Science in Christian Perspective

A SOCIAL SCIENTIST LOOKS 
At Communism
SAMUEL WHEY KAMM

From: JASA 16 (June 1964): 48-53.

The study of Communism has tended to emphasize the revolutionary aspects of terror and subversion with little attention to the importance of its Marxian ideology as a basis for cultural transformation. Since this is the current emphasis in Communist countries, it is important to understand the significance of this phase of the revolution as the groundwork for the emergence of Communism as a finished order of harmony and equality among men.

Marx and Engels endeavored to develop a social theory based upon the dynamic concepts of natural science as it was developing in the early nineteenth century. Their purpose was to create a new concept of natural law that would provide a scientific basis for social change. They chose to formulate this order of change after the pattern of the Hegelian dialectic rather than the Darwinian concept of struggle. Forgetting to leave their basic formulation open to changes in mathematics and physics, they passed on to their followers a social theory that was not subject to change. It became a dogma and remains such to the present time.

Communist leaders seized upon Marxian dialectical materialism as the basis for a complete revolution in Russia. They found in Marx an element of "messianism" or "apocalypticisin" which made a strong appeal to the messianic consciousness of Russian revolutionaries and formed the basis for a totalitarian reconstruction of Russian society by force. The patterns of revolutionary procedure developed in the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and following have become the basis of the Communist revolution in every country now under Communist control.

The Communist International of 1928 declared that atheistic scientific materialism was to be the basis of the new culture in Communist lands. The Soviets and the Chinese have applied this principle with vigor. Such attempts to create cultural uniformity have met with some resistance in both Russia and China. There are indications that the older techniques of repression and terror have failed and that more moderate techniques in the field of education and consumer benefits will be employed to induce the acceptance of cultural uniformity.

The study of Communism has for many years focused upon the announced statements of its propagandists to destroy capitalism. This approach tends to accentuate the revolutionary strategy and tactics of Communism as they relate to its governing ideology, Marxism. It tends to minimize, however, the ultimate objective of the Communist movement, namely, the crea

Revision of a paper presented in absentia at the 18th annual convention of the ASA held at Westmont College, Santa Barbara, Calif., Aug. 19-23, 1963.

Dr. Kamm Is Professor of History and Social Science, Chairman of the Division of Social Sciences, and Faculty Coordinator of the Alumni Research Program on "Christianity, the Free Society, and the Communist Challenge" at Wheaton College, Wheaton, nlinois. Much of the material in this paper was secured as part of the research under that program, which was initiated in 1961.

tion of a new world order based upon atheistic, scientific materialism.¹

Many Americans are unprepared to deal adequately with the phenomenon of Communism. The variety of its manifestations are sometimes baffling to the trained mind. For Communism is now a world-wide movement. It presents various stages of historical development and is united only in its professed adherence to a body of doctrine known as Marxism. Even the doctrine is found to have a variety of interpreters: Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Krushchev. Nationalistic variations also are in evidence. One has to realize that the Communism of Yugo-Slavia is different in application from that of Russia, China, or the satellite countries of Europe. Polycentralism is the new order of power concentration in the Communist world.² Were it not for these ideological deviations and nationalistic divisions in the power structure, Communism would today rule most of the world with an iron hand.

METHODOLOGY

The late C. Wright Mills criticized social scientists in general because of the limited view of history imposed upon them by their commitment to a methodology of study that is grounded in scientific positivism. He sought to show that the methodology of Marx was superior in any study of human phenomena because of the broad sweep of its historical perspective, because of its commitment to values that condemned rather than approved, and because of its sense of the apocalyptic.³ What Mills is suggesting is that the social scientist must be prepared to work within a broader framework of reference than that permitted by the usual scientific method. He must, like the physician, be prepared to go beyond case history diagnosis to the application of the art of medicine. Leo Strauss urges that social scientists adopt the perspective of the citizen, the practitioner of the Civic Art.⁴ Having done so, he will be able to employ both scientific findings and the normative values of the given community in his determination of public policy. Eric Voegelin urges an additional step, that social scientists seek for the "cosmion," the internal realm of meaning which has its outer manifestation in the institutional arrangement of a given society.⁵ Similarly, Kenneth Boulding asks that mechanical models be set aside in order that the psychological concept of the image may be employed in the study of human motivation as a basis for a science of human behavior.⁶ Each of these critics implies that the social scientist must be able to go beyond the behavioral emphasis into the realm of cultural studies, including religion.⁷ This is particularly true in the study of Communism which involves every aspect of the cultural heritage of the West.

