Managerialism, Technological Society, and the Transformation of Political Rule: Burnham as a Corrective to Schmitt

The transformation of political order in the modern world cannot be understood solely through the traditional categories of monarchy, aristocracy, democracy, or even bourgeois liberalism. The rise of industrialization, technological systems, mass administration, and bureaucratic organization created a new form of social and political power that exceeded older political frameworks. One of the most significant attempts to theorize this transformation appears in the work of James Burnham, particularly in The Managerial Revolution. Burnham argued that modern society was undergoing a profound shift in which political and economic power would no longer belong primarily to capitalists, hereditary aristocrats, or traditional political rulers, but instead to a new managerial class composed of administrators, technical experts, executives, planners, and organizational elites.

Burnham’s analysis can be understood as an important corrective to Carl Schmitt’s political theory. Schmitt correctly identified the emergence of a technological age that superseded the liberal and commercial epoch of the nineteenth century. In essays such as “The Age of Neutralizations and Depoliticizations,” Schmitt argued that the technological age would fundamentally alter the structure of politics and authority. Yet Schmitt ultimately failed to derive a concrete form of rule appropriate to this new epoch. He rejected liberal parliamentarianism and criticized bourgeois depoliticization, but he did not fully explain who would govern technological society. He remained skeptical of technocracy and rejected the rule of experts as a sufficient basis for political legitimacy.

Burnham fills this theoretical gap. His theory of managerialism explains the emergence of a new ruling class capable of dominating technological society. The managerial class bridges the commercial, financial, bureaucratic, military, academic, and technological worlds. It organizes production, controls information, administers institutions, and governs large organizational systems. In this sense, managerialism represents the form sovereignty takes within the technological age. It is the political structure corresponding to a society increasingly defined by technical systems, bureaucratic coordination, and organizational power.

At the same time, managerialism also represents a profound transformation in the nature of political order itself. It replaces older and more humane forms of community and authority with an impersonal system of administration and control. The rise of managerial rule marks the culmination of the transition from organic community to mass technological society, a transformation anticipated in the works of Ferdinand Tönnies, Émile Durkheim, Max Weber, and later theorists of modernity.

Schmitt and the Technological Age

Carl Schmitt’s political thought is deeply concerned with historical epochs and the forms of order that characterize them. In “The Age of Neutralizations and Depoliticizations,” Schmitt traces the movement of European civilization through successive cultural stages, beginning with the theological age, followed by the metaphysical age, then the humanitarian and moral age, and finally the economic and technological age.

According to Schmitt, nineteenth century liberalism was rooted in the commercial and bourgeois worldview. Liberal society sought peace through trade, discussion, economic exchange, and depoliticized administration. The bourgeoisie attempted to replace political conflict with commerce and rational debate. Yet Schmitt argued that this liberal order could not eliminate politics because conflict and the friend enemy distinction remained fundamental realities of human existence.

The rise of technology transformed this liberal commercial order. Technology introduced new forms of organization, power, and social coordination that surpassed traditional political categories. The technological age was no longer centered upon commerce alone but upon technical efficiency, mass administration, industrial systems, and mechanized control.

Schmitt correctly perceived that this new age required a new political form. However, he failed to identify clearly who would govern such a society. He criticized parliamentary liberalism and distrusted technocratic notions of neutral expertise, yet he never fully theorized the ruling class of technological modernity. His focus remained largely on sovereignty, decisionism, and the existential foundations of political authority rather than on the sociological structure of emerging elites.

This is where Burnham’s contribution becomes essential.

Burnham and the Rise of the Managerial Class

In The Managerial Revolution, Burnham argued that capitalism was giving way to a new social order dominated not by private owners but by managers. Economic ownership no longer guaranteed actual control. Instead, power increasingly belonged to those who administered large organizations, corporations, bureaucracies, military institutions, universities, and state agencies.

