies the form of the recognized states for the same reason at the scale of millions. Becker names the fear. Meyer takes the fear out of the sentence and leaves the form standing there, clean and surveyable, a fact for the data set.
\nThat removal is the whole story. The fear, drained off, has to go somewhere.
\nConsider the words Meyer made cool, and watch the same words burn everywhere outside his room.
\nTake legitimate. To the institutionalist it means recognized by world society as the proper form. To a Benedictine in the Apennines, up at two for vigils in a stone choir, legitimate means consonant with a Rule that Benedict set down fifteen centuries back. “We do nothing here that has not been done,” the prior says, and he says it with pride. The newness Meyer studies, the eager copying of the latest accepted form, is to the monk a sickness. His hero system runs the other way, toward an origin, and a thing earns the word legitimate by how little it has changed since the source.
\nTo a founder in a loft south of Market Street, legitimate is a round closed and a board that returns his calls. He uses the word twenty times a day and never hears it. “Once we hit legitimacy with the enterprise buyers,” he tells the room, meaning the moment when the large slow companies stop laughing. His immortality bid is the product that outlives him, the thing at scale, the name in the obituary of the old economy. To him the monk is a fossil and the new nation is a market.
\nTo a Maasai elder on the Loita plains, legitimate is cattle, the blessing of his age-set, and the dead who watch the living and judge them. A man stands among the ancestors or he does not. Ministries and constitutions are weather that passes over the herd. He has buried his father in the boma and he will lie there too, and the cattle will go on, and that is the form of a life that counts. Meyer’s list of credentials does not appear on his horizon.
\nTo a man in a kollel, bent into the small hours over a folio of Talmud, legitimate is a chain of teachers running back through the generations to Sinai, each link a name he can recite. His hero system is the chain. He gives his days to a text older than every nation in Meyer’s data set, and the text will be studied when the nations are gone, and his portion in it is his portion in eternity. He hears the founder say legitimacy and the word means nothing he recognizes.
\nFour men. One word. Four universes. Meyer’s gift is to hold all four in a single sentence and call them models of legitimacy. His blind spot is the same act, because in calling them models he stands outside all four and inside none, and that standing-outside is itself a place to stand, a costume, a way of counting.
\nThe word myth runs the same course. Meyer drains it. A rationalized myth is a form the world honors, and the draining is the point of his science, because once you stop asking whether the form works and start asking why the world honors it, a new field opens under your feet. But the monk dies into his myth and calls it the truth. The physicist spits the word out and means a lie, a thing the credulous believe. The grieving widow lights a candle on the anniversary and the ritual she performs is a myth in Meyer’s flat sense and her whole heart in any other. Meyer’s serenity in front of the word is bought. Someone paid for it, and the someone is whoever the word still scalds.
\nRational is the same coin. To Meyer rational means what a society regards as rational, the look of reason, the strategic plan and the audit and the accreditation review that signal competence whether or not they deliver it. He says this and the corporate world does not thank him for it. A cardiac surgeon means something else by rational, something in the hands, a sequence under the lights where reason and the right move are the same move and a wrong one kills the man on the table. A Sardinian shepherd means the rain and the flock and the price at the spring market. The founder means ship fast and dominate. Each man’s reason is the reason of his hero system, the calculation that keeps his particular death at bay, and Meyer’s achievement is to see that none of these is reason as such, that all of them are the local accent of a global script. His cost is that his own seeing wears the same accent and does not hear it.
\nActor. Actorhood. Meyer argues that the autonomous individual, the rights-bearing self who sets goals and measures his own progress and answers for his own life, is a construction. World society writes the part and hands a man the script, and the man performs the role of an agent so well he forgets it is a role. He thinks he chose. He was cast. The therapy, the resume, the personal mission statement, the worldwide industry of self-improvement: these dress the modern man in the costume of an author of his life.
