Items Vol. 21 No. 2 (1967)

SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL

VOLUME 21 . NUMBER 2 . JUNE 1967 230 PARK AVENUE¡ NEW YORK, N.Y. 10017

ttSOCIAL SCIENCE IN LATIN AMERICA": NOTES ON THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONFERENCE HELD IN RIO DE JANEIRO, MARCH 29-31, 1965 *

by Bryce Wood IN HOLDING this conference, the Joint Committee on Latin American Studies hoped to further communication not only between social scientists in the United States and Latin America but also among Latin American social scientists, to assess attitudes toward social science research, and to explore ways of fostering mutual cooperation in scholarly activities.

It would be inaccurate to speak of "social sciences" as organized disciplines in all twenty countries of Latin America. There are social scientists, however, in all disciplines if not in all countries, and a substantial number are full-time professionals engaged in teaching, contract research, and advisory or other affiliations with central banks and other governmental agencies. A high proportion of the leading social scientists have received at least part of their graduate training in the United States or Western Europe, particularly in France and England.

For Latin American social scientists, as scholars and as citizens, the great problem is their relationship to the

• This article is reprinted (with minor changes) by permission of the publisher from a chapter by Bryce Wood in Social Science in Latin America, edited by Manuel Diegues Junior and Bryce Wood (copyright

by Columbia University Press, 1967, and to be published in August; 352 pages, $4.50). The volume presents the papers prepared for the conference sponsored by the Joint Committee on Latin American Studies in collaboration with the Latin American Center for Research in the Social Sciences, Rio de Janeiro, of which Manuel Diegues JUnior is Director. He has also edited the papers in Portuguese and Spanish, and these are to be published in 1967, as Ciencias Socia is na America Latina,

by Difusao Europeia do Livro, Sao Paulo. A preliminary statement about the conference appeared in Items, March 1965, pages 9-10.

processes of economic and social development: How can the special skills of social scientists contribute to resolving the issues presented by demands for rapid and fundamental social change, often in circumstances of acute political tension? At the conference a Latin American political scientist said: "In the United States social scientists work in a relatively stable social situation, while we are going through a permanent crisis, with insistent demands for far-reaching changes in a short time. . . . This forces us to develop a critical and dialectical type of social science to understand the social problems of Latin America." A colleague added: ""Ne have received an inflow of sociology from all over the world-from Marx, Weber, Parsons, Gurvitch and others-and with a selection of their ideas we are trying to do macroanalyses of national societies."

An urgent concern is felt for the development of scientific thought "to explain present reality" and to "transform the existing social structure." Social scientists cannot avoid being involved in the all-encompassing processes they are observing. A Brazilian participant pointed out that they cannot be neutral: "The social scientists in Latin America have a critical attitude toward the established order; they have, on the whole, decided to help bring about transformations, and they have chosen planning as their instrument.... Research by social scientists must match requirements for planning and development. Otherwise, people will say professors are talking about nonexistent problems."

If social scientists cannot be politically neutral, it was suggested that they should make every attempt to IS

be professionally objective, and an economist expressed "Social sciences are born in CflSlS, and we are forced preferences concerning some alternative research topics to consider this problem of over-all scientific thinking that brought to the surface notable differences of since we are faced with some of the same problems faced opinion. In his view the proper subject of study would by the founders of the social sciences." be not agrarian reform but the role played by agriculThe status of different disciplines varies from country ture in economic development. Similarly, "tax reform is to country. In general, economists are in great demand not the basic problem but, rather, the role of the public both by government and industry. A sociologist said sector in economic development"; and economic in- admiringly: "The economists are making the history tegration of Latin American countries is not as funda- of our countries as no other social scientists are." mental a question as industrialization, or the factors Economists were given a remarkable opportunity for shaping industry in Latin America as a whole. This disciplinary advancement with the formation of the opinion reflected the long view and a greater emphasis Economic Commission for Latin America in 1948 by on research than that giving precedence to transforma- the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations.

The Commission was given vigorous direction by a tion through planning.

The differences suggested by these comments are strong staff of Latin American economists, and became important and far-reaching. With regard to develop- the chief "spokesman" for Latin America on domestic ment, a sociologist noted the need to formulate patterns and international problems of development, if any of research in which social scientists may contribute single agency may be said to have played that part.

In addition, the Commission, according to one econothrough macroanalysis "so we may look at social processes and the whole time in which we live." An econo- mist, "has taught us the need for economic research to mist suggested, however, that "it is not yet possible to be done on the basis of teamwork; we cannot use the have an integrated development policy for a country"; traditional individual research methods any longer." It and another added that "in Latin America we do not has thus been a training institution, as well as the prinknow how the national economies function; conse- cipal source of economic theory, policy, and data relequently there is an appearance of improvisation in vant to Latin America's place in the world economy for economic policies, and decisions are usually based on the past decade and a half. The Commission has also been an important influence in northeast Brazil, where political and not on economic analysis."

Although there was general recognition that develop- it provided concepts that were applied for a time ment cannot be explained solely by economic factors, through the development organization Superintendenthere was also a concern on the part of economists about cia para 0 Desenvolvimento do Nm"deste (SUDENE).

The growth of anthropology has been notable chiefly "dangers" from "the invasion of the field of economics" in Brazil and in Mexico, where in the 1930's the initiaby other social scientists who may be unaware of the economic implications of their own recommendations. tion of serious research was contemporaneous with the It was thought that while good economists and good establishment of national unity and the intensification sociologists might work together effectively, efforts at of national feeling. Emphasizing the new synthesis that interdisciplinary research thus far had been largely has emerged in the latter country, Mexican anthropolounsuccessful. There was hope, however, that progress gists prefer the term "Ibero-American" to "Latin Amerimight be made gradually, primarily because of the can." Ibero-American suggests only geographical origins increasing numbers of more rigorously trained so- of human resources; Latin American implies a cultural cial scientists. Furthermore, interdisciplinary research dominance that is viewed sympathetically by neither should be attempted on limited problems: "We should Mexican anthropologists nor Mexican nationalists. The not spend our time on integrating theories, but try only measure of public appreciation of the role of anthroto work on the small scope of specific hunches on non- pology in social development may be gauged through economic factors such as how fast groups can move from contemplation of the magnificent Museum of Anthroone set of resources to another." Such a problem ap- pology in Mexico City, opened at the end of 1964. proach, combined with teamwork by sociologists and While some economists are firmly established in ceneconomists modeled on the experience of the Economic lral banks and some anthropologists in national muCommission for Latin America, appeared to offer more seums as well as in planning agencies and action propromise for the present than efforts at comprehensive grams, historians, political scientists, and sociologists theoretical agreement. However, the position that Latin lack comparable recognition and support outside the America is enjoying a flowering of social sciences be- universities.

