25

SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL

ITEMSVOLUME 16 " NUMBER 3 ■ SEPTEMBER 1962230 PARK AVENUE " NEW YORK 17, N. Y.

ON STUDYING THE HISTORY OF ANTHROPOLOGYDell H. Hymes *

On April 13-14 of this year a Conference on the Historyof Anthropology was held in the office of the Social Sci-ence Research Council. The attendants numbered 33and included anthropologists, historians, historians ofscience, sociologists, and a few other interested persons.Papers prepared for the conference were discussed. Inthis brief paper I should like to tell you about the confer-ence, not so much in terms of its content as in terms of itsimport. This lies mainly, I think, not in the intrinsicvalue of what occurred—like most short conferences onareas new to organized research, it was intense, varied,and confused—but in the fact that it did occur. The oc-currence of aformal conference on the history of anthro-pology marks a definite shift that affects the interests andfortunes of all anthropologists.

* The author is Associate Professor of Anthropology and Linguis-tics at the University of California, Berkeley. He was a participant inthe Council's Conference on the History of Anthropology, April 13--14,

1902,

for which lie prepared a paper, "Toward a History of Lin-guistic Anthropology." The present report is a condensation of onepresented by the author at the annual meeting of the KroeberAnthropological Society, held jointly with the Southwestern Anthro-pological Association in Berkeley, on April 19-21. The longer reportwill be published in Kroeber Antliropological Society Papers, No. 26(1962).

The Council's conference was an outgrowth of the November 1959Conference on the History of Quantification in the Sciences sponsoredby the former Joint Committee on the History of Science (of the Na-tional Research Council and Social Science Research Council), on whicha report by Robert K. Merton appeared in Items, March 1960. The1962 conference was organized by an ad hoc subcommittee consistingof A. Irving Hallowell, University of Pennsylvania (chairman); RobertK.

Merton,

Columbia University; Harry L. Shapiro, American Museumof Natural History; Richard I-I. Shryock, American Philosophical So-ciety; Sol Tax, University of Chicago; and C. F. Voegelin, IndianaUniversity, with the slalt assistance first: of Joseph B. Casagrande andlater of Rowland L. Mitchell, Jr. The participants included Harry

We can be partly gratified by the attention—by beingsingled out for study by historians of science. It must

prove that our claims to be something of a science arebeing given credence. Yet it means some discomfort too,for we have our own accounts of our origin, nature, anddestiny. It may seem atfirst that the historians of sciencevisit us simply out of sincere interest in these traditionsof ours, to be edified by them, as we have been, and torecord them for the rest of the world and posterity, lestthey be lost. Eventually, however, we may discover thatour attentive visitors do not always take our accounts atface value. They move from one campfire to another,and compare notes. We realize that they could hardlybecome one with us, if they had not undergone the samesort of initiation (field work), been exposed to our ways

Alpert, University of Oregon; Bernard Barber, Barnard College; JosephB. Casagrande, University of

Illinois;

Frederica de Laguna, Bryn MawrCollege; Fred Eggan, University of Chicago; Raymond Firth, LondonSchool of Economics and Political Science; John F. Freeman, AmericanPhilosophical Society; David H. French, Reed College: John C. Greene,lowa State University; Jacob W. Gruber, Temple University; A. IrvingHallowell; Robert Heine-Geldern, University of Vienna; PendletonHerring; Melville J. Herskovits, Northwestern University; Dell H.Hymes; Daniel Lerner, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Alex-ander Lesser, Hofstra College; Edward Lurie, Wayne State University;Nancy O. Lurie, University of Michigan; Alfred Mtoaux,

Unesco;

Rowland L. Mitchell, Jr.; Thomas A. Sebeok, Indiana University;Harry L. Shapiro; Richard H. Shryock; Joseph J. Spengler, DukeUniversity; Geoige W. Stocking, Jr., University of California, Berkeley;Sol Tax; C. F. Voegelin and Florence M. Voegelin, Indiana Univer-sity; Anthony F. C. Wallace, University of Pennsylvania; Rulon Wells,Yale University; Leslie A. White, University of Michigan; and HarryWoolf, Johns Hopkins University. Each had been invited by thesubcommittee to contribute a paper on an aspect of the history ofanthropology of particular interest to him. The invitation was ac-cepted by 23 persons, including Kenneth E. Bock of the Universityof California, Berkeley, who was unable to be present.

26

early enough in their careers. But, disconcertingly, they wrestling with verbal tools; horizontal sectioning, re-seem untroubled, and confident in ways of their own.They even presume to decide for themselves what por-tion of our accounts they will believe! The situation ismildly embarrassing, especially if we wish to protest,since we have been in the business of doing the verysame thing to other groups for years.

In essence, a good deal of the history of anthropologyis going to be written by men who are not by origin, per-haps not even by aspiration or empathy, anthropologists.What should be our view, then, of the question, "Whoshall write the history of anthropology"? Shall we turn

thesubject wholly over to historians of science and schol-arship? Or shall anthropologists continue to take part?

The best solution, I believe, is one already validatedin thehistory of science, and one for which there is ampleprecedent among ourselves: turn some of the informantsinto professional collaborators. As put by RichardShryock, himself an eminent figure in the history of sci-ence, the important thing is not the particular originof the scholar, but that he know enough both of the sci-ence and of history. Historians can learn anthropology;anthropologists can learn history.

I believe that this solution is not only best, but neces-sary. I would add only the qualification that it shouldnot be one-sided, that there be not only historians thatlearn anthropology, but also anthropologists, some ofthem, that learn history. In short, we must prepare totrain some anthropologists as specialists in the historyof anthropology. (This has already occurred in one ortwo cases at the University of Pennsylvania.)

The desirability of this course may be shown by ref-erence to the content of the conference. I should like to

single out three characteristics that were both apparentand important: (1) how much the professionalization ofthe history of anthropology is already under way; (2)how important this history is in current theory and con-

troversy; (3) that the historian of anthropology, nee his-torian, and the historian of anthropology, nee anthro-pologist, converge but do not merge entirely.

PROFESSIONALIZATION

It is fair to say that only a portion of the participantsin the conference are, or intend to be, truly professionalhistorians of anthropology; but the presence of that por-tion was unmistakable. Some of their distinctive traits,which enable one to recognize their presence, are these:use of out-of-the-way and unfamiliar sources, includingunpublished ones, such as letters; attention to textual de-tail, to the interaction between ideas and their verbalembodiment, alertness to find other than present mean-ings in past usage, more than mere "semantics" in

lating an author to contemporary, including nonanthro-pological, figures and ideas, that is, seeing more than the"vertical" dimension of the profession's history that canbe viewed as a lineal succession through time; in general,a clear sense of historical context and of historical prob-lems, judgments that are not anachronistic or a priori,but informed by historical relativism that answers to ananthropologist's wariness of ethnocentrism, studies thatare more than chronicle.

