SPAN: January 1973

l

~ro

/I Ofl ,....... , JL'!f} f,1ti1 1 , .

IiI-R-/sY'

(i-70iYO)

R/~II/-S: OS'S

The quiet contours and velvety texture of California's hills provide a dramatic cont.rast to the life of its sea and its cities. In the latter you might find anything-a bustling food market, a surfing race, a fashion show of tie-and-dye stockings, and even a Sikh religious ceremony.

'/iI-;<-

}$8 ~-78"-:?i)

R/(/irs.'

USIS

//-/f/? ~5-/< ~_8";~

..

â&#x20AC;¢

.

.

.

......

6r-

'2/35'-/1

~~#f/j

SPAN Front cover: Mehitabel, an alley cat, is the heroine of a cartoon film describing her romance with Archy, "the cockroach with the soul of a poet." See page 45.

Back cover: "Whither Women?" This is the title of an article (see page 30) on the U.S. women's liberation movement which seeks to increase women's freedom and options.

Raja Rao on America

err7"(1'f15S/~~

f;PArJ

p.ft;

38 41 45

$

Cue,

ft.S

by Elizabeth WOhl-P~~t"sc:fl

P e'

•

-

~

t,

How America

ill Do Business with the Soviet Union 3/7 <:-,.::- -, /9ft:, Pt2.~5 :; 1.J ). . '/ .•• JJ, s, WI. E4..1 "'~"s tc'",tI

~/'IJ~ 4lI>-J/dt'J.'··7N:r3

J..(

e

olitical Philosophy of 10chard Ni on A:>rs:V. l: ", !. +- (J, t J.

. J wr.

P Y~SICl ,.,.

UIIJYI

,

The Improbab e Love Story Ct't.tor1 ~ M-/R-ISC!

t

1

0

..,

)1

.

A chy and Mehitabel

Managing Editor: Carmen KagaI. Editorial Staff: Mohammed Reyazuddin, Avinash Pasricha, Nirmal Sharma, Krishan Gabrani, M. M. Saha.

Art Director: Nand KatyaI. Art Staff: Kuldip Singh Jus, B. Roy Choudhury, Kanti Roy, Gopi Gajwani. Production Manager: Awtar S. Marwaha. Photographic Services: USIS Photo Lab. Published by the United States Information Service, Bahawalpur House, Sikandra Road, New Delhi, on behalf of the American Embassy, New Delhi.

Printed by Arun K. Mehta at Vakil & Sons Private Limited, Vakils House, Sprott Road, 18 Ballard Estate, Bombay-I. Photographs: Cover-Courtesy of Allied Artists Pictures Corporation.

Sennett; Inside front cover-Bill Eppridge, Life. 1, 2-3-Tomas 3 bottom row-Courtesy Best Foods (a division of CPC International, Inc.); Florida Development Commission; J.R. Eyerman. 4-James P. Blair © 1966 National Geographic Society. 5 top (both)-Jonathan Blair; 5 bottom right-Don Ornitz, Globe Photos. 6 top-Burk Uzzle.

18-Yoshikazu Aono. 23-Carl Purcell. 30, 32-Suzanne Szasz.

45 to inside back cover-Courtesy of Allied Artists Pictures Corporation.

Back cover-Christopher Springman.

Use of SPAN articles in other publications is encouraged, except when copyrighted. For permission, write to the Editor. Subscription: One year, rupees five; single copy, fifty paise. No new subscriptions can be accepted at this time. For change of address, send old address from a recent SPAN envelope along with new address to the Circulation Manager, USIS, New Delhi. Allow six weeks for change of address to become effective.

Even the name of this land of shining was tough and thorny instead of lush and dreams-home of myths and hopes that soft. An image occurred to .p()th. of us: have drawn millions to the western flank We felt as if we were standing on a strange . of· a continent in..one- of" history's great planet who~ crust was so hardthafwe migrations~omes from a fairy tale. . could not dig our toes into the soil. There A 16th-century Spanish novel, Las .Ser- was, we felt, no way to get a grip on this land. gas de Esplandidn, presents "California" Yet seven years later, I refused a promoas a, mythical island near the. Ga'fden· tion because it would have meant moving of Eden. It was inhabited by beautiful, back to New York-and t~en, unwilling Amazon-lilre', women; beyond its rough . to leave the oak trees- and sun and sweet coast could be-found gold and· precious fresh air that surrounds the. house we'd stones. When Spanish explorers ranging . found, unwilling to give up the rhythm of north from Mexico came upon a land of life that California was teaching us, I left giant trees, rugged coastline, snow-capped my job at the magazine altogether. mountains and sun-blasted deserts, perhaps they imagined that their new discovery would live up to the novel's expectations.

'What has survived the In some ways, it has. In some ways~.it Gold Rush is that sense of still dangles a promise just out of reach, California as a place encouraging men and women to project their most dramatic dreams onto Caliof unlimited opportunity.' fornia. In some ways it is a preview of the 21st century.

Since the "Gold Rush" of 1849,' imIt happens frequently. And as Calimigrants have swarmed into this state as fornians give up good jobs rather than if it were indeed an enchanted kingdom. leave the state-all the while complaining It now contains over 20 million people, of the things about it that they want to more than any other state in the United change-the ghosts of earlier settlers can States, more than some sovereign countries. almost be heard chuckling in agreement.

The acorn-eating American Indians who They have sought riches, happiness, advenoriginally lived along the coast watched ture, a new life. Have they found these things? Ah, well, that is more interesting quietly as processions of newcomers tramped into their homeland, beginning with than most fairy tales ....

I first saw California in 1962. The those armour-plated exploring soldiers in magazine I worked for had transferred me 1540. A little more than 200 years later, from New York to San Francisco, and I grey-gowned Franciscan friars started looked forward with delight to sampling building the string of 21 missions around life in the exotic land of ranchers, movie which many Spanish-named cities arosestars, Nobel Prize winners, golden girls San Diego, Santa Barbara, San Francisco, In 1812, a crew of 95 and (because San Francisco Bay is a San Rafael. ... beautiful, busy port) ship captains. Soon Russian fur trappers built a stockaded fort afterwards, I married and moved into a on the northern coast, where they stayed suburban housing development. Imagine until disappearance of sea otters and fur my surprise when my wife and I finally seals prompted their return to Alaska in admitted to each other that we did not 1841. They sold their land to one Captain John Sutter, owner of a sawmill in another like California!'

Raised on the older, more settled East- part of Northern California where, on ern coast of the United States, we felt lost. January 24, 1848-just nine days before . California seemed to be a place desperately Mexico ceded California to the United lacking in the experience of limitation. Its States-gold was discovered.

Gold! That precious yellow metal cities were not divided into the neat units we had known back East, its towns 'ap- forged an image of California that lives to peared to have no centre and no edge, its this day. "The Golden State," it is officially people apparently believed they could do nicknamed, even though gold long ago anything, from building super-sized univer- gave way to farming, manufacturing and trade as a source of wealth. sities to holding "respectable" orgies.

In 1846, California had contained about The earth itself seemed unreal to us.

Instead of summer, autumn, winter and 10,000 Settlers. By 1849, the number had· spring, it had only two seasons-wet in leaped to 50,000 and was growing wildly. winter, dry in summer-and the vegetation The roaring, lawless, romantic Gold Rush"

was on. All over the United States, people left their fields, their houses, their businesses. A flood of gold seekers poured through San Francisco. Soldiers deserted garrisons in California and sailors rushing to the gold fields abandoned 200 ships to rot in San Francisco Bay. Those were harsh times. The new immigrants had come for gold with no intention of remaining permanently, so they cared little for government or laws except the Wild West rule of "might makes right," often at the muzzle of a gun. They also cared nothing for the future of the state.

Miners blasted hillsides with jets of water to get at the gold, leaving scars that have not healed to this day; caravans of gold seekers turned the mountain trails of early fur traders into deeply rutted thoroughfares visible for miles; the main route was lined with broken-down wagons and abandoned equipment.

But today's Californians choose to remember the raucous laughter, the dancing girls in gaslit saloons, the adventures of men who were poor one day, millionaires the next and perhaps poor again the next.

What has survived in the legends of the Gold Rush is that sense of California as a place of unlimited opportunity.

Some "Forty-Niners" gave up their search for gold when they discovered California's rich soil. Seizing the opportunity, they began to establish the huge farms that today produce one-tenth of all the food grown in America. Others started growing the grapes that have made California the nation's· largest wine producer, and still others found their way into virgin forests and began shipping out millions of metres of lumber. Opportunity-seeking Americans have always moved westward; California accelerated their momentum.

California's population has doubled approximately every 20 years since it became a state in 1850, mainly because of the hordes of people moving there from other places. Between 1860 and 1870, after the first Gold Rush onslaught was over, 109,000 newcomers arrived in the state.

A century later, between 1960 and 1970, California grew by five million peoplemore than half of them estimated to be from out-of-state.

Early in this century, the men who started the motion-picture business in bleak New York began looking for a spot where the sun would always shine on their cameras. Where did they go? California.

In the 1930s, when drought and soil ero-

most and southernmost towns on the coast is 1,200 kilometres; measuring to the extreme southern tip near California's junction with Arizona and Mexico makes it some 1,320 kilometres long. Superimposed on a map of India, this state would stretch almost from Bombay to Kanyakumari, or from Delhi to Calcutta, with a little left over.

So what? Mere size does not impress us. What did impress us, however, was our discovery that the 412,600 square kilometres within California's borders contain space for every conceivable climatesimultaneously!-and all the features (ocean, rivers, mountains, desert, forest, grassland) of an entire continent. On one July drive across the state's 320-kilometre width, we had breakfast at sea level in a dripping rain forest chilled by Pacific ocean fog, then drove east and upward into sparkling stands of evergreen trees, dodging heavy lumber trucks as best we could. After lunch in bright, warm sunlight at an altitude of 915 metres, we descended into the scorching Sacramento River Valley-40 degrees Centigrade that day-and watched farmers use huge ma'California's people have chines to till fields that stretched away to developed a feeling that the blue hills on the horizon. That night, they, not the forces of we touched snow near our campground at Mount Lassen, a volcano that still gives nature, control their lives.' off clouds of sulphurous smoke.

California's highest point atop Mount Whitney, 4,418 metres, is a mere 138 kiloOr if what he wants is a touch of terror, he can muse on the fact that California metres from its lowest-the lowest point sits astride the "Ring of Fire"-the belt in North America-Bad Water in Death of volcanoes and earthquake faults circling Valley, 86 metres below sea level. One efthe Pacific Basin-and that at any moment, fect of such great differences in a relatively the San Andreas fault or some other compact area is that California's people gigantic crack in the earth may split the have developed a feeling that they, not the place wide open. An earthquake did destroy forces of nature, control their lives. If they San Francisco in 1906, but true to their want a change of climate, they can get it peculiar outlook, the people of that city by driving a few hours. remember the disaster with some fondness.

The climate of the state's most popuSmall wonder, then, that I approached lated areas is classified as "Mediterranean" the state with fascination. Everything about -long, dry summers and short, mild, wet it seemed larger than life. After living with winters. Only one per cent of the world it for nine years, I still find myself wonder(and no other part of the United States) ing: Where does the myth stop and the has it. The long summer period creates one reality begin? of California's major problems-water One thing is certain: The state's physical deficiency. Though annual rainfall averproportions match the epic quality of its ages more than 280 centimetres in the history. My wife and I began looking at northwest region, it is less than five centieach other and saying, "Hmm ... this metres in the southeastern corner. More isn't such a bad place after all," when we than 70 per cent of the rain falls on the started taking camping trips that led us to northern third-but 80 per cent of the people live in the southern two-thirds. visit every corner of California.

That meant a lot of driving. The Instead of settling where the water is, straight-line distance between the northernCalifornians have been working for years

sion forced thousands of families off their midwestern farms, where did most of them turn for a new life? California.

When religious or social cultists become convinced they have found a better way of life for all, where do they set up headquarters? California.

Jacob Needleman, professor of philosophy at San Francisco State College, writes: " ... politics, food habits, sexual behaviour, clothing, education, medical practice-probably every extreme aspect of human behaviour is well housed here.

"In all this, one naturally thinks first of Southern California: Los Angeles, Hollywood, movie people, but it is true more or less throughout the whole state. At the same time, there exists here a vast, solid middle class and working class typical of the rest of America. In short, California is a place where, by and large, a man can find what he wants. If what he wants is only a whim, a fantasy, or even a perversion-it is here and, probably, there is even an organization devoted to it."

to make it come to them. California, like ancient Rome, is a state of aqueducts, dams, reservoirs and expensive irrigation farming. In 1964, over 3,040,000 hectares of the state's 4,720,000 hectares of cropland had to be irrigated, and by 1975 water is expected to be available for another 880,000 hectares. About 88 per cent of all the water used in California in the 1970s will be for irrigation, primarily in the great interior valley that extends north and south like an elongated footprint in the middle of the state.

As aqueducts move water, freeways move the people. More than any other single influence, the automobile is responsible for California's growth. The freedom of motion offered by private cars encouraged people to live in one spot, work in another, play in still others. That freedom influenced individual lives as well as the growth patterns of the new cities that have spread like mushrooms in the past 25 years; the looping swirls of freeway intersections have replaced the palm tree as California's mark on America.

But the car now threatens to strangle the people who depend so heavily on it. More than 10 per cent of all the automobiles, trucks and buses in the United States are registered in California-nearly 14 million, of which about 11 million are passenger cars. In Los Angeles County alone, a vehicle is registered every eight seconds. If all that county's registered vehicles were placed bumper to bumper on a four-lane freeway, they would stretch from Los Angeles to Fairbanks, Alaska. "It is only . a matter of time until the downtown area is effectively strangled by the lack of sufficient parking," says the Los Angeles Citizens' Advisory Council. More than 30 per cent of the land area of downtown Los Angeles is devoted to parking space.

Even that pales .beside the figures for San Francisco, the city with the greatest concentration of motor vehicles in the world (2,770 per square kilometre). Fed up with traffic jams, knowing that their peninsular city could not sprawl outward as most other California cities have, San Franciscans decided to act after they suffered their first attacks of smog in the 1960s.

Brisk Pacific winds had always kept San Francisco's air so clean that its people could laugh at the reputation of Los Angeles for the stinging, choking air pollution that passenger cars cause. But when smog started stunting their trees, damaging their crops and causing health probcontinued

lems--emphysema is now the fastest growing cause of death in the United Statesalarmed citizens of San Francisco voted funds for a rapid-transit system of electric trains. They hope that when it is completed, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) will lure some drivers out of their cars-and therein lies a major difference between Los Angeles, the state's biggest city, and San Francisco, the state's proudest.

San Francisco has always cherished its glamour. It was the hell-raising port of entry for Gold Rush activity, and the decor of many of its restaurants today attempts to preserve an aura of sinful abandon with red flocked wallpaper, dim chandeliers and a tinkling piano. Gold millionaires, railway mughals, and other men whom California made wealthy, built their mansions atop Nob Hill in San Francisco at a time when Los Angeles was still a small village to the south. Their presence made it the financial capital of the Western United States, and its port made it the trading capital. Since the city is bounded on three sides by water and on the fourth by another county, its population has not grown since it reached 750,000 many years ago.

Today, tourists still come by the millions to walk up and down San Francisco's steep hills, ride its cable cars, and marvel at its spectacular views. Its houses are painted in soft pastel colours, kept clean by ocean winds. From across the bay, the city is bone white, so pretty as it foams up and down the hills that it looks like the capital of some fairy-tale kingdom.

Like such a capital, it is a meeting place for people from all corners of the earth.

San Francisco's Chinatown is the largest Chinese settlement in the Western Hemisphere, receiving about 8,000 newcomers from Hong Kong every year. The city contains large numbers of Mexican-Americans and Italian-Americans, as well as immigrants from every European country and most Asian countries including India.

