Student Activism and MLA: The Importance of Status and Function in Society
January 4, 2022
How do we find individual freedom, dignity, status and function in a society dominated by institutions that, to many, don’t seem to function effectively?
…it suddenly dawned on me that many of the young Americans now in college and graduate school are searching for an ethic based on personal (if not spiritual) values, rather than on social utility or community mores – what one might call an Ecumenical Ethic. The old ideologies and slogans leave these young adults cold…But there is a passionate groping for personal commitment to a philosophy of life. Above all, a new inner-directedness is all the rage in this group. Peter Drucker, “The Romantic Generation,” Harper’s Magazine, May 1966.
In doing research for a project, I revisited an article Drucker wrote about college students in the 1960s. Titled “The Romantic Generation,” this piece is Drucker’s musing about what was then referred to as “the generation gap.” Why were young people in the 1960s so different from college students in the 1950s, who were much less rebellious? I wanted to share some of Drucker’s insights from this article because many commentators today remark that college students in this era are increasingly rebellious and contentious. References to “wokeness” and “cancel culture” pepper commentaries, as voices argue that college students are intolerant of dissenting opinions and downright hostile toward freedom of speech. Do Drucker’s observations of young adults in the 1960s shed any light on the debates over discourse and student activism?
At the time of Drucker’s article, students were concerned with a number of social justice issues, including the civil rights movement and students’ rights. At the University of California, Berkeley, the Free Speech movement during the 1964-1965 academic year involved a student-led protest against a ban on on-campus political speech and activities. Fueled by the civil rights movement and later protests against the Viet Nam War, the Free Speech movement represented students’ rebellion against 1950s-era anti-Communist restrictions on First Amendment rights of young people. Universities and colleges were believed to be in loco parentis, or “in the place of a parent” with the power to limit young people’s rights for their own safety. Women were subject to curfews, and there were other significant restrictions on students’ private lives. The Free Speech movement at Berkeley was the death knell for in loco parentis on most college campuses, where students are now treated as adults.
But it was the civil rights movement that motivated students throughout the United States to engage in activism, often in ways that endangered their own lives. The Freedom Riders were groups of college students who protested segregation in the South. Students from Northern universities traveled to the Deep South in the summer of 1961 to work with activists from Southern colleges and universities to desegregate public transportation. White students would sit in areas on buses designated for black people, and black students would integrate into white seats. The events were nationally televised. When buses were burned and students beaten in places like Birmingham, Alabama, the whole world watched; in fact, the Soviet Union gleefully used television images of violent reactions to non-violent protests to denigrate capitalism. Then there were the Freedom Schools organized in 1964, the first one of which was in Mississippi. These free schools were designed to educate Southern blacks on their own history and organize them to achieve social, economic, and political equality. Drucker comments on this in his article: The young people are much closer in their views on civil rights to the abolitionists of a century ago than they are to yesterday’s liberals. The oppression of the Negro is to them a sin rather than a wrong. “We Shall Overcome” has the ring of a gospel hymn rather than that of a New Republic editorial. This explains in large part the tremendous impact the civil rights movement has had on the mood, vision, and worldview of the campus generation. In addition, civil rights has offered scope for individual initiative and effectiveness, something our society otherwise does not readily grant to men or women in their early twenties. There are students, white and coloured, who have gone South to teach in the Freedom Schools. There are the white college girls up North who in considerable numbers venture into the meanest Negro ghettos of the big cities to tutor or counsel, often entirely on their own. What caught my attention most about this part of Drucker’s discussion is his comment that the civil rights movement gave young people “scope for individual initiative and effectiveness” – In other words, status and function. Drucker rarely wrote about issues of race, gender, or social justice. But when he did, it was always in the context of his larger philosophy of a functioning society of institutions – the very philosophy that drives Management as a Liberal Art. Elsewhere in this article, Drucker sounds a bit like a cranky older person, complaining about the sentimentality of college students and reminiscing about his days as part of his own “romantic generation.” But his point is important: young people need to feel that they have a voice, a place, status and function. If they do not, they will turn on the very institutions that support them (universities and colleges). When Drucker comments that the students of his era are searching for “personal commitment to a philosophy of life” and are “inner-directed,” he is not being cheeky or critical. He is echoing his own young self who found meaning in the writings of the philosopher Kierkegaard. How can young people be part of a functioning society of institutions? Especially when those institutions seem to alienate those who are “inner-directed,” driven by values and morals rather than by the kudos and rewards offered by the outside world? Drucker’s own crisis revolved around the failure of every institution to stave off National Socialism. How could a young man have faith in society, or find meaning as an individual, when hope was seemingly lost? For, Drucker, Kierkegaard’s existentialism was the answer.
