SPAN: January 1974

SPANJQ~Y U.S. and India Agree on Rupees

I

5 LmER

FROM

THE PUBliSHER

ALOOKAT WOMEN'S LIB Though the women's liberation movement no longer captures the headlines, it is still very much a "now" issue-which is why SPAN devotes 22 pages to it this month.

The movement's progress in America is discussed in depth

by Isa Kapp (pages 20-27), who examines its tactics, its demands, its goals, its successes-and its excesses. Author Kapp also takes a look at its leaders, among whom we must undoubtedly count tennis star Billie Jean King (at left), particularly after she demolished male chauvinist Bobby Riggs in a colorful match in the Houston Astrodome a few months ago.

Another leader of women's lib-though she achieved it almost half a century before the phrase was born-is Margaret Mead, who visited Delhi last November to deliver the Nehru Memorial Lecture. A profile of the world-famous anthropologist (pages 28-33) describes the fascinating career of a remarkable woman.

Women from Western countries are sometimes baffled by the Indian woman's lack of interest in liberation. Nayantara Sahgal's article (pages 34-39) throws some light on why this is so. Among educated Indian wo'men, she says, equality is taken for granted, and little discrimination is encountered in academic, professional, and-least of all-in political life.

Our women's section ends on a light note with one man's view of women's lib-a short, human-interest piece by TV journalist Bill Moyers.

I would like to draw our readers' attention to the lead article in this issue, "A Country in Need of Praise." If there is one common characteristic between Americans and Indians it is their tendency to decry their own country, to minimize its successes, to speak of the future in apocalyptic terms.

It's time that Americans stopped being so self-critical, says Ambassador Moynihan. Their progress in the sphere of social justice has been tremendous.

Finally, this month SPAN introduces a new feature, "Americans Are Talking About. .." (pages 12-13). This feature will report on newsmaking events in science, business, politics, the arts, or any other area of American life-anything, in short, that Americans are talking about. We hope you enjoy it.

A.E.H.

10 12 J 14

~~ri~

~e

e'

T~I~ing Abo~t •• ~

Interdependency Is Here to Stay

by Richard C. &hroeder

e,/

,''',''

18 20 28

Women's Liberation in America

by Isa Kapp

II/

• M

Why Can't a Woman Be More Like Margaret Mead?'- u'

by Gail Sheehy

~

34

The Woman 'in India: A Historical

Perspective

40

Daddy Don't Be Silly I'm

42 45

New Markets for American Agriculture?

by Nayantara Sahga/

by Bill D. Moyers

a Girl!

,/"

An Interview with Carro/reo Brunthaver.B

1j"

America's New Vice President

46 49

Should American Scholars Abroad Support American Foreign Policy?

by John Hope Franklin-•

r~

I

t

Front cover: Our eyes, say the poets, are windows of the soul. And this eye symbolizes the insights that we attempt to provide int!> the "women's lib" movement. A special section on women appears on pages 20 to 41.

Back cover: A hail of green peas suggests the resurgence of U.S. agriculture (see article on page 42) just as Charles Reich's book The Greening of America described the resurgence of America through its youth.

STEPHEN

ESP IE. Editor;

ALBERT

E. HEMSING,

Publisher.

Managing Editor: Carmen Kagal. Editorial Staff: Mohammed Reyazuddin, Avinash Pas.' dcha, Nirmal Sharma, Krishan Gabrani, M.M. Saha. Art Director: Nand Katyal. Art Staff: Kuldip Singh Jus, B. Roy Choudhury, Kanti Roy, Gopi Gajwani. Production Managor: AWiar S. Marwaha, Photographic Services: USIS Photo Lab. Published by the United States Information Service, Bahawalpur House, Sikjmdra Road, New Delhi, on behalf of the American Embassy, New Delhi. The opinions expressed in this magazine do not neceSC sarilyreftectthe views or policies of the United States Government. Printed hy Arun Mehta at Vakil'& Sons Pvl. Ltd., Vakils House, Sprott Road, 18 Ballard Estate, Bombay·40000I.

Photographs: Front cover-Ray Kellman. Inside front cover-Dominique Berelty, Black Star. 7--<:ourtesy U.S. National Education Association. 100000urtesy Atlantic Richfield Company; courtesy Newsweek. ll---<:ourtesy Olympia Brewing Company; courtesy Container Corporation of America. 24-Lee Golf; John Marmara, Woodfin Camp Associates. 2S-Vernon Smith, Scope; Douglas Kirkland. 34--<:ourtesy Press Information Bureau, Government of India. 49-NASA. Back cover-James P. Blair, © 1970 National Geographic Society,

Ambassador Moynihan and Secretary Kaul shake hands after initialing the rupee Agreement in New Delhi on December 13, 1973.

u.s. AND

INDIA AGREE ON RUPEES Last month's rupee Agreement, in which the United States granted Rs. 1,664 crores to India, marks the beginning of a new period in Indo-American relations. In the words of Ambassador Moynihan: 'I think we both come out of this with an increased regard for one another and a clearer understanding of what it is we both hope for in future relations.'

On December 13, 1973, the Government of India and the Government of the United States of America initialed an Agreement providing for the disposition efU.S.-owned rupees generated

by Public Law 480 (PL 480) grain sales and other American economic assistance to India in the past 20 years. Initialing is the first stage of an approval process which also requires submission of the Agreement to Committees of the United States Congress and placing it before the Indian Parliament. If this process is satisfactorily completed, the Agreement is expected to be signed and made effective in March 1974.

Mr. M.G. Kaul, Secretary, Department of Economic Affairs of the Ministry of Finance, initialed the document for India. Ambassador Daniel P. Moynihan initialed for the United States. . The terms of the Agreement provide for the Government of the United States to grant to the Government ofIndia Rs. 1,664crores -roughly two-thirds of India's rupee debt to the United States-

to be used to help finance various development projects of India's Fifth Five-Year Plan. The United States would retain about 750 crores of non-PL-480 rupees (plus the repayments of Cooley loans made to Indo-American businesses) to finance future U.S. Government expenditures in India.

Ambassador Moynihan's Comments After the initialing of the Agreement, Ambassador Moynihan said in his remarks at the Press Club of India that the Agreement was "the outcome of some six months of rather sustained, careful, and productive negotiations. It is not so much the end of a period, but the beginning of a period."

The Ambassador discussed briefly the origin of U.S.-owned rupees and the history of a quarter-century of Indo-American relations. .

"We have today put behind us a certain residuum of an early

experience of the Republic ofIndia as a new nation involving itseJf in a large, demanding and commanding effort to move forward in its economic and social development. That was a period When India was very closely involved with nations such as the United States in a development effort which provided a one-way resource transfer from economies which had a surplus to the economy of India. One of the results of this was a large internal obligation which the Government of India found itself involved in with regard to the Government of the United States.

"As time passed, it seemed to both our Government and the Government of India that this internal obligation was inappropriate for two nations which wished to have stronger, closer, sustained and continuing relations-such as our two nations do. The simple fact is that we've moved out of'a time when those old circumstances-those old relations-may have been appropriate and into a time when they are not appropriate at all.

There was a joint recognition by both our governments that this earlier period had come to a close. This recognition led us to negotiating an end to it which we did and did quickly, successfully and cordially. I think we both come out of this with an increased regard for one another and a clearer understanding of what it is we both hope for in future relations."

Details of the Agreement Although the workings of the Agreement are inherently complex, its basic meaning is simple and clear: The U.S. has made finite what threatened to become infinite by granting to the Government ofIndia two-thirds of its holdings ofIndian rupees. The one-third retained by the U.S. is to be held by India in an interestfree account to pay for U.S. Government activities in India.

These activities are to be in the same range and at about the same level of expenditure (with allowance for any future price inflation) as in past years.

In terms of specific details, there were two parts to the Agreement because the U.S.-owned rupees had come from two sources: (I) rupees generated by sales of American agricultural commodities supplied to India under Public Law 480; (2) rupees generated by dollar loans, repayable in rupees, which had been extended by the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID) and its predecessor agencies to assist Indian development projects. [See "A Primer on PL-480 Rupees" in the September 1973 SPAN and A Timely Look at American Aid to India" in the October 1973 SPAN.] U

U.S. Grant Will Contribute to Fifth Five-Year Plan Part I of the Agreement deals with the disposition of the PL-480 rupees. It stipulates that the Government ofIndia agrees to prepay all its outstanding rupee loans in this category. (If this Agreement had not been made, interest and principal payments to the year 20l3-when the last payment would have been made on the last loan agreement-would have made this figure about Rs. 3,000 crores, assuming U.S. expenditures remained at recent levels.)

From these proceeds-and from rupees already held byihe U.S. Government-the U.S. will then give approximately Rs. 1,664 crores to the Government of India for developmental purposes during the Fifth Five-Year Plan.

What activities will share in this money? They are akin to those areas that received priority attention in earlier U.S. AID

efforts, and that remain priority areas for the Government of India.

Here is·a breakdown of how and where these rupees will be spent: 1.

AGRICULTURE. including agricultural research and education, minor irrigation, animal husbandry and dairy projects, special projects of rural development and employment, soil conservation and land development:

2.

3.

HOUSING: FAMILY PLANNING.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

including services and supplies (rural family planning centers, subcenters, family planning bureaus, intensive district programs and provision of transport) : HEdLTH (national malaria eradication and smallpox schemes): TECHNICAL EDUCATION. including Indian Institutes of Technology, Indian Institutes of Management, regional engineering colleges: .

POWER/CENTRAL SECTOR. including regional load despatch stations, interstate links: .

POWER/STATE SECTOR, including 10 hydroelectric and thermal projects:

Rs. Rs.

180 crores 105 crores

RURAL ELECTRIFICATION:

In this manner, the United States grants to India virtually all of its holdings ofPL-480 rupees; in return the U.S. is associated with the financing of India's development under the Fifth Five-Year Plan. The only significant exception will be repayments of loans to Indian private firms and to joint U.S.-Indian firms (Cooley loans) which would be collected by the U.S. Government· over the next 17 years as originally scheduled.

While some Indian editorial writers have expressed fears of potential inflation that might be caused by the release of such a large amount of rupees on the Indian market, other observers have noted that the spending is for projects already budgeted for in the Fifth Plan. The choice of projects and the timing of the projects would be under the control of the Government of India.

Remaining U.S. Rupees Are Interest-Free Part II of the new Agreement concerns non-PL-480 rupees derived from AID dollar loans whose terms stipulated that they were repayable in rupees. These rupees, plus encashment of certain securities and holdings with Indian banks, total approximately Rs. 750 crores. Most of these rupees will be held in an interestfree special account in the Public Account of the Government of India and will be utilized by the U.S. Government to finance its own future expenditures.

- U.S. Government uses of rupees have been running about Rs. 38-45 crores per year (not including grants to the Government of India and Indian institutions). Such uses currently include the operation and maintenance of the Embassy and three Consulates General, freight and port charges for American food donated by private voluntary agencies to Indian states, joint research· on scientific, agricultural and medical problems, and the activities of the Peace Corps.

The Agreement also permits certain additional uses of U.S.retained rupees. These include: (A) Financing, for a three-year

period, of U.S. economic assistance to Nepal at Rs. 6.5 crores per year. (B) The purchase and export for u.s. Government use of up to $100 million worth of Indian goods and services over a fiveyear period; one quarter of the cost of such purchases would be financed from retained rupees while three quarters would be paid in dollars. This gives India a chance to expand exports against hard currency. .

Finally, the Agreement contains a "maintenance of value" provision which protects both the U.S. and India from the effects of exchange rate fluctuations.

Ninety Per Cent of U.S. Aid Went to Public Sector The Agreement marks a big step forward-the beginning of a new era-in Indo-American relations. It removes what had been called "a major irritant" between the two countries. In some past years, the interest alone on U.S. rupee holdings exceeded American use of rupees. This was a situation that would probably have occurred with greater and greater frequency in the absence of a rupee settlement.

The Agreement also marks the end to a successful monthslong process in which India and the U.S. sat down and worked together to reach a mutually advantageous solution to a major problem. The hope is that it signals progress toward the mature relationship between the two nations, of which President Nixon has spoken.

The Agreement is als6 a: reminder that in the history of the postwar world since 1945, India has been the world's largest recipient of American assistance-having received a total of 7,300 crores of rupees of U.S. aid. All this assistance has been at the request of the Government of India, and about 90 per cent of it has gone into Indian public sector programs.

all this American grain for so many years."

In Madras, the Hindu wrote the following in an editorial titled "Reactivating a Friendship": "It seems not only logical but also desirable that the U.S. and India should seek a more constructive relationship with each other.

The PL-480 question is being solved in a way satisfactory to both countries. The manner of the liquidation of this debt is as impressive as was the giving of the food assistance the debt represents ....

There is scope for resuming American collaboration, in both the public and private sectors, so as to contribute to achieving the production goals of the Fifth Plan. If the U.S. has not learnt by now that it is purposeless for it to seek its own dominant private enterprise in India, it has learnt nothing. On India's part, its emerging joint-sector should offer opportunities to U.S. investment."

Credit to Ambassador Moynihan In an editorial titled "A Fair

Deal," Bombay's Financial

Express made the following observations:

"The conclusion of an Agreement between India and the U.S. on the disposition of PL-480 counterpart rupee funds is a significant breakthrough in the long-drawn process of re-structuring the economic relations between the two countries. Ever since the notorious tilt in the months preceding and during the Bangladesh liberation crisis, these relations have been pitched on so Iowa key that even normal diplomatic transactions became an ordeal. While the patience of both the External Affairs and Finance Ministries must be acclaimed, the largest single share of the credit for removing the major irritant posed by the PL-480 funds must go to the American Ambassa.dor, Mr. Daniel Moynihan, for his sagacious and sympathetic pursuit of what 111,ust admittedly have been delicate, touch-and-go negotiations. His success in re-establishing rapport between Washington and New Delhi, in the wake of patent Comment from the Indian Press antagonisms and misunderstandings, must be seen not merely as Indian newspapers were by and large enthusiastic about the part of a global trend toward a detente between erstwhile adverAgreement. The Indian Express wrote: "The agreement on the dis- saries of a sort but as a distinct contribution to refurbishing the position of PL-480 rupee accumulation within a set period of time image of America in this part of the world. is a welcome breakthrough in the normalization of relations"Although a small section of public opinion in this country may political, economic and trade-between India and the U.S. It well feel that the PL-480 debt was not fully written off as the U.S. did in the case of Marshall Plan assistance to Western Europe, the should clear the decks for further improvement in these relations."

In an editorial titled "U.S. Gesture," the Times of India said: outright grant of almost two-thirds of the rupee funds should be "In agreeing to write off two-thirds of the massive debt under PL- considered a remarkable achievement ....

480 which India owes to it, the United States has made a generous "To a country deeply worried by the inflationary character of gesture to this country .... A large part of the credit for the happy the PL-480 transactions and to architects of the Fifth Plan stymied outcome goes to the present U.S. Ambassador, Mr. Moynihan, by a crisis of resources, the facility of using the grant portion for and other unidentified American officials in Washington who have mutually agreed development projects in the fields of agriculture, shown the foresight to recognize the need to waive a large part of irrigation, rural electrification, power generation, technical education and family planning should provide considerable relief .... the PL-480 debts in the interest of healthy ties with India."

"Unless one is deliberately blind to events, the catalytic impact In New Delhi's Hindustan Times, an editorial titled "A Good Agreement" rebuked those who had criticized the settlement: of U.S. loans from the counterpart funds to the government for the "The Indo-U.S. rupee agreement just initialed liquidates a prob- development of public utilities and the infrastructure, and to inlem that was less economic and financial than political and psy- dustry through the Cooley loans for establishing facilities seminal chological. The accumulation of American 'owned' Indian rupees to growth, cannot be facilely overlooked. More importantly, one cannot brush aside the critical significance of concessional imports had become an irritant and a burden on both sides ....

"Mr. Moynihan and Mr. T.N. Kaul and others in the two of some 65 million tonnes of foodgrains and other farm products Governments have labored hard to conclude a reasonable and sen- during the years when India was literally living from ship to sible settlement that is in the essential interest of both India and mouth. Hence, while the debt of counterpart rupee funds is the United States, despite the shrill protests of some Indian critics relinquished, India's debt of gratitude will forever remain 0 who are merely belching politically after having eaten their fill of unredeemed."

Americans have a tendency to dwell too much on their nation's faults, says Ambassador Moynihan. Positive and heartening social change in the last decade has gone largely unnoticed amidst all the breast-beating and the politics of polarization. While doomsayers talked about urban violence in apocalyptic language, the cities were becoming more peaceful. While Americans and foreigners saw a United States locked in bitter battles over school busing, few people realized that the whole system of segregated schools in the South had disappeared- in a matter of weeks and that black and white children were harmoniously attending classes together-even in the Deep South.

The article beginning overleaf-which is a part of Ambassador Moynihan's forthcoming book titled Coping-discusses these and several other social changes. His conclusion: 'American society would do better to pay somewhat more attention to its successes.'

I

n1970, toward the end of his life, so unhappily cut short, Richard Hofstadter described the 1960s as "The Age of Rubbish." A man of the Democratic Left, he was depressed by the rise of a vulgar-but "irresistibly chic"-radicalism among the wel1-educated and wel1-to-do. He found "almost the entire intellectual community ... lost in dissent." There was almost no dialogue left "between those who are alienated from society and those who are prepared to make an intelligent defense of it."

A generation ago the great social critic Joseph Schum peter described the mind-set of a type of intellectual, endemic to bourgeois democracy, who avoids having to acknowledge any evidence that the society has successfully undertaken and achieved certain objectives by dismissing the objectives as trivial: "A sneer wil1 serve as well as a refutation .... " It sometimes seems we have gone beyond this to the point where evidence is not so much trivialized as politicized. Facts become a kind of code in which, seeming innocuous to the uninformed, they reveal sinister realities to the initiated. In 1970, still in government, I came upon the rumor, widespread and by every indication widely believed, on campuses (and in publishing houses!), that the administration was intent on canceling the 1972 Presidential election and that even then the Rand Corporation was at work on a "game plan." It was no smal1 matter at the time, involving the more prestigious "underground" press and seriously entertained at surprising levels of society.

Now, the apocalyptic style of recent politics has been costly. It wears out its welcome. Already one can sense the nation turning away from important matters that it was patiently, and on the whole successfully, working at. If nothing is ever achieved, what, then, is the point of trying?

'It could well be argued that more change took place in the American public school system in 1970-71 than in the preceding century. Yet relatively little notice was taken.'

This is the danger of dwelling only, or mainly, on the nation's troubles. And how much the nation deserves praise, and how much it needs it! To recognize and acknowledge success, however modest, is fundamental to the practice of government.

It is a first principle of leadership in a democracy, where loyalty must be directed more to institutions than to individuals.

Robert C. Tucker notes that charismatic leadership derives in considerable measure from the ability to "accentuate the sense of being in a desperate predicament."

This is rarely a climate in which liberties flourish. It perhaps accounts for the unease with which many view the relentless emphasis on social failure and corruption that characterizes the New Politics. It too readily follows that a system that could tolerate so much wrong must itself be wrong. In any event, it is no way to summon the social energies that are needed to set things right.

Consider how much more easily we might now be dealing with the issue of school busing to achieve racial balance if there had just been a little notice that in late August and early

September 1970 the dual school system of the South, virtually intact 14 years after the Supreme Court decision in Brown, all but disappeared in the space of three weeks. [The Brown case refers to the Court's momentous decision declaring school segregation unconstitutional.]

This success has been so little noticed that it is probably necessary to expand on the point. In the autumn of 1968 something like six out of seven students in the South entered schools but also units of that were not only racially "imbalanced" separate, de jure, dual school systems. There was by then a cumulation of court decisions and administrative rulings prohibiting such arrangements, but the arrangements persisted. In the next two years a number of forces were set in motiondeliberately-such that when school opened in the autumn of 1970, the dual school system virtually disappeared. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was able to report that for the school year 1970-71, the schools of the South were more integrated than those of the North. It could well be argued, and has been, that more change took place in the American public school system in those few weeks than in the preceding century. Yet relatively little notice was taken. A not uncommon political situation prevailed. The administration in office, which had worked to bring about the end of the dual school system, did not especially want to take "credit" for it, while its opposition did not in the least want to give it "credit."

The result is that a true achievement, the resolution of almost two decades of strife-which at one point had involved that most ominous event, the use of the military to maintain civil order-passed all but unacknowledged.

An immense stride toward a unified society, which had taken place without a single gun pointed at a single person, wholly without epithet and virtually without protest, was lost as a symbol of what the nation is capable of achieving. Almost immediately thereafter the issue of school busing arose in Northern cities. If only it had done so in the context of a widely acknowledged success in the South, might not public attitudes have been different? If Mississippi had risen to its responsibilities, surely Michigan could and would, and so would the national government-that order of argument. And yet no such argument was made. This was a loss.

It is something of a loss, also, that so few seem able to perceive that the "urban crisis" has considerably eased. As the 1960s came to a close, mass urban violence seemed to have become endemic. Something like mass hysteria on the subject was epidemic. And yet here we are with the memory of those years already fading. Mayor Kevin H. White of Boston appeared at the Democratic platform hearings to declare himself "startled, disappointed, and angry" that neither McGovern nor Humphrey even mentioned the needs of cities in their television debate at the outset of the California-primary contest. Mayor John V. Lindsay of New York deplored the fact that in the three speeches climaxing the Democratic National Convention that year, "there was no mention of the cities or of the central problem of the country domestically, which is urban America .... " One may sympathize with the mayors.

