SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL
VOLUME 17 . NUMBER 4 . DECEMBER 1963 230 PARK AVENUEÂˇ NEW YORK, N. Y. 10017
SOURCES FOR STUDY OF CONTEMPORARY CHINA: FOREWORD TO A FORTHCOMING RESEARCH GUIDE by Mary C. Wright"
FIFTEEN years ago, contemporary China did not appear to most of the outside world to pose a major intellectual or political challenge. Scholars and statesmen alike, after a perfunctory bow in formal recognition of the problem, could turn their attention elsewhere. Serious study was handicapped by limited access to the country, by a severe shortage of specialists, and by the thinness of the written material reaching the outside. Inevitably we were dependent on the informed guesswork either of specialists on communism who knew little about China or of specialists on earlier periods of Chinese history who were ill-prepared to analyze the cataclysmic changes that were occurring. In the years since 1949 there has been little access to the Mainland for scholarly purposes, but a beginning has been made in the training of specialists on contemporary China, and the volume of materials has quickly become so vast that an entirely different prob-
â€˘ The author is Associate Professor of History at Yale University and Adviser in Far Eastern Literature in the University Library, and a member of the Joint Committee on Contemporary China of the American Council of Learned Societies and Social Science Research Council. At the invitation of that committee she has written the Foreword to Contemporary China: A Research Guide, prepared by Peter Berton of the University of Southern California and Eugene Wu of the Hoover Institution for the joint committee. This Guide is expected to be published in 1964 by the Institute of Modern Asian Studies, University of Hong Kong. The Foreword is reprinted here with the permission of the authors. The other members of the joint committee are: A. Doak Barnett, Columbia University (chairman); Alexander Eckstein, University of Michigan; John K. Fairbank, Harvard University; Walter Galenson, University of California, Berkeley; John M. H . ~ Lindbeck, Harvard University; Robert A. Scalapino, University of ~ California, Berkeley; G. William Skinner, Cornell University; George E. Taylor, University of Washington; staff, Bryce Wood.
lem is posed: Where should one begin? This book, begun by Peter Berton and Eugene Wu several years ago on the initiative of a number of American scholars and with the generous support of the Joint Committee on Contemporary China, is an attempt to answer this question. Mr. Berton and Mr. Wu have performed a signal service for academic communities outside China, and for other research organizations, in preparing a guide to the unwieldy mass of sources now available. Even the most experienced scholars now engaged in research on contemporary China will find here new suggestions for locating the information they need. More important, such a guide should encourage more young scholars to enter this field; it should also make it possible for scholars in other fields to include China in comparative studies. Further, the social scientist who does not know Chinese can now begin to use a research assistant effectively, because both he and his translator will know where to find what may be available in Chinese on the point at issue. And by no means of least importance, scholars who have been trained in other fields of Chinese studies may now acquaint themselves with the voluminous documentation available on China since 1949 and give this period, which grows longer, something more than the perfunctory treatment which has often been unavoidable in the past. This Guide introduces the reader to the study of Nationalist China as well as of Communist China. The former is more complex than is sometimes realized. The volume of documentary material issued by the Kuomintang, the National Government, the Taiwan Provincial 41
the flow of translation, there are available in English essential reference books whose counterparts are not known to exist in Chinese. The Japanese sources for the study of Communist China, comprehensively described for the first time in this volume, deserve particular attention because they are often ignored by Chinese and Western scholars. Some of them of course are mainly intended for the use of Japanese scholars, but many add substantially to what is available in either Chinese or Western languages. The handbooks and chronologies prepared by the J apanese Foreign Office and by the Cabinet Research Office are especially noteworthy. Anyone who can read Chinese can learn to use these. The materials on contemporary China in other languages, including Russian, are primarily conveniences for scholars in those countries and add less substance than the materials in English and Japanese. It is nonetheless useful to have them listed. Every college and university library, and major public libraries as well, will find this volume indispensable both in acquiring materials and in helping readers to use them. Confronted with a flood of paper, even the major research libraries have found it difficult to maintain systematic programs of acquisitions adequate to their users' needs. The result inevitably has been omission of major sources in random buying. This Guide will be no less useful to the numerous new centers of Chinese studies, _ with their smaller libraries. It will enable them with a minimum of funds and specialized staff to identify, acquire, and make available to readers the most important sources. For the liberal arts colleges, where students now want to write papers relating to contemporary China, these descriptions of the English-language sources should be a great help both to the bewildered general college librarian and to the hard-pressed undergraduate teacher. Thus far, the normal interplay between research and library development has been sluggish in the contemporary Chinese field : scholars have neglected the subject because of the unwieldy character of the sources; because of this neglect, library development has lagged; and this lag has further discouraged research. The publication of this Guide is an important step in reversing the direction of this interplay: as the sources come under better control, research should increase, and this research in tum should further stimulate library development. The real lesson of this volume, however, is that we can do a great deal more than we have been doing with the available materials, and that we are foolish to waste our time debating over the impressions of travelers or scoops~ in spot news when the sources exist for basic research ofWI' enduring value.
