Part II: Knowledge Work in a Post-Capitalist Society

Karen Linkletter Ph.D.

PUBLISHED:

February 7, 2025

“What does ‘Capitalism’ mean when Knowledge governs – rather than Money? And what do ‘Free Markets’ mean when knowledge workers – and no one else can ‘own’ knowledge – are the true assets?”  (Peter Drucker, 1999).  This issue of my newsletter focuses on features of today’s knowledge work, and what knowledge work might look like in the future. In part one, I discussed some of the challenges associated with measuring knowledge worker productivity. In this installment, I’ll take up Drucker’s concept of “Post-Capitalist Society” and what it might mean for knowledge work in the 21st century.


Fear not; this will not be an academic treatise on Marx or Marxism. But central to an understanding of our knowledge-based society is some sense of how previous industrial society was configured and structured. As I argued in the last installment of this newsletter, part of our difficulty with measuring knowledge worker productivity is that we still use the language of industrial capitalism: we measure productivity in terms of output, particularly in quantity. We lack a more modern understanding of what productivity looks like. Why?


Marx and Capitalism

Marx saw capitalism as a stage in history, as part of a larger pageant of human conflict. In The German Ideology (1845), Marx critiques the idealism of German philosophy as locked in the realm of thought instead of material reality. It is time, he argues, for German philosophers to stop simply criticizing each other regarding implications of spiritual matters (the nature of knowledge, etc.) but rather to address the realities of material life. Marx was reacting to the decline of Hegelian thought, and transformed Hegel’s spiritual dialectic model into dialectical materialism. For Hegel, human development was a process of conflict at the spiritual level, when human understanding is challenged by contradicting experiences and events, leading to a new level of awareness, all guided by “Geist”. Marx took this out of the spiritual realm and grounded it in worldly events; his dialectic model was still one of human transformation and development, but it morphed into a model of class conflict. Dialectical materialism involved observable conflicts in social conditions and economic status that would then be acted upon to create a new social order.


Like Drucker, Marx was a social theorist, and was reacting to the dramatic changes he saw happening in his time. Marx and his associate Engels observed the transformation from a rural to an industrial society and the associated social upheavals. Marx and Engels focused on the shift from an economy where value was derived from labor to one that relied on machines and money (capital) to produce the material needs of human beings. The culmination of their efforts was Marx’s massive work, The Capital (Das Kapital), published in three volumes in 1867, 1884, and 1894. The work is an intricate analysis of capitalism as an economic system as well as a social structure. There is no substitute for actually reading the text, but, for our purposes here, Marx had several key points that are germane to our discussion of today’s knowledge society:


1.     Labor theory of value: Marx challenged utilitarian viewpoints of value, stating that the value of products lies not in their satisfaction of human wants, but in the human labor used to produce them. Value is in production, not in the end-user’s perception of value.

2.     Ownership of means of production: In earlier rural societies (at least those with free labor), labor owned the means of production (its own work). Under capitalism, a ruling class owned the machinery and financial instruments (the capital) necessary to production. They also, in fact, own the labor, as workers no longer have a say in their hours, working conditions, etc. Owners derive unearned income from the labor of workers who are under their control.

3.     Alienation: The process of industrial production involves an increasing deskilling of work, meaning workers have less of an association with the larger purpose of the process or output. As labor is divided into more specialized functions, there is increased alienation.

4.     Dialectical materialism: As capitalism increases social conflict (class conflict), it sows the seeds of its own demise. It is part of Marx’s historical theory of capitalism as one stage in human development. Eventually, socialism will replace capitalism, and workers will own the means of production, ushering in a new social order.


Post-Capitalist Society

In 1993, Drucker published Post-Capitalist Society, a book that advances a bold argument about Marx’s theories and the trajectories of history. It was one of his more successful books, and I think he left us with much to think about as we navigate the waters of the new or next knowledge society.


