Page 1

SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL

VOLUME 21 . NUMBER 3 . SEPTEMBER 1967 230 PARK AVENUE¡ NEW YORK, N.Y. 10017

MILITARY OCCUPATIONS AND POLITICAL CHANGE: A CONfERENCE HELD IN NEW YORK, APRIL 20-22, 1967* by llobert E. YVard POLITICAL change, especially under the rubric of "political development," has become a constant and urgent concern of governments and scholars in both developed and developing societies throughout the world. Although academic studies of the processes involved are increasing in number and improving in quality, for the most part we still lack a sufficient range of reliable data, properly distributed over the spectrum of relevant problems, to permit the formulation of any generally accepted theory of political change or development. This problem is being attacked from various angles, however. The specific interest of the conference was the postwar military occupations of Germany and Japan as major examples of a particular type of planned political change. The concern of the participants was primarily with the United States' role in planning and bringing about this sort of change. The principal question posed was: "What can a comparative study of these two cases contribute to our general knowledge of the process of planned political change?" RESEARCH ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE TWO CASES Viewed from this standpoint, the German and Japanese cases possess both advantages and disadvantages for • The conference was conducted by the Council's Committee on Comparative Politics. Its organization and agenda were described briefly in Items, June 1967, page 17. A selection of papers prepared for the conference will be published in the 1968 issue of Public Policy (yearbook published by Harvard University Press), edited by John D. Montgomery. The author of this report is Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center for Japanese Studies at the University of Michigan, a member of the board of directors of the Council, and of the Committee on Comparative Politics.

research. On the negative side, for instance, at least the following points should be taken into account: The circumstances of both occupations were unusual, and it is questionable that they are likely to recur in substantially similar conditions. In studying them, therefore, we are dealing with an extreme rather than a central type, with what might be called in theoretical terms "a limiting case." In both instances, furthermore, it is very hard to distinguish the effects of causes endogenous to the two occupations' planned endeavors to democratize these societies from the effects of exogenous factors. We have in mind particularly questions as to how many of the political changes that emerged in postwar Germany and Japan were the result in whole or in part of indigenous initiatives and causes rather than of planning or action by the occupying forces. In both the German and Japanese cases, also, the complex and overlapping quality of the planning process, the diffusion of actual as opposed to formal responsibility for planning and implementation, and the generalized terms in which goals were frequently expressed make it difficult to assess the relationship between advance or central planning and what actually occurred. One suspects that a good deal of what happened was more the result of individual or local initiative and ad hoc experimentation than of any over-all planning process. Again, the German and Japanese cases do not really represent an adequate sample of the universe concerned, that is, of major exemplars of experiments in planned political change conducted under the auspices of military occupations. The two cases are biased in considerable part toward the democratic variant of this type.

25


The communist variants encountered in eastern and , southeastern Europe are not adequately represented; neither are the "fascist" occupations of the early war period. It is also true, of course, that there are important divergences in the character of the German and J apanese occupations. The United States had in effect plenary and unshared authority on a national scale in the latter, whereas it shared power on a multilateral and zonal basis in the former. From a comparative standpoint these are serious flaws. It would be foolish to underestimate the problems that they pose for any effort to extrapolate from the German and Japanese cases to a general theory of planned political change. Yet when one looks on the positive side, at the undoubted advantages possessed by these cases, it would be far more shortsighted to conclude that the effort should not be made. The raw materials with which social scientists work are seldom other than flawed and incomplete. If one accepts this premise, it is instructive to view the military occupations of Germany and Japan in the light of the following considerations. So far as the United States is concerned, it entered both occupations with a reasonably clear statement of ultimate objectives. It wanted to demilitarize and democratize Germany and Japan. It either had or shortly acquired more specific working definitions of what the accomplishment of these goals entailed. Although demilitarization was the prime aim at the outset, it was, in a technical sense at least, speedily accomplished and thereafter it was supplanted by democratization as a prime political goal. This provided a general focus for both occupations' activities in the field of political reform. As means to the achievement of this goal both occupations enjoyed almost total legal and practical authority, a circumstance seldom encountered in political reform projects having democratic objectives. It is also pertinent that in a physical sense the attempts to democratize the two societies took place on a national -or major zonal-scale, and in a social engineering sense applied to and affected practically all important social sectors and structures. We are not dealing here with mere superficial tinkerings with legislatures and laws, but with an over-all assault on both the institutions and the infrastructure of two authoritarian societies. Significant, too, are the unusually clear temporal boundaries that demarcate the period of planned political change under foreign auspices from the larger streams of German and Japanese history. The period begins in both cases with the formal surrender of the armed forces in 1945 and ends in the Japanese case with the effectuation of the Treaty of San Francisco in April 1952 and in the German case with the ratification of the Paris Agreement in May 1955. While the authority and

26

initiative actually wielded by the United States tapered off markedly, well before either terminal date, it is still noteworthy that we can isolate the period of prime concern with this much precision. From a temporal standpoint it is also important that both occupations lasted long enough-almost 10 years in the German case and almost 7 in the Japanese-to permit the Allied authorities an appreciable period of time in which to effectuate their reform programs. Related to this is the further fact that 22 years have passed since the inception of the two occupations, and it has been 17 years since the occupation authorities informally returned the bulk of domestic political initiative and responsibility to the West German and Japanese governments in 1949-50. Thus there has been a respectable period in which to observe the postoccupation fortunes of both programs of political change and to form opinions as to the degree of success or failure that has attended them. A further factor that should be taken into account is the degree of environmental control exercised by the authorities of both occupations. This had both internal and external aspects. Within Germany and Japan it meant that through devices such as the purges of antidemocratic individuals and groups; the establishment and policing of freedom of speech, assembly, and organization; the control of domestic communications and their content; the encouragement of democratic parties and institutions and the repression of their adversaries, it was possible to exercise a most unusual degree of control over the character of the actors on the domestic political scene and the terms on which they competed. They were, so to speak, able systematically to hold the ground for democratic causes and advocates and deny it to their opponents. Externally it was equally feasible to isolate both Japan and the Western zones of Germany from unfavorable international influences and associations. The occupation authorities exercised complete control over travel to or from West Germany and Japan and added to this a comparable degree of control over their international media of communication. The quantity and quality of the political changes manifested in Germany and Japan since their exposure to occupation planning and reform should also be noted. If one uses the prewar political circumstances of both countries as a bench mark, there can be no doubt that profound changes have occurred in both political systems and that these changes have been predominantly democratic in tendency. While one cannot be certain that either society has been permanently converted to the democratic persuasion, this is not the point. Few political arrangements are stable in this sense. What is important is the fact that a species of controlled political revolution has occurred in West Germany and Japan, that this has VOLUME

21,

NUMBER

S


other postwar initiatives?" While so complex a question does not lend itself to confident responses, a number of interesting observations were made. In an attempt to relate the prewar political experience of Germany and Japan to their records of democratic innovation in postwar times, one such observation referred to the degree of convertibility that may be characteristic of modern political systems. So long as one is dealing with a modern political system, it is apparent that the actual apparatus of government and the skills needed to operate it are not really so different in democratic and in authoritarian systems. In this sense it may not be so difficult as is often assumed to convert the apparatus from one political context to the other. In both the German and Japanese cases the occupation changed in important measure the locus of political power and revised accordingly the distribution of political and other goods and values, but the changes in the mechanism and personnel involved in effectuating these policies were far less drastic. This suggests that under appropriate conditions a modern political system may be more readily convertible from authoritarian to democratic status than has generally been thought. A second observation related to the values inherent in a pluralistic political tradition and the institutional, mechanistic, and psychological preparations that this provides for subsequent democratic innovation. Modern Germany and modern Japan had both gone through relatively liberal political phases during the 70-year period preceding the outbreak of World War II. In the course of these they had acquired a good deal of experience with parliamentary institutions, political parties, elections, the rule of law, democratic theory, and a variety of other matters relevant to the successful operation of a democratic political system. Of equal importance was the fact that minority elements of both populations came to prefer more liberal forms of government and covertly or openly maintained this preference during the years of authoritarian dominance. The capacity displayed by such elements to survive and re-emerge after 13 years "in the wilderness" is impressive. Both of these factors--prewar institutional preparation and the availability of a relatively liberal counterelite-are important factors in the history of postwar political changes THE INDIGENOUS POTENTIAL in Germany and Japan. FOR DEMOCRATIZATION A third speculation relates in part to pre-existing poOne of the principal subjects under discussion was the tential for democratic political change and in part to pre-existing (before 1945) potential for democratization another subject of concern, namely strategies of directed in both Germany and Japan. In more operational terms political change. This is the notion that the cumulative the question was: "To what extent are the political experience of the German and Japanese peoples during changes of a democratic nature found in postoccupation the 1932-45 period of authoritarian rule in itself conJapan and Germany a deferred product of prewar de- stituted a very potent cause of postwar political changes. velopments and trends rather than of occupation or The common experience with authoritarian regimes un-

