Doctor of Leadership in Global Perspectives: Crafting Ministry in an Interconnected World

Drinks with Don Draper

Written by: on November 15, 2017

Anthony Elliott’s classic text Contemporary Social Theory: An Introduction lavished me with a readable and stimulating exposure to social theory developments over the past century of thought. What it does so well is help provide an explanation for events and trends that incite so much fear and unsettledness in our culture today. Knowing why traditional marriage has been abandoned, or how an individual could possibly choose suicide-by-police, or why we hate Walmart so fervently are all explained in the pages of this tome. It also leads us in understanding why Mad Men’s protagonist, Don Draper, drank Old-Fashioneds, and why the ice began to melt in his drink.

Zygmunt Bauman, a Pole from the University of Leeds, is one such thinker that Elliott explores. In ground-breaking works such as Liquid Modernity (2000), Bauman sees modernity as proto-fascist and oppressive; it is the culmination of the Enlightenment where reason dominates and eventually orders the world. Today, global capitalism is the current natural order for “heavy” modernity and we witness the inequities and injustices of a permanent underclass and vast involuntary migrations while others reap the reward of financial benefit as their portfolios thrive. Elliott explains,

“Modernity as ‘heavy’ assumes a dominant role with the development of industrialization and the intensification of modernization throughout the West. Vast machinery, huge factories, massive workforces: economic success defined in terms of size, and symbolic power defined in terms of volume, are central to the contours of heavy modernity.”[1]

However, global realities have abruptly shifted in the Information Age. Bauman has increasingly objected to the term postmodernism, preferring rather the term “liquid modernity” as he views postmodernism as merely an extension of modernity[2]. Like a solid ice cube melts in a drink, so too heavy modernity is melting into liquid modernity[3]. It’s still the same substance – modernity – but it has transformed its appearance.

In this new, liquid landscape, rigid barriers and social norms melt. In an interview with Mark Haugaard in Journal of Power, Bauman proposes:

Today culture consists of offers, not norms….[C]ulture lives by seduction, not normative regulation; PR, not policing; creating new needs/desires/ wants, not coercion.[4] 

It sounds just like a soundbite from Don Draper.

One way we see change occurring during this transition is highlighted by Malaysian sociologist, Raymond Lee, who comments on Bauman’s thesis:

“[He] describes such a world as offering exhilarating experiences: ‘In such a world, little is predetermined, even less irrevocable … For the possibilities to remain infinite, none may be allowed to petrify into everlasting reality.’ It is in this unendingly fluid world that the individual is transformed into a consummate consumer.”[5]

Lee, however, suggests Bauman may have blind spots.  He envisions an unexpected eventuality for liquidity.

“The possibility of re-embedding in liquidity suggests that melting solids may re-solidify when structural reconfigurations occasioned by liquidity itself present new problems and challenges.”[6]

I think this is a wise caution for anyone taking advantage of this liquid moment.  Even in nature we see the warming and cooling cycles on an annual basis.  What melts, can also freeze again.

As I research into generational transitions in faith-based philanthropy, I am all-too-aware that these cultural forces will force heavy philanthropy to become more liquid. Even the traditional vehicle for heavy philanthropy, a family foundation, sounds clunky and awkwardly obsolete today. In its place we find the emergence of crowdfunding, DAFs (Donor-Advised Funds), impact investing, and giving circles. The Millennials who will lead their family philanthropy into the future embrace a liquid environment, seeking and consuming experiences, and their giving will reflect that. Traditional philanthropy must change.

Last evening, I had dinner with two Millennials who I’m working with to design a new round of grants. Last year, as a pilot project, we ran the Spark Initiative – small investments into the work of Canadian Christian Millennials who are social entrepreneurs doing initiatives that benefit marginalized groups. This year the initiative will once again be undertaken with the leadership of an evangelical denomination – imagine, a denomination investing into social enterprise without regard to the denominational background of the social innovator! And it’s not just funding, but three weekend retreats and monthly mentoring from qualified business leaders. The unique feature I’m introducing now is that not just the beneficiaries of the grants are required to be Millennials, the donors need to be also. Millennial donors will match themselves to a social innovator, and together they will join with the innovators on the retreats and receive mentoring (by me) over the coming year. I’m trying to bury the us/them divide and to encourage us to be a learning community together.

Lee quotes a study by Peggy Levitt[7] which suggests an anchor amid these monumental cultural shifts.

“Levitt’s study demonstrates the necessity of locating liquid processes, such as the reorganizing and building of global religious networks, within the solidity of religious structures and differences in the world.”[8]

Surprisingly, she sees that the church could be a solution.

