SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL

VOLUME 27 . NUMBER 4 . DECEMBER 1973 230 PARK AVENUE· NEW YORK, N.Y. 10017

COUNCIL OfFICES TO MOVE TO 605 THIRD AVENUE, NEW YORK CITY 10016, ON fEBRUARY II, 1974

AFTER 45 years at 230 Park Avenue, the headquarters of the Social Science Research Council will be re­established on the seventeenth floor of 605 Third Ave­nue, between 39th and 40th Streets, on February 11, 1974. Joining the move is the office of the Foreign Area Dissertation Fellowship Programs, which has been 10-

cated at 110 East 59th Street, New York City, since May 1969. This brings the staff of the Council together, ex­cept for that of the Center for Coordination of Research on Social Indicators, in Washington, D.C.

The new telephone number of the New York office will be 212-557-9500.

THE MUROMACHI AGE IN JAPANESE HISTORY: A REPORT ON THE CONFERENCE HELD IN KYOTO, AUGUST 27-SEPTEMBER 1,1973

SIGNIFICANT reinterpretations of major portions of a nation's history occur periodically as historians combine new findings with new approaches or as they pursue their inquiry with markedly different conceptions of the nature of the historical process. It was the unusual ex­perience of the participants in the conference on Japan in the Muromachi age to be witness to such a major rein­terpretation. The history of Japan has passed through a number of phases of general interpretation during the last century. An early inclination toward the "great man" interpretation has given way to analyses which stress social and political processes. An early preoccu­pation with "cultural history" in the synthetic sense has

• The author, who is A. Whitney Griswold Professor of History at Yale University, was the first chairman of the Joint Committee on Japanese Studies, appointed in 1967 by the American Council of Learned Societies and the Social Science Research Council. He was responsible for the committee's major survey of its field and for preparation of the resulting report, "Japanese Studies in the United States" (1970), which laid the foundation for the subsequent develop· ment of its program. A continuing member of the joint committee,

by John W. Hall ..

broken down into a series of specialized approaches: eco­nomic, social, intellectual, or religious. Japanese history has been looked at through the eyes of Toynbee or Marx, and its meaning contrasted to that of Europe or China. Through such means japan's history has acquired its currently accepted contours and its assumed place within the larger context of world history.

It is natural that historians working outside of Japan should differ from Japanese historians both in their knowledge of Japanese history and their evaluation of its significance in a broader world context. Few scholars not born to the Japanese language can claim the capacity to deal easily and creatively with Japanese historical ma-

he was chairman of the committee named by it to plan the conference on which he reports here; and he Is editing the conference papers for publication by the University of California Press. The present article (copyright by the Press) is drawn from his introduction to the forth· coming volume, and is printed here with the permission of the Uni· versity of California Press.

The American participants in the conference were George Elison, Colby College; Kenneth A. Grossberg, Princeton University; John W.

4]

terials; and few scholars outside of Japan can acquil-e the same familiarity with the voluminous literature of a given field of Japanese historical inquiry as can their Japanese counterparts. Thus there is a natural lag in the dissemination of latest findings and interpretations from out of the body of professional Japanese historians to the community of professional historians outside of Japan and beyond them to the foreign reading public. This is not to say that advances in the study of Japanese history can be made only in Japan by Japanese scholars. But the process of study and restudy by non-Japanese is obviously more laborious, and interpretations are less easily re­viewed or revised within the smaller body of specialists who exist outside of Japan.

In recent years the general outline of japan's modern history has been absorbed into the consciousness of the world at large. japan's dramatic entry into the main­stream of modern world events has forced a recognition of the power of japan's historical momentum and has urged comparisons between the revolutionary process in Japan and in other parts of the world. The result has been a natural concentration of attention on nineteenth­and twentieth-century Japanese history. Thus the great body of foreign scholarship on Japan has been focused upon the late Tokugawa period, the Meiji Restoration of 1868, and the subsequent century of modern develop­ment. Earlier periods have been left to the occasional generalist or to specialists in literature, art, and religious studies. It is naturally in these earlier periods that the lag between the work by Japanese historians and the in­terpretations held outside of Japan has been most pro­nounced.

Among the most neglected and misunderstood chap­ters in Japanese history has been the M uromachi era which encompassed the fourteenth and fifteenth cen­turies. This neglect has been characteristic not only of

Hall, coebainnan of the conference; Marius B_ Jansen, Princeton Uni­versity; Donald Keene, Columbia University; Cornelius 1- Kiley, Villanova University; V. Dixon Morris, University of Hawaii; Paul Novograd, Columbia University; John Rosenfield, Harvard Uni­versity; Barbara Ruch, University of Pennsylvania; Robert K_ Sakai, University of Hawaii; Stanley Weinstein, Yale University; H. Paul Varley, Columbia University; Kozo Yamamura, University of Wash­ington; Philip Yampolski, Columbia University.

The Japanese participants were Akamatsu Toshihide, Otani Uni­versity (Professor Emeritus, Kyoto University); Akiyama Terukazu, Tokyo University; Fujii Manabu, Kyoto Furitsu University; Haga Koshiro, Daito Bunka Gakuin; Hayashiya Tatsusaburo, Kyoto Uni­versity; Imaeda Aishin, Tokyo University; Ito Teiji, Kogakuin Uni­versity; Kanai Madoka, Tokyo University; Kawai Masaharu, Hiroshima University; Kitagawa Tadahiko, Tenri University; Konishi Jin'iebi, Tokyo Kyoiku University; Kuwayama Konen, Tokyo University; Miyagawa Mitsuru, Osaka Kyoiku University; Murai Yasuhiko, Kyoto Joshi University; Nagahara Keiji, Hitotsubashi University; Sato Shin'iebi, Nagoya University; Shigemori Mirei, Kyoto; Sugiyama Hiroshi, Tokyo University; Tanaka Takeo, Tokyo University; Toyoda Takeshi, Hosei University, cochainnan of the conference_

42

foreign scholars but of Japanese as well. A primary rea­son for this would seem to be that the ~I uromachi age has been looked upon until now chiefly as a time of transition, an interlude between a more important clas­sical era, as epitomized in the Heian period, and a more vigorous early modern age, as exemplified in the To­kugawa period. The M uromachi age, in and of itself, for all its cultural brilliance, has been regarded as a time of confusion, political weakness, and institutional decay.

