Article 1
Introduction & The Unfashionable Kierkegaard
│ Editor’s Note │
When Drucker first read Kierkegaard, he was not yet 19 years old. He published “The Unfashionable Kierkegaard” in 1949 when he was 40. He included the article at the end of Men, Ideas, and Politics in 1971. In 1992, Drucker again used the article as the last chapter of The Ecological Vision and
wrote an introduction to it. This part is titled “Why Society Is Not Enough?”.
Appendix 1
Nineteen Questions Regarding Reading “The Unfashionable Kierkegaard”
Question 1
What is “human existence”? What are the similarities and differences between human existence and human survival? Do humans have any existence other than that in society?
Question 2
How do you understand the statement “human existence is possible only in tension—in tension between man’s simultaneous life as an individual in the spirit and as a citizen in society.” Talk about your experience in this respect. When Drucker was nineteen years old, he realized he had a spiritual existence beyond society. Do you also have a spiritual existence? At what age and how did you discover it?
Question 3
What is freedom? What is the relationship between freedom and “human existence”? Are liberty and equality the same thing? Is freedom important to you? Why? Can you accept a life 060 061
where everyone is equal but cannot make personal choices in important matters?
Question 4
What is the relationship between time and eternity? Can eternity be measured and broken down into time? Can accumulated time become eternity? The article discusses St. Augustine’s and Kierkegaard’s differing views on this. With whom do you agree? Why?
Question 5
The New Testament (Luke 14:26) says, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.” What is your understanding of this passage? Share your personal experience.
Question 6
What constitutes morality and benevolence “in the sight of God”? How is it different from what people usually think of as virtue and charity? Please give an example.
Question 7
Nineteenth-century optimism believed that human society inevitably progresses and that truth could be established through continuous trial and error and majority rule, thus leading to a perfect or near-perfect harmonious society. Do you agree with this view? Why or why not?
Question 8
How did the optimists view tragedy and death? How did they keep individuals from feeling despair as death approaches? Why did Drucker say optimism “only leads to totalitarianism”?
Question 9
What is the essential difference between totalitarianism and earlier historical tyrannies? What are totalitarianism’s aims and consequences?
Question 10
How would you evaluate the role of liberalism (the rational liberalism established by the Enlightenment and the French Revolution), Darwinian evolution, and scientism in promoting social progress? What are your views on Hegel’s “thesis, antithesis, and synthesis” dialectic? How do Marx’s dialectical materialism and scientific communism relate to the above theories?
Question 11
How does Drucker evaluate the nineteenth-century German idealist philosophical system and moral culture represented by Kant and Hegel? Are there any similarities between their views and Confucian ethics? What are the positive contributions of Eastern and Western ethics in real life, and
what negative consequences have they brought?
Question 12
How do you understand the statement “... in all cases the ethical position is bound to degenerate into relativism?” What is moral relativism? Give an example to illustrate the idea that “a position that starts out ... to establish man-made ethical absolutes must end in the complete denial of the possibility of a truly ethical position.”
Question 13
Why did Drucker believe that “the opposite of Sin (to use the traditional term for existence purely in society) is not Virtue; it is Faith”? What does this passage mean: “... if virtue is to be found in man, everything that is accepted by man must be virtue”? Does Drucker disagree that virtue restrains evil and prevents tragedy?
Question 14
What is faith? How does it differ from what we usually call beliefs? Share your understanding of Drucker’s views on faith. And how do you understand Abraham’s behavior? (“Abraham’s behavior” here refers to Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling, which deals with the Biblical story of Abraham being called on to sacrifice his son to God.) And how do you understand this passage: “... man is creature (not autonomous, not the master, not the end, not the centre) and yet responsible and free”?
Question 15
How can you gain faith? What is the so-called “saintliness” in religion? How is this different from what we usually term “virtues”? If a person doesn’t achieve “saintliness,” can he or she still live in faith?
Question 16
Kierkegaard believed that “human existence is possible as existence not in despair, as existence not in tragedy; it is possible as existence in faith.” Does he mean that with faith, the tension between the individual on the spiritual level and the citizen on the social level can be eliminated?
Question 17
Drucker criticized the “Yogis” and “Commissars” in the article. What are some examples of these two types of people today? What are some current examples of the European “Christian” political parties, Protestantism, Catholicism, and the influential “Christian Socialist” movement in the United States that Drucker criticized in his day? Where are they wrong? If atheists and materialists are truly noble and sincerely try to do good, can they change the world, help others, and live out the meaning of their own lives?