The universal claim of every Communist theoretician that he is a follower of Marxism requires some consideration of the model which Marx created as the basis of his system. Marx lived in a day when the thought life of the Continent was dominated by the philosophic outlook of Kant and Hegel. These distinguished philosophers, seeking to contest the influence of British empiricism, strove to establish the principle that true Being or reality was thought and reason rather than sensory experience. Hegel, in particular, had rejected the revelational principles of Christianity as a means of social reform because the Gospel was directed "to the individual as an individual detached from his social and political nexus."⁸

This perspective both Marx and Engels adopted. But they chose to abandon Hegel's philosophical rationalism in search of a scientific system that would provide a complete break with any concept of an absolute, either religious or philosophic. Their object was to create a model that would liberate man from the old order of restraint unto a new order of scientific living. Thus released, men would be able to employ the forces of history to realize constructive change. Social change would be cataclysmic in nature, but it would make possible the creation of a new world in which man would realize himself as a man. Man's estrangement from reality, so clearly portrayed in the early economic and philosophic manuscripts of Marx, would finally be overcome.⁹

The Marxian model is a curious alchemy of ideas taken from nineteenth century mathematical physies,¹⁰ ancient philosophy, Hegelian metaphysics, social and economic thought, and the Bible. It consists primarily of three parts or phases. First, there is the basic theoretical formulation which is strikingly similar to the view of the universe then employed by mathematicians and physicists. The universe, assumed Marx, consisted primarily of matter in motion, and the order of that motion was one of contest leading to the creation of new manifestations of matter. The process was evolutionary, but evolutionary in the sense of the Hegelian dialectic rather than the Darwinian idea of the survival of the fittest. Such a theoretical formulation, couched in the mathematical thought forms of his age and inspired by the rationalist thinkers of France and Germany, provided him with a type of metaphysics that liberated him from the domination of eternal ideas, as in Hegel, or the concept of divine sovereignty, as in the Hebrew-Christian theology. It gave him a platform from which to launch an attack upon every form of social thought then existent, particularly the Socialist theories of the time, which was geared to some form of scientific thought based upon the Hegelian or Darwinian concept of change.

What Marx really attempted was the formulation of a new conception of natural law which would be in harmony with the theories then being advanced by Carnot and Clausius in the realm of physics.¹¹ Marx was so intrigued by the possibilities of his basic formulation that he, like the other rationalists before him, made of his system a deterministic one, forgetting, meanwhile, that it is of the very nature of science to undergo change. He left his followers, therefore, with a basic formulation which could not grow with the expanding theoretical conceptions of physics and the natural sciences.

These basic formulations enabled Marx to create a new social theory in which he used many of the ideas of contemporary social and economic theoreticians but cast them into a form of deterministic sociology. For Marx there was but one law of history, economic determinism; one key to the interpretation of history, the class struggle; one outcome for the course of history, the cataclysmic collapse of the capitalistic order; one means of preserving civilization in the period of forthcoming chaos, the dictatorship of the proletariat; one future for all mankind, the communist utopia when each man would produce according to his ability and each would consume according to his need. This social and historical phase of the model was assumed to be scientific in that it was based upon his materialistic metaphysics and rejected any philosophic (idealist) interpretation of history and gave no place for any kind of theologism.

The student who comes to Marx with a framework of thought which includes a knowledge of theology and philosophy as well as natural science finds it difficult to accept Marx's contention at face value. He discovers, first of all, that Marx's monistic emphasis upon economic factors in the life of man is subject to question. He f inds that a careful study of the idea of class is not always supported by historical evidence. He finds it difficult to accept without question the assumed scientific prediction of cataclysm announced in the Manifesto and laboriously argued in Das Kapital. And as he analyzes his own thought processes, he discovers that he is being asked to take an adventure in credence far beyond the scientific evidence submitted in the basic analysis in order to be able to accept the idea of the coming order of equality, harmony, and justice that is to prevail in the promised era of Communism. What he soon discovers is simply that he has been asked to accept as prediction what in fact is prophecy.¹²