Young people in the 1960s faced a similar existential crisis, driven not by Nazis but by a sense of society’s moral failure. Despite the promises of freedom and equality embodied in America’s founding documents, the country still embraced segregation and racial intolerance. The Viet Nam war was evidence of Eisenhower’s “Military-Industrial complex,” a set of powerful institutions that seemed to pull the levers of society. A growing environmental awareness, spawned by Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring and its revelations about the dangers of DDT, showed young people that industrialization was poisoning the planet. As students in this era looked at the world around them, they saw not just political issues to discuss, but moral failings – as Drucker says, “sin.”
Today’s young people see, in many ways, a moral failure of society in epic proportions. Students are very engaged on social issues. A recent study by BestColleges shows that over 70 percent of today’s students are motivated by social justice issues and are acting on those impulses . Topics that most concern students include racial justice, climate change, gun control, and gender equality. The murder of George Floyd sparked a widespread movement against police violence against Black Americans. Anti-Asian hate crime rose 73 percent in 2020 . On November 30th, 2021, a 15-year-old student opened fire on his fellow classmates and teachers with a gun his parents had bought him for Christmas, wounding seven and killing four. As I write this, it is the ninth anniversary of the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting, where a 20-year-old shot 26 people, including 20 children. Gymnasts abused by Larry Nassar, team doctor for the U.S. Olympic Gymnastics Team, reached a $380 million settlement with U.S. Olympic organizations. Climate change has been linked to a number of extreme events in recent months ( https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/17/climate/climate-change-wildfire-risk.html , https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/21/weather/hurricane-henri-climate-change/index.html ). So, yes, the ills of society weigh heavily on young people, and some generations seem to feel this weight more than others.
Drucker concludes his essay with some food for thought: But a society of big organizations also raises in new and acute form the question of the person. What is his relationship to these new leviathans which are at one and the same time his servants and his master, his opportunity and his restraint, his tool and his environment? How can the individual maintain his integrity and privacy in such a society? Is individual freedom necessarily limited to whatever small air space will be left between the towering organizational skyscrapers? In such a society of big organizations, the need becomes more urgent for new answers to the old questions: “Who am I?” “What am I?” “What should I be?” …For once today’s young-adult fashions may foretell the concerns, and refigure the intellectual landscape, of tomorrow.
I keep coming back to Drucker’s remarks about students needing function and status, and how, in a society of big organizations, the questions about individual meaning loom large. For here, Drucker is telling us that students may be signaling views that others in society share. As a social ecologist, Drucker is looking at student activism as a possible “change that has already happened.” Is society as a whole moving towards more concern for the role that the “new leviathans” play? In other words, how could everyone, not just students, find status and function as large organizations played an increasingly important role in society? If institutions control every aspect of my life, where is the room for individual freedom? Is the “small air space” outside of institutions? Or can we find status and function within organizations (which is key to Management as a Liberal Art)?
I can see how this desire for “integrity,” “privacy” and “individual freedom” play a role in today’s student activism. The Parkland, Florida shootings in 2018 catapulted high school students to the forefront of gun control advocacy. Despair over the killing of George Floyd and many other black men at the hands of police officers sparked the Black Lives Matter protests that were particularly visible in the summer of 2020. Teenagers and young adults are some of the most prominent activists fighting to avert climate change. As was the case in the 1960s, young people point to previous generations’ failure and abdication of responsibility for solving these problems. And, as was the case in the 1960s, the tactics that young people use to protest are not always welcomed by larger society. Southerners viewed the Freedom Riders of 1961 as troublemakers, not moral activists. Attempts to curtail inflammatory presenters on college campuses and protestors shouting down speakers at events in today’s climate look like limitations on freedom of speech. When viewed through the lens of Management as a Liberal Art and social ecology, however, we can see how student activism is perhaps a symptom of a larger problem: how do we find individual freedom, dignity, status and function in a society dominated by institutions that, to many, don’t seem to function effectively? Management as a Liberal Art can help us answer these big questions.
