The State as Organization, Ideals as Gravity — The Starting Point for Understanding Ideological Strength and Freedom
The Nation as an Organization, Ideals as a Gravitational Field
A Starting Point for Understanding the Structure of Ideological Strength and Political Freedom Throughout my career, I have observed companies and organizations up close. In the early 1980s, Japan’s economy was gaining momentum, and many well-known companies were facing major turning points. They were trying to redefine their business domains to clarify their identities or perhaps to prepare for new transformations and to share these definitions with their employees. I participated in such projects and engaged in discussions with management on the fundamental question: “What is this company really about?” At the time, this was part of what we called “Corporate Identity” (CI).Back then, there was a shared enthusiasm on the ground to build a “good company,” rather than merely maximize profits.
It became fashionable to formulate and proclaim a corporate philosophy. But after three decades, and as the economy stagnated, things began to change. Some companies continued to display their ideals, but those ideals no longer translated into employee behavior. In some cases, the ideals were nothing more than framed statements, read aloud at the beginning of meetings. After retirement, I began advising business executives. What I came to realize was that what drives a company’s growth is not just the ideals they declare, but rather the shared beliefs—the mental habits—held by employees. For example: Do employees truly believe they are allowed to act on their own initiative? Do they feel that, even if the world follows certain rules, it is still meaningful to try and change those rules? These kinds of beliefs had a strong influence on the vitality of organizations.
On the other hand, I also saw many cases where strong adherence to a fixed ideal actually held back growth. Later, concepts like “governance” and “stakeholders” became popular, and the institutional position of employees within organizations grew weaker. Even now, I still wonder whether that shift has truly benefited the vitality of organizations.
Through these experiences, a thought began to take shape in my mind: “Could the same kind of thinking be applied to nations as well?” I was struck by the emergence of newly independent ethnic republics following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and by the strong national character of Israel. The provocative question, “When did Jews become Jews?” hit me hard. As I observed the rise of nationalist states, I began to sense deeply: nations also have ideals that shape their people’s behavior and consciousness.
But unlike companies, these ideals can tilt in various directions, left or right. Compared to companies, a nation is a much more abstract kind of “organization.” It might not even be classified as one in management theory. But when you look at a nation from afar, it behaves like a single entity, a moving mass. I decided to step beyond the frameworks I had used to analyze small organizations and try to observe the nature of nations, especially those that claim to be united with a particular ethnic group. Two thinkers helped me along this path: Emmanuel Todd, with his theory of family structures, and Branko Milanović, with his classification of capitalism. Todd argues that deep cultural patterns, especially family structures, shape political systems. Milanović shows that even within global capitalism, different ideological intensities and institutional contexts create different variants. Inspired by their work, I began to ask: “If we think of a nation as an organization, shouldn’t there be some way to measure the *strength* of its ideals, just as we do when looking at companies?” A nation’s ideals may be expressed in its laws, educational systems, traditions, and public consciousness.
These ideals may serve as a source of legitimacy, as a form of authority, and as a kind of self-imposed discipline voluntarily embraced by its citizens. And so, I arrived at this hypothesis: that we need to separately understand the *strength* of a nation’s ideals and the *extent of freedom* allowed within it. This essay is the story of how I came to that idea. In the next chapter, I will explore how the unfamiliar concept of “ideological strength” can help us better understand the structure of a nation—both in theory and in practice.