San Franciscans are proud of their past, proud of their opera, ballet and theatres, proud of their famous restaurants, so proud of their city's beauty that they have defeated several attempts to build elevated freeways through it. Much of their BART system is built underground so as not to disfigure the scenery. Still, there are citizens who want the city to expand. Since the only direction in which it can do that is upward, dark skyscraper towers have begun to sprout over the hills.

The skyscrapers have caused an outcry

among those who want San Francisco to stay beautiful and relatively small. "Why should we sacrifice what is unique about us to become just like any other American city?" they ask. Skyscrapers, they complain, ruin the line of the hills, drive residents out of the city, and worst of all, block the view. San Francisco is struggling to preserve and improve what it has within a limited area of 117 square kilometres.

More like a nation than a state, 'California has its own personality and its own sense of responsibility.'

Not so in Los Angeles. San Francisco was thickly settled before the advent of the automobile, so it exists on a human scale with small streets, alleys, charming neighbourhoods to walk through. By contrast, the only way to see Los Angeles is to fly over it or drive. From the air, it looks like an endless, featureless blanket of efficient but dull buildings spreading inland from the Pacific like a small sea. It is essentially flat, without visible division between Los Angeles and the "spill-over" cities of its metropolitan area-Long Beach, Glendale, Beverly Hills, Pasadena and so on through dozens more names. On and on it goes, with no natural barriers to stop it.

Los Angeles, now the economic centre of the southwestern United States, grew so fast that it had no time for the style and nostalgia of San Francisco. Quarter of a century ago it was a modest city known principally for its Hollywood movie colony, orange groves and sunshine. Today it is the third largest city in America. Los Angeles County, surrounding the city proper, encompasses more than seven million people-over 35 per cent of the entire population of California; neighbouring Orange County has another seven per cent.

Growth was spurred by aircraft, aerospace and other manufacturing industries seeking open land and good weather. They were followed by bankers and real-estate speculators; financial power moved south from San Francisco, the port of Los Angeles became the busiest on the West Coast, and in almost every way the city now occupies the position San Francisco did a century ago.

With one exception: The place was laid out for cars. Most of its spectacular growth

has taken place in the past 25 years, precisely the period in which the automobile became dominant in America's life-style.

Combined with the Californian's desire for a private house on a private plot of land, no matter how small, this meant a sprawling city of single-family houses--each with its own garage-eovering I, I85 square kilometres.

The growth of Los Angeles, like the growth of California, has been accomplished mainly by immigration. Millions of white, middle-class Americans came from other parts of the country. In addition, a large part of the Los Angeles population is Spanish-speaking or black, either immigrants from Mexico who came seeking jobs or American Negroes who came for the same reason.

With such an inpouring of different peoples, the size and diversity of California's activities more closely resemble those of a nation than of a single state among 50. It is no longer a fairy-tale frontier, nor a mere safety valve for the pressures of westward expansion. The simple, greedy adventures of the old days-the quest fOI gold, the search for open land to conquer-are over. Like any nation, California now has its own personality and its own sense of responsibility.

Which leads us to ask once again: Have California's people found the riches, happiness, adventure and the new life they came for? Is California a preview of the 21st century?

Riches? Statistics say yes. The $4,426 per capita personal income of Californians in 1970 was 13 per cent higher than the U.S. average.Well over eight million people were employed, despite severe layoffs in aerospace and related fields, and the average wage earner took home $8,500 in 1970.

"Averages" usually mean little, since they might mask a situation in which most people have nothing while very few have a lot, but the fact is that in California, the majority shares in the comfortable pleasures of what has come to be known as "California living": a decent home, enough food, probably a car, and access to outdoor recreation all year around.

This wealth comes not from gold mines but from the work of people making things for each other. The largest number work in manufacturing; the next largest in wholesale and retail trade. By 1980, however, forecasters say the largest source of employment will be the service industriestravel, dry cleaning, computer program-

ming, jobs not involving the sale of an object. Trade and government jobs will alternate in second and third place, while manufacturing will drop to fourth. Agriculture will continue bringing money into the state, say the forecasters, but mechanization will further reduce the number of jobs-there are now just 3l8,OOO-available on farms.

Happiness? Adventure? A new life?

America's Declaration of Independence referred to the pursuit of happiness, not to its capture. As California comes into maturity, its pe'ople are learning to measure their happiness in terms of problems as well as potential, of challenge as well as achievement. What may have symbolized happiness in the fairy tale-gold, sunshine and beautiful maidens-is now more complex.

After all the talk of machines, lumber. food and other products, it becomes clear that California's biggest product-perhaps its biggest export to the rest of the United States and the rest of the world-is change.

California's experience has hammered down some old ways of thinking. "California living" has had a more profound effect than might at first be imagined. The state is inexorably filling up with peopleand in California, it turns out, they tend to relate differently to one another than they did back where they came from.

There is still much open land, but in the past year or two Californians have suddenly realized that much of the wilderness and farmland that have been so important to them are in danger of vanishing under the pressure of homes and shopping centres. The term "city" first began to lose its meaning in California. As incoming families opted time and again for the singlefamily houses that make up so much of Los Angeles and the outskirts now of all American cities, suburban areas spread in ever-widening circles around the job-rich urban cores.

These suburbs-"bedroom communities" where people sleep but do not worknow contain the bulk of California's population. Living as self-contained family units, many of these people do not really know their neighbours. They have the same feeling of not belonging that my wife and I had, of not being able to dig their toes into the earth.

Who can shape the future? A common California answer is: "Anyone who cares enough to try." An almost unlimited opportunity for personal achievement and service derives from the very formlessness

of California society. If the new arrival came, as my wife and I did, from an old town east of the Rocky Mountains, he had left a relatively simple, structured life. In the East, kinfolk were all around him; he had probably inherited his religion, politics, social status and friends; when he went to a party, almost everyone present knew each other, and had for years.

At our first party in a California suburb, we discovered that most of the people there had never seen each other a year before.

Nobody knew the first thing about anybody else's social status, political affiliations or religion. Uncomfortable? Yes, at first.

But there is truth in the words of the late James A. Pike, former Episcopal bishop of California: "There is a distinct plus in people's willingness out here to accept others for what they are, not for their class or background. I think there is more compassion.... There is in the air a pioneer spirit, a willingness to take chances and not worry about making mistakes or saving face, a much greater readiness to say, not 'We've never done this before,' but 'Let's go!' "

'California's ... biggest export to the rest of the United States and the rest of the world is-change.'

There is, too, that peculiar phenomenon known as the politics of personality. At the local level, people who do not know each other tend to concentrate on issues such as taxes, schools, water use, which is all to the good. But at the state level, television and a handsome face can win elections simply because voters often have little else to go on. Even political party labelsRepublican or Democrat-do not carry the weight they do in the East.

"To find stable balance while in rapid motion is the dangerous modern endeavour." Those words of novelist Herbert Gold, himself a California immigrant, state the California challenge. One traditional criticism of the way Californians meet the challenge is that they find stability by becoming conformists. Another is that they lose balance and become extremists and crackpots. There is some truth in both criticisms, but not the whole truth.

A former president of the University of California, Clark Kerr, says there is more

conformity in an Eastern town than in the largest California suburb: "Here, the houses are more alike. There, the people are more alike." And if the future is to be ch1j.racterizedby change and the absence of traditional roots, then California is indeed a glimpse of the future. In the words of Alan Watts, a California expert on Oriental philosophy: "What people in the Eastern United States can't see is that new patterns are being developed, breaking down assumptions based on Greek thought, with its emphasis on permanence. In my view, a human being, if he is sufficiently sure of himself, doesn't have to have roots.

A man was not supposed to be a plant rooted to the ground, but a bird, free to soar. Change is the basic condition of human life. As we become more aware of the interdependence of all humanity-not just in one village, but everywhere-then we can be more truly individual."

In a fast-changing society, every segment of that society is on the moral firing line. Some Californians feel themselves very much on the line, as a San Francisco religious leader explains: "Where a man is born into his role in life, he has fewer moral choices than where he is forced to make his own role. There is no moral choice in doing what you have to do. In California, the old social compartments are being broken down, and we are creating a new aristocracy, an aristocracy of those who care. Membership is restricted only by one's capacity for concern."

California still has some stable, structured communities, mostly small towns in the north and the interior. But for the most part, Californians are trying to get used to living in communities that may never be completed in the manner of a European town or a New England village. The physical community will be built and rebuilt, again and again. A shifting, almost formless social hierarchy thus revolves around achievement and involvement more than around birth or buildings. In such a fluctuating society, individuals can easily become bewildered or discouraged; but if the dangers are great, so are the opportunities.

That has always been what the California myth-and the California realityis about. And that is why it may be, indeed, a preview of the 21st century.

END About the Author: John Poppy, a former senior editor of Look magazine, is presently a freelance writer of magazine articles and books on the environment and human relations.

The picture of a snail (above) was created on a computer by artists of the California Computer Products. "Studios" for computer art are generally found wherever computers are found-on university campuses, in corporation headquarters.

The picture of seagulls (above right) composed from 11,616 tiny designs was created by R.G. Knowlton and Leon D. Harmon. Enlarged by magnification (right), the details of the tiny designs are clearly visible. Seen from a distance the small details fuse together and the over-all picture of gulls takes on the quality of a continuous-tone photo.

.• Aj·" ",".:l" •. '. '1 .• f • .,.

•.t·

None of us knows how much computers will be a part of our lives in the year 2001, but even today they are being used for such non-scientific purposes as the creation of art. In computer art, man is still the artist; the computer is merely his tool which he uses as a musician uses a violin or a piano. The artist uses the computer in many ways.

He can, for example, programme it to substitute hieroglyphic symbols for the halftone shades of a photograph (above and

left). Or he can, like John Mott-Smith, attach a cathode-ray tube to his computer and create dazzling displays of colour (see next page). Mott-Smith is also a theorist of the new art.

Re feels that the experimentation is "an exciting period of mutual interaction between man and machine." Although the artist writes the programmes that produce the displays, he cannot, says Mott-Smith, predict precisely what his displays will look like at any given moment-as a

musician cannot predict what his notes will sound like at any given time. They will differ from the final photographs because even as the designs develop, the kinetic patterns keep appearing, changing and disappearing in endless motion.

Is there any scientific spinoff or is it all frivolous art?

Mott-Smith answers: "The work serves a good purpose. We are learning to communicate with our machines in ways never before achieved." (continued)

... ~.":.."

Computer artists are generally scientists or engineers, such as John Mott-Smith (below). Here, he creates varied patterns of light on a cathode-ray tube attached to a compute~. When photographed, the patterns produce dazzling samples of computer art such as those above and at right.

/9/4

~RD A ENTURY LITI

The verse above, superimposed on a photograph of the earth taken by the astronauts, is a fitting epigraph for this article, which discusses what new environmental, political and human values will be-needed to preserve the 'spaceship earth,' a living ecological system floating alone in a lifeless void. Professor Boulding maintains that today's political ideologies and institutions, which were appropriate in an era of human expflnsion, will be inadequate to cope with 21st-century problems. The future must be an era of conservation; today's linear economy must be replaced by a spaceship-earth economy based on solar energy, recycling, zero population growth.

Any attempt to peer into the future must be regarded with the gravest suspicion. The record of prediction indeed is so dismal, even in respectable fields like demography, that some future Pure Food and Information Office may compel futurologists to stamp on all their predictions "Believing in this prediction may be harmful to the health." Nevertheless, the urge to predict is ineradicable, simply because of the basic dilemma of the human condition, which is that all knowledge is about the past and all decisions are about the future.

All prediction is derived from observing regular patterns in the past. The failures of prediction may come either from failure to perceive the true regularity of the past, which is something that we can hope to correct, or from changes in the patterns themselves, about which we can do very little. The most successful predictions are those which involve control, that is, the setting up of artificial systems, the regularities of which are known because we have created them. Thus, we can predict the temperature inside a thermostatically controlled room with a great deal of confidence,' though the temperature outside is subject to great errors of prediction.

The political system is part of the general social system. Hence, a look into the future of politics would have to look at the general patterns of change of the whole social system, for all parts of it are interconnected.

Several kinds of patterns can be detected. One consists of mechanical "Newtonian" patterns, such as we find in population projections, projections of economic growth, and so on. The record of predictions by mechanical projection in social systems is surprisingly poor, mainly because of unforeseen changes in the parameters, or "constants," of the system, such

as fertility or mortality rates in the case of population projections, or the marginal propensity to consume in the case of economic projections. However; we do know that all people that are alive today will be either one year older or dead this time next year. Thus, if mortality is assumed to be fairly constant, distortions in the age distribution may be expected to appear in 30 years' time, in age groups 30 years older than where they are now. Thus, the bulge in the American birth rate, from about 1947 to 1961, is showing up as a bulge in enrolments in ages 10 to 24 in schools and colleges now and will appear as a high proportion of people between the ages of 40 and 54 in 2001. A similar principle applies to all capital goods. Short of some catastrophe, most of the houses that are here today will be around in 20 years. There is a great principle of persistence and monotony that tomorrow is going to be very much like today. Were it not for this indeed the world would really fall apart.

All "trends" are mechanical predictions, and are likely to be falsified. We may improve them by taking account of secondary or third differentials, that is, rates of change of rates of change, or even rates of change of rates of change of rates of change. We may perceive that some process is slowing down or speeding up, or even that the rate at which it is slowing down is increasing.

A lot of superficial evidence suggests that the enormous change in the condition of man which followed the development of science and its application to technology now is slowing down very rapidly. I have argued that the great period of change was my grandfather's life, say, from 1860 to 1920. As I look back on my own childhood in the 1920s, the world was not strik-

ingly different as far as ordinary daily life was concerned. We had electric lights, automobiles, the beginning of the radio, movies, and the telephone. The technical changes of my lifetime, apart from television and perhaps antibiotics, have not very much affected daily life. Such things as nuclear energy, radar, lasers, and space travel have not as yet made much impact on the life of the ordinary man. By contrast, one thinks of my grandfather in 1920 looking back at his childhood in a remote English village in 1860, without automobiles, without telephones, without electricity, without movies, without radio, virtually without any of the things that we think of as the "modern world," except perhaps for a railway train 30 kilometres away. His childhood could not have been all that different from his grandfather's, and his grandfather's, right back to Queen Elizabeth I and further.

I have seen much less change than my grandfather, and my children may see much less change than 1. Predictions of this sort, on the other hand, are peculiarly likely to be falsified. Any particular growth process is likely to exhibit eventually diminishing rates of growth, that is, it will follow the familiar S curve. It can always be interrupted, however, by a new impetus, that-is; by the development of new growth and potential. This has happened innumerable times in human history and there is certainly nothing to indicate that it will not happen again. We might, for instance, have something dramatic coming out of molecular biology with wholly new forms of life. We might get a real breakthro~gh in the understanding of human learning, which would cause dramatic social changes. Even at the physical level, we might break through into some kind of gravity shield, which would revolutionize continued

o - pa/. /-f

ÂŁ/6#,75.'