As one of the papers that had these marks of a trulyprofessional history of anthropology, I may cite that onTylor and the concept of culture by Stocking.1 Whensomeone writes a paper showing that Matthew Arnoldheld a position of major importance in the cultural lifeof the times vis-a-vis that held by Tylor, between whichthere was an interaction; that Arnold in fact held a con-ception of culture closer in some respects than Tylor'sto our own; and that the changes in the use of the terms"culture" and "civilization" in parallel passages of Boas'earlier and later writings show that when Kroeber andKluckhohn attributed the modern concept of culture to

Tylor's definition, and to Boas an apparent delay of ageneration in its subsequent development, they had mat-ters almost exactly turnedabout, then we are in thepres-ence of a level of scholarship that makes retrospectivespeculation about the history of anthropology passe. Ifanthropologists want to talk about it themselves, theywill have to meet similar standards.

IMPORTANCE OF HISTORYFOR CURRENT THEORY

Each time a major intellectual issue arose—the rela-tionship of science and humanities in anthropology, thecomparative method, the place of Boas—a historicaltopic was converted into a substantive contemporaryissue; this elicited arguments and sometimes emotionsamong the anthropologists present. A negative lesson ishow little ready sense of the historical problem in thisarea most anthropologists have, or at least how difficultthey find it. to be historical about themselves. On thepositive side, however, it shows that their history cannotbe a matter of indifference to them, and that one reasonfor training historians of anthropology is to providesome objective control over the use of that history forlegitimation, theory, and controversy. If some of thehistorians are anthropologists, their value in these re-spects is likely to be increased for they should be sensi-tive to therelevance of the history to current issues.

i George W. Stocking, Jr., "Matthew Arnold, E. R. Tylor, and tlieUses of Invention," with an Appendix "livolulionary Klhnology andCultural Relativism, 1870-1915: From Culture to Cultures."

27

Some controversies will dissolve, or at least change need the contributions of both. I should like to close bytheir character, whenstudied historically in an adequateway; and the essential controversies will show in aclearer light. It becomes a little absurd to charge Boaswith not having analyzed adequately the social organiza-tion of the Kwakiutl if, as Eggan pointed out at the con-ference, the proper concepts to apply to the Kwakiutlwere not developed in the field until a few years ago.More historically appropriate issues about Boas can beinvestigated. Of course historians of science themselvesmay become personally involved in anthropological con-troversies. It is not a question of resolving perennialissues by historical study, but of dealing with them on amore worth-while level.

CONVERGENCE OF ANTHROPOLOGYAND HISTORY

The scholar with a historian's starting point and thescholar with an anthropologist's starting point have asomewhat different ground sense, a somewhat differentpredisposition, and different degree of comfortablenesswith particular kinds of material. This appeared in thekinds of comments and points of fact made in the dis-cussions at the conference. In my own paper I argued at

some length for the contribution that the practicinganthropologist can make to the history of his field, in-cluding some historical topics in which he alone is likelyto be interested. Obviously, as Firth stated at the confer-ence and my precedingremarks imply, an equally essen-tial contribution is to be made by the professional his-torian. But this returns us to the main point: that we

relating that point, to one further consideration.Anthropology today is flushed with success in the

United States: course enrollments increase; jobs multi-ply; sources of funds expand. To some extent this ma-terial success may be misleading as an index of the fu-ture. Besides indices of quantity, some of quality shouldbe examined. Consider how much has changed in theterms of our competition, as it were, in the ecologicalniche of other related fields. Themajor ideological bat-tle that American anthropology has fought in the pastgeneration has been largely won; almost everyone is acultural relativist now (in the sense in which the term isopposed to parochialism, and ethnocentrism). And ourprivate preserve, the parts of the world no one elseseemed to want to study, is no longer ours. Scholars inalmost every field today are engaged in research in Af-rica, India, Pakistan, the Philippines, and elsewhere. Inshort, two traits that havebeen of central importance andhave formed much of our present image—cultural rela-tivism, and field work in faraway places—no longer giveus an evolutionary advantage.

To a large extent, then, anthropologists can maintaintheir place notby what they do, but only by the way theydo it. Having lost much ofwhat advantage we had in theway of unique outlook and subject of study, we have tolook much more to the quality of our work. That state-ment has many implications. One is the deepening ofstandards of historical scholarship among anthropolo-gists, both for work on special topics and on the historyof anthropology. Specialization of some of us in the his-tory of science as it concerns anthropology is one route.

ON STUDYING THE HISTORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY:

In the past half century history as a discipline hasmoved away from a narrow focus on war and politics toencompass the study of the social and intellectual lifeof man from the beginning of recorded history to thepresent. One of the most productive recent develop-ments in historical scholarship has been the expansionof interest in the history of science, an expansion thathas produced significant contributions to our knowledgeof the growth of man's understandingof his physical sur-roundings. After a Conference on the History of Quan-tification in the Sciences in November 1959, some of theparticipants discussed informally the possibility that

REFLECTIONS OF A HISTORIANby Rowland L. Mitchell, Jr.

similar attention directed to the history of particularsocial sciences might be fruitful. They suggested thatthe Council endeavor to promote the study of this his-tory and that as a useful first step it sponsor a conferenceon the history of anthropology.

The small group invited to plan this conference earlyagreed that its participants should include sociologistsand historians of science, as well as anthropologists, sinceit seemed certain that the history of anthropology wouldbe greatly enriched if it could be placed in a broad his-torical and social context. Initially the group consideredrequesting only a few papers on specific topics, but

28

ultimately, in the hope of achieving a representativeview of current scholarship and interest in the field, itdecided to invite each participant to contribute a paperon a topic of his own choice. Of nearly 40 scholars in-vited to the conference, 23 contributed papers.

Some of these papers are chronological narrativesbased largely on secondary materials; others are con-cerned with methodological problems and the relationof anthropology to other disciplines; still others are per-sonal reminiscences; a few are studies based on carefulanalysis of contemporary documentary evidence in thecontext of the social and intellectual thought of theperiod. They view anthropological history in a numberof ways: as institutional history, as biography, as abranch of the history of science, as intellectual history,as the sociology of knowledge. Neither individually noras a group do they cover the field systematically or com-prehensively. Archaeology, for example, is unrepre-sented, as is physical anthropology, with the consequencethat the relationship of anthropology to the biologicalsciences was barely suggested in the discussions at theconference. Further, despite the presence of scholarsfrom Europe, the conference had a preoccupation withAmerican developments that precluded more than pass-ing attention to developments abroad.

The content of the papers as well as the discussionsdemonstrated that systematic study of the history ofanthropology, while rich and promising, is still in its in-fancy. Illustrative of this fact was the discussion ofwhether one date could be established to mark anthro-pology's emergence as a discipline. Some participantssuggested precise years, such as 1858 or 1860; others, theearly decades of the nineteenth century or the latteryears of the eighteenth. Several pointed out that ifanthropology were sufficiently broadly defined it wouldbe discovered that Herodotus was the founder of the dis-cipline. Resolution of these differences was achievedonlyby agreeing that anthropological history cannot betreated as a unified whole but rather must be studied asthe history of closely related but separate parts. Thuscultural anthropology, whose antecedents can be tracedto antiquity, is of necessity a fairly recent division ofanthropology since its development depends on themodern concept of culture, whereas ethnology, a fieldwith equally ancient antecedents, began as a formaldiscipline in Europe at least as early as the eighteenthcentury. These and the other branches of anthropologyneed meticulous research to make clear the nature oftheir separate developments and their relations withone another and with other disciplines both in the hu-manities and the sciences.