Geography is in a special position. In some Latin cause many of its countries are making the transition from traditional to modern societies was also taken: American countries there are military-geographic in14

VOLUME

21,

NUMBER

2

stitutes whose principal concerns are map making and traditional military history. Geography, still generally regarded as a natural science, is just beginning to show a few signs of emerging from cartographic concentration and to include an interest in ecology. Human geography is largely neglected in Latin America, and geographers have not contributed much to the efforts to overcome natural obstacles to agricultural development. There is little field research except in Brazil and Chile, and geographers have given little attention to problems of conservation of resources. Scholars in other disciplines would welcome contributions that human geographers might make to regional and urban planning.

On the whole, historians in Latin America have not done work relevant to modern problems of development and do not appear to want to commit themselves to such work. One participant said: "In Brazil, political history does not exist, and the story is not much better with respect to economic history. In Chile, history is a deplorable collection of facts and dates that does not help to understand the functioning of Chilean society." There is perhaps greatest appreciation of historical research in Mexico, where a halÂŁ-century's experience with one revolution and under one constitution has established a tradition that is vigorously expanding and that Mexicans view with justifiable pride.

Sociologists and political scientists have neither the demonstrably applicable methodological equipment of the economist nor the identification with national unity evinced by the anthropologist-at least, the Mexican anthropologist. One sociologist said: "Latin American sociologists must at present be considered as men desiring the development of science rather than as trying to enlarge special frontiers of scientific knowledge. It is necessary to establish the institutional requisites that make possible the development of science. Application has its place, but we are trying to create conditions that allow institutions to work autonomously, and with vitality and continuity. The democratization of power in most of Latin America has not yet advanced sufficiently to allow complete freedom for research and for the expression of the scientific mentality."

Several participants observed that it is a serious matter when social scientists run the risk of persecution, deprivation of political rights, and even exile in some Latin American countries, just when social and political problems are extremely acute and objective analyses of them are most needed. At the same time, it was pointed out, social scientists should avoid martyrdom and should try to survive and work without losing their perspective; they have the professional privilege of living in a period when it is not necessary to imagine artificial conditions of structural changes, for real ones are knocking on the JUNE

1967

doors. When social scientists as intellectuals feel a deep sense of social responsibility, the topics, methods, and controversiality of their research are bound to be examined critically and publicly. Furthermore, if their research problems are framed with reference to reforms in fundamental social structures, then there are political risks to be run; and some who have become administrators of development programs fostered by one regime have become exiles when their work was repudiated by a successor regime. There are many nuances of timing, emphasis, and involvement, and with rapid political and other changes it is not difficult for a social scientist to make political errors if he undertakes research on important issues, even if these are associated with action in pursuance of the purposes of the officially approved Alliance for Progress. Those whose activities go beyond research and are seen as attacking accepted values through participation in planning agencies or through social theory make still more hazardous choices, if they wish to maintain their professional positions at home.

These problems arise, of course, in those countries where modernization is most advanced, research opportunities most open, and social scientists most free to develop their disciplines. For a while some attrition on the front lines is to be expected but, happily, exiled social scientists usually appear to find outlets for their talents in more hospitable environments elsewhere in Latin America, the United States, or an international secretariat.

TRANSNATIONAL RELATIONS OF SOCIAL SCIENTISTS As reported elsewhere, critical discussion of Social Science Research on Latin A merica (the report of the joint committee's 1963 summer seminar), edited by Charles Wagley, was an important part of the agenda of the conference. With regard to the contents of this volume, it was noted that to most United States social scientists Latin America is only a subject of study, to be examined from afar, but "for Latin American social scientists, Latin America is not only the object of study-this is where we live." Thus there is a lack of symmetry in the reality faced by scholars from the two areas, and no fully satisfactory reconciliation is available because the differences in approach have not themselves been studied.

However, the greater gap is not between Latin American and United States social scientists, but between Latin American social scientists and their own societies.

A principal omission in Social Science Research in Latin A merica was thought to be a chapter on population as a field of research of great importance in Latin America. The chapter on history evoked the comment that economists consider the lack of satisfactory work in 15

economic history to be a gap that should be closed. It was noted that this is a field between economics as an applied science and history, and that since underdeveloped countries are more interested in applied research, historians do not get much support. Furthermore, economists because of their lack of knowledge of economic history are not fully acquainted with "the realities of our economies."

Discussion of inter-American relations, particularly the nature of the influences exerted by the United States on the countries of Latin America, was considered a second important omission in the book. It was hoped that a later conference might be called, to undertake a preliminary scholarly exploration of this field of research. In this connection interest was expressed in the suggestion that, on an informal and private basis, scholars might make cooperative efforts to improve the accessibility of archival sources for study of economic, political, and diplomatic history.

The chapter on sociology gave rise to comments by Latin Americans that the distinction between quantitative and qualitative methods was too sharply drawn: "The periodization of sociology is questionable, notably the assertion that scientific sociology began only as late as 1945. There is a cumulative process of development of scientific thinking... . Statistics should be a part of the training of sociologists; it aids research on immediate and practical problems, but this should not be the foundation of sociological knowledge. We have a concern also with subjective reality which may be important to other social sciences as well.... Economics and sociology must be part of an over-all truth." Furthermore, "Latin American social phenomena are not accompanied by sufficiently organized data so that foreigners may gain a precise understanding of them. Refined quantitative techniques cannot be used, and it is not possible to appreciate these phenomena when they are viewed from outside as laboratory problems."

A similar objection was made to the "traditionalmodern" dichotomy presented in the chapter on political science. Latin American scholars did not consider this distinction to be applicable in their countries where growth of the social sciences has been a continuous process. It was suggested that the difference might be clearly defined in the United States where fairly stable social conditions have been experienced for a long period of time. A broader view supporting this position was also offered: "Progress is not just empirical, descriptive, and pragmatic. There is also theoretical progress by way of explanation of models with which we work despite the difficulty of lack of human and material resources... . We combine European and American traditions and look forward to making original contribu16

tions by adding to them the results of the study of Latin American societies."

Cooperation among social scientists as professionals has a number of aspects. It was suggested that "an unconscious scientific colonialism" on the part of United States social scientists might result in actions that could be harmful to much of recent sociological work in Latin America: "We are less interested in work on our problems by United States sociologists than in discussions of general social science with our colleagues. There is a crisis in Latin America with respect to research by foreign scholars."