This discovery leads to a clearer understanding of the Marxian system, namely, that the Marxian model is based not only on a form of thought in imitation of the scientific formulations of the nineteenth century, but upon a mystical order of thought which is reminiscent of the Christian conception of the ultimate cataclysmic destruction of the historical order, human and natural, and the ultimate erection of a new order of perfect justice in the life of man and perfect harmony in the order of nature. One student of Marx has pointed out that the entire prophetic pattern of Marxian thought is "a secularized version of the Book of Revelation."¹³

Recent scholars observe that this religious element in Marxian thought links him with the messianic elements of the Jacobins of the French Revolution, the advocates of democratic totalitarianism.¹⁴ It was this "messianic myth-creating religious side" of Marxian doctrine, rather than the "determinist, evolutionary scientific side" which gave the primary impetus to the revolutionary thrust of the Russian Bolshevik movement.¹⁵ For Lenin grasped the significance of the "messianic" implications of the Marxian doctrine of the dictatorship of the proletariat and read into it the Russian nihilistic doctrine of revolution.

It is this crypto-religious dogmatism of the Marxian model which gives rise to the totalitarian practices that shock persons living within the semi-religious and semisecular cultural systems of the West. Such a governing image has required the creation of a "closed society" whose life will reflect completely the model embraced. Rigid control of the life of the individual within this new society is justified as the means whereby the social model is enforced. And the techniques of enforcement are strikingly similar to those employed by the authoritarian medieval church, namely, deprivation of social or professional privilege, isolation, and even execution for deviation in thought. Purges of party leaders and intelligentsia as well as the murder of those who try to escape are all part of this attempt to enforce the "holy" model. What is more important still is its use as the basis of a complete cultural revolution.

The cultural revolution based on the Bolshevik interpretation of Marx is set forth in the Program of the Communist International adopted in 1928. The language of the document is quite instructive:

The ultimate aim of the Communist International Is to replace world capitalist economy by a world system of communism .... Culture will become the acquirement of all and the class ideologies of the past will give place to scientific materialist philosophy .... This new culture of a humanity that is united for the first time in history, and has abolished all State boundaries, will, unlik e capitalist culture, be based upon clear and transparent human relationships. Hence, it will bury forever all mysticism, religion, prejudice and superstition and will give a powerful impetus to the development of all-conquering scientific knowledge. (16)

The path to this cultural revolution is inseparably linked with a technique developed during the Russian Revolution of 1917. First must come the social revolution characterized by ruthless power. Seize the power of the state by force; eliminate the industrialists and the agriculturalists who are committed to a system of private entrepreneuralism; harass the leaders of religious institutions and forbid their instructional activities; develop a new political and military elite by selecting willing sycophants from the intelligensia, the lower middle class (where it exists), and the representatives of military, labor, and peasant groups for training in revolutionary techniques; introduce some form of "representative" governmental practices in which the power of decision lies in the hands of a small group or council (soviet); create a governing elite known as a party which will be indoctrinated in the Marxist ideology and trained to supervise all institutional life in the interests of the ruling clique; nationalize all industry and agriculture; and supervise all of the cultural life in such manner that its form and content will be in harmony with the basic spirit and principles of the prevailing ideology.

How do the Communists render the large masses of people within their jurisdiction subject to the radical changes which must be made in order to effect this social revolution? In every major Communist revolution in this century the leadership has had the support of a military force which is recruited initially to liberate the people from their oppressors. Once this is accomplished within the country, military rule is continued on the plea that enemies of the revolution are about to invade the country. Behind an incessant propaganda of hate and fear directed toward one or more countries outside the Communist orbit, the revolutionary leadership then inaugurates a complete social revolution.17

The social revolution is premised upon the necessity of developing a new cultural system. Fundamentally, the system is grounded in the dialectical materialism of Marx and Engels. Large elements of the population are trained in the principles of Darwinian evolutionism of the ninetenth century variety in an effort to break down what are identified as "outmoded" systems of thought, namely, religiously oriented explanations of the origin of life and man. Religious propaganda is forbidden in the churches, synagogues, and mosques, and church-sponsored schools are closed. The public educational program, which is designed to be universal for all youth, requires indoctrination in Marxism along with instruction in the usual subject matter areas. The whole object of the educational process is to bring into being a new type of man who will be responsive to scientific truth alone and will find in service to the new collective order the highest goals for living.¹⁸

