Interview with Talcott Parsons

Author(s): Talcott Parsons and Harry M. Johnson

Source: Revue européenne des sciences sociales, T. 13, No. 34 (1975), pp. 81-90
Published by: Librairie Droz
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40369051
Accessed: 24-02-2016 11:58 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Librairie Droz is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Revue européenne des sciences sociales.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:58:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
HARRY M. JOHNSON

INTERVIEW WITH TALCOTT PARSONS

In the followingpages, Talcott Parsons, just retired(formally)after

morethan fortyyears as a sociologistat Harvard University, expresses,
among others,some opinions about what he considersto be the most
importantlong-runproblemsfacing America; the Americanuniversity
system; Piaget; and Swiss neutrality.
The questionswere posed by HarryM. Johnson,who teaches theory
and race relationsat the Universityof Illinois (Urbana, U.S.A.).
Some brief excerptsof the interviewwith Professor Parsons were
translatedinto French (by Danielle Johnson-Cousin), and appeared in
the SupplementLitt6raireof the Journalde Geneve, III/299, on Sep-
tember14-15, 1974.

A
HarryM. Johnson.- Could you possiblyput intoa fewwords what
has been the main goal of your intellectualcareer?
Talcott Parsons. - It is difficultto put into a simple formulathe
goal of rathercomplex technicalwork. Of course, having been in an
American university,I have had to try to be an effectiveteacher,
especiallyof graduatestudents:thatcan be takenforgranted. However,
my main concern,as you know, has been to develop the theoretical
frameworkwithinwhich one attemptsto understandmodern "social
systems." "Social system" is a technical term,and should not be
identifiedwitha "society" in the everydaysense of thattermin English
or in other Western languages. Without going into details, I may
say that a "social system" is a theoreticalconcept in somewhatthe
same way an "economy" is a theoreticalconcept for economists.
Indeed, fromthe beginningof my career, I have been concernedwith
the relationsbetween economic theoryand the broader theoryof the
"social system." My firstmajor book, The Structureof Social Action
(1937), dealt with the work of the English economistAlfredMarshall,
the Italian-Swiss economistand sociologistVilfredoPareto, the French
sociologist Emile Durkheim,and the German sociologist Max Weber.
I attemptedto demonstratethat these diverse authors,who were con-
temporariesbut had littleor no influenceupon one another'swork in
general social science, converged upon the same basic conceptual
scheme,expressedof coursein different technicalterms. This conceptual
6

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:58:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
82 H. M. JOHNSON

scheme was then the point of departurefor my own theoreticalwork,

whichhas gone througha ratherlong series of stages. In the process
I have found it necessary to devote specific attentionto an ever-
increasing numberof technical disciplines; among those more speci-
ficallyconcernedwith the social system,most importantare sociology,
economics,and political science. As my work progressed,however-
with the help of course of various colleagues- I became more and
more interestedin what we call "the general systemof action." This
broader field of interestis the concernof the social sciences I have
mentionedbut also of most of psychologyand culturalanthropology.
In certain respects,even the humanitiesand linguisticsare involved.
In connectionwith the "general action system,"I have done a good
deal of work in what could be called social psychologyand also in
the kind of theoryof culturewhich has figuredabove all in cultural
anthropology. Always I have been attemptingto develop a coherent
and useful conceptualframeworkfor dealing with the "general action
system."
In myopinion,however,usefultheorizingcannotbe dissociatedfrom
empirical considerations. I have been concernedabove all with the
interpretation of some of the salient featuresof modern societies in
the West. My most importantsingle model for statementof problems
has probablybeen Max Weber, but Emile Durkheimhas been a close
second. My doctoral dissertationat the Universityof Heidelbergdealt
with the conceptof capitalism in German social science. I dealt with
the ideas of Karl Marx, of Werner Sombart, and especially of Max
Weber. From this startingpoint I have gone on to consider other
aspects of the structureand functioningof modernsocieties. Besides
the industrialand occupationalsystems,I have treatedpoliticalorgani-
zation, stratification,the familyand kinship,and religion. In recent
years I have devoted a great deal of time to the sociology of higher
education,which is closely related to my long-standinginterestin the
professions(as distinguishedfromotheroccupations). In all this work
I have strivento maintain a predominantly scholarlyorientationand
have not been promotingany at all specific political ideology.
One furthernote. As a college undergraduateI studied, among
otherthings,biological theory;and since thenI have kept up with the
strikingdevelopmentsin that field, partlythroughreading,of course,
and partlythroughrepeatedcontactswitheminentbiologists. Biological
theoryhas been an importantinfluenceon my thinkingin my own
chosen field of the sciences of "general action." This does not mean,
of course, that these sciences are branchesor applicationsof biology.
//.Af./. - You spoke of yourattemptto understandmodernsocieties.
What in your opinion are the most importantlong-runproblemsor
areas of tension in Americansociety?
T. P. - To me the most serious problemsfacing the development
of Americansocietyhave to do with its integrationas a social system.

