Peter F. Drucker, "The Age of Social Transformation," and:

• Lila Abu-Lughod, "Honor and Shame" (2 versions)
• Benjamin Barber, "Time, Work, and Leisure in a Civil Society" (2 versions)
• Ellen Dissanayake, "The Core of Art"
  
• Stephen Jay Gould, "What does the dreaded 'E' word mean, anyway?"
• Mary Kaldor, "Beyond Militarism, Arms Races, and Arms Control."
• Richard E. Miller and Kurt Spellmeyer, "Introduction" to The New Humanities Reader
• Henry Petroski, Selections from To Engineer is Human, and Michael Pollan, "Playing God in the Garden"
• Michael Pollan, "Playing God in the Garden"
• Frans de Waal, "Selections from The Ape and the Sushi Master"
  

The Mobility of Drucker's Knowledge Worker

In "The Age of Social Transformation," Peter Drucker describes the rise of what he terms "the knowledge society." The essence of this new society, Drucker believes, is mobility- "mobility in terms of where one lives, mobility in terms of what one does, mobility in terms of one's affiliations" (64). For this assignment, I would like you to write an essay where you discuss the problems and the opportunities that are created for society as a whole by the mobility of the knowledge worker. What has the rise of the knowledge worker made possible? What of value has been lost as a result of the social transformations brought about by the rise of the knowledge worker?

Please make certain to refer to at least three different passages in Drucker's essay. Your goal in this assignment is not to repeat what Drucker has written, but to extend his argument by filling in the connections between his discussion of the knowledge worker's mobility and the other major themes of his essay.

Richard E. Miller, Spring 2000

Back to top

(1) Abu-Lughod and Drucker: Communities Old and New

In the very first paper that you wrote for this class, I asked you to discuss the negative and positive consequences of the breakdown of what Drucker calls "the old communities." One could argue that in the essay "Honor and Shame," Lila Abu-Lughod reveals to us a society in which "old communities" are still largely intact. For your last assignment, I would like you to return once more to the issue of community. I would like you to write a paper which explores the following question: What are the beneficial aspects of traditional communities, and what are the troubling aspects? To formulate your answer, you must draw on the reading by Abu-Lughod, plus any two other articles that we have read.The theme of community runs throughout all six articles that we have examined, so I can imagine a wide variety of interesting responses for this assignment.

In writing your paper, you might think about some of the following questions:

-- In what ways can communities empower individuals, and in what ways can they weaken or hinder them?

-- In what ways do communities threaten freedom, and in what ways do they promote freedom?

-- In what ways do communities tend to discourage individuality, and in what ways do they help to foster the growth of individuality?

Of course, your answers to these questions will depend on how you conceive of "community," "freedom," and "individuality."

Brian Danoff, Fall 2000

Back to top

(2) Drucker and Abu-Lughod: Knowledge Workers in the Third World

"I worry about Kamla's blithe confidence that life in the city will be so much better." Would Peter Drucker share Abu-Lughod's concerns about what lies ahead for Kamla? Is Kamla a participant in "The Age of Social Transformation"? What role can residents of the Third World hope to play in the "knowledge society"?

Back to top

(1) Drucker and Barber : Mobility and Civil Society

By definition, a knowledge society is a society of mobility. And all the social functions of the old communities, whether performed well or poorly (and most were performed very poorly indeed), presupposed that the individual and the family would stay put. But the essence of a knowledge society is mobility in terms of where one lives, mobility in terms of what one does, mobility in terms of one's affiliations (Drucker).

Both Peter Drucker and Benjamin Barber are concerned with the changes that society has undergone in the twentieth century and with what future societies will look like. Are Drucker's views about the knowledge worker and the social sector compatible with Barber's views about civil society? That is, can a mobile society be civil in the ways that Barber imagines? Or, to put the question another way, do knowledge workers have a role to play in Barber's civil society? If so, what is that role?

For this assignment, I would like you to write a paper where you explore the relationship between Drucker's knowledge society and Barber's civil society. In putting together your meditation on the relationship between mobility and civility, please make certain to refer directly to Drucker's essay at least two times and to Barber's essay at least two times. (Your own essay, in other words, will have a minimum of four citations in it.)

Richard E. Miller, Spring 2000

(2) Drucker and Barber : Moving Toward or Away from Democratic Participation

In the "Age of Social Transformation" Peter Drucker identifies a number of economic and social changes which seem likely to follow from the rise of the knowledge work. In what ways does Drucker's argument complicate Barber's predictions? Would the knowledge society as Drucker envisions it meet Barber's standards for a broader degree of democratic participation in decisions about how we all will live?

Back to top

Drucker and Dissanayake: The Future of Art in the Age of Social Transformation

In Drucker's "knowledge society" what might be the future of the arts as Dissanyake understands them? What might be the future of "art" in the more traditional sense, as marketable objects crafted by a few gifted specialists? Explicitly, Drucker's essay tells us nothing about the arts, either as an object or as a process like "making special." Does Drucker's silence suggest that the arts have no place in society now emerging? Or could it be that the relation between art and non-art--and in particular, the relation between art and work--is undergoing a transformation?