Although cultural historians have long recognized the Muromachi age as a time of important achievements in the arts, they did not attempt until recently to link these achievements to any durable changes in the structure of government or in the social conditions of the country. To many writers, in fact, the cultural flowering of the M urornachi period seemed fortuitous, the result of a suc­cessful but ephemeral effort by a newly emergent mili­tary aristocracy to emulate the classical style of life of the old court nobility. Furthermore, since so much of Kyoto and its elite society was destroyed in the onin 'Var (1467-77), it was assumed that there was little significant continuity between what transpired before and after the great On in watershed. Some historians have gone so far as to claim that nothing which happened prior to the On in War could be considered relevant to modern Japan.

Once historians began to play down the significance of the Muromachi age, neglect tended to become self-rein­forcing. Because few scholars interested themselves in Muromachi history, the period was generally poorly handled in the standard history books. This poor treat­ment, in turn, was interpreted as reflecting the inherent opaqueness of the period itself. It has long been assumed that materials did not exist which would permit an ade­quate reconstruction of basic Ashikaga institutions.

This view of the Muromachi age has come under in­creasing attack in recent decades, chiefly from among Japanese historians. Through diligent search these scholars have uncovered source materials which have opened up to full investigation most aspects of the period. New studies of the Muromachi shogunate and its sources of power, of the shugo houses and their local supports, of village and city organization have revealed that important changes in political and social organiza­tion were taking place and that these were having pro­found effects upon japan's institutional development. Studies of Muromachi patronage patterns have helped to link up these political and social developments with the cultural achievements of the age and with the chang­ing ingredients of both the higher and lower life styles.

As more has been learned about the Muromachi age, historians have begun to change their views regarding its place within the sweep of Japanese history. It has long

VOLUME 27, NUMBER 4

been acknowledged that many of the art forms and aesthetic principles which emerged in the Kitayama and Higashiyama environments became important ingredi­ents of what is recognized today as a distinctive Japanese cultural tradition. It was then, for instance, that the art~ of no drama, suiboku painting, landscape gardening, tea ceremony, and renga poetry were perfected. Now his­torians seem ready to tell us that in the spheres of po­litical organization and social practice as well, the Muromachi age gave rise to new patterns which likewise became important elements in a distinctly Japanese po­litical and social tradition. Thus the Muromachi era is being looked upon as a seminal period of institutional :md cultural change, a time during which many of the dominant traditions of political organization and re­ligious and artistic expression which were to persist un­til modern times took shape.

The new awareness about the Muromachi age is still not widely disseminated and has been confined largely to the circle of pioneer Japanese historians who are still busily breaking new ground in their studies of the peri­od. In recent years, however, enough persons outside of Japan have begun to work in the field of medieval Japanese studies to make possible a worthwhile exchange between Japanese and American scholars. As a conse­quence it became both feasible and attractive to consider the holding of an academic conference on Japan in the Muromachi age as a way to give more recognition and visibility to the work of Japanese and American scholars in the field and also to stimulate further interest in the study of medieval Japan outside of Japan, particularly in America. Thus in 1969, under the program of the Joint Committee on Japanese Studies, a conference on Japan in the Muromachi age was proposed as one of five conferences to be devoted to various aspects of con­temporary Japanese development.

The plan of the conference was to bring together a substantial number of Japanese and American scholars to report on the Muromachi era from the points of view of a number of disciplines. The objective was to analyze the Muromachi period in its totality. Research papers on assigned topics were to be circulated in advance and discussed around the table. But here resemblance to the usual procedures for conferences sponsored by Ameri­cans on Japanese subjects ended.

Whereas in the usual binational conference Americans predominated and the few Japanese spoke in English, or, if the ratio of Japanese to Americans called for it, use was made of elaborate simultaneous translation fa­cilities, a conference on medieval Japan by its very nature called for a preponderance of Japanese partici­pants. Japanese scholars clearly dominate the field. And the subject matter cannot be conveyed by even the most

DECEMBER 1975

capable simultaneous interpreter. Thus the conference emerged as one in which Japanese scholars predominated and American participants were limited to those capable of using the Japanese language. It was adopted as the language of the conference, and in fact the 15 American participants spoke not a word of English at the confer­ence table.

Since it was hoped to produce a book in English, the papers themselves had to be in English. Because most Japanese participants would find this a problem, the fol­lowing plan was worked out. Each Japanese scholar in· vited to write a paper was paired with an American col­laborator, whose main task was to translate the work of the Japanese scholar into English; he also assisted the author by directing his attention to subjects of par­ticular interest to Americans. Again, since papers written by Americans would benefit from the close scrutiny of Japanese scholars, the American authors were also paired with Japanese collaborators. At the conference, col­laborators served as primary discussants of the papers on which they collaborated.

The above plan enforced a rigorous schedule of co­operation between the pairs of scholars. American par­ticipants were encouraged to go to Japan several weeks before the conference to work with their collaborators. As a result, the English versions of the Japanese papers conveyed the intent of the originals with unusual pre­cision and flavor.

THE SETTING OF THE CONFERENCE

The conference took place in Kyoto, the seat of the Muromachi shogunate, in the main hall of Sokokuji, the temple most closely identified with that government. Tables and chairs arranged on the tatami of the great hall along with four welcome electric fans were the only concessions made to the temple architecture whose style had been set in the Muromachi age some five centuries before. For five days some 35 scholars shared their views on the Muromachi age, discussing the 14 papers dis­tributed for the occasion. The results were both in­formative and dramatic.

The drama of the conference unfolded at several lev­els. There was first the excitement which came from the realization that Japanese and American scholars could communicate easily and fully on subjects as profession­ally demanding as the structure of japan's medieval gov­ernment or economy, on popular Buddist religious sects, or on the aesthetics of linked-verse poetry. The American scholars, used to working and communicating with Japanese, were not surprised at the ease of private communication with Japanese scholars, but many of them experienced the thrill of discovering their ability

43

to hold the attention of an audience of outstanding Japanese specialists.

The drama was played out at another level, in which scholars from differing disciplines, unfamiliar to each other, sat around the same table and shared their ideas. On the American side this had a double meaning. Most American specialists in the medieval Japanese field come from environments in which they are forced to work in isolation even when attached to major univer­sities. The feeling of strength in numbers, the sense that a new field of Japanese studies was coming into its own in America, was strongly shared by the American par­ticipants. For the Japanese the experience was proba­bly less explicit. Yet among them, too, the realization that theories and interpretations could be shared be­tween the several fields of literature, art, architecture, or social organization proved stimulating.

