Adams House Journal of the Social Sciences

A student periodical which does not deal with either crises of identity or last summer's libidinal souvenirs is a refreshing innovation. Good kiss-and-tell novels are always welcome, but it is fine to see that one of the Houses has found a way to publish deserving student academic writing. The Adams House Journal of the Social Sciences includes four essays by Adams House contributors, which purport to "represent outstanding work of fledgling scholars."

The Journal (optimistically numbered "Vol. I, No. I) is mimeographed with a printed green cover, and its contributions--edited by Dan Frost '60--range over discussions in sociology, history, and economics. Ford Grant funds provided the wherewithall for production, an allotment which might curtail the flow of Beaujolais, but seems eminently worthwhile.

Thomas Fisher's "Cross-Cultural Study of Psychotherapy" is an attempt to determine whether certain elements of mental therapy exist universally in sample cultures. Fisher finds that such therapy, as a means of dealing with undesirable deviants from a culture's norms, does involve common elements in the deviant-therapist relationship. Western psychoanalysis, the Navaho "Singer" treatment and related ritualistic healings in the cultures of the Saulteaux, Yurok, and Guatemalan Indians have certain points in common. Especially significant are the common traits of curing through an emotional experience, with the assumption that the cause of the disturbance lies beyond the patient's conscious self, whether in repressed libido or evil spirits.

Fisher's article, which is part of a longer opus on the same subject, opens some interesting questions about universal human traits other than those mentioned in this particular paper. Choosing hypotheses from the example provided by the highly developed Western method of psychotherapy may distort the investigation from the outset. Fisher recognizes this danger, yet such working hypotheses do offer the advantage of exploiting thoroughly studied Western psychoanalysis as a model for comparison.

Henry Bourne, a junior who came here with Advanced Standing, mulls over the problems of the Zeitgeist postulate in historical writing. Examining Henry Adams' Mont-Saint-Michel and Chartres, Huizinga's Waning of the Middle Ages, Panofsky's Gothic Architecture and Scholasticism, and Southern's Making of the Middle Ages, Bourne finds that the first two historians tend to invoke a time-spirit to explain the relations between different aspects of medieval culture. The positing of a time-spirit raises questions akin to those of the nominalist-realist controversy which occupied the minds of the medieval man that these historians write about: does the Zeitgeist have any universal validity or is it merely a magic name for uniting different manifestations of a culture? Bourne does an astute job of showing how the historians arrive at a causal Zeitgeist indirectly and sometimes counter to their own intentions. But besides a hint that invoking a time-spirit becomes almost a necessity for the cultural historian, Bourne neglects a chance to discuss more thoroughly the validity of the Zeitgeist as a unifying historical construct.

The third chunk of Adams House scholarship is a very readable consideration of factors in the success of Mormonism. Bryce Nelson concludes that Mormon unity, not merely as a sect, but as a people, led to their efflorescence in Utah's Zion and throughout the United States. The analogy with the Jewish people is drawn several times and points of comparison are emphasized. Nelson demonstrates that the Mormons have successfully preserved two identities--the ethnic-religious one of the Latter-day Saints, and the wider one of participation in American culture.

John Martin's discussion of "Management Control in Soviet Industry" summarizes the managerial features of Soviet industrial production in a systematic manner. Martin shows how a checks and balance system works in management and points out that circumventing the rules from on high is the key to success for the individual plant manager. Martin's essay is valuable condensation, but its strength lies in organized presentation not analytic astuteness.

Hopefully the Journal will continue on to further issues; and it would be worthy emulation if other Houses initiated similar projects. Giving recognition to good student papers is as productive an outlay of Ford money as are port and sherry at tutorial dinners. Recognition of solid "fledgling scholarship" has benefits for both contributors and readers. The experiment should be repeated both by Adams and other Houses.