Government, local governments, and numerous research organizations is substantial and deserves more attention than it has received. The meticulous listings provided in this book should lead to monographs which may transform our dull generalizations, from several viewpoints, into genuinely interesting controversies. For the study of Communist China the most important sources are Mainland publications in Chinese. The torrent of periodicals and newspapers and the number that are now indexed indicate the feasibility of research on many important subjects of which we now know very little. Subject bibliographies listed in the Guide provide an introduction to books, pamphlets, and articles. Even though some items are very difficult to obtain, it is clear that we now have available materials of sufficient quality and quantity to permit considerable verification through cross-checking, according to the criteria of credibility used by the various disciplines. An important additional resource is the substantial body of Mainland documentation collected and reproduced for limited distribution by government agencies on Taiwan. Even the existence of these collections has not hitherto been widely known. In the few instances where they have been checked, the Mainland and the Taiwan texts have corroborated each other. Taiwan agencies, as the listings in this book indicate, have also compiled useful reference works concerning the Mainland, notably in the field of biography. Our major problem with the Chinese sources is therefore to understand what a particular piece of information really means, rather than to authenticate the text. This of course does not hold true for the English language pro-Communist publications from the Mainland, or for the English language anti-Communist publications from Taiwan. Since both are intended for foreign consumption, they lack the built-in limits on falsification which characterize the Chinese texts intended primarily for internal use. Translations of Chinese sources into other languages, principally English, should be clearly distinguished from materials intended from the beginning for foreign consumption. On some problems, the translations are as useful as the originals. On others, important sources have not been selected for translation, or important sections may have been omitted. Some translations are full of errors and all translations distort to some degree. N onetheless, the voluminous translation services of the Peking government, of the American Consulate General in Hong Kong, of the Union Research Institute, of the U. S. Joint Publications Research Service, and of other organizations are a major scholarly resource. Mr. Berton and Mr. Wu deserve our thanks for describing them and for telling us how to use them efficiently. In addition to
DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC TRENDS IN THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: REPORT ON A CONFERENCE HELD ON OCTOBER 10-12, 1963 by Joseph THE conference on demographic and economic trends in developing countries, which was held in New York on October 10-12 under the joint sponsorship of the Population Council and the Committee on Economic Growth, was the fifteenth in the series arranged by that committee of the Council. This conference was planned as a continuation of an earlier conference of the Universities National Bureau Committee for Economic Research, the results of which were published as Demographic and Economic Change in Developed Countries (1960).1 As the conference plans developed, however, emphasis was placed almost exclusively upon actual and prospective trends in fertility and mortality; economic consequences and concomitants of population growth in developing economies were stressed in but three papers (a copy of the conference program appears at the end of this report). The sponsors of the conference plan to publish a collection of the papers, under the editorship of Norman B. Ryder. Three major and a number of minor conclusions emerged from the conference. Most of these, however, were considered subject to varying degrees of qualification. First, headlong mortality declines, of isolated occurrence a decade or two ago, have become "commonplace and near-continental," in the words of George Stolnitz. Underlying these declines have been international asâ€˘ The author is Professor of Economics at Duke University. He has been a member of the Council's Committee on Economic Growth since its appointment in 1949. and with Dudley Kirk. Director of the DemoÂˇ graphic Division. Population Council. was responsible for planning the October 1963 conference. The other participants in the conference were: Edith Adams and John D. Durand. Population Branch. United Nations; Donald J. Bogue, Philip M. Hauser, Bert F. Hoselitz, and Nathan Keyfitz. University of Chicago; Jean Bourgeois-Pichat, Institut National d'Etudes Demographiques, Paris; Judith Blake Davis, University of California. Berkeley; Paul Demeny, Frank Lorimer, Wilbert E. Moore, and Irene B. Taeuber, Princeton University; Richard A. Easterlin and Vincent H. Whitney, University of Pennsylvania; M. A. EI-Badry, Cairo University; Ronald Freedman, University of Michigan; Reuben L. Hill, University of Minnesota; Hannes Hyrenius, University of Gothenburg; William O. Jones. Stanford University; Riley H. Kirby, U. S. Department of Agriculture; Clyde V. Kiser, Milbank Memorial Fund; Simon Kuznets, Harvard University; George F. Mair, Smith College; W. Parker Mauldin and Frank W. Notestein, Population Council; Carmen A. Mir6. University of Chile; Gustav Ranis, Yale University; Norman B. Ryder, University of Wisconsin; Robert S. Smith, Duke University; George J. Stolnitz, Indiana University; Wilbur Zelinsky, Pennsylvania State University; Eleanor C. Isbell, Elbridge Sibley. and Paul Webbink. Social Science Research Council. 1 Edited by Ansley J. Coale and published by Princeton University Press for the National Bureau of Economic Research, in its Special Conference Series, Vol. II.
sistance and the activities of governmental public health agencies; rate of economic improvement and variation in population growth have exercised relatively little influence. These declines thus resemble those in Western Europe and its offshoots as well as those developing later in Eastern and Southern Europe, all of which have been primarily but not exclusively sequels to "innovations in public health and sanitation." The declines have merely reduced the gap between life expectancy in the West and that in the underdeveloped world, and their continuation is not expected to do more than shrink this gapnot to eliminate it. It is also considered likely that the consequent elevation of the rate of natural increase will re-enforce other conditions which tend to bring about a decline in fertility. Second, data presented by Durand point to the existence of two worlds of fertility, the developing and the developed, with fertility about twice as high in the former as in the latter, although within each category of countries fertility varies appreciably. When all countries are taken into account, fertility is inversely associated with various indicators of economic and social development; but when these countries are grouped into developing and underdeveloped, one finds little association between these indicators and gross reproduction in either category. Presumably a number of indicators, most of which are intercorrelated, must undergo change before fertility in developing countries is likely to move downward toward the lower levels characteristic of developed countries. Fertility is inversely associated with population density, especially in developed countries, but not much affected by variations in mortality. Unexplained is the great variation in fertility found in developed countries where it is subject to modem controls, as well as in developing countries where modem methods of control are not practiced. Bourgeois-Pichat's paper focused upon the mechanism or process of family building, upon variation in the time of cessation of reproduction, upon the factors that reduce fertility or halt it altogether in populations little penetrated by modem methods of birth control, and upon the present dearth of information respecting causes of variation in intervals between births and of termination of family building. Third, Kirk concluded a review of changes in governmental attitudes respecting contraception, and one of experience in carrying out programs for the diffusion of family planning, with the suggestion that the prospects
for the early reduction of natality in underdeveloped areas are more favorable than present high birth rates imply. The technology of birth control is improving rapidly; most elite groups are adopting family planning; and government programs are tending to increase in scope and effectiveness. Kirk's somewhat optimistic forecast was supported by the interpretation Bogue put upon his and Dandekar's analysis of population trends and prospects in Asia. Demeny's contribution may be noted in connection with Kirk's in that, through use of models, Demeny demonstrated the superiority of fertilityreducing investment to investment oriented only to accelerating industrialization and urbanization and thereby eventually reducing fertility. This contribution was essentially in the Enke-Villard rather than in the Galenson-Leibenstein tradition. Three regional papers other than Bogue's dealing with Asia were presented. EI-Badry's review of trends in the Arab Middle East revealed certain regional and class differences in fertility, which may be partially associated with economic differences and which could be forerunners of some fertility decline. His review also indicated that migration had been toward places where incomes were higher and the local milieu was relatively less favorable to fertility. Carmen Mir6's informationpacked report on Latin America revealed marked fertility differences between countries within the temperate zone and those outside it, although within each of these categories some countries differed from the majority. Rural-urban differences in fertility are marked throughout Latin America, and studies here and there indicate the usual inverse relationship between literacy, class
status, education, etc. and fertility. Migration and urbanization, together with their economic and social concomitants, are serving to reduce fertility. Lorimer's paper, although focused on the nature of the information available for Sub-Saharan Africa, pointed to the importance of African migration, especially toward cities as economic development and urbanization proceed, and to the considerable variation in African fertility even within fairly small areas. Edith Adams presented an extensive survey of labor force characteristics and trends in the developing countries. The relevant data that are available or obtainable are often inadequate, but they do show the impact of age, sex, and degree of urbanization upon the nature and extent of participation in the labor force. Participation rates for males appear to decline with increases in industrialization and decreases in the relative number engaged in primary occupations. Whether participation rates for females in developing countries can be expected to change as they did in the countries now developed is not yet evident from the data. Johnson and Kirby in their review of trends in food production indicated that while food supply could long be made to keep pace with current population growth in many developing countries, it can do so only if social and economic institutional obstacles to effective cultivation are dissipated appropriately. They stressed the importance of suitable education. They also suggested that the real practical alternatives are either family-owned and operated farms, or privately operated larger-scale units in whose output farm workers share equitably, or in a combination of these alternatives.