The most promising kind of cooperation among social scientists now would appear to be collaborative field research on applied problems selected by Latin American scholars, with colleagues from abroad whose interests are compatible. Joint research efforts can improve communication and minimize the "outsider-insider" problem referred to earlier. Field research on applied problems would minimize arguments about disciplinary boundaries and focus attention on trying to deal with practical problems which may have feasible solutions and costs that can be measured with reasonable accuracy.

It was noted that textbooks on sociology in the United States "classify social problems, but in our countries, where planning is being done, we are more interested in studying other fields more in line with social reality.

If there were more TVA's in the United States and if they had been studied, we would have had a greater contribution toward what we mean by applied sociologythe conditions of intervention in social reality."

As a specific example, it was remarked that useful interdisciplinary collaboration had been secured through the membership of planning committees in the development programs for the Brazilian northeast. It was found that it would be useless to initiate community development programs unless there were established, concomitantly, stable institutions capable of responding to demands and of undertaking tasks of political socialization after the first organizational effort had reached a plateau.

To the extent that Latin Americans define the research problems, the crisis of research by foreigners may be mitigated; and their intrusion as outsiders would be reduced if they participated as members of local institutes. Such collaboration is difficult to arrange, but it may well be worth trying not only to augment the limited numbers of qualified social scientists, but also to increase knowledge of applied sociology. Latin Americans believe that they need more research projects using quantitative methods, but that they still have a different type of sociology that does not require use of all the tools available-partly because more advanced techVOLUME

21,

NUMBER.

2

niques may be rejected in some countries or in some sectors of society in Latin America, and partly because these techniques are not adequate for studying problems in Latin America which differ from those elsewhere.

With respect to training, it was noted that the assistance of first-class social scientists from abroad is needed. Recent Chilean experience with so-called "ambassadors of science" as visiting professors in the field of economics was regarded with satisfaction, but certain systemic difficulties in the educational systems were thought to impede optimum use of foreign scholars.

One of these difficulties, hamstringing the development of social sciences, has been the impossibility that parttime students, taught by part-time professors, can receive intensive training.

The results of field research in the applied sciences, it was noted, are not put to work by themselves. The research of social scientists must be institutionalized, and this task is often in the hands of lawyers, since "the

law is the training for top leadership in Latin America."

Until now, legal education has concentrated on the classification of legal rules and principles relating to abstract man, and on the creation of abstract theories.

This implies a static conception of law, and men so trained are, as a group, one of the most conservative elements in the universities. There are other views of law, and one is that of law as social engineering.

There is need for cooperation between social scientists and lawyers if this view is to gain significant acceptance.

If, as a sociologist said, "in our societies in these times of rapid change, we have to know the trends so that they may be organized," organization is likely to be the job of lawyers, and their education should inform them, to a greater degree than at present, about the societies in which they live. Lawyers, it was observed, are not going to stick to dry formalism, and social scientists should find ways to work with those lawyers most interested in the organization of change in Latin America.

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 military occupations and political change, with specific reference to Germany and Japan, was held by the committee in New York on April 20-22. The program had been planned for the committee by Messrs.

Cole and Ward. Papers were distributed to the participants in advance and were discussed at five sessions.

"The potential for democratization" in Germany and Japan was the subject of the first session, which was chaired

by Mr. Cole. The paper on occupied Germany's potential,

by Leonard Krieger of the University of Chicago, was discussed by Franklin L. Ford, Harvard University. The companion paper on japan's potential, by Mr. Ward, was discussed by Masataka Kosaka of Kyoto University. The second session, on presurrender planning for the occupations, was chaired by Mr. Pye. The paper on Germany, by Hajo Holborn of Yale University, was discussed by James K. Pollock, University of Michigan; and that on Japan, written by Hugh Borton of Haverford College, was discussed

by Albert L. Seligmann, Department of State. The third session, chaired by Mr. LaPalombara, dealt with strategies of directed political change as exemplified by the two occupations. The paper on Germany, by Peter H. Merkl of the University of California, Santa Barbara, was discussed by JUNE

1967

Edward H. Litchfield; and Mr. Ward's paper on Japan was discussed by James W. Morley, Columbia University.

The subject of the fourth session, chaired by Mr. Hyman, was the legacies of the occupations of Germany and Japan.

The papers by Carl J. Friedrich of Harvard University and Herbert Passin of Columbia University were discussed, respectively, by Waldemar Besson of Universitat Konstanz and Takeshi Ishida of the University of Tokyo. The final session, on reflections on the Soviet occupations in Eastern Europe and political change, was chaired by Mr. Ward.

"Soviet Occupation in Roumania, Bulgaria, and Hungary,"

by Hugh Seton-Watson, University of London, was discussed by Mr. Verba. An informal dinner meeting was followed by a symposium of former officials of the German and Japanese occupations: on Germany, General Lucius D. Clay and Edward H. Litchfield; and on Japan, Charles L. Kades, Milo Rowell, and Justin Williams.

Other participants in the conference, in addition to members of the committee and staff, included Hans Baerwald, International Christian University, Tokyo; Pendleton Herring; and John D. Montgomery, Harvard University.

A detailed report on the conference is expected to be published in an early issue of Items.

The committee also assisted in financing two conferences on topics related to its interest in encouraging comparative studies. The first, on the politics of the smaller European democracies, was arranged at the initiative of directors of the international research project on that subject (sponsored 17

by the University of Oregon) who were to be at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences during the current year. Participants in this project, a comparative study of the politics of eleven European states, wished to consult a larger group concerning problems confronting their intensive effort to increase understanding of aspects of political systems. The conference was held at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences on February 25 - March 1. The following topics were discussed: stages and crises-variations in sequences of nation building; dimensions of cleavage, party systems, and electoral arrangements; party systems and relations between cabinet and parliament; segmented pluralism and the stability of democracy; and size and the theory of democracy. Participants in the conference were Messrs. Almond, Binder, Pye, Verba, and Ward of the committee; four associates of the projectHans Daalder, University of Leiden; Robert A. Dahl, Yale University; Val R. Lorwin, University of Oregon; and Stein Rokkan, University of Bergen; and the following: Henry W. Ehrmann, Dartmouth College; Leon D. Epstein, University of Wisconsin; Arend Lijphart, University of California, Berkeley; Richard Rose, Strathclyde University; Giovanni Sartori, University of Florence; Edward Tufte, Yale University; and Aristide R. Zolberg, University of Chicago.