\nSet that beside Becker and the two sentences lock. Becker says the man performing agency is a creature shaking in front of his own annihilation, and the performance is how he keeps his feet. Meyer says the performance is scripted by world society. The cool word, actor, and the warm word, terror, point at one trembling animal in one borrowed suit. Meyer found the suit. Becker found the trembling. The two men spent their lives a few hundred miles apart on the same coast, looking at the same thing from opposite ends of the temperature scale, and neither could have written the other’s sentence.
\nA hero system has rivals. Becker’s grim news is that they collide, that the killing starts where one immortality project meets another and each man’s road to significance runs through the other man’s body. Meyer’s calm vocabulary is a combatant in that field, though it presents itself as the referee. The realist watches the new nation raise its copied flag and says the flag is decoration over the only fact there is, which is power, the guns and who holds them, and he says Meyer’s models are the bedtime story the strong tell the weak. The world-systems scholar says the script Meyer admires was written in the rich core and exported to the poor periphery to keep the periphery dressing like its masters, and the convergence Meyer documents is the smooth face of an old extraction. The believer says the script is a counterfeit eternity, a paper salvation, and points past the ministries to God.
\nEach rival lands a blow, and each blow is the same blow from a different fist. The serenity, they say, is positional. It is the view from Palo Alto, the calm of a man whose nation was the template, not the copy, whose university was the original that the new ones imitate, whose flag no one borrowed from a list because his was on the list. Read through Becker, this is the sharpest cut. Meyer’s hero system is the priesthood of those who see through every other hero system. It offers a man significance through detachment, through being the one in the room captured by none of the scripts, naming the others’ faith from a height above faith. It is the most flattering immortality project on offer, because it asks for no creed and grants the highest status, the status of the one who knows what the others are doing while they do not.
\nAnd it builds a cathedral like any other. The citations run past a hundred thousand. The students carry the method into a dozen disciplines and call themselves a school, which is to say an order, with a founder and a rule and a line of succession. The lifetime awards arrive, the honorary doctorates from Bielefeld and Lucerne and the Stockholm school, the high medal of the discipline. A man who spent sixty years showing the world that institutions chase legitimacy receives, at the end, the institution’s highest mark of legitimacy, and receives it for the showing. The cool word turns out to have been liturgy. Naming the immortality projects of nations was his.
\nThree things to carry out of the room.
\nWatch where the calm is made. The flatness of model and legitimacy and rational is real, and it is also an altitude, and altitude has an address. The man who can call a flag a credential and feel nothing is standing somewhere the flag was never in doubt. The serenity is true and it is also a wage, paid out of a position near the center of the thing being described, and the reader who forgets the address mistakes a vantage for a verdict.
\nWatch the word travel. Carry legitimate from the seminar to the kollel, to the boma, to the choir at two in the morning, and it catches fire each time it lands, because meaning lives in the hero system and not in the dictionary. Meyer’s science is the map of where the word goes cold. The believer’s life is the proof of where it stays hot. Both are right, and they are right about different men.
\nWatch the namer get named. The frame that opened this essay turns at the end and faces the man who built the frames. Meyer saw, with a clarity few have matched, that the modern person and the modern state perform a script handed to them by a world that scores the performance. He did not exempt himself, in theory. In practice the exemption is the work, because the one role world society reserves for the highest honor is the role of the man who sees the roles. He took it. He earned it. And the taking is the last sentence Becker would write under the photograph of the lecture hall, the old scholar at the board, the arrow, the calm noun: here, too, is a man holding off the dark with the thing he made, and the thing he made was a way of seeing that other men do exactly that.<\/p>\n