Drucker looks back on Marx’s evaluation of capitalism with an historical view, much like Marx looked at Hegelian and other assessments of society in his time. In this sense, Drucker follows in the tradition of European theorists critiquing the ideas of the past, using an historical argument. According to Drucker, the manufacturing economy framed the conversation around society, economics, and politics from the late 1800s to the 1950s. Marx’s labor theory of value dominated discussions, as workers competed to have equal power and voice with owners (capitalists). However, as Drucker argues, the owners of capital (the financial titans of industry) peaked by the First World War, and were replaced by professional managers by the 1950s. The classic dialectic between labor and capital was no longer relevant by the 1950s, as “capitalists” no longer existed. Drucker posits that by the 1970s, “capital” would be in the hands of the workers themselves in the form of pensions, mutual funds, and other collective methods of corporate ownership. 


According to Drucker, the factors of production were no longer labor or capital, but knowledge by the mid-20thcentury. Knowledge workers owned the capital (pension funds, and later 401ks) and also owned the means/tools of production (knowledge). This perspective upended not only traditional notions of capitalism as viewing labor and capital as the primary inputs for production, but also upset the social order. Moreover, we faced a new economic challenge of measuring productivity in a new way (related to knowledge) but also a social challenge as the old service (manual labor) workers would be left behind. Furthermore, we would face a dichotomy between intellectuals and managers. Both of these conflicts are akin to what Marx alluded to in his reference to dialectical materialism. In essence, while highly critical of Marx, Drucker used a version of Marxist theory to postulate the existence of a “post-capitalist society.” 


Drucker was no fan of Marx but uses an historical argument and similar language about analysis of inputs (labor and capital, but in Drucker’s case, knowledge). The difference is that Drucker is not engaging in a dialectical process (and not one focused on material concerns alone). According to Drucker, one of the primary reasons that Marx’s worldwide proletarian revolution failed to materialize was the inadequacy of his model of “economic man” (his sole emphasis on material satisfaction as an indicator of society’s wellbeing). Drucker rejected this model of society, arguing for an industrial model of society where the manufacturing plant community provided meaning to the worker. Crucial to defeating the forces of totalitarianism (and Marxism, for that matter) was providing individuals in society with status and function. Status gives people a place in the social structure, whereas function provides individuals with a purpose. Economic meaning was not enough; people needed this larger sense of individual and community meaning. In the early twentieth century, because of the incredible gains in manufacturing productivity, capitalism emerged as the dominant system. However, as society moved away from industrial employment towards knowledge work, this new post-capitalist society presented new challenges – including the possibility for social disorder.


Thus, Drucker turned to understanding the “knowledge society”, a new stage in human development. According to his analysis, what were the new challenges inherent in this new knowledge society? As we saw in the previous installment of this issue, knowledge worker productivity and its measurement represented one such challenge – one we still face. Drucker also wrestled with questions of worker motivation, social disorder, and compensation disparities. In our next installment, we’ll expand on Drucker’s concerns and see how they might help us understand where we are with our current knowledge society and the challenges we face.