US/S

The garbage barge in the foregif:und, photographed against New York City's skyline, dramatically symbolizes the enormity of the problem of waste disposal in today's linear economy. The author argues that the

,;?.r-ÂŁ-/?~

in biological growth. We always expect a kitten to grow up into a cat, never into a rhinoceros. Similarly, the enormous growth process which has been taking place in the human race, in terms of its physical expansion and increase in per capita incomes and in terms ultimately of its knowledge stock, is also something that is likely to have "maturity." The maturity of the "stationary state" casts its shadow across the present, just as the shadow of the adult the energy picture. We might find sources that he is to be falls across the life of the of energy within the subatomic particles. growing child and pushes him into all sorts We might even find something wholly new of activities, like education, which otherand unsuspected. The probability of all wise he might not want. these things, however, seems at the moThe shadow of coming maturity is just ment moderately low, and the expectation now touching our present society in our of declining rates of growth, both of know 1- worries about pollution, exhaustion of reedge and of productivity, is not at all sources, the impact of population growth, unreasonable. The United States, indeed, and the uneasy feeling that headlong is already witnessing a noticeable decline development might lead to disaster. Over in the rate of increase of labour produc- the 21st century, however, the shadow of tivity, especially since 1967. This may, of maturity will fall very darkly. Long before course, be a very temporary phenomenon, the end of the 21st century it will become or it may be the shadow of what I have clear that the "linear economy" that we been calling ZPPG, that is, zero population have now, that runs from mines and fossil and productivity growth, even perJ1aps fuel sources to dumps, cannot go on inwithin present lifetimes. definitely. A major effort will have to be Another source of knowledge about the made towards a "spaceship technology," future might be called the "maturation involving reliance on solar energy for power principle." We see this in a simple form and on the recycling of materials, together

'The linear economy we have now, that runs from mines and fossil fuel sources to dumps, cannot go on ¡ indefinitely. A major effort will have to be made towards a spaceship technology.'

z-fr9"'Y

politics of the 21st century must be less concerned with ideologies and more with environmental problems and conservation. One of the earliest manifestations of this ecology-conscious politics of the future took place

with zero population growth.

As we look forward towards the future of politics, we must recognize that here we are dealing with the most erratic and unpredictable segment of society, mainly because the key to political dynamics lies in what I have called the integrative system in society, that is, the complex of relationships involving such matters as status, identity, and community, with relationships such as legitimacy, trust, loyalty, benevolence, and, of course, their opposites. These processes are frequently subject to sharp discontinuities.

Politics participates also in two other major types of processes in social life, dialectical and developmental. Dialectical processes involve the conflict of opposing systems, in which one may win and the other may lose, the issue often being determined by quite random elements. Developmental or evolutionary processes proceed through social mutation and selection. Mutation is a highly unpredictable process. It involves the creation of evolutionary potential, what I have elsewhere called a "revelation," the sort of thing we have in the early Christian church and with the first followers of Mohammed, or in Marx in the first International, and also in the beginnings of science as a social

::;;;;.;;r;/ ~tomobile

on April 22, 1970, when American environmentalists celeb::::/l Day," a special holiday devoted to dramatizing the need for a cleaner environment and conservation of natural resources. The air-polluting

movement in the 17th century. We get the same phenomenon on a smaller scale in inventions, both of commodities or techniques, machines or social inventions, like the postage stamp or the deductible-atsource income tax. Mutations are almost inherently unpredictable, for if they could be predicted, we would in many cases already have them. The selective processes are again far from being regular and predictable. Who predicted the failure of the Edsel?Or the demise of capitalism in Cuba?

Or the success of the Beatles?

Even in systems as complex as this, however, there are certain cues and clues. What we are really considering is a process in what might be called "macro learning," or the whole process of change in the "noosphere," as de Chardin calls it, that is, in the total cognitive and emotive content of the three billion or so human nervous systems. Two processes are at work herethe constant replacement of decadent old minds by decaying younger ones and the constant learning process that goes on in particular minds. Where different generations have different learning experiences, this may be highly significant for the future.

Today, for instance, the generation which is in powerful positions was for the most part deeply traumatized by the First World

was a prime target of Earth-Day demonstrations. New Yorkers celebrated the day by taking over the city's famous Fifth Avenue and closing it to automobile traffic (above).

War, the Great Depression, and the Second World War. By the year 2000, this generation will have passed from the scene and a generation with a different set of traumas will be in control.

One of the most puzzling problems in social dynamics is that of the spread and decline of ideologies, legitimacies, loyalties, and so on. Institutions which seem impregnable collapse overnight simply because there is an epidemic spread of loss of belief in them. The collapse of the European empires in the 20th century is a good case in point. In 1910 the legitimaey of the British and French empires seemed unassailable. By 1930hardly anybody believed in them anymore, and by 1950 they were well on their way to liquidation. One thing that certainly helps to destroy legitimacy is dramatic disappointments or betrayals.

The First World War certainly helped to destroy the legitimacy of the previous international order, simply because its human costs were so excessive.

As one looks at the integrative structure, one can see a number of contradictory trends, which again makes prediction very difficult. This might be called the "iceberg principle." We never know when the erosion of the invisible part of the iceberg has gone far enough to turn it over. We have

seen in the 20th century a remarkable decay in the legitimacy of war as an institution. War songs are an index of this. The First World War produced a large number of stirring pro-war songs. The Second World War produced practically none, whereas the Vietnam war has produced nothing but anti-war songs. On the other hand, we now stand in a curious limbo, in which neither war nor peace is legitimate, and the agonized and confused reaction of the American public to the Calley trial is an indicator of this general confusion.

What we see here is in part again the shadow of coming maturity. In the spaceship earth, obviously, war is an absurdly extravagant luxury which cannot be tolerated. The planet is simply too precarious for playing such childish games.

We see the same kind of ambiguity in regard to economic institutions. Both socialism and corporate capitalism are showing signs of a crisis of legitimacy. The legitimacy of socialism is being seriously undermined simply by experience. The fact that we have now had experience with centrally planned socialist societies for 50 years has revealed they are neither very much better nor very much worse than capitalist societies. They exhibit many of the defects of corporate capitalism-discontinued

'In the 21st century man must make the first great strides towards establishing . . . a society freed from destitution and violence, in which different cultures can flourish without fear.'

economies of scale, inflexible hierarchies, distortions of the reward system, and they certainly have no better record than the capitalist countries when it comes to the question of pollution. The pressures of a Plan are just as hard on the environment as the pressures of the market. Furthermore, socialist societies. have revealed themselves to be singularly defenceless against personal tyranny, as under Stalin, against the corruption of the arts and even the sciences, and the wildest criticisms of Madison Avenue surely pale beside the massive conformist horror of Mao's Little Red Book. Abolishing private property does not lead into a society where everybody does things for love; rather it leads into a society dominated by terror at its worst and propaganda at its best.

On the other side of the line, corporate capitalism also is facing some severe crises.

It has been unable to solve the problem of keeping full employment without inflation, and has chosen inflation. Social democracy, in part, at any rate, has been a fraud. It has redistributed income to the rich in the name of redistributing it to the poor. The problems of pollution and exhaustion are of mounting significance, even though one should not underestimate some very real successes, for instance, in managing air and water pollution.

The two hundred billion dollars of the world war industry continues to be not only an appalling economic burden on the world but also represents a positive probability of almost irretrievable disaster in nuclear war. It is not surprising, therefore, that considerable numbers of people, especially young people, on both sides of the Iron Curtain are seriously questioning the legitimacy of the system under which they live. On the other hand, the "greening" generation is very green indeed. It has produced no adequate analysis of the present world situation. Where it fancies itself as radical, it falls back on hopelessly obsolete 19th-century ideas, and its life-

style and ideal seem to be essentially that of a minor landlord, producing what might unkindly be called a "twiddle class," twiddling' its dirty-green thumbs while the "squares" keep the world going.

No existing political ideology seems to me, therefore, to be relevant to the 21st century. My crystal ball is no better than anybody else's, and I do not know what kind of new symbolic formulation will provide the "revelation" out of which the evolutionary potential of the 21st century must grow. I can, however, suggest some of the real problems which any 21st century ideology will have to solve.

The first such problem is that of the reward structure in society. All human activity tends to move towards the higher rewards and away from the higher penalties. Monetary rewards, of course, are only part of the picture, as economists have always recognized. The total reward structure is of crucial importance, however, in deciding in what direction human activity will go. If virtue is penalized and vice is rewarded, virtue will languish and vice will prosper. If people can produce negative commodities, whether pollution or deception, immorality or crime, without having to pay negative prices, these negative commodities will be produced in too large quantity. If people are not rewarded for producing positive commodities, these will not be produced in sufficient quantity.

The problem is particularly acute in the case of public goods and public bads, which require political action, which in turn requires a sense of community, if the "freeloader principle" is not to exercise its baleful influence.

A public good may be defined as one which I could enjoy, even if I did not pay for it, as long as other people will provide it. The diminution of public "bads," like air pollution, is a very similar category.

If I can get away with not paying my taxes while everybody else does, I will be able to enjoy the products of the public goods financed by these taxes and will not have to sacrifice for them. I will then be a "freeloader." If it pays everybody to be a freeloader, however, everybody will be a freeloader, the public goods will not be provided at all, and everybody will be worse off than they otherwise would have been.

This really implies a non-existence theorem about anarchism. There has to be some form of "government," that is, legitimated coercion, if public goods are to be provided. The legitimation arises because

everybody is willing to be coerced as long as everybody else is.

Reward structures are not everything, however. We also have to struggle with the problem of identity structures. It is not enough to be rewarded for doingwe must also be rewarded for being, even if these rewards are largely internal. Increasingly, as traditional societies in which identity is not much of a problem, simply because there is no choice, are replaced by modern societies in which individuals have a choice of identity, the problem of making a wise choice becomes more and more acute. The decay of parental and all adult authority opens to young people a choice of becoming drug addicts, slaves to lust, and work-shy slobs, as well as the choice of selecting an identity which will lead into an adult maturity. Neither the family identity, the national identity, the religious identity, nor the occupational identity are as powerful and satisfactory as they used to be. Yet there seems very little to take their place except the pathological identity.

The search for the truly human identity which is appropriate to the spaceship earth is one of the great tasks of the next hundred years and the political ideology which can solve this problem may well be the one that will win out.

A third problem is that of the proper allocation of intellectual resources. Almost any crisis is a symptom of misallocatiop,s of intellectual resources in the past.

We have been putting our minds on unreal or insoluble problems instead of on the real, soluble ones. Our inability to mobilize intellectual resources for the real problems of the human race may be the most disastrous legacy which the 20th century will give to the 21st. We have been frittering away our resources in weaponry and space, and even in organ transplants and sophisticated medicine. We should have been devoting ourselves to studying conflict, identity, and human learning. Our massive ignorance about the learning and realitytesting process may well be the ultimate limitation on our ability to solve any of our problems. It is clear that we are in great need of social inventions which will enable us to achieve disarmament and stable peace, the reduction of crime and social disorganization, the increase in the productivity and incomes of the potentially productive poor, and the development of an adequate "grants economy" for the inherently unproductive. We need to be able to deal with racial, cultural, and sexual

heterogeneity . We need to find ways of satisfying the demands of social justice.

These are grave challenges. None of them, however, seem to be beyond the human capacity. If in the 20th century we have been going through both the pains and the joys of adolescence, with its rapid physical growth and emotional distur~ bances, as well as rapid learning, we may perhaps look at the 21st century as a magic number symbolizing man's majority and his achievement of maturity. The fact above all which makes me an optimist is the knowledge that we are a very long way from having exhausted the biological capacity of the human nervous system. There is always a.chance, of course, that the good may die young, but man is not even that good. He has at least a reasonable chance of blundering through his troubled adolescence into a more serene maturity. In the hope of increasing that chance, however slightly, the occasion seems to call for the modest manifesto-which follows.

A Manifesto for the 21st Century The 21st century symbolizes the maturity of mankind, in which we may indeed receive the key that will open the door to the universe. It is in the 21st century that man must make the first great strides towards establishing a spaceship earth, with a world society based on permanent sources of energy, such as the sun, and on the recycling of materials, a society freed from the burden of destitution and violence, in which different cultures can flourish without fear and the enormous richness of the human potential can progressively be realized. Unless mankind can make this precarious and dangerous transition, it is by no means impossible that the whole evolutionary experiment in this part of the universe will come to an end.

The existing political, social, economic, and religious institutions of the world have evolved in an era in which the problems of the transition to the spaceship earth were not present, and it is not surprising, therefore, that they are inadequate to this task. It is a task they were not created to perform. While many elements in the existing structures and institutions of society can be adapted to play a part in the great transition to come, there will also be a great need for social invention, for new institutions, new modes of learning, new ways of thinking, and new ways of life.

Half a million years of accelerating human

expansion are now coming to an end. This very fact creates a grave psychological crisis for mankind, to which it will have to adapt if it is to survive. The 20th century is the age of preparation. It demands intense activity in understanding and preparing for the transition to come.

We cannot now predict the specific nature of the inventions, either physical or social, which will be necessary in order to achieve this great transition, for if we could specify them we would have them now.

Nevertheless, we can prepare for them by throwing off the dead weight of obsolete ideas, by constantly testing our beliefs against the messages that return to us from the world around us, and by rejecting purely subjective solutions, either in ideology or in drugs, and by pressing forward to catch a vision of the world that has to be, constantly trying to formulate the real problems to which we must find answers.

This is no time to run after the perpetual motion of self-contained intellectual systems or for trying to square political circles in devoting ourselves to the solution of insoluble problems.

The most crucial, and yet the most difficult, tasks that lie ahead may well be in the field of political invention. It is clear that no existing political ideologies or institutions, either of the right or of the left, are at all adequate to deal with the enormous political tasks of the great transition, for they all belong to the era of human expansion, and are quite inadequate to deal with the politics of the spaceship earth. While we cannot now specify the institutions of spaceship politics, we can at least begin to see some of its characteristics in the tasks which it must fulfil.

First, it must be cybernetic. There must be an apparatus to perceive and indicate the divergence between any present position of the system and some boundary of destruction and system death, and there must be an apparatus also once this divergence is perceived to turn a system that is moving towards this boundary away from it. This involves an information apparatus for perceiving states of the social system far beyond our present capability, and the improvement of this capability therefore stands out as a most urgent task of the social sciences. The creation of an engine to act on these perceptions goes beyond the social sciences and must be the creation of political leadership.

In the second place, the political organization must provide a satisfactory reward

structure. The rewarding of virtue and the punishment of vice, and the ability to detect one from the other, are essential to the operation of a dynamically satisfactory system, and without this its cybernetic character cannot be achieved.

In the third place, there must be defences within the total system against the perverse dynamics by which things go from bad to worse-such things as addiction, pollution, arms races, and perverse dialectical processes; and the task of constructing institutions which can perform this function is one of the greatest challenges to the social inventiveness of the human race. So far we have performed it very badly.

In the fourth place, there must be a social matrix within which satisfactory personal identities can be developed. Identity failure is the greatest source of human pollution. We need a massive search for the sources of identity failure and for the building of institutions which can defend us against it. Human beings are created by the interaction of their own internal growth processes with the large and continual inputs which come to them from their social and natural environment. The only ultimate object of social, economic, and political institutions is the production of high quality human beings. All other goals are partial and intermediary compared to this, and this indeed will be the primary task in the spaceship earth.

The dangers and difficulties of the present time are very great. Nevertheless, the only unforgivable sin is despair, for that will justify itself. Man is very far from having exhausted the potential of his extraordinary nervous system. The troubles of the 20th century are not unlike those of adolescence-rapid growth beyond the ability of organizations to manage, uncontrollable emotion, and a desperate search for identity. Out of adolescence, however, comes maturity in which rapid physical growth with all its attendant difficulties comes to an end, but in which growth continues in knowledge, in spirit, in community, and in love; it is to this that we look forward as a human race.

This goal, once seen with our eyes, will draw our faltering feet towards it. END About the Author: Kenneth Boulding is professor of economics and a programme director for the Institute of Behavioura I Science at the University of Colorado. He is the author of many books and articles on economics and other subjects.

To meet the staggering energy needs of the future, the world will turn increasingly to nuclear power, says a distinguished Nobel laureate. This power, he points out, is much misunderstood, particularly in terms of safety and environmental impact.

The peaceful atom-and nuclear power in particular-is a subject on many minds today, and as is true with important subjects has its share of critics. In many respects I find this a healthy sign. The public has a big stake in something as vital as the supply of power and how that supply is to be achieved in the healthiest and most environmentally sound manner. Therefore I want to deal with three questions that relate to the so-called "nuclear power controversy." They are: (1) Do we need all that power?

