Final answer:
The argument criticizes the view that institutions cannot be changed by citing the abolition of slavery as counter-evidence. However, it oversimplifies the process of institutional change, which often involves significant struggle, societal transformation, and the support of population. Justifying the abolition of slavery does not accurately reflect the complexity involved in modifying or dismantling entrenched institutions.
Step-by-step explanation:
The issue in the argument presented is an oversimplification of complex institutional change and a potential conflation of historical instances with modern realities. Just because an institution such as slavery was abolished does not mean that institutions change easily or without significant struggle, such as civil war, intense advocacy, and lasting societal impacts. The argument also seems to misinterpret institutional durability, ignoring the profound efforts and complex social dynamics needed to enact such changes.
Institutions adapt and evolve to meet changing conditions, such as the expansion across the American continent and the shift from frontier to city life. This adaptation is also shaped by the vital forces behind the institutions. The abolition of slavery required a multitude of factors, including changing political culture, constitutional amendments, and the challenging of entrenched societal views. Institutions hold power when they are supported by the people, and this change in public attitude can be a driving force behind institutional transformations.
Nonetheless, changes in political culture can be slow and difficult. The legacy of slavery and its institutional systems continues to influence current perceptions and the political landscape. Moreover, tackling global societal prejudices and attitudes requires a concerted effort by individuals willing to embrace facts and an ethos of citizenship rooted in decency, tolerance, and respect.