followed upon the occupations' attempts to produce just such changes, and that these new political dispensations have shown a surprising vitality and promise of ability to perpetuate themselves for an appreciable period. Finally, in this review of research advantages offered by the German and Japanese occupations, one should not neglect the facts that both episodes are not only well documented, but that numerous high-level participants on both the Allied and the German-Japanese sides are still available for interview and consultation. This is a combination of opportunities not often encountered by the student of comparative development. It should not be permitted to pass without careful investigation and exploitation. As one recapitulates these aspects of the two occupations, it becomes clear that they possess some of the essential characteristics of a scientific experiment: preestablished objectives, appropriate scale, reasonable duration, controlled environment, ability to manipulate the subjects, hypotheses as to how this may most effectively be done, and reliable records amenable to ex post facto analysis. Obviously, it would be foolhardy to press this analogy too far. The degrees of control present in the "experiment" and our ability to relate particular results to particular inputs fall far short of minimal laboratory specifications. But, even so, are we likely to find in recent history or today's world many situations that offer comparable research advantages on a comparable scale? At least it may be said with some assurance that they are not numerous, especially in those democratic or relatively open societies in which it is possible to conduct research on such problems. Essentially these are the reasons why a comparative analysis of the German and Japanese occupations commended itself to the Committee on Comparative Politics and to the conference. While the actual sessions of the conference did not lead to any consensus on substantive issues, they did produce a variety of stimulating and useful discussions and insights. Considerations of space preclude any very inclusive account here, but the following illustrations may be suggestive.

SEPTEMBER

1967

27


der conditions of increasing stringency, when capped by the culminating blow of bitter and disastrous military defeat followed by military occupation, must have had some admonitory or educational impact upon many people-even if only negatively through a search for scapegoats. In this sense there is probably something to be said for the thesis that the "totalitarian" stage of German and Japanese history was a type of preparation for some sort of postwar political change, though not necessarily for change of a democratic nature. This line of argumentation assumed a strategic bent when applied to the circumstances of both occupations in the period immediately following surrender. It gave rise to the speculation that the material and psychological trauma attendant upon total defeat in modem warfare plus ancillary stresses, such as those encountered in recent German and Japanese history, are apt to produce temporarily an abnormal plasticity or malleability in the defeated people and make them unusually susceptible to external influences where political change and innovation are concerned. Strategically speaking, the inference of course is that the chances of success of any such program of political innovation may be enhanced if it is introduced and implemented as soon as possible after the onset of such a traumatic experience. PRESURRENDER PLANNING A session of the conference was devoted to consideration of the quality and efficacy of the United States' presurrender planning for the occupations of Germany and Japan. A quite striking contrast emerged from the discussions. In the German case it seemed that practically everyone in the government with any title to official concern about the treatment and circumstances of a defeated Germany was involved in the planning: President Roosevelt, the White House staff, and numerous officials--both at home and abroad--of the State Department, armed forces, Treasury, Office of Strategic Services, and Foreign Economic Administration. The process was further complicated by a number of international conferences and agreements, the results of which were often deliberately withheld from all but a few of the officials concerned with postwar planning. Added to this was the President's reluctance to engage in advance planning at all until the outlines of postwar Europe and the postwar world in general became clearer, plus his failing health and preference for acting by himself. Given such handicaps, it is perhaps surprising that it was possible even to draft the Joint Chiefs of Staff Directive 1067 for the occupation of Germany well before the German surrender. Once issued, however, the Directive was speedily discovered to be unsuitable in substantial part to the

28

actual needs of the occupation forces-largely because it reflected the assumptions and policies of the Morgenthau Plan long after the Plan itself had presumably been discarded. The operational problem of the American authorities in occupied Germany thus came to be not so much how to give effect to their pre surrender plans as how to activate those that were practicable while at the same time ignoring the others. The experience of planning for the occupation of Japan was quite different. The United States Initial Post-Surrender Policy for Japan was primarily the work of three officers of the Department of State, carried out quietly and steadily over many months. It did not become an issue of major concern at the highest levels of government until July 1945, a bit more than a month before the actual surrender of Japan. And it had the enormous advantage of being premised on an Americandirected and controlled organization rather than a multilateral and zonal one of the German sort. The result was a far more meaningful and practicable document that in most respects did provide the guidelines for the occupation of Japan and served also as the basis for a series of subsequent directives. This contrast with the German experience suggests, of course, the advantages in planning by small, cohesive, and informal groups and, perhaps most of all, the benefits from operating in a political backwater rather than a three-ring circus. It also points up a little-recognized aspect of the careers of the two men most directly involved with the administration of the two occupations-Generals Clay and MacArthur. Contrary to the accepted public image, it would seem that-in the early days at least-General Clay actually played a more independent role in determining basic policies for the German occupation than did General MacArthur for its Japanese counterpart. STRATEGIES OF CHANGE One of the liveliest and most controversial sessions was on strategies of directed political change. While most participants agreed that the occupations had a good deal to do with the degree of democratization (however imperfect or unstable) achieved in postwar Germany and Japan, at least one maintained that the real democratization of West Germany did not get under way until the early 1960's and that then it was principally a function of economic recovery, not external initiatives. There was considerable discussion of the relative merits of indirect versus direct administration of occupations. The tendency was to favor the former on the ground that increased efficiency resulted from the continuous functioning of the indigenous government, proVOLUME

21,

NUMBER

3


vided that precautions were taken through a purge, selective recruitment, and close and continuous supervision of performance to insure adherence to major occupation policies. Some found the distinction between the two forms to be somewhat spurious in the sense that Germans largely supplied the technical skills and actually carried out the functions of government, even though the occupation of Germany was supposed to be direcdy administered by United States military government forces supplanting the German government. There was rather widespread agreement with respect to the phasing and duration of an occupation having democratization as one of its chief goals. Most of the participants believed that there was a strong and increasing tendency for indigenous forces to reassume political initiative and power, whether the occupation was of the direct or indirect variety. Thus although in a formal sense the American occupation of Japan lasted until 1952 and that of West Germany until 1955, actually the two governments had for most domestic purposes regained effective control by 1950. In some areas this was true even earlier. This tendency for an indigenous political leadership to reassume power reinforces the point made earlier about the abnormal plasticity and malleability of societies immediately after they experience a shock comparable to the German and Japanese defeats. There is a limited time within which an occupying power has optimal chances of successfully launching major reforms. If this is allowed to pass without positive action, the ability to act effectively will be progressively modified by the reassertion of indigenous political initiative and influence, and the regaining of both the capacity and the will to carry out forms of subversion and sabotage with respect to locally unpopular programs. A more positive way of viewing this phenomenon is to recognize its inevitability at the outset and to phase planning and reform programs accordingly. Thus one introduces changes at the optimal moment and gains time in which to allow them to naturalize under occupation supervision and, if necessary, a degree of judicious intervention and protection as well. In the political field particularly, this was the case in both Germany and Japan.