Program: CONFERENCE ON DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC TRENDS IN THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES Biltmore Hotel, New York City, October 10-12, 1963
October 10, 9:30 AM. Chairman: Frank W. Notestein RECENT MORTALITY DECLINES IN LATIN AMERICA, ASIA AND AFtuCA: REVIEW AND REINTERPRETATION, George J. Stolnitz RECENT TRENDS OF FERTILITY IN UNDERDEVELOPED AREAs, Jean Bourgeois-Pichat LEVELS OF FERTILITY IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, John D. Durand Discussion, Ronald Freedman LABOR FORCE CHARACTERISTICS AND TRENDS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, Edith Adams Discussion, Wilbert E. Moore
October 10, 1:45 PM. Chairman: Simon Kuznets RECENT POPULATION TRENDS IN ASIA AND THE PROSPECTS FOR FERTILITY DECLINE, Donald J. Bogue and D. P. Dandekar Discussion, Irene B. Taeuber TRENDS IN THE COMPONENTS OF POPULATION GROWTH IN THE ARAB COUNTRIES OF THE MIDDLE EAST: A SURVEY OF PRESENT INFORMATION, M. A. EI-Badry Discussion, W. Parker Mauldin THE POPULATION OF SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA, Frank Lorimer Discussion, Wilbur Zelinsky
THE POPULATION OF LATIN AMERICA, Carmen A. Miro Discussion, Robert S. Smith
October 11, 9:30 AM. Chairman: Wilbert E. Moore PROSPECTS FOR REDUCING NATALITY IN THE UNDERDEVELOPED WORLD, Dudley Kirk Discussion, Judith Blake Davis Comments on Transition Theory Revisited, Frank W. Notestein Discussion, Richard A. Easterlin
October 11, 1:45 PM. Chairman: Dudley Kirk INVESTMENT ALLOCATION AND POPULATION GROWTH, Paul Demeny Discussion, Gustav Ranis TRENDS IN FOOD PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION, Sherman E. Johnson and Riley H. Kirby Discussion, William O. Jones
October 12, 9:30 AM. Chairman: Bert F. Hoselitz Comments on Demographic Aspects of Papers, Nathan Keyfitz _ Comments on Economic Implications of Papers, Joseph J. Spengler . . Overview and Review, Simon Kuznets
THE MILITARY IN AMERICAN SOCIETY by Morris Janowitz*
THE Committee on National Security Policy Research held a conference in Princeton, New Jersey on June 2021, 1963 on "The Military in American Society." 1 The purpose of the conference was to explore the sociological and political implications of the unprecedentedly large peacetime establishment maintained in the United States since the Korean War. The conference emphasized the formulation of research objectives, the achievement of which would increase our understanding of the influence of the military on American society in relation to its increased resources and new roles in international affairs. Attention was also given to the problems involved in comparative research on the armed forces and society, with special reference to the emerging nations. The conference first discussed research papers by sociologists on recruitment and career management, professional commitments, and retirement in the United States military establishment. These papers analyzed ways in which changing personnel and professional requirements â€˘ The author is Professor of Sociology at the University of Chicago and a member of the Council's Committee on National Security Policy Research, for which he with G. A. Lincoln of the U. S. Military Academy and John W. Masland of Dartmouth College organized the conference reported here. The other members of the committee are William T. R. Fox, Columbia University (chairman); Klaus Knorr, Princeton University; Robert E. Osgood, Johns Hopkins University; Arthur Smithies, Harvard University; Robert C. Wood, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; staff, Bryce Wood. 1 The following papers were presented at the conference: "Career Management in the Military Establishment," by Kurt Lang, University of California, Berkeley; "Career Opportunities and Commitments among Military Officers," by Mayer N. Zald, University of Chicago, and William Simon, National Opinion Research Center; "Professional Socialization of the West Point Cadet," by John P. Lovell, Indiana University; "Sequels to a Military Career: The Retired Military Professional," by Albert D. Biderman, Bureau of Social Science Research, Inc. These papers will be included in a volume entitled The Changing Patterns of Military Organization, edited by Morris Janowitz, to be published in 1964 by the Russell Sage Foundation. A related paper by Morris Janowitz will appear as part of a study on "The Military in the Political Development of New Nations," University of Chicago, 1964. The participants included, in addition to authors of papers, Messrs. Knorr, Lincoln, and Masland of the committee, and staff: Bernard Barber, Barnard College; Davis B. Bobrow, and Robert G. Gilpin, Jr., Princeton University; Leonard S. Cottrell, Jr., Russell Sage Foundation; Oliver Garceau, East Boothbay, Maine; Pendleton Herring; Charles E. Hutchinson, U. S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research; Charles Konigsberg, Malham M. Wakin, and Henry J. Wojdyla, U. S. Air Force Academy; William Kornhauser, University of California, Berkeley; Charles J. Merdinger, U. S. Naval Academy; Louis Morton, Dartmouth College; Frederic A. Mosher, Carnegie Corporation of New York; Robert E. Murphy, Brooks Air Force Base, Aerospace Medical Division; Roger H. Nye, U. S. Military Academy; Luigi Petrullo, U. S. Office of Naval Research; DeWitt C. Smith, U. S. Department of the Army; and Richard Snyder, U. S. Army Leadership Human Research Unit, Presidio of Monterey.