In the process of research much will have to be un-learned before an accurate history of anthropology can

emerge. Like the cultures it studies, anthropology has afolklore, and although this folklore may have its usesit can impede clear historical understanding. Discussionof the contributions of Boas, Schoolcraft, and Tylor re-vealed that existing folklore about them, and others ofimportance, is not an adequate substitute for systematicand detached evaluation of their intellectual activitiesand their contributions. When such appraisals are un-dertaken it seems probable that the great man theory ofhistory, which the focus of the conference on a few fig-ures suggested, may be modified to take into accountparallel discoveries in other countries and the work ofother scholars less widely acknowledged at present asoutstanding leaders. Such studies will also help to clarifythe differential contributions of the several leaders asfieldworkers, research scholars, teachers, and directors ofresearch.

Whether anthropological training by itself is sufficientfor the scholar who wishes to do research on the historyof his discipline was a question that properly concernedthe conference. If thepapers were representative of whatmay be expected of anthropologists not trained as his-torians, it is apparent that anthropologists are not neces-sarily historically minded and therefore may need spe-cial training in historical method. For example, althoughanthropologists recognize that the terms used to ex-plain concepts are significant indices of the level ofunderstanding within a culture, anthropologists lookingat their own history must be trained to avoid findingideas in the past that in fact were not yet in existence.Here training- in intellectual history and the history ofscience might provide an understanding of the intel-lectual setting in which anthropologists in the past livedand worked. Thus, Boas' strictures against the compara-tive method cannot be appreciated unless the scholarknows that this was a method used by paleontologists toreconstruct the whole skeleton from a part. Understand-ing why anthropologists had thought they could borrowthis method requires not only knowledge of the rela-tions of nineteenth-century anthropology to the physicalsciencesbut, in addition, knowledge of the philosophicalassumptions of nineteenth-century social scientists.

Whether historical training by itself is sufficient forthe historian who wishes to undertake research on thehistory of anthropology is an equally important ques-tion, and the participants in the conference agreed thatsuch historians should have opportunity to acquireformal training in both the methods and the theory ofanthropology.

All agreed, also, on the need for strengthening exist-ing archives and building new collections. It seems pos-sible that anthropologists in the past have not been suf-ficiently concerned with the collection and preservation

29

mmmmmammmiimmmimmmmmmmmamtmmmimmnmmmiir m w

of their leading scholars' unpublished notes and papers parative studies of national developments. Whetherand that more attention should be given to these mattersin the future. Specifically, the conferencerecommendedthat the systematic attempts of archivists to collect docu-mentary materials, such as field notes, field diaries, lec-ture notes, and correspondence, be given every encour-agement. It was even suggested that anthropologistsmight record, for the use of future scholars, their ex-periences as students or colleagues of anthropologicalleaders no longer living.

Even with the materials now in existence, however,much can be done. As suggested above, detailed studiesof every field in anthropology are needed, and variousparticipants in the conference identified other areasthat merit attention. Among those that seemed most

promising were the role of field studies in disciplinarytraining; the professionalization of the discipline; theroles of sources of financial support, museums, andjournals in guiding the direction of research; and com-

these studies be undertaken by anthropologists or byhistorians is not important. What matters is that theybe undertaken in the spirit of scientific inquiry whichhas characterized the best scholarship in both disciplines.

As a last and personal comment, I cannot forbear men-tioning that for a historian this conference was an il-luminating reminder that many areas of the past needsharply focused attention, in some cases hitherto almostwholly lacking. If therole of the historian is to help manunderstand his past, one important way he can fulfillthis role is to study the development of man's under-standingof himself and his social environment—that is,to study the development of the disciplines that havecome to be called the social sciences. The conferencemade clear that exciting- historical research does not de-pend on finding the untouched papers of still anotherminor military man or politician in a dusty trunk inan attic.

COMMITTEE ON THE ECONOMY OF CHINA*FIRST REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH

Since the beginning of the communist regime in 1949,China has been undergoing rapid and enormouschanges. A major industrial advance under a first five-year plan and under the "Great Leap Forward" was fol-lowed by agricultural difficulties which have markedlyslowed the pace of industrial growth, if it has not beenstopped altogether. Traditional patterns of agriculturehave been disrupted by efforts at thoroughgoing collec-tivization, while ambitious construction projects havebeen undertaken in an attempt to make full use ofChina's principal resource, its manpower.

What has happened in China in the past decade andwhat will happen in the next are of critical importanceto therest of theworld. For better or for worse this popu-lous nation is being thrust into modernity at a pace un-equalled in history. Changes are taking place so quicklythat even journalists cannot keep abreast of them, andobjective research has been even less able to assessthis fluid situation. Yet it is essential that a full andclear view of what China is becoming be obtained.

For these reasons a series of discussions by interestedeconomists, initiated by the Joint Committee on Con^temporary China in a conference on September 9-10,1960, led to theformulation of a five-yearprogram of re-search on the Chinese economy. The Committee on

by Walter Galenson

Problems and Policy appointed the Committee on theEconomy of China in September 1961 with the expecta-tion that financial support for this program would be-come available, and in December the Ford Foundationmade a grant of $910,000 to the Council for the purpose. 1

The new committee held its first formal meeting onFebruary 16-17, and met again on May 4-5.

The decision that a coordinated research program wasneeded, rather than one of grants-in-aid, was based on anumber of factors, which were reviewed by the com-mittee at its first meeting. The urgency of extendingknowledge of Chinese economic institutions and theirperformance, the dearth of scholarly work on commu-nist China, and the belief that a more rapid commit-ment of personnel to the task at hand could be obtainedthrough committee initiative in recruiting qualifiedeconomists were major factors supporting the decision.It was thought that the needed coverage of topics couldbest be achieved if invitations were extended for workon specified studies. Also, the difficulty of research onChina has been compounded by the almost complete ab-i Cf. Items, December 1961, p. 45. The members of the Committee

on the Economy o£ China are Simon Kuznets, Harvard University(chairman); A. Doak

Barnett,

Columbia University; Abram Bergson,Harvard University; Walter Galenson, University or California, Berke-

ley; and Joseph A. Kershaw, Williams College;

staff,

Paul Webbink.

30

sence of aggregate statistical data since 1959, as well as the studies will proceed independently, it is hoped thatthe rather poor quality of those for years before 1959, sothat a pooling of information among scholars was re-garded as much more likely than individualized and iso-lated efforts to lead to significant research results.

As its first step the committee developed a compre-hensive list of studies that it would like to initiate dur-ing the next five years. Some of the proposed studies arebroad in scope, such as the construction of indices ofagricultural and industrial output; others are of a moresectorial character, such as studies of the textile, ironand steel, coal, and machinery industries. Still otherswould be concerned with institutional aspects of theChinese economy—the communes, the banking andcredit system, the planning mechanism, and the struc-ture of industrial management. While the committee'simmediate efforts are directed toward advancing quanti-tative studies, it is seeking also to encourage some non-quantitative studies insofar as competent investigatorscan be found to deal with such subjects as Chinese in-dustrial management, the social organization of the com-munes, and the politics of economic planning.