The second meeting aided by the committee was an international conference on "Fascism and the Varieties of Society," sponsored by the Center for the Advanced Study of Italian Society and the Graduate School of Contemporary European Studies at the University of Reading, where the conference was held on April 3-4. Stuart J. Woolf, Director of the Center, planned the program. Papers were presented on four principal topics: on fascism and the polity, by Norman Kogan of the University of Connecticut, J. SoleTura of the University of Barcelona, and A. F. K. Organski of the University of Michigan; on fascism and the economy,

by S. Lombardini of the University of Turin, Mr. Woolf, and T. Mason of the University of Oxford; on fascism and class,

by Gino Germani of Harvard University, and S. L. Andreski of the University of Reading; on fascism and the intellectuals, by George L. Mosse of the University of Wisconsin, P. Vita-Finzi of the University of Rome, and J. Marsal of the University of Buenos Aires. Special attention was given to former fascist regimes in Germany and Italy, but the discussions also dealt with data and analyses of other fascist or comparable regimes or parties, such as those now or formerly in Argentina, Roumania, and Spain. Some fifty scholars participated in the conference. The papers are expected to be published in a volume edited by Mr. Woolf.

ECONOMIC STABILITY Bert G. Hickman (chairman), Martin Bronfenbrenner, Edward F. Denison, James S. Duesenberry, Otto Eckstein, R. A. Gordon, Lawrence R. Klein, Franco Modigliani, Geoffrey H. Moore, Rudolf R. Rhomberg With the cooperation of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research the committee held a research 18

conference on "Is the Business Cycle Obsolete?" in London on April 3-7. Papers were prepared and generally circulated in advance. Their titles and authors are listed below: The Stability of the American Economy, Mr. Gordon Business Cycles in Canada: Their Persistence during Two Postwar Decades, D. J. Daly, Economic Council of Canada Postwar Business Cycles in Japan, Miyohei Shinohara, Hitotsubashi University, Tokyo Postwar Business Cycles in the United Kingdom, R. C. O. Matthews, University of Oxford Cyclical Developments in France, Germany and Italy since the Early Fifties, J. C. R. Dow, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris Austria and Switzerland, Kurt W. Rothschild, Institut fUr Volkswirtschaftslehre und-politik, Linz, Austria Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, J9Srgen H. Gelting, University of Aarhus Transmission of Business Fluctuations between Developed and Developing Countries, Mr. Rhomberg International Transmission, Henri Guitton, University of Paris Cyclical Fluctuations under Socialism, Alec Nove, University of Glasgow Dynamic Properties of Macroeconometric Models: An International Comparison, Mr. Hickman Postwar Stabilization Policies, Erik Lundberg, Stockholm School of Economics Experience with Econometric Analysis of the American Konjunktur" Position, M. K. Evans, University of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Klein Comparing the Pre- and Postwar Cycle: An Experiment in Econometrics, P. J. Verdoorn and J. J. Post, Central Planning Bureau, the Netherlands t

In addition to Messrs. Bronfenbrenner, Hickman, Klein, Moore, and Rhomberg of the committee and most of the other authors, participants included: F. T. Blackaby, Adam Broadbent, and G. D. N. Worswick, National Institute of Economic and Social Research; Peter E. de Janosi, Ford Foundation; P. de Wolff, Heemstede, the Netherlands; Karl A. Fox, Iowa State University; Harry G. Johnson, and Max Steuer, London School of Economics and Political Science; Herbert S. Levine, University of Pennsylvania; Angus Maddison, and F. J. M. Meyer zu Schlochtern, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris; Stanislav M. Menshikov, Institute of World Economy and International Relations, Moscow; Jiirg Niehans, Johns Hopkins University; C. J. OHerlihy, University of Cambridge; Richard O. Portes, and Francis Seton, University of Oxford; Paul Norregaard Rasmussen, University of Copenhagen; Gideon Rosenbluth, University of British Columbia; Luigi Spaventa, University of Perugia; and Paul Webbink.

It is expected that an evaluative summary of the conference will appear in Items, and that a volume based on the conference papers, edited by Mr. Bronfenbrenner, will be published.

VOLUME

21,

NUMBER

2

EXCHANGES WITH ASIAN INSTITUTIONS John K. Fairbank (chairman), Albert Feuerwerker, George E. Taylor, Frederic Wakeman, C. Martin Wilbur; staff, Bryce Wood Two new appointments have been made under the committee's program to facilitate participation of American social scientists in the development of research and communication with scholars at the Toyo Bunko (Oriental Library), Tokyo, and the Institute of Modem History, Academia Sinica, Taipei: Marius B. Jansen, Professor of History, Princeton University, for research in Tokyo on Japanese influences on the Chinese Revolution; and Benjamin I. Schwartz, Professor of History and Government, Harvard University, for research in Tokyo on Chinese intellectual history. The term of this program has been extended by the Ford Foundation for a period of two years, and it is expected that three or four additional appointments may be made.

SOCIAL SCIENCE IN ITALY (Joint with Adriano Olivetti Foundation) Manlio Rossi Doria (chairman), Joseph LaPalombara (liaison), Francesco Alberoni, Norberto Bobbio, Massimo Fichera, Pendleton Herring, George H. Hildebrand, Wilbert E. Moore; Secretary, Alberto Spreafico The committee held its third meeting in Anacapri, Italy on March 29-31. Prior to and following the meeting, there were informal consultations between committee members and Italian scholars who will be involved with the graduate training programs that the committee is supporting: in economics, at the University of Urbino at Ancona; in sociology, an interuniversity program centered at the University of Milan; and in quantitative methods in the social sciences, a program centered at Universita Commerciale Luigi Bocconi, Milan. Under the direction of Giorgio Fua, Professor of Economics at the University of Urbino, the institute in economics has secured its own physical location, in part through the courtesy of local governmental and civic leaders. The Olivetti Foundation will provide furniture and equipment, including a high-speed desk computer for use by students and faculty. An initial group of eight fellows, to be jointly supported by the committee and Italy's National Research Council, have been selected on the basis of a national competition.

Ten fellows for the training program in sociology and four fellows for the program in quantitative methods have also been selected through national competitions; they, too, will be jointly supported by the committee and the National Research Council. Those chosen for the quantitative methods program are graduates in physics and mathematics, and therefore will receive intensive training in the application of their skills to substantive problems in the social sciences. This program, immediately supervised by Vittorio Capecchi, Assistant in Sociology at Milan, will be closely coordinated with the graduate program in sociology that is JUNE

1967

supervised jointly by Professors Alessandro Pizzorno of the University of Urbino, Angelo Pagani of the University of Pavia, and Francesco Alberoni of the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart. The committee reviewed progress registered regarding the above programs, as well as further steps to be taken in providing modest assistance for (a) the introduction of courses in sociology and social psychology in the in-service training program of the Superior School of Public Administration at Caserta; (b) curricular revision in the training programs of the School of Advanced Training in Sociology at the University of Rome and the Istituto Luigi Sturzo of Rome.