In doing research for a project, I revisited an article Drucker wrote about college students in the 1960s. Titled “The Romantic Generation,” this piece is Drucker’s musing about what was then referred to as “the generation gap.” Why were young people in the 1960s so different from college students in the 1950s, who were much less rebellious? I wanted to share some of Drucker’s insights from this article because many commentators today remark that college students in this era are increasingly rebellious and contentious. References to “wokeness” and “cancel culture” pepper commentaries, as voices argue that college students are intolerant of dissenting opinions and downright hostile toward freedom of speech. Do Drucker’s observations of young adults in the 1960s shed any light on the debates over discourse and student activism?
At the time of Drucker’s article, students were concerned with a number of social justice issues, including the civil rights movement and students’ rights. At the University of California, Berkeley, the Free Speech movement during the 1964-1965 academic year involved a student-led protest against a ban on on-campus political speech and activities. Fueled by the civil rights movement and later protests against the Viet Nam War, the Free Speech movement represented students’ rebellion against 1950s-era anti-Communist restrictions on First Amendment rights of young people. Universities and colleges were believed to be in loco parentis, or “in the place of a parent” with the power to limit young people’s rights for their own safety. Women were subject to curfews, and there were other significant restrictions on students’ private lives. The Free Speech movement at Berkeley was the death knell for in loco parentis on most college campuses, where students are now treated as adults.
But it was the civil rights movement that motivated students throughout the United States to engage in activism, often in ways that endangered their own lives. The Freedom Riders were groups of college students who protested segregation in the South. Students from Northern universities traveled to the Deep South in the summer of 1961 to work with activists from Southern colleges and universities to desegregate public transportation. White students would sit in areas on buses designated for black people, and black students would integrate into white seats. The events were nationally televised. When buses were burned and students beaten in places like Birmingham, Alabama, the whole world watched; in fact, the Soviet Union gleefully used television images of violent reactions to non-violent protests to denigrate capitalism. Then there were the Freedom Schools organized in 1964, the first one of which was in Mississippi. These free schools were designed to educate Southern blacks on their own history and organize them to achieve social, economic, and political equality. Drucker comments on this in his article: The young people are much closer in their views on civil rights to the abolitionists of a century ago than they are to yesterday’s liberals. The oppression of the Negro is to them a sin rather than a wrong. “We Shall Overcome” has the ring of a gospel hymn rather than that of a New Republic editorial. This explains in large part the tremendous impact the civil rights movement has had on the mood, vision, and worldview of the campus generation. In addition, civil rights has offered scope for individual initiative and effectiveness, something our society otherwise does not readily grant to men or women in their early twenties. There are students, white and coloured, who have gone South to teach in the Freedom Schools. There are the white college girls up North who in considerable numbers venture into the meanest Negro ghettos of the big cities to tutor or counsel, often entirely on their own. What caught my attention most about this part of Drucker’s discussion is his comment that the civil rights movement gave young people “scope for individual initiative and effectiveness” – In other words, status and function. Drucker rarely wrote about issues of race, gender, or social justice. But when he did, it was always in the context of his larger philosophy of a functioning society of institutions – the very philosophy that drives Management as a Liberal Art. Elsewhere in this article, Drucker sounds a bit like a cranky older person, complaining about the sentimentality of college students and reminiscing about his days as part of his own “romantic generation.” But his point is important: young people need to feel that they have a voice, a place, status and function. If they do not, they will turn on the very institutions that support them (universities and colleges). When Drucker comments that the students of his era are searching for “personal commitment to a philosophy of life” and are “inner-directed,” he is not being cheeky or critical. He is echoing his own young self who found meaning in the writings of the philosopher Kierkegaard. How can young people be part of a functioning society of institutions? Especially when those institutions seem to alienate those who are “inner-directed,” driven by values and morals rather than by the kudos and rewards offered by the outside world? Drucker’s own crisis revolved around the failure of every institution to stave off National Socialism. How could a young man have faith in society, or find meaning as an individual, when hope was seemingly lost? For, Drucker, Kierkegaard’s existentialism was the answer.