Things aren't that much improved. On the other hand, things were never quite as bad as they were depicted when the mayors Integrated education, as seen in the kindergarten class at right, has become a fact of life in the United States-even in the Deep South.

and their crises were the center of attention. This, too, bears on the subject of success. When situations of considerable but not impossible difficulty are described in apocalyptic terms, responses tend to be erratic, even convulsive, and even if, by fortune or design, the difficulties lessen, there is no vocabulary at hand by which to describe such incremental change. Any number of forces combine to encourage the apocalyptic view, starting with the fact that it sells newspapers and absorbs TV audiences. (Capitalism has never hesitated to make money by prophesying, or proclaiming, the city's demise.)

It happens I became Assistant to the President for Urban Affairs (the first-and, I should imagine, the last-person to hold such a position) at about the time the rhetoric of urban apocalypse peaked. It had all but traumatized the Johnson Administration in its last years. The men in the White House, decent, competent, and well-meaning, had nonetheless ended up dazed and indecisive. "Hoist with their own petard" is, for once, no bad image. In response to the rhetoric and appearance of crisis, they had, for example, established the Kerner commission (the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders) in the summer of 1967. Within a year the commission came back with such a stark assertion of imminent disaster that the President judged he could not even accept the report of his own commission. And this only seemed to confirm the thrust of the commission report! This was the condition the new administration inherited in the aftermath of the Presidential election of 1968. Four years later the subject has all but disappeared from the pronouncements either of the White House or of political leaders aspiring to it. Allowing for the problem of attention span, there would seem little doubt that the main reason for this is that the urban riots of the 1960s ceased. These had been the symbol and the substance of the perceived crisis. When the riots went, the rhetoric of crisis at least diminished. Without asserting any final judgment on events that are still too close for comfort, a few points on the question of coping can be noted. The first is that neither the national government nor any state or urban government knew enough, or had the resources, political and other, fo attempt any definitive response. It was from first to last a matter of dealing with near-term probabilities as best one could. A second point is that events occurred on their own; they were not in any significant sense the consequence of policy. On the other hand, the crucial role of policy was to facilitate, or at least not to interfere with, whatever easing of crisis was going to take place. In this the role of analysis was fundamental.

T

he analysis-it was my analysis, obviously, and is of interest primarily because it was a basis of government policy in a brief but intense period-began with the assertion that the situation was not as abnormal as was generally thought. The Kerner commission report depicted a situation of impacted crisis that would only worsen. Given the times, it was easy enough to accept this argument. Indeed, it seemed illiberal and mean-spirited not to. And yet the argument was wrong. To begin with, the situation was not without precedent. To know this it was helpful to have been around during the Harlem riot of 1943, from which no social holocaust followed. The Kerner

commission report had depicted a society moving toward irreconcilable division along racial lines. The commission report was published in March. Four months later, in a volume entitled Supplemental Studies, the commission published its evidence, or at least the bulk of it, consisting of a study, "Racial Attitudes in Fifteen American Cities," carried out at the Survey Research Center of the University of Michigan. And, 10 and behold, the polarization was not there! The research simply did not detect what the commission had proclaimed. There was racial feeling aplenty in the cities studied, but clearly the strongest tides were running in the direction of a nonracially demarcated society. Nor did continued violence appear inevitable. This view was strengthened by a study of the 1967 outbreak in Detroit, carried out by Elliot Luby, which depicted such violence as essentially aversive behavior. Those involved would not wish to become reinvolved. In epidemiological terms-for the violence had an epidemic quality to it-the event was auto-immunizing. This was an impression easily enough gathered in Detroit in the summer of 1967, but Luby brought to the question a psychiatric perspective that was all the more persuasive.

'Cities that by their own report were mortally wounded were told they would be left on the field to die. By spring remarkable recoveries were being reported.'

This was perhaps not much information on which to base a national policy, but it was good information; and the decision process was not obstructed by misinformation. Given what was known, the policy implication Wasobvious. Strategy would be based on the assumption-a bet, no more-that mass violence would trend downward of its own accord. A simpleseeming statement, but almost the opposite of the standard wisdom of the time, which is say the winter of 1968-69.Tactics followed from strategy. As little as possible should be done to reward violence and as much as possible to discourage it. This may also seem a simple statement, but it involved rather complex judgments as to who had benefited from violence and how to minimize such benefits. It was clear, for example, that by the end of 1968 the Federal Government had got into the bad habit of letting itself be threatened with urban violence, in many instances actually inducing the threats and, generally speaking, rewarding them. The White House would receive half a dozen emergency telephone calls a day from cities across the land reporting that if such-and-such a grant, concession, appointment, or whatever was not immediately forthcoming, the city in question would "blow." As a matter of policy the callers were now told that this was too bad but that given the emergency conditions of the time, resources could only be applied to situations where some hope remained, and that a situation as advanced as that of the city in question was obviously hopeless. Accordingly, the grant, the concession, the appointment, was to be considered out of the question. A kind of urban triage was developed. Cities that by their own report were

mortally wounded were told they would be left on the field to die. By spring remarkable recoveries were being reported, which is not to be arch, but simply to record the plain fact that while the Federal Government cannot always, or even frequently, control events, it can control the terms on which it negotiates. A corollary of this principle is that government must abide by the outcome of negotiations, even those conducted under previous, unfavorable circumstances.

T

he 1960s had given rise to a jumble of social programs, some of which were direct responses to violence, others of which came to be perceived as such. (The antipoverty program was the most important of the latter.) Some of the programs were evident successes; many were not. A new administration would have been within its right to clean house. Yet to have done so would have been unsupportable in the circumstances. The programs had created a nouveau bourgeois. To terminate the programs would have been to declass a whole cadre of persons, many of whom, for the first time in their lives, had something to lose. They had won their new status in the context of real or threatened violence. Faced with the prospect of losing it, they would inevitably seek the restoration of violence, which for the first time would be induced and not spontaneous, a wholly different situation. And so the Great Society programs were continued by the first Nixon Administration.

Funding levels were maintained or increased; in truth, a sharp increase in domestic spending followed. Happily, however, through most of 1969 the press was filled with reports of such programs being closed down, cut back, or sabotaged. Most of these reports were untrue, but almost certainly they were believed by some who hoped this would happen, and also by some who feared it would. This eased the political pressure on the administration from its own supporters and may well have imposed a certain sobriety on the new bureaucracies scattered across the nation.

For the rest it was a matter of coming forward with administration proposals new enough and impressive enough to reassure the "liberal audience," which, as James Q. Wilson notes, had rather approved of the violence and certainly saw it as a stimulus to desirable social change. For what it is worth, my judgment was that the rhetoric of violence-and the reality -had already overreached itself, losing the toleration it had once enjoyed among liberals, and that this had begun to move politics in a conservative direction that would take a decade or so to run its course. Inevitably the last groups to recognize such changes would be those who perceived themselves as having benefited from violence or who, in a general way, approved it. These groups had to be dealt with, with as much sensitivity as any other. It was important that no one see the decline of violence as a loss.

This was at least one consideration that led to the proposal of the Family Assistance Plan in August 1969, a measure far more radical in its basic aim-a guaranteed income-than any of the "riot" programs. It was assumed that those who would benefit from a guaranteed income would only very slowly, if at all, learn that one had been proposed; but the political world would have to react, and promptly, to this extraordinary turn

of events suggesting that, far from lapsing into stagnation, the country might be moving ahead faster than ever. And who could say but that in the process a guaranteed income might come about? For it was proposed in earnest and had a reasonable "mathematical" probability of enactment. It was further the case that by the end of the 1960s, the social science prognosis for most Great Society programs was anything but cheering. The near-term probability for the early 1970s was a succession of reports and studies that would cast doubts on the strategies of compensatory education and similar programs as a means of obtaining greater social equality. All the more, then, was the need to have in place, when that time came, a viable alternative in the form of a direct income-supplement program.

It was necessary in 1969 not simply to deal with the immediate need to reassure the "liberal audience" that the nation had not entered a period of political reaction but also to anticipate the onset of mild-to-severe disillusionment concerning the efficacy of programs that had previously been seen as the vanguard of political progress. Family Assistance served both purposes and in concert with revenue sharing for state and local government-both proposed in the same Presidential address on August 8, 1969-maintained both the appearance and the substance of intelligent political innovation during a delicate transition from a period of overexcitement and unreason to a more normal one of relative calm and mild optimism.

'To recognize and acknowledge success, however modest, is fundamental to the practice of government. It is a first principle of leadership in a democracy.'

That there was nothing grand, certainly nothing heroic, in this policy will be evident; and yet it had one virtue. It worked.

This is only to say that mass violence came to an end, and did so in almost precisely the manner hoped for. The government contribution to this outcome was marginal at best, but it did try not to make things worse and did try to reinforce trends that had evolved "on their own." The policy developed in 1969 toward the problem of urban violence was, in this respect, rather like economic policy. Only limited influence was possible, but this could be crucial if it was brought to bear in something like synchronization with larger movements. As with economic policy, it dealt with near-term events. The object was to bring to a close a particular period of disorder, nothing more. There was no expectation of changing the world. And yet it remains the case that the national government was able to cope, on this near-term basis, with a perceived crisis of serious proportions.

This is no small achievement. It would be an even larger one if it were seen as such. American society would do better to pay somewhat more attention to its successes, for it needs the reserves of morale that this kind of awareness brings. But this is not our present disposition, and those engaged in the practice of government should probably accept the cold comfort that it hardly ever has been.

0

ALIBDISIIG AD'BBIISI18

IS 800D BUSIIBSS

The advertisements which appear on these pages are of a special kind. They are a few outstanding examples of ads that do not sell products for the consumer to buy.

Instead, they sell ideas that promote the public good. Such public-service advertising is an old American business practice that is gaining new popularity. Today, American companies annually spend some $250 million on this type of advertising.

Thus, Seagram Distillers promulgates the theme of moderation in drinking; St. Regis

Get It Straight ...

The Ideal We must teach our children not only what to see but how to see.

The Real Too often we try to educate by preaching orthodoxies. But orthodox solutions are no longer enough.

Our world is changing faster than ever before while many of our educational premises remain static, mired in the past. But the past no longer has enough of the answers. In the years ahead, problems will arise for which there are no precedents. To keep the future open we must teach our children not only what to learn but how to learn, how to see, how to analyze.

Only then will they be able to recognize and cope with problems our generation cannot even foresee. Atlantic Richfield Company.

A famous labor arbitrator recalls the seminarian who went to his superior and asked: "Father, may I smoke while I pray?" "No, my son, you may not." A brother priest said: "Fool, you put it the wrong way. Watch this." He went to the superior and asked, "May I pray while I smoke?"

"Of course, my son," was the answer.

Two lovers once were more poetic than precise.

"Meet me at the rise of the moon," said the girl. But in vain did she wait. For she lived on the plain where the moon rises soon and he in the hills where the moon rises late. Result: no date.

Of the 600,000 words available to you, take time to choose them carefully and string them with precision.

They can win you more than smoking privileges or romance. They can help you achieve man's most elusive goal, turning a "no" into a "yes."

Newsweek Published with the hope that this message will encourage just one reader to speak as clearly as he thinks.

Paper Company campaigns for forest conservation;Mobil Oil Corporation pushes driving safety with the slogan, "We Want You to Live." Why does a company spend huge sums of money on advertising civic causes rather than to promote the sale of things it manufactures? To win approval from present and potential customers, yes.

But also, and more importantly, to help strengthen the society in which it operates.

Public service advertising isn't all altruism.

It's also very good business.

Man is the only animal intelligent enough to understand the beauty of a quiet, soft, green place.

And the only one careless enough to destroy it.

The brewers of Olympia Beer urge you: please don't litter.

I. By contrasting "The Ideal" with "The Real" on national issues (in this case. education].

Atlantic Richfield oil company seeks to identify itself with the solving a/problems.

2. In its "Responsibility" series, Newsweek runs ads which ask Americans to live responsibly, think clearly.

The implication is that reading Newsweek is all aid to responsible thinking.

3. A Washington State company, which sells beer in disposal cans, uses its ads in print and on radio and TV to inveigh against littering of the American landscape.

4. Thousands of readers have written for reproductions of ads in Container Corporation's "Great Ideas" series, which is illustrated by noted artists.

Nothing else in the world ... not all the armies ... is so powerful as an idea whose time has come.

Great Ideas of Western Man ...

One of a series Victor Hugo, 1802-1885, The Future of Man Container Corporation of America

In this new monthly feature, SPAN will bring news of people, places, events, trends, products, books, movies, scientific discoveries, "happenings"or anything else that Americans are talking about and which we feel might be of interest to our Indian audience.

SO WHO NEEDS HIGH-PRICED GASOLINE? Like most nations, the U.S. is concerned over the Middle East's curtailment of petroleum production and the consequent rise in oil and gasoline prices.

Americans are talking about alternative fuels, and the solution may be near at hand.

It's a fuel that's cheap and available in virtually limitless quantities and its name is hydrogen.

A few months ago, scientists at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, tested an automobile engine that runs on a mixture of gasoline and hydrogen-and whose operation is so clean and pollution-free that it meets the strict U.S. Government emission standards. Simultaneously, scientists at the Atomic Energy Commission's Brookhaven Laboratory in New York are testing the German Wankel engine as the major component of another hydrogen-powered automobile.

Hydrogen is nothing new in the transportation field. Liquid hydrogen was used to shoot U.S. astronauts into space, and in 1972 hydrogen-powered autos took first and second place in America's intercollegiate urban-

vehicle design competition.

What is new about the recent developments at JPL and Brookhaven is the use of hydrogen in what are essentially conventional internal-combustion engines. The JPL engine uses hydrogen mixed with gasoline, but scientists in other labs are concentrating on using hydrogen alone as the fuel. Brookhaven Laboratory is experimenting with compounds known as hydrides to provide pure hydrogen for the Wankel engine.

Some experts predict that hydrogen-powered cars will be mass-produced in less than 10 years. In time, they believe, hydrogen will be used to heat homes and drive turbines for production of electricity. Tn short, hydrogen fuel technology might solve the energy crisis.

And then the world, faced with rising prices of petroleum from the oil-producing nations, could respond to those nations with: "Oil? So who needs it?"

MAYNARD JACKSON: ATLANTA'S BLACK MAYOR Sure, several American cities have black mayors. But Atlanta, Georgia?! Few people who saw the film classic Gone With the Wind could ever believe that this prosperous city in the heart

. 1

...~5bg-

of America's "Deep South"the area of the U.S. always associated with racial oppression -would one day elect a black mayor. But it has, and America is talking about the 35-year-old Negro lawyer whom Atlantans picked to lead them a few months ago.

Jackson called his victory a "resounding affirmation of the principles of unity and brotherhood that have helped make Atlanta truly a city too busy to hate. And we are that city."

And in the words of Coretta King, the widow of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jackson's election was "a very significant victory, not only for Atlanta but for the rest of the South and the nation.

I believe it represents the fulfillment of part of my husband's dream .... " Maynard Jackson is the eighth black to become mayor of a major U.S. city. Blacks also hold the post in Los Angeles (America's third city), Newark, New Jersey; Gary, Indiana; Dayton, Ohio; Cincinnati, Ohio; and Detroit. And a black formerly held the job in Cleveland, Ohio.

SOFT, SAD, SLOW SONGS REPLACE '60s ACID ROCK Americans are talking about the "death" of rock music, but they don't agree on when it died -or if it's really dead. Some say it ended when the Beatles broke up way back in 1970. Others say it passed away last year with the death of Max Yasgur, the American farmer who in August 1969 permitted 400,000 young people to use his property in Woodstock, New York, for a rock concert that became the symbol of a generation. If rock

isn't dead, the phenomenon that bred the music-youth in rebellion-has lost its force.

This change is reflected in current popular music taste where the jarring, driving sound of rock has been largely replaced with plaintive ballads with emphasis.on complicated, often sensitive, lyrics. Soft, sad, slow songs gently intoned by composer singers such as Carole King and Carly Simon reflect the quieter, more introspective music now favored by youth.

Soul singers Nina Simone and Roberta Flack and other performers have blended rock forms into their own distinctive style. But the true "acid rock" of the 1960s is becoming as quaint and rare as the sound of true ragtime, which is heard in its pristine form today only on piano rolls and in museum performances.

WHAT'S PLAYING WITH DINNER TONIGHT? Instead of asking "What's for dinner tonight?" many American families now find themselves asking, "What's playing with dinner tonight?"

A new institution that all America is talking about is the "_dinner-theater" that mixes drama and dining. They're springing up across the United States, primarily in suburban neighborhoods, as theatergoers discover the convenience of eating out and seeing a play without having to fight heavy traffic to go downtown to the traditional theaters in the inner city.

The Washington, D.C., area already boasts 10 dinnertheaters, while a chain of specially built theaters in the southern states features preset

VlERICANS RETALKING

BOUli

stages that are lowered from the second floor once dinner is over. Dinner-theaters are generally small and intimateseating between 200 and 400 persons. Their repertoire tends to be mainly comedies and musicals, although more and more of them are presenting serious works.

MIKE NICHOLS'S NEW MOVIE: 'THE DAY OF THE DOLPHIN' When Earthmen first meet beings from Outer Space, how will we communicate with them? How is it possible for utterly different species to talk to each other? Given such a fascinating subject as interspecies communication-plus the acting of George C. Scott, Trish Van De Vere, Paul Sorvino, Fritz Weaver, and six talented dolphins-it's hard to see how Director Mike Nichols (The Graduate, Catch 22 and Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf) could have failed with his latest film. The Day of the Dolphin. The movie opened to great reviews the end of last month, and this month more and more Americans are talking about dolphins.

Based on a book of the same name by Robert Merle, The Day of the Dolphin is the drama of an intelligent and slightly obsessed marine

biologist (played by George C. Scott) who works with dolphins, trying to communicate with this amazing species which is probably the only living thing on earth that may have an intelligence approximating man's.

Dolphins are the only living creatures whose brains are larger than human brains. They can communicate with each other over great distances.

Man has not yet deciphered their language, but experiments with dolphins lead scientists to believe they are the only other creatures on earth that have a sense of humor and irony as highly developed as man's.

Director Mike Nichols was especially unnerved by their fondness for the "put-on."

In directing the movie, Nichols says the six dolphin stars were often as temperamental as human actors. "Some days you loved them, some days you hated them. Their life is play.

Their favorite game was rearranging the underwater lights. We'd light a scene and be ready to roll, and they'd go down and move the lights around. Another thing they're fond of doing-though they're

more than graceful-is pretending to be awkward, leaping out of the water and landing-splat!-in a belly flop.

They'd systematically splash everyone of us in the crew.

Nobody twice. Or we'd roll the camera and they wouldn't do it.

Then we'd cut and they'd do it.

Then we'd roll and they wouldn't do it. You'd get furious at them for refusing to do something they knew how to do, and then you'd be sitting on the crane with your legs in the water, and they'd come and rub their bellies on your feet, and nibble your toes, like saying, "Come on, don't be mad .... " Nichols tells other stories about the making of the movie.

Dolphins, he says, are incredibly sensitive. "One day George and Trish had a fight.

They told us about it, and we laughed. It had happened at home. It was over. They weren't mad at each other any more. The only thing is, the dolphins wouldn't go near them for the whole day. They loved George. He swam with them. He worked with them.

But that day they wouldn't have

any part of him."

The dolphin "world outlook" -or philosophy of life-seems to revolve around a horror of fighting or violence of any kind. In fact one reviewer said the message of the film is simply that human life is concerned about individual experience while dolphin life is concerned with group experience, and therefore dolphins may have a few things to teach man about such things as love, compassion, and survival as a species.

Mike Nichols is glad he had George C. Scott to play the lead ("he may be the best actor in the world"), but in talking about how he made the film~ he keeps telling stories about his six dolphins. Almost self-consciously, he mentions the way the picture ended.

"It sounds like I'm making it up, but the two main dolphins finished their last shot and swam off into the ocean.

We had decided that when we were through, we would set them free. But they took care of that. They set themselves free. Only first they did 0 their job."

Common problems circumscribe the globe, to which they are bound like parts of the atom. No nation can solve them alone, says the author, who proves his point by citing almost every malaise that besets the world-the oil crisis, uncertainties in the monetary field, trade imbalances, food shortages, and the deteriorating environment.

The world is becoming one large village, in which the welfare of each nation is intertwined with the well-being of all nations. The world economy is one vast system of interrelationships. Industrial nations depend more and more on the producers of agricultural goods, minerals and other raw materials, and vice versa. We live in an age when the word "interdependence" best characterizes the relations among countries and peoples.

The evidence of interdependence is all around us, in the universal impact of recent economic problems-the monetary crisis, the world grain shortage, the imbalances in world trade.

The evidence is also clear in other critical areas, such as the deterioration of the environment, the rapid increase in population, the depletion of natural resources, the dwindling of energy supplies, and the spread of drug abuse.

Few of the problems of modern society can be solved unilaterally by one nation or one government. The chemical wastes that spew forth from the factories of the Ruhr wither the pine forests of Sweden. Pesticides from Africa pollute the waters of the Caribbean. Mid-Atlantic oil spills can foul the shores of four continents.