(2) If so, why should it be nuclear? (3) If nuclear, can we have it safely?

The question "do we need all that power" is fundamental to the environmental thinking characterized by one rather questionable slogan: "All power pollutes." It is unfortunate that often people who are rightfully concerned with the environment have a one-sided outlook regarding the use of energy. They have been conditioned, because of man's abusive use of some energy, to believe that an energy-intensive society such as we have today in advanced nations must inevitably "self-destruct." A limited view

of history has hypnotized them into seeing energy only in terms of a means of ruthlessly extracting resources from nature, using them foolishly (and often unjustly) and then dumping them back into nature in amounts and places where she cannot handle them. The immediate reaction to all this is simply-stop it! Use less power to produce fewer products to cause less pollution and we will all be better off.

But while there is always much to be said in favour of economizing and improving efficiency, offering that approach as a panacea is unrealistic and unimaginative. While we should not use the possibility of abundant energy as an excuse to try to support runaway population growth or ludicrous per capita consumption, neither should we believe that a power growth moratorium holds the solution to these social and economic problems. Changes in rational goals, public attitudes and private life styles may reduce the rate of growth of our energy consumption but those who believe we can reduce our total energy consumption fail to take into account three things: 1. We are going to have a significant increase in population over the next few decades, even if we are successful in our population control effort.

2. The basic physical needs-and hence basic energy demands -of that population will be enormous because we are in the midst of a social revolution that will inevitably raise the standard of living for the world's under-privileged peoples.

3. Vast amounts of energy-energy-intensive industries-hold the key to saving, not destroying, the environment as we grow to meet the human demands ahead.

The basis for this claim is that, properly used, energy can create materials that substitute for the massive consumption of "natural" materials; that with new technologies-and intelligent, far-sighted

planning-it can do so with less impact on less land, and that it can be used to conserve vast quantities of natural resources while allowing us to return to nature a minimum of waste in its most acceptable form. Much of this has to do, of course, with recycle.

We are now into the beginning of what might be called a "Recycle Revolution." I believe it may be the most significant step man has taken since he initiated the Age of Steam. But recycling involves far more than composting leftovers; stacking newspapers or returning empty bottles and cans. The new and proposed recycle plants are large technical facilities requiring considerable amounts of power. The same is true of municipal sewage treatment plants, waterworks, and most pollution abatement facilities in the new and growing business of environmental control. It is simply a law of physics that to change the form and location of matter you must use energy.

Today's outspoken ecologists claim that many of the "synthetic" products we use are environmentally undesirable because they require a large consumption of energy to produce. Among the modern industries that some ecologists have criticized as being energy-intensive are synthetic textiles, cement, aluminium and plastics. But the extra energy used to produce these materials must be considered in terms of its trade-off for other environmental demands. For example, all these materials replace natural fibres and wood in a variety of ways. If we were to declare a moratorium on their use and return to using only their "natural substitute," think what an additional demand this would make on the forests and uncultivated areas we prize as natural preserves and recreational land. There are numerous other examples.

This is not a defence of the desecration that has been caused by the abusive and thoughtless use of abundant energy. No one denies that this has taken place, and we can still see it taking place

now even as we are beginning to fight against it. But the problem today is that we are "hooked" on this historical hindsight in which we cannot-or refuse to--see that new, less destructive and more creative ways of generating and using large amounts of energy are possible, among them nuclear power.

We must face the fact that to a growing extent electricity is the lifeblood of modern civilization. In spite of the fact that we may be able, to some degree, to improve efficiency in generating electricity and reduce waste in using it, it would be unrealistic and perhaps even dangerous not to accept the projection that over the next 30 years electricity demand will grow six-fold.

A large portion of the additional electric power requirements that we will see in the future will be caused by a shift from other energy sources to the use of electricity to fulfil basic needs such as heating and cooling, industrial processing and transportation.

In most cases the shift will be away from energy sources far less desirable from an environmental standpoint. Abundant, economic electricity also can help industry and transportation introduce systems that are inherently less polluting-such as the electric steel furnace which serves the additional environmental function of making the recycle of automobile scrap more economic. We must also recognize that it is much easier to exercise environmental controls over a centralized source of power, such as an electric generating station, than over a million individual fires whether they are in homes, industr-ial-plants or auto engines.

To meet future power demands there is no doubt that a great number of large central station steam-generating plants will have to be built and operated. We can explore and develop other possibilities to some extent. In certain areas we may be able to harness enough geothermal heat to meet some regional power demands. At a few coastal points we may be able to make some limited use of tidal power. And there may be some places where we could reliably collect and concentrate enough solar energy to meet local needs. But to believe that it is feasible-technically, economically or environmentally-to develop these energy sources to supply most of the huge additional electric generating capacity required in the years ahead is sheer folly.

Man has consumed more energy in the last 30 years than in all previous human history. Almost all that energy has been consumed in the burning of non-renewable fossil fuels-coal, oil and gas produced by nature over the course of millions of years. We are rapidly depleting the remaining recoverable supplies of these resources. By simply setting a match to these irreplaceable materials to generate electricity, we are doing more than consuming their energy. We are destroying materials essential to transportation-both as fuels and lubricants-and essential as a source of chemicals to a growing number of industries. We are also accepting the inevitability of great increases in air pollution-a health hazard which is already approaching disastrous proportions in some areas.

Few people realize that if we seek to reduce pollution and congestion in cities by substituting electric-powered mass transit systems for private gasoline-powered automobiles, we will have a Fish-eye view of control room of the Tarapur Atomic Power Plant, 105 kilometres north of Bombay. India's first nuclear power station has some of the most sophisticated equipment in use in any nuclear power plant anywhere in the world.

'Man has consumed more energy in the last 30 years than in all previous human history. Almost all that energy has been consumed in the burning of non-renewable fossil fuels-coal, oil and gasproduced by nature over millions of years.' large new demand for electricity. rfwe were to make the transition in major urban areas throughout the United States to the use of electric automobiles, as well as electric mass transit systems, we would require tens of billions of additional kilowatt-hours of electricity annually. This, of course, would offer a tremendous reduction in air pollution in terms of today's effects of internal combustion engines, which are responsible for a significant portion of urban air pollution. But how foolish it would be to generate all this electricity by burning fossil fuels-by substituting one form of pollution with another. Nuclear power will be essential to help handle this added capacity in an environmentally sound manner.

Americans must also look beyond their own borders to anticipate the problem of burning all the world's fossil fuels. We in the U.S., with all our energy demands to support our high standard of living, are drawing large amounts of energy and mineral resources from other parts of the world. With rising expectations in those areas and increased technological capacity to fulfil those expectations there will be growing pressure to change this situation. International competition for these resources will grow more intense. Developing nations will begin to need more of their indigtmous supplies. And they will also want to be less dependent on other countries for certain vital materials. This could have several implications: Nations that have natural energy resources might want to export less and use more domestically. As nations that are wealthy in mineral resources use more of these domestically or strike harder bargains for their export, the other nations, including America, in many cases would have to expend more energy to extract such minerals from lower grade ores, recycle these scarcer materials or produce substitutes. In some areas of the world such new needs for energy would encourage a turning to nuclear power that, once installed, offers a nation some independence from the problems of day-to-day fuel supply and in the future would offer both economic and environmental advantages as well. In short, the course is well set on a global basis for a greater turning to nuclear energy-not because of its novelty, or its prestige, or its military implications-but simply because of its need to fulfil human goals that depend on more than "people power."

Now let's take a look directly at nuclear power, particularly at those aspects of it that are so much on people's minds, namely the questions of its safety and environmental impact. Our sudden awareness of our ecological problems has made us-and perhaps Offshore nuclear power plant, depicted in the model at right, will be the first of its kind in the world. The plant will be moored in the ocean, just off Atlantic City in New Jersey, and have minimal impact on the environment.

rightfully so-what might best be described as "environmentally uptight." Today almost any new technology or product is eyed suspiciously, and if anyone casts any doubts about its short or long-term effects or side effects the tendency is to stamp it "guilty until proven innocent." Nuclear power is in this position and suffers doubly because of its indirect military association. But in the case of nuclear power, anyone who is willing to examine it without prejudice and objectively will be convinced of the following.

The nuclear industry is high among the safest industries in America. Years of National Safety Council records prove this conclusively.

Nuclear power plants that have been licensed for operation in the United States to date have accumulated more than 100 reactor-years of safe operation without an accident affecting the public. Furthermore, another 780 reactor-years of operating experience without a reactor accident have been provided by the U.S. Nuclear Navy.

Those who try to equate proportionately the environmental effects and potential hazards of the newer large nuclear plants with their older smaller predecessors simply do not understand today's dynamic nuclear technology. The newer plants are not merely exact scale-ups of the older ones with equally scaled-up effects and risks. They have the benefits of improved technology, of innovations in environmental and safety controls and of better quality control. Furthermore, they are subject to more stringent regulation and more sophisticated monitoring.

What about the environmental effects of nuclear power, particularly the release of radioactivity in effluents to the environment?

Growing environmental concern, during recent years, has understandably included the specific concern that the use of nuclear energy to supply projected demands for electric power may result in large exposures of the population to radiation. Operating experience with nuclear power reactors to date should certainly help to dispel concern over radiation exposure. Estimates, based

on levels of radioactivity at nuclear power sites, show that average radiation exposure to the U.S. population from this source is so infinitesimally small as to be virtually insignificant.

The present state of technology is such that the design and operation of nuclear power plants within U.S. Atomic Energy Commission regulatory requirements for keeping releases of radioactivity to the environment as low as practicable will assure that radiation exposures to the public living in the near vicinity of these plants will generally be less than a few per cent of exposures from natural background radiation. The whole body exposure per capita per year averaged over the U.S. population from radioactivity in effluents release from nuclear power plants and chemical reprocessing plants during normal operation even in the year 2000 will be quite insignificant. In cqmparison, average annual exposure to the U.S. population from natural background radiation is about 125 times as great.

It is evident that the concern of some critics over possible health hazards from nuclear power is unwarranted. In fact, death and disease indirectly attributed to the generation of power from all sources should decrease considerably as nuclear power assumes a major portion of that burden-as we are able to reduce the known adverse effects of air pollution by a shift towards nucleargenerated electricity and by applying pollution controls to fossilfuelled plants.

In view of all this let me conclude with a few of my own projections on nuclear power. Since the year 2000 seems to be a date towards which many modern cynics look with great trepidation, let me use that as the focal point of these projections.

By the year 2000 we will see about 1,000 million kilowatts of electricity generated by about 1,000 nuclear power react~rs, sharing about half of America's power load, with highly improved fossil-fuelled plants carrying the other half.

Of these 1,000 nuclear facilities perhaps half will be powered by fast breeder reactors, a number of which will have been in operation long enough to produce sufficient new fuel to refuel them-

selves as well as an equal number of other reactors.

As I have previously indicated, the annual average whole body radiation exposure to the U.S. population resulting from the release of radioactivity to the environment from the normal operation of all nuclear power plants in the year 2000 will be extremely small--even less than one per cent of the radiation exposure to the population from natural background radiation.

And the plants emitting this negligible radiation will be indirectly responsible for a reduction of billions of tons of carbon dioxide, millions of tons of sulphur dioxide and large quantities of oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter that would then be coming each year from fossil-fuelled plants-even those built or backfitted with pollution controls-if we continued to rely solely on such plants for the bulk of our electricity.

Long before the year 2000, it will-have become routine for the high-level waste produced in reprocessing fuel from these plants to be converted to solids and. buried or stored where it cannot reach the biosphere.

Located according to a national electric power siting plan, and equipped with the latest cooling technologies, these nuclear plants will not be permitted to produce harmful thermal effects on their local environment. And the waste heat from many of them will be diverted to beneficial uses.

By the year 2000 we will also have seen the successful control of thermonuclear fusion, and perhaps the first full-scale fusion demonstration plant in operation.

Realistically, some accidents and failures -carr'-be expected among all these plants. No technology, no matter how excellent the engineering, construction and regulation, can guarantee 100 per cent reliability or safety. But I can say with confidence that the chances of such accidents seriously affecting lives or property beyond the plant boundary are extremely low. Furthermore, I believe that in the decades ahead nuclear power will show such impressive safety statistics that the insurance industry will be among the biggest investors in nuclear power.

Of even greater significance, my projections show what will be more important than how much power we can generate through nuclear methods or otherwise; that is, we shall have learned to apply this power wisely, in a way that will support not the extravagances of a gluttonous, short-sighted society but the just needs of all people-people who have learned to live in harmony with each other and with their environment.

Man must learn to live with his new-found technological capacity and live up to the new responsibilities it brings, not merely because it is here, but because developed and applied wisely it will help him achieve his most human goals. For this reason we must strive to understand and work intelligently and co-operatively with the peaceful atom. To turn our backs in ignorance and fear on this potentially great force for global good would be a failure that future generations would never forgive. To face the Nuclear Age and turn it from an age of anxiety to one of accomplishment and new hope is a good for which we should all END strive together.

About the Author: Dr. Glenn Seaborg, a Nobel laureate in chemistry, was chairman of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission for 10 years. In 1971, he returned to the University of California at Berkeley where he was chancellor from 1958 to 1961. Dr. Seaborg was named University Professor of Chemistry, the most distinguished rank of professorship.

ILLUSTRATION BY GOPI GAJWANI

MUSIC FOR THE 21st CENTURY American composers are creating a music that is total theatre, 'music you not only hear, but see and feel in a variety of waysa multi-sensory experience.'

What happens when you take the sound of a human voice and add flashing coloured lights, computerized tapes, jazz, theatrical gesture, improvisation, elements of African and Oriental music, and spice the concoction with dashes of rock, pop, soul and country?

The result is an exciting total theatre. Music you not only hear, but see and feel in a variety of ways-a multi-sensory experience. In the United States, this "new" music is thriving in an era of unparalleled technology and change. It is demanding-and getting-new forms, new instruments, new notational procedures, and new uses for old instruments.

It is calling for a re-evaluation of the meaning of music itself, and its place in spaceage society.

The new music is also compelling symphony orchestras, opera companies and other long-established musical organizations in the U.S. to re-examine their operational procedures, their repertoire, and their services to the community. It is obliging conservatories, music schools, and educational institutions continued

to undertake searching re-evaluation of teaching methods and materials, and to give thoughtful consideration to the philosophy of music education.

Along with the music, a new generation of American composers has emerged. Morton Subotnick, Salvatore Martirano, George Crumb, Ralph Shapey, Ben Johnston, David del Tredici, Donald Erb, Pauline Oliveros, Roger Reynolds, Kenneth Gaburo, Larry Austin, Elliott Schwartz, Frederick Myrow, Jacob Druckman, Charles Wuorinen, to name but a few, are masters of the new technology and recognize the social implications of this newAmerican music. Caught up in the enigma of their times, these young American composers are searching for a new direction, a valid course between dodecatonic intellectualism and nihilistic chaos. They want to make contact with people, to become involved, to write music which will communicate with young audiences.

T

h"e youog American composers are especially attracted to the possibilities of the inter-arts and the mixed media. In his electronic composition, Misfortunes of the Immortals-A Concert, Morton Subotnick calls for tape recorder, amplifier, light projectors, loudspeakers and other electronic equipment.

Against a flashing collage of bizarre filmimages (dressmaker's dummies, a girl's lasciviously flicking tongue, the composer himself), a woodwind quintet-flute, oboe, clarinet, bassoon, horn--enters the stage slowly to begin playing fragments from classical works by Beethoven, Rossini, Pergolesi and Mozart. At the culmination of this 55-minute synthesis, stage, players and music are engulfed in an apocalyptic paroxysm of electronic sound and coruscating light. While the work is intended to be satirical, it also arouses gentle feelings of nostalgia mixed with eerie perplexity and mystery. Subotnick, 39, was formerly Director of Music at the Electric Circus in New York (a popular night spot featuring rock music and psychedelic light

shows). He is now in charge of electronic music at the California Institute of the Arts in San Francisco.