Back to top

Drucker and Gould: Social Evolution and Social Transformation

If we accept Stephen Jay Gould's argument about the meaning of "evolution," does it make sense to view Peter Drucker's "knowledge society" as an example of genuine progress? Can we say that the rise of this new society has been in some sense preordained by natural laws? Does Drucker himself imply the existence of an evolutionary telos in human history? Which approach to evolution makes more sense in discussing social, cultural, and economic change--the definition used by biological scientists or the one used by astonomers? If neither approach is appropriate, is the word "evolution" ever appropriate in discussions of human affairs?

Back to top

Drucker and Kaldor: The Rise of the Knowledge Worker and the Emergence of the "New War"

Kaldor argues that, for "the networks engaged in the new wars, what holds them together is a generally an extreme political ideology based on the exclusive claim to state power
on the basis of identity - ethnic chauvinism or religious communalism." What is the relationship between the social transformation that creates and extends these networks and the social transformation Drucker describes? Is the rise of the knowledge worker related, in any way, to the rise of the new networks for waging war?

Back to top

Drucker and Miller and Spellmeyer: Knowledge in the 21^st Century

Richard Miller and Kurt Spellmeyer, along with Peter Drucker are concerned with the place knowledge and its varying definitions will come to occupy in the new century. Are Drucker's views about the knowledge worker compatible with Miller and Spellmeyer's emphasis on the coherence that should attend any pursuit of knowledge? That is, can a society of "highly specialized" people, like those Drucker endorses, be coherent in the way Miller and Spellmeyer imagine? Or, to put the question another way, does a "new humanities" education have a role in Drucker's vision of a knowledge society? If so what is that role?

Write an essay in which you explore the relationship between Drucker's knowledge society and Miller and Spellmeyer's new humanities. In putting together your own thoughts on the relationship between knowledge and the new humanities, please make sure to cite directly from the Introduction to the The New Humanities Reader and Drucker's essay.

Piper Williams, Fall 2000

Back to top

Petroski, Drucker, and Pollan: Failure and the Making of Society

In many ways, "Why do things fall apart?" is the central question of "Selections from To Engineer Is Human." As Henry Petroski pursues an answer to this question, he presents a number of concepts-such as fatigue, engineering lifetimes, and failure-that tell us something about the process of creation, or, more generally, the process of making. At the same time, as the title of Pollan's book suggests, these are not answers for engineering only. If, indeed, to engineer is human, then these concepts may have larger implications. Both Peter Drucker and Michael Pollan are concerned with making as well: making new potatoes, making a decision about whether or not to eat them, making a new society or making new means to solve that society's problems.

Write an essay, then, in which you take a position on the costs or benefits of failure and its relation to the processes of making, growth, and/or the evolution of cultures, products, or ideas.

One quick tip: a strong project here would not simply say "failure is good" or "failure is bad." Think of Petroski's own essay in this respect: failure is a complicated process with risks, costs, and benefits. Your job in this paper is to stake out a similarly nuanced and complicated position and then to support that position with Petroski and one of the other essays.

Roughs should be 4pp. Finals should be 5-6pp. Turn in all peer commented drafts with the final.

Barclay Barrios, Fall '01

Back to top

Drucker and Pollan: Assessing the Significance of the Rise of the Knowledge Society

What might Drucker learn from reading Pollan about the best way to explain--or perhaps I should say, the best way to explore--the changes likely to be brought about by the rise of the knowledge society? This question already presupposes that Drucker does not deal with the rise of the knowledge society in the same way that Pollan deals with biotechnology. Feel free to argue that they do approach their subjects in much the same way, but if you feel that they differ in significant respects, consider the advantages and liabilities of each. I am not asking you, however, simply to compare and contrast: I'm looking for an argument about the most useful and illuminating ways to explore the complex issues of our time.

After making detailed an extensive use of both authors, you might also move beyond the text to consider some broader questions. When politicians and media pundits engage in discussion on tv and in Congress, these discussions generally take the form of debates. In conventional debates, each side takes a clear "pro" or "con" stand. Is the debate format perhaps outdated--too one-dimension for many-sided matters, and too closed-minded to do justice to the open-endedness of life in our time? Do we need to learn to think and discuss crucial issues in new ways?

Back to top

Drucker and de Waal: The Knowledge Society and the Question of Human Goodness

In making his argument for an alternate explanation of the evolutionary process, de Waal relies on the work of Ernest Westermarck, who believed that "human goodness" was part of our genetic makeup. If de Waal and Westermarck are correct, how does one account for the changes in human society that Peter Drucker describes in "The Age of Social Transformation"? That is, what are we to make of the fact that the "knowledge society" has evolved apparently, according to Drucker, at the expense of the social sector?

Back to top