SPAN: September 1977

-'Indberch's Historic ftlcht Charles Lindbergh's 1927 solo flight across the Atlantic in a single-engine plane made him one of the great heroes of our century. The world saw him as the archetypal American, the "lone eagle," the exemplar of the frontier spirit. In 1927 Lindbergh (below) was 25 years old and probably the best pilot in the U.S. He was irresistibly drawn both by what W.B. Yeats called "the fascination of what's

difficult" and by aviation's biggest prize-$25,000 for a 3,600-mile solo flight between New York and Paris. He took off on May 20,1927, in a specially built aircraft, The Spirit of St. Louis. After a 3Jt-hour flight he landed in Paris. To mark the 50th anniversary of the feat, the U.S. Postal Service recently issued a special stamp (right) showing Lindbergh's plane skimming low over the ocean.

USA¡13c

SPAN How Serious Is the Congress Challenge to President Carter? by Hugh Sidey

A LEITER FROM THE PUBUSHER Viewers of television in the United States were amazed recently by a novel spectacle: what looked like a small jetliner climbing the sky piggy-back on a huge Boeing 747 airplane (see cover). As they watched, the Boeing jumbo bore its passenger back to earth for a perfect, soft landing.

This was a rehearsal of the first step in the launching of an orbiter, a vehicle that will shuttle back and forth between earth and a station in outer space. The viewers marveled at what intelligent human beings working together had achievedfirst, in performing this feat, and then in communicating it to the world via television. How far have we gone in this century!

Just how far indeed is commemorated on the inside cover page (left) by another event, one that took place 50 years ago.

On the face of it, these two events are diametric opposites.

The space shuttle, with its elaborately automated control system and careful programing, is a model of large-scale organization. Charles A. Lindbergh's 33t-hour solo flight across the Atlantic in a' tiny plane was an individual effort.

Yet these two are linked. The lunar astronauts' message back to earth when their vehicle touched down on the moon, "The Eagle has landed," echoed Lindbergh's admiring nickname, "The Lone Eagle." For the astronauts were aware that they stood on the shoulders of giants of the past, their many venturesome and skillful predecessors. At the same time, Lindbergh, when he spoke of "We" as having flown from New York to Paris-meaning his plane, the Spirit of St. Louis, and himself-was not simply being modest. He was speaking of man and machine acting together in a kind of symbiotic relationship of interdependence.

The word "interdependence" has become one of the key concepts of this decade because it corresponds to the facts of contemporary life. The lunar travelers reported one overwhelming impression of the earth as seen from outer space: It is a whole, total, fragile environment. In recent years, nations have come to perceive the aptness of this description. It used to be humorous to quip that "When America sneezes, Europe catches cold." This homely figure is no longer so funny. For it now applies not only to the United States and Western Europe, but to the whole world, and reciprocally. Developments in far-off places affect each of us, wherever we are. A war in the Middle East sets off a price rise in oil, which brings prosperity to that area-but raises the cost of fertilizer for the farmer in Asia and Africa, cuts down on plastic production in the United States, and sends millions of migrant workers empty-handed back to their homelands in Southern Europe.

But interdependence has its positive aspects as well. One of these is reported in this issue's article on foreign investment in the United States from abroad, welcomed because it has brought with it new processes and product technologies, and new sources of jobs. For technology flow is a two-way street, and the people of India so perceive it in this decade of development as their country grows more and more active in modern world markets.

Interdependence extends to culture as well. Claude Alvares makes this valuable point in his keen critique of a recent novel, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, by Robert M. Pirsig. Alvares examines the new awareness in the West of the values of the East, in what he interprets as an attempt to achieve once again the integration of body and mind.

We who are associated with SPAN, for many years an instrument for communication and mutual understanding between the United States and India, welcome this old-new sense of the commonality of humankind.

-J.W.G.

4 5 10

Civil Rights in the U.S.: What's Happening to the Minorities?

Here Comes the Space Shuttle!

The Drug War on Cancer

by Michael Collins

by Jane E. Brody

14

16¡ 22 28

'The Future World Is Being Made in America' An interview with Raja Rao by R. Parthasarathy

31

On the Lighter Side

32

The New England Town Meeting Is Alive and Well

36

38

Business in America: Foreign Investment Is Pouring In by Daniel Yergin

40 45

A Journey Through the High Country of the Mind

46 49

by Claude Alvares

India and the United States: Growing Mutual Trust

by Alfred Atherton

Liberalizing World Agricultural Trade An interview with Robert Bergland

Front cover: America's first space shuttle orbiter, hoisted atop a specially equipped Boeing 747, soars above the Mojave Desert in California during a recent flight testa smooth prelude to the orbiter's fantastic journeys ahead. See pages 5-9 for an article by former astronaut Michael Collins.

Back cover: Ballooning, says Fortune magazine, is enjoying a growth curve as steep as a good ascension. See page 49 for a picture story.

JACOB SLOAN, Editor; JAY W. GILDNER, Publisher.

Managing Editor: Chidananda Dasgupta. Assistant Managing Editor: S.R. Madhu.

Editorial Staff: Mohammed Reyazuddin, Avinash Pasricha, Nirmal Sharma, Krishan Gabrani, Murari Saha, Rocque Fernandes. Art Director: Nand Katyai. Art Staff: Gopi Gajwani, B. Roy Choudhury, Kanti Roy. Chief of Production: Awtar S. Marwaha.

Photographic Services: USIS Photo Lab. Published by the United States Information Service, 24 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110001, on behalf of the American Embassy, New Delhi. The opinions expressed in this magazine do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the United States Government. Printed by Aroon Purie at Thomson Press (India) Limited, Faridabad, Haryana.

Photographs: Front cover-James Collison. Inside front cover, top-U.S. Postal Service. 4-Avinash Pasricha.

5-James Collison. 8--eNASA. IO-Don Carstens iCI1977 Johns Hopkins magazine. 13-Avinash Pasricha; insetcourtesy Indian Registry of Pathology. New Delhi. 14-15-Don Carstens iCI 1977'Johns Hopkins magazine. 21R:N. Khanna. 22 top-San Francisco Convention & Visitors Bureau; bottom-Stuart Bay. 23-Gerald Brimacombe.

Black Star. 24-Stuart Bay. 26 top-San Diego Convention & Visitors Bureau; bottom-U.S. Travel Service. 27 top-Chris Knight; bottom-Bruce McAllister. 30 bottom-No Sampath. 33-Nathan Benn. 41-courtesy Bantam Books Inc. 49-Christopher Springmann. Back cover-Barry Lenhart.

Use of SPAN articles in other publications is encouraged, except when copyrighted. For permission, write to the Editor. Price of magazine: one year's subscrilltion (12 issues), IS rupees; single copy, 2 rupees 50 paise. For change of address, send an old address from a recent SPAN envelope along with new address to A.K. Mitra, Circulation Manager, SPAN Magazine. 24 Kasturba Gandhi Marg. New Delhi 110001.

AMERICAN

FORE·IGN POLICY

BOWSIIIOUS IS THI COIIIISS CHILLIIII TO PIISIDIIT CIITII! 'I have some good days up on Capitol Hill, but 1 have some bad days,' said President Carter recently. His relationship with the Congress in the making of America's foreign policy is analyzed here by an eminent political writer, the Washington bureau chief of 'Time' magazine .

.It is now an established White House ritual that every day Jimmy Carter sees from two to a couple of dozen members of the u.s. Congress; sometimes· the ilumberruns higher. By the end of June 1977, he had worked his ·way through the entire 435 members of the House of Representatives and was busy on the 100men in the Senate.

He shares breakfast with them on occasion, has them in for lunch. There are intimate family dinners with the big powers like Speaker of the House Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., and· Senator Henry M. Jackso,O."These invitees bring wives and children, and can chat with the President's dalightet; Amy Carter, scratch her cat, Misty Malarky Ying Yang, and watch the light fade on the Washington Monument while talking about the world on the Truman balcony of the White House.

President Carter's concern about Congress stems from his sudden education in how bright, tough and aggressive a lot of the legislators are and how much their minds were molded by the decade in which Presidents acted like monarchs in making war and subverting the executive structure of the Federal machine. That he needed more Congressional expertise for his domestic measures was predictable by almost anybody who had been around Washington. That he would suddenly reap the whirlwind from up on Capitol Hill in foreign policy was less discernible.

But the wind has risen.

With impressive insistence, the 95th Congress has declared its intention to

President Carter discusses his legislative priorities with Democratic Party Congressional leaders at a White House breakfast meeting. From left (facing camera) are Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd •.Senator James Eastland •.Senator Hubert Humphrey •.and Senator Alan Cranston.

share in the making of foreign policy, unlike any we have seen in history. Of course, there were signals months ago.

When Congress turned down Turkish military aid and coldly rejected President Gerald Ford's proposal to help Angola oppose insurgency, the keen observers

of Washington's politics sensed something new. But not until Jimmy Carter was inaugurated and launched on his own international stewardship did the degree of Congressional assertion become evident.

The nomination of arms negotiator

Paul C. Warnke was the first tip. Opposition to the liberal thoughts of Warnke mounted almost overnight, and it was only the personal appeal of the President and his assurances that he would have the . final arms say that won Warnke confirmation. Storm clouds continued to gather.

The Senate forced withdrawal of Theodore C. Sorensen, Mr. Carter's first nominee for Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Meantime, the House of Representatives voted to trim foreign aid in general, then to deny U.S. funds in international lending agencies to certain countries violating the rights of their citizens as viewed from the heights of Capitol Hill. Some of these restrictions were later endorsed by the Senate, despite the appeal of the White House that such action would deny the Administration needed flexibility to conduct foreign policy. No more succinct expression of the new mood of Congress was given than that by the young Congressman from Iowa, Tom Harkin, who declart?d: "We are trying to get away from the imperial presidency that dictates all of our foreign policy."

Harkin is a clearly etched case of what has happened up on the Hill. In previous administrations, his type did not exist.

Foreign policy was considered the province of the President and a few of the mighty Congressional "whales," who fancied they knew their way about the world. B~fore World War II, few legislators had been overseas. The war changed that. So did the jet plane and American affluence. Most members of Congress, either as private citizens or members of the armed services, had seen a lot of the world when they arrived at their Washington offices.

Tom Harkin, a Navy pilot, is a Vietnam veteran. When he got out of the armed services, he came to Washington for a law degree and to work on Capitol Hill for a House Committee investigating the Vietnam war. He traveled to South Vietnam, helped to uncover the notorious Vietnam "tiger cages" in which political prisoners were locked away. His anger persisted. He ran for Congress as a Democrat in 1974,defeated the incumbent Republican in Iowa's Fifth District, and came to Washington bringing his outrage.

There are others like him now who want to have their say in foreign policy. And old voices, like that of Senator George McGovern and Senator John Culver, still are in the chorus of contention.

There is an irony. Jimmy Carter is in

the White House, at least in part, because men like Harkin found him a sympathetic soul to their entreaties to reemphasize human rights in American foreign policy. Mr. Carter campaigned against the secretive and kingly approach to the world, used so frequently by President Richard Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. As President, Mr. Carter instantly launched his international campaign for human rights.

But once inside the White House Oval Office, it became plain that the world was imperfect, and morality had to be advocated selectively at times. Being an engineer and a practical man, the President perceived he needed the maximum flexibility. That was not what Tom Harkin and a lot of others necessarily had in mind.

When the battered Foreign Aid Bill emerged from the House on its way to the Senate, the language instructed international banks and lending institutions not to use U.S. money for aid to Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, Uganda, Mozambique and Angola, countries deemed by the House to violate human rights beyond tolerance. It was a unique coalition of the young liberals and older conservatives that produced the results in the House. The liberals arrived at their statement of conscience through disillusionment with Vietnam and Watergate. The conservatives simply did not want money going to help communist nations or other nations with an anti-American bias.

In the Senate, there was another kind of expression of intent to tutor Mr. Carter in foreign affairs. Only last minute appeals by Majority Leader Robert Byrd prevented the Senate from going on record against Mr. Carter's plans for withdrawing U.S. forces from South Korea. As it was, the Senate knocked out language endorsing the President's policy and put in language warning that it expected to be copsulted. The same conservative-led f-orces worked to inhibit Administration efforts to improve relations with Cuba, Indochina and black-ruled countries of Africa. As the voting went on, it seemed that the philosophical moorings of the problems were less important than the assertion of power by the Congress.

They intended to be heard.

So familiar had the White House become with the issue of Congressional intrusion into foreign policy that, when New York's Senator Jacob Javits said Mr. Carter was being too hard on Israel in urging withdrawal from occupied Arab

territory, the President, partly in response to the Javits statement, felt the need to issue an Administration restatement of the White House position.

The road ahead looks even more contentious. The Congress will cast a critical eye on the President's moves in the next round of SALT, if it ever begins. There will pe more point and counterpoint on the Middle East, whether or not the parties gather in Geneva. Mr. Carter must decide the next steps in our relations with Cuba.

The Panama Canal negotiations may soon yield an agreement that will be a focal point of all kinds of political and diplomatic muscle-flexing in Congress. The Congress will have its say. And as Mr. Carter begins to implement his plan for Korean withdrawal, the argument will get louder and rougher.

To infer from the new Congressional intrusions that there is little unity in American foreign policy would be an error. There still endures a sense of national purpose and pride to stay strong, to help the weak and play a principal role in the world. And in times of crisis there is no question that the American public would rally behind the President in any reasonable act. So would Congress.

In the minor Ugandan crisis, in which Idi Amin appeared ready to punish resident Americans for Mr. Carter's criticism of him, there was instant support for the President. The two-to-one Congressional majority of Democrats over Republicans will also work to Mr. Carter's advantage on routine issues.

But party line is not a guide these days to Congressional response on matters like overseas sales of enriched uranium and nuclear technology. Both parties' are fragmented. Mr. Carter's refusal to sell attack planes to Iran brought Congressional complaint, but so did his decision to sell Iran advanced airborne radar systems. Each issue now not only becomes intricately entwined with individual moral considerations, but with the economic and ethnic makeup of each Congressional district and state that a member of Congress may represent.

Recently, as Mr. Carter was worrying through his decision about the B-1 bomber and how and when to lure Leonid Brezhnev to a summit meeting, a reporter asked him what was troubling him the most right then. "Congress," he said with the smile of a man who is much wiser than he used to be. "I have some good days up on Capitol Hill," he allowed, "but I have some bad days."

D

CIVIL RIGHTS IN THE U.S.

WHAT'S HAPPENING TO THE MINORITIES? "No country in the world has faced up to the problem of racial discrimination as the United States has done in the past 20 years," says Dr. Stephen Horn, a noted American political scientist and educator who is vice-chairman of the u.s. Civil Rights Commission.

Dr. Horn, who visited several Indian cities recently on a lecture tour, said that discrimination against blacks has been completely eliminated in buses, hotels, parks and restaurants in the United States. All barriers to voting rights have been removed. Progress in the areas of education, housing and employment has been less spectacular, yet it is fairly substantial. For example, many educational institutions, corporations and government agencies have launched "affirmative action plans" to ensure that blacks-and other minorit~es-are given equal access to jobs and schooling.

"Election to high office in the United States today has no reference to color," Dr. Horn said. In 1964, only a few dozen blacks in the South held important offices in government and the Congress.

Today there are as many as 1,500. He cited the examples of Andrew Young, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, and of Barbara Jordan, the first black woman to be state senator in Texas, later elected to the Congress. The predominantly white State of Massachusetts has chosen a black senator, Ed Brook.

Mayor Tom Bradley of Los Angeles is black; so is the superintendent of public instruction in California, Wilson Riles.

Comparing the progress toward racial equality- in the North and the South, Dr. Horn said that in the South a structure of law discriminating against blacks had existed for more than half a century. The task of the civil rights movement was to attack and demolish this structure; this has been done. In the northern parts of the United States, however, segregation is de facto rather than de jure-not sanctioned by law. Different ethnic and racial groups live in different areas of the city, partly by preference, partly out of necessity. This kind of social segregation, both voluntary and involuntary, proves more resistant to change; the current problem is one of ghettoization, or "racial isolation. "

Dr. Stephen Horn (center) with Chief Justice of India M.H. Beg (right) and David T. Schneider, Deputy Chief of Mission, American Embassy, at the Indian Law Institute in New Delhi.

The major driving force behind the civil rights movement in the United States, said Dr. Horn, is the Civil Rights Commission, established on September 9, 1957, as part of the first Civil Rights Act. The Commission's original purpose was to investigate voting discrimination against black citizens in the Southern states, and it was empowered to conduct hearings and gather evidence using the power of subpoena-the power to compel a person to testify. Evidence gathered by the Commission formed the basis for the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 and 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

During the past two decades, said Dr. Horn, the scope of the Commission has widened considerably, from the plight of the blacks in the South to that of many other racial and ethnic groups all over the country. The Commission has surveyed the problems of Mexican Americans in the Southwest, of Puerto Ricans in New York (of whom there are nearly a million), of Cuban refugees in Miami (who constitute the bulk of that city's population) and of the American Indians.

Dr. Horn himself has presided over hearings on the Navajos "who constitute the most undeveloped nation within the world's most developed nation." More recently, the Civil Rights Commission has concerned itself with the problems of Asian Americans and of another groupone which is in fact a majority, not a minority, constituting as it does 51.8 per

cent of the American population - women.

The Commission may soon investigate discrimination against the physically and mentally handicapped.

Discussing the progress of women's rights, Dr. Horn said that the number of women in law schools has dramatically increased in the past few years. There are more women today in medicine and business, and a far greater number of working women in general. He said that women constitute the main breadwinners in 20 per cent of all American households today.

Asked if blacks-whose massive support for Jimmy Carter helped make him President-are satisfied with the progress of civil rights under the Carter Administration, Dr. Horn said that it is too early to tell. "Only recently were Assistant Secretaries at the Cabinet level appointed. These are key positions for the enforcement of equal opportunity laws. When we met President Carter recently, we urged him to appoint a Cabinet-level adviser with responsibility to coordinate civil rights affairs throughout the government. That's the only way the White House can give a centralized direction to the enforcement of civil rights laws."