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:58:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
INTERVIEW WITH T. PARSONS 83

I do notwish theterm"social," however,to be interpreted too narrowly;

these problemsof integrationare related to cultural foundationsand
to the personalityof individuals.
One problemof integrationhas been well stated by SeymourMartin
Lipset in his book The First New Nation. The problemcan be stated
as a dilemmabetweentwo ideals. One is the ideal of equality; the
other,the ideal of unit achievement. "Unit achievement"should be
understood in a broad sense. It means not only achievementof
individuals,forexample individualsuccess in business or in occupations
generally;"unit achievement"also includesthe contributions of groups,
forexample success on the part of a business firmas a corporateentity,
or the achievementof a universityor a universitydepartment.
The ideal of equality goes back to the foundingof the Republic.
It has been well treated,I think,by T. H. Marshall in his analysis of
the various aspects of what mightbe called "full citizenship"or full
"inclusion"in thesocietal community.In the UnitedStates the problem
of equality goes well beyond the conventionalconceptionsof class
structureand the conflictof class interests - conceptionsdeveloped
mainly in Continental Europe. In American conditionsthree factors
have immenselycomplicated the problem of equality. These are
religiousdiversity,ethnicdiversity,and racial diversity. I do not mean,
of course, that these factorsare unique to America. My own view is
thatthe UnitedStates has alreadymade great progresstoward"includ-
ing" all significantgroups, religious,ethnic,and racial. Note: I speak
of progress toward inclusion,not of completesuccess. In any case,
this progress accentuatesthe residual problemof economicinequality,
especially the problemof the very poor, about whom, as you know,
therehas been much agitation. There is no doubt in my mind,how-
ever, that the tensionbetweenthe desire for equality and the desire to
protectthe rightsof individualsto striveforsuccess (withthe attendant
risksof failure),will continueto be a major tensionin Americansociety
for a long time.
There is another"area" of tensionthat is perhaps less obvious until
one's attentionis called to it. There have been many complaintsabout
the alleged de-personalizationand the over-rationalization of modern
life, alleged domination by technology and bureaucracy. There has
been a notable reaction in favor of expressiveness,spontaneity,and
freedomfromrationalizeddisciplines. In my technicalterms,we would
say that therehas been a growingtensionbetweenthe "instrumental"
mode of orientationand the "expressive." I am far frombelieving
that bureaucraticorganization and technologyand de-personalization
have become so dominantand tyrannicalin modernlife as some critics
say; I thinkthereis in such charges considerableideological distortion.
However,in my view the reactionin favorof the "expressive" is likely
to have important long-runresults,the formsof whichare still relatively
obscure. But I doubt verystronglythat Americansociety,or Western
societygenerally, will end up witheitherof thesetwo major components,