SEPTEMBER

1967

There was some speculation also about strategies of withdrawal, or when and how to terminate interstate relations of this sort. The impossibility as well as the undesirability of simply reverting to the status quo ante bellum was generally recognized. The occupation relationship is an abnormally intimate and expansive one that multiplies both contacts and dependences between the states concerned at a very rapid rate. The probability is that within a few years this interlacing of interests will have proceeded so far as to have created an entirely new, very close, and initially lopsided sort of relationship between occupier and occupied. The degree of general dependence involved for the occupied state may become excessive and may continue far beyond the end of formal occupation. In some quarters these considerations gave rise to the view that both the German and Japanese occupations lasted too long and that more attention should have been given to a strategy that would have liquidated them after the first two to three years. In this connection it was noted at the conference that General MacArthur announced publicly in March 1947 that he thought the time had come to negotiate an end to the Allied occupation of Japan. Among the other discussions at the conference was a most interesting exchange on the tendency of defeat and occupation under circumstances such as those obtaining in Germany and Japan to stimulate Utopian varieties of political thought and organization, and another exchange on the problems of effectively staffing an occupation that by its very nature lacks permanence and career possibilities, but these cannot be elaborated here. In conclusion I would like to offer an organizational note. A systematic attempt was made in selecting the participants for this conference to include a number of Americans who had held high office in either the German or Japanese occupation and to bring them together with scholars professionally concerned with the politics, history, or sociology of the occupation period and experience. Japanese and German scholars also participated. These arrangements worked extraordinarily well. The general view was that the scholars present benefited greatly from the continuous and most constructive participation of the former occupation officials.

29


TRANSNATIONAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY: NOTES ON THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE IN VIENNA, APRIL 9-14, 1967 by John Lanzetta, Henri Tajfel, and Leon Festinger five days under the joint auspices of the Committee on Transnational Social Psychology and the European Association for Experimental Social Psychology, a group of 22 social psychologists from Western Europe, the United States, and the European socialist countries met in plenary sessions to hear and discuss invited papers on the current status of social psychology and research reports on a number of topics. 1 Outside of formal sessions, there was lively interaction during community dinners and parties and informal transcultural indoctrination into a variety of national preferences. The conference was the third sponsored by the Council and its Committee on Transnational Social Psychology as part of a program to assist in the development of experimental social psychology without regard to national boundaries. Earlier conferences had involved primarily Western European and American participants and had proved to be effective in furthering communication between social psychologists in Western Europe and the United States and also among Western Europeans themselves. The conferences had also provided the personal contacts and opportunities for planning institutional developments of significance for social psychology in Western Europe and for collaborative research. It was hoped that similar direct and indirect advantages would result from a conference involving Europeans from the socialist countries. The following guiding principles were observed in the planning of the conference: (a) Attendance to be FOR

• The authors are members of the Council's Committee on Transnational Social Psychology, which includes Leon Festinger, Stanford University (chairman): Harold H. Kelley, University of California, Los Angeles: Jaap Koekebakker, Netherlands Institute for Preventive Medicine, Leiden: John T. Lanzetta, Dartmouth College; Serge Moscovici, University of Paris; Ragnar Rommetveit, University of Oslo: Stanley Schachter, Columbia University; Henri Tajfel, University of Bristol: stall, Jerome E. Singer. 1 The participants in the conference in addition to members of the committee and staff were: Morton Deutsch, Columbia University: Hans Hiebsch, Friedrich-Schiller University, Jena: Hilde T_ Himmelweit, London School of Economics; Martin Irle, Wirtschaftshochschule Mannheim: Jaromlr Janousek, Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences, Prague: Misha D. Jezernik, University of Ljubljana, Yugoslavia: Anton Jurovsky, University of Bratislava; Hanna Malewska, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw: Stanislaw Mika, University of Warsaw: Jozef M. Nuttin, Jr., University of Louvain: Henry W. Riecken, Social Science Research Council: John Thibaut, University of North Carolina: Manfred Vorwerg, Friedrich-Schiller University, Jena: and Vladimir A. Yadov, University of Leningrad.

30

to

limited to approximately 25 persons with about equal numbers from the different geographical areas. (b) Participants to be currently active in research and in positions permitting them to influence the direction of future developments in social psychology in their respective countries. (c) The conference sessions, both formal and informal, to be organized to facilitate free exchange among the participants. (d) The program to encompass the range of work and interests of the participants. The problem of selection of participants was one of the most difficult that confronted the planning committee. 2 Unfortunately, contacts with Eastern European social psychology were exceedingly sparse, in part because until recently there has been little formal social psychology in those countries. After extensive correspondence and consultations, Henri Tajfel visited Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia in June 1966, to meet social psychologists there. Contacts with social psychologists in the German Democratic Republic were made directly by Martin Irle. With the help of Misha Jezernik additional contacts were made in Yugoslavia and Rumania. The International Congress of Psychology meetings in Moscow in August 1966 provided further opportunities for selecting possible participants. A uniformly enthusiastic interest in the possibility of attending such a conference was found among the psychologists who were approached. In the end invitations were issued jointly by the committee and the European Association for Experimental Social Psychology to 15 social psychologists in the European socialist countries. Eight of these accepted the invitations and attended the meetings. Several others, who were unable to attend, expressed eagerness to be included in any similar future activities. The choice of participants from Western Europe and the United States did not entail a problem of identification but one of arbitrary selection. An effort was made simply to ensure that participants were actively engaged in research and represented the spectrum of experimental social psychology. The meetings were held at the Hotel Intercontinental, and at the informal reception on the evening of arrival signs of a successful conference were evident. The wel2 The plans for the conference were developed by a committee consisting of Henri Tajfel (chairman), Leon Festinger, Martin Irle, and Serge Moscovici.

VOLUME

21,

NUMBER

3


coming speeches were short and to the point, and organizational details were quickly dispatched. The group proceeded with the task of breaking the ice and discovered the ice was paper thin. All the participants were warm, friendly, and eager to establish contact. By the end of the evening a few old acquaintances hips had been renewed and many new friendships initiated. It was an auspicious beginning. THE PROGRAM The program was organized in two main sections. The first section was devoted to consideration of invited papers summarizing the present trends in social psychological research in various countries or regions; the second, to submitted papers on specific research topics. The papers on social psychology in the socialist countries of Europe 8 provided an extremely useful perspective on recent developments in the field. In those countries it is only in the past decade that social psychology has been officially recognized as an autonomous area of inquiry. Previously, problems of social psychology were dealt with by other disciplines (pedagogics, philosophy, law, medicine, sociology), and no systematic attention was given to the training of social psychologists or the establishment of research centers, without which the development of the discipline is likely to languish. The early official stance was doubtless based on a complex of reasons, as is the recent shift in attitude. Today university departments and research institutes of social psychology are developing rapidly. The resurgence in social psychology, of course, has not assumed a similar form or proceeded at the same rate in all the socialist countries. In nearly all of them, however, chairs of social psychology have been established, research departments or institutes have been organized, and training programs of at least limited scope have been introduced. One residue of the historical development is evident in that the research programs are generally conducted under the auspices of institutes of pedagogy, sociology, child development, and economics, but increasingly a measure of autonomy is being achieved. There are major training and research centers at Jena, Warsaw, Prague and Bratislava, and Leningrad and Moscow; and several chairs of social psychology in Yugoslavia, Hungary, and Bulgaria. The numbers of students trained and the level of research activity in these centers are still modest but increasing rapidly. Contemporary social problems and socialization processes are the primary focus of research. Some of the areas 8 Presented by Manfred Vorwerg (East Germany); Anton Jurovsky (Czechoslovakia); Vladimir A. Yadov (Soviet Union); Stanislaw Mika (poland).

SEPTEMBER

1967

mentioned by participants were: studies of youth and of the impact of family and institutional practices on their moral development and attitudes; the structure and functioning of labor and processes of decision making in the industrial sector (such problems have special relevance to labor self-management practices); research on small groups and social interaction (an interest which has not yet had opportunity to be fully expressed in basic experimental work); the measurement of attitudes and processes of attitude change-especially the role of mass media in forming and modifying attitudes. In general, the range of problems encompassed by current research overlaps considerably that in Western Europe or the United States, but the methodological approach consists almost exclusively of surveyor interview techniques. Laboratory and field experiments are not yet widely employed, although one would surmise that potential for the latter is very high and that they will increase in frequency. Laboratory experiments will probably be slower to develop since they are more dependent on physical facilities and equipment, and are generally perceived as more remote from application. The demands on resources already far exceed their availability, and it seems unlikely that support will be readily forthcoming for purely theoretical and laboratory work. Support is excellent in the socialist countries for research that has relevance for immediate social problems but, as in the United States and Western Europe, such support is not an unmixed blessing. As Jurovsky said in his paper: " ... there is in fact no walk of life where research on man is not considered also along the socialpsychological aspect and which would not be provided for administratively or financially. An observer on the sidelines may take this to be an ideal, nay, even an enviable state of affairs. Well, it is neither one nor the other. In the first place, the difficulty lies in the fact that demand on the part of the public exceeds the help social psychology is able to provide. Secondly, the demand is mainly for ready-to-use results, capable of bringing immediate solution to numerous practical problems. Thirdly, there is a dearth of adequately qualified psychologists who would be able to meet promptly the public demand. Lastly, there is a lack of research equipment, of methodologies and related auxiliary services which could be readily made use of in a measure that today is required of social psychology." In addition to the papers on the status of social psychology in the socialist countries, excellent surveys of the development of the field in Western Europe and in the United States were presented by Jaap Koekebakker and Harold H. Kelley, respectively. The papers on specific research projects were diverse and are not easily summarized. In addition to providing 31


concrete examples of the theoretical and methodological approaches being utilized in various centers, they stimulated a kind of scientific exchange not possible in discussion of papers on the status of the field. In some instances, mutual interests were identified which perhaps will result in future collaborative research. The most impressive feature of the sessions was the relative absence of barriers to effective communication. All the participants were widely acquainted with the existing theoretical, methodological, and empirical work in social psychology and were in general accord about most substantive issues. Conceivable ideological and general philosophical points of issue did not arise frequently and played no important part in the proceedings. Possible differences between a Marxist theoretical approach and other approaches were mentioned occasionally but not dogmatically and did not hinder or interfere with the discussion of specific studies. Even language differences proved to be much less of an impediment to free exchange of ideas than had been expected, because of the widespread proficiency of the participants in speaking English and the presence of many multilingual participants who at rare points of confusion served as interpreters. It is difficult to assess the real level of understanding or rapport that prevailed but the general impression was of free and mutually profitable interchange. EVALUATION OF THE CONFERENCE AND FUTURE PLANS The last half-day session was devoted to an evaluation of the conference and future planning. On several points there was almost unanimous accord. The conference, exceeding even the most optimistic expectations, had been effective in bridging the chasm between eastern and western social psychologists, had provided contacts which would facilitate future cooperation in research, and had been the occasion for some very warm and rewarding personal exchanges. The details of the organization and conduct of the sessions were warmly praisedthe planning committee and staff of the Committee on Transnational Social Psychology had created a good balance of organized activity and freedom, of formal sessions and informal exchanges, of work and recreation, all of which fostered the atmosphere of conviviality and good spirits so conducive to effective communication.

32

As to future activity, a second conference was strongly recommended by the participants and a committee' was named to explore the feasibility of holding a conference next year. The Czechoslovak participants extended a tentative invitation on behalf of the Academy of Sciences to meet at its conference center near Prague. The proposed conference would be focused on two or three research problems of general significance to the field and of central concern to participants from different countries; the participants would include a number of younger scientists. A critical problem mentioned by many participants was the difficulty of access to journals, books, and informal reports of research. Several alternative procedures were suggested for stimulating the exchange of scientific information and a subcommittee was named to explore ways of increasing the flow of needed literature to investigators and laboratories in the socialist countries. One way of increasing communication would be to utilize the communicative network and exchange programs already established by the European Association for Experimental Social Psychology. Several participants who are officers of the Association volunteered to investigate the possibility of extending invitations for membership to social psychologists in the socialist countries. The resources of the Association could be used for some visits of investigators, but the extensive exchange of research workers and graduate students deemed desirable by most participants would require additional resources. Questions raised at several points concerned ways and means of stimulating cooperative research: Is cooperative research desirable? If so, how should it be organized, supported, and carried out? No definite or even tentative solutions were advanced, but it was clear that a number of participants would welcome opportunities for collaboration and are optimistic that expanding contacts and communication will increase the prospects for cooperative programs of training and research. The conference ended on a note of optimism. The foundation had been laid for future developments. Much more could not have been expected and, assessed in terms of objectives, the conference was clearly highly successful. 4 Henri Tajfel (chairman). Martin Irle. Jarom{r Janousek. Harold Kelley. Serge Moscovici. Vladimir Yadov.

VOLUME

21.

NUMBER

3


PERSONNEL FOREIGN AREA FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM In the fifth year of administration of the Foreign Area Fellowship Program by the Social Science Research Council and American Council of Learned Societies, fellowships have been awarded for study of five major world areas. As of August 1, the following 166 appointments have been accepted for 1967-68 (a few additional appointments are expected):

African Studies Program Richard L. Abel, D.Phil. candidate in African law, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, for research in Kenya on the treatment of civil wrongs within its pluralistic legal system Dan R. Aronson, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, University of Chicago, for preparation of a dissertation at Harvard University on the Ijebu Yoruba (renewal) Joel D. Barkan, Ph.D. candidate in political science, University of California, Los Angeles, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Uganda and the United States on modern African elites (renewal) Leo Barrington, Ph.D. candidate in sociology, Boston University, for course work in African economics and political science, Twi language training, and research in London and Ghana on the social structure of Volta Basin new towns and attitudes of educated students toward them James O. Bellis, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, Indiana University, for guided reading in African archaeology, history, and ethnology, and research in Ghana on the culture history of the Accra Plains Paula Ben-Amos, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, Indiana University, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in the United States on the structure and function of the wood carvers' guild of the Bini in Western Nigeria (renewal) Gerald J. Bender, Ph.D. candidate in political science, University of California, Los Angeles, for research in Portugal and Angola on Portuguese immigration to Angola (renewal) Rene A. Bravmann, Ph.D. candidate in art history, Indiana University, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Ghana, Ivory Coast, and the United States on the history and art history of the Brong (renewal) William A. Brown, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of Wisconsin, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Mali, Paris, and the United States on the social and intellectual background of the religious revolution of 1818 (renewal) Philip E. Chartrand, Ph.D. candidate in political science, Syracuse University, for research in England on major determinants of recent British policies toward Rhodesia Herbert M. Cole, Ph.D. candidate in art history, Columbia University, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Nigeria and the United States on Mbari houses among Owerri Ibos (renewal) SEPTEMBER

1967

Clement Cottingham, Ph.D. candidate in political science, University of California, Berkeley, for a comparative study in Senegal and the Gambia of bureaucracy, change, and social structure (renewal) Chester A. Crocker, Ph.D. candidate in international relations, Johns Hopkins University, for preparation of a dissertation on factors influencing order and stability in African international relations (renewal) Richard T. Curley, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, University of California, Berkeley, for preparation of a dissertation on ethnic identity and culture change among the Lango of Northern Uganda (renewal) Clive M. Davis, Ph.D. in psychology, University of Iowa, for completion of research in Uganda and the United States on persuasive communication (renewal) Mark W. DeLancey, Ph.D. candidate in government, Indiana University, for Ibo language trainmg and research in the United States, Israel, and Nigeria on farm settlements in Eastern Nigeria in relation to community development Alison L. Des Forges, Ph.D. candidate in history, Yale University, for research in Belgium, Italy, Rwanda and Burundi on European rule in Rwanda and Burundi, 1900-1939 Dennis L. Dresang, Ph.D. candidate in political science, University of California, Los Angeles, for Bemba language traming and research in England and Zambia on relations of party and bureaucracy in Zambia Christopher Ehret, Ph.D. candidate in history, Northwestern University, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation m Kenya, Tanzania, and the United States on the Southern Nilotes in East Africa from the beginning of the Christian era to the eighteenth century: the evidence of loan words (renewal) Steven Feierman, Ph.D. candidate in history, Northwestern University, for completion of research in Tanzania on the history of Shambala, 1800-1930 (renewal) Douglas E. Ferguson, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of California, Los Angeles, for Hausa language training and research in Nigeria on Islam and social stratification in nineteenth-century Northern Nigeria Elon H. Gilbert, Ph.D. candidate in agricultural economics, Stanford University, for preparation of a dissertation on the marketing of domestic food crops in Northern Nigeria (renewal) Talmy Giveon, Ph.D. candidate in linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles, for interdisciplinary studies relating to Africa and research in London and Zambia on ChiBemba grammar Gerald W. Hartwig, Ph.D. candidate in history, Indiana University, for KiKerewe language training and research in Europe and Tanzania on the role of the Kerewe people m the Tanzania trade complex and art tradition Allen F. Isaacman, Ph.D. candidate in African history, University of Wisconsin, for research in Portugal and Mozambique on the historical development of the Prazos James P. Johnson, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of Wisconsin, for Poular language training, and research and the preparation of a dissertation in Senegal