The Civil Rights Commission, concluded Dr. Horn, "has never been bashful about candidly conveying its views to the U.S. President. We will continue to be candid."

0

HERE COMES THE SPACE SHUTTLE!

Another step forward in the conquest of space-the shuttle. Unlike a rocket which falls into the ocean and is discarded, this new craft can be used again and again.

It is the size of a small jetliner and combines the characteristics of an airplane and a spacecraft, but is far more complex than any aircraft ever built. A former astronaut describes the versatility, the technical characteristics and the uses of a craft which will ply as a shuttle between the earth and its artificial satellites.

W

hen I was a kid reading Buck Rogers, the spacecraft all looked like bullets or saucers, with sweeping fins and fancy tail skids. The real thing turned out to be more prosaic, but as Phase I of the space era winds down and Phase II begins, perhaps we are beginning to see Rogers' dream emerge in the squat but elegant space shuttle, NASA's "flying brickyard."

The shuttle, also known as the orbiter, rockets into orbit but glides back to earth.

Proponents claim it will usher in a whole new era of routine space operations.

Critics say it's unnecessary. Designed to be America's space workhorse for years to come, the shuttle is a fascinating combination of old and new concepts, at once daring and conservative in design.

The basic idea behind the shuttle is simple enough: a craft that can be used over and over again, instead of falling into the ocean and being discarded, as rockets are. An early shuttle design featured a two-stage vehicle, each with a human crew. When the first stage ran out of fuel, it released the second, which continued its climb into orbit while the first returned to land on a runway. This concept was abandoned, primarily because of high initial cost, and the manned first stage was replaced by a pair of gigantic solidpropellant rockets. These rockets will fall into the sea when empty, as their predecessors have done, but they will descend via parachute and be recovered for use again.

The shuttle will continue under its own power, three rocket engines churning away-using fuel stored in a huge external belly tank that will be discarded before the ship reaches orbit. The principle of recycling has not been followed comletely, since the external tank is lost. But the shuttle itself can make as many as a hundred flights between overhauls.

The first orbiter, named the Enterprise, was rolled out of its hangar at Palmdale, California, on September 17, 1976, amidst great fanfare. Senator Barry Goldwater blessed it, as did Olin (Tiger) Teague of Texas and a bevy of other politicians, bureaucrats and community leaders.

The orbiter is generally described as about the size of a small jetliner, which is true in terms of length and width, but it is much bulkier and far more complex than any aircraft ever built. It must carry equipment needed not only to navigate and maneuver in space, but also to survive the searing heat of re-entry into the atmo-

sphere. In addition, the shuttle must be able to glide back to a safe landing, decelerating from an orbital speed of 17,000 miles per hour to about 180 knots as it touches the end of the runway. The rules of flight change radically as the craft passes from one aerodynamic regime to another. The complex sweep of the orbiter's delta wings and the exaggerated height of its vertical tail indicate the designers' concern about its ability to maneuver successfully from the hypersonic through the supersonic into the subsonic range.

Beneath its skin one finds equipment common to both airplanes and spacecraft.

The flight controls, for example, are a combination of aerodynamic and reaction control systems. Above the atmosphere,

The American space shuttle is most unlike any previous spacecraft. It combines such daring features as a manned first launch and a poweroff landing with the more conventional aircraft systems. maneuvering must be done by firing small rocket motors; in the atmosphere, conventional rudders and elevons are employed. In the middle speed and altitude range, during re-entry, rocket and aerodynamic controls must be skillfully blended. The pilot is aided in this task by sophisticated computers, which decide just how much to move the control surfaces or how long to fire the rockets in order to change direction. Without them, the orbiter might lurch out of control into a hypersonic spiral from which the pilots could not recover before the craft exceeded its structural or thermal limits. The computers also perform a host of other chores, from keeping track of the fuel supply to remembering the orbital parameters of satellites that the crew may need to inspect or repair.

The orbiter needs electrical and hydraulic power, just as conventional jetliners do, for operating landing gear and flaps, but here electricity is provided by three lightweight fuel cells that use liquid hydrogen and oxygen, as in the Gemini and Apollo spacecraft. Hydraulic power is

provided by ordinary pumps, but space temperatures are so low that the fluid must be heated or it will freeze in the lines. The cabins of airliners are pressurized so that passengers may breathe, but in the vacuum of space the orbiter must carry its own air supply.

The crew will be comfortable in their shirt sleeves, breathing 20 per cent oxygen and 80 per cent nitrogen at a pressure of 14.7 pounds per square inch-conditions like those we enjoy at sea level. The cabin of the orbiter will be quite similar to that of a jetliner, with pilot and copilot sitting side by side; seats behind them are provided for a mission specialist and a payload expert. Underneath this flight deck is a compartment with room for six additional seats, so that a total of 10people can be accommodated if required for a rescue mission. The crew can be as few as two, for the early test flights, or as many as seven, including scientific and technical people to care for a variety of payloads.

A typical mission will stay in orbit a week, but if extra supplies are provided it can be stretched perhaps to 30 days.

The orbiter's bay is huge by present space standards, stretching for 60 feet along the fuselage. Clamshell doors swing outward to provide easy access to the 15foot-wide cavity. The bay can handle cargo loads. up to 65,000 pounds, some of which can be jockeyed around by the crew with manipulator arms. Two people at a time, protected by space suits, can inspect or repair payloads.

Satellites are very much a part of our daily lives, giving us ringside seats at the Olympics, tracking hurricanes, monitoring missile firings, identifying potential oil-bearing formations, seeking out subsurface water, mineral deposits and earthquake fault zones, and helping us predict the volume of spring runoff by calculating the accumulation of snow in the mountains. Satellites can pinpoint sources of pollution, chart ocean currents, show where deserts are spreading and identify some crop diseases. But they must also be extraordinarily reliable, because they cannot be repaired or retrieved once in orbit.

In the future, shuttle crews will be able to bring them back to earth for repair. Thus, the shuttle will allow us to perform tasks which heretofore have been too expensive with one-shot expendable boosters and payloads.

The European Space Agency is producing a cylindrical spacelab, tailor-made to

fit into the orbiter's cargo hold. It will accommodate as many as four scientists for a month of varied astronomical observations, physical and chemical experiments under zero-gravity conditions, and complex studies of the medical effects of prolonged weightlessness on the human body.

The earth's atmosphere blocks out most of the electromagnetic radiation coming to us from the rest of the universe.

Mter centuries, earthbound astronomers are increasingly anxious to break through this semiopaque screen. Optical, infrared and ultraviolet observations aboard the shuttle and spacelab could begin in the near future.

How much does the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA] expect to save with a reusable vehicle? The real cost of a launch depends mainly on how one amortizes the initial research and development, but NASA recently has told potential foreign and commercial users to expect a price tag of approximately $20 million per shuttle mission, while U.S. Government users will pay $17 million per flight. By comparison the shuttle's chief competitor, the U.S. Air Force's Titan III rocket, costs $46 million per launch, yet carries a substantially smaller payload.

Potential users, primarily the Depart~ ment of Defense, were asked to list their needs for the eighties and nineties. The results of this survey indicate that approximately one launch per week should suffice, assuming the shuttle replaces all expendable boosters with the exception of the lightweight Scout. NASA would like to see more launches, which would reduce the unit price, and the Department of Defense foresees a need for some additional capacity in the 1983-91 period.

But, Defense asks, what happens if they want to get a satellite up in a big hurry?

Will NASA drop everything else to meet their needs? What happens if some defect turns up that grounds the five-shuttle fleet? What about sabotage? Shouldn't Defense keep an independent launch capability for emergency use? NASA wonders if the United States can afford a redundant launch capability that might never be used. The total cost of designing and building the shuttle fleet and putting it into service is now estimated at $9.5 billion.

As a former astronaut and test pilot, however, it's not financing the shuttle

Dr. Robert Frosch, President Carter's choice to head NASA (the National Aeronautics and Space Administration), recently told U.S. Senators that he sees the space shuttle system opening up new ways of living and working in space.

"Until now, we have done most of our work on the ground and we have used space only as a temporary field station. With the shuttle, we will learn what it's like to live and work in space for extended periods of time," the oceanographer-physicist said at confirmation hearings before the Senate's Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

"We have barely begun to examine all the ways this new vehicle can be used," Dr. Frosch added. For example, the shuttle can be used to assemble spacecraft, to build solar panels to beam the sun's energy to earth, to construct large antennae for communications satellites and to repair existing laboratories and telescopes in orbit.

Dr. Frosch said he will give high priority to space research that benefits the earth. "Earth-oriented science will payoff in a better understanding of our planet, the environment, climate, land use and natural resources as well as agricultural production." Of particular importance, he thinks, are relationships between certain types of activity on the sun and the earth's weather.

Dr. Frosch pointed out that much of what space exploration does for the human imagination cannot be quantified. "It is difficult to make an economic case for the value of exploration to the human spirit. But we can make

One of the most important research instruments to be placed in earth orbit by America's space shuttle will be a 2.4-meter telescope.

This artist's concept shows crewmen deploying the telescope, which is expected to see 10 to 30 times farther than earth-bound telescopes.

a cultural and historical case that this kind of study has been a key to the whole development of science, technology, philosophy and even religion.

I do not believe that we want to achieve a 'good gray society' in which basic human needs are satisfied but there is no sense of interest in the world or the universe." Americans have never been satisfied with a¡ "mere taste of exploration," he said. It may be arduous or expensive, but "when we are at the threshold [of discovery], we realize we must take that next step."

Dr. Frosch cited the importance of the space program internationally, especially the trips to the moon and the first views of earth as a planet in space.

Man's perception that we live on a planet unlike any other in the solar system "made an important contribution to the understanding of worldwide environmental factors, to our much improved perceptions of global problems, and to the way in which they are global and human, in the sense of the whole human race," he said. This perception also paved the way for global cooperation in environmental and economic problems, and in the fields of energy and space research. "The key to space observation of the earth and the exploration of the universe is that they, by their nature, transcend national boundaries."

that really interests me, but flying it.

Although it won't go into orbit until 1979, its glide tests began this summer at Edwards Air Force Base, California. The Enterprise was carried aloft by a Boeing 747 jumbo jet and released at 22,000 feet. For the first five of these flights, the orbiter has been modified slightly from its space configuration; a special streamlined tailcone has been added to reduce aerodynamic drag and improve glide characteristics. With the tailcone, flight time from release to touchdown is about five minutes. Without this device, the orbiter glides like a skipping stone and stays aloft only two minutes. The last three test flights will be without the tailcone. Another modification for the early tests is the addition of two ejection seats; accordingly, the crew will be limited to two. During the brief moments after they are freed from the 747, the pair will earn their pay, going through a fast-paced but elaborate series of maneuvers to measure the subsonic handling qualities of this l50,000-pound glider.

With very little margin for error, and with no chance to compensate for a serious goof, the last 60 seconds of the shuttle . test flights will be exciting indeed. Coming down at an angle of 10 degrees with the tailcone on or 22 degrees with tailcone off, and a speed of about 240 knots, the pilot aims for a point just short of the runway. When he reaches approximately 1,500feet above ground he starts to flatten the glide path to 1.5 degrees, creating a stress 1.7 times the force of gravity. At no less than 300 feet, he lowers the landing gear. His craft is now decelerating rapidly as it crosses the runway threshold and approaches the selected touchdown point.

As indicated, landing speed will be 180 knots when the orbiter is empty, slightly higher when it is carrying a load. All this with no engine power to correct for mistakes!

A power-off glide to a precision landing is not quite as death-defying as one might imagine, however. With computers to help, both on the ground and aboard the orbiter, the pilot will know whether he is on the proper glide path. Corrections back to the ideal path can be made by LeJt, above: The Enterprise and its mother ship soar above the Mojave Desert in California in their first joint flight test.

Below: A specially designed hoist is used to lift the shuttle on board a Boeing 747.

varying air speed, making S turns or using the speed brake. Completely automated landings, with no help from the pilot, will be possible ultimately, even under the worst weather conditions.

After the Enterprise leaves Edwards in 1978, two years of ground tests will measure system stresses under simulated flight conditions. In March 1979 the second orbiter, as yet unnamed, will be first to venture into space with human beings aboard from Pad 39 at Kennedy Space Center, the old Apollo moonlaunch site. Again a crew of two, sitting in ejection seats, will be employed.

In former times, putting men aboard a test vehicle that had never been in space would have seemed daring. But NASA is more confident now than in the days of Saturn V. Without crews, both flight sequences would have had to be automat-

The shuttle will allow astronauts to perform tasks which heretofore have been too costly with one-shot expendable boosters and payloads. ed, including the tricky re-entry and landing at Edwards. The idea of an unmanned test orbiter zooming in from. the Pacific and zipping oVer southern California at 1,700 miles per hour made planners a little edgy.

The airplanelike shape of the orbiter, its external belly tank and the two solid rocket motors combine to create the most complex configuration ever rocketed from Kennedy Space Center. This lack. of symmetry puts an extra burden on the shuttle's control systems during launch, for as it gains speed and its wings produce more lift, it will tend to veer off, so it must be pulled back into line by swiveling the rocket engines to the opposite side.

As it passes the speed of sound, the . orbiter's shock waves will interact with those produced by the external tank and the solid rockets.

Predicting what will happen then is more of an art than a science,¡ but it is believed no dangerous vibrations or oscillations will result. If they do, the crew can probably eject to safety. If the shuttle is going to act up, we hope it will do so early in the flight test program, because

after the first four flights from Kennedy Space Center, out come the ejection seats, and in goes the normal crew of four or more. Then they will be at the mercy of the solid rockets, for once these ignite the creW has no choice but to hang on for the ride. After the solids burn out at an altitude of 25 miles, the crew can turn around and head back to Kennedy if things don't look right. This arrangement makes an old pilot like me nervous, but solids have a very good safety record, and a low altitude abort capability may be simply an outmoded vestige of the early days of space flight.

Previous manned re-entry vehicles have controlled thermal buildup by shedding tiny chunks of incandescent heat shield.

The orbiter has no shield of this type, but its beliy is protected by semipermanent silica-coated ceramic blocks designed to radiate heat back into the atmosphere.

Their checkerboard finish gives the orbiter the bizarre look of a flying brickyard.

Who will fly this strange craft? Initially, the same group of astronauts and test pilots we have become familiar with over the years. Commander of the first drop test at Edwards will be Fred Haise, who limped back from the moon aboard Apollo 13 after its oxygen tanks exploded ..

The captain of the second Edwards test will be Joe Engle, veteran of a dozen X-15 hypersonic research flights. The first orbital crew has not yet been picked, but they probably will be familiar names.

Beyond that point a newer generation doubtless will begin to emerge.

NASA has realized that it needs more crew members and has issued invitations for both pilots and mission specialists to apply. The agency is looking for young, well-educated, highly motivated specialists, male or female, to usher in Phase II of America's adventure in space. The machine they fly certainly will be different, combining such daring features as a manned first launch and a power-off landing with the more conventional aircraft systems. It sounds so promising and so much fun that maybe even a broken-down (ormer astronaut or two will slip application papers into the pile.

0 About the Author: Michael Collins was the command pilot of Apollo 11, the first manned flight to the moon. He now directs the Air and Space Museum of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. He is the author oj Carrying the Fire: An Astronaut's Journeys.

THEDRUG WAR ON

How effective is chemotherapy-the use of powerful drugs-against cancer? While drugs have cured some rare forms of cancer and lengthened the lives of patients in others, their long-term effects are not known. This article examines the pros and cons of chemotherapy.

In 1968, when my mother was dying of cancer, drug treatment was the poor relation in the family of cancer therapies. Patients like my mother with advanced cancer that had not responded to the standard treatments-surgery and radiation therapy-were pumped full of toxic drugs in the hope that some would grant them respite, albeit temporary, from the ravages of their disease.

Most doctors talked disparagingly about the drug therapist's "poison of the week," and friends and relatives of cancer patients could not help but question the purpose and humanity of treating dying people with drugs that made them sicker while extending their lives by a few weeks or months at most.

I remember well how my mother's doctor had put it"We have some drugs we'd like to try. We know they won't cure her, but maybe one or another will show some effects against her cancer, and this will help us develop therapies that may cure other cancer patients in the future."

That doctor, David A. Karnofsky of Memorial SloanKettering Cancer Center in New York, was a highly competent and compassionate physician and an imaginative research scientist. He was also a man with vision, and today the drug, or chemotherapy he helped to develop promises to make the first significant dent in cancer mortality statistics since the early fifties, when antibiotics and improved operating techniques increased the survival rates of tho~e who underwent cancer surgery.

Dr. Karnofsky never saw the full realization of his vision, for in 1~69,at the age of 55, he succumbed to the disease he had devoted his career to conquering. But every year, physician researchers who deliver the David A. Karnofsky Memorial

Lecture describe the rapid and continuing development chemotherapy as a major front-line weapon against cancer.

of

As chemotherapy has changed from a last-ditch, palliative measure to a primary mode of treatment, it has generated serious controversy. Some doctors warn that widespread use of toxic substances is irresponsible when their long-term effects are not yet known. Like other drugs, anticancer agents are not selective in their attack and may easily damage normal as well as cancer cells. Patients have been known to die from side effects of anticancer drugs which, in addition to causing nausea, vomiting and loss of hair, can suppress functions of the bone marrow, where the body normally manufactures blood cells and cells that fight infections. The drugs may also damage the heart or the kidneys, and some are themselves capable of causing cancer in lower animals. In any case, the critics add, the public claims some doctors make for the powers of chemotherapy are raising unwarranted hopes about its ability to cure cancer.

Proponents of chemotherapy respond that while the drug treatments are not proven cures for the most common cancers, they can lengthen the lives of many cancer victims. When combined with surgery and radiation therapy, chemotherapy promises to improve the dismal survival rates associated with America's leading cancer killers. It also promises to eliminate the need for surgery to treat some cancers, or at least to reduce the amount of tissue the surgeon must remove, a possible benefit of great importance to women afflicted with breast cancer.