Alexis de Tocqueville and The Future of Democracy: Part II

By Karen Linkletter Ph.D. • June 21, 2025
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. When de Tocqueville visited America in 1830-1831, the young nation was in the process of redefining equality both in social and political terms. As I noted earlier, the election of Andrew Jackson as president coincided with the expansion of suffrage to not just propertied white males, but to virtually all free white men. This was because as time passed from the founding of the nation in 1789, large property holdings were broken up and passed onto heirs (something de Tocqueville himself noted). In the younger frontier states, and even in the original colonies, governance required broader participation of the electorate. When the founders crafted the United States’ Constitution, they did not envision a democracy that involved a citizenry of the majority (and certainly not women or people of color). While de Tocqueville has much to say about the political conditions in America, it is his commentary on the social ramifications of this changing nature of equality that is most fascinating (and, perhaps, particularly instructive for us today). As wealth was distributed from the few to the many, the concept of a wealthy propertied class began to fade away. This development was exacerbated by the growth in early industry in the East (notably textile manufacturing) which fueled a rising middle class in the cities. As de Tocqueville notes, the early landed gentry families had all but disappeared as their children became doctors, merchants, and lawyers, “commingled with the general mass.” As a result, he comments, Americans embraced a “middling standard” with respect to education and social station. We continue to see echoes of this as most Americans today would claim to be “middle class” even though it is statistically impossible for everyone to be in the “middle.” Throughout his Democracy in America, de Tocqueville argues that the democratic obsession with equality has dramatic social and cultural consequences. What de Tocqueville refers to as “equality of condition” is not actual equality, but the belief in its primacy as an organizing principle for society. The concept of a meritocracy, where one rises or falls by one’s own efforts rather than by virtue of birth status or family heritage, was increasingly part of American culture by the 1830s; the concept of the “self-made man” was enshrined in popular culture from Benjamin Franklin’s work through the Horatio Alger stories of the 19 th century. De Tocqueville observed that this insistence on self-making, on individual achievement, rips at the social fabric of relationships and interconnectedness. Individualism leads a person to “sever himself from the mass of his fellows” and leave “society at large to itself” (98). As one can no longer distinguish oneself in society by position or family status, one must now achieve individual success or power in order to ‘be someone’. This is a byproduct of equality of condition, because as de Tocqueville argues, no person really wants to be the same as everyone else. Deep down, no one truly desires absolute equality on a social level. The question is: how does someone achieve, in Drucker’s terms, status and function if the old order of aristocracy and class structure is swept away? That was one of the primary questions that De Tocqueville pondered as he studied the emerging American Democracy of the early 1800s. One of the manifestations of the desire for status and function in a society obsessed with equality of conditions is an increasing focus on material success. De Tocqueville was fascinated by the “restlessness” with which Americans lived in such prosperity. This is one of my favorite passages from Democracy in America: In the United States a man builds a house in which to spend his old age, and he sells it before the roof is on; he plants a garden and lets it just as the trees are coming into bearing; he brings a field into tillage and leaves other men to gather the crops; he embraces a profession and gives it up; he settles in a place, which he soon afterwards leaves to carry his changeable longings elsewhere. If his private affairs leave him any leisure, he instantly plunges into the vortex of politics; and if at the end of a year of unremitting labor he finds he has a few days’ vacation, his eager curiosity whirls him over the vast extent of the United States, and he will travel fifteen hundred miles in a few days to shake off his happiness. Death at length overtakes him, but it is before he is weary of his bootless chase of that complete felicity which forever escapes him. De Tocqueville describes what we have, in various periods of time, called “keeping up with the Joneses” or “keeping pace” – the desire to match or supersede others’ social status and lifestyles. When the old systems of class stratification disappear, economic success often becomes a marker of achievement in democratic societies. This leads to not just consumerism, but also the “disquietude” that De Tocqueville noticed. Nothing is ever good enough, because one is always measuring oneself against the prosperity of neighbors, co-workers, and associates. Time is short, and “anxiety, fear, and regret” occupy the mind as we worry about what we are missing out on and what we haven’t achieved. As we think about current modern democratic societies, we can see how this obsession with equality of condition and its associated pressures on the need for status and function have only become more exaggerated. De Tocqueville’s work paved the way for Drucker’s argument against an “Economic Man”: a promise of equality based on either a capitalist or socialist system. Socioeconomic equality is not only impossible; it runs against human nature. Furthermore, Drucker’s theory of a knowledge society, a society based on education and knowledge as capital, makes this even more complicated. The more educated people not only make more money, but they also wield more influence politically and socially. Drucker saw this as early as the 1950s, but it is more obvious today. Now, democratic societies face the perception of an elite ruling class in government, academia, business, and other institutions. The “us” vs. “them” mentality pits this elite class against “the middle” – the average person who feels neglected and missing out, “weary of his bootless chase.” Because we have embraced equality as a passion, democracies are perceived as failures in their ability to uphold the promise of economic and social equality for all. The result is a global rise in populism, a rage against the elite establishment, and a desire to tear down institutions. We have seen this play out in political developments in Poland, Italy, Germany, and the United States. What is the solution to this predicament? Should we not pursue equality? Drucker made the case that free societies needed to provide avenues for status and function for all of its members, which meant that economic success and educational achievement could not be the only avenues for being part of society. If a portion of society sees itself as outcasts, as unable to ‘be someone’ or contribute meaningfully, they will perceive that democratic institutions have failed them. The only way for democratic societies to function is to uphold some faith in equality of condition for all. Once the belief in fundamental principles is lost, there is little glue to hold societies together. The key is how we define “equality”; as Drucker and de Tocqueville showed us, promises of economic equality are destined for failure. But democratic societies can afford all of its members human dignity and a sense of purpose. In the next installment, I’ll provide some of de Tocqueville’s suggestions for strengthening democratic institutions. Sources Tocqueville, A.D. and Reeve, H. (1835). Democracy in America. London: Saunders and Otley, to 1840.