The same is true in economic life. There is no such thing as a self-sufficient national economy. The world network of production and trade is expanding inexorably. In the past decade, world-wide production of goods increased on the average of five per cent a year, but the amount of goods entering world trade grew much more rapidly, by eight per cent a year. At the close of the last decade, $280 billion worth of goods were exchanged among all nations. By the end of the present decade, that figure will almost double, to $500 billion.

At the same time. the means of production are becoming more and more multinational.

Huge, sprawling companies, owned by hundreds of thousands of stockholders in dozens of nations, now operate in every corner of the globe. In 1970, U.S. businesses had invested $78 billion in enterprises overseas. In the same year, foreign investors had interests totaling more than $13 billion in the United States. In all, some 820 American companies were controlled by foreign interests. Businessmen in Great Britain alone owned about 225 U.S. firms.

Such multinational companies represent the most massive concentration of production capacity, technology, and marketing skill the world has even seen. Their operations dwarf the economies of many nations. The annual sales of General Motors, the world's largest multinational corporation, amount to nearly $23 billion-more than the gross product of Argentina and East Germany, and two-thirds that of a titan like Brazil.

'The time is rapidly passing for the world to agree on joint approaches to its problems....

In an interdependent world, no one perishes, or survives, separately. Only together.'

The growing interdependence of the world requires us to rethink the old ways of looking at international relationships.

We have been accustomed to dividing the nations of the world into the rich and the poor, the industrialized and nonindustrialized, the developed and less developed. Such categories cannot describe the dynamics of the interdependent world. The poverty of one nation affects all others, just as a breakdown in security anywhere has a fearful impact across the globe.

Nor is the world any longer divided into two camps, each dominated by an economic and military superpower. Recently, political scientists have focused on an analysis of the "pentagonal" structure of world politics, a concept which includes as major powers the United States, the Soviet Union, the European Community, Japan, and the People's Republic of China.

But even this structuralization falls short, for there are newly emerging industrial giants, such as Brazil and Mexico; nations made wealthy by the returns from natural resources, such as the oil-producing countries of the Middle East; and others whose potential for economic and political leadership lies ahead, such as India and Indonesia.

It is perhaps more accurate to think of all nations, those with low incomes or high incomes, well-developed industry and social services or rudimentary economies, as essential links in a world-wide economic system. Within this system, no nation is static. Only a few years ago, for example, Nigeria was wracked by a bloody civil war; its economy was shattered, its people demoralized. Today, Nigeria boasts one of the most dynamic economies in the world, with an annual growth rate in excess of 10 per cent. External investment, mainly in the development of the nation's oil reserves, is rising faster than in any other nation in Africa. Tomorrow, similar success stories might be recorded by Bangladesh or any other nation of Southeast Asia.

Economic Imbalance and Interdependence The world economy, though interdependent, is by no means perfectly balanced. Indeed, the ends of economic growth may best be served by the constantly changing stresses between the goals of nations at different stages of economic growth.

Within our interdependent system, the advanced nations playa more dominant role than the less advanced. T\Je United States, with only six per cent of the world's population, produces 27.5 per cent of its goods. Japan and the enlarged European Community together, with a population 50 per cent larger, produce an equivalent amount. The Socialist countries, including the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, account for 34 per cent of the world's population, but produce only 25 per cent of the global Gross National Product (GNP).

The U.S. economy is more than twice the size of the second-ranking country, the Soviet Union, and is the only national economy in the world which produces more than one trillion dollars worth of goods and services each year. Moreover, the gap between the United States and the Soviet Union is growing. Between 1969 and 1972, the Soviet Union added $64 billion to its GNP, while the U.S. GNP increased by $90

billion. By 1980, the gap between the two nations, which now stands at $500 billion, is expected to reach $800 billion.

In the United States, five per cent of the work force is employed in agriculture. In the Soviet Union, nearly 50 per cent of the work force is on farms. In most parts of the developing world, the proportion is much higher-up to 90 per cent in some instances. Despite that fact, the United States is the world's largest exporter of grain.

And yet it is clear that the United States economy participates to an increasing degree in international economic interdependence. Currently, some 1.5million Americans live abroad.

Another 8.4 million traveled abroad in 1972. The U.S. exports 11 per cent of its industrial goods, and 25 per cent of its agricultural commodities. U.S. exports have increased fourfold over the past two decades, and three million Americans now depend on exports for their jobs.

Imports are equally importantto the United States. Onethird of the iron and petroleum used in the United States is purchased from foreign countries. Half of the supply of the six most important industrial raw materials come from overseas.

Clearly, not even the world's most powerful economy can function in isolation. In future years, it is expected that U.S. imports, particularly in such areas as fuels and raw materials, will increase more rapidly than exports, binding the United States still more firmly to countries which produce these commodities.

As the nations of the world move into the new era of interdependence, they are beginning to redefine the concept of international security. In the quarter-century following World War II, international tensions focused attention on politicalmilitary concerns. Security questions were limited to the rather narrow sphere of defensive capability, armaments, and manpower. Confrontation characterized the relations between major powers; open conflict broke out, on a limited scale, in a score or more areas of the world. One inevitable result was that arms spending by all nations, large and small, mounted rapidly. Today, man spends more than $200 billion a year on weapons-nearly six per cent of the total world gross product of $3.2 trillion.

With the growing detente between former antagonistsspearheaded by President Richard Nixon's efforts to achieve a rapprochement between the United States on the one hand, and the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China on the other-the world is now moving toward a much broader definition of security. Military strength is still seen as an essential element in the equation; indeed, the defensive capability of the United States and its allies is the principal guarantee of stability in much of the world. But the world's people have come to recognize other factors as important: closing the gap between the developed and less developed nations; preservation of the environment' and enhancement of the quality of life world-wide; conservation of renewable and nonrenewable resources; rational planning of population growth and urbanization; a solution to the dual problems of unemployment and

inflation that grip many nations, both rich and poor; and a quantum increase in world food output to stave off the specter of hunger in many parts of the globe.

In a very critical sense, the prosperity of the interdependent world depends on how far the nations can go in reducing the tariff and nontariff barriers to world trade. Since the end of World War II, the volume of world trade has increased sharply, and there has been growing competition for world markets.

But simultaneously, there has been a rising threat of protectionism in the world's prime markets. Discriminatory trading arrangements have cropped up. The United States has seen its long-time trade surplus melt away. In 1971, for the first time in history, the United States suffered a $2.7 billion deficit, and in 1972, the deficit reached $7.6 billion. Significantly, $4.1 billion of that deficit was with Japan alone. Similarly, the less developed countries' share of world trade has declined from 35 per cent two decades ago to 19 per cent today.

To be sure, not all trade problems can be blamed entirely on discriminatory practices. Until the recent round of currency adjustments, the dollar was overvalued in terms of other world currencies. Consequently, U.S. exports were artificially expensive, and foreign imports artificially cheap. Impending negotiations within the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on reform of the world currency system and within the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) on more equitable trade arrangements are expected to restore some of the balance.

Challenges Ahead Over the long run, the critical challenge to the world economy is to improve substantially the standard of living of the two-thirds of the earth's population who live at or near subsistence levels, and at the same time to preserve the global environment for the benefit of all. The two tasks are intertwined; to attempt to do one without the other would doom all mankind to a dismal future.

Despite the real economic gains made in the past Decade of Development some 100 nations are still classified as Less Developed Countries (LDCs) by the United Nations. Twentyfive of these fall into the "poorest nations" category. The average growth of GNP in the less developed countries has been greater than that in the advanced countries over the past 10 years. But the LDCs begin at a much lower point on the economic ladder. Moreover, their populations are expanding at a more rapid rate. Per capita income in the poorer countries is actually declining in relation to the gains made by the developed world. The gap in living standards is widening, not closing. The rich are now considerably richer, while the poor are only a little less poor.

There are any number of isolated success stories in the developing world, but over-all progress has been slow and virtually invisible to all but the experts. Clearly, much more needs to be done, if the underdeveloped world is to participate fully in the world economy. Growth rates must be sharply increased; external development assistance must expand; population growth rates must be checked. And, somehow, the benefits of modern technology must be brought to the developing world without any quantum increase in the ecological problems that, until now, have inevitably accompanied industrialization and improved agricultural practices. Similarly, the fruits of develop-

ment, when they come, must be equitably distributed among all sectors of the population, for it is no good to develop all the countries of the world, if the majority of their populations remain impoverished.

The time is rapidly passing for the world to agree on joint approaches to these problems. Even if, by some miracle, world fertility dropped to an average of two children per family by 1980-1985, world population would continue to grow for another 70 years. By the year 2000 it would reach 5.1 billion and would not stabilize until the year 2050 at 6.4 billion, or roughly twice the present world total. Barring that miraculous event, the population will double by the end of this century. Each year of delay pushes the prospects for success further into the future and brings the day of reckoning nearer to hand.

Nor can we ignore the mushrooming use of the world's natural resources. By some recent estimates, the world will face a critical shortage of fossil fuels within the next two decades.

The leading industrial nations already import the bulk of their energy requirements: Japan relies on imports for 80 per cent of its needs, Western Europe for 50 per cent. By 1980, the United States will be importing at least 30 per cent, and possibly much more, of its hydrocarbon needs. Similar critical projections can be made for nearly all minerals required to supply the industrial process.

Likewise, the atmosphere and the oceans are filling up with pollutants at an ever-increasing rate. Few studies have been undertaken on the long-range effects of such substances, although various ecologists have issued warnings of the impending "death" of the oceans and seas, as they become more and more contaminated with chemical wastes and pesticides. ' It is known that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising sharply, due to the increased burning of fossil fuels. But scientists do not agree how this will ultimately affect the earth's climate, or plant and animal life.

All of these considerations have an economic impact that grows larger as solutions are postponed. It has been calculated that the United States alone will have to spend one trillion dollars over the next 25 years to halt industrial and agricultural pollution. World-wide, the costs would be astronomical. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has calculated that it would take an annual outlay of two per cent of the world's gross product just to ensure that environmental deterioration in this century is gradual, rather than rapid. Holding the line against pollution, or attempting to repair the damage, would cost much more.

The first steps toward facing these problems have been taken. Numerous bilateral and multilateral agreements have been signed following the 1972 U.N. Conference on the Environment. Similar action is expected to follow conferences on such topics as population and uses of the oceans. Increasingly, the world's leaders are coming to understand the ecologists' dictum that all human problems are interrelated. The quality of life is inextricably bound up with the quantity of life. In an interdependent world, no one perishes, or survives, separately.

Only together.

0 About the Author: Richard C. Schroeder, a free-lance writer in the field of international economic and social development, is a consultant to the U.S. State Department and various other national and international bodies. He is co-author of Dateline Latin America.

W.II SPIOIIIPLOUIIOI .IIIS 10 DIIILOPII.. flOIS Space exploration will become more relevant for India in 1975, when an exciting new experiment in instructional television will be launched in co-operation with the United States. A satellite such as the model below will beam social and economic development programs to 5,000 remote Indian villages.

The phrase "developing countries" is used to refer to almost 100 nations. Over threefourths of the world's population live in what may be termed "developing" nations, although they differ in size and population, degree of education and industrialization, rate of economic growth, and natural resources. Their per capita income is low, their level of industrialization is low, a large part of their labor force is engaged in agriculture, with low productivity per acre per man.

To illustrate the situation, I will draw from United Nations reports: • Approximately two-thirds of the world's population are protein starved. In order to obtain a decent level of nutrition for the world's people, total food production will have to be doubled by 1980, tripled by the year 2000.

• Ninety per cent of the world's population has less than the minimum standard set by the World Health Organization of piped water delivered to the household, and approximately one-fourth suffer in some way from debilitating water-borne disease.

• In Asia only two countries meet the minimum standard set by the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) for the use of television as a means of mass communication and flow of information. This minimum is five TV sets for each 100 persons, and it is met in Asia only by Japan, the country of the transistor and electronics, and Singapore, with its very small population. Statistics show that 90 per cent of the population of the world has never seen television.

• The menace of the population explosion is the problem of the developing countries exclusively. When we say that the population of the world is increasing by 1.9 per cent per annum to become 7,000 million in the year 2044, we are saying in fact that aside from a small fraction, this will be the population of the developing countries in the near future.

At the same time, efforts to improve the present conditions of the developing coun-

tries do not keep pace with their growing problems, particularly because these efforts are not based on means prescribed by the science and technology of today. Fundamental and applied research does not exist in most of these countries on an effective scale and plays only a minor role in their national life.

However, one can point out a few examples of developing countries which are involving themselves in space science and technology for their economic and social development.

Some of the activities of two of these countries serve as examples which will be followed by many developing countries and regions within a decade or two.

T

he first example is India. In December 1972 the United Nations organized a panel in India on "Satellite Instructional Television Systems." India and the United States concluded in September 1969 an agreement providing for an experiment in the broadcasting of instructional television via satellite to some 5,000 Indian villages. This agreement is probably the most exciting agreement between a major space country and an important developing country.

The need of India for this project is apparent enough. It does not possess a countrywide television system. It has only three television transmitters-in New Delhi, Bombay, Sri nagar-and one relay center in Amritsar.

India's half-million villages and small towns

are so remote and isolated that the government has no effective means of communication with their largely illiterate inhabitants.

Yet national programs for family planning and population control, to introduce new methods of agriculture and improve productivity, to promote the national integration between the various parts of that vast country -all this requires effective assistance through local instruction and education.

The experiment is made possible by an agreement reached after long and careful negotiations, which provided that the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) will make available to India an Application Technology Satellite for a year of broadcasting programs "formulated and controlled by India." An Indian ground station in Ahmedabad, and perhaps others, will transmit Indian television programs to the satellite for rebroadcast to village receivers and to relay stations.

This experiment, scheduled to start in 1975, was discussed by a panel convened by the United Nations in December 1972. Nine countries in Asia and eight countries in Africa accepted the U.N. invitation to send representatives working in television programing and audio and visual education to participate in the panel and to hear from their Indian hosts about the experiment. There were lively discussions for five days in New Delhi, and in Ahmedabad the participants saw the installations and the equipment.

What has this to do with the future of space in the developing countries?

Arnold Frutkin, NASA's assistant administrator for International Affairs, said in an article in Science magazine in July 1970 that this Indian experiment in instructional television by satellite "will be closely watched by other developing countries and by those Westerners who hope that advanced technology can be of some use in attacking larger social problems in the developing world."

For example, since India and the United

States started discussing and negotiating this experiment, at least three or four other developing regions have been contemplating a similar experiment. The Arab region, for example, invited UNESCO to send a mission to study the "Use of Satellite Communication for Education and National Development."

Another UNESCO mission on the same subject was invited by some Latin American countries.

The second example which could illustrate the expected trend in the developing countries is Brazil. The Brazilian experiment in surveying earth resources by remote sensing techniques was the subject of a U.N. panel held in Brazil a year before the panel held in India.

In 1968 agreements were signed between NASA and the space agencies in Brazil and Mexico with the participation of numerous user agencies in the three countries. These agreements were concluded after the results of relatively simple photography from Mercury, Gemini and Apollo spacecraft, and from meteorological satellites had been investigated. They were encouraging results which have inspired the use of better equipped spacecraft for regular surveys of earth resources, and led to the Earth Resources Technology Satellite (ERTS) program.

The panel provided an opportunity for representatives from several developing countries in the Western Hemisphere, Asia and Africa to observe the Brazilian remote sensing program which depends on aircraft but utilizes the experience gained by the scientists, engineers and managers who were trained in the United States at the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston and in special courses organized by the University of Michigan.

I gave the example of India and Brazil to indicate the trend in two leading developing countries. I believe that there is a growing awareness of the possibilities in the developing countries. This has been demonstrated during the experiment with ERTS-l, the first satellite devoted to earth resource observations, launched by the United States on July 23, 1972. The fact that 18 developing countries are among the 31 which participated in the experiment speaks for itself.

It is encouraging that an African country like Mali asked to receive data which will help in making maps of remote areas, in guiding water exploration efforts and in deciding the routes of new roads in that vast country.

Sudan applied through the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and Saudi Arabia through the British Center for Overseas Pest Research for the detection of potential local breeding sites. What is significant is that the

two countries agreed to give the investigators permission to conduct "ground truth" (onsite check-up) activities in their territories.

The participation of so many developing as well as developed countries is probably due to the pledge made by the United States when its President addressed the U.N. General Assembly in September 1969. In announcing the development of earth resources survey satellites, the President said: I feel it is only right that we should share both the adventures and the benefits of space. As an example of our plans, we have determined to take action with regard to earth resources satellites, as this program proceeds and fulfills its promise. The purpose of those actions is that this program could be dedicated to produce information not only for the United States but also for the world community.

As a first step in carrying out this action, the United States announced in February 1972, in the meeting of the U.N. Working Group on Remote Sensing of the Earth by Satellites, that it would provide for distribution purposes a master copy of data derived from its experimental remote sensing satellite program to an international U.N. facility if one were to be established.

This offer was welcomed by most of the member states of the working group, who took it as a "positive step" and a "concrete proposal. " These are encouraging trends which are likely to grow with the advent of the U.S. space shuttle, which may give the involvement of the developing countries in the field of space applications a new and concrete dimension.

I

envisage the situation in the developing countries and regions during the coming 15 years as follows: First: There is no need to be either overoptimistic or overpessimistic.

Even if we stretch our imagination we can say that only a few-one, or two or three developing nations-may be launching satellites into outer space. Nor can we imagine that the majority of these countries will continue as "bemused and passive spectators" of the activities of the few countries which probe the sky by their satellites and astronauts and probe the earth by sensors from space.

The fact is that a majority of the developing countries have already started to concern themselves with space applications activities, in particular with space communications and satellite remote sensing.

I can say that it is almost certain that in a decade and a half there will be satellites transmitting broadcasts in languages never

before heard in outer space. Broadcasts transmitted from outer space to community receivers or even directly to home receivers in Hindi, Portuguese, Spanish, Arabic, Swahili, Indonesian, in addition to broadcasts in English, Russian and French, will be carrying programs for better education of students in villages and communities dispersed in the oasis of the desert, over the hills or in other isolated places.

It is also possible to envisage that in the continent of Africa the capitals and big cities will be communicating with each other by telephone and telegraph, not through European cities, as they do now, but directly and easily through a communication satellite and ground receiving stations.

Second: It is almost certain that all the developing countries will avail themselves of the technology of remote sensing for surveying their natural resources. The fact that a considerable number of developing countries have already taken the step at this early and experimental stage to use data from the U.S. ERTS-l and ERTS-2 satellites in studying some of their environmental problems and in surveying some of their national resources indicates the trend.

There is apprehension about the activities of the more advanced nations, and there is no reason to deny this. But it is expected that in the near future the people of the developing countries will say what has already been said by four Indian scientists headed by the late Dr. Vikram Sarabhai, in a book recently published by the United Nations: "International agencies and individual nations should realize that space technology has come to stay, that the world is shrinking under its impact and that national boundaries cease to be recognized by high-altitude satellites. These have become facts of life. Just as fast communications by rail and road have put an end to the old local principalities, each 160 kilometers or less across, and widened the horizon of man to nations thousands of square miles in area, so the space age will gradually erase national boundaries in social, economic and cultural matters.

"This has already occurred in Europe and we may expect it to occur in the other continents. All will agree that such a development is for the good of the human race as a whole. It will help bridge the gap between the haves and have-nots, first within each nation, and eventually within our shrinking world." D About the Author: Dr. A.H. Abdel-Ghani, a veteran Egyptian diplomat with the rank 0/ ambassador, established and developed the United Nations Outer Space Affairs Division, which he now heads.

â&#x20AC;˘â&#x20AC;˘

II"S

LIBIIITIO. II'I.IIICA SOIlI ACKIOWLIDGIIIIITS AID SOIlI BISIBVATIOIS 'It does not seem to me that the vast majority of American women are caught up by this fever of feminist activity,' says the author, as she reviews the whole women's movement in the United States: its leaders, its intellectual bases, its literature, its tactics, its successes.

When the French historian and statesman Alexis de Tocqueville visited America early in the 19th century, he wrote with some awe that the American woman has scarcely passed childhood "when she already thinks for herself, speaks with freedom, and acts on her own impulse. The great scene of the world is constantly open to her view .... She is full of reliance on her own strength, and her confidence seems shared by all around her." Yet after more than a century of legal, social and cultural advances intended to buttress that strength and confidence, the American woman is today in the throes of a new feminism more articulate, widely supported and militant than any in history.

Since the mid-1960s, that formidable conglomeration of manifestoes and organizations familiarly referred to as the "Women's Liberation Movement" has grown at an extraordinary rate, and by now hundreds of thousands of women have participated in at lea,st one of its groups or activities.

There have been mass demonstrations for women's rights. Colleges have introduced special courses such as "Women in Comparative Cultures," "Woman as Hero," "Women and the Law," and even "Nuts and Bolts," a course given exclusively for female students on the repair of electrical household appliances. A flood of books has dealt with woman's position in society, and several new feminist magazines have been launched. Most publicized of these is Ms., co-founded and edited by Gloria Steinem. ("Ms." is a new "liberated" form of address which avoids identifying women on the basis of their marital status.)

Various women's groups have arisen, not, as was customary in the past, for broadly political or charitable purposes,

but solely to advance the cause of women. Recently Ms. Steinem initiated the Women's Action Alliance "to attack special problems of social dependence, discrimination and limited life alternatives" that women face "because they are women."

Feminists have begun to examine and judge political candidates by the stand they take on issues that pertain to them, such as free day-care centers for children of working mothers.