Young people in the 1960s faced a similar existential crisis, driven not by Nazis but by a sense of society’s moral failure. Despite the promises of freedom and equality embodied in America’s founding documents, the country still embraced segregation and racial intolerance. The Viet Nam war was evidence of Eisenhower’s “Military-Industrial complex,” a set of powerful institutions that seemed to pull the levers of society. A growing environmental awareness, spawned by Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring and its revelations about the dangers of DDT, showed young people that industrialization was poisoning the planet. As students in this era looked at the world around them, they saw not just political issues to discuss, but moral failings – as Drucker says, “sin.”
Today’s young people see, in many ways, a moral failure of society in epic proportions. Students are very engaged on social issues. A recent study by BestColleges shows that over 70 percent of today’s students are motivated by social justice issues and are acting on those impulses . Topics that most concern students include racial justice, climate change, gun control, and gender equality. The murder of George Floyd sparked a widespread movement against police violence against Black Americans. Anti-Asian hate crime rose 73 percent in 2020 . On November 30th, 2021, a 15-year-old student opened fire on his fellow classmates and teachers with a gun his parents had bought him for Christmas, wounding seven and killing four. As I write this, it is the ninth anniversary of the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting, where a 20-year-old shot 26 people, including 20 children. Gymnasts abused by Larry Nassar, team doctor for the U.S. Olympic Gymnastics Team, reached a $380 million settlement with U.S. Olympic organizations. Climate change has been linked to a number of extreme events in recent months ( https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/17/climate/climate-change-wildfire-risk.html , https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/21/weather/hurricane-henri-climate-change/index.html ). So, yes, the ills of society weigh heavily on young people, and some generations seem to feel this weight more than others.
Drucker concludes his essay with some food for thought: But a society of big organizations also raises in new and acute form the question of the person. What is his relationship to these new leviathans which are at one and the same time his servants and his master, his opportunity and his restraint, his tool and his environment? How can the individual maintain his integrity and privacy in such a society? Is individual freedom necessarily limited to whatever small air space will be left between the towering organizational skyscrapers? In such a society of big organizations, the need becomes more urgent for new answers to the old questions: “Who am I?” “What am I?” “What should I be?” …For once today’s young-adult fashions may foretell the concerns, and refigure the intellectual landscape, of tomorrow.
I keep coming back to Drucker’s remarks about students needing function and status, and how, in a society of big organizations, the questions about individual meaning loom large. For here, Drucker is telling us that students may be signaling views that others in society share. As a social ecologist, Drucker is looking at student activism as a possible “change that has already happened.” Is society as a whole moving towards more concern for the role that the “new leviathans” play? In other words, how could everyone, not just students, find status and function as large organizations played an increasingly important role in society? If institutions control every aspect of my life, where is the room for individual freedom? Is the “small air space” outside of institutions? Or can we find status and function within organizations (which is key to Management as a Liberal Art)?
I can see how this desire for “integrity,” “privacy” and “individual freedom” play a role in today’s student activism. The Parkland, Florida shootings in 2018 catapulted high school students to the forefront of gun control advocacy. Despair over the killing of George Floyd and many other black men at the hands of police officers sparked the Black Lives Matter protests that were particularly visible in the summer of 2020. Teenagers and young adults are some of the most prominent activists fighting to avert climate change. As was the case in the 1960s, young people point to previous generations’ failure and abdication of responsibility for solving these problems. And, as was the case in the 1960s, the tactics that young people use to protest are not always welcomed by larger society. Southerners viewed the Freedom Riders of 1961 as troublemakers, not moral activists. Attempts to curtail inflammatory presenters on college campuses and protestors shouting down speakers at events in today’s climate look like limitations on freedom of speech. When viewed through the lens of Management as a Liberal Art and social ecology, however, we can see how student activism is perhaps a symptom of a larger problem: how do we find individual freedom, dignity, status and function in a society dominated by institutions that, to many, don’t seem to function effectively? Management as a Liberal Art can help us answer these big questions.
Peter Drucker’s memoir, Adventures of a Bystander, is a self-portrait of a most unusual kind. It reveals its subject not through direct autobiography, but through a series of incisive portraits of the people he encountered throughout a tumultuous life. Drucker positions himself as a "bystander," but this is no passive observer. Instead, he is an intellectual portraitist whose careful study of others becomes the very method by which he comes to understand himself and the fractured world he inhabited.
This essay was inspired by an article recently published by Karen Linkletter and Pooya Tabesh (2025). They were in search of the meaning of “decision” in the works of Peter Drucker. To this end, they used Python to identify and locate all the times the word, “decision”, came up in Peter Drucker’s oeuvre . They then characterized the contexts (“themes”) in which the word came up. The result was a nuanced but very clear characterization of the evolution of his thinking on the topic. Here, we will focus on a key theme for Drucker: the case where your decisions involve other people’s decisions and actions . For present purposes, we can start with their statement: One of Drucker’s valuable contributions to the literature on decision-making is his adamance that implementation be built into the decision-making process.” (Linkletter and Tabesh 2025 8) To be clear, “…it is not a surprise that his integration of implementation of and commitment to decisions is part of his process of decision-making. He argues that a decision “has not been made until it has been realized in action.” (2025 8) The question, therefore, is how to make this happen, how to turn an organization from an aggregate of individuals whose decisions may or may not be aligned, into an agent—an entity that makes decisions, implements them, and then ascertains that what was done was, in fact, what was decided, as we try to do when making purely individual decisions. Let’s look at the matter more closely… A few years ago, I read a story about a road crew that was painting a double-yellow line on a highway. In their path was a dead raccoon that had been hit by a car or truck. It was lying right in the middle of the road. The crew didn’t stop. Someone later took a picture of the dead raccoon with a double-yellow line freshly painted right over it. The picture is below. It went viral on the Internet.
When Paul Polman became CEO of Unilever in 2009, he did not inherit a troubled company. He stepped into a large global enterprise with familiar consumer brands that sat on shelves in cities from Amsterdam to Manila. Even with that scale and reach, the business rested on foundations that were beginning to crack. Public faith in multinational firms was fading, climate change was moving from a distant worry to a financial reality, and investors were increasingly locked into the rhythm of quarterly results that encouraged short term decisions and discouraged real strategy.
Peter Drucker suggested that readers view his first three books as a unified body of work: The End of Economic Man(1939), The Future of Industrial Man (1942), and Concept of the Corporation (1946). These works share a common theme: politics. Drucker did not think about politics like scholars who strictly follow modern social science norms. Instead, he viewed politics as part of social ecology and understood political events through the dynamic changes in social ecology. Despite having "corporation" in its title and using General Motors as a case study, Concept of the Corporation is indeed a book about politics. In this work, Drucker attempts to address the main issues that industrial society must resolve: the legitimacy of managerial authority, the status and function of managers and workers, and the power structure of society and organizations. In Drucker's own words, this is a book exploring the specific principles of industrial society. Corresponding to these specific social principles, Drucker had earlier attempted to develop a general social theory, which was the aim of The End of Economic Man and The Future of Industrial Man. The subtitle of The End of Economic Man is "The Origins of Totalitarianism." The book focuses on how society disintegrates in industrial societies and how totalitarianism rises. For Drucker, the real challenge of this topic isn't explaining how Hitler and Mussolini came to power, nor the actions of Germany and Italy in government, military, and economic spheres. Rather, it's understanding why some Europeans accepted clearly absurd totalitarian ideologies, and why others seemed potentially receptive to them. Drucker's writing style is argumentative. He clearly knew that to effectively advance his arguments, he needed to engage with popular theories of his time. Back then, there were two main explanatory approaches to Nazism and Fascism, which Drucker termed "illusions." Some viewed totalitarianism as ordinary political turmoil similar to previous historical revolutions. In their view, totalitarianism was characterized merely by cruelty, disruption of order, propaganda, and manipulation. Others considered totalitarianism a phenomenon unique to Germany and Italy, related to their specific national characters. Drucker thoroughly refuted explanations based on "national character." He believed that any historical approach appealing to "national character" was pseudo-history. Such theories always emphasize that certain events were inevitable in certain places. But all claims of "inevitability" negate human free will and thus deny politics: without human choice, there is no politics. If the rise of totalitarianism were inevitable, there would be no need or possibility to oppose it. Viewing totalitarianism as an ordinary revolution is equally dangerous. This thinking merely emphasizes how bad Nazis and Fascists were. But the real issue is that Europeans were not merely submitting out of fear—they were actually attracted to totalitarianism. And those attracted weren't just the ignorant masses but also well-educated intellectual elites, especially the younger generation. The world cannot defeat totalitarianism through contempt alone, especially if that contempt stems from ignorance. Understanding the enemy is a prerequisite to defeating it. Drucker identified three main characteristics of Nazism and Fascism (totalitarianism is a social type, with Nazism and Fascism being its representatives in industrialized Europe): 1. The complete rejection of freedom and equality, which are the core beliefs of European civilization, without offering any positive alternative beliefs. 2. The complete rejection of the promise of legitimate power. Power must have legitimacy—this is a long-standing tradition in European politics. For power to have legitimacy means that it makes a commitment to the fundamental beliefs of civilization. Totalitarianism denied all European beliefs, thereby liberating power from the burden of responsibility. 3. The discovery and exploitation of mass psychology: in times of absolute despair, the more absurd something is, the more people are willing to believe it. The End of Economic Man develops a diagnosis of totalitarianism around these three characteristics. Drucker offers a deeper insight: totalitarianism is actually a solution to many chronic problems in industrial society. At a time when European industrial society was on the verge of collapse, totalitarians at least identified the problems and offered some solutions. This is why they possessed such magical appeal. Why did totalitarianism completely reject the basic beliefs of European civilization? Drucker's answer: neither traditional capitalism nor Marxist socialism could fulfill their promises of freedom and equality. "Economic Man" in Drucker's book has a different meaning than in Adam Smith's work. "Economic Man" refers to people living in capitalist or socialist societies who believe that through economic progress, a free and equal world would "automatically" emerge. The reality was that capitalism's economic freedom exacerbated social inequality, while socialism not only failed to eliminate inequality but created an even more rigid privileged class. Since neither capitalism nor socialism could "automatically" realize freedom and equality, Europeans lost faith in both systems. Simultaneously, they lost faith in freedom and equality themselves. Throughout European history, people sought freedom and equality in different social domains. In the 19th century, people projected their pursuit of freedom and equality onto the economic sphere. The industrial realities of the 20th century, along with the Great Depression and war, shattered these hopes. People didn't know where else to look for freedom and equality. The emerging totalitarianism offered a subversive answer: freedom and equality aren't worth pursuing; race and the leader are the true beliefs. Why did totalitarianism reject the promise of power legitimacy? One reason was that political power abandoned its responsibility to European core beliefs. Another reason came from the new realities of industrial society. Drucker held a lifelong view: the key distinction between industrial society and 19th-century commercial society was the separation of ownership and management. The role of capitalists was no longer important. Those who truly dominated the social industrial sphere were corporate managers and executives. These people effectively held decisive power but had not gained political and social status matching their power. When a class's power and political status don't match, it doesn't know how to properly use its power. Drucker believed this was a problem all industrial societies must solve. Totalitarianism keenly perceived this issue. The Nazis maintained property rights for business owners but brought the management of factories and companies under government control. This way, social power and political power became unified. This unified power was no longer restricted or regulated—it became the rule itself. Why could totalitarianism make the masses believe absurd things? Because Europeans had nothing left to believe in. Each individual can only understand society and their own life when they have status and function. Those thrown out of normal life by the Great Depression and war lost their status and function. For them, society was a desperate dark jungle. Even those who temporarily kept their jobs didn't know the meaning of their current life. The Nazi system could provide a sense of meaning in this vacuum of meaning—though false, it was timely. Using the wartime economic system, the Nazis created stable employment in a short time. In the Nazi industrial system, both business owners and workers were exploited. But outside the industrial production system, Nazis created various revolutionary organizations and movements. In those organizations and movements, poor workers became leaders, while business owners and professors became servants. In the hysterical revolutionary fervor, people regained status and function. Economic interests were no longer important, freedom and equality were no longer important; being involved in the revolution (status) and dying for it (function) became life's meaning. The Nazis replaced the calm and shrewd "Economic Man" with the hysterical "Heroic Man." Though absurd, this new concept of humanity had appeal. What people needed was not rationality but a sense of meaning that could temporarily fill the void. Those theorists who despised totalitarianism only emphasized its evil. Drucker, however, emphasized its appeal. He viewed totalitarianism as one solution to the crisis of industrial society. From 19th-century commercial society to 20th-century industrial society, the reality of society changed dramatically. 19th-century ideas, institutions, and habits could not solve 20th-century problems. Capitalism could not fulfill its promises about freedom and equality, and neither could Marxism. It was at this point that totalitarianism emerged. Nazism and Fascism attempted to build a new society in a way completely different from European civilization. Drucker said the real danger was not that they couldn't succeed, but that they almost did. They addressed the relationship between political power and social power, proposed alternative beliefs to freedom and equality (though only negative ones), and on this basis provided social members with new status and function. The war against totalitarianism cannot be waged merely through contempt. Defeating totalitarianism is not just a battlefield matter. Those who hate totalitarianism and love freedom must find better solutions than totalitarianism to build a normally functioning and free industrial society. Totalitarianism gave wrong and evil answers. But they at least asked the right questions. Industrial society must address several issues: the legitimacy of power (government power and social power), individual status and function, and society's basic beliefs. These issues became the fundamental threads in Drucker's exploration of industrial society reconstruction in The Future of Industrial Man. The Future of Industrial Man: From Totalitarian Diagnosis to General Social Theory Both The End of Economic Man and The Future of Industrial Man feature the prose style of 19th-century historians. Even today, readers can appreciate the author's profound historical knowledge and wise historical commentary. For today's readers, the real challenge of these two books lies in Drucker's theoretical interests. He doesn't simply narrate history but organizes and explains historical facts using his unique beliefs and methods. In The End of Economic Man, Drucker developed his diagnosis of totalitarianism around three issues: power legitimacy, individual status-function, and society's basic beliefs. In The Future of Industrial Man, he also constructs a general social theory around these three issues. In "What Is A Functioning Society," Drucker explains three sets of tensions that exist in social ecology:
Last semester, two students approached me to advise their AI-based graduate projects at a time when no one else in the department was available or willing to take them on. Our department lacked sufficient faculty with software or AI specialization at the time to support the growing number of requests in this area.
When Marc Benioff founded Salesforce in 1999, Silicon Valley had a pretty straightforward playbook which was technological disruption at any cost. Profit, scale, and market capture dominated corporate ambition. Benioff, who worked under Steve Jobs at Apple and explored Buddhist philosophy, was not satisfied with that approach. He envisioned a company that would not only revolutionize enterprise software through the cloud but also redefine the social purpose of business itself. His leadership at Salesforce reflects Peter Drucker's concept of Management as a Liberal Art (MLA). This idea holds that management is not just about efficiency or growth, but about making work human, creating meaning, and building institutions that serve society (Drucker, 1989).
What is Soft Power?
Previously, I shared de Tocqueville’s concept of equality of condition and how it is manifesting in today’s perception that democracy has failed to deliver on its promise of economic and social equality for all. Promises of economic equality are impossible to fulfill; but democratic societies can and should offer all of their members dignity and a sense of purpose. In this final installment, I’ll share de Tocqueville’s prescriptions for shoring up the institutions of a democratic society – as well as some of his warnings about challenges that democracies face.
Over the past two decades, there has been a discernible shift in the professional workforce. Increasingly, individuals have chosen to leave traditional corporate environments in favor of smaller ventures, entrepreneurial efforts, and purpose-driven careers. This migration has been fueled by a desire for greater autonomy, meaningful impact, and freedom from the rigidity of hierarchical organizational structures. As the world continues to undergo sweeping changes—economic, technological, and social—professionals are finding themselves at a crossroads. The COVID-19 pandemic only accelerated this reckoning, forcing people across industries to reevaluate their relationship with work, identity, and independence.
In Part I of this series, I gave a brief overview of Alexis de Tocqueville’s background and project of evaluating American Democracy in the early 19 th century. In this new installment, I’d like to share de Tocqueville’s observations about the nature of equality in America and how what he saw might help us understand some of the challenges democracies face today.