El Emprendedor, El Emprendimiento, y La Innovación

By Byron Ramirez Ph.D. • June 11, 2025
Cada mañana, Isabel abría su pequeño taller antes del amanecer, aunque nadie aseguraba que llegaría un cliente. No heredó fortuna, solo poseía una idea: reinventar la forma de vestir a su comunidad. Mientras otros dormían, ella soñaba despierta, hilando futuro entre telas. Así comenzó su historia como emprendedora. El emprendedor está motivado por la posibilidad de que sus productos y servicios puedan agregar valor a la sociedad. Pero también está consciente de que, para operar de manera sostenible, necesita generar ganancias. Los emprendedores tienden a reevaluar constantemente sus productos o servicios, mientras examinan el mercado en el que compiten y la forma en que producen y distribuyen sus ofertas. Ellos entienden que, para sobrevivir la intensa rivalidad y competencia que enfrentan, deben encontrar formas de innovar continuamente. La necesidad de competir de manera efectiva conduce a que los emprendedores apuesten por la innovación, ya que esta también facilita la creación de valor. Este es el proceso denominado "destrucción creativa". Joseph Schumpeter acuñó este término para describir el proceso de cambio desordenado, donde las ideas, productos, empresas e industrias enteras son desplazadas por nuevas innovaciones. Schumpeter sostuvo que la principal contribución de los emprendedores a la sociedad es abogar por el cambio y la disrupción, y al hacerlo, ayudan a avanzar a la sociedad. Schumpeter estableció conceptualmente al "emprendedor como innovador", siendo el emprendedor una figura clave en el impulso del desarrollo económico. Schumpeter argumentó que la innovación es un factor crítico del cambio económico. Indicó que el cambio económico gira en torno a la innovación, las actividades emprendedoras y el poder del mercado. Schumpeter afirmó que el poder del mercado originado en la innovación podría proporcionar mejores resultados que la competencia de precios y la ‘mano invisible’. Además, sugirió que la innovación a menudo crea monopolios temporales, permitiendo ganancias anómalas que pronto serían disputadas por imitadores y rivales. Explicó que estos monopolios temporales eran necesarios para proporcionar el incentivo requerido para que otras empresas desarrollaran nuevos productos y procesos. Por consiguiente, el emprendedor introduce cosas nuevas, procesos y perspicacia empresarial con el propósito de transformar innovaciones en bienes económicos. Y el emprendedor está dispuesto a asumir el riesgo asociado con introducir el cambio. Las actividades innovadoras de los emprendedores alimentan un proceso de ‘destrucción creativa’ al causar disturbios constantes en un sistema económico en equilibrio, creando así oportunidades para generar ingresos y beneficios. Por lo tanto, el emprendimiento interrumpe el flujo estacionario del sistema económico y de esta manera inicia y sostiene el proceso de desarrollo económico. Al ajustarse a un nuevo equilibrio, se generan otras innovaciones y más emprendedores entran al sistema económico, introduciendo nuevos productos y servicios, fomentando así el progreso. De manera similar, las empresas emprendedoras participan en la destrucción creativa y así logran captar una parte del mercado al reemplazar empresas que han fracasado en producir productos y servicios valiosos. El proceso de destrucción creativa incentiva a las empresas a desarrollar nuevos productos, servicios y procesos; de lo contrario, no sobrevivirán a largo plazo. El emprendimiento abarca la entrada al mercado de nuevas empresas, pero también respalda el desarrollo de actividades innovadoras en empresas existentes que les permiten crear valor continuo. En este sentido, la innovación puede caracterizarse como el desarrollo de un nuevo producto, servicio o proceso a medida que la empresa emprende nuevas combinaciones de los factores de producción. La innovación es un proceso complejo y dinámico que requiere compromiso, recursos e inversión. Muchas veces, las empresas modifican su modelo de negocio existente, reorganizando la forma en que desarrollan un producto o la manera en que entregan nuevas funcionalidades o servicios a sus clientes. Las modificaciones a un proceso organizacional existente, a un modelo de negocio existente, o incluso a un método de prestación de servicios, son todos ejemplos de cómo se aprovecha la innovación para buscar una mayor efectividad. La innovación puede caracterizarse como el desarrollo de un nuevo proceso o producto (o servicio) que satisface nuevos requerimientos y/o necesidades del mercado existentes. Drucker nos dice: “La innovación debe centrarse en una necesidad específica que satisface, en un resultado final específico que produce.” (Drucker, 1985). La innovación permite que productos, procesos, servicios, tecnologías e ideas más eficaces estén disponibles para los mercados y la sociedad. Como resultado, la innovación es utilizada por la empresa como un medio para satisfacer las necesidades de los consumidores; como una herramienta para competir con otras empresas en un mercado existente; y como un instrumento para ingresar a un nuevo mercado. Por lo tanto, la innovación incrementa conceptualmente la probabilidad de que la empresa logre eficiencia económica a corto plazo, y puede permitirle establecer una