University of Illinois Professor Salvatore Martirano, 45, in his Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, directs the Lincoln speech to be read by an actor encased in a space-suit into which flows oxygen through his helmet.

As he reads, the oxygen produces curious distortions of his voice, giving emphasis to certain words in this vital social document which might otherwise be overlooked. The powerful impact of this work is heightened by the use of multi-colour projectors and other light media. At the climax of the piece, the music achieves the highest decibel of sound the ear can tolerate.

For his Triptych for Hieronymus Bosch, a three-movement drama (Eden, Orgy, Hell) based on Bosch's grotesque painting, "Gardens of Delight," Lejaren Hiller, 48, utilizes ancient Asian music, circus themes and electronic sound. Near the finale of this extraordinary work, Rossini's "William Tell Overture" is played backward and forward simultaneously in 12 keys on two pianos. This work closes with a taped montage of swiftly moving television commercials. Hiller is Director of the Center for ComputerizedMusic Research, Urbana, Illinois.

Possibly the best example of this juxtaposition of planes of musical experience occurs in Eric Salzman's Tropes for Actor, Renaissance Consort, Chorus and Electronics.

This work consists of a series of musical segments-instrumental solos and ensembles, choral passages, vocal solos and duets, various electronic sound effects-interspersed with a running narration sometimes logical, sometimes irrational. For this electro-vocal montage, Salzman composed music for such ancient instruments as the dulcian, recorder, gemshorn and racket, as well as music for voices which uncannily simulates the early Renaissance forms. Salzman's Tropes is a dramatically intense, total-environment piece, a virtuosic adaptation of nearly every device in today's compositional styles and technology. A prominent New York critic and composer, Salzman, 39, is also the author of an excellent survey, Twentieth-Century Music.

This new direction in sound can also be heard in works which use no electronics but rely entirely on contemporary techniques applied to conventional instruments. For example, George Crumb at various steps in his

Eleven Echoes of Autumn, an impressionistic chamber work for piano, flute, violin and clarinet, directs the flute and clarinet players to walk over to the piano and blow directly into the instrument, thereby setting up sympathetic vibrations on the open piano strings (Echo 6). At other places he calls for the pianist to whistle at the interval of a fourth against pianissimo harmonics played by the violinist (Echo 2). Several times during the course of this 22-minute composition, the players can be heard whispering in Spanish "los arcos rotos donde sufre el tiempo" (the broken arches where time suffers), a phrase from one of Garcia Lorca's poems. To convey to the players his desire for a musical "archcurve of intensity," Crumb scored the individual parts of this work in arches (halfcircles) "because I do not want the players to think vertically," he said. This etherealized chamber music achieves structural unity by means of a haunting, oft-recurring bass motive in harmonics which the pianist produces by playing with his left hand on the keys while gently touching the strings inside the piano with his right hand. George Crumb, 43, is Professor of Music at the University of Pennsylvania. His Echoes of Time and the River, also based on poems of Lorca, won the 1968 Pulitzer Prize in Music.

For several years following World War II, the serialistic principles of the post-Webern era seemed to offer a valid solution to the artistic problems of the times. By the middle 1950s, expressionism-the essential quality, the heart and spirit of 12-tone writing-had lost its relevancy for the postwar generation.

Younger composers in America were seeking a new style, a new language, dissociated from outworn and discredited concepts. They wished to forget the past, to make a clean start-to write music representative of the scientific thought and technological developments of the 20th century. For many of

them, the avant-garde theories of John Cage many of the now widely accepted theories of indeterminate or "aleatory" music, of variprovided an alternative to the labyrinthian complexities of dodecatonal serialism. In able and open-form, and of art as activity.

Among the most successful of Cage's folcontrast to the precise and complete control demanded by the serial school, Cage called lowers is Earle Brown. To understand such for the deliberate exclusion of all pre-control, works as Brown's Available Forms I, his Hodograph, or his Four Systems, the listener preferring the "natural" or "accidental" events as they occur at the very moment should look for an analogy with the mobiles of the American sculptor Alexander Calder. of performance.

For his most recent piece, Cage teamed Calder's "units," floating in space, are themup with the computerized-music specialist selves well-defined yet continuously changing, Lejaren Hiller to produce a five-hour work creating new relationships to each other and calling for seven harpsichords, 51 computer- to the space which they occupy, as well as to generated sound-tapes, and 64 coloured-slide the viewer as he changes his position. For projectors. The title, HPSCHD, is derived Available Forms I, scored for 18 instruments, from "harpsichord" reduced to his com- Brown created 27 self-contained Calder-like puter's six-letter-word limit. In composing musical "units." The sequence of these units, however, is left to the conductor and to the HPSCHD, Cage used a computer-derived numerical system borrowed from the digital players to "realize" at the very moment of principle of I-Ching, an ancient Chinese orac- performance. These musical mobiles, like ular source often employed in other works their Calder models, never appear twice in the

by Cage to achieve total non-control and to same relationship to each other. They conprevent conscious manipulation of the sound tinuously form new rhythmic, harmonic and pitch combinations, yet remain within a cerby the performers. The source-work, Mozart's "Introduction to the Composition of Waltzes tain framework of control. "What I am actuby Means of Dice," forms the basis of the ally doing when I conduct Available Forms," harpsichord solos. Realizations of the "Dice says Brown, "is creating a piece at the very Game" are replaced progressively by pas- moment of perforl1}ingit. I can feel it happensages from Mozart's piano sonatas, as well ing in my hands." Earle Brown, 45, enjoys as by various related or unrelated bass and an international reputation as a vigorous and treble passages from keyboard works by inspiring leader of the American avant-garde.

His works have been performed at music Beethoven, Chopin, Schumann, Gottschalk, festivals in Greece, Germany, Sweden, Japan, Busoni and Schoenberg, and excerpts from and other important contemporary music prepared-piano works by Cage himself. More centres.

Brown is a member of the faculty of than 7,000 persons were present for the prethe Peabody Conservatory of Music in Baltimiere of this work at the University of Illinois. more, Maryland.

Cage, a student of Zen Buddhism, says, "I like to think that I am outside the circle of the known universe, dealing with things that I literally know nothing about." According to Cage, his music creates in the listener "disne of the fiO" ,;gnificant developorganization and a state of mind which in ments in American music today is the interest Zen is called no-mindedness." Despite the which young composers are taking again in fact that Cage's intuitive concepts opened the writing for the human voice. For a decade or door to a vast amount of reckless experi- more after World War II, composers neglected mentation and even to charlatanism, they also this most perfect of instruments largely because provided younger American composers with singers trained in 19th-century techniques and traditions could not negotiate the new music.

In the 1960s, a new generation of singers appeared on the scene, young artists who through technical mastery and superb musicianship are restoring the human voice to its rightful place in contemporary music. At home both in traditional styles and in the complicated avant-garde scores, such singers as Marilyn Horne, Bethany Beardslee, Betty

o

Allen, Phyllis Bryn-Julson, Martino Arroyo and Jan de Gaetani, have inspired a whole new chamber music literature. One of the most important new works in this category is Ralph Shapey's Incantations, a composition for soprano and 10 instruments, in which the voice is itself treated as an instrument, singing wordless syllabic phrases in organized sound structure. In four dramatic self-contained units, Incantations is a searing, sometimes terrifying, expression of music as an object in Time and Space. A brilliant example of the new virtuosity, Incantations demands from the singer rhythmic, pitch and timbre control undreamed of in earlier music.

Shapey is Professor of Music at the University of Chicago where he directs the Contemporary Chamber Players.

In the United States today there are no "schools" of music composition. The American composer is not obliged to subscribe in advance to any set of musical theories or philosophies. All techniques, all sound-producing materials, all systems, all media, all combinations, all possibilities are open to him-to choose, to reject, to synthesize, to combine. Though young and daring, he is not merely an experimentalist. He is a highly skilled, disciplined musician, as familiar with the techniques of strict l2-tone writing as he is at home in the intricate circuits of the electronic studio. He is in the process of exploring the plethora of techniques and innovations which have developed over the past two decades and he takes an uninhibited, almost Dionysiac pleasure in synthesizing these many disparate elements. Tireless in his search for the new and the innovative, free to experiment with unorthodox solutions to traditional problems, the young American composer today is creating new forms, rapidly expanding his audience, redefining the meaning and the place of music in American society.

END About the Author: Daryl Dayton has been concert pianist, music critic and a professor of musical history and theory at various U.S. universities. He has also lectured and held seminars in Asia, Africa and Europe on contemporary American music.

5J1\J

-7';?-1-3C

/9r-R-/73 ,k?/~#~-'

,,#;z- <Z-f".r?/9"..J

Debunking Sigmund Freud's theory that 'anatomy is destiny,' women are striving to be judged simply on-their merit as human beings, without the restrictions or the privileges of their sex. They do not desire to rule the 21st century. They simply want to increase their freedom, their options, their humanity.

I

W

hen the Women's Liberation movement suddenly burst upon the American consciousness in 1969, most Americans responded with outrage or amused disbelief. In turn, the newly emancipated women who spoke for the movement were ready with their own rebuff. They had coined a brand-new word to be hurled at those who discriminate solely on the grounds of sex. The word was "sexist," a term adapted from the familiar epithet "racist" and one that succinctly pointed up parallels with the U.S. civil rights movement. This new word was generally considered to be the most laughable addition to have surfaced in decades in the everexpanding English language.

Today it is striking to recall how quickly the movement sensitized men and women alike to the existence of inequalities so deeply ingrained in attitudes, conversation and deeds that they seemed not injustices at all but part of the natural, necessary scheme of things. To those who proclaim that the greatest law-giver of them all declared women unequal to men, the "libbers" have a ready reply. The Bible, they declare, is one of the most outrageously sexist documents of all time!

Now, four years later, although considerable antagonism to many of the new feminists' proposals remains, changes are taking place in so many directions that most people have forgotten that "sexist" once seemed such an utterly ridiculous word. How will these changes alter life in the future? Will women dominate in the 21st century?

"What do women want?" the father of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud, asked. The answer from Women's Liberation has been sounded loud and clear: Women want the right to be judged simply on their merit as human beings, without either the restrictions or the "privileges" traditionally accorded to their sex. As for Freud, who proclaimed that "anatomy is destiny" and preached

the "natural" subservience of women to men, he has been declared the most influential sexist of the century.

The official history of the neo-feminist movement in the U.S. began with the publication in 1963 of Betty Friedan's explosive and highly controversial book The Feminine Mystique. "Gradually, without seeing it clearly for quite a while," she wrote, "I came to realize that something is very wrong with the way American women are trying to live their lives today .... There [is] a strange discrepancy between the reality of our lives as women and the image to which we [are] trying to conform, the image that I ... call the feminine mystique." Women, she announced, could only attain their rightful place in the world by joining, as men's equals, in the labour force. The call had been sounded. The National Organization for Women-the first of the new women's rights organizations in the U.S. and still a major force-was founded with Friedan as leader. And the fight was on.

The significant achievement of the new women's movement is the awakening of even their most obstinate detractors to the indisputable fact that women are still a long way from the realization of total equality. They have shattered any lingering illusion that sex discrimination doesn't exist. One major thrust of the movement is equality in employment, and it is in this area that the greatest support has been garnered and the most obvious progress has been made. Their demands that women receive equal pay for equal work and that they not be limited in their choice of career or opportunity for advancement now have been recognized by partisan and non-partisan alike as just, humane, and even conservative.

Evidence abounds that women today are far from reaping an equal share of leadership jobs or financial rewards. The overwhelming majority of women who work do so not for distraction or intellectual stimulation but because their income is essential to continued

/Jvf13.'

Ar ~5/A

~f-;e-l73

The honorific 'Ms.'-used to address a woman without regard to marital statusis an example of the persuasiveness of the new feminists' revolutionary ideas. their family's way of life. Yet most women are employed in poorly paidjobs, and many earn less than men do for the same work.

Women's Liberation groups actively push legislation which would do away with inequities and they also work diligently for enforcement of existing laws. The u.s. Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in employment based on race, colour, religion, sex or national origin. To enforce this law, volunteer attorneys in Women's Liberation groups seek out and assist women who feel themselves to be victims of such discrimination in filing suit against their employers.

Most cases involve blue collar workers and test both employers and state "protective" legislation. These laws, which often prohibit women from work involving heavy lifting, long hours, and employment in places where alcoholic beverages are sold, were originally designed to protect women workers from exploitation. They are now viewed as discriminatory by those who ask, shouldn't a woman have the same privilege as a man to select work which may be physically arduous and unglamorous but more highly paid than other unskilled jobs? In one American state law excludes women from employment in jobs requiring them to lift seven kilograms or more-the average weight of a threemonth-old baby. Many states prevent women from taking bartending or other well-paid, late work in restaurants or nightclubs, although they permit them to serve in such low-paid capacities as elevator operator or rest-room attendant.

Law suits also have successfully been pressed against employers who have dual pay schedules in violation of the U.S. Equal Pay Act of 1963. This practice has been shown to be unfair to men as well as to women since many companies preferred to hire women, whom they can pay less, and to exclude men. Due to legislation actively supported by women's rights workers, the "Help Wanted" newspaper ads have been de-sexed. It is now illegal for these newspaper ads to read-as all did until recentiy-"Help Wanted -Male" and "Help Wanted-Female." This separation used to

be an effective means of keeping women in less well-paid jobs.

A recent survey by Business Week magazine found that in the past few years more American women than before occupy a wider variety of higher-paid and more responsible jobs (many of them previously exclusively male). The magazine attributes the change to legislation, its enforcement, and particularly to an evolution in attitude touched off by the Women's Liberation movement.

Basic to the controversy is the Women's Liberation stand on abortion reform-on woman's right to bear children if and when she wants-and on federally-funded day care centres to enable women to take their place in the labour force. In the past three years, with determined pressure from women's groups, 15 American states have liberalized their abortion laws. Extremely liberal legislation, offering safe, inexpensive "abortion on demand" (as opposed to "therapeutic abortion") has been enacted in New York, Hawaii and Alaska. However, most states still retain old laws approving legal abortion only in cases in which pregnancy threatens the mother's life. Some also permit abortion in cases of rape or incest. People are now asking whether the old statutes serve the best interests of women and society. Increasing acceptance is being granted to the women's lib stand which holds that it is a woman's right to make the decision about an abortion, not the state's. Women's groups across the U.S. have taken the lead in setting up abortion counselling services.

The American woman's fight for day care centres is highly controversial and is opposed by many child-care experts. President Nixon vetoed a bill in 1971 which would have given federal support to child-care centres, stating his conviction "that the Federal Government's role wherever possible should be one of assisting parents to purchase needed day care services privately." New income tax rulings permit single heads of households and families under a certain income to deduct part of the expense of household help when the adult members work and they must have care for their children.

There was general rejoicing in the U.S. when the frequently both in seriousness and in jest, by the two opponents.