Furthermore, it is already established that chemotherapy can cure a number of less common forms of cancer. Acute

lymphocytic leukemia once claimed the lives of 99 per cent of the children who contracted it, within a few years of its detection.

Chemotherapy makes it possible to hold the disease in check for a minimum of five years in more than half the children it afflicts. The vast majority of these long-term survivors can be considered cured. Half the advanced cases of Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymphatic system that typically affects young adults, can now be cured with chemotheI;"apy(up to 90 per cent of early cases are cured with radiation therapy). Choriocarcinoma, a cancer involving the uterus of young women, is 90 per cent curable with anticancer drugs; once it was considered 90 per cent fatal within a year. And the drug treatments, unlike surgery, preserve the woman's ability to bear children. Chemotherapy has also led to long-term survival free of recurrence for more than half the patients afflicted with histiocytic lymphoma, testicular carcinoma, embryonal rhabdomyosar-' coma, Ewing's sarcoma, Wilms' tumor, Burkitt's lymphoma and retinoblastoma.

For still other cancers, long-term survival data are not yet available, but early results suggest that they, too, will yield to the attacks of powerful anticancer drugs. For example, even with amputation of the cancerous limb, osteogenic sarcoma, the leading bone cancer in children, has classically claimed the lives of 80 per cent of its young victims within two years of diagnosis. Now, when amputation is followed by chemotherapy, 60 to 80 per cent are alive and free of cancer two years after their disease is discovered.

In some cases, the use of chemotherapy before surgery can eliminate the need to amputate a cancerous limb. Only three years ago, l7-year-old Joseph, a Boston high-school senior, would have faced the certain loss of much of his left shoulder and his left arm, where bone cancer had developed. But Joseph received four weeks of chemotherapy treatments before his surgery, and his tumor shrank. Surgeons at the Sidney Farber Cancer Center then removed a six-and-a-half-inch portion of the arm bone and adjacent muscle and replaced the bone with a metal rod. To their surprise and delight, they found no sign of living cancer cells in the section of bone they removed. Joseph underwent more chemotherapy for 18months after his operation, and today he has been free of cancer for two years. He has full use of his left hand and can lift a weight of 18 pounds with his left arm.

"Chemotherapy is one of the reasons for optimism in cancer therapy research today," says Dr. Stephen K. Carter, director of the Northern California Cancer Program at Stanford University in Palo Alto. "The scientists who have worked in the field have a right to be proud of their accomplishments."

Surgery and radiation are "local" therapies that treat cancer only at its primary site. They fail to cure it in two-thirds of the patients to which they are administered because cancer has spread to distant parts of the body by the time the main tumor is diagnosed. This spread, or metastasis, is often invisible to the surgeon who removes the tumor and, in fact, is usually undetectable by any currently available diagnostic technique.

Thus, when the surgeon tells the patient and his family, "We got it all," he may really mean, "We got all the cancer we could see." Microscopic colonies of cancer may have escaped his scalpel, and for this reason, anywhere from 10 per cent to 80 per cent of patients from whom the surgeon thought he removed "all" the cancer will experience a recurrence of the disease. (The rate of recurrence depends on the type of cancer.)

About the Author: Jane E. Brody, a science reporter for The New York Times, is author of You Can Fight Cancer and Win.

"What is needed," says Dr. Vincent DeVita, director of cancer treatment for the U.S. National Cancer Institute, "is a treatment that can reach beyond the surgeon's knife and the radiation therapist's rays to remote areas of the body, wherever a hidden metastasis may have established itself."

Chemotherapy is just such a "systemic" tool. Anticancer drugs can travel through the bloodstream to nearly all parts of the body, destroying cancer cells encountered en route. The drugs may combine with the genetic material (DNA) in cells to prevent them from dividing, or they may interfere with the cells' metabolic processes. They are most effective against small numbers of rapidly dividing cancer cells. As Dr. Joseph H. Burchenal of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center explains, "The maximum dose of a particular anticancer drug may kill 99.9 per cent of the cancer, no matter what their number.

If there are 100 cancer cells, then all will be destroyed. But if there are 1 billion to 10 billion cells (as are contained in the smallest clinically detectable metastasis), a 99.9 per cent cell kill will leave behind between 1 million and 10 million cancer cells."

Thus, when metastases are large enough to be seen or felt, chemotherapy may produce shrinkage or apparent "disappearance" of the tumors, but, with rare exceptions, it is unlikely to destroy every living cancer cell. Therefore, instead of withholding chemotherapy until the patient develops an obvious recurrence of his cancer, some doctors now give drugs at the time of initial treatment, in conjunction with surgery or radiation, to patients they believe are harboring invisible metastases.

They also tend to use combinations of two or more drugs instead' of single agents. Dr. James F. Holland of Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City, who is chairman of several national chemotherapy studies involving thousands of patients, explains that "theoretically, if enough of a drug could be given, it would eventually kill all the cancer cells. Unfortunately, it might also kill so many normal cells that the patient himself would, be destroyed. Also, because cancer cells divide rapidly and can mutate, or change genetically, they may become resistant to the drug being used, just as bacteria can develop resistance to an antibiotic." In combined chemotherapy, all the drugs attack the particular cancer cells, but their adverse effects on normal cells are spread out among several body tissues. One drug may damage the lining of the gut, another the bone marrow and a third the heart, while all three damage the cancer.

Nonetheless, chemotherapy-and especially combination chemotherapy-is a tricky and dangerous business, and every chemotherapist has had patients die from the side effects of drugs, sometimes at a time when their cancers seemed completely under control. Dr. Holland emphasizes that chemotherapy is far too risky to be administered by general physicians without special training. "It is critically important," he says, "that chemotherapy be given by experts experienced in the use of these drugs, or under the guidance of experts who know how to adjust dosages and check' regularly to be sure the patient's normal life-sustaining cells are not overly attacked by the toxic chemicals." In some cases, special supportive measures may be necessary, such as transfusions of certain blood cells or temporary germ-free isolation.

* * *

Much of the current excitement and controversy over chemotherapy has focused on breast cancer, the leading cancer killer of American women and the leading cause of death among women in their early 40s. Breast cancer is the first major solid tumor that appears-on the basis of highly incomplete studiesto be yielding to the relentless assault of anticancer drugs.

>

'Chemotherapy is one of the reasons for optimism in cancer-therapy research today,' says one expert. 'The scientists in the field have a right to be proud of their accomplishments.'

So far, these studies have shown that the relapse rate among women whose cancer has spread to the lymph nodes near the breast (so-called positive nodes) is much reduced if drugs are given for a year or so beginning right after surgery. One continuing national study involves a drug called L-PAM, a nitrogen mustard. One group of women was treated with L-PAM following their mastectomies, while a control group received a placebo. After two years, cancer has recurred in twice as many of the women who received the placebo. The study also has revealed that postoperative L-PAM mostly benefits women whose cancers occurred prior to menopause. In the premenopausal women who were treated with L-PAM, the recurrence rate so far is 80 per cent lower than that of the control group.

Betty Ford, wife of the former U.S. President, who was found to have two positive nodes at the time of her mastectomy in September 1974, was placed on L-PAM after surgery; two years later, after she had completed the drug therapy, a thorough checkup showed no sign that her cancer had returned.

In another continuing study in Milan, Italy, three drugs are being used to prevent recurrence of breast cancer after mastectomies. Three years after the study of 386 women began, cancer has recurred in 26 per cent of those who took the threedrug combination for a year after their mastectomies, while the recurrence rate was 45 per cent among women who received no postoperative treatment. For premenopausal women who received drug therapy, the recurrence rate was 14 per cent, compared with 47 per cent for the untreated women. Though the patients have suffered side effects, none have been serious enough to require their hospitalization.

"There's no question that chemotherapy for breast cancer is here to stay," says Dr. Bernard Fisher, surgeon at the University of Pittsburgh and coordinator of the national L-PAM study and other breast-cancer trials. "Now it's a matter of finding out what chemotherapy is best for which patients."

He adds that "using chemotherapy, I have every reason to believe that in the immediate future lesser surgery will be as effective as radical mastectomy in treating breast cancer."

These early findings have prompted some cancer specialists to advocate postoperative chemotherapy for every breastcancer patient with positive nodes. But since it requires at least 10 years of follow-up study to form conclusions about this disease, other doctors challenge the rush to chemotherapy for breast cancer, calling it premature and possibly dangerous.

Dr. Mary E. Costanza of Tufts-New England Medical Center in Boston is one of those who recommend caution in using chemotherapy to prevent a recurrence of breast cancer.

She points out that the drugs suppress the immune response, may themselves cause cancer and can interfere with the bloodforming organs. She also notes that a sizable proportion of women with positive nodes do not develop a recurrence; for them, surgery alone turns out to be curative-so why take a chance that chemotherapy will shorten their lives? "We do not know what the ultimate outcome will be," Dr. Costanza says.

"We may end up hurting more t)1an we help."

Dr. Holland of Mount Sinai says that critics like Dr. Costanza "fail to understand the biology of breast cancer." It is a disease, he argues, that commonly has spread beyond the breast area by the time it is de!ected, obviating the curative potential of

local therapy. Once it recurs at some distant site, cure is highly unlikely, no matter what kind of treatment is used.

Without postoperative treatment, Dr. Holland observes, "of those women with one positive lymph node, 50 per cent will die of their disease; with two positive nodes, 60 per cent; three, 70 per cent; and four or more, 85 to 90 per cent. This year alone, more than 40,000 women in the United States will be found at the time of mastectomy to have cancer in the axillary [armpit] lymph nodes. This is the one time that cure is conceivable. If you wait until cancer shows up in their bones, liver or brain, it's too late."

Dr. Holland added fuel to the controversy last year by calling the Italian study "of monumental importance" and its interim results "nothing short of spectacular" in an editorial in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine. Others have called his assessments "premature" and "overstated."

He insists that continuing research will justify his views.

Critics of chemotherapy charge that the public is being sold a bill of goods about the procedure. However effective it may be in reducing recurrence of cancer after surgery or radiation therapy, they say, it still cannot be considered a broad "cure" for cancer. The cancers that can now be cured by chemotherapy, they point out, are rare and account for only 6 per cent of cancer deaths. What progress, these critics ask, has been made against big cancer killers like lung cancer, which still claims the lives of9 in 10 of its victims?

Dr. Frank J. Rauscher Jr., who recently left his post as director of the U.S. National Cancer Institute to become director of research for the American Cancer Society, insists that the publicity about chemotherapy is justified He readily admits that "the most progress has been made in curing relatively uncommon cancers." But he and others maintain that the principles of curative therapy developed for rarer cancers are being applied to the commoner, more resistant forms, with some promise of success. And he adds that the cancers that now may be cured by chemotherapy are those "that attack children and young adults and are responsible for more years of life lost than, say, cancer of the lung or prostate, which are more common, but occur in older people."

* * *

A young woman named Karen can verify his point. She was 17 when doctors diagnosed her choriocarcinoma, the once rapidly fatal cancer of the uterus. "My friends all thought I was a goner when they heard I had cancer," she recalls. She suffered all the common side effects and some that were not so common from her three months of chemotherapy: she lost all her hair; she got sores in her mouth that made it difficult for her to eat; her weight dropped from 165 to 82 pounds; she suffered seizures, and the nerves in her legs became so inflamed that she had to walk with braces. But her cancer disappeared, and, eventually, so did the side effects. Today, at 21, Karen is active and healthy. "I feel like a million bucks," she says, '~like it never happened."

0 Facing page: An assortment of anticancer drugs now in use in the United States and other countries. Inset: A microphotograph of cancerous cells; this particular variety is hepatoma, which occurs in the liver.

HOSPITAl "There isn't going to be one light bulb flashing on with the answer to curing cancer, but there will be a steady accumulation of answers," says Dr. Richard Humphrey of the Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland, one of the major centers of cancer research in the United States.

Dr. Humphrey is one of the 32 researchers at the Oncology Center of the hospital. ("Oncos" is Greek for mass.) They are using three systems of cancer cure-chemotherapy, immunotherapy and radiotherapy-to investigate some of the less common varieties of cancer such as leukemia, lymphoma, multiple myeloma and sarcoma.

The first three types occur in the bone marrow, the last one mainly in the muscle and bone.

Johns Hopkins is one of the few hospitals where all the three important systems of cancer cure are available.

The Researchers: Why don't anticancer drugs destroy every living cancer cell? Can

an effective drug be produced that doesn't damage normal cells and doesn't have side effects? Researcher Michael Colvin hopes that his work with chemotherapy will answer these questions.

At present, Colvin is experimenting with drug combinations of varying doses and studying the results, using mass spectrometry.

In particular, Colvin is trying to change the chemical structure of the most widely used cancer drug, Cyclophosphamide, so that it won't be toxic to normal cells.

Equally interesting is the work of researcher George Santos. He is trying to build up the patients' immune systems by transplanting healthy bone marrow into them. Santos explains that in patients afflicted with leukemia, myeloma and lymphoma, the bone marrow stops functioning normally; as a result, the body's natural immune system fails. Santos believes that a bone marrow transplant can cure the disease.

People at Johns Hopkins keep mentioning

radiotherapy. What is radiotherapy? Dr. Stanley Order, director of radiation oncology, says: "Local control is what we look for with radiation. Our basic mission is to control a local disease and to leave the person as little disfigured as possible.

Radiation for advanced breast cancer-all things being equal-is a reasonable alternative to surgery."

Radiation damages the DNA of all cellsboth tumor and normal cells. But normal tissues can survive radiation, while the tumor is progressively weakened.

The Patients: "Go to Johns Hopkins first thing. If you've got any chance, you've got it there. Two years ago, I wouldn't have stood a chance," says Edward Coshun, a trim and healthy-looking 57, who has been successfully treated by Johns Hopkins for multiple myeloma.

Coshun remembers well the day he first became aware of his illness. Last July he, his wife Kathryn and his 21-year-old daughter

Above left: Researcher John Santos. He believes that a bone marrow transplant can cure some types of cancer. Above right: Nine-year-old Cindy Rogers, who had a tumor behind her nose, and later a lung tumor, is now on her way to recovery.

Alongside: Robert White had a leg amputated, but it didn't stop cancer from spreading. By his side are his mother and sister.

drove to a nearby town to watch a baseball gardening during springtime. "I didn't want game. On his return home, he flopped into to miss the spring," he says.

Another patient on the road to recovery bed-he had trouble breathing. "My wife thought maybe I'd had a heart attack, so is nine-year-old Cindy Rogers. She is painnext day I went to Frederick Memorial fully skinny, with two sticklike.legs emerging Hospital in Maryland and was told I had a from her short hospital gown. Huge grayblue eyes dominate her gaunt oval face. growth."

Cindy was first diagnosed in January 1976 Coshun had a part of the cancerous growth removed surgically at Frederick Memorial. as having a tumor behind her nose. Surgery He then went to Hopkins for drug therapy. removed 90 per cent of the tumor. Next, as During nine months of treatment, he under- an outpatient, she was given a "superlethal" went hair loss, nausea and aplasia (a danger- dose of radiation that aimed at a total cure. ous reduction in white blood cell count, It left her with temporary burns on her face, which made him weak and vulnerable to neck and one eye, but the tumor was apparinfection)-all side effects from chemicalsently gone. Six months later she came to but his cancer was completely cured. He is the hospital with a strep infection that turned now an outpatient at Johns Hopkins-he out to be a lung tumor. This time she stayed returns there at intervals for drug therapy. for a month as an inpatient, taking chemoEdward Coshun is grateful to his doctors, therapy. Cindy Rogers' mother's face lights grateful to his nurses (who "rooted for my up when she discusses that period. "The white blood cells during aplasia !"), grateful drug they used was just fantastic! The lung to the drugs Cytoxan and Prednisone. And tumor just disappeared!" he is happy that he is well enough to do However, Cindy is now back in hospital

with a pneumonia caused by the weakened state of her lungs. "Cindy understands that she had cancer and knows that some people die when they have cancer," says her mother.

"I think it's better for her to know the truth.

At first we panicked and spoiled her, but now we're back to normal."

Near Cindy's bed, finishing his lunch in the playroom, is l2-year-old Robert White.

He sits in a wheelchair. In 1975 Robert had one leg amputated to get rid of osteogenic sarcoma. Later, he tumbled from his wheelchair and lost the other leg too. Last year cancer spread to his lung, and now there are signs of metastasis elsewhere. Nobody speaks hopefully any more about curing Robert.

Where can a story with no ending end?

Through the doors of Johns Hopkins Hospital, to the streets Robert misses so much, to the garden Ed -Coshun returned to, to" the hopes of Cindy Rogers and thousands others round the world who have been afflicted with this dread disease.

D

very spring, on the first free day after exams, Lowell Bloodworth and his wife, Shelley, drove to Boston from Amherst and then flew to London. He told people he was seeing his publisher. But he had no publisher. The London visits had begun when, as an associate professor, Bloodworth was working on his edition of The Family Letters of Wilbur Parsons. He had brought a box of the letters, rented a room near Sloane Square, and stuck them into a thick album, working by the window with a brush and a bottle of glue; he added footnotes in ink and gave each personal observation a crimson exclamation mark. English academics mocked his enterprise. He would not be drawn, but Shelley said, "It's not easy editing the letters of a living poet." English academics said they had never heard of Parsons. Bloodworth had a reply: "The only difference between Wallace Stevens andWilbur Parsons is that Stevens was vice president of an insurance company and Parsons was president -still is."

"Why is it," an Englishman once said to him, "American academics are forever putting their fingers down their throats and bringing up books like these?" Bloodworth had thought of asking that man to help him find an English publisher. It struck Bloodworth as odd that the mere mention of his book caused shouts of laughter in London. Especially odd since this book, brought out in America after several delays by a university press, got Lowell Bloodworth the tenure he wanted, and now he was earning thirty thousand dollars a year. But it was the salary that embarrassed him, not the book. There was an additional bonus: the Times Literary Supplement gave him one of Parsons' collections to review, and years afterward Bloodworth said, "I do a little writing for the TLS," often claiming credit for anonymous reviews he admired.

He liked London, but his links with the life of the city tended to be imaginary.

There was that huge party at William Empson's. Bloodworth had gone with one of Mr. Empson's former students (who, as it turned out, had not been invited either). Bloodworth talked the whole evening to an elderly man who told malicious stories against Edith Sitwell. The stories became Bloodworth's own, and later, describing that summer to

E

his Amherst colleagues, he said, "We spent quite a bit of time with the Empsons .... " He appropriated gossip and gave it the length of anecdote. One summer he saw Frank Kermode across a room. In the autumn, for a colleague, he turned this glimpse into a meeting.

Nine summers, nine autumns had been spent this way; and always Bloodworth regretted that he had so little to show after such long flights. He craved something substantial: a literary find, an eminent friend, a famous enemy. Inevitably his rivalries were departmental; the department had grown, and for the past few years Bloodworth's younger colleagues, all of whom flew to England in June, had come back with similar stories. In the warm, early autumn afternoons they would meet at Bloodworth's "Little Britain" on the Shutesbury Road; the wives in Liberty prints swapping play titles, the children jerking at .Hamlys' toys, and the men discussing London as if it were no larger or more complicated than Amherst itself: "Leavis is looking a lot older ," "We saw Iris Murdoch in Selfridge's ," "Cal's divorce is coming through " This last remark from Siggins, whose preposterous anecdotes Bloodworth suspected were nimble parodies of his own: lately, Bloodworth had felt (the word was Parsons') outgunned.

This was the first year the Bloodworths had spent their English vacation outside London. They were flushed from Sloane Square by the department. On their second day in London they met Cliff Margoulies on Pont Street. He had a story about Angus Wilson. That afternoon, they bumped into Siggins at the Byron exhibition. Bloodworth said he was just leaving. The next day he had gone back to the Byron exhibition and seen Arvin Prizeman: There was just no escaping them. He ran into Milburn at the Stoppard play, and Shelley had seen the Hoffenbergs at Biba's. Each encounter was alarming, producing a keen embarrassment Bloodworth disguised unwillingly in heartiness. The prospect of' a summer of these chance meetings made Bloodworth cringe, and so, at the end of their first week, the Bloodworths took a train to the village of Hooke, in Kent, where they rented a small cottage ("Batcombe") for the remainder

of their vacation.

It was not a coincidence that a mile from this village was the house of the American poet Walter Van Bellamy, who had been living in England since the war.

Bellamy was an irascible man of about seventy who had known both Pound and Eliot-and been praised by them-arid who (though the airfare to New York was less than his well-publicized phone bill) described himself as an exile. Bloodworth was not the first American to get the idea of going to Hooke with the intention of making Walter Van Bellamy's acquaintance; there had been otherspoets, Ph.D. candidates, anthologistsbut invariably they were turned away.

Out of spite they reported how they had found Bellamy drunk. The more Bellamy protected his privacy, the more scandalous the stories became.

Bloodworth, who gave a Bellamy seminar, was anxious to verify the stories.

He had often talked to Wilbur Parsons about Bellamy's influence: Parsons acknowledged the fact that Bellamy was the greater poet, but they had, Parsons said, been good friends and had once dated the same Radcliffe girl. Now, Bloodworth's ambition went beyond verifying the scandalous stories or even meeting the man. He had in mind an edition of poems that would be different from anything scholarship had so far produced.

This book, "Presented by Lowell Bloodworth," would consist of poems in Bellamy's hand, photographs of work sheets and fair copies, discovered drafts, inky lyrics, all of them nobly scrawled instead of diminished by the regularity of typefaces. It would be a collector's item: Introduction by Bloodworth, Notes

by Bloodworth-the sort of book got up to honor a dead poet's memory, an exhibit showing crossed-out lines, second thoughts, hasty errors in the poet's own handwriting. Bloodworth's sections, of course, would be printed in Times Roman.

In his mind the book became such a finished thing that when he remembered he had not yet met the man he grew restless to see samples of his handwriting.

"I've seen him," Shelley said, several days after their arrival in Hooke. It was at the off-license. Bellamy (confirming scandal) was buying an enormous bottle

,

Bloodworth did not wait to hear what it was.

Bellamy was a big man, and enraged he looked even bigger.

There was a story that Ezra Pound had taught Bellamy to box. The fact was pertinent .... The Bloodworths bolted. of gin. The man behind the counter had said, "Will that be all, Mr. Bellamy?" and Bellamy had grunted and gone away in a car. Shelley described Bellamy closely: the hair, the walking stick, the green sweater, the car, even the brand of gin.

Bloodworth was excited. The next morning he saw the car parked near the village's cricket ground, and on the grass Bellamy was throwing a mangled ball for his dog to fetch.

"There are people," said Bloodworth, "who'd risk losing tenure to be right here at this moment."

The poet shambled after his dog.

"Say something," said Shelley.

"This is a historic moment," said Bloodworth. He added, "I mean, in my life."

"No, say something to him."

But Bellamy was headed in the opposite direction, flinging the ball.

"Rain," said Shelley, looking up; She spread her palms to the sky. There was a sound, far off, of thunder, and a spark of lightning from the underside of a black cloud.

Bloodworth shook out the umbrella he habitually carried in England. He said, "Bellamy doesn't have one."

The poet seemed not to notice the rain.

He tramped slowly, circled by the excited dog. For a moment Bloodworth imagined Walter Van Bellamy, the American poet, struck by lightning "and killed instantly while he watched from the boundary of the field. He drew grim cheer from the reflection, and saw the thunderbolt's jagged arrow enter Bellamy's head, saw the poet stagger, and himself sprinting across the cricket pitch, then kneeling: critic administering the kiss of life to poet.

Bellamy's death would make an attractive article, but if Bloodworth managed to bring him back to life the poet would be grateful, and it was a short distance from lifesaver to literary executor; indeed, they were much the same.

The sun broke through the sacking of clouds, and it was then, in the barely perceptible rain, that Bloodworth ran across the grass and offered his umbrella to the poet.

"What do you want?" said Walter Van Bellamy, wheeling around, startled by Bloodworth's panting.

His ferocity did not stop Bloodworth, who said, "I thought you might need this.

I happened to be passing-" "Who's that?" said Bellamy. Shelleyher plastic raincoat flying like a capewas making her way to where the men stood.

"That's my wife," said Bloodworth.

"Shelley, I'd like you to meet Walter Van Bellamy."

"Who the hell are you?" demanded Bellamy.

Bloodworth introduced himself.

"I'm just going home," said Bellamy.

"We'll walk you back to your car."

Bellamy said something, but Bloodworth realized he was talking to his dog.

Bloodworth said, "Wilbur's a great friend of ours."

"Richard Wilbur?" Bellamy seemed to relax.

"Wilbur Parsons."

"Never heard of him," said Bellamy: Bloodworth started to describe Parsons' contribution to American poetry and Bellamy's profound influence on the man ("Going back to what you said about mankind's terrible ... ").

"Say," said Bellamy, interrupting him, "do you happen to know anything about light plugs?"

"Light plugs?"

"These English plugs have three colored wires, and they just changed the goddamned colors, if you please. I've been trying to figure out which wire goes where.

Ralph's never around when I want him, and I spent the whole morning trying to connect my new shaver."

"Leave it to me," said Bloodworth with energy.

"I really appreciate that," said Bellamy.

"Come over this afternoon around drink time. Bring your wife if you want. This plug's driving me nuts." Bellamy helped his dog into the car and without another word sped down the road.

"Talk about luck," said Bloodworth.

Shelley said, "He seems kind of rude."

"You'd be rude, too, if you'd had his

In the pub, The King's Arms, at lunchtime Bloodworth inquired about the way to Bellamy's house. The landlord started to tell him, but halfway through the explanation the door flew open and a tall muscular man came in. The man was young, but balding like a man of sixty.

He wore a leather jacket, and under it a T-shirt. He grinned and ordered a beer.

"Here's the man who'll tell you the quickest way to Bellamy's," said the landlord. "Ralph, come here."

"What's the problem?" asked Ralph.

"Ralph here works for¡ your friend Bellamy. He's the odd-job man."

"It's a husband and wife thing," said Ralph. "My wife does the housework and cooking. I do the odd jobs-gardening, that lark."

"When he feels like it," said the landlord.

"When I feels like it," said Ralph.

"I know a lot of people who'd give their right arm to work for Walter Van Bellamy," said Bloodworth.

"Not in Hooke you don't," said Ralph.

He winked at the landlord. "Right, Sid?" Bloodworth suppressed a lecture. "You were saying, the quickest way.... " "Oh, yeah. Here, I'll draw you a map."

He made the map carefully, sketching the streets and labeling them, marking the way with arrows, noting landmarks.

Bloodworth was surprised by the stubborn, conscientious way the odd-job man worked with his pencil, and when Ralph said, "I think that's worth a beer, don't you?" Bloodworth dumped change on the counter for three pints.

At half past four, the Bloodworths walked the pleasant mile along winding country roads to Bellamy's house. The house was not signposted, nor did it have a name. It was a converted farmhouse at the end of a close lane, set amid crumbling farm buildings, a roofless barn, broken sheds, and fences with no gates.

They were met at the front door by a woman of about thirty with a white, suspicious face.

"Mrs. Bellamy?"

"She's in Italy."

Bloodworth explained his errand.

The woman said, "Wait here." She closed the door in their faces and bounded through the house; they heard her on the stairs. Then she returned and led them to an upstairs room, where Bellamy sat at a cluttered table. On the table were papers, unopened letters, a stack of books, a wine bottle, a glass, and the electric shaver with its flex exposed.

"I'll have that fixed in a jiffy," said Bloodworth. He lifted the shaver and, pretending to examine it, looked past it to the swatches of paper with their blocks of blue stanzas. He was glad, but it was not the simple thrill he had once invented for himself ("Walter was showing me some of his rough drafts ... "): in this script he saw his finished book, that album of scribbles.

"Doris," said Bellamy to the woman, "bring a couple of glasses, will you?"

Bloodworth took the plug apart, stripped the wires, and said, "Looks like you're hard at work."

But Bellamy was staring at the plug.

"I don't understand why they don't sell the shaver with the plug on. I suppose that's too simple."

Bloodworth repeated, "Looks like you're hard at work. New book?"

"What's that?" Bellamy said. "Oh, fiddling around. My wife's out of town.

That usually gets me writing."

"Lowell's a writer," said Shelley.

"Robert Lowell?" said Bellamy.

"No-me," said Bloodworth. "I do a little teaching on the side to pay the grocery bill, that sort of thing. Well, I mentioned my Parsons edition this morning. I like to present a poet, get him an audience.

Some people call it criticism, but I think of it as presentation. And" - Bloodworth bit a length of plastic from one of the wires- "I do quite a bit of reviewing."

"You don't say," said Bellamy.

Bloodworth saw he had not roused him.

He took a breath. "I've even done some reviewsof your work."

"That's funny," said Bellamy, turning from the plug to Bloodworth, "I don't recall your name."

"It wasn't signed. Actually it was for the TLS, so you could hardly be expected-" "The TLS? Was it about a year ago, that review of Hooked?"

Bloodworth did not hesitate. He stuck the last wire into the plug and said, "Yup." Bellamy struggled to his feet and snatched the plug out of Bloodworth's hands.

He weighed it like a grenade- Bloodworth thought he might throw it-and said fiercely, "Get out of here this minute and take your wife with you. Doris!" (She stood in the doorway, a wineglass in each hand.) "See these people out. You, sir," he said to Bloodworth, "are overcertain to the point of libel, and if there's one thing I will not stand -" Bloodworth did not wait to hear what it was. Bellamy was a big man, and enraged he looked even bigger. There was a story that Ezra Pound had taught Bellamy to box. The fact was pertinent, for it is well known that Pound had sparred with Hemingway. The Bloodworths bolted.

At the road they paused for a last look at the house. The house was lighted; the lingering storm had darkened the late afternoon. But as they watched, the lights went out, all at once, just like that.

And they heard within the house the poet howl.

"The plug," said Bloodworth. "I think I've made a mess of that too."

Bloodworth thought of writing Bellamy a letter, explaining everything. But it had gone too far for that, and Shelley said, "Let's forget it, Lowey. It was a horrible mistake. There's no sense crying about it.

We can go back to London and see some plays."

"And Siggins, and Margoulies, and Prizeman ... " Bloodworth flinched: a return to London was a return to the department.

"But we can't stay here. Not after that."

Bloodworth said, "I hate to leave emptyhanded. Let's give it a few more days."

They saw no more of Bellamy. Bloodworth watched for his car, his dog, for any sign of him; but the poet had withdrawn to his farmhouse. Bloodworth

hiked through the damp fields, hoping to meet him, and he imagined a situation in which he could undo all his bungling.

He might happen upon the poet drowning, or lamed by a fall, or cursing a blowout Bloodworth could fix. It might rain again: a crippling thunderbolt. No opportunity presented itself. And Bloodworth walked alone, for Shelley had come down with a cold. She sat in "Batcombe" with the electric fire on, reading a Dick Francis she'd found on the bookshelf.

One evening, leaving Shelley at the cottage, Bloodworth went to The King's Arms and saw Ralph. Ralph said, "If you know what's good for you, you won't come over to the farm!"

"I guess he's pretty mad."

"He's been screaming his head off for the past three days," said Ralph. "I don't know why, but he takes it out on Doris and me. I mean, I don't care myself.

I tell him to his face to leave me alone.

But not my wife. She's the quiet type.

Just sits there and takes it. He's a bastard, he is. You Yanks are all alike."

Bloodworth didn't know what to say.

Finally he said, "Bellamy is a very gifted poet. . But his reputation has suffered. I wanted to help him."

Ralph said, "You're a great help. He had to get an electrician in. For the lights.

You fused 'em."

"An American poet," said Bloodworth, still thinking of Bellamy, "needs an American critic, an American audience."

Ralph said, "Hey, is it true that onethird of all the dog food in America is eaten by human beings?"

"No," said Bloodworth.

"I heard that somewhere," said Ralph.

"The thing is, I suppose, my wife has no sense of smell. She burns things. What I'm trying to say is, it's hard to be a cook if you can't smell."

"Funny. I'd never thought of that."

"Some people are born that way. Old Bellamy shouts about his food-says it's too salty, or overdone, or underdone.

My wife's disabled and he shouts. Sympathy? Not him-just poems."

"Why do you put up with it, then?"

"I take a pride in my work," said

Bloodworth sympathized WithRalph, the odd-job man; he saw the similarity in his tasks and the critic's: They received orders from the¡man whose poetry had earned him privileges, and stood at the margins of the poet's world ... waiting for a poem.

Ralph. "And you can't beat the money; Bellamy's rolling in it. You buggers make a fortune. But Christ, I could write the stuff he does! Ever seen it?"

"I teach it," said Bloodworth.

"It's rubbish," said Ralph. He recited in a lilting voice, "'I was walking down the road. I seen two cows. The sky turned green. My uncle don't like me. Oh-oh-oh. I remember them cows. Hum-hum-hum.

My heart she's shaking like a big fat drum.'"

"He never wrote that."

"Oh no? I seen it. The most awful crap. I could do it myself. I do do it-tried it once or twice, pretty good stuff. Pomes."

Ralph grinned. "You know what I think?

I think he gets people to write it. He's got so much money, and these sickly looking buggers are always sloping around the place- 'Don't touch this, don't touch that.'"

"You haven't read any of his books," said Bloodworth.

"The hell I haven't," said Ralph. "And I've done a tidy sight more than that. I've read the stuff on his desk, all the scribbly papers. 'My heart was walking down the road and seen two fat cows,' that stuff.

'Chickenzola, how's your father.' I've read the lot. It stinks."

"I don't believe you."

"I don't care if you believe me or not," said Ralph, "If I wasn't making money off him I'd go and give some lectures.

Rent a church hall somewhere and say, 'Well, here's the truth about your socalled great poet, Mr. Bellamy-' That'd shake him!"

Bloodworth said, "Suppose I was to say to you, man to man, 'Prove it'? What would you say to that?"

"I'd say, 'Why?''' "Let's say I'm interested, I want to give you a chance," said Bloodworth.

"I know what you've been through."

"It would cost you something."

"How much?"

"More than ten quid, I can tell you that."

"Let's say fifteen," said Bloodworth.

"Let's say thirty," said Ralph.

"You drive a hard bargain."

"Like I say, I'm me own man. My wife, she just takes it from him. Bellamy thinks an odd-job man is someone you shout at, but I do my work and I shout back. I take a pride in my work-whatever I do, I take a pride in it."

Ralph, Bloodworth could see, was threeparts drunk. He wanted to cut the business short. He said, "Now let's get this straight. What you're going to do is bring me two or three examples of his bad poetry .... " "Listen," said Ralph, "make it fifty quid and I'll bring you the whole bloody lot in a bushel basket!"

That evening Bloodworth told his wife Ralph's extraordinary story. Shelley was fearful, but Bloodworth said, "After what he's done to us? Thrown us out of his house-and we went over there with the best of intentions. I tell you, he deserves what's coming to him."

"I didn't like the look of that Ralph.

He's probably wrong."

"Probably," said Bloodworth. "But think of the manuscripts, work sheets!

Shelley, they're gold! And what if he's right?"

Ralph was not in The King's Arms the next day. Bloodworth stopped in at lunchtime, then returned at six-thirty and stayed until closing. He watched an interminable darts game, he made himself ill on cider, and briefly he wondered if the whole affair might not be the blunder Shelley feared it was. But the critic's rules were not the poet's, and what the poet called ruthlessness the critic might give another name. Bloodworth sympathized with Ralph, the odd-job man; he saw the similarity in his tasks and the critic's: They received orders from the man whose poetry had earned him privileges, and stood at the margins of the poet's world, listening for a shout, waiting for a poem. But what critic had marched forward and snatched a poem from under the poet's nose? None had dared-until now. Bloodworth saw himself on the frontier of criticism, where there was danger, and not the usual tact required, but elaborate deceits and stratagems, odd

ways of doing odd jobs. He went to bed with these thoughts, though Shelley woke him throughout the night with her coughing.

"It's not like Ralph to miss a day," said Sid, the landlord, the next day.

Bloodworth said, "It's not important."

He wondered if Ralph had betrayed him to Bellamy, and he knew a full minute of panic.

He met Ralph after closing time on the road: Ralph said, "Running away, are you?"

"I thought you weren't coming."

"It's all in here," said Ralph. He slapped his shirtfront. Bloodworth heard the sound of paper wrinkling at the stomach of the shirt. He was excited. His Introduction would be definitive.. The book would be boxed. It might cost twenty dollars. Ralph said, "Let's go somewhere private."

They chose the churchyard, a shield of gravestones. Ralph said, "My wife was off yesterday. She gets these depressions.

I might as well be frank. It's her tits, see.

I don't understand women. I keep telling her they're not supposed to stick out.

Look around, I says, lots of women have the same thing. But she-" "What about the poems?" Bloodworth said~ "Don't rush me," said Ralph. "You don't care about anybody's problems but your own, do you? Just like old Bellamy."

"We're taking the evening train."

"First the money."

Bloodworth peeled off five five-pound notes and counted five more ones into Ralph's dirty hand.

Ralph said, "Why not make it forty?

You're rolling in it."

"We agreed on thirty." Bloodworth hated the odd-job man for putting him through this.

"Have it your way." Ralph undid the buttons on his shirt and took out a creased brown envelope. "I hope you appreciate all the work I put into this. It seemed a lot of trouble to go to, but I said to Doris, 'Thirty quid is thirty quid.' " He handed the envelope to Bloodworth.

"I'm glad you're a man of your word," said Bloodworth.

"Well, you seemed to want them awful bad."

Bloodworth shook the hand of the odd-job man and hurried to "Batcombe" to tell Shelley. But partly from fear, and partly from superstition, he did not open the envelope until he was on the train and rolling through the Kent hopfields. At first he thought he had been swindled; the folded sheets, about ten of them, looked blank. But they were only blank on one side. On the other side were the collapsing rectangles of typed stanzas, lines which broke and sloped, words so badly typed they had humps and troughs.

And there was a letter: I hope you aprecate all the work I put into this but a deals a deal altho it take me a whole day to type up this stuff and any time you want some more lets see the colour of your money!

Yoursfaithfully, R. Tunnel. P.S. I enclosed herewith one I wrote meself so you can compare.

But the drunken typing and misspelling that made them valueless to Bloodworth did not disguise the beauty of the lines.

Reading them made his eyes hurt. He turned quickly to Ralph's own poem, which began, The odd-job man thats me Messing around in my bear feat Can make a stie from some tree Raise up pigs for the meat.

The polecat, he thought, and his anger stayed with him for four English days.

But back in Amher-st he recovered himself, and when the department met for drinks and showed their trophies- Waterford crystal, a Daniell engraving-of Wick, a first edition of Howards End- Bloodworth brought out his folder and said, "I've got some unpublished Bellamy variants in here, and the work of a new poet; he's terribly regional but quite exciting."

Prizeman squinted; Margoulies smirked; the others stared. He shuffled the summer's result, but as he passed the poems around to convince the men, it struck him that he had the oddest job of all.

0

¡ , encas most Iiva Ie cities In India and the United States-as almost everywhere in the worldthere is a growing concern about cities. Urban problems often seem insurmountable-traffic jams, pollution, crime, increasing taxes, decreasing services. Be that as it may, there are millions of people all over the world who live in cities-and love them.

Obviously, some cities are more "livable" than others. The Christian Science Monitor, one of America's leading newspapers, recently asked a group of urbanologists to help its staff to determine the most important factors that made cities "livable" to their residents. Their criteria: esthetic appeal, attractive business areas, good government, racial and ethnic harmony, easy commuting, pleasant suburbs and access to cultural and recreational activities. Then they set about to identify 10 cities that qualified as the "most livable" in the United States. On these and the following pages, SPAN presents photos of some of the 10 "winning cities."

(Text continued on page ?6) Top left: The favorite among America's cities is San Francisco. This photo shows some of the oldest residences with the city's sparkling skyline in the background. Below left: An afternoon jazz concert in Minneapolis's Powderhorn Park. Large green

areas make this Midwestern city one of the most pleasant in America. Below: The fountains in the heart of downtown Minneapolis are among the most beautiful in America and a good example of how a "livable" city's business area should look.

Autumn brings a riot of colors to' this tree-shaded street in a pleasant Mitrnefli,olis residential area.

Citizens atrd experts agree that a good home rOhks at the top of the list of what makes a city livf:!b/e.

The West Coast headed the list with three selections: Seattle in Washington State; San Francisco and San Die'go in California. The Rocky Mountain area had two- Denver in Colorado and Santa Fe in New Mexico. The South was represented by San Antonio in the Texas hill country and St. Petersburg on Florida's Gulf Coast. Boston represented the East Coast. Thus, out of the ten winners, five were coastal communities. The Midwest winners were Cincinnati in Ohio and Minneapolis in Minnesota. .

Clockwise from above: The spacious Government Center in the heart of Boston draws hundreds of office workers and visitors on a warm spring afternoon, Denver, in the foothills of Colorado's Rocky Mountains, has some of the finest suburbs in America.

A giant sculpture with its cool waterfalls on San -Francisco's Embarcadero is one of the many architectural surprises of that city. San Diego's Reuben H. Fleet Space Center offers residents a fascinating educational experience.

'THEFUTURE WORLD IS BEING MADE IN AMERICA' r¡ AN INTERVIEW WITH RAJA RAG

BY R. PARTHASARATHY

The distinguished novelist, who teaches philosophy at the University of Texas, recently visited India. In this interview, he discusses many subjects: India, the United States, youth, universities, the English language, his new novel, his plans to retire to an ashram in Kerala, and the 'magic of the word... cultivated by inner silence.'

"I was born in a dharamsala, room number one, in beautiful Hassana .... " The words crossed my eyes as I unwrapped the typescript of The Policeman and the Rose, Raja Rao's first collection of short stories since The Cow of the Barricades appeared exactly 30 years ago. A fortnight later, I found myself shaking hands with him at 35 Feroze Shah Road, New Delhi.

The occasion was a seminar on Commonwealth literature, and Raja Rao had made the journey from Austin, Texas; as a gesture to his homeland. And between Hassana and Austin, he has turned quite a few somersaults- Kanthapura, The Serpent and the Rope and The Cat and Shakespeare. The cloud of dust they raised will perhaps never settle down, though Raja Rao continues to be the epicenter of mild, academic tremors. When The Serpent and the Rope first appeared in 1960, it was greeted with a chorus of praise. Lawrence Durrell acclaimed, "You not only do India great honor, but you have honored English literature by writing it in our language .... A truly contemporary work -one by which an age can measure itself, its values."

So, when Raja Rao wired that he would be visiting Madras, I considered it an unexpected bonus. It was a pleasant February morning when we met at Vasanta Vihar, one of those sprawling garden houses on the north bank of the Adyar, now the office of the Krishnamurti Foundation. Dressed simply but elegantly in Indian homespun, I found him propped up in bed with his eyes shut. He is physically a rather small man, but his unusually expressive face commanded attention. His thick gray hair billowed in the wind as he came to. When he learned that I was from Srirangam, the island in the Kaveri renowned for its temple of Ranganatha, he talked reminiscently about his old Brahmin family and its spiritual lineage going back to the 13th century.

Exactly 50 years ago, Raja Rao had set out to France, to

Montpellier in fact, "that ancient Greek and Saracenic town, so close to Sete where Valery was born," at the invitation of Sir Patrick Geddes. It was however at Soissons where Abelard was imprisoned and condemned that he wrote his first stories, "Javni" and "The Little Gram Shop." Kanthapura itself was for the most part written in a 13th-century French castle in the Alps.

Though he first visited America in 1950, it was only since the early sixties that he has been living there teaching Indian philosophy at the University of Texas in Austin. He expressed surprise that on the basis of his novel he was offered a position at Texas.

"This is unique about American universities." I was equally surprised to learn that the University of Iowa awarded a Ph.D. degree to Paul Engle for a book of poems. I kept telling myself that it could happen only in America. It is the flexibility of the American university, with its effort to roam over all areas of human activity, which makes possible the inclusion of a writer in residence. The International Writing Program at the University of Iowa established in the thirties as probably the first of its kind, and developed by Paul Engle, has nurtured a large cross-section of present-day American literary talent, including Robert Bly, Anthony Hecht, Philip Roth, W.D. Snodgrass, William Stafford and Kurt Vonnegut [see "Reflections on Iowa," May 1977 SPAN].

Though Raja Rao has lived in America for more than a decade, contemporary American writing was a closed book to him. His own preoccupations were elsewhere. I wondered what his own response to living in America was, and also to the writer's increasing involvement with universities, as teacher or writer in residence. "I find the intellectual life in America inspiring; the philosophic-literary dialogue goes on forever," he said. "The

young in America," he continued, "are the most earnest people I have met. They are tremendously intelligent and eager to learn.

Out of every hundred or so American students who come to India, about 25 of them usually stay to engage themselves in philosophic search. There isn't such earnestness, such genuine search in England, France or India." His graduate courses on the Upanishads attract as many as 300 students. Having reached a state of technological maturity, he believes Americans are looking for values. "It is this paradoxical situation that makes intellectual life in America so exciting," he said.

I recalled an earlier interview in SPAN about four years ago where Raja Rao spoke of his idea of America most eloquently: "America today is the answer to the 18th-century French philosophers who wanted plenty, equality and freedom. America has these, but we know now that these are not enough. America has great splendor, and now she is turning inward, for true splendor is ever inward. America must go back to herself, and she is going back to herself. Once this nation finds itself, it will be truly magnificent. America has the 'America has the makmakings of a great classical civilization.

Like every classical civiliings of a great classical zation, it will be a true expression civilization. Like every of the worth of man." classical civilization, it "America and India," he observed, "are complementary will be a true expression forces working in the world. And of the worth of man.' it will take some effort to keep the one out of the consciousness of the other. The American dialogue with India has been going on now for the past 150 years. It was initiated by Emerson, who remarked in his essay on Plato, 'In all nations there are minds which incline to dwell in the conception of the fundamental unity. ... This tendency finds its highest expression in the religious writings of the East, and chiefly in the Indian scriptures.'" Raja Rao quoted that remark of Emerson with obvious satisfaction. "Oriental philosophy is still the biggest influence on American thought," he continued, "for Americans today are more philosophically inclined than Europeans. What technology has. done is to give reason back to man. Technology has forced man to a philosophic stance."

"Again, Emerson's companion, Thoreau, was a living inspiration to resisters and dissenters everywhere," he said. "The influence of his Civil Disobedience extended as late as Gandhi.

Civil disobedience asserts 'that government is best which governs least,' and urges passive resistance to tyranny." In an unpublished book on Gandhi, Raja Rao pays unstinting tribute to Thoreau for helping Gandhi evolve his idea of satyagraha.

"America," he said, "does not have a past to fall back on.

India has come to stay in America. The future world is being made in America, which isn't tired like Europe. Even Europe is fast becoming Americanized." Raja Rao is firmly of the opinion that

the Carter Administration will strive to make the dialogue between America and India more meaningful than it has hitherto been.

As a writer, Raja Rao's concern is with the human condition rather than with a particular nation or ethnic group. Lionel Trilling speaks of the function of art as one of liberating the "individual from the tyranny of his culture in the environmental sense." "Whether I am in Paris, London, New York or Austin, Texas, I don't think my life changes," Raja Rao confessed.

"By force of circumstance, purely accidental and sentimental, I have lived abroad. My roots are in this country. That is why I come here every year and spend as much time as I can. I live abroad but I am chained to my country. One of the disciplines that has interested me in Indian literature is its sense of sadhana (devotion)-a form of spiritual growth. In that sense, one is alone in the world. I can say that all I write is for myself. If! were to live in a forest, I would still go on writing. If I were to live anywhere else, I would still go on writing, because I enjoy the magic of the word. That magic is cultivated mainly by inner silence, one that is cultivated not by associating oneself with society but often by being away from it. I think I try to belong to the great Indian tradition of the past when literature was considered a sadhana. In fact I wanted to publish my books anonymously because I think they do not belong to me. But my publisher refused," he added.

Raja Rao's India or America are not geographical or political entities; they are essentially ideas he carries with him wherever he goes. India and America come together in his latest, as yet unpublished novel, The Chessmaster and His Moves, written in the hospitable campus at Austin. The novel is a product of his American encounter, and he expects it will be even more sophisticated than The Serpent and the Rope. "I don't write about anything I don't know myself. I don't invent. I am interested in precision. Finding the right word is like making a spiritual discovery. All forms of literature are only capable of indirect statements. English, unlike French, is not academized. The English language is expandable to an extraordinary degree, breaking conventions without any fear of its becoming unEnglish," he concluded.

Raja Rao lives alone with his son in a modest apartment, and cooks his own meals. His wife, Katherine Rao, is an actress and lives in New York. Not being a sociable person, he said that he has "always been with people who are lonely."

He hopes to write at least one more novel-this time in Kannada-before retiring to the ashram of his guru, Sri Atmananda, near Trivandrum in Kerala. When I left Raja Rao on the steps of Vasanta Vihar, it was again his massive, leonine head that caught my attention. Folding his hands, he bowed in a timeless greeting.

0 About the Author: R. Parthasarathy is a poet whose works include Ten Twentieth-Century Indian Poets and Rough Passage. He has contributed to Encounter, Poetry India, Quest, London Magazine and The Times Literary Supplement, and writes a bimonthly column on the arts in Madras for the Onlooker.

Educated at Bombay and Leeds universities, Parthasarathy lives in Madras, where he is regional editor of the Oxford University Press.

ON THE LIGHTER SIDE

....

- ;~'..,:.,":' .'

".;

\

"0/ course, the mileage you get on the road will depend on how and where you drive and other varying/actors such as wind direction and velocity."

DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA

The lew Bngland Town Meeting is Ilive and Well Time hasn't changed one old tradition in the political life of the northeastern United States, that of direct democracy. In many small towns, important decisions are made not by elected councils, but by the citizens themselves, at 'town meetings' held once a year.

Imagine a Rip Van Winkle who wakes up in a New England* town after a sleep of 300 years and walks about the town. He is likely to be flabbergasted at everything he sees.

But if he drops in at a town meeting, he'll feel at home: There is something that hasn't changed!

The town meeting is the oldest form of democracy in America. The institution existed in many American colonies as far back as the 17th century, but it has survived only in a few hundred towns of New Englandmostly small towns. A typical town meeting approves budgets, authorizes programs, establishes committees, takes decisions concerning the town's future. In other words, it does everything that a municipal council or legislative assembly would do in a larger city. The difference is that those who attend the town meeting are not elected representatives of the citizens: They are the citizens themselves-all of them. This is direct democracy in action, and no one pulls his punches.

How does the town meeting work? Let us take the example of Burke, Vermont, a tiny community of 1,053 people who live in an area of about 9,000 hectares, some 50 kilometers from the Canadian border. Burke has been governing itself in classic town*"New England" traditionally has meant the six states in the northeastern corner of the U.S.-Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine.

meeting style ever since its founding in 1782.

Every January, the annual Burke Town Report tells residents the time and place for that year's meeting, and lists the topics to be discussed.

It's March 4, 1977-town meeting day.

Some 200 registered voters of Burke show up at the Town Hall, settle down on rows of folding chairs. Bruce McGregor, the West Burke postmaster, is chosen as moderator.

The previous year's Town Report is approved. Then follows a debate on two annual budgets prepared by a special committee, which has earmarked $60,900 for town services and $220,000 for schools. The budgets are discussed and passed. The townspeople next authorize a three-man council to sell the old Town Hall and use the money to equip the new one. Some other decisions: They donate $750 to the area's hospital and another $750 to the Burke Volunteer Fire Department; they vote $700 to the region's visiting nurse program; they agree to an additional levy needed to support a development association in Vermont.

The residents of Burke like high taxes no more than anyone else, however. They vote against contributing to several other health and social services.

Last item on the agenda: The citizens elect their new town officers. These officersusually unpaid-will govern the town until the next meeting. Any extraordinary issues that arise during the year will be handlecYby

special sessions again, of all citizens.

The decisions made are challengeable; they may in some cases be superseded by state and Federal regulations. But the New England town meeting still offers citizens one of the purest opportunities for democratic self-expression known in modern times.

The concept of the town meeting-pure and total democracy-is believed to have originated in the ancient Greek city-states, where citizens would gather in the agora or market place to hear orators and vote on issues. In colonial New England, the earliest settlers came in tightly knit groups bound by social and religious ties. They set up separate settlements or towns-each of which consisted of a church, a school, shops, houses and farms. The settlements functioned like small, independent nations. The settlers soon realized the need to establish common

Facing page: Citizens of Burke, Vermont, hold their annual town meeting. Top: Dorris Hilliard, one of the older citizens, discusses a proposal for a visiting nurse program. Center, left: Army colonel Waite Worden and oiher townsfolk ponder a report presented by Robert Beausoliel (center, right), chairman of the zoning committee. Bottom, left: Town clerk Clare Emerson makes an announcement. By his side are the ballot clerks who will help conduct election of the town's officers. These officers will implement decisions taken at the town meeting. Far right: A citizen casts her vote.

laws. To insure maximum support for their laws, they decided to give everyone a voice in formulating them. Thus began the New England town meeting.

The town meeting was usually held at "mud-time" - the period after winter snows melted but before the ground was ready for planting. (It is still held at mud-time, though there are fewer farmers at today's town meetings.) Apart from evolving rules for the community, the meetings served to celebrate the coming of spring, and gave settlers a chance to socialize before the long, busy ,growmg season.

New England's lead was followed by settlers in other parts of America, and town meetings came into vogue everywhere. But the town meeting proved impractical for large populations. In cities and large towns, there were no halls that could accommodate the whole adult population. And even if they could, only a few of those present would have an opportunity to speak. Therefore, many large communities in New England and elsewhere opted for more representational municipal or county types of government.

However, some New England communities, rather than discontinue the old tradition of town meetings, set up special devices to manage the problem of "bigness."

What has the town meeting contributed to the evolution of democracy in the United States? Most important, perhaps, is the way it has fostered in Americans the tradition of speaking freely on every aspect of their government. Colonial New Englanders were among the most vociferous opponents of British rule, and the town meetings served as focal points for revolutionary sentiment.

Further, since New England was the most populous and in some ways the most influential region of colonial America, its system of government had a large impact on the minds of those who framed America's Constitution. Although the Founding Fathers ultimately selected a representative form of democracy for the Federal and state governments, it was government liberally laced with the features of direct democracysuch as the initiative (the right of people to collect signatures and petition for the enactment of a measure by popular vote), the referendum (popular vote on a specific issue), the recall (the right of people to demand a special election to remove an elected public officialbefore the end of his term).

The town meeting, its advocates say, is alive and well. That it has survived the pressures of the 20th century is evident from the success of a recent town meeting addressed by President Carter (see box). 0

JimmJ Carter attends a town meeting As part of his effort to keep in touch with the common man, President Jimmy Carter recently attended a traditional New England town meeting in Clinton, Massachusetts, a mill town of 13,000 people about 90 kilometers west of Boston. For an hour and a half the President answered questions from enthusiastic local residents, who jammed the 850-seat auditorjum and overflowed into a park across the street. Many Clinton townsfolk used the unique occasion to tell the President about their deep-felt concern on such problems as inflation, minimum wages, medical care, and deregulation of the transport industry.

There were several questions onjobs and rising prices.

One high school girl wanted Jimmy Carter's advice on whether she should attend college. He told her to.

Though domestic issues dominated the session, the President emphasized his concern for human rights throughout the world. Occasionally kidding himself and calling questioners by their first names, he thoroughly enjoyed the town meeting and the opportunity it gave him to learn firsthand the views of many "average Americans."

Left: A shirt-sleeved Jimmy Carter has breakfast with the Edward Thompson family with whom he was an overnight guest after the town meeting in Clinton, Massachusetts.

Right and above: Clinton citizens-young and olddiscuss their concerns with the U.S. President.

Below: President Carter speaks at the crowded town meeting .. television cameras record the historic occasion.

HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE U.S.

THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 'Our only client is the Bill of Rights,' says this unique organization, which upholds the constitutional rights of all the people-and particularly of children, students, minorities and the poor.

In 1926, a nine-year-old American boy, Russell Tremain, refused to salute the flag in school because of religious belief; he was taken from his parents and put in a state institution. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) objected, contending Russell had a right not to salute, and won his release.

No matter whose right has been at issue, the ACLU has fought for a bewildering assortment of citizens (and aliens): dissenters and dreamers, militants and pacifists, communists and fascists, socialists and social misfits.

The unpopular and the quirky have been oddly coupled with the extremists of the ACLU, which cheerfully acknowledges being extreme-in defending anyone's right to speak (or not to speak), to meet, to write, to read, and to be let alone. The ACLU, a private nonprofit organization, emphasizes that it does not defend peoples' positions but their rights. "Our only client," the ACLU says, "is the Bill of Rights. " A list of human rights deemed essential, the Bill of Rights is embodied in the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. To defend and expand these freedoms-of speech, assembly, press, religion, and others-the ACLU and its lawyers enter far more than a thousand cases annually; they press lawsuits, argue.in courts, file appeals, issue public statements and mobilize public opinion. These activities are overseen from headquarters in New York City and offices in Washington, Atlanta and Denver, plus those of affiliates in 45 states. Most of the work is done by 3,000 lawyers across the country, who are part-time volunteers; they charge no fees and receive no pay. Costs are borne by dues and contributions from some 20,000 members.

One of the ACLU's most important victories came in December 1976 when a Federal court decided that a President may be held liable for civil damages for official actions that violate the Constitution. A judge in Washington, D.C., ruled that former Pre-

B1LL OF

RlGHTS

sident Richard Nixon and two members of his Administration had deprived a former White House aide, Morton Halperin, and his family of their constitutional rights by having their home telephone tapped for 21 months. The judge said the Halperins' privacy had been invaded and their freedom

intruded upon. Represented by the ACLU, Halperin had protested that President Nixon, by ordering the wiretap without a judicial warrant, violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against "unreasonable searches and seizures." There had been no finding of wrongdoing by Halperin; nevertheless, the

tap remained even after he left his government job and became the adviser to a Democratic Presidential contender. Halperin now directs an ACLU project that helps file suits against governmental invasions of privacy.

Although the ACLU won other significant decisions in 1976, its annual report for that year lamented, "The liberties which inspired the creation of the United States in 1776 diminished during 1976." The report asserted that "the worst setback" to civil liberties was a series of Supreme Court decisions that "placed large obstacles in the paths of people whose rights have been denied to them and who seek relief from the courts."

Just before the report was issued, a divergent appraisal was made by Roger Baldwin, who founded the ACLU in 1920.

He told a visitor to his home in New York City that civil liberties today are "so much better, there's no comparison with 1920."

Baldwin, 93, retired as director in 1950 and has served since as an adviser. "The U.S. Government and system," he said, "probably givepeople as good and as quick a remedy for injustice as any country in the world, maybe quicker." .

Another observer also differed with the ACLU. Legal scholar George Anastaplo of Chicago, who received a Freedom of Expression award from the ACLU in 1975, said ruefully in a recent interview: "One critical problem with the ACLU is that it promotes a sense of continuous crisis. If one is not able to appreciate the remarkably good shape civil liberties are in today, one may not be able to recognize and respond properly to truly serious threats when they again develop."

After the ACLU's negative assessment, the annual report comments approvingly about some aspects of the judiciary: "The Supreme Court ... continued to be hospitable to claims of equal rights for women and efforts to obtain the right to get abortions.. .. Some lower Federal courts continue to use the U.S. Constitution in a way that fulfills its revolutionary potential. Several recent decisions in cases brought by the ACLU have begun to articulate the principle that government may not intervene in people's lives to remedy ills when the almost certain consequence is to make matters worse."

The new director of the ACLU's Washingtorioffice,John Shattuck, is optimistic. President Carter, he said, "has committed himself to act on a variety of issues important to the ACLU. In each area from race and sex discrimination to criminal justice-we will work to persuade the new government to adopt our position."

Persuasion at the legislative level--'lobbying-is getting more attention from the ACLU. It is now focusing on attempts to offer new laws and to abort proposed laws that it considers undesirable, rather than wait until a case reaches court. According to the executive director of the ACLU, Aryeh Neier, legislation the ACLU is concerned with falls in three areas: • Information. Limiting the amount of information the government can collect on individuals; and, conversely, increasing the amount of information that citizens can get about what their government is doing.

• Civil liberties. Protecting the human rights of persons in prisons, hospitals, mental hospitals, juvenile detention and other large compulsory institutions.

• Franchise. Overcoming the disenfranchisement of persons because of race or sex.

The disenfranchised and disadvantaged have been concerns of the ACLU since its creation. Baldwin first worked for the American Union Against Militarism, a group formed to oppose conscription and keep the United States out of World War I. After U.S. entry into the war, Baldwin helped set up the National Civil Liberties Bureau, which sought to gain exemption for conscientious objectors and to relax wartime restrictions.

He himself refused induction and spent eight months in jail.

To combat postwar jingoism and to enlarge the scope of the bureau, Baldwin created the ACLU. It resisted the deportation of aliens for radical beliefs, opposed attacks on the rights of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), a radical labor organization, and stood up for the rights of trade unions to organize and hold meetings. The ACLU also busied itself trying to gain release for those imprisoned during the war for expressing antiwar sentiments.

The most famous, perhaps, of all ACLU cases developed in 1925 after Tennessee prohibited the teaching of evolution in public schools. The ACLU, eager to test the law because of its possible impact on freedom of speech and academic liberty, recruited a high school science teacher, John Scopes, of Dayton, Tennessee. He proceeded to teach evolution and was duly accused and brought to trial. Defending Scopes (and Darwin) was attorney Clarence Darrow, a member of the ACLU's national committee.

The prosecutor, also a volunteer, was William Jennings Bryan, three-time candidate for President. The jury convicted Scopes, and the judge fined him $ 100. But Tennessee's highest court reversed the conviction because the judge, not the jury, levied the fine. In 1968 the U.S. Supreme Court, considering a

similar statute in Arkansas, declared such anti-evolution laws unconstitutional.

Besides revolutionaries and evolutionaries, one of the biggest beneficiaries of the ACLU has been the religious sect, Jehovah's Witnesses, which regards governments as allies of Satan. Members won't vote, serve on juries or enter the military, even in war.

The ACLU has frequently come to their defense.

Among the ACLU's most publicized cases over the years have been its support of: • George Lincoln Rockwell, the head of the American Nazi Party, who had been denied a permit to hold a rally in a New York City park in 1960. The ACLU appealed, maintaining that free speech was the issue, not his "hateful" views. The court ruled for Rockwell; in protest about 1,000 members of the ACLU quit the organization.

Currently, the ACLU is defending several members of the Ku Klux Klan, "even though we hold our noses for what they represent," says Alan Reitman, associate executive director.

• Ulysses, the novel by James Joyce, which had been barred from the United States as obscene. A Federal judge delivered a historic anticensorship decision that admitted the book in 1933.

• Union members and sympathizers in Jersey City, New Jersey, who were prohibited from holding public meetings by Mayor Frank Hague and his police, on the ground they might cause riots. The ACLU took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which stated, in 1939, that the duty of police is to protect constitutional rights and not to take them away just because others threaten to do so.

• Mary Beth Tinker, 13, who wore a black ribbon around her arm to mourn the dead in Vietnam in 1965, prompting her secondary school in Des Moines, Iowa, to suspend her for violating rules. Her brother, John, 15, also was sent home from school for wearing an armband. Their parents, with the help of the ACLU, went to court. In a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court said students may wear armbands and other badges of symbolic expression unless they interfere with school or the rights of others.

Countless individuals known but to law books and lawyers have benefited from the ACLU's efforts to establish the tights of children, students, suspects, indigents and various minorities. In addition, the ACLU, recognizing that liberties "should be ... indivisible throughout the world," has tried, to strengthen human rights elsewhere by appointing Baldwin to work with the International League for Human Rights, an affiliate of the United Nations.

0

BUSINESS IN AMERICA

FOREIGN INVESTMENT IS POURING IN The trend in international business today is either to set up a plant in the U.S. or invest in companies there. Swiss chocolates, Danish toys, Japanese transistors, German automobiles-all these are made in America by foreign companies attracted by the vast demand and unique purchasing power of the United States market. For Americans, this economic bonanza means more jobs, keener business competition, wider consumer choice.

There was a time, scarcely a decade ago, when a customer could walk into a Volkswagen automobile showroom almost anywhere in the United States and buy a brand new model of the Beetle for as little as $1,600. Today the Rabbit, which is the successor to the famous Beetle, costs more than twice as much in the United States. That large jump in price, which reflects the high cost of exporting the auto from West Germany and makes it less competitive against U.S. autos, goes far to explain why Volkswagen is now setting up its own plant in the State of Pennsylvania, inside the vast American market place.

Volkswagen's decision to come to the United States is visible proof of a major new trend-the phenomenal growth of foreign investment in the United States. Worldwide attention used to focus on the "American challenge," the "American invasion" (i.e., investment) in other nations' economies. Today, Americans are witnessing a German, French, British, Japanese, Dutch, Canadian, etc. etc., economic invasion of the United States.

Of course, there has always been foreign investment in the United States. Indeed, capital from abroad helped to finance its industrial development. Then World War I began to alter the direction of the flow. The United States emerged as a creditor nation, and itself started to export capital. But the decisive change followed World War II. The United States became the great source of capital for the rest of the world - first, through U.S. aid to help reconstruct Europe and then in the form of direct investment by American companies. The growth of that direct investment has been phenomenal. It totaled a "mere" $7,200 million in 1946. By 1960, it had reached $32,000 million; by 1965, $49,500 million. Within eight years, that is, by the end of 1973, U.S. investment abroad had more than doubled, to over $119,000million.

But, at the same time, foreign companies were investing in American enterprise; by the end of 1973, this reciprocal investment totaled $20,000 million, one-fifth of the American one abroad. In the early 1970s, it began to grow rapidly. During 1974 alone, foreign investment in the United States increased by 24 per cent. The worldwide recession slowed it down a bit, but it has continued to grow at a dramatic rate. French investment in the United States, for instance, increased almost fivefold

between 1971 and 1976-from $300 million to $1,400 million.

In 1976, foreign companies made 250 investments in manufac~ turing facilities in the United States, half of them in the form of outright acquisitions.

The investors include the most famous of the major nonAmerican multinational corporations. The Japanese electronics companies, Sony and Panasonic, whose competition had forced U.S. manufacturers to set up plants in the Far East, have now established major plants in the United States. So has the Japanese motorcycle manufacturer, Yamaha. British Petroleum is moving toward majority control of Standard Oil of Ohio, and through that company now holds a major stake in Alaska's North Slope oilwells. A Dutch publisher has bought the venerable publishing company, E.P. Dutton, and Italians own the huge paperback publisher, Bantam Books. In just four years, the American subsidiary of Denmark's Lego has carved out a major share of the U.S. children's toy market.

Nor is it only the big companies that are coming. Many of Volkswagen's suppliers, for instance, are following the auto giant and will also open up shop in the United States. And when foreign companies come, so do foreign banks. "Our chief business is serving our German customers and U.S. corporations with German clients," says a senior vice president in the New York office of a West German bank. Foreign banks now control $61,000 million of assets in the United States. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, the total employment of all foreign-owned firms in America was 1.08 million workers in 1974 and sales were $146,800 million. Both figures have grown substantially since.

Why are foreign companies opening plants in the United States? Chiefly because the U.S. market is the largest and most attractive in the world. Although it is not widely recognized, American multinational corporations have been strongly challenged in the last 10 years by foreign multinationals. After surveying sales and investment, Professor Robert Stobaugh of the Harvard Business School has concluded: "U.S. firms face powerful foreign competitors, and many of these competitors seem to be growing larger than their U.S. counterparts and growing faster." Accustomed to operating in the larger European

and Asian markets, many foreign companies now have the confidence to tackle the United States on its home grounds.

"For a polyester manufacturer, the U.S. market is the greatest challenge because of the purchasing power and the textile consumption," says Paul F. Forster, an executive of American Hoechst Corporation, which has 16 plants in the United States and is a subsidiary of Hoechst A.G. of West Germany. The United States remains the major source of technological innovations, and many companies around the world hope to acquire quicker access to new products and processes by having their foot inside the American door.

Of course, the technology transfer goes both ways. Companies that have technological advantages want to exploit them inside the American market. The French tire manufacturer Michelin, third largest in the world, has been a pioneer in bringing out new types of tires. In order to take advantage of its technological lead within the world's largest tire market, Michelin is spending $600 million building factories in the U.S. states of South Carolina and Colorado.

Many foreign companies are interested in growing markets in certain regions, especially the American South and Southwest-the so-called "Sun Belt." France's number one cement manufacturer, Lafarge, has gone into joint ventures in the Southwest.

In addition to a vision of opportunities, economic problems at home have also played an important role in motivating the foreign investor to turn toward America. Volkswagen, for instance, has been watching its market share in the United States shrink in the last few years. Foreign exporters have been hard hit by inflation and have lost competitive edge. The United States is no longer clearly the highest-wage economy. Between 1969 and 1974, for instance, hourly compensation in the U.S. metal working industries rose from $4.34 to $6.14. In the same period, it rose in West Germany from $1.85 to $6.02. Comparable wages are actually higher in several European countries than in the United States. In 1960, Japanese workers earned only 11 per cent of what their U.S. counterparts did; by 1975, the figure had risen to 50 per cent. Also, fluctuating exchange rates have generally worked to the disadvantage of foreign exporters to the United States, making it more difficult to hold their prices steady.

There is one final reason. Of all the advanced industrial Western countries, the U.S. is blessed with the greatest abundance of raw materials. What makes the United States especially attractive to foreign companies is the vast reserves of coal.

With all the uncertainties that surround oil, such resources look particularly appealing. An executive with the multinational W.R. Grace predicts: "The availability of low-cost coal in the United States will simply accelerate the whole process of basing companies in this country."

"One of my British clients has large assets in U.S. raw materials," says a prominent Wall Street investment banker. "I was interviewed recently by a man from a British pension fund that wasthinking of investing in the company. All he could talk about wasthe U.S. assets, how good a hedge they are against who knows what."

The banker's statement points to still an additional reason for some of the investment. Businessmen want to minimize their risks, and in several countries there are more doubts than there have been for some time about the possible directions that future governments will take. Such risks make the United States look

even more attractive. But' most observers feel that political concerns are secondary, and that companies would not make the investment were the economic reasons not convincing enough on their own terms. After all, businessmen do not like to lose money, even in the pursuit of stability.

For many foreign companies, investing in the United States has proved to be a learning experience. In 1973, Cavenhams, the big British food company, bought Grand Union, the ninth largest supermarket chain in the United States. Since then it has found that it is not so easy to make profits in the United States as is believed. The company's chairman recently explained that he had thought that talk about the special marketing expertise required in the United States was exaggerated. He has since decided otherwise. Michelin U.S.A. has had to establish an intricate computer system to keep track of its entire operations.

The system is far more complex than anything used by the European parent. "The need is different here," says John Gillies, executive vice president of Michelin U.S.A. "We're spread out over such a wide area. In Europe, you can reach out and touch your customer."

Nevertheless, flow of foreign investment to America is increasing. "Potential for further foreign investment in the United States is vast," concludes a study by a prestigious business research organization. "Given a continuation of relatively favorable U.S. economic conditions, foreign interest in operating in the United States should remain strong.

"What does this mean for Americans? It is a healthy development. Foreign firms can provide new competition, new process and product technologies, new sources of capital and new sources of jobs for America's future needs. For years American businessmen have been telling the world that foreign investment is good both for those who invest and for the countries receiving the investment. They may now be faced with a test of their belief on home ground."