In 1970, after being introduced and ignored by U.S. Congress each year since 1923, the Equal Rights Amendment ("Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex") was passed by the House of Representatives.

The House approved the amendment again in 1971 but only in 1972 was it successful in both houses of Congress. The vote in the Senate was overwhelming-84 to 8. So far, the amendment had been ratified by 23 state legislatures and a number of others are on the verge of doing so. lt does not seem to me that the vast majority of American women are caught up by this fever of feminist activity. But an aspect of it, at least, has aroused considerable curiosity in the general public. These are the combative panel discussions in packed halls where women (often choosing novelist Norman Mailer-who has achieved some notoriety as a male supremacist-as their favorite adversary) inveigh against "male domination." Sometimes with an audience but more frequently without, women also gather in groups and raise each other's level of consciousness about sex discrimination by giving personal examples of abuses perpetrated upon them by the opposite sex. Despite the occasional justice of these complaints, we often sense on such occasions something piquant in the pro-

Betty Friedan's 'The Feminine Mystique,' published in 1963, was the bombshell that exploded the myth that motherhood and housekeeping were the most rewarding occupations for women.

ceedings-perhaps because women, as a class, have their fortunes inextricably bound up with those of their "oppressors."

They are the only subordinate group in society that belongs to the same family as its rulers.

What is it that has just now brought the vocal minority to such a crescendo of protest? Why, in a period when women make up more than 40 per cent of the college population, when liberalized divorce laws, varied birth control methods, and technological improvements have guaranteed them tremendous personal freedom, when women like former Senator Margaret Chase Smith and Mayor Ann Ucello of Hartford, Connecticut, as well as others who grew up in modest economic circumstances, manage to achieve distinction in politics-when, in short, women as a whole exert unprecedented influence both on family and public policy-have modern feminists been moved to characterize the female role in society as being an outrageously subservient one?

On the literal surface of their argument, liberationists can summon up more than enough examples of inequities still to be corrected. Though 31 million women work, a third are secretaries and clerks, and over a fifth are service workers, such as waitresses and domestics. In nearly every part of American industry women are systematically given lesser jobs, and the average yearly income offull-time female workers is $4,150, as against the male average of $7,200. (Of course, this differentiation is to some extent one of circumstances rather than discrimination: Women tend to leave jobs before they reach the highest salary level, and men in blue-collar jobs tend to belong to unions that demand an unusually high minimum wage.) Further, when men and women do equal work, women often get lesser titles and lower salaries. Women who are full professors earn an average of 10 per cent less than men, and women chemists earn half as much as their male colleagues. In government, at the management level where the pay average is around $15,000 yearly, they hold only six per cent of the jobs. To mention a grievance of a different nature, many protagonists of equal rights feel that until laws restricting abortions have been entirely repealed in all American states, women will not have genuine control over their own bodies.

There is no doubt that these are legitimate areas in which to demand reform, yet it is possible to consider the urgency and energy of the Women's Liberation Movement as products of larger cultural and social forces outside the specific issues of its programs; that modern woman is at the mercy, not so much of men, as of rapid social change-urbanization, science and technology.

In 1778, according to the diary of a prudent Philadelphian, a good wife was employed from early morning till late at night, baking bread, attending the orchard, washing, sewing, knitting, and making 20 large cheeses. But today small mobile families have made the home less central and stable, and household appliances, frozen foods and birth control pills have relegated the female to the most minor chores of homemaking.

No wonder that she needs to recover her lost value and self-

respect by seeking new roles in the outside world. A lady of leisure, frequently college-educated, caught up in our current passion for questioning all traditional values and institutions, she becomes a kind of involuntary heroine in the revolution of rising expectations.

The earliest wave of American feminism in the 1800s also emerged in a period of ferment-geographic expansion, industrial development and social reform. Its first efforts were toward expanding women's educational opportunities, and in 1833 Oberlin became the first college to open its doors to both men and women. But it was in the abolitionist movement of the 1830s that the women's rights movement as such had its political origins. When women began working in earnest for the abolition of slavery, they learned that they could not function as equals with their male friends. They were barred from membership in some organizations, and had to wage an uphill battle simply to speak in public.

The radical wing of today's women's movement, whose flamboyant rhetoric has so captured the attention of newspapers, magazines and TV discussion shows, had a parallel genesis in the civil rights movement of the 1960s. These locally based groups with arresting names like WITCH (for Women's International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell) and Redstockings were spawned in the disappointment of young women who had worked ardently in the civil rights and peace movements only to find that in those circles, as elsewhere in society, men were designated as leaders and intellectuals and women as typists, cooks and means of sexual diversion. This experience reinforced, according to Susan Brownmiller, a spokesman of the New York radical feminists, "their deepest insecurities and feelings of worthlessness as women." Thus they borrowed from the same source both grievance and strategy. Impressed by the Southern revival-style mass meeting at which blacks got up and testified about their exploitation by whites, the radical feminists came together for coffee and "consciousness-raising," a ritual of confiding to groups of sympathetic females their adverse experiences at the hands of men.

The fact that the radical groups are an offshoot of black protest explains several things about them: the strident, dramatic tone that has often amazed neutral observers (but the feminist discovered pragmatically in the South that these tactics gain followers); and the concentration on self-image. Like activist Negroes, radical women persist in their legal and economic goals, but their emotional drive is toward a more elusive destination: catching up psychologically and finding a basis for self-esteem. "We are considered inferior beings whose only purpose is to enhance men's lives," charges a Redstocking Manifesto. Women's Liberation has evolved a new vocabulary -"sexist" (to prejudge ability or role by gender), "sex object" (a woman seen primarily in terms of her sexual attractiveness to men), "male chauvinism" (the assumption that male needs and capabilities are superior to those of women), "full humanity" (a full human being), and "consciousness-raising" (to express their wincing sense of man's supremacy in the

universe as well as his condescension toward women).

Many Americans, male and female, attempt to dismiss the new feminists as hysterical, frustrated, even abnormal, and one can find even in the attitudes of history's most cultivated and thoughtful men grounds for women's embittered accusations.

"We must look upon the female character," said Aristotle, "as a sort of natural deficiency." And in our own time Sigmund Freud wrote protectively to his fiancee: "Am I to think of my delicate sweet girl as a competitor .... I will make every effort to get her out of the competitive role into the quiet undisturbed activity of the home." For their part, women began to feel affronted by the male attitude many years ago. In 1642, the American poet Anne Bradstreet ruefully prophesied: If what I doe prove well, it won't advance They'l say its stolen, or else it was by chance.

The language of today is more blunt, but the sentiments were no less stark when the abolitionist Sarah Grimke wrote III 1837: All history attests that man has subjugated woman to his will as means to promote his selfish gratification, to minister to his sensual pleasures, to be instrumental in promoting his comfort; but never has he desired to elevate her to the ranks she was created to fill. He has done all he could to debase and enslave her mind; and now he looks triumphantly on the ruin he has wrought and says, the being he has thus deeply injured is his inferior.

When the battle for suffrage was won in 1920, the feelings of injury abated, and feminism lay dormant for 40 years. There were hints of discontent directly after World War II when thousands of American women who had worked in defense industries ("Rosie the Riveter" was lionized in a popular song) relinquished their jobs to demobilized veterans, and discovered that full-time homemaking was an anticlimax after the status and excitement of going to work. In 1952, an English translation of The Second Sex, by the French philosopher Simone de Beauvoir, stoked the fires of intellectual rebellion. But despite these provocations, the rumble of feminism was hardly audible in the 1950s, partly because most women were deeply relieved to have their men home from the battlefields. What brought all these dormant dissatisfactions to consciousness was the'publication in 1963 of Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique.

Based mainly on interviews with her classmates 15 years after graduation from a women's college, it formulated what the author called, "the problem that has no name," an unspoken discontent that prevailed among hundreds of women, even in the best-run and most comfortable of households. She traced their malaise directly to the sentiment of the post-World War II years (dogmatically propounded in the 1947 book by psychiatrist Marynia Farnham and journalist Ferdinand Lundberg, Modern Woman: The Lost Sex), that the proper place of woman was in her home rearing babies. Many of the women she spoke to had eagerly embarked upon marriage and domesticity in an effort to compensate for the loneliness of the war years, yet a decade later she found them tired and unfulfilled.

Surrounded by flourishing children (this was the period of the baby boom) and ingenious gadgets, they were nevertheless prey to victims of "the feminine mystique," the view which educators, the media and business (with new markets in mind) conspired to impose: that motherhood and housekeeping were

the most rewarding occupations for women. Against this notion Mrs. Friedan argues vehemently: "The only way for a woman, as for a man, to find herself, to know herself as a person, is by creative work of her own." The impact of her book was enormous-it sold one and one half million copiesand the women's liberation movement as it now exists in America must date itself from its publication.

In 1966, Betty Friedan formally launched the National Organization of Women (NOW), a moderate group that acted, for the first time in the United States, as a lobby to press for equality of women in all spheres. Its membership was mainly composed of professional women and middle-class housewives, its language sober and lucid, and its goals largely political and economic. NOW's strong support was in good part responsible for the House of Representatives' rapid passage of the Equal Rights Amendment; and for removing specification as to sex from the "help wanted" section of newspapers. It has also acted vigorously for enforcement of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, and by 1970 more than $17 million in back wages had been awarded to over 50,000 female employees.

But if it was relatively militant in terms of practical constitutional reforms, NOW did not seem to meet the emotional requirements of younger or lower-class women, who were in search of some more primary, or deeper, or perhaps simply less rational confrontation with men. Within two years, there were many factional disputes and a number of splinter groups and new organizations were formed (there are about 50 in New York, 35 in San Francisco, 25 in Boston) which called for a total revaluation of male-female relations and roles. Some even insisted on an overhauling of traditional institutions. WITCH, for example, is opposed to the "nuclear family" (consisting of only parents and children) as are the Feminists, whose leader, Ti-Grace Atkinson, believes that marriage must be abolished, because "it has the same effect the institution of slavery had."

Judith Brown, author of Toward A Female Liberation Movement, states it more eloquently: "The married woman ... is locked into a relationship which is oppressive politically, exhausting physically, stereotyped emotionally and sexually, and atrophying intellectually." It does not seem that anyone could go much farther in disapproval, but a feminist journal entitled No More Fun and Games suggests "celibacy as an alternative preferable to the degradation of most male-female relations."

Two books written by women impressively marshaled the historical arguments for feminism, that women ought to be given equal treatment in society, and for the more radical ideology of the 1960smilitants. Both Kate Millett's Sexual Politics and Germaine Greer's The Female Eunuch supported the rhetoric of indignation with academic scholarship. They brought their authors, both college teachers and Ph.D.s, immediately into the limelight and increased the intellectual respectability of the feminist movement. The emphasis in Sexual Politics (which charts man's dominion over woman since the beginning of civilization) is on the social and anthropological sources of female oppression. The book includes a sympathetic discussion of Friedrich Engels's Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State. Among primitive tribes, according to Engels, both men and women participated in occupations equally for the good of the community, but with the inauguration of trade arose the concept of private property and the Text continued on page 26

â&#x20AC;˘â&#x20AC;˘

11

or ACTIOI

American women today cannot be compartmentalized, categorized, set apart-or ignored. The women of America are in the forefront in politics, the arts, journalism, and the innumerable other spheres of activity that comprise American life.

Shirley Chisholm Although unsuccessful in her bid for the 1972 Democratic Presidential nomination ("I am not the candidate of black America, although I am black and proud."), Shirley Chisholm has become a dynamic new personality on the American political scene.

A member of the U.S. House of Representatives from New York, Mrs. Chisholm has succeeded not by ignoring her blackness or her femininity, but rather by proclaiming them loudly and proudly. Slim and intense, voluble and energetic. she became in 1968 the first black woman to be elected to the Congress. She combines shrewd political pragmatism with passionate commitment to social change. ''I'm a shaker-upper of the system," she says.

There are no discernible paint strokes, only enigmatic surfaces of pure color swimming mysteriously in space-sometimes limpid and cool, at other times bursting with vitality and movement. Distant blues, joyful yellows, hot reds and cool greensthe huge canvases exist as complete abstractions, yet they overflow with emotion and a sense of living landscapes.

These are the works of Helen Frankenthaler (below), one of the most important and forceful artists in America. Her influence as an artist was first felt in 1952 when she began to thin her paint and pour it directly on canvas spread on the floor. Her "soak-stain" technique was soon being copied throughout the art world.

She began in 1961 with a basement that seated some 25 people, a stage the size of a bed, and an idea that young playwrights needed a place where their work could come to life. Today, Ellen Stewart's La Mama Theater is one of New York City's most vital theater groups and a model for avant-garde theater throughout the world.

Intuitive in her judgment and generous in the absolute freedom she grants playwrights and directors, she is the embodiment of the spirit of spontaneity that pervades modern American theater.

Ellen Stewart was a clothes designer before investing in the theater. She feels that while actors and directors are important. "the playw. 'ght is the inspiration."

'The married woman,' writes author Judith Brown, 'is locked into a relationship which is oppressive politically, stereotyped emotionally and sexually, and atrophying intellectually.'

desire to bequeath it to one's own sons. It was this need for legitimacy that led to patriarchal marriage with its imposition of strict fidelity and subservience on the part of women, the keystone, for Engels, "to the total structure of human injustice." Like him, Miss Millett looks forward to the time when the monogamous family will cease to exist, and the raising of children will be left to trained practitioners of both sexes instead of harried parents. Sexual Politics ends by extending the indictment of women's mortification to the world of literature. Miss Millett chooses as especially horrendous examples D.H. Lawrence, Henry Miller and Norman Mailer, the last of whom was sufficiently provoked to write his recent book, The Prisoner of Sex, in self-defense.

The Female Eunuch, by the Australian-born Germaine Greer, also focuses on popular cultural attitudes (adduced from books, songs, and casual conversation) that serve to truncate female ambition and self-esteem, and to condition the way in which women think about themselves: "Women are reputed never to be disgusted. The sad fact is, they often are, but not with men; following the lead of men, they are most often disgusted with themselves." Miss Greer, too, regards the small nuclear family as a disaster, and would like children to be reared by many willing adults, not necessarily their biological parents. She hopes such a change would "release children from the disadvantages of being extensions of their parents so they can belong primarily to themselves."

In my opinion, most American women still look for emotional security and gratification in their own families, and are not aware of any far-reaching exploitation by men. Indeed a number of women might admit, if they are honest, that they themselves are often in the role of exploiter. And they might willingly accept the anthropological view that directly contradicts Engels: that the family was created expressly for the protection of women and children during the periods of their helplessness. Nevertheless, the feminist movement has acted as an intellectual spur. It has ensured public debate on a number offundamental questions that have not, until now, received lively consideration.

The area that has opened up most avenues of controversy is the question of what roles women have played throughout civilization-and why. Adopting an outlook very similar to that articulated by Simone de Beauvoir, Kate Millett describes the relations between the sexes as basically political. That is to say, they are "the arrangements whereby one group of persons is controlled by another." From the establishment of patriarchal society, she claims, the status accorded woman has been a demeaning one, that of chattel and homemaker.

The radical feminists who pursue this line of accusation against men are wrong on several counts. First, anthropologist George Murdock found that even in prepatriarchal times, in 224 primitive societies, war-making has been exclusively a male function and child-rearing exclusively female; and that it was always males, probably as a natural consequence of physical differences, who performed the strenuous, risky tasks, while

women generally took the more sedentary, nurturant ones.

But beyond that, feminists are again mistaken to suppose that sex roles have remained altogether rigid throughout patriarchal society. There have, on the contrary, been enormous variations at different points in history. In some primitive societies, women participated in pottery, weaving, working with hides, and in agriculture; in some, men did the cooking.

During the civilized period of the Renaissance, there appeared the word "virago," at that time a term of approbation -a woman equal to man in her intelligence, abilities and interests. The 17th-century English biographer John Aubrey wrote of a Renaissance woman: "A great politician; great wit and spirit, but revengeful. Knew how to manage her estate as well as any man; understood jewels as well as any jeweler."

And in modern times, during the Industrial Revolution, women worked for 16 hours a day, in England's Midland mines, as did their men; and American pioneer women helped their husbands to stake out homesteads in the West. Under all these various conditions, both men and women have managed at some times to achieve a feeling of fraternity and decent respect for one another.

But even if history has permitted men to be more active, inventive and free, while women remained more homebound and restricted-can we accept the thesis of Miss Millett and other feminists that it was the outcome of a deliberate and selfserving male conspiracy? According to anthropologist Gloria Levitas, our roles are dictated not by the personal preference of men, but the impersonal laws of evolution. She calls our attention to a natural arrangement in the baboon universe which protects babies from predators. The color of the infant's face and coat ~xerts an intense attraction upon the male baboon, so babies are always surrounded by dominant males who sit with, hug, groom and keep them from harm. Mrs. Levitas speculates that some such process may have originally motivated male humans to protect their infants, and by association, the mothers as well, and that the ultimate division of roles was simply an efficient technique for survival. Because feminists aspire to absolute equality of roles between the sexes, they feel that it is incumbent upon them to deprecate the biological differences between male and female, and to discount the fact that men are taller, stronger and more muscular; that women have their own peculiar genetic and hormonal make-up. Germaine Greer, for example, in rebellion against physical distinctions, is much incensed that menstruation is thought to incapacitate women, and she compares it (quite unfairly, since it is not pathological) to ulcers in men.

Yet not only are women, however they have been raised, pronouncedly different in physique, but even their behavior patterns (which the feminists assure us are culturally imposed) can be differentiated in the cradle, before they know what society expects of them. Dr. Howard Moss of the National Institute of Mental Health in Washington has observed three-week-old and three-month-old infants and noted that boys sleep less, cry more, and demand more attention. By the end of the first year,

he adds, they are more restless, inquisitive, aggressive and striving than girls.

But if one cannot accurately maintain, as does Miss Millett, that all but rudimentary sexual differences are cultural in origin, she and the feminists are on relatively firm ground when they question the notion (once widely prevalent but now fading) that women are inherently less capable of doing abstract intellectual work. Intelligence tests consistently show girls and boys to be equal in intelligence, though boys average slightly higher in mathematical reasoning, spatial perception and mechanical aptitude, while girls average slightly higher in such areas as vocabulary, verbal fluency and memory. Yet in performance, girls do poorly at logical thinking when the content of the problem is culturally masculine, and psychologists conclude that though the sexual difference in reasoning ability is small, culture makes boys and girls imagine it to be large, and to act accordingly. Women don't think as well, because they think they can't. As psychologist Eleanor Maccoby points out in an article on women's intellect (cited with approval by Kate Millett), the independence and ego-strength necessary for firstrate achievement in certain analytical fields is completely absent from the cultural experience of nearly every girl child.

And that perhaps is why we have so few women philosophers.

Yet even in this area, the situation is more complicated and subtle than the feminists are willing to admit. The same Dr. Maccoby notes that though much female deficiency of performance in some fields is due to cultural inhibitions, there are genetic factors other than innate intelligence that contribute to intellectual performance: For example, there is good reason to believe that boys are innately more aggressive than girls-and I mean aggressive in the broader sense, not just as it implies fighting, but as it implies dominance and initiative as well-and if this quality is one which underlies the later growth of analytical thinking, then boys have an advantage which girls who are endowed with passive qualities will find difficult to overcome.

The determination to overcome both innate and cultural disadvantage has driven the most radical of feminists to still one more extreme demand: that we abolish all differences in dress and demeanor, personal adornment, sexual initiative and the allocation of homemaking and parental duties. We are to lead what one writer has called "the androgynous life," so that women may be freed from time-wasting frivolity and petty narcissism. This suggestion is as old as feminism. In 1792, Mary Wollstonecraft, the British author of Vindication of the Rights of Women) was already scorning homage to women's beauty "because such homage vitiates them, prevents their endeavoring to obtain solid merit; and in short, makes these beings vain, inconsiderate dolls."

Whether or not we sympathize with those feminists who advocate a drastic reorganization of society and of genderal roles, we can surely admit they have done us a service in bringing women's discontents and desire for self-improvement into the arena of public discussion. By doing so they have changed the emotional ambience of male-female relationships and made them in some ways more resilient and elastic. In this decade of the 1970s we discover that the U. S. Congress is hiring girl pages and read in The New York Times about a congenial modern marriage where the wife goes to work each day as a literary agent and the husband stays home to market, take the

children to the dentist, cook-and write novels and plays.

Even an old-fashioned lady could probably relish such small but symptomatic changes.

But the Women's Liberation Movement that had its resurgence in the 1960s can also take credit for a much more important and less cultural transformation: the rapid opening up of educational and career opportunities for women, and a general assumption, by males and females alike, that women are capable of doing valuable work outside the home. Without doubt we are going to have a larger proportion of women in all occupations and areas of American life: in the professions, politics, and the academic world. They will have more options open to them than at any previous time, and if that is cause for pride, it will also often be a source of strain. As Midge Decter reminds us in her essay "The Liberated Woman," they will have achieved in a short time a freedom remarkably equal to that of men. "It is the freedom to make certain choices and accept the consequences." A woman can now devote herself to marriage, pursue her career, or opt for both and derive considerable satisfaction from managing the practical difficulties this may present. She may decide on a part-time career and deliberately give precedence to home and motherhood.

Women are not homogeneous. Some are eager to make their way in the outside world, and some prefer not to compete with men. Perhaps for the first time, the variety of alternatives open to them will correspond to the variety of their impulses.