continue to alter relations between the military and civilian society. The military establishment has become a managerial one which still must strive to maintain a special institutional form because of its concern with the "management of violence." The central research problem is concerned with the consequences of the extensive interpenetration of military and civilian institutions and the changing nature of the military profession, which now includes a complex mixture of commanders and specialists. As the military must define its relation to new goals, such as arms control and inspection systems which run counter to traditional objectives, the pattern of civilmilitary relations becomes even more complex. Kurt Lang presented an analysis of career management in the military establishment, which showed the extent to which it has developed into a vast educational institution in which levels of educational achievement far exceed those in most sectors of the civilian society. Career development in the military establishment operates not only to meet military requirements but to prepare officers and enlisted men for a second career in civilian society, since the majority of military personnel can expect to be retired in the mid-forties, when family responsibility is at a maximum. The transformation in the meaning of a military career was analyzed in a paper by Mayer Zald and William Simon. In the past the military establishment has relied on the commitments of graduates of its academies to maintain its professional solidarity in a society which de-emphasized military values. On the basis of detailed sample survey data the authors were able to affirm that the academies produce officers with high professional commitments, but the difference between academy graduates and military personnel without an academy background has declined in respect to career commitment. The armed services meet their personnel needs because they are able to develop strong professional commitments among officers who enter through a variety of channels and without the intention of pursuing a military career. Their professional commitments are fashioned by the opportunities they find in the military establishment. Transferability of skills from military to civilian employment does not weaken professional commitment to the military establishment; it is the belief that one's skills are being utilized in the military establishment that strengthens professional commitment. The changed position of the military establishment in American society has been most dramatically revealed by the ever increasing numbers of retired professionals, both officers and enlisted men. Albert Biderman analyzed
recent experiences in the movement from military careers to civilian careers of 350,000 officers and enlisted personnel who have retired (their numbers will increase steadily to over 1,000,000). It must be assumed that those who have the most highly military skills have the least transferability to civilian society. The available evidence indicates that for a minority there has been a measurable decrease in income with retirement, and a more diffuse but nevertheless observable loss of social status and selfesteem. Retirement problems directly affect the capacity of the military to recruit new personnel and are becoming a larger political issue in terms of the necessity of averting an alienated and frustrated group in civilian society. Research into the motives underlying the selection of a military career was considered important. It was pointed out that the armed services have significantly large bodies of data on the changing nature of the military career and on the problems involved in integrating specialists into the services. These materials remain to be analyzed mainly because of a lack of interest on the part of social scientists in universities and colleges. The position of the retired military professional was seen as a particularly appropriate problem for research by sociologists, on the basis both of large samples and of intensive analyses in particular communities where military personnel are concentrated. The conference next focused more directly on the involvement of the military in the political process. Oliver Garceau led a discussion of the role of the military as a political force exerting pressure on both domestic and foreign policy issues. The analysis of organized pressure groups has long been the subject of research by political scientists. The role of the military as a political pressure group is still viewed as a crucial area for the understanding of American political institutions, but theoretical and monographic materials are still far from adequate. The allocation of public funds for defense expenditures was a central issue that pervaded the discussion, although the concept of the "industrial military" complex was considered too global and undifferentiated. The allocation of funds for defense was seen as articulated with the congressional system. In most congressional districts the margin between economic health or distress is a function of defense expenditures. Thus, the problematic issues in the military as an internal political force involve at least four elements: (a) the structure of pressure at the congressional committee level, involving interest groups, the professional bureaucracy, and the seniority of congressional experts; (b) the elaborate informal alliances that spread out from the military establishment and involve businessmen, lawyers, and public officials as well as political leaders; (c) the colorful and ceremonial 46
roles of the military establishment, as well as its elaborate public relations activities; (d) the reactions of special military constituencies, such as retired and reserve officers and veterans. In contrast, it was generally agreed that the activities _ of the military establishment in indoctrination of its personnel are so limited as to be of no consequence for public policy. In fact, the general predisposition of the professional officer is to resist these responsibilities and view them as detrimental to military effectiveness. Nonetheless, it was pointed out that case studies of the roles of various civilian groups and politicians in pressing the military to undertake political and anti-Communist indoctrination would be highly relevant. Such case studies would throw light on the civilian groups which exert pressure on the military establishment in the political process. In relation to foreign policy it is important in research to focus on the increasing capacity of civilian authorities to manage the strategic and day-to-day activities of the armed forces. What are the effects of the gradual and long-term reassertion of civilian political direction of military activities on professional military perspectives? What channels, official and unofficial, are developing as a result of new trends in civilian political direction and becoming available to the military for representation to Congress and the public? In this connection the need for study of the role of the military establishment in infiu- _ encing public opinion on foreign policy was emphasized. WJ In a prolonged period of international tensions and world-wide commitments, the military establishment has been given important international political responsibility and tasks. The operational logic applied by the military in confronting political dilemmas is in contrast with that of the Department of State. The analysis of these differences warrants fundamental research attention. The armed forces of the United States, especially in the socalled new nations, have extensive operational responsibilities with direct political involvements in connection with military assistance and civic programs, and these responsibilities have yet to be adequately studied. An alternative approach to research on the involvement of the military in domestic politics was offered by a specialist in political sociology, who pointed out that in a democratic society the political assumption is that the military will be nonpartisan. Military professionals are subject to many institutional pressures to maintain this nonpartisan position. But military strategy and the day-to-day issues of the cold war become linked to ideological and partisan elemen ts in the domestic political scene. These alliances, formal and informal, should be objectively analyzed. Military professionals are linked to partisan politics in a variety of ways: through the in-
trations and tensions, particularly in these political areas. Comparative experiences of European countries after World Wars I and II should be explored with great care. Widespread frustration is likely to occur only in the case of severe military defeats. However, frustrating personal experiences within the fabric of the existing establishment from time to time have propelled individual officers into extremist political activities. Such activity on the part of a relatively small number of retired officers was noted and viewed as part of the larger problem for study, the behavior of retired military personnel. The unlikelihood that retired military personnel would form a unified articulate group in American society with significant political influence in foreign policy was suggested. The validity of this proposition would depend in good part on the state of the economy and the programs being developed to assist retired personnel in making the transition to civilian occupations. At numerous points in the exploration of new patterns of civil-military relations, fundamental issues of race and minority relations in the United States enter. In recent years the anned forces have become involved in the maintenance of domestic law and order as a result of racial tensions. Internally, the military establishment has pushed racial integration further and faster than almost any other institutional sector. Official reports and investigations by executive agencies describe the main outlines of these patterns of desegregation, but research on attitude changes and the implication of these institutional practices for American society have not been vigorously pursued. There is no adequate study of the impact of peacetime selective service experiences on recruits, despite the belief that these experiences are important influences in civic attitudes among young recruits. In short, the impact of the military as a social institution on our society remains relatively unstudied.