Political science and its development presents a particularly thorny problem. It is expected that an initial training program, under the direction of Giovanni Sartori, Professor of Political Science, University of Florence, will get under way at the University in the fall of 1967. Destruction of books and journals wrought by the recent floods will necessitate replenishment of needed materials, and it is expected that the National Research Council will assist in this task, as well as provide support for approximately five fellowships per year for the training program. In order to accelerate the development of greater numbers of qualified younger political scientists, the committee authorized Norberto Bobbio to look into the possibility of launching a second training program at the Istituto Gioele Solari of the University of Turin.

The committee also reviewed efforts of the Italian members to identify areas or problems suitable for exploration by work groups, seminars, or conferences. Two areas of particular interest are the collection of socioeconomic data in Italy, and basic documentation of the history of fascism.

The committee decided to support a work group to delineate steps to be taken to improve the gathering of socioeconomic data, and in the broad field of contemporary history a survey to clarify the magnitude of the investment that would be required to identify and assemble "fugitive" and other archival materials on the fascist era.

Modest support was authorized for a conference to take place at Macerata on the relationship between public and private property; this will assist members of the legal profession in Italy who are exploring the nature of the influence of public property on social and economic change in a mixed or dual economy. As one means of assisting social science research organizations in Italy that are not formally part of the university system, the chairman of the committee is investigating the possibility of supporting several fellows or research associates as "interns" at selected research centers. The committee is not interested in supporting the research of these centers as such, but rather in an experiment to ascertain the extent to which they can provide valid advanced training in the social sciences. In this proposal the committee's emphasis is on support of initiatives that demonstrate possibilities in new methods of training and that do not duplicate activities of interest to other Italian organizations.

J. LAP. 19

SOCIOLINGUISTICS Charles A. Ferguson (chairman), Susan M. Ervin-Tripp, Joshua A. Fishman, John J. Gumperz, Einar Haugen, Everett C. Hughes, Dell Hymes, Nathan Keyfitz, Stanley Lieberson, John Useem; staff, Elbridge Sibley The committee met at Indiana University on May 6-7.

Before turning to its own agenda, the committee heard from Allen D. Grimshaw, Associate Professor of Sociology at Indiana, of plans for a program of graduate training in sociolinguistics under the joint auspices of the departments of sociology, linguistics, and anthropology. Under this program, for which some additional faculty appointments would be needed, a doctoral candidate would major in one of these disciplines and minor in the others. A special sequence of courses in linguistics for students majoring in social science and courses in relevant concepts and methods of social science for students majoring in linguistics might be offered. The committee expressed enthusiastic hope for the successful inauguration of this interdisciplinary training program.

A major part of the committee's first session was devoted to a presentation by two guests, Harold Garfinkel and Harvey Sacks of the University of California, Los Angeles, sociology faculty, of their ethnographic approach to research on linguistic interaction in small groups. The exponents of this empirical approach, which involves intensive analysis of informal conversation, find that it permits them to avoid postulation of categories; they suggest that it may lead to more realistic reformulation of some currently accepted categorizations of culture and behavior.

On the second day the committee reviewed the status of its current activities and made plans for further work. Mrs. Ervin-Tripp and Mr. Gumperz reported on the study of children's acquisition of communicative competence-more briefly referred to as language socialization-which is the first major pilot project under the committee's auspices.

Dan I. Slobin, Assistant Professor of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, is associated with them in directing this project. Six doctoral candidates are scheduled to have begun field work by the end of this year; two of them have been in the field since last summer. Guided by a field manual, they are to gather comparable data from widely separated and different groups in the United States, Mexico, India, Samoa, and Finland. At a three-month summer seminar in 1968, the senior investigators and the field workers are to review their findings and to revise the field manual as a guide for further comparable research. A number of senior scholars from several universities are expected to participate in the seminar, some throughout the session and others as visiting consultants. Completion of the project as planned is contingent on obtaining additional funds.

Plans are being developed by Mr. Hymes for an international conference on the social conditions giving rise to pidgin and creole languages and to their use as languages of wider communication in several parts of the world.

The committee joined with the Ferkauf Graduate School

20

of Humanities and Social Sciences, Yeshiva University, and the Yivo Institute in sponsoring a conference on Multilingualism and Social Change: Perspective on Yiddish, held in New York on April 16-18. Several members of the committee participated.

During the coming months the committee plans to assemble from time to time small working groups, composed of its own members and others, to appraise and plan research on special topics. Among the subjects on which sessions are now contemplated are: formal analysis of linguistic interaction in small groups in natural settings; computer analysis of texts relevant to language acquisition; language problems arising from the technological revolution in bilingual and multilingual societies; assessment of needs and facilities for training for research in sociolinguistics.

Another major project for which plans are currently under consideration would involve a year's work by four senior investigators--two from the United States and two from Asian countries-on language problems in the development of new nations. This intensive study would be a logical sequel to the committee's 1966 conference (reported in Items, March 1967, pages 6-7), at which these problems were broadly explored.

Other committee activities are designed to advance scientific work in its field by facilitating communication among research workers both in this country and abroad. An address list of some 300 interested scholars is being compiled, and will be circulated under the title "Group for the Study of Sociolinguistics-GSSL" in the hope of encouraging mutual exchanges of reprints and correspondence. Sessions on sociolinguistics will again be included in the program of the American Sociological Association's annual meeting, in August 1967. Mr. Fishman is the organizer of these sessions.

For the guidance of students, an annotated list of graduate schools equipped to offer interdisciplinary training is in preparation.

SURVEY OF THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES (Joint with National Research Council) Ernest R. Hilgard (chairman), Henry W. Riecken (vicechairman), Kenneth E. Clark, Otis Dudley Duncan, Fred Eggan,. C?arles A. Ferguson, David A. Hamburg, Carl Kaysen, Wllham H. Kruskal, David S. Landes, Harvey C. Mansfield, George A. Miller, Warren E. Miller Carl Pfaffmann William H. Sewell, Allen H. Smith, Robert M. Solow: Edward J. Taaffe, ~harles Tilly, S. L. Washburn; executive officer, Stephen Vlederman In addition to the disciplinary panels whose members were listed in the March issue of Items, page 7, special panels have now been named for the fields of geography and psychiatry:

Geography: Edward J. Taaffe (chairman); Ian Burton, University of Toronto; Norton Ginsburg, University of Chicago; Peter R. Gould, Pennsylvania State University; VOLUME

21,

NUMBER

2

Fred E. Lukermann, University of Minnesota; Philip L. Wagner, University of California, Davis.