This movement to liquid philanthropy minimizes barriers between donor and beneficiary, assumes all are on a journey of learning, moves away from one donor controlling the agenda to a diffusion of power among many, and discovers potential partnerships in achieving shared goals in multiple, unexpected places. Anchor this into a religious context such as a local church or a denomination (with a very long chain), and new generations can explore faith and express it in concrete ways that benefit the local community. Alas, Don Draper didn’t have this anchor; he ended up with a watery Old-Fashioned and moved to California.



[1] Elliott, Anthony. Contemporary Social Theory: An Introduction. (New York: Routledge, 2009), 296.

[2] Elliott, 260.

[3]Elliott, 297.

[4] Bauman, Zygmunt, and Mark Haugaard. “Liquid Modernity and Power: A Dialogue with Zygmunt Bauman.” Journal of Power 1, no. 2 (August 1, 2008): 125. Accessed on November 15, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1080/17540290802227536.

[5] Lee, Raymond L.M. “Modernity, Solidity and Agency: Liquidity Reconsidered.” Sociology 45, no. 4 (August 1, 2011): 653. Accessed on November 15, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038511406582.

[6]Lee, 657.

[7] Levitt, Peggy. God Needs No Passport: Immigrants and the Changing American Religious Landscape. New York: New Press, 2007.

[8]Lee, 657.

About the Author

Mark Petersen

Mark Petersen is the CEO of Stronger Philanthropy, a Canadian firm specializing in maximizing family philanthropy. He leads a diverse group of visionary individuals, foundations and organizations to collaborate in leveraging wealth for charitable impact.

11 responses to “Drinks with Don Draper”

  1. Nate Petersen says:

    Love the notion of liquid modernity as an alternative word for postmodernism. The term ‘poststructuralism’ emerged from the same critique.
    What you’re proposing with the Spark Initiative reminds me of Friere’s assertion that bilateral education, in which the teacher-student relationship is blurred by both party’s ability to learn from one another, is more effective than the banking model of education, where the student is assumed to be an empty recepticle waiting to be filled with knowledge.
    Banking style education (and philanthropy) is oppressive to the recipiant and hinders the ability for both parties to benefit from one another. The imagery of liquidification works well as house-of-card hierarchies fall to more practical, transparent relationships. Great thoughts 🙂

  2. Karen Petersen says:

    If global capitalism is the “current natural order for ‘heavy modernity'”, and if liquid modernity is the same substance, then is our current ‘postmodern’/liquid modern era any less influenced by capitalism? Is it just more Amazon than Walmart?

  3. Jennifer Williamson says:

    Mark, what you want to do with the donor/recipient mentality is exactly what I’d like to do with the missionary sending/receiving mentality. I think we need two way streets from now on, just just one way. We have so much to learn from each other.

  4. M Webb says:


    Suicide-by-police is an interesting way to introduce your post on social theory. I served as both a crisis-negotiator who tried to find peaceful resolutions, and a SWAT commander who stopped problems before they threatened society. I was present at six or more police assisted suicides during my career and managed dozens of others. In every instance, there was a triggering event in the person’s life before encountering the police. For example, divorce, death, separation, addiction, infidelity, and to link with your post, financial loss.

    Philanthropy management to me is like missionary work. As long as we “let God” and don’t try to help outside of the direction of the Holy Spirit, then it works. More than the money, I am excited that you are focused on those who must endure the “eye of the needle” to find Christ. How exciting, to be guided by the Holy Spirit towards the rich who have “good works” predestined for their Christian legacy.

    Stand firm,

    M. Webb

  5. Dan Kreiss says:


    I believe your understanding of the contextual significance of ‘liquidity’ vs ‘postmodernism’ is exactly what Elliott’s book is meant to incite. Recognizing what is happening in the cultural landscape and then responding to it appropriately ensures that you remain relevant and engaged in ways many in the Church do not. I am consistently amazed at your erudite blogs and insightful commentaries. Though your world largely involves finance and philanthropy, I wonder if you have any insight into how the Church should respond in other ways to highlight the changes taking place in society.

  6. Dave Watermulder says:

    Brother Mark,
    Great post, especially around the idea of “liquid” modernity. Not substantially different from modernity, but a new/mobile form. We saw this theme across a number of the social theories (including around globalization and networks). I also enjoyed the way you wove this theme of liquidity/ice-cube through the piece. As you said, “what melts, can also freeze again”. Nice.

  7. May I just say what a relief to find someone that really knows
    what they’re discussing on the internet. You definitely realize how to bring a problem to light and
    make it important. A lot more people ought to check this out and understand this side
    of your story. I was surprised that you aren’t
    more popular given that you certainly have the gift.

Leave a Reply