posición más competitiva a largo plazo. No obstante, la empresa se enfrenta a limitaciones internas (por ejemplo, el costo de insumos) y limitaciones externas (por ejemplo, la competencia en el mercado) que hacen que sea difícil subsistir. Además, los rendimientos marginales decrecientes influyen en la capacidad de producción de la empresa. La innovación puede considerarse esencial para el éxito de las empresas y para la supervivencia económica a largo plazo. Según algunos académicos, la innovación puede ayudar a mejorar la supervivencia a largo plazo de una empresa, ya que puede mejorar su oferta de línea de productos/servicios al tiempo que le permite establecer una ventaja competitiva sobre otras empresas (Antonelli, 2003; Lundvall, 2007; Porter, 1990; Schumpeter, 1936; Teece y Pisano, 1994). Vale la pena señalar que la empresa que elige innovar lo hace basándose principalmente en la información que tiene sobre las preferencias, deseos y necesidades de los consumidores en su mercado. En otras palabras, la empresa innova porque reconoce la oportunidad y el valor de satisfacer las necesidades y deseos de los consumidores a corto plazo y ve la inversión en innovación como un medio para también posicionarse eficazmente a largo plazo. Drucker nos recuerda: “La innovación sistemática y con propósito comienza con el análisis de las oportunidades” (Drucker, 1985). Y dado que la empresa enfrenta competencia, la innovación se convierte en una vía a través de la cual la empresa puede diferenciar sus productos o servicios. La innovación es la materialización exitosa de una idea útil, donde la idea es comercializada. La innovación también permite a la empresa reconfigurar sus recursos de manera más eficiente, y por lo tanto le permite aumentar su productividad, con la implicación de que esto puede ayudar a aumentar sus ganancias. La innovación ha ayudado a construir empresas y a hacer crecer y desarrollar industrias. Por ejemplo, hace apenas dos décadas, las empresas tenían dificultades para gestionar la gran cantidad de información y datos relacionados con sus interacciones continuas con los clientes. Desde 1999, Salesforce ha revolucionado la forma en que las organizaciones hacen seguimiento de las interacciones con los clientes y gestionan sus datos de ventas. Desde su fundación, Salesforce ha desarrollado múltiples versiones de sus productos, dando lugar a un sofisticado software empresarial basado en la nube que respalda la gestión de relaciones con los clientes (CRM). Las soluciones innovadoras de Salesforce incluyen la automatización de fuerza de ventas, servicio y soporte al cliente, automatización de marketing y comercio digital. Salesforce ha permitido a grandes organizaciones automatizar sus procesos de ventas y marketing y volverse cada vez más eficientes, al tiempo que se convierten en gestores eficaces de los datos e información de los clientes. La innovación no es un proceso lineal. Por el contrario, es un proceso altamente iterativo de reconsiderar muchos factores internos técnicos y operativos, y factores externos, con una interpretación en constante flujo de cómo la empresa podría continuar desarrollando y ofreciendo productos y servicios. La empresa en la que se fomenta la innovación debe apoyar las diversas iteraciones, interacciones y transacciones necesarias para respaldar los esfuerzos de innovación. El emprendedor, que no le teme a la incertidumbre ni al riesgo, es capaz de gestionar este proceso dinámico.  La innovación que aborda una necesidad o deseo del mercado aporta valor a la sociedad. Sin embargo, la innovación requiere que las empresas analicen sistemáticamente las oportunidades que se presentan. Por lo tanto, el emprendedor y la empresa emprendedora deben desarrollar la capacidad de observar y percibir las necesidades cambiantes de las personas. El emprendedor debe entonces centrarse en ofrecer una solución que satisfaga un conjunto específico de necesidades o deseos. Esto implica que la innovación debe ser manejada con propósito. Y también requiere que el emprendedor no solo sea disciplinado, sino que esté dispuesto a invertir en la adquisición de conocimiento que pueda aplicarse productivamente. Tanto el emprendedor como la empresa emprendedora deben reevaluar continuamente sus productos y servicios, analizar el mercado en el que compiten y reconsiderar la forma en que producen y distribuyen sus productos y servicios. Al adoptar la innovación, abogarán por el cambio y la disrupción, y ayudarán a avanzar a la sociedad. Referencias Antonelli, C. (2003). The economics of innovation, new technologies and structural change: studies in global competition series. New York, NY: Routledge. Drucker, P. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship: practice and principles. New York, NY: Harper Business. Lundvall, B. Å. (2007). National innovation systems—analytical concept and development tool. Industry and innovation, 14(1), 95-119. Porter, M. E. (1990). The Competitive advantage of nations: creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: Simon and Schuster Inc. Schumpeter, J.A. (1936). The Theory of Economic Development, Second Edition. Cambridge: Harvard University press. Teece, D., & Pisano, G. (1994). The dynamic capabilities of firms: an introduction. Industrial and corporate change, 3(3), 537-556.

Alexis de Tocqueville and The Future of Democracy: Part I

By Karen Linkletter Ph.D. • May 13, 2025
In today’s political environment, particularly in the United States, there is much discussion about the future of democracy. Globally, traditional democratic forms of government are being called into question. Is democracy no longer effective in its ability to represent “the people”? Have democratic governments been hijacked by elite, moneyed interests? Are our institutions no longer effective and in need of some kind of reset or reinvention? The increasing appeal of authoritarian regimes, driven by populist anger, has been the subject of the work of many political scientists and observers (Silver and Fetterolf, 2024, Praet, 2024, Rhodes, 2022). Nearly 200 years ago, Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) sought to understand the essence of democracy. His motivations and observations can perhaps be instructive to us today as we wrestle with the nature of democracy in the modern era. Alexis de Tocqueville was a member of the French aristocracy in the era immediately following the French Revolution. The revolution, which began in 1789, featured the rejection of the monarchy through violent spectacle, including public beheadings via the newly developed guillotine. Alexis’s father was part of the French government and was briefly imprisoned during the Reign of Terror. Nevertheless, he was sympathetic to the revolutionary cause. In fact, many members of the aristocracy in de Tocqueville’s France understood the motivations behind the revolution and sought to ensure that subsequent governments addressed the extreme economic disparities that were exposed by the violent events of the Reign of Terror. Alexis was educated in the aristocratic tradition, studying political philosophy and theory, history, and law. He was well-versed in the Enlightenment philosophy that influenced the framers of the American Constitution, particularly Montesquieu. Montesquieu argued for separation of powers in governance, which derived from his belief in the human capacity not only for greatness, but also for corruption. This tension between virtue and vice, which Montesquieu saw as a universal condition of humankind throughout time, required guardrails to slow down or inhibit abuse of power. Following the establishment of the French Consulate in 1799, Napoleon rose to lead the French Empire in 1804. After his defeat in the Battle of Waterloo, France restored the monarchy to Charles X. However, this was a constitutional monarchy rather than one based on the rights of heredity. In 1830, France overthrew King Charles X of the House of Bourbon, growing critical of his broken promises for economic relief from taxation to pay off the debt of the Napoleonic Wars. Charles was replaced by his cousin, Louis Philippe, of the House of Orleans. Louis Philippe sought to reform the monarchy, recognizing freedoms such as voting rights. Referred to as the “Citizen King”, he would be one of the last kings to represent France. In essence, France was beginning to understand the inevitable: the past world of a hereditary monarch claiming absolute authority was over, and the constitutional monarchy seemingly could not deliver on the promises of egalitarianism made in 1789. But what would the new form of governance look like? This was not clear. Even though the country had a reformist government, constitutional monarchy still retained elite status/class distinctions to maintain social order.  Alexis de Tocqueville was 25 when Louis Philippe was installed as the Citizen King in the July Revolution of 1830. Believing that democracy would inevitably come to France, de Tocqueville wanted to study that form of government. What did it look like? How could it be a stable form of government? Because the United States of America was the earliest experiment in democracy, de Tocqueville petitioned the king to travel to America to study that country. In particular, de Tocqueville convinced the king to let him study the American penitentiary movement. One of the areas of reform pursued in France was prison reform (prisons in France were notoriously horrible). At the time, America was in the middle of its own reform movement, including the penitentiary system of prison reform. The concept of a penitentiary was brand new. The idea behind it was that, instead of rotting in prison forever, you would be reformed and released back into society if you were truly sorry, or penitent for, your crimes. De Tocqueville visited America in 1831-1832. In addition to prison reform, he witnessed many remarkable developments in American democracy. It was President Andrew Jackson’s first term, which involved substantial political upheaval in America. Jackson was the first President elected “of the people.” He was not a Virginian or New England “blue blood,” like all the presidents before him had been. Jackson was from the frontier, and had built his name on a military career, most notably in the War of 1812 at the Battle of New Orleans. Jackson’s election coincided with the expansion of suffrage to most white males regardless of their property ownership. Jackson was understandably a controversial President; his election gave birth to the Whig party as a political alternative. His fight against the Bank of the U.S. placed him at odds with a rapidly developing commercial middle class. During de Tocqueville’s visit, Americans were participating in a growing reform culture. Abolition, or anti-slavery, was building steam in the nation. William Lloyd Garrison published his first issue of The Liberator, an important abolitionist newspaper that de Tocqueville read. There were religious revivals, known as the Second Great Awakening, and urban reform movements targeting prostitution, temperance, and of course, prison reform, the purported reason for de Tocqueville’s visit. The discovery of gold on Cherokee land in Georgia in 1828 snowballed into the event eventually known as the Trail of Tears, the forced removal of thousands of Native Americans from their ancestral lands. Jackson’s 1830 Indian Removal Act made such events legal, and de Tocqueville personally witnessed the removal of the Chocktaw tribe. On a lighter note, this was also a time of incredible technological development. Railroad development and land speculation was beginning, McCormick had just patented his reaper, and de Tocqueville saw the newly opened Erie Canal. While de Tocqueville studied the nature of America’s young democracy nearly 200 years ago, we can leverage his observations with our own experience of facing a changing world where the nature of democracy is being questioned globally. The move towards increasing authoritarianism and populist movements calls into question whether democracy is government by the people or by the elite. Can de Tocqueville’s observations help us assess how we might keep democracies intact or make them more effective? In our next installment, I’ll look at de Tocqueville’s specific observations regarding democracy – particularly those related to the nature of equality. Sources Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat, baron de (1949). The spirit of the laws. New York: Hafner Pub. Co. Praet, J. (2024). Bringing authoritarianism into the limelight: the implications for populist radical right ideology. Journal of Political Ideologies, 1-23. Rhodes, B. (2022). After the Fall: The Rise of Authoritarianism in the World We’ve Made. Random House. Silver, L. and Fetterolf, J. (2024). Who likes authoritarianism, and how do they want to change their government? Pew Research Center, February 28. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/02/28/who-likes-authoritarianism-and-how-do-they-want-to-change-their-government/ Tocqueville, A.D. and Reeve, H. (1835). Democracy in America. London: Saunders and Otley, to 1840.
Show More