Psychiatry: David A. Hamburg (chairman); Melvin Sabshin, University of Illinois Medical Center (cochairman);

Douglas D. Bond, Western Reserve University; Leon Eisenberg, Johns Hopkins University; Roy Grinker, Michael Reese Hospital, Chicago; F. C. Redlich, Yale University; Albert J. Stunkard, University of Pennsylvania.

PERSONNEL RESEARCH TRAINING FELLOWSHIPS The committee on Social Science Personnel--Charles E. Gilbert (chairman), Norton Ginsburg, Samuel P. Hays, John C. McKinney, Robert B. MacLeod, Melvin W. Reder, and Allan H. Smith-on March 2-3 voted to offer 15 new appointments and named several alternates, 3 of whom have subsequently been awarded fellowships. A list of the 18 awards (5 predoctoral and 13 postdoctoral) follows: Gordon S. Black, Ph.D. candidate in political scien~e, Stanford University, postdoctoral fellowship for traming in statistical methods Robert C. Carson, Associate Professor of Psychology, Duke University, postdoctoral fel!ows~ip for t~aining at ~e University of North Carohna m expenmental SOCIal psychology David K. Cohen, Director, Race and Education Project, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Ph.D. in history, University of Rochester), for tra~ning at H~rvard ~!ll足 versity in the sociology of education and SOCIal moblhty Anthony A. D' Amato, Ph.D. candidate in public law and government, Columbia University, and Instructor in Political Science, Wellesley College, postdoctoral fellowship for training at the University of Michigan in statistical methods Peter M. Leslie, Ph.D. candidate and Lecturer in Political Studies, Queen's University, postdoctoral fellowship for training in France and England for research on federal political systems Joseph Jonathan Levine, Ph.D. candidate in history, Cornell University, for training in rural sociology and economics Mervin D. Lynch, Assistant Professor of Journalism, University of Missouri (Ph.D. in mass communication~, University of Wisconsin), for training at Harvard Umversity in computer-aided content analysis and information retrieval Sheila Ryan Ma.cArt~ur, Ph.D. candidat~ ~n h!story, University of Cahfornla, Berkeley, for trammg m England in the application of demographic transition theory in histoncal research Donald G. Mathews, Assistant Professor of History, Princeton University, postdoctoral fellowship for training in the sociology of religion and in statistical analysis in preparation for research on the social role of the evangehcal churches in nineteenth-century America Michael Parenti, teaching faculty, political science, Sarah Lawrence College, postdoctoral fellowship for traini~g at Yale University and the University of Pennsylvama in the sociology of religion and cu~tural anth~o.pology in preparation for research on SOCIal and pohtIcal aspects of religious movements JUNE

1967

G. Bingham Powell, Jr., Ph.D. candidate in political science, Stanford University, postdoctoral fellowship for training in economics, statistics, and history Carolyn Pratt, Ph.D. candidate in p<;>litical sciet;tc~, Ya}e University, postdoctoral fellowshIp for trammg m psychology Marshall D. Sahlins, Professor of Anthropology, University of Michigan, postdoctoral fellowship for training in France in structural anthropology William C. Smith, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, University of California, Davis, postdoctoral fellowship for training at the University of California, Los Angeles, in quantitative methods of analysis Hugo Sonnenschein, Assistant Professor of Econ?mics, University of Minnesota, postdoctoral fellowshIp for advanced training at the University of Michigan in mathematics A. Michael Sulman, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of Pittsburgh, for training in psychoanalytical methods in preparation for research on the influence of psychoanalytic thought on child rearing, 1919-39 Thomas J. Wilbanks, Ph.D. candidate in geography, Syracuse University, for training in England on applications of mathematical models in human geography Edwin A. Winckler, Ph.D. candidate in government, Harvard University, for training at Stanford University in the application of organization theory to research on power and compliance in primitive societies

FACULTY RESEARCH GRANTS The Committee on Faculty Research Grants-Victor Jones (chairman), Edward M. Bruner, Dewey W. Grantham, Edward E. Jones, Irving B. Kravis, Lawrence Stone, and Frank R. Westie-held the second of its two scheduled meetings on March 17-18. It made the following 27 grants: Floyd H. Allport, Professor Emeritus of Psycho~ogy, Syracuse University, for research on a non teleolOgical theory of organic structure and behavior Bo Anderson Assistant Professor of Sociology, Stanford University,' for research in Sweden on white collar workers' reactions to differential wages Harold Barger, Professor of Economics, Columbia Un.iversity, for research in Europe on r~tes .of economIC growth in Western European countnes SInce 1950 John P. Diggins, Assistant Professor of Hist.ory, San Francisco State College, for research on attitudes of Americans toward Italian fascism Merwyn S. Garbarino, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, University of Illinois at Chicago Circle, for 21

research on the multicultural American Indian in reservation society Ralph B. Ginsberg, Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of Pennsylvania, for research on the covariation of suicide and economic conditions in the United States over the last one hundred years Gillian Lindt Gollin, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Howard University, for research on the historical development of the concept of public opinion Anita Shafer Goodstein, Assistant Professor of History, University of the South, for research on the application of the frontier concept to a developing urban center: Nashville, 1790-1820 David Grimsted, Assistant Professor of History, Bucknell University, for research on riots in the United States during the Jacksonian period Norman Guttman, Professor of Psychology, Duke University, for research on the concepts of behavioral unit and behavioral law Erwin C. Hargrove, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Brown University, for a comparative study in Canada, England, and the United States of political ideologies of men in selected occupations George A. Huaco, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Yale University, for research in England on systematic sociological theory John C. Leggett, Associate Professor of Sociology, Simon Fraser University, for research on social class and other factors in the acceptance of Negroes as neighbors David L. Lewis, Associate Professor of History, Morgan State College, for research in France on aspects of French political and social thought, 1926-44 Gordon K. Lewis, Professor of Social Sciences, University of Puerto Rico, for research in West Indian countries on politics and social structure Leon N. Lindberg, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Wisconsin, for a synthesis and interpretation of systems analysis research on European political integration Goint with Stuart A. Scheingold) Richard P. Longaker, Professor of Political Science, University of California, Los Angeles, for research in England on leadership and the race issue: the British Race Relations Act of 1965 James R. McDonald, Associate Professor of Geography, Eastern Michigan University, for research on contemporary patterns of rural-urban migration in the midwestern United States John McGowan, Assistant Professor of Economics, Yale UnIversity, for research on competition and regulation in the television broadcasting industry

J.

