Harvard University - Red Book Yearbook (Cambridge, MA)

Page 21 text:

CHARLES HOWARD MCILWAIN DONALD COPE-MCKAY l'llllUll Prof. ol Clmw-1'll1xx4-III, l'Inn-rilus l'rnf1-ssor of lllSl.Hl'y ROGER BIGELOW MERRIMAN SAMUEL ELIOT MORISON Q l'lUl'llH'I' Gurney Prof. of llistory ,lmmilmn 'l'1-umlmll l'l'ofr-ssor :tml l'oliticu.l Sl'lt'lll'l' of lxllll3ll1'llll lllstory li: Cljiutl Svptit-lube-r 7, 19455 -i Charles Cherington-is the Government Department's'youngest Associate Professor, is a popular lecturer. and understanding of public policy questions which is quite atypical of Harvard social scientists as a whole. There are, of course, many of our social scientists who are filled with rio ii ' s of Y ' ' I 1 eral matters, Tactical DAVID EDWARD OWEN TALCOTT PARSONS pe t c sen es urgency about ep 16 n 4 . 4 1 l'l'of1-ssor of llistory l'rol't-Hsor of Sociology Russian-born Michael Karpovich is a keen critic Psychologist Gordon Allport has written books on per- Frederick Merk gives one of the Col- Of Communism, a specialist in modern European sonality, propaganda, and Orson Welles' Invasion of lege's most popular courses, the history history. Mars. of the American Wfestward Movement. . A -1 -, ggpfiagty' ' :L ,V . -u' EL. Vk,'wTWI- -i:- I ll'- l

Page 20 text:

torical research can prove stultifying to creative work and de- generate into something comparable in sterility to japanese court etiquette, so economic theory factually of course there are a number of them and doctrinal differences frequently break the academic quietj can in its turn sink to the level of a new scholasticism. Political Science QGovernment is the local word for itj is in a somewhat different situation. Political scientists are not limited by a common discipline or a frame of theoretical concepts. Individual political scientists may have such sustenance because they have been converted to their task after training in history or law. As a group, how- ever, political scientists are amazingly diverse in their origins and notably confused as to their mission. The proof of this lies in watching them at work. Variety is the keynote of their course offerings and variety has an appeal in a confused time. Undergraduate enrollment in Government has been very large, second only to Economics in the College as a whole. The Government Department purports to deal with the problems of power--and it takes little argument to convince young men that there are important problems. The Department is also blessed with a number of attractive platform performers, men of some learning, considerable oratorical ability and fin at least a few instancesj a kind of pedogical magnetism which, although rare, can be exceptionally effective. So the Govern- ment Department packs them in, purporting to treat important issues, always in an attractive way. But when we come to examine genuine intellectual contributions to the University and to society, the record is with a few exceptions sadly de- ficient. Whether this should be balanced against the very important practical contributions made by Elliott, Friedrich, Holcombe, and Fainsod and Emerson in the public service, or by Wild, Wright, and Hanford in the administration of the University is an interesting and open question. A More Sweeping Sense of Mission g The one deficiency which characterizes the social scien- tists as a group is the lack ofa sense of mission. It is not so much a lack of a sense of urgency about the fate of man as an absence of urgency about anything in the intellectual sphere. Here the historians are least vulnerable because they can rely on the discovery of the past almosr as an end in itself. The political scientists are the worst for they undertake to cover the most ground with the least preparation and the sketchiest technical equipment. The economists occupy a peculiar middle position, with some of them showing an interest in Seymour Harris from gives the General Education course in economics, is the Faculty's most prolific author. Among his latest books are How Shall We Pay for Eclucation and The European Recovery Program. Alvin Hansen Qcenlerj is one of world's leading economists. He was one of the architects of New Deal fiscal policies. Visiting Professor Herman Finer fbottomj taught British govern- ment and international relations at Harvard during the war. He is now at the University of Chicago. i20l

Page 22 text:

Z,qyZ.iw4' ,.,...vUU,,..' f 'fsfga 'wa ,yvQ,,, , ,, paw iQ1?72wi'Wii'j zqiii .1 QMS, m,4,,,, ,ww Qgaa ea. Fils et pere: Arthur Schlesinger, jr., Pulitzer prize-winning author of The Age ofjfzrkron, and his father are both eminent Amer- ican historians. jerry Bruner is the poll expert of the newly formed Social Relations Department. Schlesinger Senior is trying to get American history courses started in European universities, is teaching one himself this year at the University of Leyden. questions: Shall we stockpile non-ferrous metals? Shall we evacuate Berlin? Shall we give federal aid to education? What is lacking is a wider concern, a more sweeping sense of mis- sion in connection with the whole destiny of society. We have many members of this academic community who must be rated respectable plus in terms of competence in their narrow specialities. But we have yet to produce a john Stuart Mill, a Thomas Hobbes, not even ajohn Locke. Wiping Out Departmental Lines In part this lack of a sense of mission can be traced to lack of direction from the President and Provost of the Uni- versity. So far as can be seen to the naked eye, these gentle- men have done little to reorient and develop the social sciences to a new position of usefulness and creative ability. We have seen, it is true, the rise ofthe new Social Relations Department, constructed out of the old Department of Sociology and the fields of social anthropology and social psychology, thus creating, it is to be hoped, one strong department in place of three relatively weak ones. It should be noted, however, that this step merely was a piecemeal effort at what might have been done and what still may be suggested, namely, the wiping out of deparment lines and the combining of all of these so-called fields into one great department of social science. The role of a person in Mr. Conant's position is difficult to assess and it is perhaps unfair to criticize him for going so far and no farther, particularly during the academic confusion of recent l22l