The three of them define one's society but organization changes along technology and mythology.
In the Kuhm paradigm "paradigm", scientific revolutions have to do with cahnges of a whole set of scientific narratives.. this same thing happens when there is a change in one or more structural marratives or mythologies.

However, institutions can be reformed or adapted to new structural narratives as you say. So my focus was on narratives.
I do not mean to downplay the importance of instutional effect in our present paradigm. But their main effect is to slow down change outside it, following the changes within it (change everythign so that everything can remain the same).

Furthermore, the proper narrative  (even the non-structural) can generate new institutions more often than the other way around.

I see the introduction of the euro as an institution created by a narrative to fortify and try to make this narrative structural.

So, although my focus is somehow different let me repeat Brit's sentence and eco your feeling.. buy media...or create media or create instituion to spread or to fix those narrative..

Other than that, the only point I would disagree with you is about the idea that normally changes in narrative or institutions appear because the  previous one is seem as "failing"...

Here I do not agree, in some cases yes in others not (it probably depends on the topic).. I do not see how the pre-Shakespeare elite "feeling" mythology could be seen as failing in any sense. Actually, it was working pretty well..Of course Shakespeare was amazing compared to previous mythology, but I would not say that the previous one was seen as failing before the new paradigm of "feelings" came in.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude