Half of the population of the world is under 25 years old, a third under 18: that gives a baseline for one sector of the injured and impotent. Everytime, everywhere, and on the average, men and women have been ignorant and unjust parents. And society has codified their injustices.
Half of the population is female, and over half of the population over 25 years of age is female. Femaleness, in its many varying manifestations that overlap as well as contrast with maleness,1 has in most times and places of history suffered injury and impotency. This same ignominy has contributed to the ignominy of youth.
Now consider the stratification of life-chances for most people during practically all of past social time.2 Indignities of social class, of racism, of one language group over another, of politicians, of officials. The potentates have submerged them in a swamp of misery, powerlessness, and developmental abortions, Speaking in world terms, where the national states have in recent centuries been themselves hierarchized, there is an indignity that even the would-be potentates of weaker countries have had to submit to. Ignoring the hierarchy of states, and considering only the hierarchy within states, the overwhelming part of the population has been led to believe that they are born with some worthless or demeaning qualities that subject them throughout their lives and the lives of their children to the condescending superiority and rule of an upper class that holds most power, money, and privileges.
Most of the people in this world are denied equal life chances. If youth and women take up three-quarters of the world, and the males of the suppressed and powerless classes take up another eighty percent of the reminder, we arrive at an estimate of 5% who are the potentates, the establishment, the ruling class. These are the terms used for them. Actually, they themselves are divided, stratified, sick from the conditions of their contemporary lives, and fearful of the future. So anachronistic and degrading is the whole system, that if a large number of the injured and impotent were not hypnotised by history into dancing the tune of their masters, it would cease to function. As it is we cannot have Kalotic personalities and institutions unless the stratification systems under which most of the people everywhere live are legally and emphatically reduced to a norm of equal dignity of mankind.
Youth, often in its associative form as students, is rebelling throughout the world. The causes are general to mankind but also in addition peculiar to youth. The most urgent and sweeping reform is to set the age of adulthood at sixteen in every country. Full civil status should begin early. "No man is ever grown-up" quoted Andre Malroux, Memoirs, from a heroic priest of the World War II Resistance. We must believe this, and we must believe its opposite too: an infant is an adult: "The Rights of Infants" are declared by the psychologist Gettell in a book of that title. Sixteen is old enough everywhere to pass the threshold of uncertain youth into uncertain age, the age of voting and politics (if desired), drinking (if desired), driving (if wished), quitting school (14 is preferable), working (if wished), paying tax, and getting due process of law if in trouble. Civic rights at sixteen will stimulate change, discourage exploitation both of young men and young women. improve education, decrease the corruptibility of politics, and increase the impatience and idealism of the electorate.
No child should be compelled to attend school after the age of fourteen. But more tan that, no particular type of school should be compulsory. The children and their guardians should choose a school, and at first be repaid by the state for their expenses, unless there is a prompt adoption of the scheme of universal life accounts that tenders each child a sum adequate to his need from the public treasury (with corresponding debits).
To free the economic power of children and their parents (in early year) will give a long-needed tool to Kalotic idealists. A major reason for the collapse of the "progressive movement" in American education was that it was attempted under a calsifying school bureaucracy.
The aim is to unblock and animate, so that school becomes a place of excitement and growth...The task is not to fit the youth into some useful place in the economy, but to find what work will bring him out, be his vocation. If there is no such job, then do something about that, not him.4
By the age of sixteen, children have practically achieved their adult physical size and intelligence quotients. Hopefully they will learn by experience to evaluate and judge public issues, as hopefully all should do until death. They have, too, some normal skills of adults and as much formal education as most men and women have ever achieved. It is difficult to believe that there are not unworthy prejudices and desires in withholding full civil rights from them. In this sense, youth is still a dispossessed class, out of power and therefore given to the practices and behavior of those who are out of power.
A child born today in the United Kingdom stands a ten times greater chance of being admitted to a mental hospital than to a university... This can be taken as an indication that we are driving our children and more effectively than we are genuinely educating them. Perhaps it is our way of educating them that is driving them mad.5
Almost all of the so-called "handicaps" or "drawbacks" or "vices" of youth are socially promoted and are not "natural" to youth. Sexual restrictions are often imposed and therefore "licentious youth" becomes a problem. Regulations restricting mechanical dexterity are prepared as moral traps so that "youths can not be trusted with cars;" the whole rat-tag bag of profiteers and moralists compound the injustice with special insurance rates, special penalties, a lack of legal justice, humiliation, and so on. "Never mind," they tell us in effect," that many other categories of society get privileges denied to youth. It's all right for the old lady, the handicapped, the accident-prone and others to drive, so long as the kids don't". The ideology behind this partly sheer blind power. What they really mean is: "Keep them down and our measly privileges will not be interfered with, and our self-love will be preened." "Laws for the protection of youth," "juvenile codes and courts,"6 "compulsory public education," "mock school government," these and more sets of restraints of youth are largely domineering propaganda and laws masquerading as benefits just as they did and do for women, minorities, slaves, or "backward, childlike races."
If fully equipped with adult powers, youths will exhibit few differences of a type that can justify their exclusion from power. The "maturity" of the vote depends upon having the vote; the "maturity" of a romantic or martial decision depends upon having the rights of the mature. The ability to work depends upon being permitted to work; obviously, banning youth employment is an effective, if condemnable, method of keeping youth incompetent.
Youth will not respond perfectly. Like women and negroes, they will be cursed by the qualities that were imprinted upon them in slavery, they will often disgrace their kind, kill their liberators, and refuse the new free character offered them. In this first phase of equality and freedom, all that can be said in justification of them is that they are no worse than their elders. Nothing is lost to the quality of the social soup for their being added as ingredients.
And that great reason for blocking youthful dikeos, in all times and places, "parental authority", breaks down under analysis into an illogical begging of the question. It is a crate of miscellaneous junk. Without exception, the "reasons" for categorically suppressing youth are self-justifying.
Authority is an effective tool in learning only when "teacher is right". Authority is needed to rule, but only right rule is wanted. Authority is a good in itself, we should even grant, but only when it is neutral. Parental authority, then, in our terms, has to be kalotic trusteeship up to a point and thereafter a kalotic toparchy of representative government.
Therefore we should be asking what authority should children have over parents, as well as what authority should parents wield over children. In the most technically advanced and plutocratically driven toparchies, this question has almost become academic: Children do have a "bag of tricks" and a growing legitimate authority in respect to their parents: a restatement, largely, is what is needed. In other regimes, more radical means must be found to reformulate the notion of "parental authority" among the politists.
The main principle of parental authority is that it cease to have any given right when that right is required and wanted by the child. After the age of sixteen, if a toparchy is kalotically organized, only the `right' or gift of love should remain accompanied, as naturally follows, by the gift of mutual aid. If a youth is sick and dependent at sixteen, he may require authority, but in that case the parent or any other counsellor whom the youth may choose should apply for and receive the license to act in parental authority for a period longer. But this license, we stress, is no different than the Dependency License that has to be granted for the guidance of the sick at any age. By "sick" we mean simply unable autonomously to live; and there are only two categories, the well and the dependent; there is no criminal, no immaturity, no insane, no physically sick, except as sub-categories of dependency.
Prejudices against women-sexism-resemble prejudices of youth, race, ethnicity, and religion. Men say: "Not so. After all, women are our better half." But we know enough in the mid-twentieth century of the nature of men to realize that there are many kinds of men/women attitudes, very deep, and not by a long shot can we count on "natural affinity" to take care of women's good. The world has as many women-haters as menhaters. "Virtual representation"that is representation through a supposed natural means is not enough to protect the interest of a whole sex from being treated as a whole sex.
Women's rights or the equality of sexes are not to be taken as mechanical formulae producing two distinct sexes each holding the same cards in their hands. They are elements of pneumos and dikeos,giving the personality scope for realization, and lending her strength in holding her place without defensiveness over sex. Sex is not to be a weapon of social combat.