‘A Big Misunderstanding’<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

If David Pinsof is right, Meyer\u2019s brilliant macro-sociology is a beautiful, hyper-elaborated version of the misunderstandings myth. He takes a world driven by raw Darwinian competition over real estate and resources, and turns it into a global theater production where states and universities are merely actors sleepwalking through an imported script.
\nMeyer\u2019s foundational contribution to organizational theory shows that schools, hospitals, and corporations adopt elaborate administrative structures\u2014like human resources divisions, diversity statements, or sustainability task forces\u2014not because they improve technical output, but as a form of “myth and ceremony” to maintain social legitimacy. When an organization faces internal chaos, it constructs a new bureaucratic layer to signal to its environment that it is rational and progressive.
\nFrom Pinsof’s perspective, these institutional structures are not arbitrary cultural myths adopted for a sense of belonging or external validation. They are active weapons used by the credentialed managerial class to secure state funding, protect institutional turf, and block out rivals.
\nAn organization does not build a complex diversity or compliance apparatus because it is caught in a ceremonial script; it does so because funding agencies, corporate boards, and state regulators demand it. The “ceremony” is a highly calculated cost of doing business that creates high-status, text-based jobs for university graduates. By framing this resource extraction as an innocent desire for societal legitimacy, Meyer’s theory hides a raw, material interest behind the language of cultural conformity.
\nIn World Society and the Nation-State, Meyer and his co-authors tracked why countries with completely different histories, resources, and populations suddenly end up with identical ministries of science, universal education models, and constitutional human rights protections. He argues that a stateless global culture\u2014carried by international non-governmental organizations (INGOs), scientific associations, and global elites\u2014diffuses these progressive norms downward into individual states, which eagerly adopt them to look like modern, civilized actors.
\nPinsof\u2019s logic shows that this diffusion model gets the causality backward. Developing nations do not adopt westernized educational and bureaucratic blueprints because they are infatuated with a shared global script of progress. They do it because the dominant Western coalition controls the international banks, the military alliances, and the global trade networks.
\nAdopting the language of Western bureaucracy is a strategic survival maneuver to avoid being cut off from capital or targeted by the dominant power. Meyer takes the reality of economic and military hegemony where a stronger coalition forces weaker groups to bend to its rules and repackages it as a peaceful, cultural imitation. It turns a brutal global hierarchy into a giant classroom where developing states are simply trying to pass a test administered by international experts.
\nA core element of Meyer’s institutionalism is decoupling\u2014the idea that what an organization says it does in its public brochures is entirely disconnected from what it actually does on the ground. For example, a nation-state might sign an international human rights treaty for ceremonial legitimacy while its police force continues to torture political dissidents in secret. Meyer treats this as a structural irony, a “logic of confidence and good faith” where organizations operate with split personalities to navigate conflicting environmental demands.
\nUnder Pinsof\u2019s frame, decoupling is not a curious organizational quirk or a conceptual tangle. It is standard primate deception. Human coalitions frequently use moralistic, high-status language to signal group virtue while simultaneously engaging in zero-sum, backroom tactics to maximize their own security, territory, and resources.
\nA state does not torture dissidents because it suffers from a lack of integration between its treaty department and its police force; it tortures them to crush a domestic political rival, and it signs the treaty to infamize its international critics. By calling this blatant strategic cheating “decoupling,” Meyer neutralizes the reality of human aggression. He takes a calculating, self-serving defensive operation and turns it into a fascinating design feature of modern organizational sociology, ensuring that the Stanford professor remains the essential cartographer of the global bureaucratic playground.<\/p>\n