The most effective proselyte of the movement in the United proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution was passed by the House of Representatives in 1971 and by the Senate States is journalist Gloria Steinem, intelligent, beautiful and witty in March 1972. Thirty-eight states among the total of 50 are -and an outspoken crusader for women's rights. She begins her required to ratify the amendment to have it become official, and frequent speeches with the greeting, "Friends and Sisters," and a the two-thirds mark has already been passed. Clearly this amend- smile. The smile is the cape that hides the sword, because Gloria ment, which has been introduced to each Congress since 1923,was can sling accusations and abuse with the angriest of the sisters. pushed through on the strength of increased awareness of its During an appearance on a television talk show she so enraged an importance due to Women's Liberation pressures. The most fre- actor who was also on the programme tha~ he shouted in frustraquently cited objection to the amendment is that it would make tion: "If you were a man, I'd hit you right in the mouth!" The I women liable for the draft. A woman lawyer wrote in rebuttal darling of women's lib replied coolly, "Why don't you? At least in the Yale Law School Journal that if women were to perform you'd be taking women seriously." military duty along with men, it would further help to make them Invited to address the all-male cadet corps of the U.S. Naval full participants in the rights of citizenship and that: "As between Academy at Annapolis, Maryland, she was challenged by the brutalizing our young men and brutalizing our young women, question of whether some women did not, in fact, like to be there is little to choose." subjugated. Steinem replied: "I believe there are female masochists Intrinsic to all these "acceptable" demands is the push for an and I believe there are male masochists. I believe there are men entirely new view of women and their role in life. It is here that . who like passive roles, who like to be given orders-because look many men and women who would never deny the justice of equal at all of you out there. I wouldn't take it if I were you." pay for equal work, scorn and fear the new feminists. Women Her latest venture has been the editorship of a new magazine demonstrating in the streets, women referring with disdain to the for women entitled MS. The first issue of MS. featured a sample male view that sees them as "sex objects," women demanding the Women's Liberation Marriage Contract. The honorific "Ms."right to be ungirdled and plain and unmarried and to have careers used to address a female as Mr. does a male without regard to in predominantly male occupations: these women are viewed as marital status-is one more example of the persuasiveness of the both offensive and threatening by many who were brought up to new feminists' revolutionary ideas. Like the term "sexist," it was want to please men, who like housework, who work hard at being greeted with hoots of derision when introduced. A cartoon in the as beautiful as possible, who enjoy dependence on men and who New Yorker magazine su~med up most people's feelings when it are bringing up their daughters to feel eKactly the same way. The showed an employer querying a young female applicant who had vast majority of men share their wives' horror at the "unladylike" just filled out a form: "Is that Miss Ms. or Mrs. Ms.?" Suddenly aggressiveness of the women's lib spokesmen-or spokeswomen, non-militant women of all ages are using the new form of address as they would have it. on their personal mail, and it has become official usage in numerMuch of the literature produced by the more radical splinter ous agencies and institutions in the country. groups is hostile towards both men and "the system." One leader, Perhaps the most remarkable evidence of change is the fact Ti-Grace Atkinson, no longer will sit on a speaker's platform with that a black female-Shirley Chisholm, Congresswoman from a man present. At "consciousness-raising" sessions, women com- New York-was one of the active contenders for the Democratic pare disappointments and frustrations-social, professional, nomination for President. Ms. Chisholm has frequently stated sexual. They call on all "sisters" to shake off their shackles, i.e., that she has experienced more prejudice in her life as a woman pay their own ways on dates; to eschew make-up and hairdressers; than as a black. The sisters cheer, "Right on!" to light their own cigarettes; to remain single; and, if married, to It is commonly noted that the greatest impact of the women's retain their maiden names and insist that husbands participate movement in America can be found among the educated, preequally in child-care and housework. dominantly young, white, middle-class women, and that their Famed sociologist Margaret Mead has added her voice to the interest in the sexual revolution in no way touches the lives of outcry and pointed to many examples of societies where house- millions of other Americans. It is true that the more radical dekeeping and child-care are the province of men. She has sought to mands put forth will probably never have widespread effect. Yet prove that there is no such thing as innate differences of tempera- there is no doubt that the Women's Liberation Movement in ment and ability between men and women-that evidence to the America and the rest of the world has become a force that will contrary is simply the result of cultural conditioning. change the future. No one believes that women will dominate the Every feminist reading list should include Simone de Beauvior's 21st century. Nor do women's libbers want to dominate.

The Second Sex-a prophetic book which preceded Friedan's What do women want? They want economic equality. They by over a decade. Kate Millett has added to the literature another want an end to both the restrictions and the "privileges" tradihigh-powered document, Sexual Politics, which probes the ways tionally accorded to their sex. They want to update attitudes. in which men keep women in a subordinate role. Her attack on They want to increase their freedom and their options in life-to the "sexist" writings of novelist Norman Mailer prompted a increase, in sum, their humanity.

END lengthy and lusty response by him in the form of an article entitled "Prisoner of Sex" which appeared in 1971 in Harper's About the Author: Elinor Horwitz is a well-known free-lance editor ~nd Magazine and which has been publicly discussed and debated, writer in the United States. She is also a wzfe and a mother.

RAJA RAO ON AMERICA

Tbe noted Indian philosopher believes young Americans are close to Indian concepts in their search for truth.

'America has great splendour,' he says. 'Once this nation finds itself, it will be truly magnificent. America has the makings of a great classical civilization (that) will be a true expression of the worth of man.'

An American renaissance that could create one of the world's greatest classical civilizations is envisioned by the distinguished Indian novelist and philosopher Raja Rao. As the U.S. begins its third century as a nation, Raja Rao foresees a "flowering" of spiritual and intellectual life akin to the surge of artistic and philosophical achievement that took place in New England in the 19th century. Americans, the children of Emerson, Longfellow and Thoreau, are about to reclaim their inheritance.

"I believe the true American character is emerging," Rao said recently in an interview in his sparely furnished office at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C. "An essentially"new type of man is developing. He is more interested in ideas than in objects, less dogmaticaIly moral and more purely

ethical, and more anarchic in temperament without the necessity of being destr-active."

This appraisal comes from the complex, intensely intellectual man whom novelist Santha Rama Rau has called "perhaps the most brilliant-and certainly the most interesting-writer of modern India." -The winner of the Sahitya Akademi Award for his novel, The Serpent and the Rope, Raja Rao numbers among his admirers such leading Western literary figures as Andre Malraux and Lawrence Durrell.

Raja Rao has an enormous reputation, but is physically a surprisingly'small man.

Slight and hardly five feet taIl,:he is saved from appearing diminutive by his head, which is large and commanding with thick grey hair swept back from the forehead, and by his unusually expressive face. His features are aristocratic and forcefully convey his mood whether he is carefully attentive, intensely concentrating' on a problem, or chuckling with delight ,at a particularly clever phrase. ¡'if continued)

ed to find American youth in ferment. "The young people of America today are perhaps 'The young people of the most interesting young people in the America today are perhaps world," he said. "My students fascinate me -they are at once direct and profound." the most interesting young Raja Rao is convinced that avant-garde people in the world. . young Americans are concerned primarily They are at once with the search for philosophical truth. He admires their indifference to affluence and direct and profound.' their sincere efforts to live according to basic values.

"The American is supposed to be a materialist, but he simply is not," Rao continued, punctuating his remarks with rapid gestures. "The American is abstract. He is interested in the essentials of life. This is why he discards objects so quickly."

But, he is challenged, isn't it true that Americans discard possessions easily because they can afford to get new ones?

"No, not at all," Rao replied instantly.

"It is much more complex than that. When the British were wealthy, they had a love of objects and were concerned about their possessions. But the young Americans are basically not interested. Of course, they like to live comfortably, but they care more about the quality of life. They care about being. They are interested in the joy of existence." "Now," he said smiling across his book-laden desk, "they have Vigorous in protecting his intellectual only to learn the art of life."

As further proof of the natural abstract life, Rao will unabashedly refuse to see a visitor because he is "thinking." But and philosophical bent of Americans, Rao at the University of Texas, where he is pointed to the nation's literature. He conVisiting Professor of Philosophy, he is siders Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David noted for his patience with students and Thoreau and Walt Whitman examples of will spend hours explaining his ideas, in- writers who transcended material concerns in search of philosophical truth. Not at cluding his vision of the new America.

"I first came to America in 1950 be- all coincidentally, Raja Rao notes, this cause a friend in France told me that American literary triumvirate was heavily America was becoming important," Rao influenced by Indian thought. recalled. "Even then this country made a "Anyone who wants to know America tremendous impression on me. I had a must read Whitman," Rao said. "He was sense of its immensity and the feeling that groping for the America that is developing nothing is impossible here, that everybody today. He deeply understood the character has a chance to show what he can do." of this country." America's philosophical "But to be truthful," he continued, "I concerns, he continued, were somewhat did not find it intellectually stimulating." submerged during the period of industrialHe explained that the universities then ization. Rao, whose Mysore Brahmin famwere filled with veterans who were com- ily traces its intellectual lineage through pleting their education interrupted by the more than 300 years, views the great effort Second World War. These men longed for devoted to improving material conditions security and comfort after the privations for the mass of Americans as an "accident." they had suffered, a pursuit of normalcy "The Founding Fathers were more like that didn?t interest the Indian philosopher. hippies than your fathers were a generation However, more than a decade later ago," he said. "In the days of Thomas when he accepted an offer from the Univer- Jefferson, people thought not in terms of sity of Texas to teach philosophy ("My objects but in terms of a classical way of firstjob," he said humorously.), Rao return- life. They read Plato, Aristotle and Cicero.

That strain is still in America but it did not appear in the generations from 1890 to 1950.Those were the real lost generations."

"America today is the answer to the 18th-century French philosophers who wanted plenty, equality and freedom," he concluded. "America has these, but we know now that these are not enough."

According to Rao, the truism that man does not live by bread alone is revolutionizing the United States. "America has great splendour," he said, "and now she is turning inward, for true splendour is ever inward. America must go back to herself, and she is going back to herself. Once this nation finds itself, it will be truly magnificent. America has the makings of a great classical civilization. Like every classical civilization, it will be a true expression of the worth of man."

Raja Rao believes that the American revolution he predicts is rooted in scientific and psychological realities. He pointed to recent ecological studies that conclude that there are not sufficient resources on the earth to allow the pursuit of material wealth to go unchecked. "You can't have the object in a real sense," he said, "because there simply are not enough objects to go around. Man must learn to find other satisfactions.' , But even if the globe had unlimited resources, Rao does not believe that the sum of human happiness would be substantially increased. The philosopher: sees material wealth as a distraction from true joy.

"Joy exists only when you love objects less," he said. "This is not puritanism, but anti-puritanism. You are not sacrificing something that you want-you are just not interested. The less you are interested in objects as such, the more joy you will feel."

Raja Rao believes that Americans are bored with possessions. He finds evidence to support his notion everywhere, even at his favourite restaurant in Washingtona youth hangout called "Yes" that serves only organic food. "People are turning to simple, natural foods, and there is a great movement towards vegetarianism," he said. "All this is connected with the emerging view of life."

In the music of young America, he finds "more talk of real love and less of the old sentimental concept of love," as well as a new note of "transience-of sorrow."

"The young people even move differently," Rao continued. "A lot of older Americans can't sit still for a minute-they have to be doing something. But the young

I

people don't hurry. They take more time to think."

The recent surge of interest in India and Asia, Rao said, is another manifestation of America's new cultural concerns. "I'm afraid that I'm going to sound very nationalistic," he commented in a tone that was not at all apologetic. "I believe India is the direction of essential human culture. The Indian has sensibilities and refinements the world has never surpassed. In many ways, one can say, India is culture."

Rao, who has been a student of the West since he first went to Paris in 1929, said he doesn't expect many Americans to acquire a scholar's knowledge of India. "It doesn't matter how much they really know," he said. "The younger American is much

'America today is the answer to the 18th-century French philosophers who wanted plenty, equality and freedom.'

closer to Indian concepts, but not because he is interested in Indian thought. Everybody has his own India."

"If you go to India, you are in some sort of India-but is that really India?" he asked with a look of challenge on his face.

"The India I am talking about has neither geography nor history."

Rao believes that Americans instinctively express appreciation of Indian philosophical values when they wear Indian clothing or enjoy the music of a sitar. "The mandalas inside of them are attracted to these forms," he explained. However, he do~s not believe that Americans should become Indianized or that Indians should follow the American way of life. "It is naturally impossible to adopt a culture," he said. "A culture should grow spontaneously. You should go back to your own culture and let it grow."

Both nations have much to offer one another, Rao said, and America's great contribution is technological expertise, which the Indian philosopher appreciates in his own unique way. "I am fascinated by technology," said Rao, adding that he has spent hours in the nearby Smithsonian Museum, admiringthe"Spirit of St. Louis," the first plane to fly the Atlantic Ocean, or the lunar module that carried the first men to the moon.

In Rao's view, the yogi and the computer are compatible because technology "creates a need for reason, and reason is the salvation of man. There is a great new rationality coming into the world. Religion is being replaced by philosophy. That is the only hope of mankind."

But technological advances do not represent progress to Rao; indeed, he considers the Western concept of progress an illusion. "There is no evolution of man as far as the intellect is concerned," he insisted, waving his slender hand briskly to dismiss the notion. "Progress is nonsenseprogress towards what? What does it matter? A store of information is a store of information, so what? If I could not read, I could still be a very wise man!"

The seeming contradiction in Raja Rao's view of progress and technology disappears when the philosopher explains his conviction that truth is the only valid pursuit for mankind. "There could be no Western civilization without Socrates," he noted, adding that this thinker who had helped shape the world's most technological culture had "asked others to pursue the truth." Rationality, he explained,

whether developed through technology or other means, aids in the pursuit of truth, but truth itself, the ultimate goal for men, never changes.

"The perfect man is an impersonal being," Rao explained. "He is not a humanist. He is trying to live in terms of truth.

Your great Presidents generally understood this. Jefferson, Lincoln and Wilson were all dedicated to truth. They believed in seeking ultimate values and they asked themselves if what they were doing was right in terms of those values."

The writer acts out his belief in the primacy of truth in his art. A Rao novel is admittedly difficult reading, but the hardships of his readers do not concern this author. "I am interested in discussing the problems of the truth-seeker," he said. "I publish what I enjoy. I believe one should seek truth, whatever it is, and pay the price for it."

The Indian novelist, who said he writes in English because of a "historical accident," described his works as a chronicle of his personal philosophical quest.

"All writers write only autobiography," he said. "Certain aspects of my life are emphasized in each book, so they are a fairly accurate statement of my life, though not so far as facts are concerned. In The Serpent and the Rope, I am Rama. Now I am a different person from the man described in that book because he had not yet decided what he wanted to find. My book The Cat And Shakespeare is the conclusion of that quest."

Now it appears that Rao has embarked on another phase of life-an American one. He is married to an American, the actress Katherine Rao, they have a young son, and at least part of every year is spent in the United States. Will the new American sensibility be the subject of his next novel?

Rao shrugged and replied, "It is difficult to say. It takes me 10 years to write a book. A book on America? Maybe."

One senses that to Raja Rao, who was recently awarded the Padma Bhushan by the Government of India, even his future literary achievements are ultimately unimportant. What he considers important for America, for India and for himself is his conviction that "man can achieve happiness if he but sticks to the search for the truth."

About the Author: Free-lance writer Elizabeth Wahl spent a year in India as a Fulbright scholar. She re-visited the country in 1971 with her lawyer-photographer husband Frank.

Reprinted from U.S. News & World Report, July 31, 1972, published at Washington, D.C.

BOW

WILL DO BUSIIISS WITBT.I

A tenfold increase in trade between the United States and the Soviet Union is foreseen

by Samuel Pisar, a top expert on international commerce. In the following interview-which was held before the recent U .s.-U.S.S.R. agreements on trade, lend-lease and the billion-dollar grain deal-Pisar outlines the many advantages of such co-operation.

QUESTION: Mr. Pisar, do you expect a dramatic increase in trade between Russia and the U.S. over the next five years?

PISAR: I do foresee a very substantial increase in trade. I'd say that trade at the end of a five-year period could reach 2 and maybe even 5 billion dollars annually both ways-if you include joint ventures between Soviet and American enterprises.

The level of imports and exports alone could go up from the present annual 200

million dollars or so to several times that figure, but what offers hope for a real breakthrough in trade with Russia is the prospect of various types of joint ventures, such as the Occidental Petroleum deal.

Bear in mind that today the six member countries of the Common Market and the four countries about to become members already do 25 times as much trade with the Soviet bloc as the U.S. I don't see why the U.S. could not increase its trade with the Soviets tenfold if the discriminations and restrictions of cold-war vintage were removed.