The 1961 Draft Program of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union re-emphasizes this stress upon scientific education as basic to the cultural revolution and the ultimate realization of Communism. The section which outlines party responsibility for the future links the elimination of the survivals of capitalism in the minds and behavior of the people with the extension of training in the achievements of modern science. Modern science, the Program declares, "steadily solves the mysteries of the universe and extends man's power over nature, leaving no room for religious inventions about supernatural forces."¹⁹ This is to be accomplished without "insulting the sentiments of believers."²⁰

THE CULTURAL IMPACT UNDER COMMUNIST REGIMES

The impact of this forced revolution upon the cultural aspects of life in Communist countries has become an object of scientific inquiry in the last decade. The picture now emerging reveals a continuing conflict between Communist rulers and the leaders in science, social science, literature, the arts, and even religion for the right of self-expression. The scientists appear to have resisted this stress upon conformity to the Marxist ideology with the greatest degree of success.²¹ Literature and the arts have been able to maintain varying degrees of freedom. Institutional religion has largely succumbed to the political pressures exerted in the alternating periods of terror and tolerance. which have characterized governmental policy toward various religious systems. Social science appears to have surrendered most completely to the demands of Communist domination. This is probably due to the fact that the Communist ideology is quite dependent upon the social sciences for its justification. In his presentation of the Draft Program in October 1961, Khrushchev acknowledged the Soviet's dependence upon the social sciences as "the scientific basis for the guidance of the development of society."²²

This reliance upon the social sciences in the creation of the Soviet man has required their prostitution to the furtherance of the Marxian dialectical dogma. Political tampering with the writing of Russian History has long been recognized by American historians who follow the development of Russian historiography. Since 1929 all writers of Russian history are obliged to maintain the Marxist perspective.²³ Even the Khrushchev thaw has not brought complete liberty to the Russian historian. He must still be responsive to the will of the Communist Party in his interpretation of men and events. Fortunately, Russian policy now permits the circulation of some official histories in English translation thus permitting students of history in English-speaking countries critically to evaluate the present stage of historical writing in the oldest Communist regime.²⁴ M. W. Thompson's foreword to A. L. Mongait's Archeology in the U.S.S.R. acknowledges the same influence in archeological interpretation.²⁵

Recent translations of Russian textbooks in anthropology, state law, and international law reveal similar influences. It is to be noted, however, that Nestorkh's Origin of Man tends to follow the Darwinian evolutionary philosophy of the late nineteenth century pattern rather than pure Marxism. This is undoubtedly made necessary by the fact that Marx and Engels adopted the Darwinian evolutionary philosophy of the American ethnologist, Lewis H. Morgan, author of Ancient Society,²⁶ when dealing with the origin of human culture.²⁷

The sustained influence of the Marxist dogma upon social scientists in Russia was dramatically displayed at the Fifth World Congress of Sociology held in Washington, D.C., in September 1962. A debate between two Russian sociologists and a professor of sociology from the Sorbonne on the subject of Stalinism revealed that the Russian Marxists still felt bound by Marxist dogma in their interpretation of this sociological phenomenon, while the French scholar, described as a "western Marxist," declared, "It is impossible to treat a doctrine as perpetually historically true.1128 Similarly, Russian philosophers present at the International Philosophy Conference in Mexico City last September stoutly defended the Marxian dialectic as the only epistemological basis for thought.²⁹

The psychological impact of the "closed" system of training now employed in both Russia and China is a matter of increasing concern to psychologists, social scientists, and politicians. The very fact that men or women attempting to escape the territorial confines of a Communist dominated country are often shot in their tracks is substantial evidence of a mind set radically different from that which prevails in the West. Conversations with cultural exchange representatives from Communist countries often reveal a mental outlook on the part of the Communist representative which cannot interact fully with that of the Westerner.³⁰ This appears to be due to both the fact of government surveillance and the type of education given to such individuals, which renders them unable to discuss at any length issues which center around value systems other than those contained in the Marxist

There may be limits to the indoctrination program now employed in the attainment of the cultural revolution. Already there is evidence that the older generation of Russians is becoming disillusioned and cynical over the failure of Communist leaders to realize the propaganda-supported dreams of the first revolution. The result is a growing indifference to politics and a resignation to cynicism toward life.³¹ The reintroduction of Russian literary classics in the schools and the public distribution of some of the classics in the bookshops may suggest a need to buttress the sagging morale of the Russian people by permitting them to feed upon their national spiritual heritage.³² Red China is following a similar policy on the ground that the ancient Chinese philosophers set forth the basic principles of the ideology now maintained in the People's Republic.³³