The Great Delusion<\/em><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

If John J. Mearsheimer is right, his anthropology<\/a> completely demolishes the world society theory of sociology pioneered by John W. Meyer.<\/p>\n

Meyer transformed macro-sociology by arguing that the modern nation-state is not an insular, self-directed actor driven by raw material needs. Instead, Meyer posits that states are cultural constructions deeply embedded in a global cultural framework called “world society.” According to his model, common institutional structures\u2014like mass education systems, human rights laws, and environmental ministries\u2014spread rapidly across the globe not because they are functionally efficient, but because states mimic dominant global blueprints to gain international legitimacy. For Meyer, this process of “isomorphism” proves that a universal, highly rationalized cultural script shapes the modern world.<\/p>\n

Mearsheimer\u2019s realism cuts through this institutional idealism, transforming Meyer\u2019s world society into a superficial rhetorical wrapper for imperial dominance and state armor.<\/p>\n

Meyer tracks how newly formed or deeply impoverished states across Africa, Asia, and Latin America rapidly adopt highly complex, Western-style constitutions, ministries, and educational curricula. He calls this institutional copying “isomorphism,” arguing it shows that states act out scripts provided by a global cultural environment rather than responding to immediate local material realities.<\/p>\n

If Mearsheimer is right, Meyer mistakes the acquisition of survival armor for a cultural fashion trend. In an anarchic international system, the ultimate vehicle for human group protection is the sovereign state. When sub-groups organize into a state, they must secure immediate recognition from the dominant powers in the system to prevent invasion, capture foreign aid, and establish trade lines. They do not adopt Western bureaucratic forms because they have internalized a global cultural script of progress; they copy them because those structures represent the established ideological and administrative standards demanded by the dominant coalition. The institutional mimicking Meyer documents is a calculated, rational adaptation designed to secure the state’s survival and manage its reputation in a competitive arena.<\/p>\n

Meyer’s framework relies on the existence of an autonomous world society\u2014a decentralized global culture kept alive by international non-governmental organizations, UN agencies, and scientific associations. He argues that this global network possesses independent authority, successfully reshaping how sovereign governments view their own national interests.<\/p>\n

Mearsheimer\u2019s ranking of human faculties reveals that this global cultural framework is a mirage. Independent academic reason, international treaties, and humanitarian texts rank last among human motivations, falling far behind the unreflective survival instincts of the group.<\/p>\n

The “world society” Meyer describes does not float autonomously above international politics; it is the ideological standard of the dominant Western hegemon. The international organizations and expert networks that spread these universal rules are funded, protected, and tolerated by dominant state vehicles to optimize their own security and project soft power. States do not bow to world society; they use its language to police rivals and maintain internal conformity within their alliances. The moment a systemic crisis or real resource scarcity threatens a state, the thin veneer of world society vanishes, and the state acts ruthlessly to protect its relative power, regardless of international norms.<\/p>\n

A central concept in Meyer\u2019s sociology is “decoupling”\u2014the massive gap between a state’s public commitment to global norms and its actual behavior on the ground. For example, a state might sign a global human rights treaty or create an environmental ministry to satisfy the world society script, while continuing to abuse citizens or destroy resources locally. Meyer treats decoupling as a standard institutional paradox where organizations maintain formal myths separate from daily practice.<\/p>\n

Mearsheimer\u2019s anthropology grounds decoupling in the primal logic of tribal survival. Human communication did not evolve for detached data sharing or moral consistency; it evolved to manage alliances, navigate threats, and protect the group.<\/p>\n