QUESTION: Why is there so much interest in both countries all of a sudden in boosting trade?

PISAR: The Soviets are trying to build the beginnings of a consumer societY,cand they are in a hurry. They are being pressured by their people. I'd note in passing they also want to develop Siberia as fast as possible because of their problems with the Chinese next door.

They are very advanced in some areas of technology like space and defence, but on the general front of their economy they are facing bottlenecks. In certain industries, they are so far behind they live in another age. This

is how one of their top scientists, Andrei Sakharov, described it. In the chemical industry, in the petrochemical industry, andabove all-in computers, they are way behind.

The same is true when it comes to building a production line for consumer goods. They are not interested in buying consumer products from us. What they are interested in is buying the wherewithal with which to produce consumer goods-the sophisticated technology for mass production and know-how for mass distribution.

U.S. interest? First, we cannot any longer afford the luxury of restricting trade with the Soviet Union at a time when such a policy is not even effective. Our allies are trading many of the things we refuse to trade. Our balance of payments no longer is in shape to afford this kind of policy. Our business community doesn't like it, and neither do our labour unions.

Our interest is to let the American businessman do his thing-to sell where he thinks he can sell-as long as it doesn't undermine the security of the country. Now, the President is on record as saying that it's all right to trade with the Russians. We should go back to our old image of a nation of Yankee traders willing to trade with anyone.

QUESTION: Are the U.S. and Russia natural trading partners?

PISAR: I think so. As I said, they need our industrial technology, and we can provide it. Even the West Germans and the Japanese often work in the high-technology area under American patents and licences. The Russians would prefer to get this technology directly from us.

America and Russia are both great agricultural countries, but the Soviets, because of their nationalized system, are hopelessly inefficient farmers. And that's why they have decided to buy 750 million dollars' worth of U.S. agricultural commodities in the next few years. So there is a basis for a natural trading relationship.

[Editor's Note: Since this interview, which took place in the middle of last year, the Soviet Union has made a deal to purchase about $1,000 million worth of American grain; and the two nations have also concluded agreements settling the Soviets' World War II lendlease debt and a comprehensive trade pact ending 25 years of commercial deadlock between the two countries.]

to ground rules covering the protection of industrial property, the arbitration of disputes, the possibilities of opening a representative office, of getting information on supply and demand. They could make these adjustments without changing their basic economic system-which they are, of course, determined to maintain, just as we are determined to maintain ours.

QUESTION: Why do the Russians want this most-Javoured-nation treatment?

PISAR: They want it because in order to buy from the U.S. they have to have an opportunity to sell. As things stand now, Russian exports to the U.S. have to pay around four times as much duty as, say, competing French products. By not granting them mostfavoured-nation status, we are subjecting them to American tariff levels as they stood in the 1930s, before all our postwar liberalization measures.

Then, of course, it's also a matter of Russian self-respect and dignity. They don't like the idea of being discriminated against.

QUESTION: Why do you think Russia wants to trade with the U.S. instead of with Japan and Europe, both of which are closer to it and QUESTION: Will the two countries have to probably able to sell goods more cheaply? make big adjustments before any large-scale PISAR: In my opinion, the Russians are obsessed with the sheer dimension of Amertrade begins?

PISAR: On the U.S. side, several laws now ican industry. They have a huge, continenton the statute books will have to be changed, sized country, and they want an economy and the interpretation and enforcement of to match it. America has developed such an some existing laws will also have to be changed. economy. They know that American comWe would have to begin by offering the panies have licked the problems of mass proRussians the same opportunity to compete duction and distribution for a continentfor exports to the U.S. that we give to other sized economy.

From conversations with highly placed countries. In other words, we should give them normal access to our markets by grant- Russians, I got the impression that they felt ing them most-favoured-nation status. We that their economic problems are very similar give that status to the Poles and the Yugo- to what America faced at the end of the 19th century. They know that when it comes to slavs already.

We would also have to offer them normal doing something big-and all of the Russian Export-Import Bank credits. Our competi- projects are big-no other country knows tors offer such credits, and we must be able how to do it better than America.

To them, developing Siberia is almost like to compete on an equal basis ....

Next, there is the problem of strategic- the conquest of the West in the U.S. during export controls. The U.S. definition of what the last century, except with a little less sun is "strategic" is much more severe than our and much more snow. allies' definition. Their businessmen are allowed to export products to Russia which we QUESTION: Do the Russians have anything still embargo. That doesn't make sense and America wants or really needs?

PISAR: What the Russians have which we only hurts our economy.

These are the three main things which could use are the vast resources of Siberia. would have to change on our side. On the They have huge proven reserves of natural Russian side, a number of things would have gas, as well as nickel, copper, chrome, manganese and other raw materials. They are to change, too.

For example, we would want them to agree now willing to use these raw materials as a

form of currency. They want American companies to help extract and sell them on the world market-mairily to the U.S. Now, as you know, we don't have enough natural gas in the U.S. to meet the rapidly increasing demand. We could use much more.

The technology to liquefy this gas and ship to the U.S. exists, and the costs of this are being studied.

If you consider all these Siberian resources, you can see how-over a period of years-the Russians could generate substantial amounts of dollar and other currency earnings with which to buy the American technology they need.

I should add that the Russians also have some salable industrial products, such as their excellent hydroelectric generators which we nearly bought a few years ago for the Grand Coulee Dam in [the State of] Washington.

QUESTION: Is there any advantage for the U.S. in buying these thingsfrom Russia instead of somewhere else where it probably could be done with much less haggling and red tape?

PISAR: One advantage is that Russia has these natural resources in plentiful supply, and they can be obtained as cheaply or may be more cheaply than elsewhere. When the Russians are ready to sell, they bring their price down to a level which enables sales. Other countries like Algeria have natural gas, but not nearly enough to satisfy the potential demand of the American market.

The other advantage is that buying these products from Russia would open up a sizable market for U.S. products in Russia.

It's getting difficult to sell American equipment and technology in other parts of the world-in Western Europe, for example.

Some of our industrres-the mac.hine-tool industry, for example--can use any new market that might be available.

QUESTION: What kinds of problems do you see for American companies hoping to trade with Russia?

PISAR: Let's face it-I see many problems.

I'll list a few: How do you establish and develop contact with the proper trading party in the Soviet bureaucracy?

How do you obtain ironclad protection for your patents? How do you prevent secret industrial processes from being revealed?

How do you make sure that when you help establish a production line, the Russians will not re-export the products and compete with you in other world markets?

How do you resolve or litigate disputes

The Soviets 'know that American companies have licked the problems of mass production . . . for a continent-sized economy.' over contracts? What law governs a transaction between an American private company and a Soviet state agency?

How does an American company obtain reliable information about trends and conditions in the Soviet market? For instance, when an American company is tooling up to sell a certain line of products in the Soviet market, how does it know whether the Russians might not be building a plant somewhere in Russia to meet the same demand and thus abruptly replace American production?

Will the American companies get a chance to deal directly with the industrial end-users of their products, or will they always have to go through the intermediary of centralized state monopolies?

These are some of the problems. But judging from how European businessmen have dealt with them, the American businessmen should be able to manage. I can confirm this from my own observation and experience.

QUESTION: Do you think the Russians will permit American companies to set up offices in the Soviet Union?

possible. Premier [Alexei] Kosygin himself alluded to the possibility and admitted that if there were to be such ventures, they would have to yield a profit to the "participating American company.

From the Russian point of view, these ventures are of interest mainly in the mineral area. I don't think they want to go as far as having joint ventures to manufacture consumer goods for the domestic market.

But if the Russians follow the pattern of Eastern Europe, I can envision joint ventures with American companies to produce goods and undertake projects in markets outside the Soviet Union-in the East, the West and particularly in the less-developed world.

The Russians already have joint ventures outside the Soviet Union with the French, the Belgians, the British and the West Germans.

QUESTION:

Will Americans, as partners with the Russians, find them difficult to get along with?

PISAR: The human relationship between Russians and Americans should not be an obstacle if the political climate keeps improving. I think that, as people, Russians and Americans have a lot in common. But there are a few areas of potential difficulty.

The old-guard Russian Communists still have an ideological hang-up about American capitalists. In dealing with our businessmen, they tend to worry that they are helping to make rich men richer.

Then there is the fact that Russians are part of an immense bureaucracy. For most of them, time doesn't matter as it does to us.

They are underpaid, and they can go on for hours, days and weeks negotiating back and forth without getting impatient.

They are civil servants. They don't like to make decisions and take responsibility. They like to refer everything to higher echelons.

If they take a risk and win, they are not going to get a personal gain. But if they lose, they can be in real trouble.

These kinds of difficulties cannot be underestimated.

PISAR: I believe American companies will in the near future be allowed to set up offices in Moscow, but you won't see any big steeland-glass buildings with a company's name displayed in brilliant neon for all to see. You will have modest offices in hotels or tucked away so as not to be too conspicuous and jar the sensibilities of the average Communist passer-by.

A number of West European and Japanese companies have been able to open offices in Moscow in the last four or five years, and Pan American has a modest office there, too. But I don't believe American companies will ever be operating as freely as they do in non-Communist countries. They won't be able to set QUESTION: Since the systems are so differup or buy up companies or invest in equity, ent, how can Americans and Russians ever set prices that both can understand and accept as they have in Western Europe.

QUESTION:

Mr. Pisar, earlier you talked about Soviet-American joint ventures. Can you give us some examples?

PISAR: When I was in Moscow last summer with an American group, including Mr. David Rockefeller and Gen. James Gavin, we realized that joint ventures were fast becoming

competition, and finally arrive at a decision based partly on prevailing world prices and partly on hunch. It's even more difficult when it comes to selling: They adjust their prices to international prices, sometimes lowering them to break into a given market. In the late 1950s, they overdid this in aluminium, tin and even oil-and disrupted world markets considerably. But, in my view, this was just clumsy trading, not a deliberate attempt to sabotage capitalist economies.

So, again, this question of price-setting must be sorted out by negotiation. Mainly because they don't know the costs of production, we need a ground rule to prevent dumping and unfair competition.

QUESTION: Will the Russians recognize the American concept of profit in a joint venture?

PISAR: The Russians are realistic enough, p3.rticularly those now in power, to realize that they can never do business with American companies unless they give them a chance to make a profit.

Now, this doesn't mean that American companies will soon be allowed to participate in the equity of Soviet companies and earn dividends, although the Yugoslavs and the Rumanians already allow this. But contracts can be drawn up whereby, for example, in the gas, nickel or copper areas, any revenue derived from sales to the world market after the original investment has been repaid will leave a profit to be shared on an agreed basis over a long period of time.

Communist countries don't like the word "profit," but you can negotiate arrangements whereby you make it look like royalties or service fees or interest charges. Marx and Lenin said a lot about the evil of profits, but they didn't say anything about these more innocent-sounding refinements of capitalism.

QUESTION: Who would decide profits would be?

what the

as realistic?

PISAR: The profit margins will have to be decided by mutual agreements in each contract. In joint-venture situations, the Russians will be just as interested in making a profit on world markets as their American partners.

The Soviet Union is Communist at home, but it tends to behave like a capitalist when it does business abroad.

END

PISAR: For Americans, of course, there is no problem, because American companies can calculate their cost of production. But the Russians don't know what their costs really are for a particular product.

When they buy in the West, they shop around, ask for bids, foment a great deal of

Samuel Pisar is a top international lawyer and counsel to corporations and banks. He served on the U.S. Task Force on Foreign Economic Policy and as an adviser to President Nixon's Commission on International Trade and Investment Policy.

THE POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF .RICHARD NIXON What does President Nixon hope to accomplish in his next four years? What are the cornerstones of his political philosophy? In an interview late last year with the Washington Star-News, the President said that the complete answers to these questions are to be found in the 15 speeches he delivered prior to the November 7 election. In these speeches, he said, he had spelled out in detail the beliefs and principles that will guide him in the next four years.

The contents of these speeches have been compiled by subject.

Excerpts follow.

I

. TH E ROAD 10 PEACE In my Inaugural Address nearly four years ago, I said that the greatest honour history can bestow is the title of peacemaker, but I also pointed out that peace does not come through wishing for it, that there is no substitute for days and even years of patient and prolonged diplomacy.

For the past four years this nation has engaged in patient and prolonged diplomacy, in every corner of the world, and we have also maintained the strength that has made our diplomacy credible and peace possible. As a result, we are well on the way towards erecting what I have often referred to as a structure of peace, a structure that rests on the hard concrete of common interests and mutual agreements, and not on the shifting sands of naive sentimentality.

That term, "a structure of peace," speaks an important truth about the nature of peace in today's world. Peace cannot be wished into being. It has to be carefully and painstakingly built in many ways and on many fronts, through networks of alliances, through respect for commitments, through patient negotiations, through balancing military forces and expanding economic interdependence, through reaching one agreement that opens the way to others, through developing patterns of international behaviour that will be accepted by other powers. Most important of all, the structure of peace has to be built in such a way that all those who might be tempted to destroy it will instead have a stake in preserving it. ...

Let us give tomorrow's children the birthright of an America at peace in a world at peace-not peace with surrender, but peace with honour-not just an interlude between wars but a time of lasting friendship and co-operation among all peoples, a time when mankind can unite in a new alliance against our common enemies-poverty, misery and disease.

The recent breakthrough towards a negotiated settlement in

Vietnam points to that kind of peace. So does the new relationship which the United States has begun to develop with the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China. But there is much more to do-the further limitation of nuclear arms, the easing of tension in Europe, the healing of tragic divisions in the Middle East, the continued strengthening of our alliances, the forging of new trade patterns and the continued development of our volunteer armed forces, which will be the indispensable linchpin of America's peace forces in the years ahead ....

Above all, I want to complete the foundations for a world at peace-so that the next generation can be the first in this century to live without war, and without the fear of war ....

All around the world we are opening doors to peace, doors that were previously closed. We are developing areas of common interest where there have been previ()usly only antagonisms. All this is a beginning. It can be the beginning of a generation of peace ....

As we look at the real world, it is clear that we ~ill not in our lifetimes have a .world free of danger. Anyone who reads history knows that danger has always been part of the common lot of mankind. Anyone who knows the world today knows that nations have not all been suddenly. overtaken by some new and unprecedented wave of pure goodwill and benign intentions.

But we can lessen the danger. We can contain it. We can forge a network of relationships and of interdependencies that restrain aggression and that take the profit out of war.

We cannot make all nations the same, and it would be wrong to try. We cannot make all of the world's people love each other.

But we can establish conditions in which they will be more likely to live in peace with one another. .

MILITARY STRENGTH President Nixon is determined to maintain a national defence force second to none in the world, aforce including both nuclear and conventional capabilities. He is aware of the danger that too much of a nation's resources can go to defence. With that in mind he has reduced American military manpower by almost a third. But he will not allow American naval and air forces to lose their present superiority. In the following excerpts from his campaign speeches, he gives his plans and his reasoning.

There are those today who condemn as a relic of a cold war mentality the idea that peace requires strength. There are those

who ridicule military expenditures as wasteful and immoral. Our opponents ... have even described the great bipartisan tradition of negotiating from strength as one of the most damaging and costly cliches in the American vocabulary. If the day ever comes when the President of the United States has to negotiate from weakness, that will be a dangerous day, not only for America, but for the whole world ....

We will be told that all the things we want to do at home could be painlessly financed if we slashed our military spending.

We will be told that we can have peace merely by asking for it, that if we simply demonstrate goodwill and good faith, our adversaries will do likewise, and that we need to do no more. This is dangerous nonsense ....

We have made progress towards peace in the world-towards a new relationship with the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China-not through naive sentimental assumptions that goodwill is all that matters, or that we can reduce our military strength because we have no intention of making war and we therefore assume other nations would have no such intention.