It is not for an American observer to comment on what the Japanese scholars, either individually or collectively, learned or discovered about M uromachi history as a re­sult of the conference. For the Americans the experi­ence was vastly enlightening. For them a whole era of Japanese history, until then partially or imperfectly un­derstood, was suddenly brought to life and given new meaning. As noted above, the still common view of the Muromachi period as carried in the historical surveys written in English was that of an age during which a bril­liant culture was somewhat mysteriously supported on the weakest of political foundations and throughout long periods of incessant warfare. M uromachi culture defined in terms of no and Zen temples, Sung-style mono­chrome painting, and austere stone gardens was ex­plained as the product of a combination of energy pro­vided by the new military aristrocracy and the artistic talents and sensibilities of the old court nobility. Nur­tured in the great monasteries which surrounded the city of Kyoto, this culture survived the political decay which followed the Onin War, but only precariously until the peace imposed by the Tokugawa shogunate gave the Japanese the opportunity to return to an inter­est in cultural pastimes. Meanwhile, by the end of the seventeenth century a culture of the "common people" had begun to blossom in the great cities of Kyoto, Osaka, and Edo. In the common view this popular culture seemed to appear suddenly and spontaneously, the prod­uct of a new urban social group which only recently had made its appearance around the centers of Tokugawa po­litical power.

This view left much of the period between the four­teenth and seventeenth centuries in Japan subject to puzzling contradictions. If the culture of the Muromachi age was chiefly the product of aristocratic patronage, and if that patronage is believed to have been destroyed in

44

the Onin War or in the century of civil struggle which followed, then how does one account for the strong continuity of the several aesthetic traditions which were defined during the Muromachi age? If the only aspect of Muromachi culture worthy of note was the work of the elite levels of society, then how is one to account for the appearance in such mature form of a popular urban culture during the late seventeenth century? If Kyoto is thought to have been destroyed during the onin War and the aristocracy totally impoverished, then what ac­counts for the glowing descriptions of sixteenth-century Kyoto by the Jesuit missionaries who saw it as a city of great beauty with well-kept streets and splendid palaces?

To be sure, the answers to these contradictions have been given by specialists in M uromachi history for some time, but the new insights have not yet had their effect upon the general literature. Nor has there yet been a fully coordinated attack upon the interpretive problems presented by the Muromachi period. Thus, the greatest single contribution of the conference on Muromachi Japan was that it brought together from a variety of disciplines confirming evidence that the Muromachi period must be significantly reconsidered.

The most generally applicable of the new ideas that emerged from the conference was that historians have tended to overplay the element of decay and have too often looked upon signs of institutional change as evi­dence of chaos. In survey histories the court nobility is often killed off, only to be discovered as having survived into the seventeenth century. Kyoto is described as a city repeatedly in ruins, but little is said of the energy of the people who rebuilt the city into the form so admired by its Jesuit visitors. Although historians have recognized the evidence of economic growth as a contradictory ele­ment to set against the picture of political decay, they have given little thought to the possibility that such growth might be the product of an emerging popular subculture.

The conference papers and discussions emphasized the strong continuity of both elite and popular society, of the "big" and "little" traditions, throughout the war­filled fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. They stressed particularly the vigorous new developments in popular culture-the formation of an urban society with its at­tendant literature, arts, and religious practices. They revealed that a definition of M uromachi culture should no longer be restricted to upper class phenomena. They showed that the origins of the popular culture of the Edo period in many instances could be found in the M uro­machiage.

Discovery of the "popular element" in Muromachi life led to another interpretation of general applicabili­ty. No matter what aspect of Muromachi history one

VOLUME 27, NUMBER 4

might explore, one was sure to discover new complexi­ties and new dimensions which made old simplistic in­terpretations untenable. Muromachi life was many-faced and many-leveled. It was much richer in variety than had been imagined. For every genre of artistic or literary ex­pression there were elite and popular manifestations. The monochrome ink paintings appreciated by the up­per class could be matched by popular pictorial art used to illustrate religious sermons or in telling entertaining stories. The rigorous life of monastic training in some Zen monasteries could be contrasted with the freer style of religious movements which appealed to the unlettered masses. Exquisitely refined no was not the only dramatic product worthy of note in an age that produced the comical kyogenJ popular ballad singers, and dancing troups. Just as political historians had discovered the powerful influence of local gentry and village communes below the level of elite politics that alone had seemed worthy of attention by medieval historical chroniclers, so in the cultural area a new strength and creative ca­pacity was now recognized at the popular level.

To some extent, of course, this new recognition came not from any discovery of the popular elements of M uromachi culture but rather a new willingness to find the popular level worthy of attention. This change of view was a product first of the realization that without the M uromachi base the later Edo flowering could not have happened when it did. It was also a product of a realization that many of the elements of the M uromachi "great tradition" that were considered particularly new were apparently linked less to the creative work of aris­tocratic artists than to the borrowing of elements out of the "little tradition." Men from humble origins were in­timately involved in the perfection of such genre as no) poetry, gardens, architecture, and in certain of the styles of painting. This affirmation of a vigorous popular base to Muromachi culture served not only to draw attention to a neglected dimension of the age; it also forced a reali­zation that historians had tended to look upon the Muro­machi age in an overly one-dimensional fashion. The fine arts and elite pastimes had theretofore been defined in too pure a form. In fact, for nearly every aspect of higher culture, popular elements lay close to the surface or closely related, much as kyogen to no.

A NE'V PERIODIZATION

Emerging out of these discoveries, which applied chiefly to the realm of M uromachi cultural development, came a recognition of the need for a major rethinking of the periodization of the entire Muromachi period. Tra­ditionally the Muromachi age has been described from the center outward as a time of political weakness. The

DECD lnER 197~

first shogun, Takauji, seemed incapable of asserting a firm central control. While his grandson, the third sho­gun, Yoshimitsu, managed to unite the country briefly and play for a time the role of an upstart monarch, his successors proved ineffective. The sixth shogun, Yoshin­ori, was assassinated by a senior vassal. The eighth sho­gun, Yoshimasa, retreated to his villa while the great lords of the land fought out their antagonisms in the streets of Kyoto. After onin the shogunate was power­less, and Japan entered its century of "a country at war."

Out of the conference there arose a new periodization. Although Yoshimitsu clearly brought the Muromachi shogunate to its early peak, bakufu strength lasted well beyond his death in 1408 into the reign of Yoshinori (1429-42). From an institutional standpoint, Yoshinori appears to have taken the shogunate farther than Yoshi­mitsu in the direction of centralized control. Yoshimasa's reign (1443-90), though marred by the onin War, did not immediately dissipate that control. Neither politi­cally nor culturally should the period after the end of the Onin War in 1477 be thought of simply as a time of warfare and chaos. The Ashikaga shogunate continued to play an important role in the politics and the econo­my of the capital area, while the sixteenth century witnessed the most dramatic development of popular culture and the growth of new social and economic insti­tutions, especially at the local level.