Decoupling is not a curious sociological quirk; it is the standard operating procedure of the tribal animal navigating an anarchic environment. A state leader will happily sign any global text, adopt any progressive blueprint, or repeat any universalist mantra to manage the state’s external reputation and secure material resources. Simultaneously, he will do whatever is brutally necessary on the ground to preserve internal conformity, crush domestic rivals, and defend the physical perimeter. Meyer views decoupling as a structural mismatch between myth and reality, but a realist sees it as the calculated, double-sided strategy an elite coalition must deploy to ensure the survival of its vehicle in a dangerous world.<\/p>\n

Where Is the World Model?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Stephen Turner<\/a>, in The Social Theory of Practices<\/em><\/a> (1994), goes after a habit that runs through twentieth-century social theory. The habit is to explain why people in a group act alike, and how their ways pass from one cohort to the next, by positing a shared thing beneath the behavior. The thing carries many names. Michael Polanyi (1891-1976) calls it tacit knowledge<\/a>. Others call it a paradigm, a tradition, a presupposition, a habitus, a practice, a culture. The names differ and the shape holds. The thing sits below speech, resists full statement, and enters people through immersion rather than instruction. It explains the regularity, and it carries the regularity forward.
\nTurner argues that this shared thing does no causal work. It looks causal and is not. To say a group shares a practice is to claim that one object lives inside many separate heads, placed there by transmission and reproduced without loss. Turner asks the question the picture cannot answer. What carries it from one head to the next, and what licenses the claim that the thing in this head is the same as the thing in that one. The tacit, by its own definition, cannot be set down, cannot be taught by rule, cannot be inspected. So the most a theorist can observe is that two men behave alike. The shared substrate is then read off the likeness and used to explain the likeness. The argument closes on itself. The practice names the regularity it claims to cause.
\nTurner has no quarrel with habit at the level of the single man. A man acquires dispositions through his own history, his own training, his own causal route. What Turner denies is the leap from many men with habits to one tacit object the men hold in common. Similar performances need no identical substrate. Each man can arrive at the same outward act by a separate path, from a separate teacher, through a separate sequence of exposures. The sameness is assumed, never shown. Once you demand the carrier, the collective object thins into a postulate and the explanation moves back where it started, to individuals and their separate histories.
\nNo body of work fits this target more squarely than Meyer’s.
\nMeyer explains a large fact, and the fact is real. States and organizations across the world come to resemble one another. New nations build the same ministries, write constitutions to the same template, found bureaus of statistics before they have statistics, set up environmental agencies at almost the same hour regardless of their forests. Meyer accounts for the convergence by a shared world culture. There is a global stock of models, of scripts, of rationalized myths about what a legitimate modern state and a rational organization and a proper individual look like, and actors across the planet enact these models. The Bolivian ministry and the Kazakh ministry rhyme because both enact one world-cultural model of the ministry. World society writes the script. The state performs it.
\nThis is Turner’s quarry in its purest form. The world model is the shared tacit object, raised from the group to the globe. Meyer never locates it in a head. He reads it off the convergence and then explains the convergence by it.
\nPress the carrier question first. Where is the world model, and who holds it. Name the head. A minister with an MBA from a Western school holds something. A consultant flown in from Geneva holds something. A clerk copying a constitution holds the document in his hands. A loan officer at a development bank holds a checklist of conditions. Each of these men has a history, a training, a route by which his disposition formed. None of them holds “world culture.” They hold the things world culture is supposed to explain, and they hold them by separate and traceable paths. The moment you ask which man carries the model and how it reached him, the single global object scatters into a crowd of individuals, each habituated on his own.
\nPress the sameness next. Meyer needs one model enacted everywhere, because one model is what turns scattered copying into a single global force. Turner denies him the one. The Bolivian ministry might come from a constitution photocopied in 1825. The Kazakh ministry might come from a Soviet template repainted after 1991. A third might come from a World Bank loan condition, a fourth from a minister who admired a school he attended abroad. Four ministries, four causal routes, four separate histories of acquisition. They converge in form. They share no inner object. Meyer takes the convergence as evidence of the model and then offers the model as the cause of the convergence. The world model adds nothing the convergence did not already contain. It renames the pattern in the vocabulary of culture and presents the renaming as an explanation.
\nNow the turn that breaks the case open. Look at what travels in Meyer’s strongest examples. Model laws travel. Treaty texts travel. Accreditation checklists, ISO standards, World Bank templates, consultant slide decks, syllabi, organizational charts: these travel. Every one of them is explicit. Every one is written down, copyable, teachable by rule, open to inspection. None of them is tacit. The things that diffuse across Meyer’s world are the opposite of tacit knowledge. They are codified artifacts that move from hand to hand because a man can read them and copy them without sharing anything beneath speech with the man he copies. Turner’s critique bites on the tacit. Meyer’s evidence consists of the explicit. The world culture he invokes to carry the diffusion is unnecessary the instant you notice that the carriers are documents and the men who copy them.
\nAnd where tacit competence would be required, Meyer records its absence and gives it a name. He calls it decoupling. The new ministry adopts the form and runs on something else. The audit office produces reports and the work proceeds by local habit. The form arrives and the function does not, because the form is a copyable artifact and the function is the tacit skill of running the thing, and the tacit skill does not ship. Decoupling is the fingerprint of a tacit that could not travel. Meyer reports the fingerprint on nearly every page and reads it as evidence of a shared world culture. Read through Turner it argues the reverse. What spreads is the explicit shell. What stays home, untransmitted, is the competence. There is no shared tacit object crossing the borders. There are documents crossing the borders and local men improvising the rest.
\nActorhood meets the same fate in fewer words. Meyer argues that world society constructs the modern individual, the self-managing rights-bearing agent, by handing him a global script. Turner asks for the script and the hand that passes it. The therapy industry, the resume convention, the school, the self-help shelf: each is a separate, explicit, individual-level training in how to present a self. Similar selves come out the far end. One global script is the postulate laid over the similarity, not a thing anyone has found inside the men.
\nWhat survives the frame, and what does not. The data survive in full. Convergence is real, counted across a hundred countries, documented past dispute. Turner takes nothing from the counting. What he takes is the explanans. World culture, the world model, the shared script: each is a collective tacit object posited to carry a regularity that explicit artifacts and separate individual histories already carry without it. Meyer found a pattern of the first rank and reached, to explain it, for the one kind of thing Turner shows cannot do the explaining. The pattern is his. The world culture is a placeholder wearing the pattern’s clothes.<\/p>\n