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:58:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
84 H. M. JOHNSON

the "instrumental"and the "expressive,"drasticallysuppressedin favor

of the other.
A littlereflectionwill show that these two problemsof integration
- equality versus "unit achievement"and "instrumental"orientation
versus "expressive"- are interrelated.A greaterrelativeemphasis on
the expressivewill of course threatenunit achievementsin the "instru-
mental" complex. On the other hand, there are unit achievementsin
the "expressive" realm,of course- for example in the various formal
arts- and these achievementsare clearlyunequal in merit. We might
say that the tensionbetweenthe "instrumental"and the "expressive"
shiftsto some extent the arena in which the tensionbetweenequality
and unit achievementwill work itselfout.
//.m. /. - You mentionedthat you have been especially concerned
in recentyears withhighereducation. What do you thinkare the most
importantdifferencesbetweenAmericanand European universities?
T. P. - I do thinkthat the book The AmericanUniversity, in which
I collaboratedwith Gerald M. Platt, has pinpointeda ratherdistinctive
patternof the Americanuniversitywhich in part distinguishesit from
others in the internationaluniversitysystem. I should note that our
book is devoted to the higher-levelAmerican university:the "ideal
type" we analyze is an approximate descriptionof perhaps ten or
twelve actual universities.
With regard to this generalized university, then,we have strongly
emphasized the importance,for the more recent phase of university
developmentin the United States, of a new level of institutionalization
of the functionof research. This has gone furthestin the natural
sciences, greatlystimulatedby massive governmentalsupport; but the
new level of organized researchin the social sciences is also impressive.
It is especially in this new emphasis on researchthat ideals of intel-
lectual excellence are manifested. The success of this devotion is
perhaps indicated by the general reputationof Americanscience and
scholarship,which has been enormouslyenhanced during the present
century.
At a more specificlevel of organization,two importantpointshave
been particularlyemphasized by Joseph Ben-David of the Hebrew
Universityin Jerusalem. First, in the Americanuniversitythe Depart-
ment takes the place of the Chair. On the Continent,as you know,
thereis generallyone chair foreach major subject, and the incumbent
of that chair has some kind of authorityover all other professional
personnelin the field. By contrast,in a typical Americanuniversity
(not only in the top ten or twelve), there is for each major field a
'Department,in which there are anywherefromfive or six to fifteen
or twentyfull professorswho in formalstatus are all equal. There
is no such thingas the professorof sociology,of physics,or whatever.
The second primaryAmericaninnovationhas been the developmentof
graduate schools for the trainingof futureacademic professionals,as

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:58:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
INTERVIEWWITH T. PARSONS 85

distinguishedboth from undergraduatecolleges and from graduate

schools for trainingother types of professionalsuch as doctors and
lawyers. The functionof research is closely tied to the trainingof
futureacademic professionals. In the United States, as comparedwith
mostof Europe and especiallywiththe Soviet Union,separate academies
of science and specialized research organizations are relativelyrare.
Instead, all functionsare combined in the integrateduniversity:the
functionsof research,trainingfutureacademics,teachingundergraduate
students,and training in the applied professions of medicine,law,
engineering,and several others.
With regard to this patternI may note one final point. As you
know, the academic systemhas recentlybeen ratherturbulentdue to
certainkinds of studentdiscontent. I gather that this discontentwas
less turbulent in Switzerlandthanforexample in France,West Germany,
or Italy. In any case, it was quite severe in the United States, and
I will confinemyselfto that country.
Two facts are especially striking. The firstis that the acute phase
of disturbancesubsided rather quickly. There have been no major
confrontations since about the Fall of 1970. The second notable fact
is that this relativestabilizationhas occurredwithoutnearlyso drastic
modificationof the universitypatternas some people expected. The
situationis clearly complicatedand uneven,but I thinkit can be said
that throughthose criticaleventsthe main patternof the university has
remainedintact. Graduate and professionaltrainingare still important,
and I do not think that the research functionhas been drastically
reduced in favor of teaching, notably undergraduateteaching. Of
course, in addition to developmentsinternalto the academic system
itself, one must take account of the national scene as a whole.
Especially importantare the severe cutbacks in the financial support
of highereducation and research.
Nevertheless,despite the basic resilienceof the universitypattern,
!myfinal point is that, in my opinion,what will emerge in the later
1970s fromall theturmoilis a somewhatmodifiedversion,not drastical-
ly modified,of the patternof organizationthat had become established
in the 1950s and early 1960s. I have had recentpersonal experience
at threeof the major universities,namely,Harvard, the Universityof
Chicago, and the Universityof Pennsylvania. The most comprehensive
surveyof outcomesmay be foundin a volumeeditedby David Riesman:
Academic Transformation, a publicationof the Carnegie Commission
on Higher Education.
We haven't time for anythinglike a full answer to your question.
Many otherthingscould be said. For instance,in our book, Platt and
I (supplemented, by the way, by Neil J. Smelser) make an effortto go
beyond common sense in explaining academic turbulence. But the
analysis is rathertechnicaland involvedand had betternot be summa-
rized in this interview.

