their partition is increasingly understoodnas a necessity in a world of business conglomerates.nTherefore there can be nonculture in work and workplace, no matternwhat Studs Terkel and Daniel Yankelovichnfind, each in his own way.nEnter Deal and Kennedy’s CorporatenCultures, which does restore culturento the world of work—but it turns out tonbe as culture-bound as Babbitt. By simplifyingncorporate culture to humannproblems presented at the soap-operanlevel, the authors deny a human realitynto the world of business organizations. Anconvention delegate once told Joan Didionnthat the Junior Chamber of Commercenhad changed his life because “itnsaved my marriage and it built my business.”nThe executives of CorporatenCultures come off no better.nWhen Did He Stop Beating His Wife?nCertainly one of the most famous profilesnin the history of television is the amplenone of the late Alfred Hitchcock.nHitchcock was, throughout his life, onnthe chunky side. Parade magazine, thenorgan of reading illiterates, has divinednwhy Hitch was portly:nDespite a long marriage with all the exteriorntrappings of success, Hitchcocknlived a life of sexual frustration. . . .nWhenever he lost off-set control of annacttess whose life he sought to dominate—asnwith Bergman, Miles andnHedren, the latter two of whom he hadnunder personal contract—he’d overeatnto compensate for his frustration.nThat Hitchcock employed beautiful actressesnno one can deny. That Hitchcocknwas domineering on the sets with actresses—asnwell as actors, cameramen, etc.—nis well known. That Hitchcock had a largengirth is evident. How Parade knows thenreal story behind the relationship betweennAlfred and Alma Hitchcock isnnever made clear, though that is probablynof little interest to the readers ofn^Z^^^m^^mmmmnChronicles of CulturenThe idea of a corporate culture goes atnleast as far back as Robert Roy’s ThenCultures of Management (1970); whatnDeal and Kennedy mean by the term cannbe found in Schwartz and Davis onn”Matching Corporate Culture and BusinessnStrategy” in a 1981 number ofnOrganizational Dynamics. The problemnwith their approach is that culture seen innisolation is not culture. The people whonchoose to live through their work in thenmodern corporation experience as muchncultural pressure from without as fromnwithin. Even if they have been raised on ansteady diet of Scrooge McDuck and Monopoly,nmany are worried about whatnDaniel Bell called the cultural contradictionsnof capitalism. The corporate worldnis not a culture, but a subculture. Thosenfamiliar with the work of Michael Mac-nLiBERAL CULTURE nn”Personality Parade.” If its suggestionsnabout the link between sexual undernourishmentnand alimentary excess werencorrect, the planet would flip out of orbitnunderthcweightofitspopulation. iHnnncoby on industrial anthropology, whichnis conspicuous by its absence in CorporatenCultures, understand just how muchnexcessive behavior reflects the tensionnbetween the two.nMaccoby, in The Gamesman andnmore recendy in The Leader, can discussncorporate culture with authenticity and anlarger social vision. Beginning with a stillquotednclassic, Douglas McGregor’s ThenHuman Side of Enterprise (I960), Maccobynfinds uncballenged its caveat: participationnin the workplace means greaternprofit. Our reluctance to work in corporationsnis really a reluctance to recognizenthat we do work in them more oftennthannot. But without participation worknis a curse and the corporation is to blame.nYet Maccoby found that managers, regardlessnof earned respect, are not quitentrusted when they push hard for socialnconcern and humanization. But the consequencesnof the fact that corporationsntoday organize more human energy ofnhigher intellectual quality than any othernAmerican institutions did not escapenMaccoby. The hope that technologyndesigned by both social and economicncriteria may generate loyalty, concern,nand productivity Uves on in the corporatenculture. “Anewrypeofman,” concludesnMaccoby, “is taking over the leadershipnof the most technically advanced companiesnin America. . . . more cooperativenand less hardened than the autocraticnempire builder and less dependent thannthe organizaton man, he is more detachednand emotionally inaccessible thanneither. And he is troubled by it: the newnindustrial leader can recognize that hisnwork develops his head but notnhis heart.”n”The life of the mind in the firm,”nwrote Neil Chamberlain, “is hobblednand its vision is blinkered by the constraintnto which the business instimtion isnsubject within the larger social system.nThe firm’s specialized role is perhaps thengreatest limitation on the role of the individualnwithin it.” This point cannot benoverlooked by those wishing to writenabout corporate culmre. The relation ofnindividual and firm replicates the rela-n