Men and women are of many sexes; they act in many sexual roles within a toparchy and from one toparchy to another. It shall be for a person to choose, within the limits set by his or her congenital physiology, the path of sexualized human relations.
Man often believes that he is well-off when he subjects woman to his will by household labor, job discrimination, and political legal disqualifications.7 What he really does, in the present age of partially-freed womanhood, is to create unconscious castrating enemies in his home and politics, breed disaffected children, reduce social productivity, and degrade his own soul by hypocrisy and immorality. That many women side with such men means nothing more than that slaves will often take the side of their master against their own. Zarathusthtra said, "No nation can rise above the level of its womenhood."
The attitude of the Kalotic agitator is important in correcting this condition; one need not fear for the size of the task. Western man, in his technological pride, does not appreciate in how much of the world, as in black Africa and Southeast Asia, the woman is prepared from equal life-chances. But legal codes must be thoroughly revised. Divorce laws must be corrected. Job opportunities must be equalized so that a woman does not have to inherit from her males in order to stand up to them financially. Of marriage we shall speak now.
Voices echoing from past millenia warn against tampering with "the sacred family," whatever that may be. It is a sociological truth that history is exploited by the status quo. The non-exploited history, by contrast, tells of the many ways in which mankind has organized his smallest groups for his aims in life.
It is an easy to show polygamy as monogamy, as easy to demonstrate the "sacredness" of the nuclear family as of the extended one, as easy to show facile divorce practices as difficult ones. We may be sure that all of these historical and culturally relative institutional patterns emerge out of some vital imperatives of the social setting.
And our own comes out of our own cultural imperatives. Modern kalocracy demands a free family setting, organized along voluntary lines following upon the fulfillment of original responsibilities and obligations willingly incurred. There can be leadership in the family, as there must be in all groups, but there cannot be caste, slavery, or unwilling domination.
From his perspective as a biologist, Dr. Robert S. Morison has predicted, with others, the decline of the prestige and utility of the family as modern society evolves. While the family is "a fine mechanism for transmitting conventional wisdom in a relatively static society," he said, "it is relatively poor as assimilating and transmitting new knowledge essential to survival in a rapidly moving world." The need for population control and the new knowledge of and possibilities of genetics bring into question, for example, "the family as the basic unit of human production... Increasing knowledge of the plasticity of the human nervous system in early life will encourage further invasion of the home in the name of insuring equality of opportunity."8
Professor William Ogburn elaborated the defunctionating of the modern family forty years ago.9 The loss of cooperative tasks continues. Still, because of the enormous affectional role of the family, and the thousands of ways in which affection penetrates the action system of the human being, there can be no question now, if ever, of the need for a kalotic family. This fact makes imperative the continuous education of parents, even more than their children. What should be a thriving industry is scarcely a recognized subject. There is much dismay over the fact that almost all children receive their sexual education "in the gutter;" equally disheartening is the fact that most people get their education for parenthood also from ill-informed, ill-advised, old-fashioned, and narrow-minded sources.
The best "drug" of men and women is their belovedness as children, the perennial optimism of the beloved child. Every psychologist has to be concerned with the multitude of despairing faces that meet his eye. His cures must be few, half of the cases, unless he is helped perchance by a new artificial drug. He must turn to the society and say, "Nothing can counteract the terrors of life more than the primal reassurances of infancy." The first obligation of society to the young is therefore to love them. And this task, far from being simple, involves the controlled, if not cured, behavior of the adult generation that deals directly or through laws and attitudes with the young. The rapid expansion of kalotically-driven day-care centers around the world is a logical necessity.
The family is a compact of mutual aid. Its dependencies are a two-way transaction among parents and children. The parents "sign" the compact when they bring forth a baby. The local community referees the compact. When the laws are reformed. the child can opt out of the contract at the age of sixteen, the parents at the age of nineteen. If half the families of the world were so construed and governed, a great many Kalotic policies of the total society, only "indirectly" connected, would promptly be achieved.