The managerial class includes executives, planners, engineers, administrators, technocrats, academics, policy experts, and organizational elites. Their power derives not primarily from ownership but from technical and administrative control over complex institutions. Modern society requires large systems of coordination that cannot function without managerial expertise.

Burnham therefore identifies the ruling class appropriate to technological society. The technological age requires organization on a massive scale. Industrial production, military systems, bureaucratic states, financial networks, communication infrastructures, and technological research all demand administrative coordination. Managers become indispensable because they possess the technical knowledge and institutional position necessary to operate these systems.

This managerial elite bridges multiple domains of power. It links finance, government, academia, media, corporations, and administration into a unified organizational order. Burnham’s insight is especially powerful because it explains how authority in technological society becomes increasingly centralized within interconnected institutional structures.

Managerialism therefore represents more than a mere economic development. It is a new form of political rule and social organization. Sovereignty in technological society belongs not to kings, parliaments, or even capitalists alone, but to organizational elites who control the machinery of administration and technical expertise.

Managerialism as a Form of Sovereignty

To understand managerialism properly, one must recognize that it is not merely bureaucratic inefficiency or excessive administration. It is a distinct form of political order. Managerialism becomes the dominant structure of authority in a world governed by technological systems.

Traditional political forms were rooted in more direct and personal relations of authority. Aristocratic societies depended upon landed elites tied to local communities and military obligations. Monarchies often relied upon dynastic legitimacy and personal loyalty. Even bourgeois commercial society retained significant elements of local autonomy, civic association, and personal economic responsibility.

Managerial society differs fundamentally. Power becomes increasingly impersonal, institutional, and administrative. Authority flows through organizations rather than through personal bonds or local communities. Decision making becomes concentrated within bureaucratic systems staffed by technical experts and administrators.

This transformation alters the character of sovereignty itself. Sovereignty no longer appears primarily as the visible authority of a monarch or a parliamentary body. Instead, it becomes embedded within administrative institutions, regulatory systems, technological infrastructures, and organizational networks.

Burnham therefore explains the concrete social basis of the technological age that Schmitt identified but did not fully theorize. The manager becomes the ruler appropriate to technological civilization because modern society depends upon organizational control and technical coordination.

Managerial Unity and Organizational Power

Some critics claim that managerialism fails to produce genuine unity because it dissolves traditional communal bonds and organic social relations. Yet this criticism misunderstands Burnham’s insight. Managerialism does produce unity, but it is a fundamentally different type of unity from the organic communities of earlier societies.

Traditional community, or Gemeinschaft in Tönnies’s terminology, emerges from shared life within limited spaces and stable relationships. Such communities are rooted in households, kinship, religion, local custom, and face to face interaction. Aristotle’s account of the polis in Politics Book I reflects this understanding. The polis arises organically from households and villages sharing a common life directed toward a common good.

Thinkers such as Robert Nisbet and Richard Weaver emphasize the importance of these intermediate communities in preserving human scale, moral responsibility, and social cohesion. Organic communities involve mutual obligations and shared lived experiences. Those who govern remain tied to the consequences of their decisions because they participate directly in the same communal life as those they govern.

Managerialism creates a different kind of unity. It imposes social coordination from above through institutions, bureaucracies, and administrative systems. The unity of managerial society is organizational rather than organic. It depends upon regulation, standardization, surveillance, and administrative integration.

This unity can be highly effective in technical and administrative terms. Large populations become manageable through bureaucratic systems and technological coordination. Yet the ruling class increasingly lacks direct connection or accountability to the populations it governs. Managers operate through institutions rather than through shared communal life.

Burnham’s analysis therefore reveals an important feature of managerial sovereignty. Those who rule possess immense organizational power while remaining insulated from the consequences of their decisions. Their authority derives from institutional position rather than personal responsibility or communal participation.