The topics that have been chosen are being assignedas rapidly as possible to qualified research workers. In-dividuals have been invited to begin work on studies onwhich reports of either article or monograph lengthmight be envisaged, depending on the availability ofmaterials and of research time. Many of those invited arelocated at small colleges or universities with inadequateresearch facilities, and in these cases sufficient financialassistance has been provided to permit leaves from regu-lar positions. The committee considers it desirable thatthe participants in its studies work near others engagedin similar research and has encouraged the formation ofresearch groups where library facilities are especiallygood. For example, several economists working undercommittee sponsorship were located at the University ofMichigan during the summer of 1962, and a smallergroup will be working at the University of California,Berkeley, during the coming academic year. Although

the opportunity to confer with others who are engagedin closely related projects will contribute to the qualityof the results.

The committee is continuing to search for economistsand others interested and competent to work on topicswith which it is concerned, in the hope that furtherstudies can be initiated during 1963. Participation inthe committee's program is not restricted to persons re-siding in the United States. Collaboration with econo-mists in Canada, Great Britain, and Japan, and possiblyother countries, is expected to be arranged. The com-mittee is taking into account studies being made with-out its assistance and is making its plans accordingly, toavoid duplication of effort.

In May Nai-Ruenn Chen, formerly of the Universityof Illinois, was retained as full-time assistant to the di-rector of research, with the two principal functions ofproviding bibliographical assistance to participants inthestudies, which is of critical importance in view of thedifficulties involved in obtaining Chinese publications,and of coordinating the collection of statistical data un-der the guidance of the director of research. The latterproject is intended to provide materials for one or moreissues of an annotated handbook of Chinese economicstatistics, comprising a collection of carefully evaluateddata, with comments on their reliability, their consis-tency from year to year, and any existing alternativeestimates.

At its February meeting the committee named a gen-eral advisory group, consisting- of Alexander Eckstein ofthe University of Michigan, Franklin Ho, formerly ofColumbia University, Choh-Ming Li of the Universityof California, Berkeley, and Ta-Chung Liv of CornellUniversity. Members of this group are serving also asconsultants for specific projects. In addition thecommit-tee has invited Gregory Grossman and George Kuznetsof the University of California, Berkeley, and NormanKaplan of the University of Rochester to serve as con-sultants for certain other projects.

COMMITTEE BRIEFS

COMPARATIVE POLITICS

Gabriel A. Almond (chairman), Leonard Binder, R.Taylor Cole, James S. Coleman, Herbert Hyman, JosephLaPalombara, Sigmund Neumann, Lucian W. Pye, SidneyVerba, Robert E. Ward, Myron Weiner; staff, Bryce Wood.

A seminar on education and political development, thethird in the series planned by the committee, was held atthe Lake Arrowhead Conference Center (of the University

of California, Los Angeles) on June 25-29, under the chair-manship of Mr. Coleman. For the seminar, papers wereprepared on education and development in the followingareas or countries, by the specialists indicated: the Philip-pines, Carl H. Lande, Yale University; India, Edward A.Shils, University of Chicago; Nigeria, Ayo Ogunsheye, Har-vard University; French-speaking developing countries, Mi-chel Debeauvais, Institut d'£tude dv Developpement tco-

t

31

nomique et Social, Paris; Tunisia, Leon Carl Brown,Harvard University; Egypt, Malcolm Kerr, University ofCalifornia, Los Angeles; Brazil, Frank Bonilla, AmericanUniversities Field

Staff;

Japan, Herbert Passin, Univer-sity of Washington; Soviet Union, Jeremy R. Azrael, Uni-versity of Chicago; communist China, John W. Lewis,Cornell University. Other pajjers prepared for the seminarwere: "Higher Education in the Development of FutureWest African Leaders," Dwaine Marvick, University ofCalifornia, Los Angeles; "A Training Program for PoliticalLeaders in Latin America," Benjamin Nunez, Interameri-can Institute of Political Education, San Jose, Costa Rica;"The Education of the Military Leadership in EmergentStates: Its Organization, Content and Political Implica-tions," W. F. Gutteridge, Royal Military Academy, Sand-hurst; "Traditional Authority and the New LeadershipCadres," Anthony H. M. Kirk-Greene, Ahmadu Bello Uni-versity, Nigeria; "Investment in Education and Its PoliticalImpact in Developing Countries," Bert F. Hoselitz, Univer-sity of Chicago; "Conflicts in Education Planning," WilliamJ. Piatt, Stanford University; "Education and the Makingof Modern Nations," Francis X.

Sutton,

Ford Foundation.The participants in addition to authors, members of

the committee, and staff included: C. Arnold Anderson,University of Chicago; David E. Apter, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley; Robert E. Baldwin, Edouard Bustin,Charles R. Nixon, M. G. Smith, and Howard

Swearer,

University of California, Los Angeles; Robert D. Barend-son and Kenneth L. Neff, U. S. Office of Education; SaburiBiobaku, University of Ife, Nigeria; William J. Foltz, YaleUniversity; Eduardo Hamuy, University of Chile; H. FieldHaviland, Jr., Brookings Institution; Pendleton Herring;John Howard, Ford Foundation; C. Kenneth Snyder, U. S.Department of State; and Clarence E. Thurber, Pennsyl-vania State University.

The papers and proceedings of the seminar are beingedited by Mr. Coleman for inclusion in the committee'smonograph series, "Studies in Political Development," tobe published by the Princeton University Press.

CONTEMPORARY CHINA: SUBCOMMITTEEON RESEARCH ON CHINESE SOCIETY

Morton H. Fried (chairman), John C. Pelzel, G. WilliamSkinner, Irene B. Taeuber; staff, Bryce Wood.

The third seminar in the series sponsored by the sub-committee, on research on contemporary Chinese societybased on interviews with and materials supplied by dis-placed persons, was held at the University of British Colum-bia on May 25-26. Papers prepared for the seminar in-cluded: "On Research through Chinese Displaced Personsin the United States," by Hope J. Leichter, Teachers Col-lege, Columbia University; "On Interviewing Chinese Dis-placed Persons," by Robert M. Marsh, Cornell University;"On Depth Interviewing of Chinese Displaced Persons inHong Kong," by Isadora Ding Schurmann, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley; "Memorandum on Interviewing Chi-nese Refugees," by Donald E. Willmott, University of

Saskatchewan. In addition, the chairman of the groupinvited to organize the seminar, H. F. Schurmann of theUniversity of California, Berkeley, prepared two agendapapers on its general subject and arranged for the com-pilation by Ruth Ann Pitts of the same University of anannotated bibliography of works in English dealing withsystematic study and analysis of Soviet and Chinese dis-placed persons. These materials were distributed to theparticipants in advance of the seminar.

The participants in addition to authors of papers (exceptDonald E. Willmott, who was unable to be present) andthe members and staff of the subcommittee were: RobertChin, Boston University; Ai-li S. Chin and Ezra F. Vogel,Harvard University; Robert E. Goodnow, PsychologicalAssessment Associates, Washington, D.C.; Robert Grey,Carnegie Corporation of New York; Ping-ti Ho, William L.Holland, Stanford M. Lyman, and William E. Willmott,University of British Columbia; Marion J. Levy, Jr., Prince-ton University; Herbert Passin and George E. Taylor, Uni-versity of Washington; Anderson Shih, Union Research In-stitute, Plong Kong; Arthur P. Wolf, Cornell University;and C. K. Yang, University of Pittsburgh.

EXCHANGES WITH ASIAN INSTITUTIONS

John K. Fairbank (chairman), George E. Taylor, EdwardW. Wagner, C. Martin Wilbur, Mary C. Wright; staff,Bryce Wood.

The committee's program, which involves the selectionof American social scientists to participate in the develop-ment of research at certain Asian institutions, originally theOriental Library (Toyo Bunko), Tokyo, and the NationalCentral Research Institute (Academia Sinica), Taipei, hasbeen expanded to provide a similar arrangement with theAsiatic Research Center, Korea University,

Seoul,

over thenext three years. It is hoped that this arrangement willfacilitate research and scholarly communication on the partof universities and individuals concerned with Korean stu-dies in the United States and their counterparts at theCenter in Seoul.

FOREIGN AREA FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM(Joint with American Council of Learned Societies)

Pendleton Herring (chairman), Schuyler C. Wallace (di-rector), Frederick Burkhardt, Chauncy D. Harris, T. CuylerYoung.

The transfer of the Foreign Area Fellowship Programfrom the Ford Foundation to the joint committee was com-pleted on May 31, 1962. At that time the staff of the Fellow-ship Program moved into its new offices at 444 MadisonAvenue, New York 22. The joint committee held its firstmeeting there on June 12 and formally authorized the fel-lowship procedures which would be followed in 1962-63.In accordance with the agreement with the Ford Founda-tion, these will be, with minor exceptions, the proceduresused by the Foundation in the past.

The joint committee agreed further to administer an

32

IW

interfacultyexchange between a number of universities inthe United States and a number of institutions in LatinAmerica. Initially six American institutions have been in-vited to participate in the exchange: University of Cali-fornia, Berkeley; University of California, Los Angeles;Columbia University; Harvard University; University ofMinnesota; and University of Texas. The administrationof the faculty interchange will be centered in an inter-university management committee chaired by the directorof the Foreign Area Fellowship Program. The members ofthis committee are David E. Apter, Associate Director ofthe Institute of International Studies, University of Cali-fornia, Berkeley; Henry J. Bruman, Professor of Geography,Acting Director of the Center of Latin American Studies,University of California, Los Angeles; Charles Wagley,Director of the Institute of Latin American

Studies,

Co-lumbia University; William S. Barnes, Director of LatinAmerican Studies, Harvard University; Philip M. Raup,Professor of Agricultural Economics, University of Minne-sota; and Joe W. Neal, Director, International Office, Uni-versity of Texas. The Latin American institutions remainto be selected. The primary purpose of this program is tostrengthen Latin American studies in the United States byenabling American scholars to study and do research inLatin America, and by bringing to the American centers

Latin American scholars who will strengthen the Americanofferings and who may profit by association with theirAmerican confreres. A grant of $1,000,000 from the FordFoundation has been placed at the disposal of the jointcommittee for this purpose.

A meeting of the management committee together with anumber of university administrators and representatives ofthe Ford Foundation has been called for September 24. Atthat time an attempt will be made to develop criteria forselecting participants in the program and to work out rulesof procedure.

HISTORICAL ANALYSISLouis Gottschalk (chairman), William O. Aydelotte,

Thomas C. Cochran, Merle Curti, Roy F. Nichols, DavidM. Potter; staff, Rowland L. Mitchell, Jr.

The committee has reached the point in its inquiry intothe role played by generalizations in historical study whereit is ready to submit its concluding report, General Con-cepts in the Writing of History, edited by Louis Gottschalk.It will be published by the University of Chicago Press dur-ing the coming winter. The volume includes the followingessays prepared for the committee: "Reflections upon theProblem of Generalization," Chester G.

Starr;

"Generaliza-tions in Ancient History," M. I. Finley; "On the Uses ofGeneralization in the Study of Chinese History," Arthur F.Wright; "Comments on the Paper of Arthur F. Wright,"Derk Bodde; "Generalizations about Revolution: A CaseStudy," Robert R. Palmer; "Generalizations about NationalCharacter: An Analytical Essay," Walter P. Metzger; "TheHistorian's Use of Sociai Role," Thomas C.

Cochran;

"Cate-gories of Historiographical Generalization," Louis Gott-

schalk; "The Genealogy of Historical Generalizations," RoyF. Nichols; "Notes on the Problem of Historical Generali-zation," William O. Aydelotte; "Explicit Data and ImplicitAssumptions in Flistorical Study," David M. Potter. TheForeword and aconcluding Summary have been contributedby the editor. Included also are a "Bibliography on Histori-ography and the Philosophy of History," by Martin Klein,and commentaries, in

footnotes,

by Hans Meyerhoff.

INTELLECTIVE PROCESSES RESEARCH

William Kessen (chairman), Roger Brown, JeromeKagan,Lloyd N. Morrisett, Paul H. Mussen, A. Kimball Romney,Ilarold W.

Stevenson;

staff, Francis H. Palmer.In accordance with arrangements made by the committee

for publication of the proceedings of its conferences asMonographs of the Society for Research in Child Develop-ment, the product of the first

conference,

Thought in theYoung Child: Report of a Conference on Intellective De-velopment, with Particular Attention to the Work of JeanPiaget, edited by Mr. Kessen and Clementina Kuhlman, ofFlarvard University, was published in May as Vol. 27, No. 2(Serial No. 83). The report of the second

conference,

BasicCognitive Processes in Children, edited by John C. Wrightof the University of Minnesota and Mr. Kagan, is now inpress. The proceedings of the third

conference,

on researchon first-language acquisition, are being edited by Mr. Brownand Ursula Bellugi of Harvard University, and the resultingmonograph is expected to be published in 1963.

The committee's fourth conference, on mathematicallearning, was organizedby Mr. Morrisett and held in Berke-ley, California, on May 4-6, 1962. The following paperswere prepared in advance and discussed as indicated:"Learning and Using the Mathematical Concept of a Func-tion," by Marshall

Stone,

University of Chicago, discussedby Mr. Kessen; "An Example of 'Intermediate Invention':Maneuvers on Lattices," by David A. Page, University ofIllinois, discussed by Mr. Romney; "On the BehavioralFoundations of Mathematical Concepts," by Patrick Suppes,Stanford University, discussed by Mr. Palmer; "Issues Cur-rent in Functional Psychology," by Lee J. Cronbach, Uni-versity of Illinois, discussed by Mr. Mussen. In addition,reports on current research were presented by Layman E.Allen of Yale University, on "Autotelic Learning of Mathe-matical Logic," and by Robert M. Gagne of Princeton Uni-versity, on "Some Factors in Learning Non-Metric Geome-try." Helen Kinney of Harvard University presented areview of research, "Operation, Embodiments, and Nota-tion in Mathematics Learning." A concluding summary ofthe conference was given by Andrew Gleason of HarvardUniversity. John Vinsonhaler of the University of Cali-fornia, Berkeley, served as rapporteur and is assistingMr. Morrisett in editing the proceedings.