Their problem will be to accord equal prestige to their traditional duties as well as to their new privileges, to respect women who tend their babies and volunteer to work for charities or political candidates as much as they do successful women lawyers and physicians. Just as the 1940s and 1950s exaggerated the priority of parenthood, the new feminists of the 1960s and 1970s are in danger of underestimating the importance of maternal attention for the child's well-being. But it is a comforting augury that a male sociologist, David Riesman, has so optimistically described the prospect before us: I am looking for-a more pluralistic and individualized approach, in which people are willing and prepared to accept the necessary accident of their sex. My ideal is neither a color-blind nor a sex-blind society, but an unthreatening and receptive society, which takes account both of social definitions and idiosyncratic variations.

It may turn out that the breakdown of traditional roles will prove more traumatic and less profoundly satisfying than the radical feminists today believe. On the other hand, those women who now resist or resent the feminist crusade may find unexpected gratifications in a world that offers wider choices of occupations and relationships.

Perhaps too, as feminist spokesmen claim, when women become more responsible for themselves and less dependent on men's notions of what they ought to be, men will also feel liberated from socially approved "masculine" stereotypes of aggressive or ambitious behavior which may not suit them as individuals. In such an atmosphere of mutual pliancy, we could hope that what one American humorist, James Thurber, has called "the war of the sexes" will culminate, not in a suspicious armistice, but in a more fraternal coexistence.

0 About the Author: Isa Kapp is a free-lance writer, often contributing reviews and essays to Commentary and similar publications.

WBY CAI'T A WOI1AI

BI 110BI LIKI I1AUABIT iliAD!

Of all the women who have paid a price for liberation, there is still no one quite as self-liberated as Margaret Mead, says the author in this biographical sketch of the world-renowned anthropologist.

Dr. Mead visited India last November to deliver the 1973 Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Lecture.

g >-J

:I:

ยง

~ U

>-

~ Ili

1;;

Z

f::

~ >-J

d

Anthropologists are in the business of comparing cultures. Sometimes, like the rest of us, they take pleasure in comparing people.

But the all-time favorite diversion when anthropologists gather at conferences-after presenting their revelations on ritual, ghost dances and other news from the cultural abyss-is to compare notes on the life and loves of Margaret Mead.

She has done it all. Sought high adventure in Samoa in her 20s, endured malaria and miscarriages and found enlightenment on the Sepik River in her 30s, co-operated in three marriages and an extraordinary joint household before she turned 45. She has studied seven cultures and written 18 books, preserved 50 years of field notes on primitive cultures before their missionization, taught 2,500 students, needled conventional wisdom at hundreds of conferences, and mastered the four-minute attention span of TV talk-show fans. She has had a child, had a grandchild, shed her husbands, written her autobiography.

And now it is five in the morning and Margaret Mead is up reading the thesis of a tardy student-though she swore to him she wouldn't-before tossing a few things into a suitcase for her 11th trip to New Guinea. She needs less sleep these days. She is only 7l.

I wake up four blocks from Margaret Mead on Central Park West in New York City. Just to know she is there can be inspiring. She is elemental, a basic world resource.

But on those mornings when I want to crawl away from a deadline or a decision under the pillow of self-doubt, sucking on some primal injustice of gender. Mead is no comfort. I can almost hear the pre-dawn engines of The Indomitable One. Curly head bobbing, she is already pounding the portable electric typewriter on her dining room table at the Beresford. Getting the job done.

The day before, she may have been in Cali-

fornia lecturing the moon boys of NASA on a secretary: "Find an article in Scientific ethics for the year 3000, or at the University American about 1958 on tsetse fly control in of Virginia sorting out for an S.R.O. crowd French-speaking Africa." At most, she will what is new about mass behavior in the last be off a year or so on the date.

Mead is a general among the foot soldiers 10 years ("The rebellion against good intentions"). But always she books herself back of modern feminism. The bitterness that has into New York at night, no matter how late characterized the latest chapter of the women's movement baffles her. Perhaps because, the hour, to be up and working at five.

Three hours later a big homely plastic among all of us who have 'paid a price for shopping bag is stuffed with work product. liberation that leaves us somehow incomA foot of mail has been annotated. Papers, plete-those who shucked husbands only to books and grant applications from former have their egos shredded by jealous sisters, students have been read. Their progress will those who gave birth to themselves as writers be noted on card files which carry the photo- or publishers at the price of not haviilg chilgraph, course history and last-known career dren, or as politicians who found that their plans of every student who has crossed Mead's name attached to a bill was the kiss of death, path. On top of the pile goes her own writing: the runaway wives who did not find their fresh rolls of book galleys or assorted warm latent genius baking clay in Big Sur, and drafts of articles which she turns out 'with the certain celebrity feminists who by now, bored and spent with their sexual athleticism, conrelentless efficiency of a cybernated plant.

The shopping bag is set outside her apart- fess to a craving for one night of zest with an ment door. One of her four assistants-strong unregenerate male chauvinist pig-among young women armed with sandals and an- these minions there is still no one quite thropology degress who happily admit being as self-liberated as Mead. In her general's run ragged-will pick up the work on her role she is a prophet in her own country. As way to Dr. Mead's office at the American a woman, she was a deviant in her own culture.

Museum of Natural History. By early evehehad it all figured out more t~an 50years ning it will be returned stocked with new mail ago. And with the publication of Blackand work. So it goes, six days a week.

Meantime, Mead is off on her beat of berry Winter) the memoirs of her early years, breakfast and luncheon appointments and we discover that she switched from a coeducaclasses at Columbia University, more often tional college to Barnard once "it became perthan not shadowed by a radio cab ready to fectly clear both that bright girls could do whisk her to JFK International Airport. She better than bright boys and that they would crisscrosses the country as if Sacramento were suffer for it." She extended this insight into just another stop on a New York subway her anthropological field choices. Mead train. Not a moment slips by unconsumed. decided not to compete head-on with men in Not a single face or useful fact is forgotten. male fields. She uncovered instead two end She is forever putting people in touch with zones where women can do field projects betresources that can help them, with a sense of ter than men. One, which she accomplished duty surpassed only by the Library of Con- by twice marrying anthropologists, was to gress. Her memory staggers. Dictating her work as a male-female pair-her area the bibliographies from memory, she will direct study of women and children. The other is to

S

'Mead has very little patience with people whose capacities ate impaired by wrestling with their private hells. She has conquered her own, or ignored them.' work with both sexes as an older woman, "using a woman's postmenopausal high status." Thus Mead designed a life that would not make a woman a prisoner of her age. On the contrary, it has rewarded her vigor well beyond the compulsory retirement that dooms so many men to premature obsolescence.

Some men are cowed by her capacities and comebacks. Small talk is hazardous. Waiting offstage for a TV appearance with four male colleagues, she announces her forthcoming trip to New Guinea. Dr. Theodore Lidz, chairman of Yale's department of psychiatry, ventures a comment: "Everybody's leaving New Guinea, you know."

Mead's tongue flicks in and out like a garter snake seeking a grasshopper for exercise. "Oh, fiddle," she parries. "This is the kind of New Guinea rumor that has the Americans pushing out the Australians." The non sequitur works. Small talk flares into a debate on the politics of Australasian cultures, and now the Mead pilot light begins igniting the burners of her mind and she is happy.

The delights of argument among peers was a discovery she made at the age of 22. It was a scientific conference in Toronto, where all the senior anthropologists had a "people" about whom they could discourse wisely.

"I, too, wanted to have a 'people' on whom I could base my own intellectual life," she writes. Now here she is, sparring with anthropologist Lionel Tiger on New Guineans: " ... They're much more capable of developing political genius than a place like Indonesia," she says.

Tiger manages three words of reply. "Well, with localization-" "Localization," Mead cuts in, "is the present polite word for kicking an Australian out and putting a native New Guinean in."

She admits her bark is worse than her bite.

It's not meant to intimidate-it's just this relentless duty she feels to improve people's understanding. But from there on, the men sit back and murmur amens to whatever she says. It is hard to tell if they are feeling cautious, jealous or beaten.

Some men see only The General. "Margaret hasn't much to give to relationships," comments an anonymous colleague, a social scientist. "She has always been very taskoriented and not very introspective. The remarkable thing about Margaret is that she's always been interested in the psychological end of anthropology and is, in fact, one of the leading contributors to the field. But her primary interest is the study of culture, and she never gets to the person in a full sense."

Other male peers focus on Mead the Woman, as if to set her safely apart by tying her to the apron strings of her biology. "The two times I have seen Margaret the happiest," says her longtime friend and colleague, Ray Birdwhistell, "are when she became a mother and when she became a grandmother."

And then there are the occasional letters attacking her as a spinster who has no right to discuss questions of family life. In our star system, no one wins.

M

eadherself mastered very early the art of maneuvering around men. Her father, a conservative professor at the University of Pennsylvania, once told her, "It's a pity you aren't a boy, you'd have gone far." By never allowing him too much power over her, she went literally to the ends of the earth.

Their wills were matched over her determination to go to college and to marry a student minister before she graduated. Money was sparse; it was 1919. Her father took the position that as a married woman she would not need a college education. Margaret pointed out that he had married a woman who was still working for her doctorate when Margaret was born. He sent her to college.

To head off the marriage when she graduated, her father offered her a trip around the world.

She turned him down flat. Two years later, by playing off her father against her mentor, anthropologist Franz Boas, Margaret negotiated the trip on her terms.

In her mentor, Professor Boas, one can see the silhouette of a latter-day Mead. He presided in 1924 over only four graduate students in anthropology at Columbia. "He had to plan-much as if he were a general," she describes, "with only a handful of troops available to save a whole country." Each piece of work had to count. Boas directed her to work among the American Indians. Young Margaret was determined to explore Polynesia.

"So I did what I had learned to do when I had to work things out with my father," she candidly admits, though she later learned to repudiate this kind of manipulation. Intuition told her that the one thing her mentor valued above the direction of anthropological research was his posture as a liberal man.

She implied that if Boas insisted, he would be bullying her. Simultaneously, she appealed to her father's sense of male rivalry: Boas was trying to control his daughter. It did the job.

Her mentor gave in, her father gave her money for that trip around the world, and the married Margaret set sail for Samoa. On her own terms. Retaining her maiden name.

In a recent conversation in New York, I asked the woman who is now mythologized how she had fit together her many lives. "You certainly had to make some sacrifices and compromises along the way," I suggested.

"Yes. Because I have enough energy to do two jobs. For my generation, to have even one child and a career took a tremendous amount of energy. Which I had. Or a tremendous amount of money or a tremendous amount of luck. And I understand the culture well enough to study and, in a sense, to outwit it."

She went on to talk about the cheapest schooled labor in the world: a wife. But whenever she leaped from the personal to the general, my brain began to fidget. In five years of knowing Dr. Mead I have puzzled over what educates her emphatic pronouncements on American family life. Up front we hear The General. With the highest of purpose and a scorching humor, she surveys the follies of our ways of loving, housing, working, birthing and driving fatal wedges between the generations. Her mind is intent on moving the human battalions around. Her energies are bent on striking the camps that isolate them in suburbs and regrouping them in a healthier configuration: in multi generational communities where the aged and childless would have access to children and all her legions would feel a stake in the future. Why don't her legions follow?

Mead has very little patience with people whose capacities are impaired by wrestling with their private hells. She has conquered her own, or ignored them. Why can't the minions march briskly out of their barbarous suburbs over the bones of their charred marriages, gather up their freaked-out children, admit the nuclear family was an experiment in disaster, and get on with the job done right? What is holding them back? Not being Margaret Mead, of course. But cle.ar as the answer is to an admiring observer, it is ever a mystery to Mead herself. An incident last winter struck me with how great is the distance between The General and the grunts.

O

ur paths crossed one evening in the Iiving room of an educator who seemed less than content with her lot as a woman. She told me the story of her marriage to an eccentric scientist. I knew the man, a genius both vain and charming, bold and infantile, a performer who could speculate with a million-dollar imagination on the human condition but a man dangerously short on the small change of insights into just plain folks, or himself.

The educator had invested 20 years in being "the complete auxiliary" to her husband. He abandoned her on the brink of middle age.

I sensed that the woman had been not so much liberated into her new career as stunned into it. Dr. Mead had known the couple for many years. Her perception of the situation, I discovered, was very different from mine.

All through dinner I felt uncomfortable.

Mead praised her old friend for her great professional strides (she had set up a new department in her old field at a major university). Everything appeared tidy on the surface with this vibrant, postmenopausal, recycled wife. Except for the vacancy that screamed behind her tidiness: I still want him back. It had been 10 years. They were not divorced, but her husband was living with a young student in a remote cabin, caught up in that sort of tatami-mat thrall by which middleaged men often renew themselves.

On the way home with Margaret Mead 1 remarked, "It's sad, but I sense she feels incomplete without a man."

"What does she need a man for!" Margaret Mead turned to me, stiffening with incredulity. "She works with men. They all respect her. She has established her own department and is busy all the time. And don't forget, she's still a mother."

1 said 1 didn't know if the woman was aware of her husband's mistress, and that skirting around the subject had been delicate.

Mead dismissed any such thought: everyone knew about the mistress.

Tentatively, I suggested that the woman still seemed to be waiting for her husband to come back.

"Not for a minute." And that, for The General, was the end of that.

The woman and I spoke later that evening by phone. "Oh, no, Dan and 1 have never acknowledged that he lives with another woman," she insisted. "It's a deception we carry on. The only way I know about her is through Margaret. I'm convinced 1 will be taking care of Dan when the day comes that he needs nursing. That's the way 1 feel about commitment. I picked him. I'm responsible for him. This is what Margaret can't understand, because her life has been so different from mine."

This placed Mead in perspective as The General. She surveys the world from a distant peak, while her friend, one among the multitudes of foot soldiers, is simply trying not to get shot.

She has always had a gift for seizing the moment.

In the '20s she was a great beauty, fulllipped and sloe-eyed. Someone was always falling in love with her. For one with such firm ambitions this was an occupational hazard. There was so much to do-she in-

tended to be a writer, and politics beckoned.

She belonged to an avant-garde set' as intensely involved in Freudian psychology as they were in writing poetry and exploring their fields of science. New York City seemed the center of life. Mencken and George Jean Nathan were publishing Smart Set, and The New Republic was a crusty piece of thinking on which she and her friends could chew all night. Above all, she was determined to bring about a change in the world.

A five-year engagement to student Luther Cressman freed her from the trivialities of mate-seeking. When she finally married this undemanding seminarian, who joked about having to make an appointment to see her, Mead believed she had what she wanted: a marriage with no obstacles to being herself.

One evening a year after her marriage, she and Luther looked at each other "realizing that, just for once, there was no undone task waiting to get done." With separate grants they left for separate hemispheres.

The mind runs riot with images of the lovely Margaret dismissing her allure for adventures of the mind. When she touched down in Berkeley on the way to Samoa, her supplies consisted of six fat notebooks, a flashlight and the fire in her eyes. A professor had to remind her that she might need a lamp to work in the jungle. While Zelda Fitzgerald was wrestling with her fatal dependency on an overpowering husband, Margaret Mead was forever struggling to rise above romance on the South Seas. And to get her work done.

She weathered a shipboard infatuation with a New Zealand anthropologist, Reo Fortune by name, a handsome and brooding ascetic by his pictures. But he was not her match professionally. Nor did she approve of him as a father. She returned to her husband, Luther, and dreams oflife in a country rectory filled with their children.

W

hen a gynecologist erroneously declared that she could never have children, the 25-year-old Margaret fully redesigned her future. This is the way her mind worked: " ... if there was to be no motherhood, then a professional partnership of field work with Reo ... made more sense than co-operation with Luther in his [changed] career of teaching sociology." Her choice, as always, was educated by Margaret Mead's vision of Margaret Mead. She married Reo. Her next and most exotic imbroglio occurred in New Guinea. Mead was in her early 30s and just released from nightmarish months in hostile Mundugumor country, where babies of unwanted sex were routinely drowned. She and Reo were starved for intellectual company. The rivalry between them had grown dangerously tense. When their launch pulled in at a friendly Iatmul village,

they were thrown together with a handsome British anthropologist, equally parched for companionship. He was Gregory Bateson, and he was different. He carried himself with the loose-kneed assurance of a Cambridge education. Next to the diminutive Margaret he stood tall and detached, rather like a llama.

Next to Margaret's husband, his nonaggressiveness gave sharp contrast to Reo's dark jealousies and tiresome competition. Reo wanted to write his own books; he resented sharing the work with Margaret.

A

gain, intimate feelings were sublimated in ever more intense field work. She and Gregory were falling in love. The potentially explosive triangle was turned to long nights of debate in a tiny mosquito room ... debates on the relationship between sex and temperament, which became the subject of Margaret Mead's next book.

One night the threesome were quartered on the floor of a guest house in a village expecting a raid from unfriendly neighbors.

While Gregory charmed the villagers by chatting with them in pidgin-Iatmul, Reo covered the scene with a revolver.

The raid never came, but the personal crisis heightened. Reo later woke to hear Margaret and Gregory talking privately.

At this point in Blackberry Winter, the reader leaps to the next line in breathless anticipation of learning how these extraordinary psyches resolve their love triangle. But let Mead tell it, with her inimitable penchant for drawing cultural conclusions: There is much to be said for the suggestion that the true oedipal situation is not the primal scene but parents talking to each other in words the child does not understand.

Three years later, she married Gregory. ("We had found it impossible to get married in Java and so we had had to fly to Singapore. ") The early Bateson years were probably the richest of her life. The perfect partners in mind and temperament, they shared in Bali a field experience of feverish effort and unprecedented accomplishment. They' worked through the night developing film and refreshed their faces at dawn in whatever water remained. Having planned to take 2,000 photographs, they came home with 25,000.

The recollections in her book of that field work are both stirring and wistful: "I think it is a good thing to have such a model, once ... even if the model includes the kind of extra intensity in which a lifetime is condensed into a few short years." She has tried but never succeeded in duplicating the Balinese experience, but vivid it remains.

Last year a Harvard student appeared in her office to research a theme on Gregory

'Any man who has something important to do, an educator or a political figure, for instance,' says Margaret Mead, 'needs a full-time wife to make it possible.'

Bateson. Mead turned her chair to the high curtained bookshelves which hold her field notes of the last 50 years. Her hands moved reflexively toward the box labeled "MM and GB, Dec. 1936-1938, originals." On hundreds of pages of numbered notes she had recorded the activity in every photograph shot by Bateson. They were all cross-referenced with notes by their Balinese secretary.

s

o bountiful was the fruit of that two-year partnership, they had to wait nearly 25 years for the work to make its impact o'n the anthropological field. By then their love match had been dissolved for over a decade.

This critical juncture in Mead's personal road is obscured in her book. One stumbles over this quick stroke: The atomic bomb exploded over Hiroshima in the summer of 1945. At that point I tore up every page of a book I had nearly finished. Every sentence was out of date. We had entered a new age. My years as a collaborating wife, trying to combine intensive field work and an intense personal life, also came to an end.

I later inquired as to why the bomb had brought her lifetime of collaboration as wife and scientist to an end.

"Because I got divorced," she said. "Otherwise, I wouldn't have made that decision."

The words had no boots, I guessed that the victor in that battle-if there was one-marched away barefoot.

It stirred a recollection of Dr. Mead on the lecture circuit tossing off the line: "American women are good mothers, but they make poor wives." I later asked her why.

"Americans are very poor at being attentive to anybody else," she began. "American women have been strong, fair, taken the rough with the smooth. But a good wife, if you make a career of it, is anticipating the needs of another, being ready to take care of him when he comes home. Any man who has something important to do, an educator or a political figure, for instance, needs a full-time wife to make it possible."

How could so traditional a view possibly relate to her own experience?

"We ought to cultivate people who enjoy devoting their lives to other people-to husbands or children-and who really enjoy it." It was The General speaking again.

There is no doubt that Margaret Mead is deeply moved by children. Her lectures are peppered with an angry concern for the abandoned victims of deserting middle-aged husbands and the newer runaway wives.

"I think the principal rebellion today, following the rebellion of men in their 40s," she will theorize, "is the tremendous num ber of women who are leaving their husbands before they're deserted." A few beats later her real worry emerges: The responsibility for the children is shifting to society, which isn't accepting it. And then she runs down the list of solutions with which she has no truck: "You don't need day-care centers until you've wrecked the community. And that's what we've done.

"The kibbutz is not a life solution. The thing that apparently makes the babies miserable is, they're all the same age. They all wake up at once, they all get wet at once, they all have to be fed at once and they're all screaming. So they're competing. And you realize how fortunate it is that babies are born one at a time and not in a litter."

With the mention of communes, her voice is tinged with exasperation. "Communes are small groups of people who go off to live somewhere else as a criticism of society. When they break up, the children are left hanging or scattered."

And then her battle plan: "The new households will not be like the kibbutz in any way whatsoever. The children will have a place to be together but the parents will have a place to have privacy again. Now, they have to get up in the middle of the night and go out to the car."

Yet even in the mother's domain, her experience as a woman was exceptional.

Safe to say it would be unimaginable to most within the human platoons who continue to look to her for guidance.

When finally a child was born into the well-ordered world of Margaret Mead, The General was already sheltered by age and reputation from the havoc such an event can play with a career. She was 38. Benjamin Spock himself attended the birth. She took the baby home to her father's house in Philadelphia and the ready laps of a young white nurse and a warm black housekeeper. When Gregory Bateson returned from war work in England during his daughter's episode of infant colic, Mead writes: "We let the nurse go and took care of her ourselves for a whole week-end."