These, then, were the main over-all results of the conference approach to the Muromachi period-a dis­covery of continuity and vigor in political and social in­stitutions, a newfound popular element which demanded respect, and as a result a new periodization. Together these discoveries seemed to confirm the opinions of the conference participants that the Muromachi age may well emerge in the eyes of historians as one of the most seminal periods in Japanese history.

.. .. .. ..

However much the logic of a conference on Muro­machi Japan might call for a binational effort, no such conference could have been successful without the co­operative labor of a great many individuals. The origi­nal planning was done by a committee consisting of Robert Brower, University of Michigan; Marius B. Jan­sen, Princeton University; William H. McCullough, University of California, Berkeley; John Rosenfield, Harvard University; H. Paul Varley, Columbia Univer­sity; Stanley Weinstein, Yale University; and the pres­ent writer. To this group were added three Japanese members-Akamatsu Toshihide, Otani University; Hayashiya Tatsusaburo, Kyoto University; and Toyoda Takeshi, Hosei University-when it became evident that strong direction was needed in Japan as well as the United States. Toyoda Takeshi provided that direction,

45

and it was largely through his efforts that the full co­operation of so many leading Japanese scholars was ob­tained. In addition, he served as joint chairman of the conference.

In the final year of preparation for the conference, the planners were confronted with a critical problem. With the unexpected devaluation of the dollar, expenses in Japan were raised by a third. Funds in addition to those budgeted by the Joint Committee on Japanese Studies (from funds provided by the Ford Foundation) were needed, and it was decided to raise money in Japan to cover the deficit. In the search for funds Mr. Toyoda was joined by Tanabe Tatsuro of the International House of Japan, whose knowledge of foundation sources in Tokyo proved invaluable. In Kyoto, Akamatsu Toshihide inter­ested the Abbot of Kinkakuji in contributing toward the conference, while Sokokuji was induced to offer its hall free of charge. The Japan Foundation, the Mitsu­bishi Foundation, the Yoshida International Education Fund, and the Ishibashi Foundation also contributed to the budget of the conference. Through the kind offer of Matsumoto Sh~geharu of International House, it served as the business and administrative office in Japan for the conference.

If as an academic exercise the conference was a success, the papers which emerge from it must stand as proof. But there are other ways of measuring success. One surely was in terms of the opportunity the conference gave for scholars from the two sides of the Pacific to meet and learn from and of each other. The associations es­tablished through the preconference collaborative effort

and five days of daily meetings are surely not the least 01

the conference's achievements. The new links that were joined between the worlds of medieval scholarship in Japan and America will also surely encourage a continuo ing dialogue. Both groups of scholars have proved a ~timulus to each other and to their fields.

A meeting as thoroughly binational as the conference on Muromachi Japan can hardly fail to have its mo· ments of drama and emotion. On the part of the Japanese, perhaps the first such moment came with the realization that the Americans not only talked their language but did so sometimes with style and wit. For the Americans the moment of greatest nervousness came at that point in the reception at Kyoto University when it became apparent that in true Japanese style each would be expected to sing or perform in some other way in answer to the well-polished performances of their fellow Japanese participants. For all alike the high point of the conference came on the third day when Stanley Weinstein, speaking about the development of popular religious beliefs, uttered the name of Nichiren, a monk who founded a popular Buddist sect. At that moment a blinding bolt of lightning plunged the great hall of Sokokuji into darkness. Soon attendants brought out altar candles to illuminate the continuing discus­sion. For the next half hour the flicker of candlelight played upon the conference table while torrential rains poured off the massive roof of the great hall. Between enveloping rain and candlelight the conference partici­pants were drawn into a unity of mood and objective of unusual intensity.

THE fIfTH ANNUAL CONFERENCE ON PROJECT LINK

EACH annual meeting of the partIcIpants in Project LINK has emphasized some particular aspect of our work. The central theme of the 1973 meeting was the analysis of short-term trade forecasts. Since 1970 the LINK sys­tem, consisting of separate models from individual par-

• The author is Benjamin Franklin Professor of Economics at the University of Pennsylvania and a director of the Social Science Re­search Council. He has been a member of its Committee on Economic Stability, which sponsors Project LINK, since its appointment in 1959. The other members of the committee are Bert G. Hickman, Stanford University (chairman); Martin Bronfenbrenner, Duke University; Otto Eckstein, Harvard University; R. A. Gordon, University of California, Berkeley; Franco Modigliani, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Geoffrey H. Moore, National Bureau of Economic Research; Arthur M. Okun, Brookings Institution; Rudolf R. Rhomberg, International Monetary Fund; Sally S. Rank, Drexel Burnham and Company, Inc.; and Charles L. Schultze, University of Maryland. Reports on the four preceding annual conferences on Project LINK were published in the December issues of Items, 1969, 1970, 1971, and 1972.

46

by Lawrence R. Klein ;0

ticipating countries and various groupings of other countries, has been solved in forecast simulations of world trade and domestic economic activity for each country or area. Over the years the procedure has be­come more elaborate, more thorough, and, it is hoped, more accurate.

Much attention was devoted at the fifth annual con­ference, which was held in Stockholm on September 3-8, 1973, with the Tercentenary Fund of the Bank of Sweden serving as host, to the review of past forecasts and careful study of a contemporary round. 1 In the past

1 The participants, in addition to Messrs. Gordon, Hickman, Klein, and Rhomberg of the committee, were F. Gerard Adams, University of Pennsylvania; Akihiro Amana, Kobe University; R. J. Ball, London Graduate School of Business Studies; Giorgio Basevi, University of Bologna; Ragnar Bentzel, Uppsala University; Richard Berner, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; Carlo D'Adda, University of Bologna; Hidekazu Eguchi, Bank of Japan; Boris Fomin, Jerzy

VOLUME 27, NUMBER 4

some of the significant changes in movement of total world trade and major reactions of large imbalances to recent exchange rate changes have been fairly well re­flected in LINK projections. There have been some promi­nent errors for particular countries, but more seriously for large groupings-developing countries and "rest of the world," primarily.

To a large extent, but not entirely, the errors associ­ated with the latter two categories have been attribut­able to data inconsistencies, incomplete aggregation, and problems of classifying individual countries, or group­ings. These data problems are now better understood and are being dealt with more satisfactorily in current LINK forecasts. There was good discussion at Stockholm of the problems of classifying the parts of developing America not included in Latin America proper, the trade of the People's Republic of China and associated areas, price movements for developing countries, and other data problems. Plans were laid for a joint meeting (subsequently held in New York) among participants from the UN Conference on Trade and Development, the International Monetary Fund, and LINK Central Secretariat, to deal with some of the main data problems through better coordination of separate statistical com­putations.