Recent scientific studies of Communist control techniques in the satellite countries show that these regimes are now decreasing the use of terror and raising the standard of living.³⁴ A similar relaxation of tensions is now evident in Russia where greater liberty of self-expression is being permitted in literature and the arts.³⁵ This new tactic in population manipulation appears to be related to the effort of the Soviet to create a consumer's utopia through a decided increase in the production of consumable goods. Should these goals not be realized, it is difficult to predict the effect upon the Russian mind.³⁶ No one familiar with the Russian scene is prepared to forecast an armed uprising by the population in that country because of the long separation of the Russian masses from the Western concept of individual freedom.

The impact of the Communist revolution upon the cultural outlook of the United States is a topic which deserves more attention than the space provided here. American entrepreneurs have reacted violently to the pattern of centralized control of production by the state. American political leadership has decried the pattern of one-party control and totalitarian rule which is characteristic of the Communist revolution. An early interest in Soviet educational techniques has given way to aversion because of the subjection of education to political purposes. The suppression of institutional religion in all Communist countries has met with solid opposition primarily because of its effect upon freedom of thought. The attempt of Communist leadership to dominate science in the interests of Soviet political expansion has been greeted with a response of genuine alarm. Voices of criticism have hailed the attempt to make literature, philosophy, social science and the arts conform to the dialectical mold.

Psychologists and social scientists have often decried the crudeness of political manipulation apparent in establishing the Pavlovian school of thought as basic to the Soviet understanding of the mind. But psychologists have secretly been intrigued by the effectiveness of mass control techniques worked out by Communist psychologists. This was particularly manifest when American soldiers were subjected to some of the Communist mass control techniques during the Korean War.³⁷ Social psychologists have been studying these techniques as well as dietary regulation in an effort to discover how effective controls may be established over large populations. More recently the science of Cybernetics has received attention as a technique for improving the communication capacity of human beings.³⁸ And now, the identification of the DNA factor in human heredity opens the door to the controlled development of superior human physical characteristics.³⁹

Social scientists, philosophers, and theologians are concerned over these tendencies in American life. Social scientists, in particular, have expressed their concern already over the government subsidy of science in the schools to the exclusion of social science. This practice, they aver, opens the possibility of developing a new generation of Americans who understand natural science but have little familiarity with the governing values in American culture. The popular demand, heard in some quarters, that scientists should rule raises a serious question of public policy when it is realized that scientists have often declared that they sense no social responsibility for their scientific findings.

Above and beyond all of this is the basic question, Which values shall govern in American society? American values have been derived largely from the Western tradition which is rooted in the revelational literature of the Hebrews and the Christians, modified in thought and expression by the philosophers of the classical world, and adapted to life through reason and the discoveries of experimental science. Shall Americans abandon this basis for its value system? Most Americans would probably answer, No! But who can foretell the effect of a generation of educational effort which stresses the scientific understandings of life and the universe at the expense of the revelational and the philosophic? Is it not possible that, as Toynbee suggests, America is moving in the direction of a secularized society which in its outlook and practices would be little different from the modified Communist system now developing in those countries facing the sixth decade of their totalitarian revolution?⁴⁰

1. The Commission on Social Action, National Association of Evangelicals, "Soviet Propaganda and the Vulnerability of the West," Soviet Total War, Washington, D.C.: U.S. House of Reppresentatives, Committee on Un-American Activities, 1956, H, p. 468.

2. Lacquer, Walter, and Leopold Labedz, eds. Polycentrism: The New Factor in International Communism, N.Y.: Frederick A. Praeger, 1962, pp. 1-8.

3. Mills, C. Wright, The Marxists, N.Y.: Depp Publishing Company, Inc., 1962, pp. 10-11.

4. White, Leonard D., ed., The State of the Social Sciences, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956, pp. 417-417.

5. Voegelin, Eric, The New Science of Politics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952, p. 31.

6. Boulding, Kenneth E., The Image, Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press, 1956, paperback edition, 1961, pp. 146-163; Albert Salomon, "Prophets, Priests and Social Scientists," Commentary 7:600, June 1949.