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:58:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
86 H. M. JOHNSON

H. M. J. - I know that you have been interestedin the work of

Jean Piaget. Would you commenton the relationbetweenhis workand
your own?
T. P. - I have indeed long had high regard for the work of Jean
Piaget. I was introducedto him very early through the English
translationof his early book The Moral Judgment of the Child. Piaget
seems to me to be one of the two most eminentpsychologicaltheorists
of the presentcentury - the other one being Sigmund Freud. When
the Nobel Prize organizationin Sweden extendedtheirconcernbeyond
the traditionalfields of the natural sciences to include economics,it
seemed to me that it would be impossiblein the long run to stop there.
If economistsare to be accorded the Nobel laureate,certainlymen and
women whose work has been in otherbehavioral or "action" sciences
cannot be ignoredin the long run. I thinkof Piaget as distinctlythe
most appropriateliving candidate for a Nobel Prize in the studies of
human behavior outside of economics. In this connection I have
remarkedto several people that I thoughtthe Nobel Prize organization
ought to hurryup in taking the decision to go beyond economics.
For my own theoreticalpurposes I have devoted rather more
attentionto the work of Freud than to that of Piaget. Recently,how-
ever, Piaget's work has been connectedwith mine in an extremely
interestingand important way by two youngmen,thebrothersVictorM.
and Charles W. Lidz, both of whom have been my intimatestudents
and importantcollaborators in recentyears. Their article will soon
be published in a volume of essays of which the senior editor is Dr.
Jan J. Loubser of Carleton Universityand the Canadian government;
the essays are all concernedwith the implicationsof my theoretical
work. The contributionof the Lidz brothersbears so intimatelyon
my own theoreticalinterests,and is so clearlygermaneto yourquestion
about Piaget, that a few words about it are appropriatehere.
Briefly,there are four basic types of functionat the level of the
"general systemof action." For a numberof years I have attributed
"adaptive" functionsto the "behavioral organism"- that is to say, to
those aspects of the concreteorganismwhich are the resultof learning
and are underthe controlof the personalitysystem. Victorand Charles
Lidz, however,in the traditionof constructivecriticismof the work of
a senior colleague, have very seriouslyquestionedmy positionon this
point. They have leaned very heavily on the contributionsof Piaget
to the understanding of the cognitivedevelopmentof the individualfrom
early childhoodto maturity. They have shown in great detail how the
main outlineof Piaget's analysis fitsinto the framework of the general
theoryof action. They believe that the adaptive functionat the level
of generalaction should not be attributedto any aspect of theorganism,
but ratherto the cognitiveaspect of the human psychologicalsystem
as thataspect has been analyzed by Piaget in a long careerof research.
I have studied this problemwith the greatest care and have come
to the firmconclusionthat the Lidz brothersare basically right,and

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:58:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
INTERVIEW WITH T. PARSONS 87