The Essence Called World Society<\/strong><\/p>\n

Stephen Turner’s<\/a> case against essentialism runs through his work on explanation in the social sciences. The target is a move social theorists make without noticing they have made it. A theorist observes regularities across many cases, then posits a single underlying entity whose nature produces them. The entity gets treated as real, as having properties, as exerting force. Society does this, culture demands that, the system requires the other. The plural becomes a singular. Many separate things acting in rough concert become one thing with a nature, and the nature is then offered as the cause of the concert. Turner’s objection is that the entity is a reification. The theorist has taken a summary of cases and granted it a being, then run the being back through the cases as their explanation. The essence is read off the regularity and then made to author it.
\nTurner’s deeper point is about what such an essence licenses. Once you grant the entity a nature, you can deduce. You can say what the entity will do, what it requires, what conforms to it and what violates it, because a nature has implications. The essence becomes a generator of necessities. And the necessities are the theorist’s, smuggled in under the entity’s name. The theorist who says the system requires X has supplied the requirement and assigned it to the system. The reified entity speaks, and the theorist’s voice comes out.
\nMeyer’s central object is built for this critique.
\nWorld society. World culture. The world polity. The terms name a single entity standing above all nations, holding a content, exerting force on every state inside it. Meyer does not present these as shorthand for many separate transactions. He presents them as a thing with properties. World society values rationality. World culture defines the legitimate state. The world polity expands, intensifies, constructs. The entity has a nature, and from the nature Meyer deduces. He can say what world society requires of a new nation, what it constructs, what it will not recognize, because he has granted it a content from which requirements follow.
\nWatch the reification assemble. Meyer begins with a regularity, the convergence of state forms, which is observed and counted. He needs a cause. He names world culture. So far this might be only a label for the regularity. But the label does not stay a label. It acquires a nature. World culture comes to contain definite things, the model of the rational state, the script of the autonomous individual, the value of human rights, the norm of environmental protection. And once it contains these things, Meyer reasons from the contents to the cases. A new ministry appears, and Meyer explains it by saying world culture defines a legitimate state as one that has such a ministry. The entity’s nature now produces the very regularity that was used to posit the entity. The circle closes. The convergence proves world culture, and world culture explains the convergence, and the content of world culture is whatever the convergence displays.
\nThe essentialist tell is the deduction. Meyer can say what world society demands before he looks. Given a domain, he can predict that world culture will hold a model for it, that states will adopt the model, that adoption will run ahead of capacity. The prediction has the feel of science and the structure of definition. World society is defined as the source of legitimate models. A legitimate model is defined as what world society holds. When a state adopts a form, the form is read as a world-cultural model, and its adoption as enactment. No state action can fail to confirm the scheme, because any common form is by definition a world-cultural model and any divergence is by definition local resistance to one. The essence has been built so that the cases cannot disturb it. Turner’s charge lands square. The nature of world society is the regularity wearing the mask of its own cause.
\nLook at where Meyer’s prose grants the entity agency, because the grammar is the giveaway. World society constructs the actor. World culture defines the state. The world polity legitimates the ministry. In each sentence the abstraction takes the verb. A summary of many separate copyings, loans, trainings, and treaty signings becomes a single agent that constructs and defines and legitimates. Turner reads these sentences as category errors dressed as findings. There is no agent named world society performing the constructing. There are many particular acts by many particular men and offices, summarized, and the summary has been promoted to an actor with a will. The promotion is the essentialism. The verb belongs to the theorist’s reification, not to anything in the field.
\nAnd the content of the essence is supplied, not found. This is Turner’s sharpest move and it applies cleanly here. When Meyer specifies what world culture contains, the contents arrive already sorted into the categories of a particular outlook. World culture values rationality, individual rights, formal organization, scientific authority, progress. These are not neutral readings of what every state happens to share. They are the commitments of a recognizable position, the liberal-rationalist self-understanding of the modern West, raised to the status of a global essence and then discovered, by the theorist, to be operating everywhere. Turner’s account predicts this. The reified entity ends up holding the theorist’s own normative furniture, because the theorist filled it. World society requires what Meyer’s tradition values, and the requirement returns to him as a finding about the world rather than a fact about his vocabulary.
\nThe criticism Meyer fielded from world-systems and realist scholars circles this. They said he understated power, overstated convergence, privileged the nation-state. Turner’s version cuts beneath all three. The trouble is not that Meyer weighted the factors wrong. The trouble is the entity. World society is a single essence posited above the cases, granted a nature, given agency in the grammar, and filled with a content drawn from the theorist’s own position, then run back through the cases as their cause. Correct the weighting and the essence remains. Turner asks you to dissolve it.
\nWhat dissolving costs and what it spares. The convergence stands, counted and real. The dissolution falls on the singular entity that was supposed to explain it. Take away world society as a thing with a nature and you are left with what was always there, a large number of states and offices and men adopting copyable forms along traceable routes, their adoptions summarized after the fact. The summary is useful. Meyer’s summary is among the most powerful in the discipline. The error is the last step, where the summary stops describing the cases and starts commanding them, where world culture stops being the name for what converged and becomes the reason it converged. Meyer found the convergence. He then gave it an essence and let the essence speak, and the essence said what his tradition already believed.<\/p>\n