We have achieved progress through peace for precisely the opposite reasons: because we demonstrated that we would not let ourselves be surpassed in military strength and because we bargained with other nations on the basis of their national interest and ours ....

When a President thinks of his responsibilities to the American people, he must think first of all about the need to keep this country strong, about the need to maintain a national defence second to none in the world.

A President also has an obligation to spend no more of the nation's limited resources on defence than is absolutely required, because he knows that there are other urgent human needs to be met.

Today no nation on earth is more powerful than the United States. Not only are our nuclear deterrent forces fully sufficient for their role in keeping the peace-our conventional forces also are modern, strong, prepared, and credible to an adversary.

During the past four years, however, because of the progress we have made in bringing the Vietnam war to an honourable conclusion and in reducing tensions among the great powers, we have also been able to reduce substantially the size of our military establishment.¡ We have reduced our total military manpower by nearly onethird from the 1968 level. ... Under the Nixon Doctrine we have successfully persuaded oUr allies to take up a greater share of the free world defence burden than they have in the past. ...

All of this has been achieved without jeopardizing our security and without betraying our allies ....

When I came into office in January 1969, I found that ... massive nuclear superiority [on the part of the United States] no longer existed ....

Today the United States and the Soviet Union are equal in nuclear capability.

It has, therefore, become totally unrealistic to believe that we ~ould any longer deter aggression against a small nation, particularly one whose survival did not directly affect our own survival, if our only option were a nuclear retaliation which would lead to nuclear suicide for the United States.

The mutual destruction would be too great, and both sides would know it. No potential aggressor would respect America's security commitments to our friends and allies under those conditions.

The Middle East is an example. In the autumn of 1970 ...

American naval superiority kept the peace ... where nuclear threats would have been powerless to do so. That is why, for the sake ofIsrael and other small nations we are committed to defend, as well as for our own sake, we must never give up our superiority on the sea and in the air in the name of false economy.

The time has come to stand up and answer those of our own countrymen who complain that American power is an evil force in the world; those who say that our foreign policy is selfish and bad ....

I shall keep this country strong militarily ....

There is no such thing as a retreat to peace. There is no such thing as peace without order. And if America were suddenly to slash away her defensive strength and abdicate her responsibilities as the major' power of the free world, we would be retreating.

We would be leaving behind us a global vacuum that could only be filled with chaos and turmoil-a vacuum in which peace and order could not survive.

President Nixon believes that long strides have been made in the past four years towards an "era of negotIation," a period in which a broad range of nations" can talk about our differences rather than fight about them." He sees these dialogues under way not only among Washington, Moscow and Peking, but also between the two Germanies, the two Koreas, the countries of the Indian sub-continent, and NATO and the Warsaw Pact. In these excerpts from his speeches, President Nixon outlines the next stage in the era of negotiation and of world co-operation as he sees it.

Four years ago I promised that we would move from an era of confrontation to an era of negotiation. . . . ' Iri the past four years, we have concluded more significant agreements with the Soviets than in all the previous years since World War II. We have ended nearly a quarter century of mutual isolation between the United States and the People's Republic of China.

All over the world, the tide towards negotiation is moving.

North and South Korea are negotiating with one another.

East and West Germany are negotiating with one another.

A cease-fire has been in effect for more than two years in the Middle East. The leaders of India and Pakistan are talking with one another. The nations of Europe, of NATO, and of the Warsaw Pact, are preparing to meet ... in a European security conference, and preparations are under way for negotiations on mutual and balanced reduction of armed forces in Central Europe, All this is evidence of solid progress towards a world in which we can talk about our differences rather than fight about them.

Nineteen seventy-two has been a year of more achievement for peace than any year since the .end of World War. II. This progress did not happen by itself. ...

Ever since World War II, the world's people and its statesmen

have dreamed of putting the nuclear genie back in the bottle, of controlling the dreaded nuclear arms race, but always that race remained unchecked until this year.

In Moscow last May, we and the Soviet Union reached the first agreement ever for limiting strategic nuclear arms ....

This was a historic beginning. It moved back the frontiers of fear.

It helped check the dangerous spiral of nuclear weapons. It opened the way to further negotiations on further limitations on nuclear arsenals which will soon begin.

As we pursue these negotiations, however, let us remember that no country will pay a price for something that another, country will give up for nothing ....

We would never have reached that agreement [on the limitation of offensive and defensive nuclear weapons] if the United States had unilaterally given up the ABM [anti-ballistic missile] as some had recommended, or if we had begun stripping away our offensive missile forces.

If we were to take such action now, we would destroy any chance for further arms limitations in the second round of strategic nuclear arms limitation talks ... with the Soviet Union.

If we unilaterally reduced the forces now supporting our NATO allIes in Western Europe, as has also been proposed ... we would throwaway the prospect of mutual and balanced reductions of Soviet forces in Eastern Europe ....

A broad, unfinished agenda of peace ... lies before us, the agenda of new starts made, of negotiations begun, of new relationships established, which now we must build on with the same initiative and imagination that achieved the initial breakthroughs.

As we move forward on this agenda, we can see vast areas of peaceful co-operation to be explored ....

Because we are strong and prepared, we have been able to make dramatic progress towards arms reductions; towards better relations with the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China; towards the first full generation of peace our country will have known in this century.

THE VI ETNAM WAR The Vietnam war is drawing to a close. President Nixon in these excerpts from his speeches discusses the prospects for peace in Southeast Asia, the terms under which he will make a settlement, and his views on the six million Americans who served in the armed forces during the long conflict.

We have made a breakthrough in the negotiations which will lead to peace in Vietnam ....

We have reached substantial agreement on most of the terms of a settlement. The settlement we are ready to conclude would accomplish the basic objectives that I laid down in my television speech to the nation on May 8 of this year [1972]: The return of all prisoners of war and an accounting for those missing in action; a cease-fire throughout Indochina; and, for the 17 million people of South Vietnam, the right to determine their own future without having a Communist government or a coalition government imposed upon them against their will.

However, there are still some issues to be resolved. There are

still some provisions of the agreement which must be clarified so that all ambiguities will be removed. I have insisted that these be settled before we sign the final agreement. ...

Now, there are some who say: "Why worry about the details?

Just get the war over!"

Well, my answer is this: My study of history convinces me that the details can make the difference between an agreement that collapses and an agreement that lasts-and equally crucial is a clear understanding by all of the parties of what those details are ....

We want peace-peace with honour-a peace fair to all-and a peace that will last. That is why I am insisting that the central points be clearly settled, so that there will be no misunderstandings which could lead to a breakdown of the settlement and a resumption of the war.

FOREIGN TRADE Monetary reform and expanded foreign trade are two areas of the world scene where President Nixon expects important progress in the months ahead. Nations which were adversaries a few years back are becoming important trading partners with obvious advantagesfor peace andfor prosperity. In the case of the United States, a new farm policy encouraging production is helping the process.

Here are Richard Nixon's views as he expressed them,in excerpts from the campaign speeches.

After 10 years of recurring international monetary crises, we ,took bold actions [in 1971] to strengthen the doliar and to bring about a reformed international monetary system that would be fair to the United States and fair to the world. The result of these actions has been a solid and substantial beginning on just such a system, and the stage is now set for an international effort to achieve some of the most important monetary and trade reforms in history. As we complete these reforms in the years ahead, we can usher in a new age of world prosperity, a prosperity made even greater by the rapid expansion of peaceful trade that is now taking place, not only with our traditional trading partners, but also with nations that have been our adversaries ....

Four years ago everyone was fed up with rigid government farm programmes, that kept farmers in a strait-jacket.

So we looked for a way to give farmers more freedom. We sought an expanding agriculture, rather than a shrinking agriculture-a voluntary farm programme rather than compulsory controls-a market-oriented agriculture, rather than a government-dominated agriculture ....

An expanding agriculture requires expanded international markets for our farm products. When we took office, agricultural exports were stagnating, and now they are setting new records year after year.

From the annual level of $5,700 million under the last Administration, farm exports in 1972 will pass $8,000 million for the first time. We are going to keep them growing towards our goal of $10,000 million of exports every year.

We have gained our first $1,000 million annual customer of farm products-Japan.

We have opened new markets in Communist countries by lift-

ing the restrictive ocean shipping regulations of the last Administration. It was this action that led t6[the] sale offeed grains to the Soviet Union, and then to the three-year grain sales agreement which we signed with the Soviets in July-the biggest peacetime transaction of its kind in history. Equally important, it is a striking example of the way our farm policy and our foreign policy President Nixon believes there is needfor reform of the American are working hand in hand to strengthen the peaceful ties between domestic welfare system, emphasizing what he calls the "work great powers which were adversaries only a few years ago. ethic." He is convinced that individual effort has made the American The new relationship between the United States and' the economy what it is and that those who work should be rewarded People's Republic of China, which began when I visited Peking . generously. His ideas are set forth in the following excerpts from earlier this year [1972], is another situation in which our farmers his campaign speeches. are both contributing to peace and profiting from peace. The grain sales which we have made to the People's Republic of China We owe our children something better than steadily nSlllg only scratch the surface of an immense trade potential between prices and ever-higher taxes to support welfare handouts .... We our two countries. owe them a reform of the welfare system so that it will not be more profitable to go on welfare than to go to work. We must continue the progress of the last several years and reach those goals ....

What has made America the economic wonder of the world is not what government has done for people, but what people have ,done for themselves. That is why, while some politicians are calling for redistribution of income-seeking to reward those who do not work more than those who do-this Administration has stood with the new American majority. We know that it was the President Nixon is convinced that the American trend of the past sacrifice and efforts of hard-working people that built America.

40 years towards "big government," towards the expansion of a We oppose those who would discourage work and reward idleness.

America is a land of opportunity, not a land of handouts. federal bureaucracy in Washington, needs reform. He means to reverse the power flow, sending it back towards state and local Each of us deserves a fair chance to get ahead. But none of us has the right to expect a free ride-to remain idle, to take advantage governments and to the individual citizens. In these excerpts from of other men's labour .... his speeches the President describes his philosophy of government.

We believe that a person's ability and ambition should deter[Our] goal must be a free and self-governed America, an mine his income ....

America whose unique system of representative governmentWe believe that when government tampers too much with the lives of individuals, when it unnecessarily butts into the free colfederal, state and local-is a better instrument of the people's will, a better servant of the people's needs, a better protector of lective bargaining process, it cripples the private enterprise system the people's liberties in 1976 than at any time since the birth of on which the welfare of the worker depends .... our country in 1776.

We are faced ... with the choice between the "work ethic" that built this nation's character and the new "welfare ethic" that To reach this high standard, sweeping reform will be needed, could cause that American character to weak~n. on the scale of a new, peaceful American revolution. The sharing Let's compare the two. of the federal revenue with our cities and states, which will begin The work ethic tells us that there is really no such thing as soon, marks the first great step in starting the flow of power from "something for nothing," and that everything valuable in life Washington back to the people where it belongs. We must keep the power flowing that way during the years ahead. requires some striving and some sacrifice. The work ethic holds that it is wrong to expect instant gratification of all our desires, It was the genius of the people, not the mechanisms of government, that built America. That is why a goal for 1976 must be a and it is right to expect hard work to earn a just reward ....

The welfare ethic, on the other hand, suggests that there is an pluralist open America, where government does not dominate but easier way. It says that the good life can be made available to liberates the individual, opening the way for a new surge of vitaleveryone right now, and that this can be done by the Governity, creative service and civic responsibility on the part of private ment. The welfare ethic goes far beyond our proper concern to enterprise, voluntary institutions, and individual people across help people in need .... this land ....

[Government] should open opportunities, provide incentives, The choice ... is clear: The work ethic builds character and encourage initiative-not stifle initiative by trying to direct everyself-reliance; the welfare ethic destroys character and leads to a vicious cycle of dependency. thing from Washington.

This does not mean that the Federal Government will abd'iI say that America, to be true to her highest ideals, must recate its responsibilities where only it can solve a problem. It does main on the road that makes way for individual ability .... The difference in approach is not a matter of degree but a matter of mean that after 40 years of unprecedented expansion of the principle. It makes no sense to gloss over the fundamental differFederal Government, the time has come to redress the balanceto shift more people and more responsibility and power back to ence in approach between those who believe in this "good life" the states and localities and, most important, to the people, all under the work ethic, and those who vainly seek the "easy life" across America. under the welfare ethic.

BN D

THE WORK ETHIC

THE

IMPROBABLE LOVE STORY

rchyG&

/97-£-/8-7 /?/6'#/3:

u\s/s

Archy and Mehitabel?

A cockroach in love with a cat? That's the unlikely premise of a story which began back in 1916, when Archy, "the cockroach with the soul of a poet," made his debut in the columus of a leading American newspaper, "The New York Sun." Reporter Don Marquis, Archy's creator, swore that the insect invaded his office every night to record on his typewriter his sage reflections on life, himself and such friends as Mehitabel, the "corybantic" alley cat he loved. Until Marquis's death in 1937, Archy's poetic musings were the stuff of one of the most widely read and enjoyed features in American journalism. Later, the columns were collected into book form, and in 1957, Archy and Mehitabel's adventures were translated into a popular Broadway musical. Now Hollywood has finally caught up with the pair. The result is "Shinbone Alley," an animated musical movie whose artwork is as stunning and contemporary as its story is whimsical and romantic.

MEH1TABEL: " IT'S CHEERIO, MY DEARJO PRANCE AND PIROUETTE. I'LL SING ALL MY TROUBLES AWAY, TOUJOURS GA!, TOUJOURS GAJ, TOUJOURS GA/!"

ARCHY: "WE'RE FLOTSAM AND JETSAM ON A STORMY SEA MY PAL, MY FRIEND, CLINGI NG TOGETHER TO THE BITTER, BlTTER END."

2'-79b7

"AHH, SHE DID IT AGAIN! OH, I REALLY CAN'T BLAME MEHITABEL FOR REJECTING ME. ALL THE WORLD REJECTS ME BECAUSE l'M UGLY."

c~7r(3

"Shinbone Alley" has been applauded by critics for setting a new high standard for the genre of animated films.

Archy and Mehitabel are alternately set in front of cartoon backgrounds, and then realistic backgrounds, as spectacular geometric shapes and brilliant colours in the style'of pop-art and op-art convey Archy's fantasies.

On film, the graphic images blend and fuse into one another in a burst of colour and a maze of lines.

Archy's sessions at the typewriter have little effect on Mehitabel, whose life goes from bad to worse.

When Archy tries to talk Mehitabel out of seeing Big Bill, the bullyish tomcat picks him up by his antennae and flicks him out of the alley.

Furious, Archy types up a plea for the bugs of the world to unite against all higher forms of life.

But to no avaH. Mehitabel, already abandoned

by Big Bill, is found walking past

........... dlebdPtli&* ofdleatrenw

die actor 'l)reae Te 'l'aUenaJI, ftopll

I

Wiien.

!I

to - - liar ....... (llOTel

to be exendafla&ly short of talellt, this aft'm too Is dashed OD the rocks, and Mebitabel

ARCHY: " . . . MOTHS WOULD RATHER KNOW BEAUTY ONCE AND THEN JUST CEASE TO BE THAN NEVER KNOW ANY BEAUTY AT ALL AND LIVE AN ETERNITY...â&#x20AC;¢"

MEHITABEL: "YOU PUSSIES THAT PURR ON A PERSIAN RUG OR MEW TO SOME FOOL FOR CREAM . . .

LITTLE YOU KNOW OF THE WILD DELIGHT OF THE MIDNIGHT OUTLAW'S DREAM!"

MEHITABEL: " BE A FAMILY CAT IF YOU WANT SOMEONE'S PUSSY AND PET BUT THE LIFE I LEAD IS THE LIFE I LIKE THERE'S LIFE IN THE OLD DAME YET!"

l.!S~;

WHITH

WOMEN~