The grammar of the American nurse was not good enough, insisted the British father.

And so the couple parked the baby in the padded bureau drawer of a friend while they found an apartment in Manhattan and a proper nanny from one of the great English

country houses. Mead returned to part-time work at the Museum of Natural History and taught between breast-feedings. She delighted in her daughter, Catherine. But a late child who is brought to its parents, freshly bathed, for a romp in the morning sunlight, and again for a couple of hours after work, could be nothing less than delightful, yes. The common American family experience, no.

Mead soon found an even more pleasant and efficient way of getting the job done. She joined a co-operative household. Again, the solution was quite uncommon. It depended on Mead's close professional kinship with an entrepreneur in the social sciences, Larry Frank; his gracious compound in Holderness, New Hampshire, and the extraordinary contributions of his third wife. Mary Frank had married a widower with five children. She was young and beautiful and wore blouses like Jeanne Crain in State Fair. To her fell the role of the housekeeper-mother.

A

fter two summers of building an intellectual circle of friends aroun'd the Franks' country compound, with time for tennis and optional gardening, plus enough solitude for Mead and Bateson to pore over their Bali photographs while the Frank household welcomed all the children, the two families decided to merge full-time. The Franks' spacious house on Perry Street became home to the joint families throughout the war years.

Mead was immediately released to commute to Washington with Larry Frank, who included her in a series of interdisciplinary efforts. They returned home for week-ends.

Mary Frank welcomed Mead's daughter into her active nursery. And Bateson began spending more time in war work overseas.

I was curious about Mary Frank's attitude, since this was the pivot around which the three high-powered social scientists freely spun their wheels. Was she content being the mother?

"Yes," Dr. Mead replied flatly. "Everybody doesn't need to work."

Mead hastened to add she could afford to pay half the expenses for a cook and a cleaning man, leaving Mary freer to pay attention to the children. And the older children baby-sat.

Did any jealousies develop?

"Well, I think Mary had no idea during that whole period that I knew how to boil an egg," Mead explained. Over her smile flickered the grace notes of pride in silent strategies past. "I acted very much as a hus-,

an extra man in the house. I just thought it was easier to leave her in charge. I was terribly busy."

Did Mead ever feel competitive with¡ Mary? I inquired.

She recalled the warning of a wise old cousin who, on hearing how her household was set up, had said, "You mean you're leaving your child with a younger and more beautiful woman? Don't you know maternal jealousy is the worst thing in the world?"

Mead replied that her only worry was whether or not her daughter would love Mary enough. "I'm not a jealous person."

Moving swiftly from personal to cultural extrapolations, Dr. Mead offered observations and advice about attempts at establishing a co-operative household. She can recommend it to young couples, but the merging of families should be gradual. Begin in the summer, she suggests. Spend two or three months renting near congenial people. Try it for a year or two before making any drastic move from your full-time home.

Another warning: If the women initiate the idea, they have trouble with their husbands. If the men initiate it without consulting their wives, it is also upsetting. Only when both sexes are involved can a joint family be launched on a positive footing.

I asked to move on to the next most obvious question which comes up with any change in the basic scheme of marriage: fidelity. But Dr. Mead does not think the two are closely related.

"You can handle group living with a general incest taboo for everybody in it.

With everybody's lives being so dependent on each other, nobody wants to rock the boat." She recalled William H. Whyte's observation that the modern suburb was the greatest invention since the chastity belt.

"That was in the '50s, you see, when everyone had a terrific commitment to keeping their marriages going. Now nobody has a commitment to keep his marriage going, so this isn't so. It depends on what people want.

Not on whether they live close together or not. " Trying to draw the issue more clearly, I said I didn't know of any lasting group marriages where open sexuality was encouraged.

I was astonished by the global finality of her view.

"Marriage is difficult enough, just plain monogamy. Polygamy is more difficult; it requires more institutionalization.

And group marriage is just too difficult for anybody. It's never been practiced, therefore. Nowhere in the world. That's just a fantasy."

Her major point is that people want what they have been brought up with, which would condemn most of the living adult American population to a monogamy habit in a culture

bent on converting to open-sex addictsrather like learning to love methadone just before a free heroin drop. Perhaps this is what the fighting is all about, the revolt against what Mead calls our patterning.

"What we need practice in is asexual relations," she sums up. The new taboo would grant permission for intimacy and affection without sex. "The kids are beginning to taboo dating within the coeducational dorms, which is good practice for working with men in business and for situations where maybe a woman is over a man. If you sexualize these situations, you just make trouble."

T

oday The General needs less sleep than she did in her youth. Yet the fatigue lodges somewhere else in the spirit. "It is very tiring," she will admit, "that learning is noncumulative. We come right up to a point of understanding something, and it's enunciated, it's r~asonably clear, and then nothing's done about it."

She sees with the burden of history social ideas we are struggling with today-ideas she thought were settled 50 years ago. One of them is the question of the optimal age for marriage. "In the 1920s we laughed at the idea you were an old maid at 25. We knew that obstetrics was sufficiently developed so that you could have a baby late, safely. By the 1950s, you were an old maid at 23 .... " The bachelor mother is another idea with a beard. Sixty years ago everyone wanted to have children by H.G. Wells. Rebecca West did it, others followed, books were written about it, until a consensus developed that it was good for children to have both mothers and fathers. And here we are, back again.

When breathless young students of social thought ask Mead about the "new" bachelormother idea, she laughs from deep down in the time machine.

It is now a Friday afternoon in late spring, 1973. The stops of Mead's global subway are set: Channel 13 for a taping today, off-Broadway to catch a friend's play tonight, an allnight workathon at home tomorrow, and Sunday-the South Seas. She has left behind enough work to exhaust her four assistants for weeks. She is on the phone with the director of the Wenner-Gren Foundation, discussing the participants she and her grown daughter have invited to a conference near Vienna this summer. The director is complaining she can't get the men to confirm.

"Well, you see, I think the world is like this today," expounds Margaret Mead.

"Everybody has six or seven irons in the fire because they're getting a divorce. Last week they loved their wives but this week they don't." Like any good general, she is impatient with personal crises-they interfere with getting the job done.

ow she is at the door of her office, poised for flight, the invisible kerosene shooting into her private engines. A hollow-eyed Columbia student bursts in with a paper due the previous semester. The General scowls. The student proceeds to embroil himself in white lies.

After five minutes of dispute, he comes up with the story: "I was told you were just going to Stockholm this week-end."

"You were not told anything of the sort, that was last May!" Dr. Mead clenches her forked thumbstick and begins to fume. The boy is eating up time. "It's getting worse every minute," she mutters.

"The only reason I'm asking you, Dr. Mead," the student whines, "is because my degree depends on this."

"That's just it. So you come in the day I'm leaving."

"Well, l'm sorry if I've inconvenienced you-" Margaret Mead sputters from deep within, like a jet engine into which has flown a careless swallow. "It isn't just a question of inconveniencing me. You bring in something the day I'm leaving that you want marked.

It's incomplete. You've had a whole semester to do it and-" the typing of her assistants grows more frenzied; they can hear it coming, the ultimate insult from a woman who is interested in practically everything "-and I'm VERY BORED!" (For all the bark, she read the paper before leaving town.)

This boredom business is no small matter.

One has had the feeling in recent yearswatching her propped and dozing on yet another panel while a colleague rhapsodizes about restoring zest to the postmenopausal woman by getting her back into the labor force ("Rubbish"), watching her hear out Brave New Worldniks who want her to bless vasectomies, watching her field questions on test-tube babies ("They can do it with goats, but stay out of human life")-yes, The General is running short of patience with the persistent refusal of Americans to learn from their experiments. If only the housing industry and the economists and the dwarf politicians and dragheel educators could see the battlefield from her hilltop.

Yet tomorrow she will rise again at five, as Augustus rose to review his legions, forehead curls clipped, vast distances in the eyes, a cape furling over her sturdy frame, and go forth with forked staff to claim her dominions.

0 Foot soldiers, can you keep up?

About the Author: Gail Sheehy was a fashion coordinator before she broke into journalism as a fashion editor and later as a feature editor for the old New York Herald Tribune. She is now a free-lance writer and contributing editor to New York magazine and has written several books including Lovesounds and Speed Is of the Essence.

An internationally known writer traces the status of Indian women from Vedic times down through the centuries to l\tIahatma Gandhi, who opened the doors to full participation by women in India's political life. Today the Mahatma's efforts have reached culmination in the person of a woman Prime Minister leading this nation of 570 million people.

!BB \9011AI IIIIDIA A HISTORIOALPIIIPIOTIVI

O

n January 26,1931, a glowing tribute (part of the Congress Party resolution commemorating the first anniversary of the Independence Pledge) was read at public meetings all over India, honoring the contribution women had made to Mahatma Gandhi's civil disobedience campaign of 1930: "We record our homage and deep admiration for the womanhood of India, who, in the hour of peril for the motherland, forsook the shelter of their homes and, with unfailing courage and endurance, stood shoulder to shoulder with their menfolk in the front line of India's national army, to share with them the sacrifices and triumphs of the struggle .... " The tribute was inspired by Motilal Nehru. The women of his family had been among the thousands, young and old, who had responded dramatically to the Mahatma's call to join civil disobedience and break the Salt Law, the Government's monopoly on salt manufacture.

They had in the process marched in processions, addressed public meetings, organized boycotts of British goods and institutions, and courted arrest and imprisonment in what constituted the first great stride toward women's emancipation in India. Only no one, including the women, had thought of it that way. The cause was Indian, and the goal, freedom, and this enthusiastic entry into the nation's affairs was a chapter in a much bigger crusade. Because of this it had none of the man-woman antagonism or competitiveness that has characterized the women's movement in America. Men were, in fact, its staunch supporters. Not just Gandhi, the first to recognize the untried strength and ability of Indian women and invite their co-operation, but the men, by and large, who were leaders of Indian opinion: the lawyers, professors, legislators and social workers.

Jawaharlal Nehru wrote of his father: "He disliked, in his paternal and somewhat old-fashioned way, young women and old messing about in the streets under the hot sun of summer and coming into conflict with the police. But he realized the temper of the people and did not discourage anyone, not even his wife and daughters and daughter-in-law ... "-an example of the kind of paradox that could flourish under the Indian sun, where men, however conservative and however deeply concerned about what their women might have to face, yet gave their blessing to one ofthe most spectacular developments in modern India. Of his own reaction to this event, Nehru, then a prisoner, wrote: "Never can I forget the thrill that came to us in Naini Prison when news of this reached us, the enormous pride in the women of India that filled us. We could hardly talk about all this among ourselves for our hearts were full and our eyes were dim with tears."

Thus this break with the past had the hallmarks less of a revolution (which it was) than of a coming of age. Its crowning came in 1946 when the Constituent Assembly met to draw up a Constitution for free India. It had some distinguished women members, but this body, consisting mainly of traditional Hindu men, took it for granted that women would have equal citizenship, and the Constitution they drew up precisely stated that no citizen on grounds of sex would be ineligible for any employment or office under the state. By this time women had been a force in national life for about 16 years. Apart from their share in the freedom movement, organizations such as the National Council of Women, the All-India Women's ConLeft: A moment from the famous Dandi Salt March of 1930, when Gandhiji, accompanied by Sarojini Naidu, led a procession in which "thousands of women strode down to the sea like proud warriors."

ference, and the Federation of University Women-with branches all over the country-had made women's rights and grievances the focus of public concern. And the Kasturba Gandhi National Memorial Trust, founded in 1944, had made a special contribution to the well-being of women and children in the rural areas.

One of the pioneers among them, Kamaladevi Chattopadhyaya, recalls the role of women in the Salt Satyagraha in these words: "On that memorable day (April 6, 1930) thousands of women strode down to the sea like proud warriors. But instead of weapons, they bore pitchers of clay, brass and copper; and instead of uniforms, the simple cotton saris of village India. One watched them fascinated and awe-struck.

How had they broken their age-old shell of social seclusion and burst into this fierce light of open warfare? What had stirred their ancient quietude and turned them into militant rebels?

Undoubtedly the women turned this struggle into a beautiful epic. As Mahatma Gandhi said, 'The part the women of India played will be written in letters of gold.' " Significantly, Gandhi, arrested soon after he had launched the Salt Satyagraha, had named two successors, one of them a woman, to lead it after him, and it was Sarojini Naidu who led the historic raid on the Dharasana Salt Depot on May 21.

1930. Reared amid the refinements of the Hyderabad court, and a literary celebrity since 1909, this remarkable woman organized and faced this ordeal as though brutal encounters with the police had been her daily milieu.

But remarkable women (and the movement¡ had many) do not account for a whole upsurge. Gandhi's was authentically a mass movement, composed of people from vastly different social backgrounds and experience, the majority of them poor and simple. Kamaladevi describes the more poignant aspect of what the women among them faced: "Prisons in India are by no means modern dwelling places, but the village ones are the worst, Women were flung into these dark, dingy holes with their damp air, musty smell and bats hanging from the ceiling ....

The police often beguiled their dull watch by poking fun or jeering at the women. There were no human conveniences provided in these cells and every morning, noon and evening the women were taken out, always accompanied by male guards so that their sense of modesty felt outraged."

Where, then, did this upsurge come from? For the origins of most Indian belief and behavior we have to go back some 3,500 years to the Vedas, according to Max Muller, "the first word spoken by Aryan man." The Vedas tell us in a prolific collection of hymns, prayers and magnificent nature poetry how our ancestors lived and thought, and with what zest they tried to unravel the mysteries of the universe. In this atmosphere of live curiosity and discovery, the main emphasis of life was liberal, and women treated generally as equals, a condition to which Rammohun Roy referred when in 1822 he published his book Brief Remarks Regarding Modern Encroachment on the Ancient Rights of Females. His thesis was that the subjection of women in his day was not in keeping with the liberal teachings and practices of early Hinduism. Certainly both woman's personality and her beauty made a strong appeal to the Vedic mind, and there were women musicians, dancers, poetesses, sages and philosophers. There was a good deal of everyday freedom, with young, unmarried women going to social gatherings and sacrificial functions, acquiring an education and often choosing their own husbands. The married ones participated in religious ceremonies with their hus-

'There is no doubt that the new liberated behavior of women in the West ... has had its impact here on the educated young, who passionately want to earn and live as they please.' bands, and no ceremony could take place without the wifeevidence of equality during that period.

All of this suffered during the Muslim invasions of the late 12th century, when political changes and the breakdown of social institutions led to unsettled times, affecting woman's position ruinously for the next three hundred years and leaving their mark thereafter. Rigorous seclusion became the rule, in imitation of the Muslim custom as well as from fear arising out of the general insecurity. The Buddhist nunneries, centers of education for women, disappeared. The historian Panikkar tells us that some customs usually considered part and parcel of Hindu life, for example, sari, child marriage and polygamy, were never the norm, and usually confined to the upper classes, but the tide had turned toward narrowness and rigidity, and women were its victims.

Yet this was not a universal development. In the South, which was not subjected to continuous invasions, and did not undergo upheaval, education remained fairly widespread and a number of women litterateurs became famous in the regional languages as well as Sanskrit. The Malabar Coast of the South produced the matriarchal system, with inheritance through the female line, and probably as the result of this, a confident, emotionally secure type of woman with no subservience about her. A thousand years of tradition in religion, art and politics were reserved here intact, and of these the temples bear witness to the place women occupied in life. In Europe the art of the Middle Ages created the madonna in her unworldly, ineffable humility, the lines of her body obliterated under the folds of her gown. At Belur and Halebid, Karnataka's 12th-century Hoysala temples, another sort of woman, lavish in figure, exuberant in mood and costume reigns. She is sculptured at banquet and assembly, in palace and procession, every nuance of expression, every stone pleat, frill and jewel lovingly observed and captured-a creature clearly very much at home in the public eye, with functions much more than ornamental, though she obviously reveled in her femininity.

There were, too, in different parts of India during the middle twilit period and later, women who were leaders of their people: Sultana Razia, ruler of Delhi in the 13th century, whose one weakness, they said, was that she was a woman; Chand Bibi, who appeared on the ramparts of the Ahmednagar Fort in male attire to put heart into the town's defenders against Akbar; Tarabai, backbone of the resistance against Aurangzeb's last fierce onslaught; and Ahalyabai Holkar, whose administrative genius made Indore State a model for India. But for most women there was little choice or freedom, and in terms of defined status they were sadly off, with purdah, or its counterpart of close supervision, scant education, early marriage and the cruelties of lifelong widowhood. By the 19th century Indian women were probably among the most backward in the world.

Childhood, they say, forms our values and shapes us for the rest of our lives, and perhaps this applies to the childhood of a race, a civilization, for the cultural marrow of India seems to be basically liberal and humane. The struggle in modern times has never been between men and women, but between liberalism and orthodoxy, and wherever a landmark was

achieved, it was the effect of an active partnership between men and women. The 19th-century reforms, for instance, rose out of a consensus that the degraded status of women did not have the sanction of the scriptures, and that everything possible should be done to change it. Men took the lead. The Prevention of Sati Act in 1829 was the outcome of Rammohun Roy's moral fervor. Ishwarchandra Vidyasagar worked devotedly for the cause of women's education, and led the agitation to raise the age of marriage and to permit widow remarriage.

Their lead was taken up by women. Pandita Ramabai Ranade started education and welfare activities for women in Maharashtra, Mrs. P.K. Ray in Bengal and Maharani Chimnabai in Baroda.

By the late 19th century leaders of opinion were as intensely involved with social problems as with political rights, and this gave a tremendous push to social reform, many of whose crucial problems related to women, and made its issues country-wide.

Before Mahatma Gandhi, Gopal Krishna Gokhale and other nationally respected figures were as identified with social service as with politics. And after independence, two brilliant lawyers, Sir Benegal Narsing Rau and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, were intimately associated with the vital changes introduced into the old system of Hindu laws. Rau was responsible for drafting the new legislation and Ambedkar, as Law Minister, for piloting the bills through their early difficult stages.

The Hindu Code Bill, passed in stages in 1955 and 1956, was monumental legislation, profoundly affecting the status and rights of women. It covered marriage and divorce, property rights, inheritance, guardianship and adoption, and removed a great many, though not all, the disabilities that Hindu women had suffered. (It did not affect the Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, Christians and Parsis, whose laws concerning women were more just, and the Muslims, who have chosen to retain their own personal and religious law.) The great intangible the Bill provided was the assurance of a stable progressive climate, one that women knew would go a long way in helping them to combat exploitation, achieve personal dignity and professional recognition.

At Independence India already had a woman Governor, Sarojini Naidu; a woman Minister in the Union Cabinet, Rajkumari Amrit Kaur; and a woman ambassador, Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, who achieved a variegated career as diplomat at the United Nations, President of its General Assembly, Ambassador to the U.S.S.R., the U.S. and Britain, thrice Member of Parliament, and Governor of Maharashtra.

But apart from these and other well-known names and careers, and the women who now entered Parliament and the state assemblies, this was the era of the working woman. Partition had a lot to do with this phenomenon. Millions had migrated from Pakistan and uprooted families found they would, of economic necessity, have to send their daughters to work.

For many this meant a college education first to qualify them for careers. One sign of this silent transformation-and it has particularly affected the lower middle class-has been the gradual change in marriage advertisements.

From caste and complexion the emphasis has shifted to education. Men

evidently prefer working wives who will be able to supplement the family income. A growing corps of women workers in office jobs, teaching and nursing were added to the already established and popular feminine professions of law and medicine. Here women had more than held their own from the start since Indian women frequently prefer to go to a woman doctor or lawyer. The newly formed Indian Administrative Service began to attract the cream of the universities, and brought talented young women into government, who today are senior civil servants in positions of executive authority in towns and villages, where they deal with and take decisions about day-to-day problems of administration.

And with the impetus Independence gave to Indian entrepreneurs, women found new outlets for work in commerce, as designers, advertising executives, public relations officers and a host of related occupations.

In a country where there are not enough jobs to go round, much of the prejudice against women in careers is due to an economic condition, not a psychological barrier. And the resentment over women taking "men's" job opportunities is balanced by the part the government plays in nurturing these, continuing to provide support and ballast for women. The law, three years ago, legalizing abortion was another indication of enlightened concern for women's problems. Equality is a routine recognition and not likely to suffer any setback-a considerable achievement for a country that has so far yet to go in matters economic and material.

But as with our economic situation, a wise disparity exists at the human level, between the majority of women who are still passive and acquiescent, even though they may be educated and earning, and the few who have, through opportunities, developed identities of their own. The reason for this may be that family life continues strong and stable, and the individual personality, whether male or female, tends to become blurred, even overwhelmed, within its hierarchy and obligations. The vivid start the national movement gave to women's emancipation did not challenge fundamental ideas or institutions. Likewise the social reform that preceded it, and after independence took the form of legislation and a healthy progressive climate, was inspired by the justice and compassion of educated citizens, who wanted to cleanse their society of its evils, not overturn it. The woman as individual may not even have entered their calculations, because the idea of individuality is not part of Indian tradition. From the village to the most sophisticated urban layers of society, caste and family have been the bulwarks within which men and women have lived, worked and found their satisfactions. These have to some extent lost their hold in the processes of industrial change -out of grinding economic compulsions, not moral or spiritual choice-but for the most part, for the masses, they have weathered the storm and retain their authority. Ours is not a society that has thrown up new ideas. It has fed on its incredible, unbroken, original inheritance with results both enriching and destructive.