Question 18
Drucker said “The Unfashionable Kierkegaard” was “written out of despair” and “to affirm hope.” What was he despairing of? Society? Human life? Human nature? Where does hope come from? Why did he believe that “society is not enough— not even for society”?
Question 19
What is Drucker’s view of nineteenth-century humanism? Is it correct to define Drucker’s Management as a Liberal Art “people-based” and “humanized management”?
An Understanding
In a letter responding to Rosabeth Kanter, among others, Drucker said his intellectual ancestry could not be traced to the sociologist Max Weber but to Søren Kierkegaard— someone Weber had probably never even read. He intended to correct a misconception: some people believed that Drucker, as a management scholar, focused on society alone in his whole life and therefore knew little about human nature or religion. Drucker said that his life’s work began with the lessons learned from Kierkegaard: to safeguard society, society alone is not enough.
In a 1992 introduction to “The Unfashionable Kierkegaard,” Drucker said the article was “written out of despair.” For firstly, it was conceived, written, and published during World War II, a time when humanity had fallen into profound despair. Secondly, one of the article’s themes is the exploration of the spiritual roots of the general despair then pervading society. Finally, the article aimed to clarify the faith tradition to which Kierkegaard belonged, thereby reaffirming hope.
Like Drucker’s other best writings, this article has a dual theme: while discussing faith, he diagnoses totalitarianism.
He doesn’t intend to give a textbook definition and answer to the question “What is faith?” Instead, by dissecting totalitarianism, Drucker helps readers realize what faith is not and what poses a threat to it. Moreover, he wants readers to understand that the forces that endanger faith also threaten human existence. It would have been difficult for readers in the 20th century to regain their faith through a theological treatise prattling about faith. But they did keenly feel the pain of the existential crisis brought about by totalitarianism. And, in the starkest way, Drucker’s diagnosis of totalitarianism presents the pain. This is not metaphysics or empty talk, but actual lived experience. Only through authentic lived experience can modern readers, who have long accustomed to disparaging, despising and disdaining faith, truly realize that what they need is not to judge faith as outsiders but to rebuild their connection with faith as unique individuals. Cutting off the faith dimension from existence is actually the spiritual cause of totalitarianism’s rise.
Introduction & The Unfashionable Kierkegaard
│ Editor’s Note │
When Drucker first read Kierkegaard, he was not yet 19 years old. He published “The Unfashionable Kierkegaard” in 1949 when he was 40. He included the article at the end of Men, Ideas, and Politics in 1971. In 1992, Drucker again used the article as the last chapter of The Ecological Vision and
wrote an introduction to it. This part is titled “Why Society Is Not Enough?”.
Appendix 1
Nineteen Questions Regarding Reading “The Unfashionable Kierkegaard”
Question 1
What is “human existence”? What are the similarities and differences between human existence and human survival? Do humans have any existence other than that in society?
Question 2
How do you understand the statement “human existence is possible only in tension—in tension between man’s simultaneous life as an individual in the spirit and as a citizen in society.” Talk about your experience in this respect. When Drucker was nineteen years old, he realized he had a spiritual existence beyond society. Do you also have a spiritual existence? At what age and how did you discover it?
Question 3
What is freedom? What is the relationship between freedom and “human existence”? Are liberty and equality the same thing? Is freedom important to you? Why? Can you accept a life 060 061
where everyone is equal but cannot make personal choices in important matters?
Question 4
What is the relationship between time and eternity? Can eternity be measured and broken down into time? Can accumulated time become eternity? The article discusses St. Augustine’s and Kierkegaard’s differing views on this. With whom do you agree? Why?
Question 5
The New Testament (Luke 14:26) says, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.” What is your understanding of this passage? Share your personal experience.
Question 6
What constitutes morality and benevolence “in the sight of God”? How is it different from what people usually think of as virtue and charity? Please give an example.
Question 7
Nineteenth-century optimism believed that human society inevitably progresses and that truth could be established through continuous trial and error and majority rule, thus leading to a perfect or near-perfect harmonious society. Do you agree with this view? Why or why not?
Question 8
How did the optimists view tragedy and death? How did they keep individuals from feeling despair as death approaches? Why did Drucker say optimism “only leads to totalitarianism”?
Question 9
What is the essential difference between totalitarianism and earlier historical tyrannies? What are totalitarianism’s aims and consequences?
Question 10
How would you evaluate the role of liberalism (the rational liberalism established by the Enlightenment and the French Revolution), Darwinian evolution, and scientism in promoting social progress? What are your views on Hegel’s “thesis, antithesis, and synthesis” dialectic? How do Marx’s dialectical materialism and scientific communism relate to the above theories?
Question 11
How does Drucker evaluate the nineteenth-century German idealist philosophical system and moral culture represented by Kant and Hegel? Are there any similarities between their views and Confucian ethics? What are the positive contributions of Eastern and Western ethics in real life, and
what negative consequences have they brought?
Question 12
How do you understand the statement “... in all cases the ethical position is bound to degenerate into relativism?” What is moral relativism? Give an example to illustrate the idea that “a position that starts out ... to establish man-made ethical absolutes must end in the complete denial of the possibility of a truly ethical position.”
Question 13
Why did Drucker believe that “the opposite of Sin (to use the traditional term for existence purely in society) is not Virtue; it is Faith”? What does this passage mean: “... if virtue is to be found in man, everything that is accepted by man must be virtue”? Does Drucker disagree that virtue restrains evil and prevents tragedy?
Question 14
What is faith? How does it differ from what we usually call beliefs? Share your understanding of Drucker’s views on faith. And how do you understand Abraham’s behavior? (“Abraham’s behavior” here refers to Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling, which deals with the Biblical story of Abraham being called on to sacrifice his son to God.) And how do you understand this passage: “... man is creature (not autonomous, not the master, not the end, not the centre) and yet responsible and free”?
Question 15
How can you gain faith? What is the so-called “saintliness” in religion? How is this different from what we usually term “virtues”? If a person doesn’t achieve “saintliness,” can he or she still live in faith?
Question 16
Kierkegaard believed that “human existence is possible as existence not in despair, as existence not in tragedy; it is possible as existence in faith.” Does he mean that with faith, the tension between the individual on the spiritual level and the citizen on the social level can be eliminated?
Question 17
Drucker criticized the “Yogis” and “Commissars” in the article. What are some examples of these two types of people today? What are some current examples of the European “Christian” political parties, Protestantism, Catholicism, and the influential “Christian Socialist” movement in the United States that Drucker criticized in his day? Where are they wrong? If atheists and materialists are truly noble and sincerely try to do good, can they change the world, help others, and live out the meaning of their own lives?
Question 18
Drucker said “The Unfashionable Kierkegaard” was “written out of despair” and “to affirm hope.” What was he despairing of? Society? Human life? Human nature? Where does hope come from? Why did he believe that “society is not enough— not even for society”?
Question 19
What is Drucker’s view of nineteenth-century humanism? Is it correct to define Drucker’s Management as a Liberal Art “people-based” and “humanized management”?
An Understanding
In a letter responding to Rosabeth Kanter, among others, Drucker said his intellectual ancestry could not be traced to the sociologist Max Weber but to Søren Kierkegaard— someone Weber had probably never even read. He intended to correct a misconception: some people believed that Drucker, as a management scholar, focused on society alone in his whole life and therefore knew little about human nature or religion. Drucker said that his life’s work began with the lessons learned from Kierkegaard: to safeguard society, society alone is not enough.
In a 1992 introduction to “The Unfashionable Kierkegaard,” Drucker said the article was “written out of despair.” For firstly, it was conceived, written, and published during World War II, a time when humanity had fallen into profound despair. Secondly, one of the article’s themes is the exploration of the spiritual roots of the general despair then pervading society. Finally, the article aimed to clarify the faith tradition to which Kierkegaard belonged, thereby reaffirming hope.
Like Drucker’s other best writings, this article has a dual theme: while discussing faith, he diagnoses totalitarianism.
He doesn’t intend to give a textbook definition and answer to the question “What is faith?” Instead, by dissecting totalitarianism, Drucker helps readers realize what faith is not and what poses a threat to it. Moreover, he wants readers to understand that the forces that endanger faith also threaten human existence. It would have been difficult for readers in the 20th century to regain their faith through a theological treatise prattling about faith. But they did keenly feel the pain of the existential crisis brought about by totalitarianism. And, in the starkest way, Drucker’s diagnosis of totalitarianism presents the pain. This is not metaphysics or empty talk, but actual lived experience. Only through authentic lived experience can modern readers, who have long accustomed to disparaging, despising and disdaining faith, truly realize that what they need is not to judge faith as outsiders but to rebuild their connection with faith as unique individuals. Cutting off the faith dimension from existence is actually the spiritual cause of totalitarianism’s rise.