7. Heimann, Eduard, Reason and Faith in Modern Society, Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press, 1961, p. vill.

8. Marcuse, Herbert, Reason and Revolution: Hegel and the Rise of Social Theory, N .Y.: Oxford University Press, 1941, p.35.

9. Tucker, Herbert C., Philosophy and Myth in Karl Marx, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1961, pp. 151-161; Erich Fromm, Marx's Concept of Man, N.Y.: Frederick Ungar Publishing Company, 1961, pp. 58-63. This volume contains a translation of the early economic and philosophical manuscripts.

10. Marx's reliance on mathematical physics is revealed in a diagram entitled "Process of Reproduction in Capital," published in Joel Carmichael, An Illustrated History of Russia, N.Y.: Reynal and Company, 1960, p. 127.

11. Kamm, Samuel Richey, "Social Science Seeks Enlightenment," The Asbury Seminarian, 4 :88, Fall 1949.

12. Borkenau, Franz, "Marx's Prophecy In the Light of History," Commentary 7:430-435, May 1949.

13. Heimann, Eduard, Reason and Faith in Modern Society, Middletown, Conn. Wesleyan University Press, 1961, p. 157. *

14. Talmon, Jacob L., The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy, London, England: Secker and Warbur, 1955, pp. 249-255; Alfred G. Meyer, Marxism: The Unity of Theory and Practice, Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press, 1963, paperback edition, p. 105.

15. Berdyaev, Nicolas, The Origins of Russian Communism, Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press, 1960, p. 106.

16. U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Un-American Activities, "The Communist Conspiracy," House Report No. 2242, 84th Congress, 2nd Session, Part 1, Sec. C, pp. 194-195.

17. Bochenski, Joseph, and Gerhart Niemeyer, Handbook on Communism, N.Y.: Frederick A. Praeger, 1962, Chapter V, "The Methodology of Conquest."

18. Renfield, Richard L., "Soviet Education and the New Soviet Man," mimeographed manuscript issued by Committee on International Relations, National Education Association, 1962.

19. Whitney, Thomas J., ed., The Communist Blueprint for the Future, N.Y.: E. P. Dutton and Company, 1962, p. 211.

20. Ibid. The techniques to be employed In such education were previously outlined in an article by E. I. Petrovsky, "Atheistic Education in the School," Sovietakaya Pedagogika, 1955, No. 5, pp. 3-19, now available In Statement of Principles and Policy in Atheistic Education in Soviet Russia, West Baden Springs, Ind.: a privately printed article by the transcriber, John A. Harden, S.J., 1959.

21. Joravsky, David, Soviet Marxism and Natural Science, 19171932, N.Y.: Columbia University Press, 1961, passim.

22. Whitney, Thomas J., op. cit., p. 216. Information on cultural change in Russia and the satellite countries is now available In scientific journals, publications of learned societies, Problems of Communism, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Information Agency, 1951), and a number of special studies that have appeared recently.

23. Black, Cyril E., ed., Rewriting Russian History, N.~.: Random House Vintage Book, second edition revised, 1962, p. 8.

24. Outline History of the U.S.S.R., Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1960.

27. Engels, Friedrich, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, n.d., originally published in 1884.

30. Bronfenbrenner, Urle, "A Psychologist Looks at SovietAmerican Relations," paper presented at the American Political Science Association meeting, New York, September 5, 1963.

31. Mehnert, Klaus, Soviet Man and His World, N.Y.: Frederick A. Praeger, Inc., 1962, pp. 221-222.

34. Kosa, John, Two Generations of Soviet Man: A Study in the Psychology of Communism, Chapel HUI, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1962, pp. 193-195.

35. Brown, Edward J., Russian Literature Since the Revolution, N.Y.: The Crowell-Collier Publishing Company, 1963, p. 294.

38. Wiener, Norbert, Cybernetics, N.Y.* John Wiley and Sons, second edition, 1961.

39. Hills, Alicia, and Albert Rosenfeld, "DNA's Code: Key to Ali Life," Life, vol. 55, no. 14, Oct. 4, 1963, pp. 70-81, 87, 90.

40. Toynbee, Arnold J., "The West, Western Christianity, and the World," unpublished lecture given at Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois, May 1, 1963.