33


and the United States on the history of Futa Toro in the nineteenth century Charles M. H. Keil, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, University of Chicago, for preparation of a dissertation on Tiv musical composition and aesthetics (renewal) Leif C. W. Landberg and Pamela W. Landberg, Ph.D. candidates in social anthropology, University of California, Davis, for research in Tanzania on a southern coastal village Neil O. Leighton, Ph.D. candidate in government, Indiana University, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Lebanon, the United Kmgdom, and the United States on the role of the nonindigenous entrepreneur in the nation-building process (renewal) Stuart A. Marks, Ph.D. candidate in ecology, Michigan State University, for preparation of a dissertation on the role of belief systems in the utilization and care of resources (renewal) Philip A. Noss, Ph.D. candidate in African languages and literature, University of Wisconsin, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Cameroun and the United States on the Yaiwe dialect of the Gwaya language (renewal) Amnon Orent, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, Boston University, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Ethiopia or London, and the United States on social change among the Kaffa peoples of Southwest Ethiopia (renewal) Robert M. Price, Ph.D. candidate in political science, University of California, Berkeley, for Twi language training and research in Ghana on organizational control in a transitional society Harlan D. Robinson, Ph.D. candidate in political science, Stanford University, for Malgache language training and research in Paris and the Malagasy Republic on the political and economic development of that country Renaud Santerre, Ph.D. candidate in ethnology, Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, for preparation in Paris of a dissertation on the ethnolinguistlc problems of the Peuls of Northern Cameroun since independence (renewal) Harold E. Scheub, Ph.D. candidate in African languages and literature, University of Wisconsin, for research in England and South Africa on the Nguni languages of South Africa Marilyn Silberfein, Ph.D. candidate in geography, Syracuse University, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Tanzania and the United States on spatial analysis of the impact of new village settlements on their respective regions (renewal) Morris A. Simon, III, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, Cornell University, for research in Zambia on processes of institutionalized leadership in rural and urban settings (renewal) Dick W. Simpson, Ph.D. candidate in government, Indiana University, for preparation of a dissertation on political recruitment of urban influential citizens in Sierra Leone (renewal) David H. Spain, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, Northwestern University, for preparation of a dissertation on the modernization processes in Bornu, Northern Nigeria (renewal) Richard E. Stren, Ph.D. candidate in political science, University of California, Berkeley, for completion of 34

research and preparation of a dissertation in Kenya and the United States on urbanization and development in East Africa: a case study of Mombasa (renewal) Rodney N. Vlasak, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, University of California, Berkeley, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Nigeria and the United States on interpersonal encounters among Fulani- and Hausa-speaking groups (renewal) David S. Wiley, Ph.D. candidate in sociology, Princeton Theological Seminary, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Zambia, Europe, and the United States on the function of religious social movements in social change (renewal)

Asia and Near East Studies Program R. David Arkush, Ph.D. candidate in history, Harvard University, for Chinese language training and research in Taiwan and Hong Kong on Dewey and Russell in China Lawrence A. Babb, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, University of Rochester, for preparation of a dissertation on the development of the Satnami sect (renewal) Richard D. Baum, Ph.D. candidate in political science, University of California, Berkeley, for research in Hong Kong on functional relationships between "Maoist" ideology and the modernization process in Communist China (renewal) Stephan V. Beyer, Ph.D. candidate in Indian studies, University of Wisconsin, for research in India and Japan on the ritual and artistic development of the cult of the goddess Tara James A. Bill, Ph.D. candidate in politics, Princeton University, for completion of research in Iran and preparation of a dissertation in the United States on the Iranian professional intelligentsia (renewal) Barry B. Blakeley, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of Michigan, for preparation for examinations, Japanese language training, and research in the United States, Japan, and Taiwan on the history of Chou China (renewal) Karen W. Brazell, Ph.D. candidate in Japanese literature, Columbia University, for research and preparation of a dissertation in Japan on Towazugatari (renewal) Fox Butterfield, Ph.D. candidate in history, Harvard University, for research in Taiwan and Hong Kong on Hu Han-min and the Kuomintang from the late 1920's to 1936 Robert L. Canfield, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, University of Michigan, for completion of research in Afghanistan on social and economic adaptive patterns in selected Afghan villages (renewal) Byron D. Cannon, Ph.D. candidate in history, Columbia University, for research in the United Arab Republic on the Egyptian National Court System, 1880-90 David A. Dilworth, Ph.D. candidate in Japanese intellectual history, Manhattanville College, for Japanese language training and research in Japan on the life and thought of Nishida Kitaro David J. Elkins, Ph.D. candidate in political science, University of California, Berkeley, for Tamil language training and course work in anthropology, research methods, and multivariate statistics VOLUME

21,

NUMBER

1I


Donald K. Emmerson, Ph.D. candidate in political science, Yale University, for Indonesian language training and directed reading in Southeast Asian economics in the United States, and research in Indonesia on education and social development Ivan P. Hall, ph.D. candidate in Japanese history, Harvard University, for preparation in Japan of a dissertation on the life and thought of Mori Arinori (renewal) Thomas J. Harper, Ph.D. candidate in Japanese literature, University of Michigan, for research in Japan on premodern criticism of the eleventh-century Japanese novel, Genji monogatari (renewal) Boruch K. Helman, Ph.D. candidate in government, Harvard University, for Arabic language training and research in the United Arab Republic on bureaucracy, modernization, and institutional building in Egypt, 1882-1914 (renewal) Thomas L. Kennedy, Ph.D. candidate in history, Columbia University, for preparation of a dissertation on modernization in the Chinese munitions industry, 18601911 (renewal) Matthew V. Lamberti, Ph.D. candidate in history, Columbia University, for preparation of a dissertation on a political biography of Tokugawa Nariaki (renewal) Robert J. Lapham, Ph.D. candidate in sociology, University of Michigan, for preparation of a dissertation on the social and economic organizations of peasants in the Sais Plain of Morocco (renewal) David S. Lelyveld, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of Chicago, for research in India and England on a social and cultural analysis of an Indian university Steven I. Levine, Ph.D. candidate in government, Harvard University, for Chinese language training and research in Taiwan on political integration in the Chinese province of Manchuria (renewal) Arsenio P. Martinez, Ph.D. candidate in history, Columbia University, for preparation of a dissertation on the later portion of the "Tarix-i Wassaf" (renewal) Joseph A. Massey, Ph.D. candidate in political science, Yale University, for Japanese language training and research in the United States and Japan on political socialization in Japan (renewal) George A. McGrane, Ph.D. candidate in Far Eastern history, Columbia University, for completion of research in Japan and Korea and preparation of a dissertation in the United States on Japanese-Korean relations, 1905-10 (renewal) Mattison Mines, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, Cornell University, for Tamil language training and research in India on the social and economic integration of Tamil-speaking Muslims into Tamil village society Peter M. Mitchell, Ph.D. candidate in Asian history, Indiana University, for preparation of a dissertation on Wei Yuan (1794-1857) and the early modernization movement in China and Japan (renewal) Andrew J. Nathan, Ph.D. candidate in government, Harvard University, for Chinese language training and research in Taiwan, Japan, and England on the politics of the Peking Government, 1916-28 Donald A. Nelson, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of Chicago, for research in India on comparison of Tamil Perunkadai with Sanskrit versions of Gunadhya's Paisaci Brhatkatha SEPTEMBER