Anthony Molho, Assistant Professor of History, Brown University, for research in Italy on socioeconomic aspects of the pre-Medicean Florentine oligarchy, 13821427 Jesse R. Pitts, Professor of Sociology, Oakland University, for research in France on business, family, and peer group structures in contemporary France J ames A. Rafds, Professor of Social and Economic History, University of Toronto, for research on small group and community structures in late medieval and early modern times (renewal) 22

Morton Rothstein, Associate Professor of History and Agricultural Economics, University of Wisconsin, for research on the dual economy of the cotton-growing areas of the South, 1830-60 Stuart A. Scheingold, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Wisconsin, for a synthesis and interpretation of systems analysis research on European political integration (joint with Leon N. Lindberg) Peter Temin, Assistant Professor of Industrial History, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for an econometric study of inflation in the United States in the 1830's Sylvia L. Thrupp, Professor of History, University of Michigan, for research in Europe on the medieval origins of western standards for comparison of cultures Aristide R. Zolberg, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago, for research in Belgium and the Netherlands on political integration in those countries from 1760 to the present GRANTS FOR RESEARCH ON GOVERNMENTAL AND LEGAL PROCESSES In addition to the awards listed in the March issue of Items, the Committee on Governmental and Legal Processes has made the following grants for research: Lee Benson, Professor of American History, University of Pennsylvania, for a pilot study for a comprehensive collective biography of American Congressmen since 1789 (renewal of grant made in 1964-65) Oliver P. Williams, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Pennsylvania, for research on a model of policy making in metropolitan areas GRANTS FOR ASIAN STUDIES The Joint Committee on Asian Studies, sponsored with the American Council of Learned Societies-Robert I. Crane (chairman), H. G. Creel, John L. Landgraf, James William Morley, Richard L. Park, and Laurence Sickmanat its meeting on February 25 awarded grants to 20 scholars for advanced research in the humanities and social sciences dealing with East Asia, South Asia, and Southeast Asia: Don C. Bailey, Associate Professor of Oriental Studies, University of Arizona, for research on Japanese cultural history Norman G. Barrier, Assistant Professor of History, Northern Illinois University, for research on the development of communal politics in the Punjab, 1872-94 William R. Braisted, Professor of History, University of Texas, for research on the Meirokusha and the Japanese enlightenment Kwang-chih Chang, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Yale University, for research on Chinese archaeology, 1962-66 Hans-Dieter Evers, Associate Professor of Sociology, Northern Illinois University, for research on the social organization of the Buddhist Sangha Robert E. Frykenberg, Assistant Professor of History, University of Wisconsin, for logical studies in the history of South India, 1780-1880 VOLUME

21,

NUMBER

2

Joseph R. Gusfield, Professor of ~ociology, :tJ:ni,:ersity of Illinois, for research on occupatIonal mobIlIty m Japan and the United States Yen-p'ing Hao, Assistant Professor of ~is~ory, Uni~er足 sity of Tennessee, for research on Chma s modernIZation and merchants (renewal) Robert N. Kearney, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of California, Santa Barbara, for research on the political role of trade unions in Ceylon Han-Kyo Kim, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Cincinnati, for research on the reunification of Korea Richard J. Kozicki, Lecturer in South and Southeast Asian Politics and History, University of Hawaii, for research on international relations: India and the Middle East Marlene J. Mayo, Assistant Professor of History, University of Maryland, for research on Iwakura Tomomi in the Meiji Restoration Karl H. Menges, Professor of Altaic Philology, Columbia University, for research on the Tungus languages, and on Chaghatai manuscripts Douglas E. Mills, Associate Professor of Oriental Languages, University of California, Berkeley, for research on the vendetta of the Soga brothers as a theme in Japanese literature Agnes M. Howard-Niyekawa, Assistant Professor of Educational Psychology, University of Hawaii, for a study of Japanese thought processes based on psycholinguistic analysis of Japanese sentences Richard C. Rudolph, Professor of Oriental Languages, University of California, Los Angeles, for research on recently excavated early Chinese painted tombs Conrad Schirokauer, Assistant Professor of History, City College, City University of New York, for research on the political struggle between Chao Ju-yii and Han T'o-chou Josef Silverstein, Associate Professor of Political Science, Rutgers - The State University, for research on national unity in Burma Sang C. Suh, Assistant Professor of Economics, Clark University, for research on the economic growth of Korea, 1910-45 Kozo Yamamura, Associate Professor of Economics, San Diego State College, for research on the sources of capital for Meiji-Taisho (1868-1912) firms

GRANTS FOR SLAVIC AND EAST EUROPEAN STUDIES The Subcommittee on Grants for Slavic and East European Studies (of the Joint Committee on Slavic Studies, sponsored with the American Council of Learned Societies) -Edward J. Brown, Clayton L. Dawson, Alexander Erlich, Charles Jelavich, Stephen D. Kertesz, and Nicholas V. Riasanovsky-at its meeting on February 18 awarded 16 grants for research: Abraham G. Duker, Professor of History and Social Institutions, Yeshiva University, for completion of research on Mickiewicz and Towianism JUNE

1967

Joseph Frank, Professor of Comparative Literatures and Slavic Languages, Princeton University, for a critical study of Dostoevsky M. Giergielewicz, Professor of Slavic Literatures, University of Pennsylvania, for research on Polish versification Frank Y. Gladney, Assistant Professor of Russian, University of Illinois, for research on relative clauses in Russian Franklyn D. Holzman, Professor of Economics, Tufts University, for research on problems of economic integration among the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance nations Norman M. Kaplan, Professor of Economics, University of Rochester, for research on Soviet capital formation and economic growth William B. Lincoln, Assistant Professor of History, Memphis State University, for a study of the development of enlightened statist attitudes in nineteenth-century Russian bureaucracy: Nikolai Milyutin Woodford D. McClellan, Associate Professor of History, University of Virginia, for research on Marx, Russia, and the First International William G. Rosenberg, Junior Fellow, Russian Institute, Columbia University, for research on the Constitutional Democratic Party in Russia, 1917-21 Alexander M. Schenker, Associate Professor of Slavic Linguistics, Yale University, for research on problems in Polish syntax George Y. Shevelov, Professor of Slavic Philology, Columbia University, for research on the history of the Ukrainian language Leon Smolinski, Associate Professor of Economics, Boston College, for research on Poland and Western economies George J. Staller, Associate Professor of Economics, Cornell University, for research on growth and stagnation of a planned economy: Czechoslovakia Leon Stilman, Professor of Russian Languages, Columbia University, for research on Russian literature Adam B. Ulam, Professor of Government, Harvard University, for research on Soviet foreign policy toward Western Europe, 1939-56 J. K. Zawodny, Professor of Political Science, University of Pennsylvania, for a case study of urban violence: the uprising of Warsaw, 1944