The Ought Inside the Model<\/strong><\/p>\n

Stephen Turner’s<\/a> work on normativity, gathered in Explaining the Normative<\/em><\/a> (2010) and the essays around it, takes aim at a maneuver social theory cannot do without and cannot justify. Theorists invoke norms to explain conduct. People act as they do because a norm governs them, because a rule holds, because an obligation binds, because something is required, expected, legitimate, appropriate. The normative term carries the weight. It says the actor was not merely caused to act but bound to act, that a force with the character of an ought stood over the behavior.
\nTurner’s objection has two parts and they lock together. The first is causal. An ought is not the kind of thing that pushes a body. Obligations, requirements, legitimacies have no location and no leverage in the world of cause and effect. Whatever moves a man to act is some state in him, a belief, a habit, a fear, a trained expectation. The norm, the binding thing standing outside him, does no pushing. So when a theorist explains conduct by a norm, he has substituted a non-causal term for the causal facts and lost the explanation while seeming to give one. The second part is the smuggling. The normative term does not merely fail to explain. It imports a validity the theorist has not earned. To say an actor was bound by a norm is to grant that the norm had standing, that the ought was a real ought and not merely a belief held by some people. The theorist slides from describing what actors treat as obligatory to asserting that an obligation obtained. The description carried a fact about beliefs. The assertion carries a claim about validity, and the theorist never established it. He let the normative word carry it for him.
\nTurner’s corrective is austere. Replace the norm with the facts that can bear causal weight. Not the obligation but the men who believe themselves obligated. Not the legitimacy but the parties who treat a thing as legitimate and the trained dispositions by which they do. The ought dissolves into facts about what people accept, expect, and have been habituated to. What remains is describable and causal. What departs is the free-floating validity that did no work except to dignify the description.
\nMeyer’s vocabulary is built on the term Turner most distrusts. The term is legitimacy, and it does the load-bearing labor in every part of the system.
\nMeyer’s founding claim about organizations is normative through and through. Organizations adopt forms to gain legitimacy rather than to improve efficiency. The new ministry, the strategic plan, the audit office, the accreditation review: these confer legitimacy. The word names the prize. A form is taken up because it is legitimate, because it is the appropriate thing, because a proper modern organization is expected to have it. Strip the normative terms out of Meyer and the theory has no engine. Efficiency he can measure. Legitimacy is the ought he sets against it, the binding sense that an organization should look a certain way, and the should is the force he says moves the adoption.
\nRun Turner’s first cut, the causal one. Legitimacy moves nothing. A ministry does not adopt a form because the form is legitimate. Some men in some offices adopt it, and what moves them is a set of states inside them, the loan officer’s expectation, the minister’s training, the consultant’s checklist, the fear of being passed over for recognition or funds. These are facts and they have leverage. Legitimacy, the standing-over ought, has none. Meyer’s sentence says the form was adopted to gain legitimacy. The sentence reads as a cause and supplies none. It points at a non-causal abstraction where the causal facts, the beliefs and fears and trainings of particular men, are what did the work. Turner asks Meyer to name those facts and let legitimacy go. Meyer cannot, because legitimacy is the whole theory, and the theory is the substitution Turner forbids.
\nRun the second cut, the smuggling, and the deeper trouble shows. When Meyer says a state adopts a ministry to be legitimate, what can the word fairly carry. It can carry a description. Certain audiences, the funders, the diplomats, the professional class, treat states with such ministries as proper and states without them as backward, and states respond to the treatment. That is a fact about what powerful parties accept and what weaker parties expect from them. Turner grants it entirely. But Meyer’s word does more than describe the acceptance. It elevates it. Legitimate, in Meyer’s prose, stops meaning treated as proper by these audiences and starts meaning proper. The model is not merely the form these audiences reward. It is the legitimate form, the appropriate one, the standard a real modern state meets. The descriptive fact about whose approval is sought has slid into a normative claim about what a state ought to be, and the slide is exactly the one Turner names. Meyer began with what actors treat as obligatory and ended by writing as though an obligation obtained.
\nWatch the slide in the master concept, the rationalized myth. Meyer insists the word myth carries no insult, that he is not calling the forms invalid, only noting that the world honors them. This is the descriptive stance, and held to, it is clean. A myth is a form certain audiences reward, honored whether or not it works. But the theory will not stay there, because the work the concept does requires the normative charge. The forms are not merely rewarded. They are legitimate, appropriate, what a rational organization is supposed to have. The instant Meyer reaches for legitimate and appropriate to explain why the myth spreads, the honoring-by-some-audience has become a standing-over-everyone, and the descriptive myth has reacquired the ought Meyer claimed to have drained from it. Turner predicts this return. The normative word will not function as a pure description, because its explanatory power comes from the validity it carries, and the moment it explains it asserts the validity it was supposed to bracket.
\nActorhood completes the pattern in the sharpest form, because here the ought is total. Meyer says world society constructs the modern individual as an actor, a self responsible for his choices, accountable for his life, bearer of rights and duties. Every term is normative. Responsible, accountable, bearer of rights, duties: these are oughts, and Meyer presents them as the content world society installs. Turner’s question is what installs them and what they could mean as causes. Particular trainings install particular dispositions in particular men, the school, the clinic, the firm. The result is a man who treats himself as responsible. That is a fact about an acquired disposition. Meyer writes it as the construction of an actor who is responsible, and the difference is the whole of Turner’s complaint. Treats himself as obligated is a describable, causal fact about a habituated man. Is obligated is a validity claim the theory never grounds. Meyer’s actorhood runs on the second while pretending to report only the first.
\nThe criticism Meyer absorbed across his career missed this because it accepted his vocabulary. Critics asked whether legitimacy or power drove convergence, whether norms or interests ruled. They argued inside the normative frame, contesting which oughts and interests weighed more. Turner steps outside it. The question is not whether legitimacy or power explains the ministry. The question is whether legitimacy explains anything, whether an ought can stand in a causal account at all, and whether Meyer’s central term has been quietly converting a fact about whose approval states pursue into a claim about what a proper state is. The convergence is real and the audiences are real and their rewards are real and causal. Legitimacy, the ought Meyer set over the scene to bind the actors to the model, is the term that does no causal work and carries a validity he never earned. Take it out and name the funders, the trainings, the expectations, the fears, and the explanation survives. Leave it in and the theory explains conduct by an obligation, which is the one thing Turner shows an obligation cannot do.<\/p>\n