Important improvements were made in the LINK sys­tem during 1973. These are cumulative, building on similar improvements reported at previous meetings. They include complete incorporation of the Bologna Model for Italy (improved during the past year), intro­duction of the new POMPOM Model for France, and introduction of the Reserve Bank of Australia Model. In addition, most of the other models have been updated and revised. The program has been considerably im­proved and streamlined. It has a capability for multi­year simulation, faster convergence to a world simu-

Glowacki, and Julian Gomez, all of the UN Conference on Trade and Development, New York; Yvan Guillaume, Free University of Brussels; H. Halttunen, Bank of Finland; John Helliwell, University of British Columbia; Lars Jacobsson, Svenska HandeIsbanken, Stockholm; Keith Johnson, University of Pennsylvania; Pertti Kukkonen, Bank of Fin· land; Sung Kwack, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Sys· tem; Lawrence J. Lau, Stanford University; Assar Lindbeck, University of Stockholm; A. Markowski, Business Cycles Institute, Stockholm; Chikashi Moriguchi, Kyoto University; W. E. Norton, Reserve Bank of Australia, Sydney; J. J. Post, Netherlands Central Planning Bureau; G. A. Renton, London Graduate School of Business Studies; Erik Ruist, School of Business, Stockholm; G. Sandermann, Bonn Univer· sity; J. A. Sawyer, University of Toronto; Stefan Schleicher, Institute for Advanced Studies, Vienna; Charles Schotta, U.S. Treasury De­partment; Andras Simon, Institute of Economic and Market Research, Budapest; Grant B. Taplin, International Monetary Fund; Jean Wael· broeck, University of Louvain; Alain Van Peeterssen, tcole des Hautes ttudes Commerciales, Montreal; Tsunehiko Watanabe, Osaka Univer· sity; P. J. Verdoorn, Netherlands Central Planning Bureau; and Claus Wittich, UN Center for Development Projections, Policy, and Plan· ning, New York.

DECEMBER 19711

lation solution, provision of more informative summary tables, provision of results before and after international linkage, and correction for programming errors. It is now in a form that can be taped and distributed to vari­ous LINK centers throughout the world. At this time the LINK system is being used simultaneously in several dif­ferent countries, and discussion at Stockholm facilitated further distribution of analytical materials.

Major features of the new simulations, 1973-75, with this year's exchange rates, were slower growth for world trade in 1974-75, substantial improvement of the U.S. trade balance, and successive deterioration of the U.K. position. There were a number of other smaller changes, and discussion provided a basis for another round of calculations with revised inputs for individual countries for autumn, 1973.

P. J. Verdoom of the Netherlands Central Plan­ning Bureau introduced a discussion of alternative ways of forming the international trading link among national model results without replacing each country's separate export functions by estimates of exports from the trade shares matrix. He preferred to retain individual export equations because these contain some of the most im­portant special features of a country's economic per­formance, and their replacement alters the accepted multipliers of the separate economies. There was exten­sive discussion of ways of using the export equations and achieving consistency between world exports and im­ports by allocating a residual discrepancy among nations according to some fixed rules. In the future, trial fore­casts of the LINK system will be made by using individual country export equations and also by replacing them with estimates of exports from the trade shares matrix.

A significant change in project LINK procedures was planned at Stockholm, namely, to hold two plenary meet­ings each year, eliminating the Pacific area and European regional meetings. Participation in the spring meeting will be world-wide, and it will concentrate for two or three days on the first round of annual LINK trade fore­casts (over a multiyear forecast horizon). The prelimi­nary forecasts will be revised and submitted again at the September meeting. The latter meeting will be one week in duration and, as usual, will take up other research matters in addition to trade forecasts. Until the fore­casts go through the two steps of the spring and fall meetings, they will be kept confidential within the LINK group. They may be cleared for distribution to the pub­lic after the review meeting in September.

Although attention was centered on current trade forecasts at Stockholm, we took up many of our more venturesome research areas in the usual way. There were reports on the introduction of commodity models into LINK with special reference to a world copper market

47

model, balance-of-payments modeling, international comparison of wage and price equations, and problems of model building for socialist countries.

Although the financial research base for LINK remains modest, there have been significant improvements dur­ing the past year. Renewed support has been obtained from the National Science Foundation and the Board

of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Support for international meetings has been provided generously and graciously by the Bank of Finland (Helsinki meet­ings, May 1973) and the Canada Council (Vancouver meetings, April 1973), as well as the Tercentenary Fund of the Bank of Sweden. Meetings will be held in Vienna in April 1974 and in Washington in September 1974.

A PROGRESS REPORT ON NEW DIRECTIONS FOR INTERAREA RESEARCH

ON September 27-28, 1973, at the invitation of the So­cial Science Research Council and the American Council of Learned Societies, a diversified group of disciplinary and area specialists met in New York to discuss a pro­posal for a joint interarea research planning committee.1

The suggestion ,that such a committee be created had been made by an ad hoc committee to review the area research activities of the Councils, chaired by John M. Thompson. In conjunction with its recommendation in 1972 that the Foreign Area Fellowship Program be merged with the other area research and research train­ing programs of the Councils (see Items, December 1972), this committee made some general recommen­dations about the future area work of the two organi­zations. The committee suggested that what is often perceived as a dichotomy between area studies and aca­demic disciplines may be more apparent than real. Area specialists are increasingly conducting comparative and interdisciplinary research, while many of the social science disciplines are starting to take account of non­Western data and to test models and hypotheses in non­American situations.

Following the submission of his committee's report, Mr. Thompson conducted a brief survey of the relation­ship between area and disciplinary work in several uni­versities. Despite lingering antagonism over this issue, it became clear that the two communities of scholars overlapped a great deal and were actively collaborating in research. The agenda for the Councils, then, became a broad one, involving both the theoretical relevance of

1 The participants were Chadwick Alger, Northwestern University; Wenden Ben, Yale University; Charles S. Bird, Indiana University; Frederick Burkhardt, American Council of Learned Societies; Joseph B. Casagrande, University of Illinois at Urbana· Champaign; Douglas A. Chalmers, Columbia University; Joseph Grunwald, Brookings In­stitution; Richard D. Lambert, University of Pennsylvania; Eric E. Lampard, State University of New York at Stony Brook; Robert A. LeVine, University of Chicago; Juan Linz, Yale University; Raoul Naroll, State University of New York at Buffalo; Eleanor Bernert Sheldon, Social Science Research Council : Richard C. Snyder, Ohio State University; John M. Thompson , Indiana University; Harry C. Triandis, University of Illinois at Urbana.Champaign; and Gordon B. Turner, American Council of Learned Societies.