GRANTS FOR RESEARCH ON CONTEMPORARY AND REPUBLICAN CHINA In addition to the awards listed in the March issue of Items, the Joint Committee on Contemporary China, sponsored with the American Council of Learned Societies, has made the following grants for research: Paul V. Hyer, Professor of History, Brigham Young University, for study in the United States of the Mongolian language and further research on the development of Inner Mongolia (renewal) James R. Shirley, Assistant Professor of History, Northern Illinois University, for research on political conflict in the Kuomintang with particular reference to the career of Wang Ching-wei

23

GRANTS FOR LATIN AMERICAN STUDIES

Harry W. Taylor, Associate Professor of Geography, University of Western Ontario, for a case study in Brazil of perception of opportunity and investment in agriculture in 14 municzpios

In addition to the awards listed in the March issue of Items, the Joint Committee on Latin American Studies, sponsored with the American Council of Learned Societies, has made the following grants for research:

Ronald C. Newton, Assistant Professor of History, Purdue University, for research in Argentina on the formation of frontier society on the Argentine pampa, 1776-1880

Armin K. Ludwig, Assistant Professor of Geography, Colgate University, joint award with

PUBLICATIONS Of Boundaries and Bridges: A Report on a Conference on the Interdependencies of National and International Political Systems, by James N. Rosenau. Princeton University Center of International Studies Research Monograph No. 27. Jointly sponsored by the Center and the Committee on Comparative Politics. Princeton, January 1967.66 pages. $1.50.

Chinese Economic Statistics: A Handbook for Mainland China, edited by Nai-Ruenn Chen. Sponsored by the Committee on the Economy of China. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, April 1967. 570 pages. $15.00.

College Peer Groups: Problems and Prospects for Research, edited by Theodore M. Newcomb and Everett K. Wilson.

Based on the work of seminars sponsored by the former Committee on Personality Development in Youth. National Opinion Research Center Monographs in Social Research No.8. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, October 1966. 317 pages. $8.95.

Contemporary China: A Research Guide, by Peter Berton and Eugene Wu (edited by Howard Koch, Jr.; foreword

by Mary C. Wright). Hoover Institution Bibliographical Series: xxxi. Prepared for the Joint Committee on Contemporary China. Stanford University: Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace, July 1967. c. 700 pages. $22.50.

The Development of Sex Differences, edited by Eleanor E. Maccoby, with contributions also by Roy G. D'Andrade, Sanford M. Dornbusch, David A. Hamburg, Lawrence Kohlberg, Donald T. Lunde, Walter Mischel, and Roberta M. Oetzel. Product of the work group on sex differences, sponsored by the Committee on Socialization and Social Structure. Stanford: Stanford University Press, December 1966. 351 pages. $8.50.

Early Behavior: Comparative and Developmental Approaches, edited by Harold W. Stevenson, Eckhard H. Hess, and Harriet L. Rheingold. Revisions of papers prepared for conferences held by the former Committee on Comparative Developmental Behavior. New York: John Wiley & Sons, February 1967. 312 pages. $9.75.

Financing the Chinese Government Budget: Mainland China, 1950-1959, by George N. Ecklund. Sponsored by the Committee on the Economy of China. Chicago: AIdine Publishing Company, December 1966. 133 pages. $5.00.

Genetic Diversity and Human Behavior, edited by J. N. Spuhler. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology, No. 45. Proceedings of a symposium, September 17-25, 1964, jointly sponsored by the Wenner路Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research and the former Committee on Genetics and Behavior (now the Committee on Biological Bases of Social Behavior). Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, summer 1967. c. 320 pages. $7.50.

Income Distribution in the United States, by Herman P. Miller. Sponsored by the Committee on Population Census Monographs in cooperation with the Bureau of the Census. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, September 1966. 314 pages. $2.25.

Invention and Economic Growth, by Jacob Schmookler.

Prepared with the aid of the Committee on Economic Growth. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, September 1966. 347 pages. $9.95.

Learning by Discovery: A Critical Appraisal, edited by Lee S. Shulman and Evan R. Keislar. Proceedings of a conference held by Stanford University and the Committee on Learning and the Educational Process, January 28-29, 1965. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, December 1966.237 pages. $5.00.

Modern Economic Growth: Rate, Structure, and Spread, by Simon Kuznets. Based in part on studies initiated or aided by the Committee on Economic Growth. New Haven: Yale University Press, December 1966. 546 pages. $12.50.

Soviet and Chinese Communism: Similarities and Differences, edited by Donald W. Treadgold. Revisions of papers prepared for the conference, June 13-17, 1965, cosponsored by the Joint Committees on Contemporary China and on Slavic Studies. Seattle: University of Washington Press, April 1967.471 pages. $10.00.

SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL 230

PARK

AVENUE,

NEW

YORK,

N.Y.

10017

Incorporated in the State of Illinois, December 27, 1924, for the purpose of advancing research in the social sciences Directors, 1967:

GABRIEL A. ALMOND, WILLIAM O. AYDELO'ITE, ABRAM BERGSON, PETER M. BLAu, DORWIN CARTWRIGHT, HAROLD C. CONKUN,

LEE J. CRONBACH, PHIUP D. CURTIN, CHARLES A. FERGUSON, KARL A. Fox, MORTON H. FRIED, WILUAJI[ J. GOODE, MORRIS H. HANSEN, CHAUNCY D. HARRIS, SAMUEL P. HAYS, PENDLETON HERRING, DELL HYMES, STANLEY LEBERGOTT, GARDNER LINDZEY, COUN MACLEOD, FRANCO MODIGUANI, FREDERICK MOSTELLER, DON K. PRICE, AUSTIN RANNEY, ALBERT REES, HERBERT A. SIMON, JOHN THIBAUT, DAVID B. TRUMAN, JOHN USEEM, ROBERT E. WARD

Officers and Staff: PENDLETON HERRING, President; PAUL WEBBINK, HENRY tive Associates; ELEANOR C. ISBELL, ROWLAND L. MITCHELL, JR., NORMAN W. V. RONNAN, Financial Secretary

24

Vice路Presidents; ELBRIDGE SIBLEY, BRYCE WOOD, ExecuStaff Associates; JEROME E. SINGER, Consultant; CATHERINE

W. RIECKEN, STORER,