The U.S. Government officially approves of foreign investment. The 1977 International Economic Report of the President declares: "The policy of the United States toward foreign investment is based on the premises that capital is a scarce resource and that the free-market system is the most efficient means of determining the international allocation and use of capital.

Thus, the U.S. position is to support the free flow of capital between nations as it responds to market forces."

But some unofficial individuals and groups have recently voiced concern about the surge of foreign investment. Might it not give rise to foreign control over the American economy, perhaps even over American politics? Americans can better understand why foreign governments and citizens could become sensitive or uneasy about the positions U.S. companies hold in their economies.

In 1975, the government set up a Committee on Foreign Investment to review foreign investments with "major implications for U.S. national interests." It has looked over a few major investments and found nothing to challenge. The unease has passed, and the United States has settled comfortably down in a new role, all too happy to receive the attention offoreign investors who are eager to bring capital and create jobs and to exchange knowhow in the process.

D About the Author: Daniel Yergin is a lecturer at the Harvard Business School in Cambridge, Massachusetts. His most recent work is Shattered Peace, an important new study of the Cold War, published in 1977.

A JOURNEY THROUGH THE HIGH COUNTRY OF THE MIND A critique of Robert Pirsig's 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance'

by Claude Alvares In American literary circles, Robert Pirsig's book, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, created a stir whose ripples are being felt beyond the shores of the United States. The book is a sort of autobiography cast in the form of a motorcycle journey from Minneapolis across the Great Plains and over the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Coast. Its loving devotion to the minutiae of motorcycle main-

After I'd carried it across three continents in six months, I discovered I'd left it behind on a bus en route from Panjim to Bombay.

That very day I dropped by my regular bookshop to look for a fresh copy. They didn't have one, said the book had arrived more than two years ago, but now they didn't stock it any more. I made one final attempt to locate it at a roadside bookstore which had never in the past let me down.

I was looking for a book titled Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

He looked at me funnily. I was pulling his leg.

Then, as if remembering, he dove behind a stack and came up with Zen and the Art of Archery.

I lost my temper. The author of that book had been a man with an established Nazi past. It's all there in Arthur Koestler's Drinkers of Infinity.

I said it again.

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, by Robert M. Pirsig.

Never heard of it, never heard of him.

* * *

Never heard of it, didn't stock it any longer. I found that hard to swallow. A paperbaek bestseller, printed ten times over in two years.

But it was true. None of my friends had heard

tenance is closely interwoven with a vast ethical and spiritual inquiry stretching across many centuries of the history of Western man. The author's motorcycle trip wl'th his son, two friends, and a "ghost" of a past self, whom he names Phaedrus, turns into "a journey through the high country of the mind." In this review, an Indian scholar discusses the philosophical quest of the book.

of it. When I did mention the title, they stared at me the same way the bookseller had done.

Or, was it that unintelligible? Why should Indians show any great passion for a book that undertakes an extensive archaeology of the very mind of Western civilization?

We've got our own problems, haven't we?

Except that Robert Pirsig, simultaneously undergoing an excavation of his own past, in search of himself or courage or both, seemed suspiciously close to that Pandava prince, Arjuna, who, in the very middle of a battlefield, as the actual fighting was about to begin, turned around suddenly to ask for a reason, any reason, that would unfailingly compel him to play his role in the war, to act.

Let me put it this other way. Reviewers of Pirsig's volume, all Westerners, spoke of its "shattering final pages," of its "frights of the mind," of "stiff terror and doubt." No Indian reviewer or reader, including myself, would ever have found it natural to use such descriptions.

It is an awful truism to observe that what terrifies one culture may equally well entertain or amuse another. And Indians reading of Pirsig's decision to move off the edge of his world will agree that this is the first time in the history of Western civilization that a man born and nurtured in it set out to

dissect the nature of reason, to make an analysis of analysis itself, and then moved to accept the ruthless, almost mokshaic consequences. The existentialists, including Jean Paul Sartre, once came very close to this, but at the last moment turned weak in the knees.

In this, and this sense alone (and if I may be permitted to slip into gr~ti), Pirsig's strangely beautiful and rambling work rises above everything else written on the West in this decade.

But let me use the other senses too. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance is vast, grand and delicious, an intellectual banquet with a thousand courses, one of those all-or-nothing books. A ride on a motorcycle across the American continent is also a leisurely journey through the high country of the mind, a continent as large as man makes it. Every now and then the riders, father and son, stop by the doors of one or another of those Greats who have carved the features of the Western personality through the ages, as though dropping by a garage or cycle shop to pick up a spare, or mend a chain, of ideas.

It is subtitled, significantly, "An Inquiry Into Values," the values of the age, of the age of the Western world, a world that fewer

and fewer men and women identify as the Circle-that the technical disaffects crowd- to do with the great Cyril Burt fraud, that best of all possible ones. An era of naIve ing the industrialized world were really the his was not the only case of its kind in this of modern technology's century. The writer of the piece then went optimism concerning the automaticity of consequences on to disclose a fact he had culled from progress with technology has passed: The success.

As Pirsig sees it, the West deviated from another volume under review that Sigmund index of human happiness has not registered a rise with greater wealth or comfort. Wide- the "common human pattern" through a Freud, that singular revolutionary against spread disillusionment remains. There is new "mythos" the Greek philosophers creat- contemporary orthodoxies of the mind, had everything available, yet there is something ed, which not merely replaced the older gathered together in secret a group of trusted colleagues to bring into disrepute by various missing, even for those who have nice wives mythos of the earlier Greek philosophersknown in the jargon as the pre-Socraticsmeans the life and work of Carl Jung. or husbands, do not drink or smoke.

But to unearth a fraud, perpetrated nearly In such situations, scapegoats give reason but in its very nature contained a "fault" two thousand years ago, at the very root an anchor, and there is little doubt that most that would shake the metaphysical foundapeople in the West have chosen to descend tions of that civilization's successors two of Western civilization, does indeed boggle the mind. In order to give the temporary on "technology." Lewis Mumford, Jacques thousand years later.

Put less ponderously, the succesS of the advantage to the birth of a new idea, the Ellul, Charles Reich, Rene Dubos, Theodore Roszak are merely the more articulate Greeks in their invention of dialectic, the idea of impartial Truth ("a very fragile spokesmen of masses of people who enjoy growing impartiality in their approach to thing"), Pirsig holds that Socrates, Plato the goodies that technology brings, yet would Nature, was founded on a massive repres- and Aristotle damned the Sophists without sion of another view of life, represented by restraint not because they were low and like it to go away.

Pirsig does not join the band wagon. He the Sophists and misinterpreted (what a immoral people-there were obviously much would not disapprove, for example, of misinterpretation!) for us by the three giants lower and more immoral people in Greece -but because they threatened mankind's Samuel C. Florman's defense of technology of the period: Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.

All those great irreconcilables of Western first beginnings of this idea of truth. in The Existential Pleasure of Engineering [see June 1977 SPAN]. Florman sums up history have their root and origin here: the And now [Phaedrus) began to see for the first time the the principal charges laid at the door of Classic and Romantic understandings (forunbelievable magnitude of what man, when he gained machines and goes on to demolish them ever at odds), Science and Religion, Art and p6wer to understand and rule the world in terms of with fine, restrained language and admirable Technology, Values and Technology, Zen dialectic truths, had lost. He had built empires of argument. But when was a scapegoat ever and Motorcycle Maintenance. Other civili- scientific capability to manipulate the phenomena of relieved through rhetoric or reason? And zations, not prepared to undergo a similar nature into enormous manifestations of his own dreams course, entertained no latent capacity to of power and wealth-but for this he had exchanged an what about reason itself? "Rationality" empir~ of understanding of equal magnitude: an underhas proved to be an excellent surrogate self-destruct. I think the Indian case was standing of what it is to be a part of the world, and not scapegoat for those who have wished to stated very well a few years ago by Richard an enemy of it. pursue the shadow of technology itself. Lannoy in The Speaking Tree, where he tried to show how the unified Indian sensiPirsig would agree that the two, rationality Nothing like this ever happened in Indian bility seemed excellently suited to the de- civilization. In fact, the opposite occurred. and technology, go together: mands of modern-day technology and the The Indian school of materialism and its The motorcycle is a system of concepts worked out in blandishments of science. The Chinese case principal doctrines are known to us today steel. There's no part in it, no shape in it, that is not out is even more obvious, especially to those who for no reason other than their critics' sense of someone's mind. The motorcycle is primarily a mental have some idea of the more general direction of fair play. Indian tradition demanded phenomenon. of Chinese thinking. first an honest account of what the opponent The Chinese observed that Nature spoke said, before any dismantling of his opinions.

One works not so much with parts as with concepts, with a system of concepts. A a "language" that man could decode and How do we know the Sophists? The very understand. That language contained, how- word has come to mean an unscrupulous system of concepts presupposes an inventorthus a faulty system that has turned repulsive ever; not merely information (that we could peddler of words and arguments, a man who or annoying should be traced to an in- measure quantitatively as information-contaught rhetoric or the ability to argue one competent mind or, what is worse, a frau- tent, or negative entropy) but also concrete point of view one day, and another point dulent inventor. Scapegoats are exploited "messages"'(in the DNA sense), understood of view, the next. The Sophists taught, we because they distract attention from more as norms, which again could be grasped, were told, the relativity of all morals. None fundamental causes: this we all know. Any acted on and used for the transformation of us, those who read philosophy or taught alternatives proposed to present-day tech- of man. Value and fact came from the same it, ever took the trouble to make some honest nology or rationality are never then going source, but fact remained subordinate to inquiry into what those wandering teachers value even in our own times. Lannoy's to prove fundamentally viable. really stood for. What did they stand for?

Thus, one great medievalist scholar, Lynn argument made the crucial point that cultures It may come as a great surprise to the White Jr., who takes an interest in contem- like India and China were in a better position reader to discover that the word "virtue," porary affairs, recently suggested that it to exploit science and science-based tech- which the Sophists originally did teach, is was time to throw overboard the old Biblical nology precisely because they remained a wrong translation of the Greek word injunction on the domination of nature, integrated and still subscribe in some sense arete, which crystallized the core of the and that Francis Assisi and his attitudes to to the revelation of the Tao, which proclaims Sophists' teaching. Entropy works in langunature be enthroned as the new guiding the interconnectedness of all things. age systems too, translations involve losses spirits of the ecology movement. I think of meaning, in this case, deep losses. Pirsig * * * Pirsig's analysis comes close, however, to I remember reading in a 1976 issue of quotes a classical scholar on the real meaning that of Barry Commoner in The Closing Encounter magazine, in an article that had of arete:

matter and mind, is the cause of matter and mind and is therefore beyond both, unlike both, unlike its offspring, undefinable. Reflected in man, it becomes arete, excellence, being true to the direction of your mind, carrying out the "duty to self" to the very end, regardless of consequences, of the thought of all rewards.

The Greeks, enamored of their growing power of abstraction, dialectic or reason, suddenly saw the older Greek myths not as revealed truth any longer, but as imaginative creations of art. What they did not see was that the new mythos they substituted Pirsig thinks arete is a close equivalent of in the place of the older demolished mythos the Chinese Tao and the Indian Dharma ..at merely enshrined permanence in a new way. other times, he calls it Quality, the Good, The law of gravity is one such example. or, simply, Value. Plato, in considering the It is one of a number of new gods, immortal True and the Good, gave the former primacy. in the new mythos and real to all who participate in the mythos. But in reality the law of Aristotle demoted the Good even further. gravity is just as much an artistic creation as the anthropomorphic gods displaced.

And the bones of the Sophists long ago turned to Pirsig's argumentum ad absurdum in which dust and what they said turned to dust with them and he shows that the laws of science are not the dust was buried under the rubble of declining Athens through its fall and Macedonia through its decline and more substantial than ghosts; his argument fall.Through the decline and death of ancient Rome and that reason is an invention, no less; his Byzantium and the Ottoman Empire and the modern conclusion that the possibility of various states-buried ~o deep and with such ceremoniousness geometries besides the Euclidean standard and such unction and such evil that only a madman reduces them all to conventions; his demoncenturies later could discover the clues needed to uncover stration that science must move inexor-ably them, and see with horror what had been done .... to organized chaos as the number of hypoThus did the West grow, with half its face theses multiply and few are able to reign in eclipse. Perhaps that is incorrectly put. We supreme: I cannot and will not paraphrase are not talking here of paradises lost and all these; they must be appreciated, savored in paradises gained, of having cakes and eating their entirety and in context. them too. No. It is rather that the world of * * * forms, of inventions and conventions of We have spoken often of the "mythos," the mind, of reason, the greatest invention the accumulated fund of cultural symbols of them all, had turned out to obscure their that stands between man and nature as a source. Reality or Tao or Quality precedes go-between. It was Ernst Cassirer, I think,

Thus the hero of the Odyssey is a great fighter, a wily schemer, a ready speaker, a man of stout heart and broad wisdom who knows that he must endure without too much complaining what the gods send; and he can both build and sail a boat, drive a furrow as straight as anyone, beat a young braggart at throwing the discus, challenge the Pheacian youth at boxing, wrestling or running; flay, skin, cut up and cook an ox, and be moved to tears by a song. He is in fact an excellent all-rounder; he has surpassing arete.

Arete implies a respect for the wholeness or oneness of life, and a consequent dislike of specialization. It implies a contempt for efficiency-or rather a much higher idea of efficiency, an efficiency which exists not in one department of life but in life itself.

!I~'\<i:s.

1__

/

I

-

who reasoned that man no longer lives in a physical universe: he inhabits instead a .symbolic world. The symbol mediates between the real and the human as man is unable any longer to meet nature directly: a construct is the result.

This is old hat to those who have read Carlos Castaneda [see "Castaneda's Journey to a Separate Reality," September 1976 SPAN]. To step out of the mythos or culture or the construct is to step out of the unreal.

But equally true, the person who steps out becomes abnormal; he is also a threat to all those who continue to remain mesmerized. Walking out of a mythos is to challenge all its normal assumptions. Pirsig puts it another way: There is only one kind of person, Phaedrus said, who accepts or rejects the mythos in which he lives. And the definition of that person, when he has rejected the mythos, Phaedrus said, is "insane." To go outside the mythos is to become insane. â&#x20AC;˘

What happens, however, when the mythos itself is thoroughly insane and teaches us that the forms of this world, its inventions, are real, and Reality itself is unreal?

Phaedrus's decision to leave the mythos and exorcise its ghosts takes place during a scene that might have been lifted right out of a textbook on Indian philosophy, Cross-legged, impervious to pain, to culturally nurtured symbols of disgust, he tells his wife to leave him. He discards all things, "encumbrances that he has carried with him all his life." It is a journey to Ixtlan, beyond the limit of reason and across the edge of the world invented by his culture's mind; like the Upanishadic rishis, he comes to feel like a giant, a million miles tall, extending into the universe without limit.

And the Quality, the arete he has fought so hard for. has sacrificed for, has never betrayed, but in all that time has never once understood, now makes itself clear to him and his soul is at rest.

Within the context of Western civilization he is also insane, and Phaedrus is destroyed by order of the court, "enforced by the transmission of high-voltage alternating current through the lobes of his brain." In India such a man would have been revered and fed for the rest of his life.

* * *

"Lately rye begun to dabble in quality."

Drawing by Mort Gerberg. Š 1977 the New Yorker Magazine, Inc.

Pirsig is the new personality that is set free after Phaedrus's mind is destroyed. In order to get out of the hospital, he recants, gives up and returns to the real world. He re- , enters the mythos, reassumes normal assumptions. The only connection between the two personalities is Chris, the son, whose hatred for his father's betrayal of an earlier journey

is driving him mad, till on a mountain cliff, Pirsig reclaims his "insanity," an insanity the child had never recognized as such.

I do not know, in the atmosphere of fact and fiction that envelops the story, whether Pirsig actually studied philosophy at the Banaras Hindu University. To judge from the novel, he evidently did learn a lot, but this did not prevent him from asking simplistic questions at times. He notes how when his professor was discoursing for the umpteenth time on the illusoriness of the world, he asked him whether the atomic bombs at Nagasaki and Hiroshima were illusory. The professor answered yes, a perfectly stupid answer to a perfectly stupid question.

But what he did learn and accept is tremendous-the cardinal principle of Indian teaching, for example, that the supreme value of life and existence is beyond the hand of reason, precisely be~ause reason is its child.

When Pirsig speaks of the "duty to self," he is once more talking of an obligation that can never be justified by reasonable argument. Here is the reason for the allusion I made to Arjuna earlier. The fact is, the god Krishna can find no real compelling reason for Arjuna to join the war. All the warriors on the battlefield, observes the god, have already been killed by him; Arjuna's killing them would be a purely formal affair. In other words, Arjuna must act for no other reason than that he must act. So close have we come to the credoquia absurdum of Kierkegaard.

* * *

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance will, I think, outlast this century. Some may describe it as the human edition of Jonathan Livingston Seagull. Others, like myself, will be more disposed to see it as the scintillating account of a human journey studded with Indian symbols. In a sense, it proclaims that the West has finally come of age, just at the time, paradoxically, when Indians seem to' be forsaking visions of the mind that distinguished their civilization while others were still collecting nuts.

And yet, so much of the latter phenomenon

is due precisely to Western influence! It is One very original Indologist, Walter due to the writing down of Indian philos- Utrecht, once suggested that Hindu philosophy-or rather what goes under its name, - ophy was probably born in affluencefor there has never been an Indian philoso- since it is in periods of affluence that existenpher as such, only men and women who have tial problems rush to the forefront of human shown courage and decided. For what does preoccupation. And in his beautifully written the phrase tat tvam asi mean when written treatise, The Structure of Indian Thought, down? It can mean nothing to the man who Professor Ramakant Sinari of the Indian has not been prepared to hear it. In traditional Institute of Technology, Bombay, revealed Indian situations, the pupil was prepared conclusively, through a fine phenomenoland cultivated for long periods of time before ogical analysis, what he termed the existenthat phrase was whispered into his ears. That tialist concerns of India's early thinkers.