Both these aspects show up in the woman situation. She is a cog, in her youth a minor one, in the complex family machinery. But her importance and value to her relatives and community increase with her age and experience. This is a good country to grow old in. There is family care, and peace and regard for the old, the lack of which is so painful in the affluent West and causing real concern among sensitive people. Then, Indian marriages are usually arranged, an unappealing prospect to the modern mind. But happiness does not hinge on looks

or a demanding personal relationship.

Romance is not the pivot, and adjustments and irritations are often absorbed by the larger family setup. Arranged marriages turn out comfortable, considerate, cemented by more than individual temperament, not subjected to emotional wear and tear or the agonizing struggle (for a woman) to stay young in order to keep the partner interested. There are tragic, broken ones too, but most run on an even keel. With marriage going through rethinking in America and other countries in the West, unless it goes out of style altogether, some new platform, less turbulent than sexual attraction or youthful romance, may have to be found to give it meaning and morality again.

We, in contrast, need some of the dynamism of Women's Lib-above all, its basic assumption of woman as a thinking, feeling, aspiring individual-to lift us out of our grooves. There are specific battles to be fought, against dowry, and for just settlements at divorce among others, but more specially against the numerous forms, often casual and unthinking, that exploitation takes in everyday living. A Women's Lib movement could compel attention to these, and would have to go, as it has for American women, far beyond financial and legal battles to dislodge the hoary myth of male superiority and dominance. There is no doubt that the new, liberated behavior of women in the West, rather than the literature of Women's Lib, has had its impact here among the educated young, who passionately want to earn and live as they please, which assumes sexual freedom, too, and be accepted for their quality and achievements as persons. This desire has not surfaced in any organized way, but the rebellion is on and it covers ground inch by inch as young women determinedly discard the standards of their mothers, and gain greater freedom of decision and action for themselves.

It may not, unlike the American movement, burst out into the open as a common endeavor at all. The issues may be stated in a lower key, within an over-all respect for elders and society. And it may, in peculiarly Indian fashion, mature without confrontation, as emancipation did in the past. The young may gradually grow into an environment that learns to tolerate, though it may not entirely understand, the demands of personal freedom and fulfillment. This is not impossible for there has always been room among us for nonconformism.

Even the Middle Ages produced heroic "masculine" queens and leaders, and more recently, in the 19th century Lakshmibai of Jhansi, who led her troops against the British in the Revolt of 1857, and whom the British called the "best and bravest" of the rebels. These were essentially modern women, in the sense that they followed their own star, breaking through the wall of custom and prejudice around them. In our own time there was Sarojini Naidu, who broke most rules of conventionality, but was accepted and honored-proof of an environment that can show tolerance, admiration and esteem for its rebels, provided it is convinced of their genuine human quality. Tolerance, India's special attribute, inseparably sewn into her cultural fabric, may well have to meet this new test today in order to continue as a living tradition for us.

0

About the Author: Nayantara Sahgal is a well-known novelist and journalist whose articles have appeared in India's leading newspapers and magazines. She has also written for American publications and has visited the U.S. several times. In the last half of 1973 she was "writer in residence" at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas. Her books include Prison and Chocolate Cake, The Day in Shadow, Storm in Chandigarh and From Fear Set Free.

In the arts and the professions, in laboratories, factories, and on farms, Indian women are making their contribution toward the country's progress. 'The stmggle in modem times,' says author Nayantara Sahgal, 'has never been between men and women, but between liberalism and orthodoxy, and wherever a landmark was achieved it was the effect of an active partnership between men and women.'

---"

WHAT DO 'IOU WANT TO BE. WHEN yOU

GROW Up? "--

THEN WHY NOT ,.

8ECOME. A DOCTOR?

OH,YOU'RE INTERESTED IN MEDICINE?

"-=

C

DADDY DON'T BE SILLY J I'MAGIRL! In this highly personal account, the author looks at women's lib in America, describes his own conversion to commitment, and deplores the attitude of many members of his sex toward women.

The women's liberation movement has a new recrui t: me.

In weak moments, quite frankly, I share the apprehension Lord Byron expressed in Don Juan: "There is a tide in the affairs of women which, taken at the flood, leads-God knows where." I have no idea where this tide is taking us, but I worry less about that than I do about the loss we have all suffered because it has started too late, and yet has so far to go.

Two personal incidents jolted me from lethargy to commitment. The first happened when I asked my little girl, who is nine, what she wanted to be when she grew up. She replied without hesitation: "A nurse."

"Oh, you're interested in medicine?"

Again she answered quickly: "Yes." "Then why not become a doctor?"

She giggled and said: "Oh, Daddy, don't be silly. I'm a girl!"

I know-there are thousands of women who are doctors. But what invisible and inherent force in our society has been working upon the consciousness of a nine-year-old girl to cause her to see her potential as limitedby the accident of being a female child? My daughter, I realized, was beginning to look at her world as ancient cartographers looked at theirs: a map bounded on four sides by the conventional wisdom of the times. Custom and tradition said the world ended there, and for countless generations the great majority of mankind ventured no farther. For them, prejudice born of habit defined the limits of their existence. In a similar way prejudice toward women became a prop of society.

My second revelation came in an experience at a mountain retreat in Colorado.

Several of us who had gone there to probe transcendental matters suddenly found ourselves talking about the way that people treat each other in ordinary relationships.

Quite spontaneously, one woman in particular arrested the attention of us all as she began to speak quietly but movingly of her own yearnings. She said she aspired not to be free of her roles as wife and mother, which she valued-but to be free of those countless and delicately woven assumptions by which a male-dominated society had laid claim to her right as a human being to enlarge her world.

She knew what it was like, she said, to have intelligence no one gave you credit for. She knew what it meant to possess talents for which there are few open channels of expression. She despaired at the way society measures women's achievements as exceptions to the rule. And she wondered if men understood that women are seeking to fulfill themselves as individuals, to win their rights, without diminishing the rights of men.

As she spoke I was honestly paying more attention to what she was saying than I was to the speaker herself, until I sat up in my chair impelled by the realization: "Good Lord, that woman is my wife."

What she was saying was true. It was not that she had only begun to think about these matters, or even to talk about them. But I had never heard her speak like this in public. Although she had raised such ideas from time to time in our personal conversations, I suddenly understood that I had never really

listened. My ambitions and my problems had always come first-"Yes, of course, I see that ... what time is dinner?" Now my wife spoke with an urgency I had never sensed before, and everyone listened. And heard.

My wife is not a bomb-thrower. She is the most rational person I know and longs not so much to overturn things as to change them.

She believes this kind of revolution can occur only by first removing the impostures by which women have been kept "in their place."

As I thought about what she said-and I thought a great deal about it in the following weeks-I realized what I should have perceived many years ago: Through historical precedent and supremely selfish convenience, men have come to take for granted the subservient role of women, even as the [American] South found a whole race to do its mean duties.

It is there in history, from ancient time forward. "I hate a learned woman," Euripides wrote. "May there never be ... a woman knowing more than a woman ought to know."

The French revolutionaries believed, as Edmund Burke reported, that "a woman is but an animal, and an animal not of the highest order."

And here is ex-U.S. President Grover Cleveland in 1905: "Her best and safest club is the home ....

Sensible and responsible women do not want to vote. The relative positions to be assumed by man and woman in the working out of our civilization were assigned long ago by a higher intelligence than ours."

With these precedents-aQd there are many

others I could summon as additional evidence -it is not surprising that men taught their sons to want a wife who could be expected to remain submissive, obedient and secondary, and to justify her role as a religious, biological and social mandate. How many people had made similar arguments to keep blacks in slavery?

It is a subtle thing, this discrimination toward women. The more subtle the discrimination is, of course, the more difficult it is to erase. We can take from the books those laws which merely camouflage injustice, but when discrimination is ingrained-a visceral reaction rather than a rational one, a reaction sustained by centuries of convention-it is harder to detect and harder to eliminate.

Sometimes there is discrimination in the name of "liberation." It is claimed, for example, that dishwashers and washing machines have liberated women from the kitchen. These machines do save time, but who still puts the dishes in and takes the clothes out-when she's not on the phone trying to get the repairman to come and fix the machines?

"Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery," Abraham Lincoln said, "I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally." I feel this way when I see a television commercial extolling some new product that "makes housework easy."

I have come only lately to television journalism, but I have learned already that in this most contemporary of communications, the subtle practices persist. While in almost every production unit there are women with titles like "associate producer," "production assistant" or "production secretary," when there is coffee to be gotten, they get it. Men who sustain these attitudes may be humane, but thoughtless habit can forge a chain of discrimination as securely as can malice.

Television is not the only form of communication that reflects underlying and discriminatory assumptions about women.

Newspapers are just as culpable and, because they have been around so much longer, more historically responsible for perpetuating the myths men have ruled by. A visitor from Mars reading most daily papers in the United States could only conclude that American women were sex objects, children's ornaments or mental defectives. The chief reason, I'm sorry to say, is that almost all newspapers in the U.S. are still run by men-men who persist in seeing women as the "little woman" or the "girl friend."

As wife and mother, woman is-so goes the thinking of the typical male editor/publisher-interested only in what men think she is interested in: party giving and going, cooking, house cleaning, gardening, baby sitters and the clean family wash. This, I submit as a father and husband, is a myth. If these male editors and publishers would just take a hard look at the activities and interests of their own wives, they'd realize that their women's

pages simply are no longer relevant.

There are enlightened editors and publishers who are making changes. For a long time Newsday, the paper I served as publisher for three years, had a "women's section." It was directed by a man, but as traditional sections went, it was a good one. We ran articles on "womanly" subjects-fashions, food, housekeeping.

But the editors and I realized one day that very little on those women's pages specifically pertained to what was the general interest of women on Long Island. As a consequence of all our belated thinking, we decided to abolish the "women's section" and to treat women as people. Out went the old concepts about women being only interested in furniture, fashion and beauty. In came the concept that women are intelligent human beings who care about politics, religion, and economics.

While other papers have also changed their so-called woman's page to reflect what is happening in America, they are clearly in the minority. Who cares, really, what all the women read? Hasn't it been proven that they will read anything? I once saw a note scribbled by an editor (not at Newsday) to an assistant. It read: "This damned thing doesn't make any sense. Drop it back there in the society pages so no one will notice."

This is not only nonsense. It's rotten journalism and bad business practice. And it just doesn't take into account what women are doing today. In the last 20 years the number of men jobholders in the U.S. is up 16 per cent but the number of women jobholders is up 71 per cent. A lot of these women workers are married and mothers-over 12 million of them. Since 1965the weekly wage has climbed 25 per cent-a substantial gain in itself. nut the median family income rose a whopping 42 per cent. This rise in family income is due to a working wife's wages. She who earns also spends, and her reading interests-of advertisements as well as news-are hardly confined to 17 delicious and tantalizing ways to prepare hamburger.

This obsolete treatment of women in the press has, I think, contributed greatly to the anger many women feel. It is subliminal anger that has been brewing for a long time, until it has erupted in the Women's Liberation Movement. Any male on a newspaper who objects to Women's Lib has to look no further than his own salary scale, his employment policy or his own writing style. Why does the press identify Golda Meir as a grandmother but not Georges Pompidou as a grandfather?

Why does the press talk of a female politician's hair coloring and dress style, but not the hair dye or tailor used by a Senator?

If it seems that I am harshly singling out my profession, it is just that I can talk about journalism because I am a part of it-and have contributed to the very practices I have come to realize were so unfair to women.

In Texas there is a provocative and very

small newspaper published in Austin called the Texas Observer. The Observer shows how possible it is to write well about women, perhaps because it has had some unfettered female journalists, among them Molly Ivins, the co-editor. Not long ago she wrote to Ed Diamond, a former senior editor of Newsweek and now a visiting lecturer at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an astute critic of the press. In her letter Molly Ivins said: "I don't know what it is, but it seems to me that when women's pages undertake to write about something serious and important, they seem to get even worse than when they stick to household hints and recipes. Witness series after series of dreary articles about Women's Lib. I think women's pages have made the same mistakes with Women's Lib that the news pages made with protest movements. Instead of looking at the problems that cause the rebellion, they've looked only at the rebellion as if it were a picture on the wall, an event on television ....

"I think women's pages are going to have to address themselves to the image of the ideal woman in this country, but right now this image seems to be a big-bosomed blonde who has the whitest wash on the block and no dishpan hands. Is that what we really want? Who gave us that model, and why?

How did we train ourselves and behave so as to support that stereotype? If we don't want to become like stereotypic males, aggressive and domineering, what kind of human beings do we want to make of ourselves?"

All of us, male and female, have a stake in the answer to Molly Ivins's questions. I know, both personally and professionally, that Montaigne was right when he observed that "Women are not altogether in the wrong when they refuse the rules of life prescribed in the world ... as only men have established them without their consent."

I know that America has been run all these years by white males, and now we're in trouble, partly because we have called upon only a fraction of our human resources.

I know the joy of discovering a person behind those roles of wife and mother, and the humility of realizing that I am not, after all, the wisest head under our roof.

I know that as an American I can never be fully free until all Americans, black and white, are equally free.

And I know that we must find and root out of our society that predatory intuition that causes a child to say: "Oh, Daddy, don't be silly. I'm a girl!"

D About the Author: Bill D. Moyers, at 38, can claim an impressive career in both government and journalism. He has served as an associate director of the U.S. Peace Corps, as special assistant and press secretary to President Johnson, and publisher of the newspaper Newsday. He is now director of "Bill Moyer's Journal," a commentary and analysis on life ill the U.s., seen on American TV.

II" I1IDIIS rOB IIIIBICAI IGBICULIUBlY

With enormous world-wide demand for u.s. farm products such as the wheat shown above, agriculture is one of the biggest growth industries in America. Interviewed here

by John J. Harter, the U.S. Agriculture Department's Carroll C. Brunthaver notes that buyer nations and America share an interest in reducing barriers to agricultural trade.

QUESTION: Nixon Administration officials have frequently said that agriculture must be a vital element in future trade negotiations. Could you explain why the United States considers agriculture such an important element in the negotiations?

ANSWER: The answer to that question lies in what is happening in agriculture and in our economy.

It is increasingly evident that agriculture is one of our major growth industries in the United States. Demand for our agricultural products has significantly increased over the last lO years, and we now see a very strong demand from both our traditional customers and such new customers

as Russia and China. We're producing a commodity increasingly desired and needed around the world: a better diet, a diet that includes protein from livestock and livestock products.

Not only are we producing the raw materials needed for better diets, but we're producing them more competitively than other suppliers.

Without our $11,100 million of agricultural exports this fiscal year, our trade deficit would be much greater. Agriculture also means employment. It constitutes income for people off the farm as well as income for farmers. Agriculture is more dependent on trade than many other in-

dustries in the United States, and especially All this makes U.S. agricultural produc- involvement in U.S. agriculture may be for much of the expansion that we see tion competitive in international markets strongly influenced by the outcome of future in agriculture. and profitable to farmers. trade negotiations?

Beyond that, we think the time is right New farm legislation enacted in 1973 ANSWER: Very definitely. You know, to move toward a more rational world will take this process even further-the we're greatly expanding American agriculagriculture-one that would respond effec- process of freeing the farmer to make the ture, bringing 18 million hectares of land tively to the growing consumer demand for kinds of adjustments he has to make, year back into production, and encouraging better food at reasonable prices. Agricul- after year, if he's really going to produce farmers to invest in machinery and equipture is man's most important enterprise, his products competitively and sell them ment. This is partly based on the assumpbecause food is his most basic need. Yet, in an international market. tion that Russia and China and other new little has been done to promote more customers will continue to be customers. efficient use of the world's agricultural QUESTION: Do you discern a growing But continued expansion of our agriculCongressional understanding and support resources. tural production plant will also require Agriculture remains the sector of the for these purposes? assurance of competitive access for our international economy most disadvantaged ANSWER: I think Congress and the agricultural exports into the affluent, by restrictive trade policies. We have a general public are increasingly aware that market-oriented economies of the world: long way to go in liberalizing agricultural U.S. agriculture is very competitive in Europe and Japan. world markets and has a tremendous contrade. It's time to get started.

It is important to have access to these tribution to make to our economy, to our markets, because they are markets we can QUESTION: What has been the trend of employment, and to our balance of trade. depend on, markets in which there are There is growing support in the United large numbers of affluent people, and mardomestic agricultural policies in the United States in recent years? Is it true that the States for freeing agriculture from some kets that are not determined by a centralof the shackles it has been under in the ized government decision-making process.

Nixon Administration has been moving more past, so that it can change, so that it can in the direction of a larger role for free produce efficiently, so that it can compete. QUESTION: What would you like Japan market forces and less government manageOur farmers are seeing the effects of the to agree to in talks on international trade? ment of prices and production? very strong demand in our domestic mar- ANSWER: Japan is a very prosperous ANSWER: It is definitely true that this kets, our traditional markets abroad, and country, and it's developing rapidly. Japan Administration is pushing hard to phase our new customers-Russia and China is already our Number One customer, but government out of agriculture-or at least partially out. This process started before -and they increasingly desire to be part down the road it can be an even better of this growth situation. customer as it relaxes some of its import the present Administration took office.

For 40 years in American agriculture restrictions on agricultural products. As Actions in the 1960s to reduce price support loans on wheat and feed grains we took a stance of restricting our produc- many as 24 agricultural products are were a step in the direction of making U.S. tion, based on the assumption that demand presently being restricted in Japan. While agriculture part of the world agricultural was limited and our ability to produce was we consume about 53 kilograms of beef per person each year in the United States, community, by putting it into a position greater than our ability to market.

We are increasingly questioning this the annual consumption of beef in Japan to compete in the international market.

The Agricultural Act of 1970 was an- basic assumption. The evidence that we've is 2 to 3 kilograms per person. It is limited other major step in reducing government seen in the past year and a half suggests importantly by the action of that governinvolvement in agriculture. It freed farmers that as people around the world find em- ment to keep beef out of the country.

Now, we are not in the position to sell to specialize in those crops which they can ployment and increased incomes, a signiproduce most efficiently, so that they can ficant part of this income is being used to beef to Japan, but we are interested in the development of a livestock industry to produce more, if the market demand is upgrade diets.

Today, only one out offive people in the serve Japan-wherever it's located-bethere.

The results of the Act of 1970 were world is rich enough to get his protein cause it will take the raw materials-again, quite dramatic. We're seeing our wheat from livestock and livestock products. As the feed grains-that we are so capable production increasingly centered in that the other four-fifths of the world's popula- and competitive in producing. part of the country where farmers can tion find employment and income, they really produce wheat efficiently-in Mon- will have a very basic desire to upgrade QUESTION: Agriculture has always been tana and North Dakota, for example, their diets with a higher quality protein. a difficult area for trade negotiations. Do where there are very few viable alterna- This is very significant to American agricul- you see any reason to believe thefactors that tives to wheat production. Over half the ture, because we are the largest, most have restrained progress in past GATT negowheat farmers in those states are over- dependable supplier offeed grains, the raw tiations would be less operative in the future?

ANSWER: I think some things will be goplanting their traditional base by some material for this kind of protein.

I think our farmers sense this, and I ing for us in the future which we may not 430 per cent.

In Illinois, farmers are ignoring their think Congress senses what is at stake here. have had in the past. There is increasing concern-in Europe as in the United States wheat allotments and specializing more in the production of corn and soybeans. QUESTION: Does this mean that the -with inflation. We have taken steps in Cotton production is gravitating to those prospects for continuing the trend of the the United States relative to agricultural programs because of inflationary pressure last few years toward reduced government areas where it is most efficient.

'Agriculture remains the sector of the international economy most disadvantaged by restrictive trade policies.'

for agriculture. The Europeans are still using export subsidies. A sale of barley was recently made to Russia where the export subsidy approached a dollar a bushel. We think agreement in this area must be part of any meaningful negotiations to liberalize agricultural trade.

QUESTION: What role will the developing

that might not have been taken this quickly had it not been for this pressure. I think the same pressure exists in Europe. As the European governments become increasingly concerned about inflation, they realize that the type of high-price support, restrictive agriculture employed in Europe is a major element in inflation.

I think, as this becomes better understood, the Europeans will increasingly turn to policies that will increase production of those types of agricultural products the European consumers want: namely, livestock and livestock products. This means a change in basic policy: from encouraging cereals and discouraging livestock, to a policy of encouraging livestock production. To the extent this is successful, it will mean a greater European interest in a more liberal trading posture for agriculture.

QUESTION:

To what extent would the United States be willing to reduce its own agricultural trade barriers, or modify its own agricultural price support programs, as part of a satisfactory package of concessions reached through the negotiations?

ANSWER: Well, I think it is essential that we be willing to lay some agricultural items on the negotiating table. It would be very difficult to convince the Europeans they should liberalize their agriculture if we were unwilling to make concessions ourselves in this area. I think we can and should do so.

QUESTION: How about export subsidies?

Would it be feasible for all countries to agree that all export subsidies should be discontinued, or at least follow certain criteria or rules?

ANSWER: Certainly we need to examine export subsidy programs very carefully.

We in this country have temporarily suspended all of our export subsidy programs

countries play in the future of world agricultural trade? Presumably they generally have a comparative advantage in agricultural production.

ANSWER: Well, every country is different, and I think we should analyze each country separately to see where its competitive advantage lies. I don't think every developing country will find it in its best interest to specialize in cereal production, for instance.

Where a country can produce food for its people, it should do this, and we will be prepared to assist, by supplying seeds, technology, or whatever we can, to help them to raise productivity levels, and to increase Income.