An international conference on cognitive developmentin children was held by the committee at Voksenasen, nearOslo, July 26 - August 1, 1962. In addition to members ofthe committee and staff, the participants included: Zofia

33

mmmMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmimmmm

Babska, University of Warsaw; Barbel Inhelder, Universityof

Geneva;

A. R. Jonckheere, University College London;Eric Lunzer, University of Manchester; Neil O'Connor, So-cial Psychiatry Research Unit, Maudsley Hospital, London;Hanus Papousek, Institute for Care of Mother and Child,Prague; Heinz F. R. Prechtl, State University of Groningen;Kjell Raaheim, University of Bergen; Per Saugstad, Uni-versity of Oslo; Alma Szeminska, Pedagogical Institute,University of Warsaw; A. V. Zaporozhetz, Academy ofPedagogical Sciences, Moscow. The program of the con-ference, which was planned by Mr. Mussen, who will editthe proceedings, included reports by the European partici-pants on their research and theories, discussions of thesereports, of statements by several other participants, and ofissues common to the various reports.

The committee will sponsor an institute on cognitivedevelopment in the child, at the University of Minnesotaduring the summer of 1964, tentatively from June 10 toJuly 25. The purpose of the institute will be to providegraduate students and recent recipients of the Ph.D. withmore comprehensive training in cognitive developmentthan could be obtained at any single university. Membersof the committee will serve, with others, as faculty. Furtherinformation can be obtained by writing directly to HaroldW.

Stevenson,

Director, Institute of Child Development,University of Minnesota.

LATIN AMERICAN STUDIES(Joint with American Council of Learned Societies)

Robert N. Burr (chairman), Fred P. Ellison, Joseph Grun-wald, Joseph A. Kahl, Robert E. Scott, Stanley J. Stein,Charles Wagley; staff; Bryce Wood.

On August 16-18 an Inter-American Conference on Re-search and Training in Economics was held in Santiago,Chile, under the joint auspices of the committee and theInstituto de Economia of the University of Chile—the sec-ond international conference sponsored by the committeewith funds provided by the Council on Fligher Educationin the American Republics. As in the case of the similarconference of sociologists held in August 1961 (cf. Items,December 1961, pp. 41-45), the purpose was to contributeto the improvement of communication between scholars inthe Americas. The 25 participants in the conference were:Abram Bergson, Harvard University; Edgardo Boenninger,Ministry of Finance, Chile; Emile Despres, Stanford Uni-versity; Guillermo S. Edelberg, Torcuato Di Telia Institute,Buenos Aires; Luis Escobar Cerda, University of Chile;Edmundo Flores, National University of Mexico; SamuelGorban, National University of the Litoral, Rosario; R. A.

Gordon,

University of California, Berkeley; Joseph Grun-wald, Yale University; Arnold C. Harberger, University ofChicago; Albert G. Hart, University of Chile (on leavefrom Columbia University); Albert O. Hirschman, Colum-bia University; Isaac Kerstenetzky, Getulio Vargas Founda-tion; Rolf Luders, Catholic University of Chile; RobertoMaldonado, Carlos Massad, both of the University of

Chile;

Wilbert E. Moore, Princeton University; Theodore Morgan,

University of Wisconsin; Anibal Pinto, Economic Commis-sion for Latin America, Rio de Janeiro; Alfonso Santa Cruzand Osvaldo Sunkel, both of the Economic Commission forLatin America, Santiago; John D.

Strasma,

University of

Chile;

Jose Vera Lamperein, University of Chile; BryceWood. The five sessions of the conference were devoted todiscussion of the following topics: objectives of researchand training in economics; undergraduate training of econ-omists in Latin America and the United

States;

graduatetraining of economists in Latin America and the United

States;

development of research in economics; scholarlycommunication and interchange.

A second inter-American meeting of sociologists was heldat Princeton University on September 10-12, with the aidof the committee. This conference was organized by theLatin American Group for the Development of Sociology,which was formed through the initiative of theLatin Ameri-can participants in the committee's 1961 conference.

PERSONALITY DEVELOPMENT IN YOUTHRalph W. Tyler (chairman), Robert E. L. Faris, Chester

W. Harris, Nicholas Hobbs, T. R.

McConnell,

Theodore M.Newcomb, C. Robert Pace, Nevitt Sanford; staff; Francis H.Palmer.

A conference on problems in the measurement of change,organized by Mr. Harris, was held with the support of thecommittee on April 30, May 1-2 at Madison, Wisconsin.The program was designed particularly to examine some ofthe more recent developments in psychometrics and statis-tics for dealing with evidence of change. The following-papers were prepared and circulated in advance: "SomePersisting Dilemmas in the Measurement of Change," CarlBereiter, University of Illinois; "Elementary Models forMeasuring Change," Frederic Lord, Educational TestingService; "The Reliability of Changes Measured by MentalTest

Scores,"

Harold Webster, University of California,Berkeley, and Carl Bereiter; "Univariate Analysis Models inthe Measurement of Change," John

Gaito,

Kansas StateUniversity, and David E. Wiley, University of Wisconsin;"Multivariate Models for Evaluating Change," Paul Florst,University of Washington; "Implications of Factor Analysisof Three-Way Matrices for Measurement of Change," Led-yard R. Tucker, University of Illinois; "Canonical FactorModels for the Description of Change," Chester W. Flarris;"The Best Approximation of a Common-Factor Space,"Henry F. Kaiser, University of Illinois; "Some Issues in P-Technique and Incremental R-Technique Models," Ray-mond B.

Cattell,

University of Illinois; "Multivariate Anal-ysis of Variance of Repeated Measurements," R. DarrellBock, University of North Carolina; "Statistical Models forthe Study of Change in the Single Case," Wayne H. Holtz-man, University of Texas; and "From Description to Ex-perimentation: Interpreting Trends as Quasi-Experiments,"Donald T. Campbell, Northwestern University. The papersare being edited by Mr. Harris for early publication in avolume by the University of Wisconsin Press.

The committee joinedthe Western Interstate Commission

34

for Higher Education and the University of CaliforniaCenter for the Study of Higher Education in sponsoring anInstitute on the Study of Campus Cultures, held in Berkeley,July 23-27, 1962. Messrs. Tyler, Newcomb, and Pace weremembers of the Institute's faculty.

POLITICAL BEHAVIORDavid B. Truman (chairman), William M. Beaney, Angus

Campbell, Robert A. Dahl, Oliver

Garceau,

V. O. Key, Jr.,Avery Leiserson, Edward H. Levi; staff, Bryce Wood.

With the assistance of the committee, an exploratory sur-vey of the state of election statistics in the United States,

the methods that might be employed to gather and makethem generally available for use in research, and the feasi-bility of such a project was made by Walter Dean Burnhamof Kenyon College during the summer of 1962. In responseto a request from the Joint Committee on Political Scienceand Administrative Law, appointed by the American Po-litical Science Association and the Association of AmericanLaw Schools, the Committee on Political Behavior is sup-porting a conference on October 12-13, planned by thejoint committee to improve collaboration between lawschools and political scientists in teaching and research onadministrative law and the regulatory process.