Let me not be misunderstood in turn. I am phrase carried no intellectual awareness of some awesome truth, it instead told the pupil not one of those chauvinists who claim that his time had come to decide. For what? early India exploded nuclear devices, flew The journey to Ixtlan, of course, to arete, aircraft and exploited laser technology. All Dharma, Quality, name it as you please. No I wish to say is that, objectively noted, amount of nice comprehension of the phrase civilizations, like the human beings they in a thousand books on Indian philosophy consist of, often attempt to distract themcould substitute for the decision to accept its selves with numerous diversions. Indian consequences. philosophers are now at a stage, when, like Accepting madness. Or, as in yoga, accept- their counterparts (or rather, under the ing even the body and the mind as inventions. influence of their counterparts) in England, When Western and Indian scholars attempt- they feel that it's fashionable to indulge in ed to translate and transport the core of "language games."

The example of the West, however, and what was fundamentally the teaching of an oral civilization into that of a literary one, that of Robert Pirsig show that civilizations the misinterpretation that followed was in must return sometime to a consideration of existential issues. I am not thinking here a sense as grave as the misinterpretation accorded the teaching of the Sophists we in terms of any cyclical notion of these have just seen. It was only after I had com- patterns of the mind. It is just that as I think pleted Pirsig's book and begun reflecting of Pirsig, digging desperately to uncover on its themes that I suddenly discovered it arete, or Dharma, from shards aged nearly was no book at all, but a series of talks, the two thousand years, I am simultaneously spoken word. haunted by those lines of T.S. Eliot, which run thus: * * * In the final analysis, Zen and the Art of We shall not cease from exploration Motorcycle Maintenance signals a return And the end of all our exploring to the grand perennial questions of philosWill be to arrive where we started ophy, of life and death. Pure Hindu philosAnd know the place for the first time. ophy has, I think, never really departed from facing these issues, and has pronounced on About the Author: Claude Alvares recently returned them in a manner more radical than any other to India after receiving his Ph.D. degree from the civilization. I am no Hindu, but I think it Technological University in Eindhoven, the Netherwould not be inappropriate to characterize lands. His doctoral dissertation was "The History Pirsig's book as the beginning of what I of Technology in China, India and the West From once termed, "the Hinduization of the world 1500 to the Present." Dr. Alvares now lives in Goa picture." The allusion I suppose is obscure. where he teaches and is engaged in social work.

INDIA AND THE UNITED STATES

A FRAMEWORK OF GROWING

MUTUAL TRUST.

by ALFRED ATHERTON U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near-Eastern and South Asian Affairs

It is important for government and business to meet periodically to exchange ideas and information. The environment beyond our borders is more challenging and competitive than ever before. To use President Jimmy Carter's words, "The world today is in the midst of the most profound and rapid transformation in its entire history." It is in the interest of both government and business that their representatives here and abroad be alert and well prepared to make the best of opportunities. A free flow of ideas and information between us, by means of seminars such as this, can help assure this result.

We are meeting at a time of a resurgence of American interest in India. The fact that India has so dramatically reaffirmed its adherence to democracy, and the human values inherent in the democratic system, is a development of major importance not only for Asia but for the entire world. Prime Minister Morarji Desai is dedicated to promoting energetically the political rights and dignity of the individual and the economic and social progress that will make those rights secure.

Events in India have evoked admiration in the United States, from President Jimmy Carter to the Congress, from the media to the man-in-the-street. The President, in his May 22 speech at Notre Dame, singled out India as one of "democracy's great recent successes." Congressman Don Fraser and 43 other members of the House recently expressed their praise in a letter to the President. In responding, Secretary of State Cyrus Vance affirmed that developments in India "deserve our wholehearted support."

With the assumption of office by the Carter and Desai governments, there clearly exists an unusual opportunity to strengthen bilateral relations. But we need to consider where we want to go

Addressing, a seminar on Indo-U.S. trade and economic cooperation in Washington held under the auspices of. the Indo-U.S. Joint Commission, a top American official refers to President Carter's description of India as one of 'democracy's great recent successes,' and calls for efforts to strengthen bilateral relations. An abridgment of his speech is reprinted below.

if we are to maximize the gains from the present auspicious circumstances and to avoid a repetition of the misunderstandings that have plagued Indo-American relations in the past.

Before considering these relations at the present state, let us look at events in South Asia as a whole since 1971, which was in many ways a watershed year in the region.

The trend is toward better bilateral relations and regional normalization. This trend has required high political courage and foresight, and has demonstrated a remarkable degree of flexibility on the part of all the region's leaders. We have welcomed these efforts. South Asian nations, for the first time since 1962, all enjoy full and normal diplomatic relations with one another. India and Pakistan have made important strides in implementing the process of normalization under the Simla Agreement, while India and Bangladesh have taken key initial steps toward resolving their dispute over the division of the Ganges waters.

Political problems continue to exist, but these are being addressed by the nations of the region directly, without outside intervention.

While recognizing we have no direct role to play, the United States believes this process of regional accommodation contributes significantly to a more stable and prosperous world. We encourage it, have supported it where possible, and have been careful to do nothing to upset it. We support the independence and integrity of all the countries of South Asia, have discouraged outside pressures and involvement, and have urged the countries of the region to resolve bilateral disputes among themselves. We have had a policy of restraint on the sale of military equipment to South Asia for some years. This is reinforced by the Carter Administration's worldwide policy of arms sales restraint, and we believe

this policy well serves our interests and those of the region.

If the tensions that have characterized relations among South Asian countries continue to decrease, we hope that these countries will shift increasing resources to developmental purposes, toward the immense task of bettering the lot of their peoples. Despite its many problems, the area has the potential to develop, to become self-sufficient in food production and to satisfy the basic needs of its peoples. Our participation in multilateral development assistance, and our bilateral assistance and food aid to the area support these goals. We also want to expand mutually beneficial trade and commercial ties.

The countries of South Asia have become increasingly active in international forums, where many of the more basic economic issues confronting the world are being addressed, and this has added an important new dimension to our relations with them. The region's states are important in the Group of 77, the Non-Aligned Conference, the NorthSouth Dialogue, including the Conference on International Economic Cooperation, and in many other international forums.

Bilaterally, Indo-U.S. relations have gradually improved in tandem with the process of normalization in South Asia.

In 1974, our two governments decided to institutionalize some of the gains by establishing a Joint Commission with three subcommissions-on economics and commerce, education and culture, science and technology. In 1975, the initial Commission meeting was held in Washington, presided over by the Indian Foreign Minister and the U.S. Secretary of State. The three subcommissions have been meeting regularly since 1974, and have sponsored a variety of worthwhile activities and programs ~such as this meeting. We look forward to the second (Continued on page 48)

liBERALIZING WORLD Responding to pointed questions on America's agricultural policy, Secretary of Agriculture Robert Bergland declares that the United States will continue to work for reductions in trade barriers, for an International Wheat. Agreement, and for stabilization of prices. He also assures the world that America can be relied upon as a dependable supplier of farm produce.

QUESTION: Mr. Bergland, President Carter had indicated that he favors more liberal agricultural trade among nations of the world. What steps is the United States taking, or prepared to take, in this direction?

BERGLAND: If countries like Malaysia, or Indonesia or the Philippines are denied access to world markets by means of trade barriers of one kind or another, their whole economy will be impaired.

The United States has to establish policies which, in fact, demonstrate that we are committed to expanding trade.

For example, I was asked repeatedly by many leaders on my recent trip to Southeast Asia whether the United States would move to restrict the importation of palm oil. I replied that we regard palm oil as a legitimate competitor for American soybeans and that the U.S. Government would not move in any way to impair the trade in that very precious commodity.

We find that when developing countries increase their incomes on a per capita basis, the first thing they generally do is improve their diet-and we have plenty of food to sell in the United States.

We will continue to press for reductions in trade barriers at the Multilateral Trade Negotiations in Geneva starting this fall.

It will take, I would guess, all my life for us to see a completely free trade in agriculture, because most of these matters of restrictions are derived from local political considerations. We understand the policies and problems of the European Economic Community. If it were hot for restrictive trade policies, their whole common agricultural policy would fall apart, and the West European political alliances might disintegrate. So these matters take time.

QUESTION: Some experts have expressed concern that domestic U.S. agricultural price supports, if allowed to exceed the so-called world equilibrium prices, could

should take?

We have committed ourselves to an International Wheat Agreement. We did so in a formal way at the Manila Conference [June 20-24]. The details, of course, are yet to be worked out. The U.S. position is in the process of being developed by the Departments of Agriculture, State, Treasury and other agencies in the Federal Government ....

We have told all the world that the United States cannot be taken for granted as the world's stockholder of grain.

QUESTION: Mr. Bergland, what are some of the possible steps that the United States could take to deal with the wheat surplus that's expected this year?

BERGLAND: If we could reach an agreement internationally, it would probably result in 30 to 40 million tons of excess wheat stocks in this world isolated from the market, stored in appropriate places, and simply not released for sale until the market prices rose. This wheat would be sold undt:r a carefully controlled schedule that would prevent the wheat stocks from being dumped on the world market and therefore continuing to depress prices. It would simply mean that in some years we would have large stocks on hand, because of good weather conditions, and in some years, when the weather took a turn for the worse, the stocks would be reduced. It's possible that the stocks could be exhausted in some years, and if that were to happen, of course, the prices would go up very high ....

QUESTION: The Carter Administration announced earlier this year the establishment of a domestic wheat and rice reserve.

What is the purpose of that resene, and how does it work?

BERGLAND: We announced a domestic ' wheat and rice reserve, and with that we offered credit on favorable terms to U.S. farmers urging them to build BERGLAND:

put the United States in an adverse competitive position in trade with other nations.

Would you comment on this?

BERGLAND: It depends on what one regards as an equilibrium price. I've heard this business of the United States being priced out of the world markets¡ for a long, long time. Strangely enough, even when world market prices go up, or U.S. prices go up, we still are competitive; we're in there selling and we get our share. In the case of wheat, for example, we export about as much as everyone else put together. That's true of wheat, that's true of soybeans, and it's true of many other commodities ....

In the last year, there's been a world wheat surplus accumulation-the result of two years of good crops back to back.

There's been a reduction in world exports of wheat totaling some seven million metric tons, of which five million tons has been borne by the United States.

We are pressing hard for international grains arrangements so we can bring some businesslike order out of this chaotic "dump-ground" called the world grain trade ....

QUESTION: What directions do you think an Inte1;national Wheat Agreement

8RICUlTURAl TRADE granaries on their farms. We have a big of these commodities? capacity now, but there's a need for more BERGLAND: Well, we hope not. That's storage. Along with that, we have precisely the thing we're trying to avoid. authorized farmers who have 1976 wheat We simply do not want to be in a position stored on their farms to enter into long- where we woulq become the world's term storage contracts of up to three residual supplier. Unfortunately, there years. If they exercise that option, then have been countries that have depended the stored wheat would not be for sale on the United States to keep grain until the price rose above three dollars a stocks on hand. If they decide they bushel. need some, they come and buy, and We think we may have as many as if they decide they don't need some, 300 million bushels of 1976 wheat tied up they stay away. The net result is a continuunder this arrangement. That in itself ing economic whiplash in the United will represent a reserve of grain in the States. The prices go up sharply and United States which will simply not be down sharply. We think boom and bust in commodities is not in the best interest forsale. It should bring some improvement in domestic prices, and it certainly will of the U.S. consumer, producer or anyone assure to the world that the United States else. So we want to regularize these is prepared to make a commitment in prices. We want to try to reduce the real terms to this general question of extremes in price swings. And the best world food security. We, of course, have . way for this to be done is to have some said it before and we'll say again that international understanding on price corriwe cannot go it alone. We're willing dors and use an international funding to do this on our own, but we want mechanism to acquire stocks and. hold help from Canada and from Australia, them in reserve. We also think it's not in the best interest of any consuming Argentina and other countries.

QUESTION: Is there a possibility that country to have the United States own this domestic wheat and rice reserve the world's food security. We think this couldmean that the United States would is a matter of great imPortance and againbecome the owner of large amounts that it should be undertaken jointly.

GIVESPAN TO A FRIEND AT FESTIVAL TIME!

Buy a gift subscription of SPAN for a friend for a year (12 issues. a gift every month). and you can choose a free gift yourself-anyone of these three books: • William Dean Howells' classic novel.

"A Modern Instance."

• The nO-page hardback authoritative edition of "The Complete Poems of Emily Dickinson."

• "The Most Dangerous Man in America," a fascinating biography of Benjamin Franklin

by Catherine Drinker Bowen.

See coupon on reverse side.

QUESTION: Has the United States ever used subsidies to facilitate its own grain exports?

BERGLAND: We used to use wheat export subsidies. We don't now, and if I have my way, we won't again. Export subsidies cause serious economic dislocation. That's a matter which will be discussed at length in the upcoming trade talks ....

QUESTION: Under what circumstances, if any, would the United States reimpose export controls on agricultural products?

BERGLAND: Under no circumstances short of war that I can think of. That's a matter which was raised with me in Japan and has been raised with me by leaders of other governments who ha,,:e visited me here in Washington. I have assured one and all that the United States can be relied upon as a dependable supplier. The embargoes of the recent past were a tragic mistake.

We will let the market forces do the rationing, and in the case of soybeanseven though supplies have been on the tight order-we've the market place to work very well. There'll be no embargoes now or ever-unless the whole world 0 is thrown into some sort of turmoil.

Commission meeting in India later this year.

But more important, the past few years have witnessed a growing realization in both India and the United States that our shared interest in solving the global problems of today has largely overtaken the issues that historically have divided us. Principally, these have been Indian doubts about the objectives of U.S. South Asia policy, especially our arms transfer policies toward the region, and American preoccupation with Indian attitudes on East-West issues. We share today a common desire to strengthen the forces for human dignity, economic and social justice and stability in the world.

Let me now turn briefly to this Administration's approach to U.S.-Indian relations. Our new Ambassador to India, Robert Goheen, the former president of Princeton University, arrived in Delhi May 21. He has been intimately involved in India all his life, and is already working to strengthen mutual trust between the top levels of our governments.

Secretary Vance met with Indian Foreign Minister Vajpayee in Paris May 31, and hopes to visit India later in the year in connection with the next Joint Commission meeting. Ambassador Elliot Richardson, who heads our Law of the Sea delegation, was in New Delhi in early May, and we were pleased to meet

with the new Indian Finance and' Law Ministers in Washington in more recent weeks.

As you know, the President himself has a deep interest in India and in improving relations. His mother served as a Peace Corps volunteer in the Bombay area in 1967-68, and one of his early actions was to send her and his son Chip Carter to represent the American people at the funeral of the late Indian President. Both President Carter and Prime Minister Desai are committed to a foreign policy that reflects humane, democratic values. Both share a deep concern about progress toward achieving disarmament, and about resolving the problem of nuclear proliferation. Both are deeply interested in finding solutions to the food, population and economic problems of the developing countries.

That our two leaders share similar goals on these subjects, which surely are at the very top of the global agenda for the balance of this century, augurs well for bilateral relations and the cause of peace itself.

I do not want to leave you with the impression that all problems in Indo-U.S. relations will melt away with the political changes that have taken place. Two countries as large and diverse as India and the United States, so differently placed geographically and economically, and enjoying such different cultural tradi-

tions, will not see eye-to-eye on every issue even though we are both democracies. However, I think we can approach issues from a basis of shared interests and values that has not always existed in earlier years. A framework of growing mutual trust and confidence should enable us to address and resolve specific differences as they arise, and to find growing areas of cooperation on the global scene.

The extent to which we succeed in cementing stronger ties with India depends only in part on our governments.

The decisions and actions of private persons and companies, businessmen like yourselves, scientists, scholars, and others, can greatly affect the shape of relations between two open societies like India and the United States. Important as good diplomatic relations are, the essence of sound state-to-state relations also rests on healthy and vigorous cultural, commercial and mutually beneficial ties.

The stage is set for consolidating cooperative and friendly U.S.-Indian relations. This will not be achieved by rhetoric or overnight. However, as you begin your consideration of the trade issues, I. hope you will draw encouragement from the knowledge that both governments are determined to do all they can to strengthen the auspicious framework within which your efforts will go 0 forward.

Buya SPAN gift subscription for a friend, and we will send YOU a free gift too-your choice of anyone of the three books at left.

Name (Mr./Mrs./Miss) Address P.O. City Mail with remittance to: SPAN Magazine Subscription Service, SUN DEEP, 4, New Marine Lines, Bombay 400020

SP...AN'" ORDER FORM

Dist.

PIN CODEDDDDDD

State Use extra sheet for additional I enclose

0

Cheque

0

gift subscription.

Postal Order

0

Bank Draft

To order one subscription (12 issues). send RS.18.

For two subscriptions. send Rs. 34 (give two addresses).

For three subscriptions. send Rs. 48 (give three addresses).

Send me (check one): 0 "A Modern Instance" "The Most Dangerous Man in America"

o

0

"The Complete

Poems of Emily Dickinson"

0

Money Order receipt

.

THE QUID

THRill OF BAllOONING The oldest form of flight known to man is enjoying a revival.

Across America, singly and in groups, big colorful balloons (left and back cover) drift in growing numbers, borne by the wind. For its devotees ballooning is "so totally irrelevant and beautiful." Aloft, the balloon is a plaything of the wind. It goes where the wind takes it. For the balloonist the ride is quiet yet thrilling and full of the scents that drift upward from flowers and freshly mown fields as the landscape reels off below as in a movie.

The balloonists speak of their hobby as the "sport of the seventies." A delightful anachronism in the midst of today's high-speed technological society, ballooning has caught the imagination of a growing number of Americans. No wonder its fans have chosen for their slogan: "Back to Balloons."

Above left: Ground crew hold guy lines around a balloon before take off. Left: Inside view of a partially inflated balloon. Above: A balloonist. Back cover: A hotair balloon, decorated like a globe, releases red smoke into a blue sky.