From Community to Society

The rise of managerialism must be distinguished from the earlier transition from community to society that occurred during the birth of the modern age. Ferdinand Tönnies’s distinction between Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft remains essential here. Gemeinschaft refers to organic community rooted in personal bonds and shared life, while Gesellschaft refers to impersonal society organized through contracts, economic exchange, and formal institutions.

This transition began during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries with the rise of commerce, urbanization, centralized states, and market relations. Modern society increasingly replaced local communal bonds with contractual and economic relationships.

Thinkers such as Durkheim and Weber explored this transformation in detail. Durkheim’s The Division of Labor in Society analyzes how modern specialization creates forms of social solidarity distinct from traditional communal life. Weber’s Economy and Society and The City examine the rise of rationalization, bureaucratic administration, and urban commercial structures.

Burnham’s managerial revolution represents a later stage in this historical process. It is not identical with the shift from Gemeinschaft to Gesellschaft but rather emerges after bourgeois commercial society has already developed. Managerialism corresponds specifically to the technological age identified by Schmitt.

Commercial society remains centered upon markets, exchange, and bourgeois individualism. Managerial society moves beyond this toward administrative and technological control. The manager replaces the entrepreneur as the dominant figure. Technical expertise and bureaucratic coordination become more important than individual ownership or commercial initiative.

Managerialism therefore marks the transition from commercial modernity to technological modernity.

The Dangers of Excessive Unity

The rise of managerial sovereignty also raises important questions about political unity and diversity. Excessive fragmentation can destroy political order, but excessive unity can be equally dangerous. Aristotle’s critique of Plato’s Republic in Politics Book II is especially relevant here.

Aristotle argues that the polis cannot become completely unified without ceasing to be a political community altogether. Political life necessarily involves plurality, diversity, and differentiated roles. A city composed entirely of identical individuals would lose the complexity and reciprocity that make political life possible.

Modern managerial systems often seek forms of administrative uniformity that threaten genuine human diversity. Organizational rationalization tends toward standardization, centralization, and homogenization. Human beings become increasingly treated as interchangeable units within larger systems.

Arlene Saxonhouse’s Fear of Diversity and Bernard Yack’s works on political community highlight the importance of preserving plurality within political life. Similarly, István Hont’s Politics in Commercial Society explores the tensions between commerce, community, and political order.

Ernest Gellner’s Conditions of Liberty also emphasizes the dangers posed by overly centralized systems that suppress civil society and intermediary institutions. Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges’s The Ancient City reminds us that earlier political communities were deeply rooted in shared religious and familial bonds absent from modern technological society.

Managerialism therefore creates a paradoxical form of unity. It successfully coordinates large populations through organizational systems while simultaneously weakening the organic communal bonds that once grounded political life.

Conclusion

James Burnham’s theory of the managerial revolution provides a crucial corrective to Carl Schmitt’s account of the technological age. Schmitt recognized that liberal commercial society was giving way to a new technological epoch, but he failed to identify the ruling class appropriate to this transformation. Burnham fills this gap by explaining the emergence of managerial elites who dominate the commercial, bureaucratic, academic, technological, and administrative worlds.

Managerialism represents the form sovereignty takes in technological society. Power increasingly belongs to those who control organizational systems, technical expertise, and bureaucratic institutions. The manager replaces the bourgeois entrepreneur and the traditional political ruler as the dominant figure of modernity.

At the same time, managerialism transforms the character of political unity itself. Organic communities rooted in shared life and mutual obligation give way to organizational forms of unity imposed from above. Administrative systems coordinate society while weakening local communities, intermediary institutions, and personal accountability.

The rise of managerial rule therefore marks a profound civilizational transformation. It represents the culmination of long historical processes moving from community to society and from commercial modernity to technological modernity. Burnham’s analysis remains powerful precisely because it explains not merely economic change but the emergence of a new form of political order suited to the technological age.

In this sense, managerialism is not simply an administrative phenomenon. It is the defining political form of modern technological civilization.

Print