1967

Stephen M. Olsen, Ph.D. candidate in sociology. Cornell University, for research in Taiwan on occupation, family, and education in urban Taiwan (renewal) William B. Quandt, Ph.D. candidate in political science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for preparation of a dissertation on the Algerian political elite (renewal) Robert R. 'Reed, Ph.D. candidate in geography, University of California, Berkeley, for completion of research in the Philippines and England and preparation of a dissertation ln the United States on Philippine urbanism in the American period (renewal) John F. Richards, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of California, Berkeley, for completion of research in India and England and preparatlOn of a dissertation in the United States on the effects of the Mughal annexation of Golconda, 1687-1724 (renewal) Carl A. Riskin, Ph.D. candidate in economics, University of California, Berkeley, for preparation of a dissertation on the development of local industry in Kwangtung Province, China, and its relation to the choice of techniques of production in development planning (renewal) John E. Rothenberger, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, University of California, Berkeley, for com.rletion of research in Lebanon and preparation of a dlssertation in the United States on law and conflict resolution in a Sunni Muslim village (renewal) Gary R. Saxonhouse, Ph.D. candidate in economics, Yale University, for Japanese language training, reading in econometrics, and research in the United States and Japan on the cotton textile industry and Japanese industrialization (renewal) William G. Saywell, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of Toronto, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Hong Kong on the thought of Tai Chi-fao, 1912-28 Stuart A. Schlegel, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, University of Chicago, for completion of research in the Philippines and preparation of a dissertation in the United States on Philippine social structure (renewal) Dennis N. Skiotis, Ph.D. candidate in history, Harvard University, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Europe and the United States on Tepedelenli Ali Pasha of Yanina (1744-1822) (renewal) Mark S. Slobin, Ph.D. candidate in ethnomusicology, University of Michigan, for multidisciplinary area training and research in London and Afghanistan on Tajik and Uzbek musical materials Henry D. Smith, II, Ph.D. candidate in history, Harvard University, for completion of research in Japan and preparation of a dissertation in the United States on left-wing movements in the Japanese universities (renewal) Royall Tyler, Ph.D. candidate in history, Columbia University, for research in Japan on the Ise mairi in the Tokugawa period (renewal) John Waterbury, Ph.D. candidate in government, Columbia University, for completion of research in Morocco and preparation of a dissertation in the United States on the uses of monarchical power in independent Morocco: interaction of the monarchy and the nationalist elite (renewal) Howard J. Wechsler, Ph.D. candidate in history, Yale University, for completion of research in Japan and

35


pre:paration of a dissertation in the United States on WeI Cheng (580-643 A.D.) at the Court of T'ang T'aitsung (renewal) James W. White, Ph.D. candidate in political science, Stanford University, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Japan and the United States on the political nature of the Sokagakkai Lynn T. White, III, Ph.D. candidate in political science, University of California, Berkeley, for Chinese language training and research in Taipei, Hong Kong, and Japan on the politics of Shanghai City since 1949 Alexander B. Woodside, Ph.D. candidate in history and anthropology, Harvard University, for preparation of a dissertation on Vietnam and the Chinese institutional model: Nguyen emperors and their civil bureaucracy, 1802-47 (renewal)

Latin American Studies Program Jeffry Adelman, Ph.D. candidate in history, Indiana University, for preparation for examinations and research in the United States and Brazil on the growth and evolution of the city of Belo Horizonte (renewal) Rebecca Baird, Ph.D. candidate in history, Stanford University, for research in Brazil on responses of urban interest groups to the Negro, 1888-1908 Roderick J. Barman, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of California, Berkeley, for course work in political science, political sociology, and sociological research methodology, Portuguese language training, and research in the United States and Brazil on the political and social structure of the Brazilian Empire, 1850-70 David E. Blank, Ph.D. candidate in government, Columbia University, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Venezuela and the United States on the role of planning in Venezuelan political development (renewal) David S. C. Chu, Ph.D. candidate in economics, Yale University, for Spanish langua~e training, participation in the Workshop on EconomIc and Social History of Colombia, and research in Mexico, Colombia, Ecuador, Chile, and Argentina on the great depression and industrialization in Latin America (renewal) Carlos E. Cortes, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of New Mexico, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Brazil and the United States on the role of Rio Grande do SuI in Brazilian politics, 1930-66 (renewal) Warren W. Crowther, Ph.D. candidate in political science, Stanford University, for Spanish language training and research in Mexico and Chile on the Chilean railroads as a public transportation corporation Matthew D. Edel, Ph.D. candidate in economics, Yale University, for preparation of a dissertation on the Colombian community development program and its effects on capital formation and economic growth (renewal) Kenneth P. Erickson, Ph.D. candidate in government, Columbia University, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Brazil and the United States on labor in the political process in Brazil (renewal) Juan Gomez-Quinones, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of California, Los Angeles, for preparation of a 36

dissertation on Mexican nationalism: the formative years, 1890-1912 (renewal) Louis W. Goodman, Ph.D. candidate in sociology, Northwestern University, for research in the United States and Chile on the impact of industrialization on industrial workers Thomas C. Greaves, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, Cornell University, for preparation of a dissertation on four Peruvian haciendas: a case study in change (renewal) Michael McD. Hall, Ph.D. candidate in history, Columbia University, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Brazil and the United States on Brazilian immigration policy, 1808-1930 (renewal) Emil B. Haney, Jr., Ph.D. candidate in agricultural economics, University of Wisconsin, for preparation of a dissertation on the economic reorganization of Minifundia in a highland community of Colombia (renewal) Jon P. Heggan, Ph.D. candidate in political science, University of Illinois, for preparation of a dissertation on the influence of contrasting educational patterns on the political attitudes and behavior of Colombian primary and secondary school students (renewal) Jane S. Jaquette, Ph.D. candidate in government, Cornell University, for research in the United States and Peru on the impact of the United States on development policy in Peru Peter F. Klaren, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of California, Los Angeles, for preparation of a dissertation in Peru on the social and economic origins and early development of the Partido Aprista Peruano, 1900-1932 (renewal) Peter T. Knight, Ph.D. candidate in economics, Stanford University, for research in Brazil on agricultural diversification in coffee-producing areas Norris B. Lyle, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of California, Los Angeles, for research in Brazil on Sao Paulo and the collapse of the Old Republic, 1918-32 (renewal) John H. Magill, Jr., Ph.D. candidate in political science, University of Wisconsin, for Quechua language training, multidisciplinary course work, and research in the United States and Bolivia on labor unions as an institution in Bolivia John C. Pollock, Ph.D. candidate in political science, Stanford University, for course work relating to Latin America Scott S. Robinson, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, Cornell University, for course work relating to Latin America and research in the United States and Ecuador on structural constraints on land reform in Andean peasant villages Russell O. Salmon, II, Ph.D. candidate in Spanish, Columbia University, for preparation of a dissertation on the Toto in Chile's prose fiction (renewal) John F. Scott, Ph.D. candidate in art history, Columbia University, for research in Mexico on the position of Monte Alban I in the development of Mesoamerican civilization (renewal) Richard N. Sinkin, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of Michigan, for multidisciplinary course work relating to Latin America and research in the United States VOLUME