48

area research and the comparative content and appli­cation of theoretical work in the social sciences and the humanities. Thus the Councils decided to investigate the desirability of creating an interarea committee charged with defining those theoretical issues in the so­cial sciences and the humanities which might be clarified or enriched by comparative and cross-area research.

The disciplinary and area specialists who met in Sep· tember, all of whom had had some working experience with cross-area or comparative research collaboration, were asked, first, to discuss the possibilities for building closer ties between theoretical and area work. Second, if such work could fruitfully be carried out, they were to suggest a range of topics on which both approaches could be brought to bear. Equally important, these topics should both have broad scope and fall within the com­pass of social science theories well enough developed to be testable in several areas of the world.

Despite the divergence of the training and interests of the participants, it did not take long to discover that they shared a strong interest in this problem. and that they faced no major barrier to intellectual communica­tion across area or disciplinary specialties. The anthro· pologists, for example, discussed the process by which the development of kinship theory had stimulated em· pirical research in a wide variety of areas. whose results in turn had enriched and refined the theory tested. The efforts of linguists to identify universals were also cited as an illustration of how research on particular forms could test and modify putative generalizations. After lengthy discussion, it seemed that the difficulties of mov­ing from theoretical universals to specific variations had been successfully overcome in enough cases to warrant further encouragement. It was also thought that the time to do so may have arrived. A considerable body of com­parative data is now being collected in a number of areas and disciplines, but in too uncoordinated a way for theorists to avail themselves of a large part of it. In con­sequence, much theory is still based on American data.

With the achievement of this amount of consensus. the group attempted to identify feasible research topics.

VOLU~IE 27, NUMBER 4

For this purpose each participant was asked to list four possibilities. Some skepticism about the usefulness of this exercise was expressed, but the resulting lists re­vealed a good deal of agreement about workable research priorities. The choices clustered around four topics: ethnicity; social stratification; socialization; and social, economic, and political development.

Ethnicity was chosen for detailed discussion in order to explore the reasons for such strong agreement. Its social importance and global scope are self-evident. In terms of readiness it seemed a particularly good choice: research methodologies for studying enthnicity can be found in several disciplines, an extensive data base exists, and there is a wide range of applicable theory that is susceptible to testing. Above all, ethnicity meets the hard test of combining the interests and skills of most area fields and many disciplines. Several area committees, notably that on Eastern Europe, are interested in plan­ning research on ethnicity. An interarea committee would be able to support and encourage such efforts.

The discussion of ethnicity as a research topic rein­forced the group's sense of the intellectual validity and feasibility of comparative interdisciplinary research. The group proceeded to examine the kinds of problems which might be encountered in a project that attempted to combine area research skills with those of the social sciences and the humanities. The difficulties that are presented by testing theoretical propositions in different geographical settings are not easily overcome. Progress toward resolving them has been made by anthropologists, linguists, political scientists, and to a lesser extent, by sociologists. In social psychology, child development, and other subdisciplines of psychology, theory and com­parative data seem to be poorly related.

Consideration was given to strategies for building bridges between area and disciplinary research other than by defining a broad topic such as ethnicity. Several alternatives were suggested: the selection of bodies of theory, such as theories of kinship, for a series of parallel research projects in a variety of areas, whose findings could be brought together for comparison; the selection of standardized variables, such as income distribution,

DECEMBER 1973

011 which data could be collected throughout the world; international collaboration in the development of models, as in the SSRC Project LINK, which could then be applied and tested in a number of different coun­tries; a world-wide network of field stations for collect­ing data on specific questions, manned by scholars native to each area; and finally, international collaboration to develop a methodology which could be applied on an international scale, such as that currently being used in Latin America to study consumption patterns and in­come distribution. It would be possible, for example, to send an American development economist first to Latin America and then to the Philippines to work in each place with a similarly trained local economist.

In addition to these activities, fellowship programs could be oriented toward selected comparative research problems. It would also be useful if area committees undertook a systematic assessment of comparative and theoretical work being carried on in their areas. The Councils' Joint Committee on Latin American Studies has done such a survey, and the Joint Committee on Eastern Europe and the Middle East Studies Association have assessments under way. Those surveys of compara­tive research that have been made in the various dis­ciplines might also be investigated.

The question of how best to facilitate collaboration between American and foreign scholars will require further exploration, although there have been many good working arrangements among scholars of diverse nationalities. The Councils themselves, it was suggested, could facilitate international collaboration by adding more non-American members to their own committees and by coordinating the work of the area committees with that of committees planning disciplinary or inter­disciplinary research.

Given the difficulties and ambiguities of their task, the participants concluded that a measurable step to­ward defining the possibilities for comparative interdis­ciplinary research was taken in the course of the two-day conference. The two Councils plan more such meet­ings, using this initial result as the starting point for their discussions.

49

PERSONNEL

GRANTS TO MINORITY SCHOLARS FOR RESEARCH ON RACISM AND OTHER

SOCIAL FACTORS IN MENTAL HEALTH

The Committee on Grants to Minority Scholars for Re­search on Racism and Other Social Factors in Mental Health-Charles V. Willie (chairman), Rodolfo Alvarez, James P. Comer, Cora Bagley Marrett, Alfonso Ortiz, Marian Radke-Yarrow, Lloyd H. RogIer, and M. Brewster Smith-met on December 13, 1973. It reviewed 39 applica­tions and made awards to the following 8 scholars:

W. Curtis Banks, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Prince­ton University, for research on motivation and achieve­ment among Blacks

Anderson J. Franklin, Visiting Associate Professor of Psy­chology, Rockefeller University (on leave from Medgar Evers College, City University of New York), for research on mnemonic processes and recall performance of Black adolescents

William E. Gardner, Professor of Educational Psychology, Lincoln University, for research on psychodynamic thera­py for Black students

Bernadette Gray-Little, Assistant Professor of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, for research on role perceptions in Black families

Ena V. Nuttal, Research Associate (psychology), Boston Col· lege, for research on coping patterns in single-parent Puerto Rican families

Eduardo Seda Bonilla, Associate Professor of Anthropology, School of Planning, University of Puerto Rico, for reo search on reality construction among Puerto Ricans

Melvin D. Williams, Assistant Professor of Sociology and Anthropology, Carlow College, for research on social networks in a Black urban neighborhood

Sylvia J. Yanagisako, Predoctoral Teaching Associate, De­partment of Anthropology, University of Washington, for research on kinship structures in two Japanese. American communities

This program of grants was funded for three years by the Maurice Falk Medical Fund, and is in its second year. The program continues to fulfill its original purpose of mak­ing research opportunities available primarily but not ex· clusively for young scholars from minority populations. The 8 awards were made to 5 males and 3 females, including a Japanese, 2 Puerto Rican, and 5 Black scholars. The average age of successful applicants is 34 years. Seven have doctoral degrees, and one will receive the degree this summer.