PERSONNEL

DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF THE COUNCIL

At the annual meeting of the board of directors of theCouncil held in September, Chauncy D. Harris, S. S. Wilks,and Donald Young were re-elected directors-at-large for thetwo-year term 1963-64. John W. Tukey of Princeton Uni-versity was also elected a director-at-large for that term.

Flerbert A. Simon was elected chairman of the board ofdirectors; Wayne H. Holtzman, vice-chairman; Louis Gotts-chalk, secretary; and Nathan Keyfitz, treasurer. The follow-ing members of the board were elected as its ExecutiveCommittee: S. S. Wilks (chairman), Thomas C. Cochran,George H. Flildebrand, David B. Truman, and DonaldYoung. V. O. Key, Jr. of Harvard University was namedchairman of the Committee on Problems and Policy; andChauncy D. Flarris and Wilbert E. Moore were electedmembers of the committee for the three-year term 1962-65.Its other members are Paul J. Bohannan, R. A.

Gordon,

David M. Potter, and exofficio: Pendleton Flerring, HerbertA. Simon, and Wayne H. Holtzman.

COUNCIL COMMITTEES ON FELLOWSHIPSAND GRANTS

Faculty Research Fellowships. John Useem of MichiganState University has been reappointed chairman of the com-mittee for 1962-63. Lawrence E. Fouraker of Harvard Uni-veisity, John D. Lewis of Oberlin College, and GardnerLindzey of the University of Minnesota have been reap-pointed members. Charles G. Sellers of the University ofCalifornia, Berkeley, and Fritz Stern of Columbia Univer-sity have been newly appointed to the committee.

Exchanges with Asian Institutions. John K. Fairbank ofFlarvard University has been reappointed chairman of thecommittee for 1962-63. George E. Taylor of the Universityof Washington, C. Martin Wilbur of Columbia University,and Mary C. Wright of Yale University also have been reap-pointed; and Edward W. Wagner of Harvard University hasbeen newly appointed to die committee.

Grants-in-Aid. Paul J. Bohannan of Northwestern Univer-sity has been appointed chairman for 1962-63. Also reap-pointed to the committee are Alfred D. Chandler of Mas-sachusetts Institute of Technology, Holland Hunter ofHaverford College, William H. Riker of the University ofRochester, and Gordon Wright of Stanford University. GuyE. Swanson of the University of Michigan has been newlyappointed to the committee.

International Conference Travel Grants. Leonard Kriegerof Yale University has been reappointed chairman; andRowland A. Egger of the University of Virginia, GeorgeGarvy of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Roger W.Russell of Indiana University, and Harry Venneman of theBureau of the Budget have been reappointed members ofthe committee for 1962-63. Newly appointed members areWard H. Goodenough of the University of Pennsylvaniaand Matilda White Riley of Rutgers University. Messrs.Krieger and Garvy and Mrs. Riley constitute the commit-tee's Executive Subcommittee.

National Security Policy Research. William T. R. Fox,Columbia University (chairman); Morris Janowitz, Univer-sity of Chicago; Klaus Knorr, Princeton University; G. A.Lincoln, U. S. Military Academy; John W. Masland, Dart-mouth College; Robert E. Osgood, University of Chicago;Arthur Smithies, Harvard University; and Robert C. Wood,Massachusetts Institute of Technology, have been reap-pointed for 1962-63.

Political Behavior. David B. Truman of Columbia Uni-versity has been reappointed chairman of this committee,which continues to administer its program of grants for re-search on American governmental and legal processes, andthis year also administers the Council's program of seniorawards for research on governmental affairs. Also reap-pointed to the committee are William M. Beaney of Prince-ton University, Robert A. Dahl of Yale University, OliverGarceau of East Boothbay, Maine, V. O. Key, Jr. of HarvardUniversity, Avery Leiserson of Vanderbilt University, andEdward H. Levi of the University of Chicago. Angus Camp-bell of the University of Michigan has been added to themembership.

35

Political Theory and Legal Philosophy Fellowships. J. new Committee on Learning and the Educational Process,Roland Pennock, Swarthmore College (chairman); DavidEaston, University of Chicago; Jerome Hall, Indiana Uni-versity; John H. Hallowell, Duke University; Robert G.McCloskey, Harvard University; and Sheldon S. Wolin, Uni-versity of California, Berkeley, have been reappointed for1962-63.

Social. Science Personnel. George H. Hildebrand of Cor-nell University has been named chairman of the committee,which has charge of the Council's research training fel-lowship program. Newly appointed to the committee areCharles E. Gilbert of Swarthmore College and Irving L.Janis of Yale University. Harry Alpert of the University ofOregon, David M. Schneider of the University of Chicago,and Paul Webbink of the Council have been reappointed.

APPOINTMENTS TO RESEARCH PLANNINGCOMMITTEES OF THE COUNCIL

Lee J. Cronbach of the University of Illinois (chairman),Richard C. Atkinson of Stanford University, Eleanor J.Gibson of Cornell University, Evan R. Keislar of the Uni-versity of California, Los Angeles, and Judson T. Shaplinof Harvard University have been appointed members of a

for which Francis H. Palmer serves as staff.John Blackmore of the University of Massachusetts, Bruce

F. Johnston of Stanford University, and George Montgom-ery ofKansas StateUniversity have been appointed membersof the Committee on Agricultural Economics.

Leonard Binder of the University of Chicago, SidneyVerba of Princeton University, and Myron Weiner of Mas-sachusetts Institute of Technology have been appointed tothe Committee on Comparative Politics.

Bert G. Hickman of Brookings Institution has been namedchairman of the Committee on Economic Stability.

R. Duncan Luce has been appointed to the Committeeon Mathematics in Social Science Research.

Robert E. L. Faris of the University of Washington hasbeen appointed a member of the Committee on PersonalityDevelopment in Youth.

Bert F.

Green,

Jr. of Carnegie Institute of Technologylias been named chairman of the Committee on Simulationof Cognitive Processes, and Lyle V. Jones of the Universityof North Carolina has been appointed to the committee.

Wilbur R. Thompson of Wayne State University has beenappointed to the Committee on Urbanization.

PUBLICATIONS

COUNCIL PUBLICATIONSLabor Commitment and Social Change in Developing

Areas, edited by Wilbert E. Moore and Arnold S. Feld-man. Sponsored by the Committee on EconomicGrowth. December 1960. 393 pages. Cloth, $3.75.

Theoretical Studies in Social Organization of the Prison,Pamphlet 15, by Richard A.

Cloward,

Donald R. Cres-sey, George H.

Grosser,

Richard McCleery, Lloyd E.

Ohlin,

and Gresham M. Sykes and Sheldon L. Mes-singer. Papers prepared by members of a ConferenceGroup on Correctional Organization, sponsored by theCouncil in 1956-57. March 1960. 152 pages. $1.50.