formal networks involving procurement, the congressional system of legislative contacts, and participation in military service associations. Little is known about the political attitudes of military professionals during active duty because of the requirements of nonpartisanship. Some participants in the conference considered political attitudes of officers on active duty to be a legitimate subject of research, while others thought that in the absence of explicit knowledge of failure to abide by the nonpartisanship doctrine, systematic research on opinions would not be appropriate. The act of probing for political attitudes would only serve to disrupt the political fonnula of a democratic society. The capacity of the military to adapt to new technology and new political, economic, and social requirements was thought to offer a summary fonnulation of specific research issues. It was generally agreed that traditional military resistance to innovation is no longer operative. However, there was much less agreement in estimating the degree of adaptation to specific problems. For example, considerable differences of opinion as to the effectiveness of the military establishment in adapting to new conditions of limited warfare and counter insurgency indicate the need for careful investigation of these areas. Of fundamental importance are professional attitudes and organizational adaptability of the military in planning and participation in arms control and inspection. The persistence of deep and pervasive interservice rivalries, although lessened by political leadership, was thought to limit the capacity of the military establishment to adjust to changing circumstances. The crux of the question was seen in the consequences of having large numbers of military personnel carrying on political cold-war missions, and the effects on professional military attitudes. It was recognized that the new responsibilities of the military establishment imply ÂŁrus-
COMMITTEE BRIEFS COMPARATIVE POLITICS Lucian W. Pye (chairman), Gabriel A. Almond, Leonard Binder, R. Taylor Cole, James S. Coleman, Herbert Hyman, Joseph LaPalombara, Sidney Verba, Robert E. Ward, Myron Weiner; staff, Bryce Wood. A conference on political parties and political development, the fifth in the committee's series on political modernization and democratization in non-Western areas, will be held at Frascati, Italy on January 6-9, 1964. The plans for _ the conference were made for the committee by Messrs. Lat.., Palombara and Weiner, who have prepared an introductory paper on the conference topic for discussion by Franz An-
sprenger, Free University of Berlin, Franco Ferrarotti, University of Rome, and Turhan Feyzioglu, Ankara, at the first session. The second session will consider political parties in relation to national integration, with special reference to Africa, on which a paper has been contributed by Rupert Emerson, Harvard University. Discussion of the paper will be led by Colin Leys, Makerere University College. The same subject will be considered at the third session, with special reference to Europe and the United States. Otto Kirchheimer of Columbia University has prepared a paper on the former, and William N. Chambers of Washington University, on the latter. Their discussants will be Mattei Dogan, Centre d'Etudes Sociologiques, Paris, and
W. J. M. Mackenzie, University of Manchester. Political parties and political recruitment and participation will be the topic of the fourth and fifth sessions. Papers on this topic with reference to the Middle East, Africa, and Europe have been contributed respectively by Mr. Binder, Immanuel Wallerstein of Columbia University, and Stein Rokkan of Christian Michelsen Institute, Bergen, Norway. The discussion will be opened by Dennis Austin, Royal Institute of International Affairs. The sixth session will consider political parties and relations among elites. Discussion of papers on these relations in Europe, by Hans Daalder, Institute of Social Studies, The Hague; in the Middle East, by Dankwart A. Rustow, Columbia University; and the United States, by Morton Grodzins, University of Chicago, will be opened by David Butler, Nuffield College, Oxford. For two ensuing sessions on political parties and public policy, papers have been prepared on Europe by Giovanni Sartori, University of Florence; on Latin America, by Robert E. Scott, University of Illinois; and on Asia, by Mr. Pye. His paper will be discussed by W. H. Morris-Jones, University of Durham. Some concluding observations will be made by Raymond Aron, Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes. Other participants in addition to authors and discussants will include Szymon Chodak, University of Ghana; R. P. Dore, London School of Economics and Political Science; Aldo Garosci, Rome; Pendleton Herring; ~erif Arif Mardin, Ankara University; Jean Meynaud, University of Lausanne; Guglielmo Negri, University of Bologna; Alberto Spreafico, University of Florence; members of the committee and staff. The papers and proceedings will be edited by Messrs. LaPalombara and Weiner for publication by Princeton University Press as the fifth volume in the committee's series, Studies in Political Development. CONTEMPORARY CHINA: SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH ON CHINESE SOCIETY G. William Skinner (chairman), John C. Pelzel, Irene B. Taeuber; staff. Bryce Wood. The seventh seminar in the series sponsored by the subcommittee was held at the University of Toronto, November 1-2, on processes of change in Chinese society. The four sessions were devoted to discussion of the following topics: modernization, industrialization, and the changing national polity; changes in rural social organization; resocializationtechniques and processes of "thought reform" in relation to social change; changes in the family and kinship system. Papers prepared for the seminar and circulated to the participants in advance were: "The Chinese Family and the Chinese Population: Structure, Change, and Transition," by Mrs. Taeuber; "The Deployment of Educated Personnel and Modernization in Communist China: Dynamics of Change," by H. Yuan Tien, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee; "Periodic Marketing and Collectivization in Rural China," by Mr. Skinner; "Human Volition and Organizational Demand: The Problem of 'Re-socialization' in Communist China," by H. Franz Schurmann, University of California, Berkeley; "The Background of Socialization," by Mr. 48