The bond of marriage, too, has to be reviewed. Elsewhere the role of women has been described; the readiness of women in technologically advanced societies and the upper strata of other societies for a new concept of marriage can be assumed.
"...the current concept of marriage, is anchored socially, legally, and psychologically in anachronisms and therefore is widely unworkable."10 Marriage, if it is to be a functional part of the Kalotic setting, has to be open to contract and dissolution. The marriage contract will be personally and socially most satisfying if it is engaged in for a limited time with an option to carry on as long as the partners desire it. There are often good reasons, especially in societies formed under the modern consensus, for youths of 16 or 17, and the aged of 70 or 75, to marry. These reasons can be given the richest meaning and social utility if they are contracted in freely for a limited period.
An ever greater proportion of men and women are living to old age. How strange it is, then, that none, not the least any government, plans for more than a few years, but young people are compelled to swear that they will love and care for one another "till death do them part."
The periods of changing, character and conjugal love in life are several. They need not and cannot be enforced, but they can be given a chance to bring satisfying change rather than permanent misery. In youth; then at the end of the twenties; at the end of the thirties; in the early fifties; in the early sixties; and anytime thereafter, one or both spouses may wish to separate, often affectionately, with responsibility for obligations incurred. Either partner should be allowed simply to take up a divorce option after five years of first marriage, then after each subsequent decade of marriage. Moreover, they should have to satisfy much simpler procedures than are required today in most parts of the world if they wish to divorce at some other point of time.11
Considering the family as it is shaping up in modern cultures, this Decennial Divorce Option that would form part of every marriage would strengthen the affectional, filial, and material bonds of the family.12 Men and women would enter upon marriage more realistically, making more appropriate dispositions of their property and rights. The unhealthy familial relations that characterize half of the families of the world would be temporary, and suppressed by the awareness of the coming release from obligations. Men and women would often get more peaceful personal and social fulfillment if they might change their personal environments along with their changing natures. A gay dancer of seventeen may be a grave doctor of thirty, a contemplative student of twenty a busy businessman of forty, a steady worker of fifty an avid traveller of sixty-five, a lustful maid of eighteen a buxom frigid matron at thirty (and vice versa).
What insanity under the stars drives regimes to force people to be what they are not, and to prohibit just what they want to be whenever they want to be it! Fear and power-madness-great fears and great ritualistic propitiation of unknown fearcausers-far back in time, perhaps deep in the bloodstreams. But now we recognize the fears and power-madness lurking beneath laws and regimes.
Work is following the will of others for what one can get in exchange. Logically, then, if his work pleases a man, it loses its quality of work. If what pleases him is kalotic, then the exchange is perfect, for he works with a will, that is, a will that coincides with the will of others, or he works kalotically for himself.
Few men and women are so lucky and clever as to achieve this perfect harmony of work. Usually work is unpleasant. So they work as little as possible and, depending upon the extent to which they have to work, they cover their work with illusion, amounting in extreme cases to a holy religion beatifying work.13 We aim to strip work of extreme illusion, demanding that work be justified or abandoned.
Kalocracy has as a primary aim the revolution of work in the world. This calls for not only the redefinition of work, but the introduction of better measures of work and what is obtained in exchange for work. Finally it calls for kalotic policies of work, some of which have been propounded earlier, and others of which are put forward here.
Man must be constrained as little as possible in his work and should normally, if he desires, change his occupation when he is equipped to do so, is ready for the obligations connected with doing so, and can find a new post. There is to be no holding a lien upon his past earnings to freeze him to his past work, and no limit to the age when he must cease work. Hence many men and women can have two careers, say from 18 to 45 and from 45 to 70, or even more, whereas they are now faced with harsh discriminations as they age in their work.
Every man should be entitled to pay his own way in life and the way of his dependents. Every person should be paid during a reasonable working life enough to pay the debts of his youth and the expenses of his old age. Man must earn then from two to six times his present real wage between the ages of twenty and fifty-five.
It is an offense for the state to compel man to be dependent, in youth or in old age. Yet this crime is called "The Welfare State." It takes resources from him in his prime so that he is sharply limited in what he can do for his own family and for his own career, and surrounds him with so many rigid barriers that he finally agrees that his welfare security must be good for him. Man can produce in his years of self-power enough to supply his periods of self-dependndency.
The "best-paid" worker in the world, the American worker, is not paid as well as he is driven to believe. A psychiatric study of American workers in Detroit reports that the "influences determining occupational mental health differences among factory workers are to be found in the jobs themselves and their associated life conditions."14 Jobs involving the lowest skill, the lowest income, and the lowest education groups are worked by persons with the highest rate of psychoneurosis.
Nearly two out of three factory workers in the United States would choose a different trade or occupation if they could start their work-life over again.15 Over half say that their job does not give them a chance to try out their own ideas. More than a third regard their jobs as dull most or all of the time. Somewhat fewer say their jobs are too simple, and that their jobs make them work too fast. One of seven quit their jobs each year, between 1958 and 1961.
According to Drs. Hinkle and Wolff, the average American urban lower middle-class male experiences, in the twenty-year period between the ages of 20 and 45, one life-endangering illness, 20 disabling illnesses during which he cannot work, 200 non-disabling illnesses, and 1,000 or more symptomatic episodes.16
The workers tend to remain loyal to their company and believe that their work is useful, but these attitudes, so important to keep the society together, cannot conquer the widespread feelings of self-estrangement and meaninglessness of their lives.
Probably the same attitudes would prevail throughout technologically advanced plutocracies and taxocracies. Alienation of the workers is a large problem in the Soviet Union, where, unfortunately, the therpeutic attitude is still technocratic and therefore prescribes mechanistic rearrangements as cures. By far, the primary orientation of the worker, according to an extensive Leningrad survey, is the family. only 207 out of 2667 workers who were interviewed were classified afterwards as possessing primarily an orientation to their job. And only 10% of the total possessed a secondary orientation to their work.17
In those cases where stratocracies and dystrocracies experience samples of modernization, say in a newly created industry, the morale of the workers is likely to be a great deal higher for a time. Their lot is relatively superior to that of their desperately poor rural counterparts and the prestige of representing the future is a wage supplement of a gratifying type.
Countries or sectors of toparchies that are traditional, unmechanized, and heavily rural, gain back in the conditions of work much that they lose in the exchange. They may get very little to live on, but emos is far more than physical subsistence; they may lack general political freedom but they possess freedom in particulars-from month to month, day to day, minute to minute, periods of time that lay like whips across the back of the modern worker.
One need only ask of the modern the question (but how few social scientists have done so): "How many thousands of times a year do you measure out time in ten-minute bits?" For that measure is the very deffnition of state of desperation: desperate anxiety, fear, boredom, fatigue, joy.
A reliable indicator of the degrees of Kalos in work is this measure. When the answer, or Index of Time-Desperation, is reduced to something approaching the level of before the industrial revolution for the workers of a society, while the Kalotic output is constant or increased, a major cause of human unhappiness and a great barrier to social harmony are eliminated.
The tyranny of work time has to be broken. But the inventions of new work methods have to come first. Else the tyrant Time will be replaced by the tyrant Hunger. However, proposals to be made on the goverance of corporations and the representation of workers, on the distribution of income, ownership, and burdens, should assist the revolution of kalotic work methods against the destruction of men's mind through the disintegration of time.
At that point, the occupational personality should be capable of incorporation into the total kalotic personality, rather than dangling, as it does at present, as a monster second head, defeating all purposeful efforts towards a wholesome personality.
As they deny youth, prevailing mind-rulers typically deny the capacities of different races and nationalities to rule themselves, to rule themselves kalotically, to rule themselves by representative government, and to participate in cosmarchy.18 Yet to say this is, in our lexicon, a form of treason. Every reference to such incapacity for kalocracy in every one of thousands of books and articles must be rewritten, challenged in critiques and footnotes, or replaced by a more scientific approach.
The ideology of those who take this view that only a few are fit for self-rule is clear to us even if not to themselves:
1. Many of them are Western Europeans or North Americans who are projecting their own self-governing failures onto other peoples, out of their own shame, and rationalizing the "incompetency" of others in terms of race, history, and culture.
2. Many of the same people wish to be exclusive, to dominate, and to spread the doctrine of their superiority even while hypocritically denying it.
3. Many of them are simply fools who do not see the most horrible failures of their own cultures and governments while seeing all too clearly the missteps and mistakes of other peoples.
4. Many of them are juridical legalists, obsessive structuralists who cannot move imaginatively and flexibly in the world of differences, who confound, for example, the wig of a judge with justice, or the voting machine with the vote.
5. Now every one of these reasons is to be found within the public attitudes of the maligned races as well. All too well have they been brainwashed by the second-rate ideologues of the dominating powers.
Many politists of dystrocracy go about repeating the canards about all other poor peoples but their own, playing the divide and rule game of their masterminds. These people, too, wish to hold the powers that they have, and the rationalizations given them by foreigners are useful in controlling their own people. Many of them, too, exaggerate their own failures grotesquely, and equally they adore the image of the success of the dominating powers that they are brainwashed into envisioning. Finally, they outdo their masterminds in defining legalistically and trivially the external manifestations of government arriving at the same unimaginative and right conclusion that the wig is justice, the voting machine the vote, their own selection systems (if they have them) are not democratic, their methods of achieving consensus are not consensus, and so forth.
We have stated before that the psychology of dystrocracies is not conducive to Kalotic organization. Here it may be plainly seen what directions the Tutors must take in dystrocracies. They have to reevaluate themselves and their cultures, and draw out from them a new history and new trend lines into the future, which will merge at the earliest possible time with the trend lines of kalotic cosmarchy.
Again we stress what was mentioned some time ago, that there is beyond everything else the grave problem presented by a kind of adolescent schizophrenia in the newer dystrocracies. Subjected to plutocratic or other imperial power domination for long periods, their indigenous culture caricatured, brainwashed, taught irrelevant curricula in their schools, and culturally shocked by occidental technology, the fight for autonomy of the intelligentsia who have led the dystrocracies has been hindered by the psychological trap in which they have fallen.
They all too often misperceive the world; they have a low and lofty image of themselves in quick, kaleidoscopic successions; they are easily fatigued as they exhaust themselves in the spirit of rebellion against their own feelings of dependency and inferiority; they exaggerate their possibilities, suffer frequent failures as they soar towards the sun and scorch their wings, and fall back blaming the greater world for not supporting them. It is fatiguing, we repeat-this mood of failure and excess.
It handicaps the dystrocratic intelligentsia as they seek to become the Tutors. They from three fourths of the politists in most dystrocracies; there is no turning away from their leadership; there exists no other class in society that can match their true and potential powers.
Kalocracy is without bias of color and culture. It provides representative structures for the expression of racial and cultural differences. But it rejects and fights racial hostilities as staunchly as it does international hostility. Moreover, every citizen in himself is a citizen of the world. Any culture in which a man may not live because of intolerance of his behaviour is responsible for his safe-conduct to a culture friendly to him.
We agree with Professor William Buchanan and Hadley Cantril that to make each individual citizen of any country a citizen of the world, capable of acting for the best interests of all citizens of the world, we must enlarge his own perceived world and bring it into perspective (which is the kalotic outlook). His facilities for communication and perception must be improved. He must have a chance to act, especially a chance to act in concert with others.19 Let him join in the Kalotic Revolution, a Revolution without prejudice for existing and historical regimes. Only in a new political environment and within a new political community can he be himself and realize his potential
In conclusion, Kalos asserts the end of stratification as a necessary basis for the functioning of society. This crutch of social organization of bygone days can be cast off. It can be replaced by a rational and self-actualizing pneumos through out life.