Successful applicants may arrange consultation sessions, at Council expense, with any member of the committee duro ing the course of the year. The committee is a multidisci· plinary group, consisting of social and behavioral scientists in anthropology, psychiatry, psychology, and sociology.

50

COUNCIL STAFF

Roxann A. Van Dusen joined the Council on September 13, 1973. Her primary assignment is to the Council's Center for Coordination of Research on Social Indicators, in Wash­ington. Mrs. Van Dusen received the B.A. degree from Wellesley College in 1967, the M.A. in international relations from the School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, in 1969, and the Ph.D. in social rela­tions (social anthropology) from that University in 1973. During 1969-70 she was a research assistant at the Center for Behavioral Studies, American University of Beirut, where she was responsible for the preliminary statistical analysis of an extensive survey of Arab women. While a graduate student during the following year she was an editorial assistant of the Middle East Journal. Mrs. Van Dusen has in preparation a monograph, "The Social Milieu of Urban Arab Women," based on her doctoral dissertation, as well as a chapter, "Attitudes toward Women's Roles and Family Planning in the Arab World," in the forthcoming volume Culture, Natality, and Family Planning, edited by John F. Marshall and Steven Polgar (Carolina Population Center).

Michael W. Donnelly joined the Council on a part-time basis on September 5, 1973, following a three-year period as Visiting Research Fellow, Institute of Developing Econo­mies, Tokyo. During the first two years of this period he held a Foreign Area Fellowship under the joint program of the SSRC and ACLS. His primary assignment is as staff of the Joint Committee on Japanese Studies and its subcom­mittees and, in association with others, as staff of the Dis­sertation Fellowship Selection Committee for the Asia Pro­gram. Temporarily he also assists with the administrative work of the Dissertation Fellowship Selection Committee for Africa and the Near and Middle East Program. Mr. Donnelly received the B.S. degree from Columbia Univer­sity in 1966, having begun undergraduate courses in the Far East Division of the University of Maryland (1959-61) while serving as a journalist in the U.S. Navy (1957-61). A Fel­low of the Faculty at Columbia (1966-70), he is currently a candidate for the Ph.D. in political science and expects to receive the degree in 1974. The subject of his dissertation, which is now in preparation, and for which the research was done in Japan, is political management of japan's rice economy.

Patrick G. Maddox joined the Council on a part-time basis on September 5, 1973, after completion of two years of study and travel in the Far East, supported mainly by grants from the Columbia University Contemporary China Studies Com­mittee. His primary assignment is as staff of the Joint Com­mittees on Contemporary China and on Korean Studies and, in association with others, as staff of the Dissertation Fel­lowship Selection Committee for the Asia Program. Mr. Maddox received the B.A. degree from Dartmouth College in 1967, and from Columbia University in 1970 both the

VOLUME 27, NUMBER 4

M.l.A. degree (School of International Affairs) amI the East Asia Institute Certificate. He was appointed a depart­mental research assistant by the Institute, and also served there as a preceptor for the lecture course on Chinese foreign

policy. He is a candidate for the Ph.D. in political science at Columbia and expects to receive the degree in 1974. The subject of his dissertation, now in preparation, is the in­formal diplomacy of the People's Republic of China.

PUBLICATIONS

The Allied Occupation of Japan, 1945-1952: An Anno­tated Bibliography of Western-Language Materials, com­piled and edited by Robert E. Ward and Frank Joseph Shulman, with the assistance of Masashi Nishihara and Mary Tobin Espey, for the Joint Committee on Japanese Studies and the University of Michigan Center for Japa­nese Studies. Chicago: American Library Association. March 1974. c. 890 pages.

The Anatomy of Influence: Decision Making in Interna­tional Organization, by Robert W. Cox, Harold K. Jacob­son, and others. Prepared with the aid of the former Com­mittee on International Organization. New Haven: Yale University Press, February 1973. 510 pages. $15.00.

Compamtive Social Research: Methodological Problems and Strategies, edited by Michael Armer and Allen D. Grimshaw. Product of a conference held by the Institute for Comparative Sociology, Bloomington, Indiana, with the as'sistance of the former Committee on Comparative Politics, April 8-9, 1971. New York: John Wiley & Sons, September 1973. 494 pages. $17.95.

Computer Simulation in Human Population Studies, edited by Bennett Dyke and Jean W. MacCluer. Papers prepared for a conference sponsored by the Committee on Biologi­cal Bases of Social Behavior, June 12-14, 1972. New York: Seminar Press, February 1974. c. 485 pages. $16.00.

The Development of China's Steel Industry and Soviet Technical Aid, by M. Gardner Clark. Report on a study made with the aid of the former Committee on the Econ­omy of China. June 1973. 167 pages. $7.00. Orders should be addressed to New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850.

Directory of Foreign Area Fellows 1952-1972. November 1973. 422 pages. $3.00. Orders should be addressed to Social Science Research Council, Foreign Area Fellow­ship Program, P.O. Box No. 5113, Grand Central Station, New York, N.Y. 10017.

Elites in the People'S Republic of China, edited by Robert A. Scala pi no. Product of a conference sponsored by the former Subcommittee on Chinese Government and Poli­tics, Toint Committee on Contemporary China, August 18-24, 1970. Seattle: University of Washington Press, September 1972. 695 pages. Cloth, $15.00; paper, $4.95.

Ideology and Politics in Contemporary China, edited by Chalmers Johnson. Product of a conference sponsored by the former Subcommittee on Chinese Government and Politics, Joint Committee on Contemporary China, Au­gust 2-6, 1971. Seattle: University of Washington Press, April 1973. 403 pages. Cloth, $15.00; paper, $4.95.

The International Linkage of National Economic Models, edited by R. J. Ball. Sponsored by the Committee on ~conomic Stability. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publish­mg Company, August 1973. 479 pages. $25.00.

Japanese Economic Growth: Trend Acceleration in the Twentieth Century, by Kazushi Ohkawa and Henry

DECEMBER 197!1

Rosovsky. Report on a study initiated under the auspices of the former Committee on Economic Growth. Stanford: Stanford University Press, August 1973. 346 pages. $15.00.

Language and A,'ea Studies Review, by Richard D. Lambert. American Academy of Political and Social Science Mono­graph 17. Final report on the review sponsored by the Social Science Research Council. October 1973. 509 pages. $4.00 to individuals; $5.00 to institutions. Orders should be addressed to American Academy of Political and Social Science, 3937 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pa. 19104.