Pelzel. Other participants were Albert Feuerwerker, University of Michigan; C. T. Hu, Columbia University; Marion J. Levy, Jr., Princeton University; John W. Lewis, Robert M. Marsh, and Arthur P. Wolf, Cornell University; Donald E. Willmott, University of Toronto; C. K. Yang, University ._ of Pittsburgh; Bryce Wood; Katherine Hanson, Cornell University (rapporteur). The eighth and ninth seminars planned by the subcommittee are to be held in Bermuda on January 24-25 and 27-28, on cognitive and value systems in Chinese society, and personality and motivation in Chinese society, respectively. ECONOMY OF CHINA Simon Kuznets (chairman), Walter Galenson (director of research), Abram Bergson, Alexander Eckstein, Joseph A. Kershaw, Ta-Chung Liu; staff. Paul Webbink. "The Economy of Mainland China, 1949-1963: A Bibliography of Materials in English" has been reproduced by the committee for limited circulation. This 300-page bibliography was prepared by Nai-Ruenn Chen, staff assistant to the committee's director of research and Lecturer in the Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley. It lists translations of Communist China publications as well as books and articles published in English both in and outside Mainland China. As stated in the Preface by Mr. Chen, "The bibliography consists of two parts. Part one contains references to the primary source materials originating in Communist China. These are classified into three categories: (1) official documents, including laws and regulations, government and party decisions and resolutions, and_ communiques; (2) reports, speeches, and other statements made by government and party officials; and (3) semi-official and non-official publications, including editorials, articles and news reports. Part two is restricted to secondary source materials. These include scholarly works and analyses and reports published outside the Chinese mainland." The committee hopes that the bibliography will be of assistance to those concerned with research on the Chinese economy. Requests for copies-which can be supplied only to especially interested scholars-should be addressed to the office of the Committee on the Economy of China, 2500 Durant Avenue, Apartment 307, Berkeley, California 94704. GENETICS AND BEHAVIOR Gardner Lindzey (chairman), Ernst W. Caspari, Theodosius Dobzhansky, David A. Hamburg, Amos H. Hawley, Jerry Hirsch, Gerald E. McClearn, J. N. Spuhler; staff, Ben Willerman. A summer research training institute on behavioral genetics is to be held at the University of California, Berkeley, June 22 through July 31, 1964, under the cosponsorship of the committee and the University, with funds granted to the University by the National Institutes of Health. Instruction will be offered at advanced graduate and postdoctoral levels. Applicants should have completed at least one year o f _ graduate study in any social science or biological science. In view of the diversity of background expected among the
program has been designed to examine developments in psychology and other social sciences that have potential significance for the field of education, and educational developments and needs that raise significant questions for research. Emphasis will be placed on experimental approaches to complex processes in both laboratories and classrooms, through presentations of research, demonstrations of data and techniques, and lectures. Participants will be given opportunity to select and develop problems for their own future research. Approximately 40 persons are being invited to participate. They will be divided into four groups, concentrating in the following areas: (1) instructional variables affecting learning, with particular reference to the language arts, directed by John B. Carroll, Director of the Laboratory for Research in Instruction, Harvard University; (2) concept formation and transfer, including the use of programming and computers as research aids, directed by Lawrence M. Stolurow, Professor of Psychology and of Educational Psychology, University of Illinois; (3) development of motivation for learning and achievement, directed by John W. Atkinson, Professor of Psychology, University of Michigan; (4) school and community factors in motivational change, directed by Fred L. Strodtbeck, Associate Professor of Social Psychology, University of Chicago.
students to be invited to attend the institute, the curriculum will consist of two parts. In the first four weeks a course in social science will be given to students trained primarily in genetic and biological fields, and a course in genetics will be given to those trained in the social sciences. The last two ' weeks will be devoted to a survey of the field of behavioral genetics. Application forms may be obtained from G. E. McClearn, Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, and are to be submitted by February 10, so that awards can be announced about March l. Stipends of $504 for predoctoral students and of $588 for postdoctoral are available, and travel expenses will be provided up to the equivalent of round-trip economy jet airplane fare. LEARNING AND THE EDUCATIONAL PROCESS Lee J. Cronbach (chairman), Richard C. Atkinson, Eleanor J. Gibson, Evan R. Keislar, Judson T. Shaplin; staff, Ben Willerman. Stanford University, with the assistance of the committee, will hold a research training conference, June 21 to July 31, 1964, with support provided by the Cooperative Research Program of the U. S. Office of Education. The conference will be directed by Messrs. Atkinson and Cronbach. The
PERSONNEL FACULTY RESEARCH FELLOWSHIPS The Committee on Faculty Research Fellowships-John Useem (chairman), Dorwin Cartwright, Lawrence E. Fouraker, John D. Lewis, A.J. Mayer, and Charles Sellers-held the first of its two meetings scheduled for 1963-64 on December 16-17. It voted to award 18 fellowships, as follows:
Bela Balassa, Associate Professor of Economics, Yale University, for research in Europe on economic planning methods used in industrial countries. Lee Benson, Professor of History, Wayne State University, for research on the Congressional Gag Rule of 1836. Gene A. Brucker, Associate Professor of History, University of California, Berkeley, for research in Italy on Florentine politics in relation to social and economic developments, 1382-1434. Harry Eckstein, Professor of Politics, Princeton University, for research in Norway, Sweden, and Great Britain on the social basis of stable democracy. James W. Fesler, Professor of Government, Yale University, for research in France and England on the comparative development of their systems of field administration. Robert G. Gilpin, Jr., Assistant Professor of Politics and Public Affairs, Princeton University, for research in France on the role of scientists and scientific institutions in contemporary French political life. 49
S. William Halperin, Professor of Modem History, University of Chicago, for research in Europe on the diplomatic history of the Franco-Prussian War. John W. Hooper, Associate Professor of Economics, Yale University, for research in the Netherlands on applications of multivariate statistical techniques to multiequation economic models. Otto Kirchheimer, Professor of Government, Columbia University, for research in Europe on political responsibility: parliament and party in Western Europe. Richard T. Morris, Professor of Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles, for research in the Netherlands on attitudes and social relations of foreign students in selected universities. Helen Peak, Professor of Psychology, University of Michigan, for research on human reactions to similarity and difference. David M. Potter, Professor of American History, Stanford University, for research on historical aspects of alienation in American life. Nicholas V. Riasanovsky, Professor of History, University of California, Berkeley, for research in France on the thought of Charles Fourier. Melvin Richter, Associate Professor of Political Science, Hunter College, for research in France on the political sociology of Montesquieu, Tocqueville, Halevy, and Aron. Bernard Semmel, Associate Professor of History, State University of New York at Stony Brook, for research in
Great Britain on the influence of economic thought in the British Empire, 1770-1850. Donald W. Sutherland, Assistant Professor of History, State University of Iowa, for research in England on the concepts of conquest and seisin in medieval thought. Leslie A. White, Professor of Anthropology, University of Michigan, for research on two kinds of modern cultures: capitalist and democratic, and communist. Robert H. Wiebe, Associate Professor of History, Northwestern University, for research on ways in which Americans perceived their world, 1878-1920.