|1.||"Man in his fullness is bisexual." (Karl Stern, Flight from Woman [New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 1965], p.38.) "In the psychic budget of the individual the two components, male and female, must be linked in harmony". (Helen Deutsch in Stern, ibid., p.30.) Cf. Margaret Mead, Male and Female (New York: Mentor, 1955).|
|2.||General background for the composing of Kalotic policy regarding many aspects of pneumos is available in Gerhard E. Lenski, Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratification (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1966).|
|3.||See below, pages 000-00.|
|4.||Paul Goodman, Utopian Essays and Practical Proposals (New York: Vintage Books, 1964), pp. 116-17.|
|5.||R.D. Laing, The Politics of Experience (New York: Ballantine, 1967).|
|6.||Long after the indiscretion that cost him his Supreme Court seat is forgotten, Justice Abe Fortas' opinion in the case of In re Gault on the legal rights of juveniles will carry him in the history books of kalocracy.|
|7.||One of the disgusting features of some "revolutionaries" is their denial to others of what they claim for themselves. Thus, some male black militants in America (cf. Village Voice, New York City, May 12, 1969) in order to put themselves forward are ready to subject black women to the bondage of a "father-dominate family," etc.Braver and righter are the Puerto Rican "Young Lords" groups of New York City whose program asserts: "WE WANT EQUALITY FOR WOMEN. MACHISMO MUST BE REVOLUTIONARY.....NOT OPPRESSIVE. Under capitalism, our women have been oppressed by both the society and our own men. The doctrine of machismo has been used by our own men to take out their frustrations against wives, sisters, mothers, children. Our men must support our women in their fight for economic and social equality, and must recognize our women as equals in every way within the revolutionary ranks. FORWARD, SISTERS, IN THE STRUGGLE." (New York: Hunter college newspaper, Vol. 1,2, January, 1970) A revolution is full of crippled revolutionaries before the battles begin: a large part of the Tutorial job is to reform those who believe, because they accept the Kalotic Revolution as a whole, that they need no self-awareness and indoctrination on details.|
|8.||New York Times, October 30, 1966, p. 52.|
|9.||"The Changing Family," XXIII Publications of the American Sociological Society (1929), pp. 124-133.|
|10.||William J. Lederer and Don D. Jackson, The Mirages of marriage (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1968).|
|11.||George P. Murdock ("Family Stablity in Non-European Cultures," op. cit., pp. 313-314) found, in 40 cultures, divorce to be relatively easy, and almost as easy for women as for men; he concluded (1950) that American laws were among the most stringent of any cultures.|
|12.||In the U.S.S.R. one third of all divorces occur within 5 to 9 years of marriage; 29% arise out of marriages that last from 10 to 19 years. Professor N.G. Yurkevich reports that thoughtless attitudes towards marriage, adultery, and alcoholism accounted for half the cases. These factors can be given many names. What is important is that the attitude to marriage in the Soviet Union is not much different than the attitude generally held in the United States; the compatibility and personal meaning of marriage are now regarded as most important features. Tougher divorce laws are regarded as worsening the situation in both countries by social scientists. In both, a Decennial Option plan, with the initial Five Year Option, would shape modern marriage into a kalotic form. (cf. New York Post, December 16, 1968, p. 34).|
|13.||Cf. Sebastian e Grazia, Time, Work, and Leisure (1965, New York: Doubleday, 1967).|
|14.||Arthur Kornhauser, on p. 54, in F. Riessman, et al., op. cit.|
|15.||Robert Blauner, Alienation and Freedom (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964). Appendices B and A, using largely Roper-Fortune 1958-61 survey data.|
|16.||In 1960, 60% of the youth reporting for military service examinations were rejected on physical or mental grounds. There are between six and nine million alcoholics in the U.S.A.|
|17.||George Fischer et al., Science and Ideology in Soviet Society (New York: Atherton Press, 1967), pp. 19-23.|
|18.||Beacon Books of Boston publishes reprints of four excellent works on this section: The Approach to Self-Government by W. Ivor Jennings; The Colonizer and the colonized by Albert Memmi; From Empire to Nation by Rupert Emersonl Race and Culture Contacts in the Modern World by E. Franklin Frazier.|
|19.||How Nations See Each Other (Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois 1953), pp. 97-100.|