Theory, myth, and ideology

POST-INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY

93

every American intellectual (especially every American social scientist)

believes he or she could run the country better than his/her brother-in-

law who sells securities or automobiles (Harvard types are alleged to

believe their relative superiority is especially marked)." The new class

of scientists and managers which proliferates in American universities

and the civil service and the "technostructure" of the large corpora-

tions (more bureaucratic than entrepreneurial as is often pointed

out)" obviously finds congenial a theory which heralds, predicts, and

justifies (for does not historical inevitability make right, as Hegel and

Marx teach and their pupils never forget) the rise to power of the per-

son of specialized, certified, knowledge as opposed to the

businessman, politician, or labor leader. (So, of course, do their

counterparts in "underdeveloped" nations which have not taken the

concept of post-industrial society to heart, but in most of these the

superiority of the bureaucrat is so well established as hardly to require

all this ideological underpinning.)

The ideology of post-industrial society in some respects is simply

another manifestation of the ideology of American managerialism

which surfaced during the Progressive era. The turn of the century

American sociologist Lester F. Ward (himself a civil servant) would

find little new in this aspect of the theory of post-industrial society and

perhaps be jealous that his concept of "sociocracy" had not merited

at least the recognition by denunciation accorded Burnham's

"managerial revolution.

779

 Insofar as the ideology of post-industrial

society is, despite Bell's disclaimers, an ideology of technocracy the

reason for its popularity should be obvious. So too is the unanswered

question, 

"Quis custodet custodes?"

Finally the ideology of post-industrial society serves the function of

providing an apologia for rationalism. Not only does it tell us we can

forget about class war since all problems are problems of managing

relative prosperity. Not only does it predict the coming to "power" of

a new knowledge elite, centered in the universities. It also tells us that

there are rational answers to our problems and a rational standard by

77. See John LeBoutiller, 

Harvard Hates America 

(South Bend: Gateway Editions,

1978).

78. See John K. Galbraith, 

The New Industrial State 

Boston: Houghton Mifflin,

1967) esp. Pp. 86-97.

79. On Ward see S. Chugarman, 

Lester F. Ward: The American Aristotle 

(Durham:

Duke University Press, 1939) and Paul F. Boller, Jr., 

American Thought in Transition:

The Impact of Evolutionary Naturalism 1865-1900 

(Chicago: Rand McNally, 1971) Pp.

64-69.

---

94

THE POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEWER

means of which our new rulers may rule us. But, if there are rational

answers, there must be data and for there to be data it must be in the

last analysis objectifiable and quantifiable. Thus the importance given

by Bell and his epigoni to systems analysis, "social indicators," and

similar devices for rationalizing the discussion of social issues. Here

we see the deepest extent to which post-industrial society is at one with

(indeed, simply an extension of) industrial society.

A rationalized management of social life extends the impulse of

capitalist industrialism, noted by critics as ideologically disparate as

Marx and Weber, not simply at the epistemological level but also by

implication, and ultimately through social causation, at the on-

tological level. The quality of life, as well as its economics, must be

quantified so that decisions can be based on a computer printout. Life

in this city, this crime, this act of love must all have their objective

ratings or else the aspiration toward rationalization remains unful-

filled. (How many hours, dear Professor, did you spend last month

"counseling students" as opposed to "doing research," the dean's

questionnaire asks.) Here again, as in the coming of the knowledge

elite, post-industrial society is an ideology of aspiration ("Come Holy

Non-spirit"). For the claims to power of the technicians and the ef-

ficacy and ubiquity of technique are inseparable. Here also, is the fear

that reason, or at least the "single vision" which Blake deplored, will

not triumph in the face of the retrogressive forces of irrationality. The

passages in Bell's 

Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism 

deploring the

danger that rising unreason will negate the coming of post-industrial

society are a cry of anguish which match in force of affect if not felici-

ty of style those with which, from an almost diametrically opposed

point of view, Max Weber somberly greeted the impending triumph of

bureaucratic rationalization of life.

At the last, it should be noted, Bell seems to lose his nerve about the

benefits of a technocratic rationalized post-industrial society when in

the 

Cultural Contradictions 

he argues that, for society to survive,

religion is necessary (for all or just the masses?). One can only

speculate about what kind of religion would find post-industrial ra-

tionalization congenial and at what level of analysis of human life.

Similarly, one can only speculate as to how, in post-industrial society

Bell's hoped for religious revival would begin. Shall 

"Pro Christo et

Ecclesia" 

be restored to the Harvard seal?"

80. Bell's position on religion is found in  Cultural Contradictions, op. cit.,  Pp.

146-171. For a less pessimistic view of the current state of American religion see

Greeley, op. cit.

---