21,

NUMBER

S


and Mexico on the development of Mexican nationalism, 1847-72 Berkley A. Spencer, Ph.D. candidate in rural sociology, Cornell University, for preparation of a dissertation on differentiation and solidarity of a Guatemalan highland community in the context of an intervillage system (renewal) Franklin Tugwell, Ph.D. candidate in government, Columbia University, for preparation of a dissertation on the foreign relatlons of the Betancourt administration (renewal) Alexander W. Wilde, Ph.D. candidate in government, Columbia University, for research in the United States, Mexico, and Colombia on the role of the church in the political system of Colombia Jerry R. Williams, Ph.D. candidate in geography, University of Florida, for interdisciplinary course work relating to Latin America and research in the United States and Brazil on the functional relations of Manaus and its role in the Amazon Basin John H. Williams, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of Florida, for course work relating to Latin America and research in the United States, Paraguay, and Brazil on the regime of Jose Gaspar Rodriguez de Francia Peter W. Williams, Ph.D. candidate in religious studies, Yale University, for multidisciplinary course work relating to Latin America and research in the United States and Mexico on the Cristero Rebellion of 1926-29 Peter E. Winn, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of Cambridge, for research in the United States, Uruguay, and Argentina on British expansion into Uruguay, 1870-1914 (renewal) Soviet Union and East European Studies Program Raymond W. Baker, Ph.D. candidate in government, Harvard University, for course work, including history and Arabic language training, and preparation for examinations (renewal) Russell H. Bartley, Ph.D. candidate in history, Stanford University, for research in the Soviet Union, Finland, Spain, and Brazil on 'Russian involvement in Latin American independence, 1800-1825 Victoria E. Bonnell, Ph.D. candidate in government, Harvard University, for preparation for examinations, Yiddish language training, and research on nationality problems of the last czars Charles D. Cary, Ph.D. candidate in political science, Stanford University, for 'Russian language training and research in the United States, Munich, and the Soviet Union on the relationship between education at the primary and secondary levels and the political socialization of Soviet youth Paul M. Cocks, Ph.D. candidate in government, Harvard University, for completion of a dissertation on the historical and institutional role of the Party Control Commission and its successors in the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China (renewal) Lenard J. Cohen, Ph.D. candidate in government, Columbia University, for Serbo-Croatian language training, preparation for examinations, course work in social science methodology and Balkan history, and reading in Balkan government and economics SEPTEMBER

1967

Edwin G. Dolan, Ph.D. candidate in economics, Yale University, for preparation for examinations and preliminary research toward a dissertation in Soviet economics (renewal) Joseph T. Fuhrmann, Ph.D. candidate in history, Indiana University, for completion of a dissertation on the origins of capitalism in Russia: industry and progress in seventeentb-century Russia (renewal) Peter B. Golden, Ph.D. candidate in history, Columbia University, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Turkey and the United States on the origin and present status of the Khazars (renewal) John Gorgone, Ph.D. candidate in government, Indiana University, for preparation for examinations, preliminary research toward a dissertation, and course work relating to Eastern Europe Pierre R. Hart, Ph.D. candidate in Russian literature, University of Wisconsin, for completion of a dissertation on the significance of Andrej Belyj's novel Petersburg in the literature about the pre-Revolutionary capital (renewal) Neil M. Heyman, Ph.D. candidate in history, Stanford University, for Russian language training and research in the United States and Europe on Leon Trotsky as a military figure Ellen S. Hurwitz, Ph.D. candidate in history, Columbia University, for research on twelfth-century political ideology 10 Russia of Kiev and Vladimir (renewal) Donald R. Kelley, Ph.D. candidate in government, Indiana University, for course work, preparation for examinations, and Russian language trainmg J. Michael Kitch, D.Phil. candidate in history, University of Oxford, for completion of research and preparation of a thesis in Austria, Rumania, and England on Rumania during World War I (renewal) Ingrun Lafleur, Ph.D. candidate in history, Columbia University, for completion of a dissertation on the influence of the Russian Revolution on Central Europe (renewal) Harold A. McFarlin, Ph.D. candidate in history, Indiana University, for completion of a dissertation on the members of the Russian State Council, 1801-1905: their social origins, kinship ties, wealth, education, and career patterns (renewal) Lorraine F. E. Millard, Ph.D. candidate in government, Columbia University, for Polish language training and research in England and Poland on the emergence of national democracy in Poland Geraldine M. Phipps, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of Pennsylvania, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in England and the United States on Britons in seventeenth-century Russia: the origins of 'Russian modernization (renewal) Philip R. Pryde, Ph.D. candidate in geography, University of Washington, for research on management and conservation of natural resources in the Soviet Union (renewal) Orin R. Raymond, II, Ph.D. candidate in government, Harvard University, for research on the institutionalized uses of the peace motif in Soviet foreign policy, 1932-57 Laurens H. Rhinelander, Ph.D. candidate in history, Columbia University, for preparation for examinations, 37


course work, Georgian language training, and preliminary research toward a dissertation on the incorporation of Georgia into the Russian Empire Andrew Rossos, Ph.D. candidate in history, Stanford University, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation on Russia and the Balkans, 1900-1914 (renewal) S. Frederick Starr, Ph.D. candidate in history, Princeton University, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Helsinki, Paris, and the United States on the "federal," regional, or decentralizing view of the 'Russian state, 1855-65 Daniel Z. Stone, Ph.D. candidate in history, Indiana University, for research in the United States and Poland on Polish politics and national reform, 1775-88 Roger L. Thiede, Ph.D. candidate in geography, University of Washington, for completion of a dIssertation on the town settlements of pre-Revolutionary New Russia (renewal) Phillip M. Weitzman, Ph.D. candidate in economics, University of Michigan, for research on planning consumption in the Soviet Union Paul R. WiUging, Ph.D. candidate in international relations, Columbia University, for research in the United States and Germany on Soviet-German policy, 1952-55 (renewal)

Western European Studies Program Lutz K. Berkner, Ph.D. candidate in history, Harvard University, for preliminary multidisciplinary reading, and research in the United States, Austria, and France on the social and economic impact of the domestic cotton industry on the agricultural population in Lower Austria and Normandy Arthur F. Calhoun, Ph.D. candidate in history, Princeton University, for research in France and Germany on problems of internal security in France and Germany, 1900-1914 David P. Conradt, Ph.D. candidate in political science, Brown University, for preparation of a dissertation on the social bases, leadership, and party strategy of the British Liberal Party and the German Free Democratic Party (renewal) Alexander J. De Grand, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of Chicago, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Rome, Paris, and the United States on Italian nationalism, 1903-15 (renewal) Thomas R. Forstenzer, Ph.D. candidate in history, Stanford University, for multidisciplinary course work, Italian language training, and research in France and Italy on comparison of semiparliamentary monarchies Trond Gilberg, Ph.D. candidate in political science, University of Wisconsin, for research in Norway on the relationship between the Communist Parties of Norway and the Soviet Union, 1917-67 Reinhold A. Heller, Ph.D. candidate in art history, Indiana University, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Europe and the United States on Edward Munch's "Life Frieze," with emphasis on his relationship to authors and literature known to him (renewal) Gordana Lazarevich, Ph.D. candidate in musicology, Columbia University, for research in the United States 38

and Europe on the role of the Neapolitan intermezzo in the evolution of eighteenth-century musical styles Frank E. Myers, Ph.D. in government, Columbia University, for Italian language training, course work relating to Italy, and research in the United States and Italy on Italian politics and pressure movements Jeffrey Obler, Ph.D. candidate in political science, University of Wisconsin, for completion of research in Belgium and France on leadership recruitment in their political parties Richard N. Perle, Ph.D. candidate in politics, Princeton University, for Danish language training and research in Denmark and England on British and Danish styles of statecraft Jack E. Reece, Ph.D. candidate in history, Stanford University, for research in France and Italy on patterns of regional leadership and the process of national political integration in post-lS71 France and post-unification Italy: the cases of Brittany and Sicily (renewal) Joel A. Sachs, Ph.D. candidate in musicology, Columbia University, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in England and the United States on Johann Nepomuk Hummel and the breakdown of national bamers in early nineteenth-century music (renewal) A. Joshua Sherman, D.Phil. candidate in history, University of Oxford, for completion of course requirements Alan J. Stern, Ph.D. candidate in political science, Yale University, for Italian language training and research in Italy and France on the political consequences of French and Italian regional and economic development Irmtraud Toelle, Ph.D. candidate in government, Columbia University, for preliminary research toward a dissertation and research in Germany, France, and England on political development in Brandenburg-Prussia Max W. Yeh, Ph.D. candidate in comparative literature, University of Iowa, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in England and the United States on theoretical and historical analysis of the interrelations between the visual arts and literature (renewal)

