Validation as a Binding Condition of Operative Reality
Institutional Admissibility in Social Ontology
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37329/ijms.v4i1.5300Keywords:
Validation, Operative reality, Admissibility, Recognition, AuthorityAbstract
Institutional systems repeatedly generate a structural divergence between intrinsic adequacy and institutional operability. Entities possessing coherent structure, competence, or evidential support frequently remain unable to circulate within organized domains, while other entities continue to generate authoritative consequences despite contested intrinsic adequacy. This asymmetry indicates that institutional operability is not governed by epistemic truth, causal capability, or intrinsic properties alone. The operative condition lies in admission. Within institutional systems capable of enforceable recognition, entities become effective only after passing the admission threshold that authorizes participation in the domain’s decision structure. The present analysis develops a social-ontological model specifying validation as the binding condition of institutional admissibility. The investigation proceeds through analytical reconstruction of institutional mechanisms combined with comparative conceptual illustration across three structurally distinct domains: monetary circulation, professional jurisdiction, and scientific publication. These domains isolate the distinction between intrinsic reality, defined as the material, semantic, or causal constitution of entities, and operative reality, defined as the authorization under which entities may function within institutional systems regulating participation, responsibility, and circulation. The analysis establishes that institutional systems stabilize action through validation regimes governing admissibility rather than through direct evaluation of intrinsic adequacy. Validation admits entities into the domain’s operative field and thereby permits circulation, authority, and responsibility allocation. Withdrawal of validation produces immediate institutional inoperability while intrinsic properties remain unchanged. This discontinuity shows that institutional efficacy depends on admission status rather than intrinsic capability, establishing operative reality through validation within social systems.
References
Abbott, A. (1988). The system Of Professions: An Essay On The Division Of Expert Labor. The University of Chicago Press.
Andrews, A. O. (1993). Review of The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(4), 691-693.
Barinaga, E. (2026). From Evaluation to Valorising: Three Moments in the Making of Social Impact Value. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 17(1), 28-52.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York City: Anchor Books.
Brown, P. (2001). Skill Formation In The Twenty-First Century. Oxford University Press.
Carruthers, B. G., & Stinchcombe, A. L. (1999). The Social Structure of Liquidity: Flexibility, Markets, and States. Theory and Society, 28(3), 353-382.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (2000). The Iron Cage Revisited Institutional Isomorphism And Collective Rationality In Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2).
Douglas, M. (1986). How Institutions Think. Syracuse University Press.
Espeland, W. N., & Sauder, M. (2007). Rankings and Reactivity: How Public Measures Recreate Social Worlds. American Journal of Sociology, 113(1), 1-40.
Fourcade, M., & Gordon, J. (2020). Learning Like a State: Statecraft in the Digital Age. Journal of Law and Political Economy, 1(1).
Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science From Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781-795.
Gieryn, T. F. (1999). Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility On The Line. University of Chicago Press.
Görke, A., & Scholl, A. (2006). Niklas Luhmann’s Theory of Social Systems and Journalism Research. Journalism Studies, 7(4), 644-655.
Guardiola-Rivera, O. (2003). The Question Concerning Law. The Modern Law Review, 66(5), 792-808.
Habermas, J. (2006). Political Communication in Media Society: Does Democracy Still Enjoy an Epistemic Dimension? The Impact of Normative Theory on Empirical Research. Communication Theory, 16(4), 411-426.
Hall, P. A., & Taylor, R. C. (1996). Political Science And The Three New Institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44(5), 936-957.
Jasanoff, S. (2004). States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order. London: Routledge.
Johns, F. (2019). From Planning to Prototypes: New Ways of Seeing Like a State. The Modern Law Review, 82(5), 833-863.
Kelsen, H. (2017). General Theory of Law and State. London: Routledge.
Krippner, G. R. (2001). The Elusive Market: Embeddedness and the Paradigm of Economic Sociology. Theory and Society, 30(6), 775-810.
Löhlein, L., & Huber, C. (2022). The End Of Audit. Spectacle And Love In The Audit Society. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 21(1), 65-76.
Luhmann, N. (2008). Law as a Social System. Oxford University Press.
Mahajan, R., Aruldhas, B. W., Sharma, M., Badyal, D. K., & Singh, T. (2016). Professionalism And Ethics: A Proposed Curriculum For Undergraduates. International Journal of Applied and Basic Medical Research, 6(3), 157-163.
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (2008). The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy. Oxford University Press.
Mashaw, J. L. (1983). Bureaucratic Justice: Managing Social Security Disability Claims. New Haven: Yale University Press.
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change And Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press.
Paulson, S. L. (2019). The Neo-Kantian Dimension of Kelsen’s Legal Theory and its Limits. Analisi e Diritto, 19(2), 11-30.
Polanyi, K. (2001). The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. Boston: Beacon Press.
Porter, T. M. (1995). Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Power, M. K. (2003). Auditing And The Production Of Legitimacy. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(4), 379-394.
Simmel, G. (1978). The Philosophy of Money. London: Routledge.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571-610.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ye Si Thu Aung
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with International Journal of Multidisciplinary Sciences agree to the following terms: Authors retain copyright and grant the International Journal of Multidisciplinary Sciences right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share (copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format) and adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material) the work for any purpose, even commercially with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in International Journal of Multidisciplinary Sciences. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in International Journal of Multidisciplinary Sciences. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