The Belief and Its Beneficiaries<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Stephen Turner, across his writing on expertise and ideology, presses a question most theory steps around. Set aside whether a belief is true. Ask what holding it does for the man who holds it<\/a>. Some beliefs persist because evidence forced them on careful minds. Others persist because they pay. They protect a position, justify a practice, flatter the holder, spare him a cost he would rather not carry, or hand his group a charter for the work it already does. Turner calls these convenient beliefs. The convenience explains the persistence better than any warrant, and the warrant, when you go looking for it, often turns out thinner than the conviction it supports.
\nThe frame supplies its own procedure. Name the belief. Name the believers. Ask what the belief does for them. Ask who would lose standing or income or self-regard if the belief were dropped. Ask what the believer is spared by holding it. A belief that flatters its holder, secures his livelihood, and cannot be embarrassed by any case is convenient three times over, and its survival owes nothing to its truth.
\nRun the procedure on Meyer.
\nHis master belief is this. Institutions spread across the world because a shared world culture defines what a legitimate state, organization, and person should look like, and actors enact those models to be recognized. Power does not drive the convergence. Efficiency does not drive it. Meaning drives it. The script comes first, and the script is cultural.
\nBegin with the obvious beneficiary, the one the theory is built around without naming him. World society, in Meyer’s account, runs on the production of models, scripts, standards, credentials, and norms. Someone produces these. The someone is a class, the people who staff the international organizations, the development banks, the universities, the accreditation bodies, the standards committees, the consultancies, the human rights secretariats. They write the templates that new states copy. They run the reviews that confer the recognition. Meyer’s theory tells this class that what they do is the engine of the modern world. Not the soldiers, not the financiers, not the men with the oil. The model-writers. The credential-givers. The convergence of the planet runs through their offices.
\nNo belief flatters a class more than the belief that its own product moves history. The development consultant flying to a capital with a template in his bag learns from Meyer that he carries the legitimate form of the modern state. The accreditation reviewer learns that his checklist is world culture in action. The professor of comparative education learns that the schooling he studies is the spread of a global model and that he, by mapping the model, reads the deepest layer of the age. The theory hands the producers of legitimacy the belief that legitimacy is what runs the world. The convenience is exact. A class committed to the belief that meaning rules, and that the class itself manufactures the meaning, has every reason to find the belief persuasive and few reasons to test it hard.
\nNow the closer beneficiary, the theorist. Believing that world culture and not power drives convergence pays Meyer in a particular coin. It makes cultural sociology the master science of globalization. The realist explains the world by guns and the world-systems scholar by extraction, and both require the analyst to dirty his hands, to take sides in a struggle, to say who is doing what to whom. Meyer’s belief spares him all of it. The script-reader takes no side. He sits above the contest and names the cultural forms the contestants share. The belief grants him the highest vantage in the room, the one captured by no faction, and it asks him to leave the seminar for nothing. He explains the whole planet from Palo Alto, and the explanation requires no power he must confront and no interest he must accuse. A theory that lets a man account for everything from his chair, take no side, and stand above all sides at once is convenient to the man in the chair.
\nConsider what the belief spares him beyond labor. If power drove the convergence, Meyer’s program would dissolve into the camps he defined himself against. The distinctiveness of the Stanford school rests on the claim that culture, not coercion, carries the diffusion. Abandon the claim and the founder of a school becomes a contributor to someone else’s. The school disbands into realism and political economy. The line of succession breaks. The doctorates from Bielefeld and Lucerne, the lifetime awards, the discipline’s high medal: these were given for a body of work whose load-bearing claim is that meaning rules. The cost of abandoning the belief is the dissolution of the position the belief built. Turner’s frame predicts that a belief carrying that cost of abandonment will be held with a conviction out of proportion to its proof, and Meyer held it for sixty years.
\nThe third convenience is that the belief cannot be embarrassed. A state adopts the model, and the adoption confirms world culture. A state declines the model, and the declining is local resistance to world culture, which presupposes the culture it resists. A state adopts the form and runs on something else, and Meyer calls that decoupling, which is world culture meeting local limits, and counts it as further confirmation. Every case feeds the belief. No case can starve it. Turner notes that a belief immune to disappointment serves its holder better than one exposed to it, because the holder never faces the cost of being wrong. Meyer’s scheme is built so that the world cannot disturb it. The convenience is structural. He never has to revise, because nothing he might see counts against the thing he believes.
\nPush to the beneficiary the theory describes from the inside, the new state itself. Meyer says the new nation builds the ministry to be legitimate. The nation has its own convenient belief, and Meyer’s theory ratifies it. The minister who copies the template can believe he is building a modern state rather than performing for the men who hold the loans. The belief that he enacts a legitimate global model is more comfortable than the belief that he dresses to please a creditor. Meyer’s account hands the performer the dignified description. The theory is convenient to its objects as well as to its authors, which is part of why the objects cooperate with it and why the data look so clean. Men supply the behavior the theory flatters.
\nWhat the frame does not claim. It does not claim the belief is false. Convenience and truth can coincide, and a self-serving belief might still be correct. The frame claims something narrower and harder to shake. The hold of the belief, the sixty-year conviction, the school, the immunity to counter-cases, is explained by what the belief does for the people who carry it, and not by any proof equal to the conviction. The convergence is real and counted. The claim that culture rather than power produced it is the convenient part, convenient to the class that makes the culture, convenient to the theorist who reads it, convenient to the states it dignifies, and protected by a structure that lets no case embarrass it. Ask Turner’s questions of that claim and the answers all point the same way. The belief pays its holders. That is the strongest thing keeping it in place.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

John W. Meyer (born 1935) is an American sociologist whose work reshaped the study of organizations, education, globalization, and institutional change. He founded world society theory and helped build sociological neo-institutionalism. His central argument cuts against the common view that … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[88],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-195992","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sociology"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t