Special Foreign Area - Libmry Science Program Carolyn A. Graham, M.L.S. University of Texas, for a program of Latin American area studies at Cornell University and United States research libraries Barbara J. Potter, M.A. candidate in Latin American studies, Indiana University, for study at Columbia University toward the M.L.S. degree, with emphasis on Latin America Gary D. Walter, M.L.S. candidate, University of Washington, for study of library science relating to Korea and China, and Japanese language training for librarians at Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea Morris R. Wills, Research Associate, East Asian Research Center, Harvard University, for course work in history and English, and studies in the School of Library Service and the East Asian Institute, Columbia University John H. Winkelman, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of Chicago, for Japanese and Chinese language training, and examination in Japan and the Republic of China of their libraries, library procedures, and bibliographical resources VOLUME

21,

NUMBER

3


APPOINTMENTS TO COMMITTEES Herbert Hyman, Columbia University (chairman); David E. Apter, and Reinhard Bendix, University of California, Berkeley; Wendell Bell, Yale University; Allen D. Grimshaw, Indiana University; Raymond W. Mack, Northwestern University; and John Useem, Michigan State University, have been appointed members of a new Committee on Comparative Sociological Research (staff, Elbridge Sibley). Edward W. Wagner, Harvard University (chairman); George M. Beckmann, Claremont Graduate School; Gari K. Ledyard, Columbia University; Chong-Sik Lee, University of Pennsylvania; and Glenn D. Paige, Princeton University, have been appointed to a Joint Committee on Korean Studies (staff, Bryce Wood), cosponsored with the American Council of Learned Societies.

Conrad Taeuber, Bureau of the Census (chairman); Carl L. Erhardt, Health Services Administration, New York City; John M. Firestone, City College, New York; Anders S. Lunde, National Center for Health Statistics, North Carolina; John Neter, University of Minnesota; and Harry C. Trelogan, U.S. Department of Agriculture, have been appointed to a new Committee on Statistical Training. Neil J. Smelser of the University of California, Berkeley, and James A. Davis of Dartmouth College have been appointed members of the central planning committee for the Survey of the Behavioral and Social Sciences (cosponsored with the National Research Council) as chairman and cochairman respectively of the panel for sociology. Allan H. Smith of Washington State University and John L. Fischer of Tulane University have been named chairman and cochairman respectively of the anthropology panel.

PUBLICA rlONS Agricultural Development and Economic Growth, edited by Herman M. Southworth and Bruce F. Johnston. Sponsored by the former Committee on Agricultural Economics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, September 1967. c. 600 pages. $12.00. 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. 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, Fall 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. Early Education: Current Theory, Research, and Practice, edited by Robert D. Hess and Roberta M. Bear. Papers prepared for the Conference on Preschool Education, sponsored by the Committee on Learning and the EducatIonal Process, February 7-9, 1966. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, October 1967. c. 352 pages. $6.95. Education of the American Population, by John K. Folger and Charles B. Nam. Sponsored by the Committee on Population Census Monographs in cooperation with the SEPTEMBER

1967

Bureau of the Census. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, August 1967. 300 pages. $2.25. Financing the Chinese Government Budget: Mainland China, 1950-1959, by George N. Ecklund. Sponsored by the Committee on the Economy of China. Chicago: Aldine 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-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, October 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. Learning by Discovery: A Critical Appraisal, edited by Lee S. Shulman and Evan R. Keis1ar. 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. Selected Titles in Sociolinguistics: An Interim Bibliography of Works on Multilingualism, Language StandardJzatJon, and Languages of Wider Commumcation, edited. by Alfred Pietrzyk. Prepared for the summer research semmar cosponsored by the Committee on Sociolinguistics and the Center for Applied Linguistics, June 22-~ugust. 14, .1~4. Washington, D.C.: Center for Apphed Lmgulstlcs, September 1967. 226 pages. Cloth, $9.04. Social Science in Latin America: Papers Presented at the Conference on Latin American Studies Held at Rio de 39


Janeiro, March 29-31, 1965, edited by Manuel Diegues Junior and Bryce Wood. Sponsored by the Joint Committee on Latin American Studies in collaboration with the Latin American Center for Research in the Social Sciences. New York: Columbia University Press, September 1967. 352 pages. $4.50.

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 Chma and on Slavic Studies. Seattle: University of Washington Press, April 1967.471 pages. $10.00.

COUNCIL FELLOWSHIPS AND GRANTS OFFERED IN 1967-68: DATES FOR FILING APPLICATIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS OF AWARDS Applications for fellowships and grants offered by the Council during the coming year will be due, and awards will be announced, on or before the respective dates listed below. Because full consideration cannot be assured for late applications, and because preliminary correspondence is frequently necessary to determine under which program a given proposal should be su bmitted, prospective applicants should communicate with the Council if possible at least three weeks in advance of the pertinent closing date. Inquiries should indicate the nature of the proposed training or research; the approximate amount and duration of support needed; one's age, occupation or current activity and vocational aim, country of citizenship and country of permanent residence; academic degrees held (specifying the fields of study); and if currently working for a degree, one's present stage of advancement toward it. A brochure describing the several programs is available on request addressed to Social Science Research Council Fellowships and Grants, 230 Park Avenue, New York, N. Y. 10017. Research Training Fellowships, applications, December 31, 1967; awards, March 15, 1968 Faculty Research Grants, first competition: applications, November I, 1967; awards, January 2, 1968; second competition: applications, February 1, 1968; awards, April 1, 1968 Grants for Research on Governmental and Legal Processes, applications, December 1, 1967; awards, February 15, 1968

• Grants for African Studies, applications, December 15, 1967; awards, February 1, 1968 • Grants for Asian Studies, applications to be submitted to American Council of Learned Societies, 345 East 46 Street, New York, N.Y. 10017, December 1, 1967; awards, about 12 weeks thereafter • Grants for Research on Contemporary and Republican China, applications, December 15, 1967; awards, February 1, 1968 • Grants for Latin American Studies, applications, December 15, 1967; awards, February 1968 • Grants for Near and Middle Eastern Studies, applications, December 15, 1967; awards, February I, 1968 • Grants for Slavic and East European Studies, applications to be submitted to American Council of Learned Societies, 345 East 46 Street, New York, N.Y. 10017, December 15, 1967; awards, within 10 weeks thereafter • Travel grants for international conferences on Slavic and East European Studies, applications to be submitted to American Council of Learned Societies, 345 East 46 Street, New York, N.Y. 10017 • Grants for Study of East European Languages, applications to be submitted to American Council of Learned Societies, 345 East 46 Street, New York, N.Y. 10017, February 1, 1968; awards within 2 months • Foreign Area Fellowships, applications to be submitted to Foreign Area Fellowship Program, 444 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10022, by November I, 1967; awards, April 1, 1968 • Offered under a joint program of the American Council of Learned Societies and the Social Science Research Council.

SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL 2!10 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: LEE

J.

GABRIEL A. ALMOND, WILUAM

O.

AYDEL01TE, ABRAM BERGSON, PETER M. BLAU, DORWIN CARTWRIGHT, HAROLD C. CoNKUN,

CRONBACH, PHIUP D. CURTIN, CHARLES A. FERGUSON,

KARL

A. Fox, MORTON H.

FRIED,

WILUAM 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 ROBERT E. WARD

K. PRICE, AUSTIN RANNEY, ALBERT REEs, HERBERT A. SIMON, JOHN THmAUT, DAVID B. TRUMAN, JOHN USEEM,

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

40

Vice·Presidents; ELBRIDGE SmLEY, BRYCE WOOD, ExecuStaff Associates; JEROME E. SINGER, Consultant; CATHERINE

W. RIECKEN, STORER,

Items Vol. 21 No. 3 (1967)  
Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you