Language Attitudes: Current Trends and Prospects, edited by Roger W. Shuy and Ralph W. Fasold. Product of work­shops at the Conference on Sociolinguistics: Current Trends and Projects, jointly sponsored by the Commit­tee on Sociolinguistics and Georgetown University, March 16-18, 1972. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press, March 1973. 206 pages. $3.50.

I.anguage Planning: Current Issues and Resem'ch, edited by Joan Rubin and Roger W. Shuy. Product of workshops at the Conference on Sociolinguistics (see preceding title). Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press, March 1973. 121 pages. $2.95.

Mental Tests and Cultural Adaptation, edited by Lee J. Cronbach and P. J. D. Drenth. Papers of a conference held with the aid of the Joint Committee on Latin Ameri­can Studies, July 19-23, 1971. The Hague: Mouton, November 1972. 506 pages.

Modern Chinese Society: An Analytical Bibliography. 3 volumes. Prepared under the auspices of the former Subcommittee on Research on Chinese Society, Joint committee on Contemporary China. Stanford: Stanford University Press, January 1974:

Vol. 1. Publications in Western Languages, 1644-1972, edited by G. William Skinner. 880 pages. $35.00.

Vol. 2. Publications in Chinese, 1644-1969, edited by G. William Skinner and Winston Hsieh. 877 pages. $38.00.

Vol. 3. Publications in Japanese, 1644-1971, edited by G. William Skinner and Shigeaki Tomita. 600 pages. $32.00.

Race in the City: Political Trust and Public Policy in the New Urban System, by Joel D. Aberbach and Jack L. Walker. Report on research assisted by the former Com­mittee on Governmental and Legal Processes. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, January 1973. 310 pages. $4.95.

Savings Deposits, Mortgages, and Housing: Studies for the Federal Reserve-MIT-Penn Economic Model, edited by Edward M. Gramlich and Dwight M. Jaffee. Based in part on research assisted by the Subcommittee on Mone­tary Research, Committee on Economic Stability. Lexing­ton, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1972. 325 pages. $13.50.

Sociolinguistics: Current Trends and Prospects, Report of

51

the Twenty-Third Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies, edited by Roger W. Shuy. Georgetown University Monograph Series on Lan­guages and Linguistics, No. 25. Papers of the conference jointly sponsored by the Committee on Sociolinguistics and Georgetown University, March 16-18, 1972. Wash­ington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press, March 1973. 360 pages. $4.50.

Structural Equation Models in the Social Sciences, edited by Arthur S. Goldberger and Otis Dudley Duncan. Prod-

uct of a conference cosponsored by the Social Science Re­search Council and the Social Systems Research Institute, University of Wisconsin, November 12-16, 1970. New York: Seminar Press, July 1973. 374 pages. $15.95.

The Traditional Artist in African Societies, edited by War­ren L. d'Azevedo. Product of a conference cosponsored by the Joint Committee on African Studies, Indiana Uni­versity, and the University of Nevada Desert Research Institute, May 28-30, 1965. Bloomington: Indiana Uni­versity Press, 1973. 478 pages. $16.00.

TRIBUTE TO BRYCE WOOD, ON HIS RETIREMENT, SEPTEMBER 30, 1973

The board of directors of the Social Science Research Council at its annual meeting in September adopted the following tribute to Bryce Wood, in recognition of his im­minent retirement as Executive Associate of the Council:

The officers and board of directors of the Social Science Research Council would like to recognize the impending re­tirement of Bryce Wood and honor his twenty-three years of service to the Council and to a variety of scholarly causes and innovations too numerous to mention.

Dr. Wood gave up teaching for a position with the Coun­cil in 1950. During the years that followed he has been closely and constantly associated with the work and accom­plishments of many of our most distinguished and successful committees. Particularly notable among these were the Committees on Political Behavior, on Comparative Politics, on Contemporary China, on Japanese Studies, and-con­tinuously-the Committee on Latin American Studies.

Those of us who have had the pleasure of working with Bryce in these and other contexts appreciate the gross in­adequacy of a simple statement that he served as Council staff to these committees. It would be far more appropriate

to say that he has been the most durable and one of the more seminal members of all of them. In this sense Bryce's career well illustrates the single most fundamental reason for the degree of long-term success enjoyed by the Council and its programs-that is the intellectual quality, the dedi­cation, and the practical skills and wisdom of its perma­nent staff.

On all of these scores Bryce will be deeply missed. We join in offering our thanks and our warmest best wishes for the future.

Bryce Wood's retirement was of brief duration. In No­vember he became Executive Secretary of the newly formed Emergency Committee to Aid Latin American Scholars (of the Latin American Studies Association). Supported by a small grant from the Ford Foundation for administrative and operating expenses, the Emergency Committee coordi­nates efforts to aid Latin American scholars and students de­siring to study or teach in the United States. The office of its Executive Secretary is at New York University, Room 566, 24 Waverly Place, New York, N.Y. 10003.

SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL

230 PARK AVENUE, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10017

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

Directors, 1973: WILUAM J. BAUMOL, ALLAN G. BOGUE, DORWIN CARTWRIGHT, SUSAN M. ERVIN-TRIPP, RICHARD F. FENNO, JR., RENEE C. Fox.

DANIEL X. FREEDMAN, LEO A. GoODMAN, EDWARD E. JONES, LAWRENCE R. KLEIN, GARDNER LINDZEY, LEON LIPSON, HERBERT MCCLOSKY, JAMES N.

MORGAN, MURRAY G. MURPHEY, ALFONSO ORTIZ, JOHN W. PRATT, HENRY W. RIECKEN, ALICE S. ROSSI, DAVID M. SCHNEIDER, WILLIAM H. SEWELL.

ELEANOR BERNERT SHELDON, ELLIOTT P. SKINNER, NEIL J. SMELSER, M. BREWSTER SMITH, EDWARD J. TAAFFE, KARL E. TAEUBER, JOHN M. THOMI'·

SON, ROBERT E. WARD, CHARLES V. WILLIE

Officers and Staff: ELEANOR BERNERT SHELDON, President; DAVID L. SILLS, Executive Associate; GORDON M. ADAMS, MICHAEL W. DONNELLY,

JAMES FENNESSEY, BEATRICE K. HOFSTADTER, ELEANOR C. ISBELL, DAVID JENNESS, PATRICK G. MADDOX, ROWLAND L. MITCHELL, JR •• ROBERT PARKE,

MICHAEL POTASHNIK, DOROTHY SODERLUND, DAVID A. STATT, ROXANN A. VAN DUSEN. NICHOLAI ZILL; NORMAN MANN, Business Manager; CATH·

ERINE V. RONNAN, Financial Secretary; NANCY CARMICHAEL, Librarian

52