The publications of the Council are distributed from its

office,

230 Park Avenue, New York 17, N. Y.

OTHER BOOKSHistorical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times

to 1957. Prepared by the Bureau of the Census, withtlie assistance of the former Advisory Committee onFlistorical Statistics. Washington, D.C.: GovernmentPrinting

Office,

August 1960. 2nd printing, February1962. 800 pages. $6.00.

Capital Formation in Japan, 1868-1940, by Henry Rosov-sky. Aided by the Committee on Economic Growth.New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1961. 371 pages. $7.50.

Changes in the Location of Manufacturing in the UnitedStates Since 1929,by Victor R. Fuchs. Sponsored by theCommittee on Analysis of Economic Census Data. NewHaven: Yale University Press. 1962. 587 pages. $10.00.

Matrilineal Kinship, edited by David M. Schneider andKathleen Gough. Product of the Interuniversity Sum-

mer Research Seminar on Kinship Research, 1954.Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of CaliforniaPress, 1961. 781 pages. $11.75.

Natural Resources and Economic Growth, edited byJoseph J. Spengler. Papers presented at a conferenceat Ann Arbor, Michigan, April 7-9, 1960, jointly spon-sored by Resources lor the Future, Inc. and the Com-mittee on Economic Growth. Washington, D.C.: Re-sources for the Future, Inc., 1961. 316 pages. $3.50.

Organizing for Defense, by Paul Y. Hammond. Based inpart on work at the Interuniversity Summer ResearchSeminar on National Security Policy, 1958. Princeton:Princeton University Press, 1961. 414 pages. $7.95.

Perspectives in American Indian Culture Change, editedby Edward 11. Spicer. Product of the InteruniversitySummer Research Seminar on Differential CultureChange, 1956. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1961. 559 pages. $10.00.

Projective Techniques and Cross-Cultural Research, byGardner Lindzey. Initiated under the auspices of theformer Committee on Social Behavior. New York:Appleton-Century-Croi'ts, 1961. 348 pages. $6.00.

Quantification: A History of the Meaning of Measure-ment in the Natural and Social. Sciences, edited byHarry Woolf. Product of the Conference on the Historyof Quantification in the Sciences, November 20-21,1959, sponsored by the former Joint Committee on theHistory of Science. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Com-pany, 1961. 224 pages. $6.50.

The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economicand Social. Factors. A Conference of the Universities—National Bureau Committee for Economic Research

36

and the Committee on Economic Growth. Princeton:Princeton University Press, 1962. 644 pages. $12.50.

Thought in the Young Child: Report of a Conference onIntellective Development, with Particular Attention tothe Work of Jean Piaget, edited by William Kessen andClementina Kuhlman. Monographs of die Society forResearch in Child Development, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Serial

No. 83), 1962. Lafayette, Indiana: Child DevelopmentPublications. 176 pages. $3.50.

Types of Formalization in Small-Group Research, byJoseph Berger, Bernard P.

Cohen,

J. Laurie Snell, andMorris Zelditch, Jr. Aided by the Committee on Mathe-matics in Social Science Research. Boston: HoughtonMifflin Company, 1962. 170 pages. $4.50.

COUNCIL FELLOWSHIPS AND GRANTS OFFERED IN 1962-63: DATESFOR FILING APPLICATIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS OF AWARDS

Applications for fellowships and grants offered by theCouncil during the coming year will be due, and awardswill be announced, on or before the respective dates listedbelow. Because full consideration cannot be assured for lateapplications, and becausepreliminary correspondence is fre-quently necessary to determine under which program a givenproposal should be submitted, prospective applicants shouldcommunicate with the Council if possible at least threeweeks in advance of thepertinent closing date. Inquiries andrequests for application forms should indicate the candi-date'sage, place of permanent residence, present position oractivity, degrees held and degree currently sought if any,the general nature of the proposed training or research, andthe duration and amount of support desired. A brochuredescribing the several programs is available on request ad-dressed to Social Science Research Council Fellowships and

Grants,

230 Park Avenue, New York 17, N. V.:

Research Training Fellowships, and Fellowships lor Com-pletion of Doctoral Dissertations, applications, Decem-ber 1, 1962; awards, March 15, 1963

Fellowships in Political Theory and Legal Philosophy,applications, December 1, 1962; awards, March 15, 1963

Faculty Research Fellowships, and Grants-in-Aid of Re-search, first competition: applications, November ],1962; awards, January 2, 1963; second competition: ap-plications, February 1, 1963; awards, April 1, 1963

Senior Research Awards in American Governmental Af-

fairs,

nominations, December 1, 1962Grants for Research on American Governmental and

Legal Processes, applications, December 1, 1962; awards,February 15, 1963

Grants for Research on National Security Policy, applica-tions, December 1, 1962; awards, March 1, 1963

*Grants for African Studies, applications, December 15,1962; awards, February 1, 1963

*Grants for Asian Studies, applications to be submittedto American Council of Learned Societies, 345 East 46

Street,

New York 17, N.Y., December 1, 1962; awards,within 12 weeks thereafter

*Grants for Latin American

Studies,

applications, Decem-ber 15, 1962; awards, February 1, 1963

*Grants for Near and Middle Eastern

Studies,

applications,December 15, 1962; awards, February 1, 1963

*Grants for Slavic and East European Studies, applicationsto be submitted to American Council of Learned So-cieties, 345 East 46

Street,

NewYork 17, N.Y., December15, 1962; awards, within 10 weeks thereafter

International Conference Travel

Grants,

requests fromindividuals desiring travel grants to enable them toparticipate in international meetings may be submittedat any time up to June 15, 1963. Applications will nor-mally be considered within 10 weeks after the date offiling, but should a number of requests be anticipatedlor the same meeting, it may be necessary to defer finalaction until about 3 months before the meeting.

Travel grants for international conferences on Slavic andEast European Studies, applications to be submitted toAmerican Council of Learned

Societies,

345 East 46

Street,

New York 17, N.Y.

* Olfered to research scholars in the social sciences and humanities,under a joint program o£ the American Council of Learned Societiesand the Social Science Research Council.

SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL

230 PARK AVEN U E , NEW YORK 17, N . V

Incorporated in the Slate of Illinois, December 27, 1924, for the purpose of advancing research in the social sciences

Directors 196'- Gardner Acklev, Abram Bergson, Paul J.

Bohannan,

Dorwin Cartwright, John A. Clausen, Thomas C.

Cochran,

James

S,

Coieman Hakoid F Horn, Louis Gottschalk, Chauncy D. Harris, H. Field Haviland, Jr., Pendleton Herring, George H. Hildebrand,Wayne H Holtzman, Nathan Keyeitz, Edward H. Levi, Philip J. McCarthy, Wilbert E. Moore, William H. Niciiolls, J. Roland Pennock,

David M. Potter, Nevitt Sanford, Herbert A. Simon, Meleord E. Se-iro, Guy E. Swanson, David B. Truman, Charles Wagley, S. S. Wilks,

Malcolm M. Willey, Donald Young

Officers and Staff: Pendleton Herring, President; Paul Werbink, Vice-President; ElbridgeSibley, Executive Associate; Bryce. Wood, Eleanor C.

Isbell, Francis H. Palmer, Rowland L. Mitchell, Jr., Staff Associates; Catherine V. Ronnan, financial Secretary