It is to our long-term advantage to see other countries develop, because our ability to sell agricultural products to any country depends on its standard of living. The higher the standard of living, the higher will be its demand for agricultural imports.

QUESTION: Then you believe the developing countries share an interest with the United States in seeking to reduce barriers to agricultural trade around the world through trade negotiations?

ANSWER: Oh, definitely. I think people everywhere share an interest in a more liberalized trading world, where efficient production can be encouraged, so food and other items can be made available to consumers in all countries at the lowest possible cost. That can occur only when production is allowed to gravitate to those areas where it can take place most efficiently.

QUESTION: You referred earlier to the Soviet Union and China. How important is their entry into the world market for agricultural goods? Can we anticipate a growing demand from these countries, and if so, will it be a stable demand?

ANSWER: The Soviet Union has the second largest economy in the world.

Russian consumers are becoming increasingly aflluent, and are demanding larger supplies of food, and higher quality food -namely, livestock and livestock products.

It is as a result of this consumer pressure that the Soviet Union has announced that over the next five years, they will try to increase protein production by 25 per cent.

This is a very ambitious goal. To the extent they are successful in meeting this goal, they must rely increasingly on imported feed grains.

I think, without question, it is a very basic breakthrough for agriculture in the United States to have access to this large and growing market.

Trade with China may develop more slowly, but opening the door to world trade for one-fourth of the world's population has to be a very significant development. It may take years for this trade to develop to a large volume, although we have been amazed and pleased to see the progress made in just these past few months as China has increasingly looked to the United States for cotton, for oilseeds, for wheat, and for corn.

QUESTION: One chicken a year for 800 million people would be quite afew chickens.

Over the last generation, we have often heard it claimed that it would be dangerous to trade with those countries, because such trade might be highly unstable, since their governments can suddenly turn it on and turn it off. Would you be concerned about this danger?

ANSWER: We have to be concerned about it. We must consider the risk of opening up our agricultural production plant, based on what these countries mayor may not do. However, we feel the evidence strongly suggests a Soviet commitment to upgrade livestock production, and for this they will probably want and need to import feed grains to get this job done.

0 About the Interviewee: Carroll C. Brunthaver is Assistant Secretary for International Affairs and Commodity Programs. U.S. Department of Agriculture. The interview was conducted

by John J. Harter, who is a staff writer with the U.S. Information Agency in Washington. D.C.

AMERICA'S NEW VICE 'PRESIDENT: GERALD R. FORD On December 6, 1973"Gerald R. Ford, Republican leader in the U.S. House of Representatives, was sworn in as the 40th Vice President of the United States. The oath of office was administered

by Chief Justice Warren Burger before a joint session of the Congress of the United States.

America's Vice President describes himself as "a moderate in domestic affairs, conservative in fiscal affairs, but a very dyed-inthe-wool internationalist in foreign policy."

No one who knows Gerald Ford disputes that assessment. He is "a moderate in domestic affairs" because he'sees his country embodying a whole spectrum of political and social thought and only a moderate can effectively represent it, because nine years as Republican "floor leader" of the House of Representatives have moderated his views, and because moderation is the essence of the "Middle America" from which he comes.

He is "a conservative in fiscal affairs" because he feels liberal government spending saps individual initiative and productivity, contributes to disruption of the economy, hinders free enterprise and centralizes human and social programs in a federal bureaucracy removed from the people.

He is "an internationalist"-as he has been since first elected to the U.S. Congress in 1948-because he thinks international cooperation is the only sensible road for the nations of the world to follow; without co-operation there is conflict, and where there is international conflict there is danger to world peace.

His internationalism, like his conservatism, is based on concern for the individuaL "Every American, and indeed every citizen of each of the nations of the world," Vice President Ford says, "has a right to a full, productive life, free from the tragedy of war."

As Republican leader in the House he has wholeheartedly supported President Nixon's efforts to end the Indochina war, open relations with Peking, establish co-operation with the Soviet Union, and seek a settlement of the Middle East conflict fair to all.

"Dramatic new international developments," Ford adds, "suggest that man may have a good chance after all to realize the oldest and most elusive dream of the human race-the dream of enduring peace. That, I submit, is the most outstanding accomplishment any administration could ever hope to achieve."

Ford's sense of internationalism is not new. In the Congress he has supported U.S. foreign assistance programs, President Kennedy's initiatives in organizing the Peace Corps, U.S. funding for U.N. projects, bills aimed at expanding trade, more liberal immigration policies, strong U.S. participation in NATO, defense aid for Asian n.ations, and postwar reconstruction in Indochina.

His successful floor fight in the House of Representatives in 1960to restore funds deleted from the Indus River Basin Development Program in India is still recalled by members of that body.

The Vice President supports U.S. defense aid to Israel but opposes proposals for a security treaty with that nation. He is for expanded relations with Egypt and Syria if the Middle East situation moves toward a settlement. He expects more from America's NATO allies but opposes unilateral U.S. troop cuts in Europe.

Changes in Southeast Asia, including V.S.-China relations, require a review of the SEATO treaty, Ford says. The question of

China and Taiwan will eventually be resolved, he adds. As with China, the Vice President thinks an exploratory review of U.S.Cuba relations could lead to an improved situation in that area.

The United States, he says, should continue to encourage the Soviet Union in permitting Jewish emigration, but must recognize that there is a limit to what it can,do in this regard. Decisions on U.S.-Soviet trade, including most-favored-nation status for the Soviets, should be left with the President, he believes.

David S. Broder, a Washington newsman and columnist who has watched Ford for a good many years,. writes of him that "his style of politics is open, frank and direct. It is keyed to consultation and negotiation, not confrontation."

In hearings before the House Judiciary Committee on his nomination as Vice President, Ford declared, "I believe in frienqly compromise .... Truth is the glue that holds government together.

Compromise is the oil that makes government go."

He can negotiate and compromise, but he is also capable of taking firm stands on issues, particularly where national defense and security are concerned. He has consistently backed funds for a strong U.S. military force, voted against all attempts to legislate rather than negotiate an end to U.S. involvement in Vietnam, and opposed passage of a War powers bill requiring Congressional approval of U.S. troops in combat beyond 90 days.

Although Ford backed President Nixon's decision to send U.S .. forces into Cambodia in 1970to clear out North Vietnamese sanctuaries and the President's decision to bomb North Vi~tnam and mine its ports in 1972, he voted in mid-1973 for an end to U.S. bombing in support of Cambodian defense forces.

Gerald R. Ford was born in Omaha, Nebraska, on July 14, 1913, but his family soon moved to Grand Rapids, Michigan, where young Ford was raised. He received his bachelor's degree from the University of Michigan where he studied economics and political science. After being awarded a law degree at Yale, Ford practiced law for a year before entering the Navy.

In 1948 he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Michigan. By 1960, Ford's Republican colleagues in the House joined ina Michigan campaign boosting him for the Republican Vice Presidential nomination. That year, however, the party's Convention nominated Richard Nixon as its Presidential candidate and Henry Cabot Lodge as his Vice Presidential nominee. Ford continued to work hard for his party within the Congress, becoming chairman of the House Republican Conference in 1963and, in 1965, "floor leader" of the Republican minority in the House of Representatives-a position he held till he became the .

Vice President last December. . .

A few months before Ford was elected to the Congress in 1948, he married Elizabeth Bloomer, a fashion co-ordinator. The Fords, who are Episcopalians and live in Alexandria, Virginia, have four children-Mike, 23; Jack, 21; Stephen, 17; and Susan, 13.

0

SHOULD' AMERICAN SCHOLARS ABROAD SUPPORT AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY? Next month, Dr. John Hope Franklin, Professor of History at the University of Chicago, will visit India as a lecturer in the continuing USIS series of talks by distinguished American intellectuals on the general theme of 'Modern Society and Traditional Government.' The subject of Dr. Franklin's lecture, which is scheduled to be held at New Delhi's India International Center on February 12, 1974, is 'American Scholars and Their Government.' Dr. Franklin has addressed himself to this subject in many articles, one of the best known of which is 'The American Scholar and American Foreign Policy.' An abridgment of this article appears below.

There can hardly be a quarrel with the view that those of us who regard ourselves as scholars also view ourselves as central figures in all efforts to strengthen the intellectual life of the United States. We are together in our deep commitment to the pursuit of truth and the illumination of the dark corners of ignorance. We are together, I believe, in our view that knowledge is power and that it has an effective role to play in the improvement of society. To be sure, we may have different views regarding the uses of knowledge or the manner in which it should be applied. Some of us are more action-oriented than others.

Some of us are more content than others to let knowledge speak for itself or to let it be used as they see fit by those who had no hand in discovering it. These differences are not irreconcilable, nor do they create an impasse that produces a fruitless stalemate.

They merely represent differences in temperament, philosophy and approach. They can be debated and they are debated in the calm of the seminar room, the library, or the laboratory.

The differences concerning the role of the American scholar in the affairs of the world and particularly as a representative of American learning abroad are somewhat more substantial and more difficult of resolution .... The present century has witnessed a noticeable quickening of American cultural and intellectual involvement with the rest of the world. In 1899 Charles Beard, who later would have most serious doubts about many aspects of American involvement abroad, helped to found Ruskin Hall at Oxford; and when the century opened he was teaching in England and Wales. During these years the popularity of William James soared, and hundreds sat at his feet when he lectured at Edinburgh and Oxford in 1902 and 1908 respectively.

Meanwhile, Americans by the hundreds began to go to China and other faraway places to promote learning at every level.

And, as Merle Curti has pointed out in his Prelude to Point Four, long before the Truman program was launched many highly trained Americans were sharing their scientific knowledge and

technical skills with those in other parts of the world.

There can be no doubt that those Americans who became a â&#x20AC;˘ part of' the international intellectual community had widely differing views about their country and its foreign policy. Beard was seldom, if ever, in agreement with American foreign policy, but that did not prevent his teaching in England in 1900 and, from time to time in later years, his traveling to places as far 4 apart as Japan and Yugoslavia to consult and advise on municipal reform ....

One of the assets that the early American intellectual ambassadors enjoyed was that their missions abroad were entirely independent of government sponsorship or even of interest. ...

During the late New Deal days the United States Government itself at last became interested in American scholarly representation abroad .... After World War II Senator J.W. Fulbright promoted the extensive enlargement of this area of activity by securing the passage of a bill that underwrote a world-wide program for the exchange of teachers, students, lecturers and researchers ....

But this enlarged interest on the part of the United States Government and the use of public funds to finance teaching and study abroad have raised among many scholars some serious " questions and doubts regarding their role. From the beginning some have been wary of government support, even when they had no serious question to raise regarding the government's foreign policy. They feared the heavy hand of the government and, consequently, declined to seek its support lest some un- _â&#x20AC;˘ articulated quid pro quo was involved. In recent years, as the national debate over the nation's foreign policy has become more intense, some who heretofore had no objection to receiving support for foreign study and teaching have had second thoughts and entertained grave doubts about the entire operation. They have contended that American scholars abroad who held grants from the United States Government are, in fact, representatives of the United States and, as such, should not participate in the program, iJ:lcludingservice on screening committees to nominate grantees, if they cannot support current American foreign policy.

.

It would, of course, be a most happy situation if the United States Government pursued a foreign. policy with which all American scholars could agree. That, most of us will agree, is highly unlikely. And even if that were the case, it would not follow that American scholars with government grants. for research and lecturing abroad should rush out and promulgate that foreign policy. This government has !ts own machinery . for the promulgation and implementation of its foreign policy and, happily, American scholars abroad are not and should not be a part of it. Most government-sponsored programs abroad are binational in character and operation. Indeed, many of them are even binational in support. And the grants to Americans are actually made not by the United States but by the host country. It would, therefore, be a bit unseemly if, say, an American Fulbright professor in Germany regarded himself as an

agent of United States foreign policy in a program in which the Government 9f Germany pays 80 per cent of the cost!

Not all American scholars who criticize American foreign policy express their feelings by declining to participate. A few accepted government grants and then declined 'to pay that portion of their taxes that, by their estimate, was used in the military operation in Southeast Asia .. ". Some have committed obscenities against the American flag, thereby defaming not merely the symbols of their country but the intellectual community of which they are a part. Still others have counseled their host country to denounce the United States, thereby boldly presuming that the statesmen of their host country were not wise enough to formulate their own foreign policy.

This is not to say that American scholars abroad should not express their personal views, however critical, of American foreign policy. The very essence of the life of the mind is the freedom to inquire, to examine and to criticiie. Bl!t that freedom has the same restraints abroad that it has at home: to state one's position, if impelled by personal conviction, with clarity, reason and sobriety, always mindful of the point that the scholar recognizes and tolerates different views that others may hold and that his view is independent, not official.

It is, indeed, difficult to visualize the circumstances in which American scholars could not or should not make an independent judgment of policy. And if that judgment is adversely critical, it does not follow that American scholars should withdraw from t~e international intellectual community because they do not agree with it. To do so would confirm the suspicion that American scholarship has n9 real independence and would; indeed, encourage the U.S. Government to assume that it can have some influence in an area where it has no right to make such an assumption.

It

seems to me that one must reject the notion, from whatever line of reasoning it stems, that American public support of academic pursuits is an arm of American foreign policy that can compromise the independence of American scholarship. For followed to its logical conclusion, it could destroy all American participation in the international intellectual community. It would, of course, mean that. American scholars should go abroad with government or binational support only when they feel that they can support American foreign policy. It could J11eanthat American scholars who happen to be Republicans should not accept grants from a Democratic Administration. It could mean that since the United States Government is always interested in showing its most favorable side; American studies professors who are critical of America's past and present should remain at home. It could even mean that if one disapproves of some domestic policy of the government he should take no government grants for foreign research or teaching lest it be interpreted as approbation.

I would be surprised, even alarmed, if American scholars were pleased with all aspects of American foreign and domestic policy. If that were so, our government would have lost one of its most important means for continu~d improvement, namely, the searching and constructive criticism of the American academic community .... We know that the academic communities of some countries do not. enjoy full intellectual independence.

When they 90 not, it should not be the occasion for us to withdraw merely because they are not as free as we would want them to be.

A few years ago, when t was attending the International Congress of Historical Sciences at Stockholm, the chairman of the delegation of Soviet historians approached an American historian and inquired the name of the chairman of the United States delegation. There was no chairman and no U.S. delegation, as such. There were, of course, many Americans in attendance. Some were on vacation in Europe and just dropped by to see what was going on. Some were Fulbright professors or researchers, and enjoyed the opportunity to attend since they were already abroad. Others went directly from the United States to read papers or to represent their own learned societies.

They were wholly unorganized, and no American could possibly know what other Americans were in attendance. It was difficult, if not impossible, for the Soviet delegation to understand the reply that there was no American delegation and surely no chairman. It was nevertheless a rewarding encounter that hopefully brought the historians of the two countries a bit closer together.-There were no miracles; and no one expected any.

The Americans present-even those on government-sponsored grants-represented their professions, not their country. And happily they were wise enough to see their role clearly.

In

1967 it was my privilege to visit several countries of the Near East and South Asia. In some of these countries the feeling against the United States ran high. In some cases it appeared to me that no great premium was placed on maintaining full diplomaticrelations with the United States. Even where the antipathy against the United States was unmistakable, the warm and friendly attitude toward the scholarly community of the United States was clear. It would be naive to suggest that the American scholar can be an effective substitute for the regular channels of diplomatic relations; but it would be equally unrealistic not to recognize the effective role that the American scholar can play in maintaining in his own area of interest. a sane dialogue between the scholars of his country and those of other countries of the world.

This points up, it seems to me, the desirability of the American scholar's being quite certain that his role in the international intellectual community is different from the foreign policy that his country might pursue. Without becoming alienated from his country's interests, he must recognize that his intellectual interests and commitments are, in the long run, a complement to peace and, consequently, to the well-being of his country. For the international inteIJectual community, of which lie must be a part ... transcends national boundaries, and it rises above the foreign policy of nations. It can be as closely knit as the interests and problems of its members permit it to be; and it can survive international political tensions, cold wars, and¡ even military operations. It can keep the hope of peace alive in a world where political crises and international competition cast a pall; and it can overcome the narrow, myopic view with which the socalled politician-statesmen pursue their goals.

0

About the Author: John Hope Franklin, who received his M.A. and Ph.D. degreesfrom Harvard University, is Professor of History at the University of Chicago. He has also served as visiting professor at several American universities and has taught overseas- . including Cambridge University, England. In 1957 Dr. Franklin represented the American .Council of Learned Societies at the centennial observances at the Universities of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay. He is the author of numerous books and articles.

/,

AS THE PRESS SEES IT Many Indians-official and otherwise-are talking about foreign investment these days, and there are indications that perhaps the Indian Government may be planning to liberalize the laws and regulations governing the operations of foreign investors in India.

One such story reported in the New York Times-by Gerd Wilcke in New York City-quoted a Cabinet Minister of the Indian Government as saying that India welcomes foreign investment. The following are excerpts from Wi/eke's story: "An official of the Indian Government said here ... that India continues to be very interested in foreign investment and is now prepared to eliminate the long delays that were common in obtaining investment approvals.

"The official, Chidambaram Subramaniam, Minister of Industrial Development, Science and Technology, disclosed in an interview that new rules would .... require the Government to decide on domestic and foreign investment requests within 90 days of the date of filing ....

"The Minister acknowledged implicitly that prospective investors had often lost their interest in the past because red tape had delayed actions by up to four years.

"He also acknowledged that foreign investment is an issue sharply debated by political factions in his country. " 'We are an open society/ he said rather forcefully during the 9O-minute interview, held in the offices of the Indian Investment Center at 708 Third Avenue [in New York City]. 'Any number of different opinions are being expressed, but ultimately it is a policy decision whether we want foreign investment.'

"That policy, he said" has been to welcome foreigners.

"Mr. Subramaniam denied in this context that American companies had lost interest in India as a place to do business.

"He estimated total American investment. in his country at about $350 million. He said Indian authorities had approved 43 Indian-United States joint ventures during 1971. Last year [1972]the approvals reached 62.

"During the last 18 months, he added, American companies committed themselves to invest about $20 million in equities in joint enterprises."

In addition to welcomingforeign investment, the Indian Government is also encouraging Indian entrepreneurs to invest in other countries. This policy was outlined in an article titled "Indian Joint Ventures Abroad," which appeared in a recent issue of India News, the official publication of the Indian Mission in Washington. The following are excerpts from the article: "For promoting economic co-operation among the developing countries the Government of India has so far succeeded in initiating 92 joint venture projects in 25 countries, of which 37 projects have already gone into production and the rest are at various stages of implementation.

"Indian entrepreneurs have entered into joint venture projects even in such highly industrialized countries as the United States, Canada, Britain and West Germany. There is one project

each in Britain and, Canada and two in West Germany, while among the ones under various stages of implementation are one each in these four countries.

"The total Indian investment by way of capital contribution in the projects already in production is estimated at Rs. 75 million ($10.30 million) and that in projects under implementation at Rs. 96.4 million (S13 million).

"While these ventures are considered important and powerful instruments for the expansion of trade between participating countries on mutually advantageous basis, the Indian joint ventures are especially beneficial to the developing countries because the machinery and equipment developed with Indian technical know-how are more labor-oriented than those made in the advanced countries ....

"As a matter of policy, the Government of India has 'open mind' and encourages joint ventures abroad."

an

In the lead article of this issue, "A Country in Need of Praise," Ambassador Moynihan argues that Americans don't give themselves enough credit for their successes. Canadian radio-TV commentator Gordon Sinclair thinks other nations don't give Americans enough credit for their talents and virtues. As SPAN was going to press with this issue, we received the following excerpts from one of Sinclair's 1973 broadcasts over radio station CERB in Toronto, Canada. The notion of America "being in need of praise" may be an idea whose time has come.

"This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly th~ least appreciated people on all the earth ....

"When the franc was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up, and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris ....

"When distant cities are hit by earthquakes, it is the United States that hurries in to help .... Last spring, 59 American communities [were] flattened by tornadoes. Nobody helped.

"The Marshall Plan and the Truman policy pumped billions upon billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent, warmongering Americans ....

"Even their draft-dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, and most of them-unless they are breaking Canadian laws-are getting American dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here ....

"I can name you 5,000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble?

"I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.

"Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them kicked around.

"They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. , 0 "I hope Canada is not one of these."

-

.

---

_.~

-

i I

SKllAI: MISSION COMPLETED The completion of the Skylab mission this month is a unique kind of finale. It marks the first hiatus in manneGl spaceflight for the U.S. in more than six years. The next manned spaceflight will be the joint docking mission with the Soviet Union in 1975.

The three missions of Skylab have collected more research information than planners had expected. But the acquisition of new knowledge was the major purpose of Skylab (above),

the house-sized research center which orbited the earth every 93 minutes at an altitude of 435 kilometers.

Because of Skylab's zero-gravity environment, its crew had been able to test man's capability to live and work in space for prolonged periods.

One of Skylab's experiments was studying how space affects animals like the spider Arabella (top right) as she spun her web. Other research involved astronomical observations.

At top left, an astronaut adjusts the telescope mount. A "very beautiful added bonus" of the third Skylab mission, according to its commander Gerald Carr, was the observation of Kohoutek, one of the largest and brightest comets in history.

All in all the Skylab missions, though less dramatic than the Apollo moon shots, may provide as much if not more knowledge about ~he earth, the universe and man himself.