GRANTS FOR RESEARCH ON AMERICAN GOVERNMENTAL AND LEGAL PROCESSES The Committee on Political Behavior-David B. Truman (chairman), William M. Beaney, Angus Campbell, Robert A. Dahl, Oliver Garceau, Avery Leiserson, Edward H. Levi -at its meeting on December 19 awarded 9 grants for research on American governmental and legal processes:
GRANTS-IN-AID The Committee on Grants-in-Aid-Guy E. Swanson (chairman), Alfred D. Chandler, Jr., David H. French, Theodore S. Hamerow, Holland Hunter, and William H. Riker-held the first of its two meetings scheduled for 1963-64 on December 11. It voted to award 12 grants-in-aid, as follows: Richard H. Blum. Lecturer, School of Criminology, University of California, Berkeley, for research on attitudes of state legislators toward drugs and drug users. Dora Mae Clark, Emeritus Professor of History, Wilson College, for research in England on the rule of law in English Colonial administration: the roles of the attorneys and solicitors general, 1689-1776. Edward C. Ettin, Assistant Professor of Economics, Duke University, for research on management of assets by firms in the nonfinancial corporate sector. Leonard J. Fein, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for a functional analysis of the Israeli political system. Fred I. Greenstein, Assistant Professor of Government, Wesleyan University, for research on relationships between personality and political behavior. Arend Lijphart, Assistant Professor of Political Science, UniversIty of California, Berkeley, for research in the Netherlands on social cleavage and the viability of democracy as exemplified in that country. Leo A. Loubere, Associate Professor of History, State University of New York at Buffalo, for research in France on the history of French radicalism, 1830-1914. Paul E. Mott, Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of Michigan, for research on organizational flexibility and adaptation to change. Stanley C. Plog, Assistant Professor of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, for research on the resurgence of a religious movement concerned with "speaking in tongues." Erwin K. Scheuch, Lecturer on Social Relations, Harvard University, for research on the interrelation of perceptions of society and of political institutions in electoral behavior in West Germany. William A. Williams, Professor of American History, University of Wisconsin, for research on foreign relations of the United States, 1883-1914. Charles E. Wynes, Assistant Professor of History, University of Georgia, for research on race relations in Virginia, 1902-54. 50
David J. Danelski, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Washington, for research on an empirically verifiable theory of decision making in collegial courts. Charles D. Farris, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Florida, for research on selected national political processes in the United States, 1787-95. Marvin A. Harder, Professor of Political Science, University of Wichita, for research on Democratic and Republican county committees' perceptions of their roles. George W. Hilton, Associate Professor of Economics, University of California, Los Angeles, for research on the Interstate Commerce Commission and the development of American transportation policy. Robert E. Lane, Professor of Political Science, Yale University, for research on ideological self-analysis with reference to political beliefs. Duncan MacRae, Jr., Associate Professor of Political Science and Sociology, University of Chicago, for research on representation in the U.S. Congress, 1945-64. Robert L. Peabody, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Johns Hopkins University, for research on bargaining, hierarchy, and legislative outcomes in the U. S.Al House of Representatives. â€˘ Peter Rossi, Professor of Sociology, University of Chicago, for research on reactions of a sample of the American public to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Donald E. Stokes, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Michigan, for research on the place of national party leadership in the electoral process in the United States. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE TRAVEL GRANTS Under the program administered by the Committee on International Conference Travel Grants, 4 awards were made by its staff subcommittee at meetings on October 22 and December 3, to assist social scientists resident in the United States to attend international congresses and other meetings outside this country: Morroe Berger, Professor of Sociology, Director, Program in Near Eastern Studies, Princeton University; International Union of Orientalists, Twenty-sixth National Congress of Orientalists, New Delhi, January 4-10, 1964. John H. Herz, Professor of Political Science, City College, New York; German Sociological Association, Fifteenth Annual Conference, Heidelberg, April 28-30, 1964_ Walter Isard, Professor of Economics and Regional Sci.' ence, University of Pennsylvania; International ReÂˇ
gional Science Association, Fourth Regional Science Congress, Ghent, July 14-17, 1964. Gerhard E. Lenski, Professor of Sociology, University of North Carolina; German Sociological Association, Fifteenth Annual Conference, Heidelberg, April 28-30, 1964.
APPOINTMENTS TO COMMITTEES Benjamin E. Thomas of the University of California, Los Angeles, has been appointed a member of the Joint Committee on African Studies (sponsored with the American Council of Learned Societies), succeeding Karl J. Pelzer (resigned). Thomas C. Cochran has been designated by the Social Science Research Council as a member of the Conference Board of Associated Research Councils, succeeding Malcolm M. Willey. Alexander Eckstein of the University of Michigan and Ta-Chung Liu of Cornell University have been added to the membership of the Committee on the Economy of China. David H. French of Reed College and Theodore S. Hamerow of the University of Wisconsin have been appointed members of the Committee on Grants-in-Aid, in place of Carl E. Schorske and Mel£ord E. Spiro, who were unable to serve.
Ben T. Moore of the Twentieth Century Fund has been appointed a member of the Joint Committee on International Congresses in the United States (sponsored with the American Council of Learned Societies), succeeding James A. Perkins. Richard A. Humphrey of the American Council on Education, Samuel M. Nabrit of Texas Southern University, John W. Nason of Carleton College, and Roy H. Pearce of the University of California, San Diego, have been appointed by the Conference Board to the Committee on International Exchange of Persons, succeeding respectively Arthur A. Hauck, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Wendell P. Jones, and Robert E. Spiller. Robert P. Abelson of Yale University, Robert K. Lindsay of the University of Texas, and Philip J. Stone of Harvard University have been appointed members of the Committee on Simulation of Cognitive Processes, succeeding Lyle V. Jones and George A. Miller (both resigned). David T. Cattell of the University of California, Los Angeles, has been appointed a member of the Subcommittee on Grants of the Joint Committee on Slavic Studies (sponsored with the American Council of Learned Societies), replacing Robert C. Tucker who was unable to serve.
Bureaucracy and Political Development, edited by Joseph LaPalombara. Studies in Political Development 2, sponsored by the Committee on Comparative Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, August 1963. 501 pages. $8.50. Concentration in the Manufacturing Industries of the United States: A Midcentury Report, by Ralph L. Nelson. Economic Census Studies 2, sponsored by the Committee on Analysis of Economic Census Data. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963. 302 pages . .$7.50. The Education of Sociologists in the United States, by Elbridge Sibley. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, December 1963. A study financed by the Russell Sage Foundation at the suggestion of the American Sociological Association, for which the author was granted partial leave from the Council. 218 pages. $3.50. Generalization in the Writing of History, edited by Louis Gottschalk. Report of the former Committee on His-
torical Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, January 1963. 268 pages . .$5.00. New Perspectives on the House of Representatives, edited by Robert L. Peabody and Nelson W. Polsby. Prepared with the aid of the Committee on Political Behavior. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, November 1963. 392 pages. Cloth, $6.50; paper, $3.50. Problems in Measuring Change. edited by Chester W. Harris. Proceedings of a conference sponsored by the former Committee on Personality Development in Youth. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, October 1963. 269 pages. $7.50. Six Cultures: Studies of Child Rearing, edited by Beatrice B. Whiting. Studies planned and initiated with the aid of the former Committees on Social Behavior and on Personality Development. New York: John Wiley & Sons, March 1963. 1017 pages. $12.50.
SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL 230
Incorporated in the State of Illinois, December 27, 1924, for the purpose of advancing research in the social sciences Directors, 1963:
ABRAM BERGSON, PAUL J . BOHANNAN, DORWIN CARTWRIGHT, JOSEPH B. CASAGRANDE, JOHN A. CLAUSEN, THOMAS C. COCHRAN,
JAMES S. COLEMAN,
A. Fox, WILUAM J. GOODE, JR., LoUIS GOTTSCHALK, CHAUNCY D. HARRIS, H. FIELD HAVILAND, JR., PENDLETON HEIuuNG,
GEORGE H. HILDEBRAND, WAYNE H . HOLTZMAN, NATHAN KEYFITZ, STANLEY LEBERGOTT, GARDNER LINDZEY, PHIUP J. MCCARTHY, FRANCO MODIGUANI, - . . . . . LOUIS MORTON, J. ROLAND PENNOCK, HERBERT A. SIMON, GUY E. SWANSON, DAVID B. TRUMAN, JOHN W. TUKEY, CHARLES WAGLEY, S. S. WILKS,
~ MALCOLM M. WILLEY, DONALD YOUNG
Officers and Staff:
ISBELL, ROWLAND L. MITCHELL, JR., BEN WILLERMAN,
Vice-President; ELBRIDGE SIBLEY, Executive Associate; Staff Associates; CATHERINE V. RON NAN, Financial Secretary
BRYCE WOOD, ELEANOR C.
SUMMER PROGRAMS OFFERED BY COUNCIL COMMITTEES FOR 1964 RESEARCH TRAINING INSTITUTE ON MATHEMATICS FOR POLITICAL SCIENTISTS AND SOCIOLOGISTS, AT STANFORD UNIVERSITY JULY 13 - AUGUST 21
his own housing arrangements. Assistance in finding nearby quarters for individuals or families will be provided. _ Applications for admission, on forms which will be sup- WI plied by the Council on request, must be filed by March 1, 1964. Applicants will be notified of the selection committee's actions about April 1. Requests for application forms and instructions should be addressed to tlle Social Science Research Council, Fellowships and Grants, 230 Park Avenue, New York, N. Y. 10017. (Inquiries concerning the program of the institute should be addressed to one of the co-directors, Dr. Anatol Rapoport, Mental Health Research Institute, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104; or Dr. Julian H. Blau, Antioch College, Yellow Springs, Ohio 45387.)
This six-week summer institute will be conducted under the auspices of the Committee on Mathematics in Social Science Research. Like several institutes sponsored by the Council in previous years, this institute is designed to introduce selected social scientists to new mathematical theories, concepts, and methods applicable to their respective fields of research, and to strengthen their backgrounds in basic mathematics. Relatively young holders of the doctoral degree in political science or sociology, as well as advanced doctoral candidates in these disciplines, who are interested in learning to work toward more precise and rigorous theoretical formulations and deductions, whether or not they have had much previous mathematical training, are invited to apply for admission. The total enrollment will be limited to about 25 persons. Co-directors of the institute will be Anatol Rapoport, Professor of Mathematical Biology, University of Michigan, and Julian H. Blau, Professor of Mathematics, Antioch College. Topics of study will include models of social interaction, theories of rational decision (with and without conflicting goals); theories of equilibria, of power allocation, of political representation, etc. Instruction will be offered in such underlying mathematics as elementary analysis, calculus, differential equations, set theory, theory of relations, probability, stochastic processes, and game theory. Some prior acquaintance with calculus, probability, and statistics will be desirable, and will be taken into account in selecting appli. cants for admission to the institute; but those lacking this will not be arbitrarily excluded. The level of instruction in the institute will be adapted to the needs of those actually enrolled. Participants who are currently engaged in research involving mathematical formulations will have opportunities for consultation on their projects with the staff of the institute; it is not expected, however, that all participants will already have undertaken such work. Sessions of the institute will occupy five days a week, and each participant will be required to devote his full time to the program throughout the six-week period. A grant from the National Science Foundation makes it possible to offer maintenance allowances of $750 each to postdoctoral and $480 to pre doctoral participants, provided that their expenses are not paid by their employers or others, and that they are not concurrently receiving support under other NSF grants. In addition, each participant will receive the equivalent of round-trip tourist class airplane fare. No tuition will be charged, and no academic credit will be given for participation in the institute. Each participant will make
RESEARCH SEMINAR ON SOCIOLINGUISTICS AT INDIANA UNIVERSITY, JUNE 22-AUGUST 14 Under the auspices of the Committee on Sociolinguistics, approximately 15 sociologists and linguists will be invited to meet for eight weeks to explore their common research interests. The seminar, to be held concurrently with the Linguistic Institute, will be under the chairmanship of Charles A. Ferguson, Director of the Center for Applied Linguistics. The committee hopes that the seminar will encourage research on linguistic factors in social structure and behavior-a field hitherto relatively little cultivated by American sociologists although some have touched on differences of language in various contexts. Current interest WJ in the sociology of newly emerging nations makes especially timely such topics as the following on the agenda for the seminar: typology of multilingualism; measures of linguistic diversity; linguistic differences as indicating or reinforcing social differences within a society; types of multilingualism in relation to individuals' social behavior; language standardization; conditions of spontaneous or deliberately planned standardization; languages of wider communication; their role in social integration; development of pidgin and creole languages. In preparation for the seminar several working papers are being commissioned, and members of the staff of the Center for Applied Linguistics are compiling an annotated bibliography of sociolinguistics. Participants in the seminar who wish to do so may enroll on a part-time basis in the Linguistic Institute, whose program includes courses relevant to sociolinguistic problems. A grant to the Council from the National Science Foundation makes it possible to provide stipends and allowances for participants' travel expenses. Membership in the seminar will be limited to about 12 senior participants and two or three advanced doctoral candidates. Admission will be by invitation only. Sociologists interested in tlle program of the seminar are invited to write as soon as possible to the Com--. mi ttee on Sociolinguis tics, Social Science Research Council,. 230 Park Avenue, New York, N. Y. 10017.