that theirsuggestionshould be incorporatedinto the corpus of what

has sometimesbeen called the "theory of action." It seems to me
that this is a major indicationof the importanceof Piaget as a theorist
in the human behavioral sphere.
H. M. /. - The Lidz brothers,then,have provideda relativelyrare
example of constructive criticism. What in your opinionhave been the
threeor fourmainmisinterpretations of yourwork,leading to unjustified
criticism?
T. P. - Among many of what I considerto be misinterpretations
of my work that have been put forwardby commentators on it, I will
mentionthree. The firstis the allegation that my theory,which has
oftenattractedthelabel "structural-functional," has a built-inpolitically
conservativebias. Allegedly,my theory rationalizes an aversion to
social change and has a strong tendencyto defend the status quo.
I repudiatethese allegations. With regard to politics,I have always
consideredmyselfto be not a radical but essentiallya liberal, some-
what to the left of center of the Americanpolitical spectrum. For
example, in the decisive period of the 1950s I was a strongsupporter
of the candidate for the presidencywho did not actually get elected,
namely, Adlai Stevenson. Much of the criticismto which I refer,
particularlycoming fromone or anotherversion of Neo-Marxism,is
in a sense well to the Left of Stevensonianliberalism. In that sense
I have never been a Neo-Marxist,clearly,but neitherhave I been in
any of the historicallyusual senses a political conservative.
The second line of criticism,which is related to the first,is that
mytheoreticalorientationimplies"a staticbias." It has been contended
that the concernwith the structureof social systemshas been at the
expenseof concernwithdynamicprocessesand particularlytheprocesses
of change. It seems to me that this line of criticisminvolves quite
serious misinterpretations. I have always been concernedwithproblems
of mal-integration of social systemsand with conflictsinternalto them
and processesof changein theirstructure.In recentyearstheseconcerns
have come to a certainkind of crystallizationin a special interestin
problemsof social and culturalevolution. This kind of perspectiveon
social phenomenacan hardly be called static. Indeed, by my friend
and colleague Reinhard Bendix, I have been characterizedas one of
the founders of what he disapprovinglycalls the "neo-evolutionist
school" in sociology. It is difficult,it seems to me, for both kinds of
criticto be correct;that is, it is hardlylikelythat my work could be
inherently prejudicedagainst social change and at the same timeinvolve
a certainkind of theoryof change. The latterinterpretation is closer
to the truth.
The thirdthemeof negativecriticismhas been expressedin particular
by JohnFindlay Scott. He and some othersallege that,havinginitially
promulgatedwhat is called a "voluntaristic"theoryof action, I have
abandoned that position and have become, allegedly, a proponentof

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:58:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
88 H. M. JOHNSON

a ratherold-fashionedtype of scientificdeterminism.This criticism

stems, it seems to me, fromvery serious misconceptions,both of the
problemsinvolvedand of my position with regard to them.
Much ideologicalopinionin recenttimeshas tended,afterthemanner
of Rousseau, to stress the inherentlygiven spontaneityof individual
motivationand freedom,on theone hand,and on theotherthe repressive
effectsof what sociologists call "social control." This seems to me
to be a major themein the existentialistmovementand has also been
stressed by such commentatorson the scene as HerbertMarcuse and
the BritishpsychiatristR. D. Laing. As far as myown workis concern-
ed, the problemcomes up in the aspects of it thatare on theborderlines
of psychologyand sociology. My position is sharply opposed to the
idea that social structureis necessarilyrepressivein its net effect. I
have consistently, I think,held to the view that the main trendof the
developmentof both societyand personalityhas included,among other
things,a tendencyto theincreaseof thespheresof freedomand autonomy
for the individual. At the same time,the conceptionof the individual
thatI accept,stronglystressesthe importanceof what manysociologists
and psychologistscall "socialization." In this view there is a very
importantconnectionbetweenindividualautonomyand thekindof social
structureand trainingthe individual experiences. One of my most
importantmentorsin this connectionhas been Emile Durkheim. He
spoke of "the cult of the individual"; I preferthe term"institutionalized
individualism." In any case, what people referto as individualfreedom
and autonomydepend upon social institutionsand the processes of
trainingguided by them.
One finalthememightbe mentioned. I have acquired the reputation
of being concernedwithgeneraltheory. What has oftenbeen interpreted
to be over-concernwith this level of theorizingwas stronglyattacked
over twentyyears ago in a famousstatementby RobertK. Merton,who
stressed the desirabilityof concentratingsociological work on what,
followingJohn Stuart Mill, he called "theories of the middle range."
I in no way oppose work on theoriesof the middle range, to which
Merton himselfhas been an outstandingcontributor, but at the same
time I would not for a momentrepudiatethe legitimacyof what in
this contextis frequentlycalled "general theory." Both seem to me
to be indispensableingredientsof the developmentof a more mature
science.
//.Af.J. - Turningto a political question,therehas always been
a certainamountof controversy with regardto Swiss neutrality.What
is your opinion?
T. P. - I confess that I have not given very much thoughtto the
problemof the role of Swiss neutrality,but your question stimulates
a fewthoughtson the subject. I am aware thatthatneutrality has been
maintainedonly throughextremelystrenuousand costly effortsof the
Swiss people. I belong to a generationwhich has vivid memoriesof

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:58:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
INTERVIEWWITH T. PARSONS 89

boththe World Wars of this century,and I realize that Swiss neutrality

could have been maintainedonly by a systemof defense,violation of
which would be extremelycostly to the violator. This was perhaps
particularlytrue in the Second World War, since Germanyand Italy
were united in the axis alliance and France was occupied; it would
certainlyhave suited Hitler's aims to eliminateSwitzerlandas a haven
for various kinds of neutralactivities. My impressionis that only the
costlinessof attemptingto controlSwitzerlanddeterredhim.
Considerationssuch as these do not seem to indicate that Swiss
neutralityis yet out of date. Switzerlandhas been the location of a
numberof symbolicallysignificantinternational actions; the most recent
was the signing of the Syrian-Israelicease-fireagreement,which took
place in Geneva and not somewherein the Middle East. Geneva has
indeed been the locus classlcus of peace conferencesand thingsof that
sort. Of course,back of these formalevents has lain a willingnesson
the part of the Swiss people to take a notablybroadmindedor "ecu-
menical" attitudetoward the modernworld, an attitudewhich in my
opinion is in the best traditionof European liberalism.
One final point is that I personallythinkit was a mistaketo locate
the headquartersof the United Nations in the territory of one of the
two superpowers. A betterlocation would have been the territory of
a countrythathad a serious claim to neutrality.It need not have been
Switzerland; but Switzerland, Austria, or one of the Scandinavian
countrieswould have been a logical location. It is significantthat the
presentSecretaryGeneral of the U. N. is an Austrian.
//.Af./. - A final question. What problemsare you workingon
at present?
T. P. - As you know,I am always likelyto have several irons in
the fire. This spring I gave the Colver Lecturesat Brown University;
in subject matterthese three lectures overlapped somewhatwith my
two little books on problemsof social evolution,especially with the
second one on the systemof modernsocieties. In revised formthese
lectures will be published as a small book. This will give me an
opportunity to refineand in some respectsto modifythe positionI took
in the two books for the AmericanpublisherPrentice-Hall. For the
Brown lectures I shall not be under such severe limitationsof space
as I was forcedto submitto for the Prentice-Hallbooks.
My main work, however,since the publication of The American
University(Harvard UniversityPress, May, 1974), overlaps with the
Colver Lecturesbut is differentin emphasis. I have nearlycompleted
the firstdraft of a new book on the theoreticalanalysis of societal
integration. It will be particularlyconcernedwith Americansociety,
but in a partiallycomparativeframeof reference. I thinkof this book
as in a sense a counterpartto the study of the Americanuniversity.
Just as I held, in the universitybook, that the institutionalization of
adaptive functionshas been greatlyaltered throughwhat I have been

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:58:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
90 H. M. JOHNSON

calling the educational revolution,similarlyI thinkthat the structures

involvedin integrativefunctionhave also been changingratherradically
in the present century,particularlyperhaps the last fiftyyears. A
major themeof the book is what I have been calling the expressive
revolutionand the changingcharacterof our individualisticorientations.
As I said, I have nearly completeda first draft,but it will require
-substantialrevision. As I am sure you are aware, my firstyear of
formal retirementfrom Harvard has been extremelybusy and satis-
factoryin many respects,but it has somewhatheld up my programof
writing.

Departmentof Human Relations

Universityof Illinois
Utbana, USA

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:58:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions