We are living in an new age. It is a time of radical and comprehensive revolution. In a manner of speaking. Western Civilization has reached an end. Our total world view is undergoing transmutation affecting every part, as well as the whole, of the human enterprise of civilization. Not only has Ptolemaic cosmology of the Middle Ages vanished, but Nations once modern model of the world as a great machine has dramatically collapsed. The expanding universe of Dr. Einstein is now penetrating every concept of life and image of history. Man is launching forth on a brand new venture.

This historical crisis is not basically theoretical or abstract. On the contrary, what is happening to us is very practical, very concrete. It is at once thoroughly personal and utterly social. Furthermore, the center of the revolution is located not in the political or economic facets of the civilizing adventure, but in the cultural dimension. "Culture" here means the common sense, the common symbols. and the common life-style of a people. Precisely because it is in these areas of our life where the present upheaval becomes manifest, the center of gravity of the whole social body has been shaken. And therefore, every sensitive and reflective individual on the street is deep]y involved. Of this he is aware, however uneven]y this awareness may be distributed among men.

Our common man is certainly frightened by the new world about him, but cynics to the contrary, he is also excited. He is acutely experiencing his universe as complex, impersonal, mysterious, routine, paradoxical, tragic, capricious and so on. This is frightening indeed. Yet the same individual is raising anew and in depth the question of what it means to be a real human being in the midst of this. Underneath the superficial readings, the reflective every day person is not really trying to ignore, dismiss and escape the new world and its demands. Rather, he is asking for practical images, symbols and more patterns which will illuminate this new age and enable him to participate creatively and as a genuine person, in the forging of the new responses, personal and social, that the age requires. This need of the "average" man brings us to the artist and his work.

Art is human. It is necessarily a part of human life in both its individualization and socialization. It is not limited to special groups such as the leisure class or the intellectual strata. It is an essential part of life for all men. However unequal the exposure of men may be to significant art or the capacity of men to be significantly present to art, no one can or does live without it. Here are unveiled the very basic questions: Is the art we live before significant? And how does one live significantly before art.

Let us turn first to the question of whether the art to which one is exposed is good or bad, true or false, adequate or inadequate. For our present purposes, three issues are raised: Integrity, relevance and utility. Does the artist speak

Mathews narrating over scenes from the film which are actual photographs of the unbelievable atrocities committed in the German concentration camps by the Nazis during World War 11.

MATHEWS: Ladies and gentlemen, you are viewing some scenes from the Stanley Kramer film play, "Judgment at Nuremberg," written by Abbe Mann. We are all most uncomfortably aware of what these views depict. But we must not close our eyes to what we see here. These are the actual photographs of what occurred. We are the times in which they happened. However painful, however revolting, however unbelievable. we must not turn away. Never!

You see now some of the players in the motion picture. They are the principals in one of the Nuremberg war-guilt trials. Spencer Tracy is the Chief Justice from Maine. The American colonel, played by Richard Widmark, is the senior prosecuting attorney. Maximillian Schell, Herr Rolfe, is the German defense lawyer. Perhaps this particular trial is the most sobering of them all. For the defendants in the dock are none other than the German Minister of Justice during the war, along with three of his high court judges. In these hands rested the matters of national law and justice during the tragic years.

Those who execute this case are charged, on behalf of all of civilization, with the somber task of sorting out moral standards adequate to the German crimes; the responsibility of ascertaining from the complex evidence the real focus of guilt; and the weighty burden of measuring the kind and scope of judgment. Indeed, one might say that upon these rest the heavy assignment of reformulating for our time the basic issues relative to moral conduct in general.

There is a growing urgency in our time, among people of all stations and walks of life, concerning the lost art of serious conversation. It seems to me that our individual and collective destinies are somehow tied up with the recovery of this art. When one thinks of the dire need of our time for new social patterns in and through which we can understand and deal with our common problems and the broad issues of history afresh; when one thinks of the deeply felt need for new styles of individual life through which we can forge in a fresh and vital fashion our responses to what happens in our everyday given existence, it seems imperative that individuals seek out other individuals who together take, or rather make, the time and the effort necessary to talk seriously about our times and living in it.

Those of us gathered here are concerned with such serious conversation. We have all seen the film play, "Judgment at Nuremberg." We intend now to talk about it, to soberly and seriously share with one another the way that it spoke to us. It is also our single concern that those of you who are listening may, in one way or another, participate in our dialogue and, indeed, carry it on with your friends and neighbors in the days to come.

Mathews: Now, gentlemen, as we move to think about this movie, "Judgment at Nuremberg," I would like to insist that we do not try to say in some direct or objective fashion what this play is about, but that we rather direct our attention to the way in which the movie spoke to us, addressed our everyday situation, touched our own historical circumstances. I want to begin by calling upon us to think on these atrocity scenes that were just presented. My first question to you is simply: What did they say to you?

Pierce: Well, Joe, I don't see how anybody can look at this kind of film and not be sickened, not be nauseated.

Bryant: I too felt nauseated when I looked at the scenes. But something else came over me. It was a sense of dread, the sense of fear when we saw the court scene that followed. This made it frighteningly clear that someone has to step up before the great judgment of civilization itself and take responsibility for what was going on here.

Lewis: The question that hit me hard was: How could it happen? Who's responsible?

Cozart: Yes, especially when you think that the German people uho allowed it to happen were average people, just like us. The little people of the world who love their wives and children, who go about trying to operate on the sympathy for the world. The good people of the world.

Pierce: I would certainly hate to be in the judge's shoes in this...

Cozart:: But that's just the point! We are in the judge's shoes, just by the fact that we are alive. We have to make, at every moment of life, human judgments without three good reasons up our sleeve to prove that what we decide is right.

Mathews: I'd like to underline that. As I looked at the film, I could not get away from the fact that, whether I liked it or not, I was that judge. That actually I, personally, had to take a moral attitude toward what happened there and arrive at some kind of moral decision.

Bryant:: But isn't it still true that the average-to use Bill's term- just the normal person going about his everyday life,-who has his own little world, his family, his business, his neighborhood-sees this as about all the responsibility he can handle. If he can just be a good, law-abiding citizen, then he doesn't see any necessity to interfere, to look at what is going on outside of this little world of his. He knows that there's a government. That there are laws and that somebody is supposed to enforce these. He's got enough to worry about, however. And he doesn't turn his attention toward being responsible for this. It's almost that he escapes and hides by just looking at his own little world, not thinking about anything beyond this.

Mathews: In the light of the impressions that you've shared thus far, I am taken by the fact that you are not only emotionally repulsed but you have immediately raised the moral issues of our time. Another interesting point is that you've already taken a stance of some sort. If I heard you correctly, you suggested that just everyday human sympathy, or humanity, or love with the face-to-face neighbor, is not enough in dealing with these complex historical problems. Nor is the idea of what one might refer to as "general good will." This forces us, then, to approach these issues in a different kind of context that involves the social structures themselves. Now I have another clip of film that I would like to have you see. We will continue our conversation from there.

The film clip focuses on Herr Rolfe, the German lawyer for the defense portrayed by Maximillian Schell. In the crowded courtroom, presided over by Judge Haywood, he is making an initial statement outlining the web of his argument. The German judges on trial are seen in the background. The camera finally rests on Ernst Janning, chief justice during the Nazi rule, played by Burt Lancaster.

Rolfe: The avowed purpose of this tribunal is broader than the visiting of retribution on a few men. It is dedicated to the reconstruction of the Temple of Justice. .. It is dedicated to finding a code of justice the whole world will be responsible to. . . How will this code be established? It will be established in a clear honest evaluation of the responsibilities for the crimes in the indictment stated by the prosecution. In the words of the great American jurist, Oliver Wendall Holmes, "This responsibility will not be found only in documents that no one contests or denies... It will be found in considerations of a political or social nature. It will be found, most of all, in the character of men." What is the character of Ernst Janning? . . . If Ernst Janning is to be found guilty, certain implications must arise. A judge does not make the laws; he carries out the laws of his country. The statement, "My country, right or wrong," was expressed by a great American patriot. It is no less true for a German patriot. Should Ernst Janning have carried out the laws of his country? Or should he have refused to carry them out and become a traitor? This is the crux of the issue at the bottom of this trial. The defense is as dedicated to finding responsibility as is the prosecution. For it is not only Ernst Janning who is on trial here . . . It is the German people.

Haywood: The tribunal will recess until further notification.

Mathews: You have seen here Herr Rolfe, the defense attorney for the Germans. You have also seen at least one of the four judges who are now defending their actions during the war. It is very interesting that the defense of these men is based upon the principle of obedience to the state.

Cozart: No! I don't think it is. I think it's based on something more than just obedience to the state or to the law of the land. I think he's doing something other in that courtroom than just upholding this. He's trying to leave something for the German people-a shred of dignity, perhaps, with which they can face the future. Because if the German people are discredited in this courtroom, then they lose the right forever to rule themselves.

Mathews: You're hinting that there's some hidden principle here- other than simple obedience to the state.

Bryant: Yes, Bill, I too think that he is doing the very job that you say that he's doing-trying to uphold the dignity of the German people. But he understands that to uphold the dignity of these people, is to show that they knew, and stil1 know, that to have a society means that you have laws of society. And if you have laws in a society to take care of all the people, then al1 of the people have to be obedient to these laws. Without this, you don't have anything at all. It seems to me that this is why the appeal of this defense attorney is so crucial in the case. It is why, in one sense, that it threatens al1 of us. Because he's utterly clear that you do not have any kind of a social order except you have laws; and you have to demand obedience to those laws, particularly of government officials. This you just can't get away from.

Mathews: So then, you say duty to nation is the basic operating principle in morality.

Lewis: No, you cannot escape the fact that six million Jews were exterminated in this situation.

Pierce: I want to underscore this. As a matter of fact, you rememher one of the German judges who was on trial was described in the motion picture as a German who just did what he was told. He obeyed the laws of the land. He went about just doing what a "good" German does and he was being tried.

Cozart: Yes! there was another judge in the courtroom who wasn't even described as a good German. He was called a fanatic, a bigot! A man so consumed with the sickness of his own inner poison that he was almost psychotic. Yet he obeyed the law.

Bryant: You can cal1 him a fanatic, but you have to see that the fanaticism was directed towards being a good, loyal citizen. Sometimes we cal1 men wbo have this kind of zeal "patriots." I insist you have to see that obedience to the 1aws of your state as a government official is necessary.

Lewis: Bob, you have to face a fact-a historical, documented, unalterable fact-that six million human beings were destroyed because men were obeying the laws of their state. Now there's something here that's rotten. It's intolerable!

Bryant: But I think we have a tendency to sort of make this look like some kind of perversion in the German character that they just go around blindly obeying laws. If you look to the fi1m, you know that, in the midst of this tria1, one of the American judges made this the whole crux of his understanding of the case. You do have to hold officials responsible for being obedient to their government.

Mathews: If you don't mind, this is a good place to show the next clip which dramatizes this discussion of the issue.

The scene is in the office of General Merrin charged with responsibilities relative to the defense of Europe. The general is in conversation uith Colonel Lawson, the American prosecuting attorney, about the trial in the light of the urgency of the first Berlin crisis.

Lawson: You know damn well what I'm going to do.

Merin: I know what you want to do. You'd like to recommend they put them behind bars and throw away the key. You know what's going on here now!

Lawson: Yeah. I know what's going on.

Merrin: Tad, you're an Army man. You know what we're up against. The others may not; but you do. I'll tell you the truth. I don't know what's going to happen if they fire on one of those planes ... I don't know what's going to happen. But I do know this! If Berlin goes, Germany goes; if Germany goes, Europe goes. That's the way things stand.. . that's the way they stand.

Lawson: Look, Matt, I'm going to go the limit! And not you, not the Pentagon, not God on his throne is going to make me . . .

Merrin: Who do you think you're talking to? Who the hell do you think you're talking to? When you were marching into Dachau with those troops, I was there too! You think I'll ever forget it? Now look, I'm not your commanding officer. I can't influence your decision. I don't want to. But I want to give this to you and I want to give it to you straight. We need the help of the German people and you don't get the help of the German people by sentencing their leaders to stiff prison sentences. Tad, the thing to do is survive, isn't it? Survive as best we can, but

survive.

Lawson: Just for laughs, Matt. What was the war all about? What was it about?

Mathews: Here you have one of the intentional or fateful ironies of history. Precisely at the time this trial was going on, the first Berlin crisis and the airlift occurred. The man who left the room, in the film clip, was Colonel Lawson, the American prosecutor. Wait just a minute, Mr. Pierce. I want to restate what I have heard up to now. We seem to feel that there is validity in the whole principle of obedience to the state. Yet we find ourselves uncomfortable with this. Now, !\Ir. Pierce.

Pierce: Well, I was just going to say, here is the one that I very much identify with, the prosecuting attorney. I suppose it's because he zeroes in on what, for me, is the prime question. As he goes out that door, in his response to the general, he's saying in effect that when such atrocities happen, when basic humanity has been isolated, something has got to be done. Not just some general idea of obedience or highminded principle of justice is to be formulated. When these things become your first consideration, you're missing the basic point. The prosecutor is saying like this: You've got to get down to the who, what, when, where and how-find the persons who were directly involved in this sort of violation of life.

Mathews: But are you not really insisting, along with Bill, that there is another dimension of morality, another quality or principle, involved here?

Lewis: Yes, I think he is! And, Joe, it's important to remember that even the defense attorney, this fellow Herr Rolfe played so sensitively by Maximillian Schell, said, after his viewing of the atrocity films, "These are terrible. This is shocking!" He said, "As a German I am ashamed to say that this ever could have taken place in our country." And again he said, 'Not in a thousand years will these be erased from our memory, not in a thousand."

Pierce: My contention is that the general is simply advocating the same thing that these German judges are being tried for. And in advocating that, if you take it to its ultimate extent, you finally wind up with the same thing that we saw at the beginning of our program-the atrocities.

Cozart: I agree! And what for me was the very high point of the picture clearly disclosed this principle of humanity as higher than the law of the land. The scene was where the German Justice, Ernst Janning played by Burt Lancaster, rose and broke his silence in the courtroom, destroying all the chances he ever had of clearing his name, by saying, "How can we say that we were not aware of what was going on? How can we say that we didn't know that in the night our neighbors were being torn out of their homes and taken to Dachau? How can we say that we didn't know that freight trains rolled through our villages, filled with children, on their way to the ovens?" This man, it seems to me, in standing and facing his own guilt, in taking responsibility for what he had done, revealed that he stood before a larger principle thean being obedient to the state-namely, humanness.

Mathews: Are not several of you trying to make a case for the fact that most people, whether aware of it or not, operate with another ethical quality or principle along with, at least, the principle of obedi ence to the state?

Pierce: Yes. And here in Cozart's statement, you have a German judge, the chief one, supporting the case of the American prosecutor. This is strange, isn't it?

Mathews: I'm glad that you mentioned the judge. Another clip from the film that I have in mind, bringing him to the fore. Before we see it, however, I want to get a hold of your last statements. We have said that life is a matter of being loyal to the nation, of obeying the laws which are the structures of the nation. Yet there is-I will call it "something else" for the moment-something else operating. However it isn't as if the two points could be merged into some common principle. It is rather that they have a polar relationship and hence there will always be conflict and tension between them. Would you agree that this is generally what you meant, Pierce?

Pierce: Yes.

Mathews: All right, let's look at the clip of the judge.

The setting here is in the judges' chambers after the prosecution and defense have concluded their argument. The tribunal of three America judges, Ives, Norris and Chief Justice Haywood, interpreted by Spencer Tracy, are discussing the case in preparation of the verdict.

Norris: What do you think, Dan?

Ives: Dan, we've been going over these points all day! If it isn't clear now . . . aren't you going to look at these precedents Aren't you interested at all?

Haywood: Yes, I'm interested, Curtiss . . . You were speaking of crimes against humanity. You were saying that the defendant were not responsible for their acts. .. I'd like you to explain that to me.

Haywood: Maybe . . . but all I've heard is a lot of legalistic doubletalk and rationalizations. You know, Curtiss, when I fir;st became a judge I-I knew there were certain people in town I wasn't supposed to touch. I knew that if I was to remain a judge this was so. . . But how in God's name do you expect me to look the other way at the murder of six million people?!

Norris: Oh, I'm sure he didn't mean that, Dan...There is..

Ives: (overlapping) I'm not asking you to look the other way at them! I'm asking you what good is it going to do to pursue this policy?!

Haywood: Curtiss, you were saying that the men were not responsible for their acts. You're going to have to explain that to me. You're going to have to explain it very carefully.

Mathews: This scene is in the judges' chambers right after all of the evidence has been piled up and sorted. Now the three judges are at tempting to arrive at the decision they must hand out.

Lewis: This is the scene really that I have been waiting for. It puts the situation so clearly. The judge says, "You're going to have to explain to me very carefully how it is that six million people can be murdered-crimes against humanity-and people still not be held responsible." This is the question. And it's clear!

Mathews: All right then. Here is the judge who now, I suspect, sees the whole problem of the tension between obedience to the state and some other quality-humanity, call it what you will. Now in the midst of this, he has to engage in the burdensome enterprise of making a moral decision, of forming a moral judgment. What I am interested in is how you think he went about doing this-that is, arriving at his verdict ?

Cozart: It seems to me that the judge felt that all men are a part of a great human adventure that's larger than just the fact of our being Americans or Germans, or anything else. That all of us, just by being men, have inside of ourselves, let's say, a moral conscience-a capacity for being horrified by brutality and cruelty in life. This conscience, of course, is embodied in laws that operate in culture, protecting individuals against the brutality of their world.

Mathews: Are you making a case, Cozart, for some kind of innate principle ?

Cozart: No, it's not just innate. It's what the judge calls the 'civilized conscience." It depends on the social dimension of life, but it is deeply internalized in us as individuals.

Mathews: We are loyal to our nation and we are loyal to civilization. You can't reduce either one of these into the other. You have spelled out even more clearly the ambiguity here.

Pierce: Yes, but we have not emphasized sufficiently the other side of the complexity. I mean the part that Bob under-emphasizes: the civilizing principle. The fact that a man lives before both these principles and must, finally, here decide as a single individual means that he has to assume full responsibility for his decision. In doing that, he assumes responsibility for his whole nation in whatever it decides to do. This other principle is what demands real decision and responsibility and accounting.

Lewis: Yes! Yes! If I have heard you right, Pierce, you said that structures are utterly necessary if there's to be order, if there's to be justice, and so on. We must have structures to live. Now, did I not also hear you say that, when you're really confronted with that which cuts over against humanity, then as the embodiment of the very civilizing principle, you must say "No" to the law that perpetrates such deeds?

Pierce: Yes. It seems to me that the judge in the movie actually based his decision on that. He based his decision on the civilizing side of the ambiguity.

Mathews: Are you saying that the judge, like anybody else, was caught in the dilemma of the well being of his nation and what you call the "civilizing" or human principle?

Pierce: Right.

Cozart: Right. And it seems to me that, because of this struggle between the two, all the judgments that we make befter be made in a spirit of humbleness. For we never decide, once and for all, what the course of history is going to be.

Pierce: But that doesn't negate responsibility or the individual in his responsibility.

Cozart: No, I didn't mean that.

Mathews: I'm sorry, but we're running out of time. And now I would like to try to draw this together. It's very complex. Perhaps in our day, the luxury of simplicity is no longer afforded to us. I think the effort must be made, however. Now, see what you think of this. Are we saying that involved in any moral judgment is the principle of obedience to some structure: the nation, the home, a party, or some organization. Yet along with this is a concern for what we called the "great human adventure" or the civilizing process itself. A man must then make his decision between these two poles. Then, Joe, you have said that each man, alone in the concrete situation, has to create his moral act and be accountable for it, blaming it not on civilization or the state or any other thing or person. Then to pull in your last insight, Bill, he must always hold his decision in a spirit of humility. This is to say, perhaps, that he does not pretend, in a final sense, that everybody or anybody else ought to have done as he did, or that even tomorrow he would make his decision the same way.

I am suggesting that this film is really calling upon us and all who see it to be, what a friend of mine one time called, a man of moral fiber. To put it another way: the iron man who is aware of the context by which he makes his ethical choice and is really willing to expose his act to the eye of his neighbor. If we would hold to this, our posture or stance in life could be described something like this: We expect you - the whole world-to expect to find us always being aware of the demand to be loyal to our nation and the demand to be a part of the civilizing enterprise, we expect you and the whole world to expect to find us always living in this ambiguity, willing to risk making our own decisions, being accountable for whatever consequences; we would expect you and the whole world to expect us, in forging these judgments, operating in the kind of humility that keeps us open to the possibilities the tomorrows will surely bring.

The concluding clip shows the scene in the courtroom when the gavel of Judge Haywood signals the close of the presentation of the case.

Haywood: The testimony has been received in the case. Final arguments have been heard. There remains nothing now but the task of the tribunal to render its decision. The tribunal will recess until further notification

The announcer then, over scenes of a bombed out German city articulates the credits.

Announcer: PARAVOCATION was produced at the NBC Television Studios in New York under the supervision of Compass Productions. Tonight's discussion was on the theme: "The Necessity to Decide." Participants were Joseph W. Mathews, Joseph Pierce, Robert Bryant, William Cozart and W. Jack Lewis, under the direction of the Institute of Cultural Aflairs, Austin, Texas.

This dialogue was based upon the film play, "Judgment at Nuremberg," produced and directed by Stanley Kramer and written by Abby Mann. A transcript of the dialogue on this important motion picture is available.

~ I-1 A L ~ ~Cl~ _ T ~. . ~ , ~.. . . ~. . . ~

THE ROLE OF ART (continued from page one)

honestly about the human situation in his time? Does his work deal importantly and compelingly with the basic and actual human needs and concerns of his world? Does it call forth in the viewer the kind of images that will enable him more adequately to forge his responses to the real world about him? To speak of art in this fashion, is to insist that art has a vital functional role in culture and society. Indeed, we are seeing today that art is very utilitarian in the rich and fresh sense of genuinely contributing to the inner workings of the great civilizing venture of man.

Such a view insists that art is not a sophisticated capstone that is added to society when the basic tasks are done. It is rather an essential ingredient of society that affects the whole and every part, at every moment. Furthermore, it follows that the role of art is not an escape valve for the sophisticate at the end of an era, as many are wont to think. Its most crucial hour is at the beginning of a new age when new images are required. Indeed the very function of art is to question and destroy old, false, inadequate images and to prompt and create new authentic and useful models for practical human response. The everyday reflective man of our time is crying, as we have seen, for exactly this kind of assistance.

Perhaps this is the clue to the interest in art that our age is experiencing which in depth and scope and variety has no equal in all history. In brief, there is emerging in the new world a fresh understanding of the function and place of art in civilization. To fulfill her role today, however, art may need an ally: serious conversation. This brings us to the third focus of the PROVOCATION series. (see page three)

THE PLACE OF SERIOUS CONVERSATION

Serious conversation itself might well be considered an art. Not simply in the sense of a skill-it surely is that-but in the sense of an art form. Be that as it may, it seems clear that it is an essential catalytic agent to the art form in our day. The contention is that art, the indispensable midwife to the new man in the new world, is itself in need of a midwife if it is effectively to fulfill its role in accomplishing significant psychological and social change.

The man of today, amidst his fears and bewilderments, wants to be a self-conscious historical being. He senses that history is made as well as experienced and latently, at least, he yearns so to participate in it. This is to suggest that behind and in the midst of the twentieth century man's more observable struggles, is the problem of intentionality. He is no longer content to be simply a passive victim of the impressions that play upon his inner history. He insists on being self-consciously present to those images and engaging in a dialogue with them. This means that he must become intentional about art. The question of PROVOCATION is: How can the man in the street learn to become intentional about the art that speaks to him in such a fashion that creative action ensues?

Serious conversation is the means whereby one becomes self-consciously attentive in depth to the manner in which he is affected by a work of art and the means whereby he is enabled to carry on his own dialogue with the art object. This in turn both prompts and directs decisive and creative action in the midst of the civilizing process.

Authentic dialogue in relation to art, is not primarily an educational endeavor in the sense of accumulating information, though of course this may happen in the midst of it. The art object and the way it speaks to the individuals conversing supplies the content. The serious conversation, where mind meets mind in reflection upon a common object and experience, enables one to articulate the impressions made upon him and to draw them together for himself into a more or less comprehensive complex. This model is then brought to bear upon his inner and outer historical situation in such a fashion that new practical insights, meanings and strategies emerge, which both motivate and direct his activity. To say this another way, serious conversation does not intrude ideas or images, but awakens the latent ones that are already present, and occasions the birth of new ones. In and through this process, social change is initiated. Art plus dialogue equals intentional involvement in history.

To sum up: new and imaginative human responses to life are urgently required by the new world about us. The art of the times injects into this situation new images of human possibility. Serious conversation enables the individual to clarify these images in such a fashion that fresh and imaginative responses can be forged.

A pilot television presentation utilizing this approach to serious conversation and art has been made by the Community (a transcript of which is on page three) in cooperation with a New York television production company and movie producer Stanley Kramer.

to Tibet and there after thirty years of meditation finally pounded out a philosophy of life of which they will sell me for a buck and a half. I don't buy this. I have bought one or two just to see what would happen and I could pound it out in five minutes and don't have to live in a cave for thirty years to do this. Or maybe the effect of living in the cave has done this. I think really that there is a delay factor, you see, where people are not ready yet to grapple with the problems of the world, and when they are ready they will grapple. You can't help but grapple. The important thing is to grapple and grow and this, then, is what I would say characterizes the autonomous individual. The person who is willing to grapple and not to be cynical about the great mass of human beings who won't understand him, who will mock him, and who really will impede his progress The essence here is that change, unless it is culturally approved change, like a cosmetic change in an automobile, is scaring People are just as scared today of the unknown as they were in the witch burning days of Salem. It is just the fact that it is a different type of thing they are afraid of but they are still afraid. And the person who can master enough of his fears as not to be afraid, I suppose, will be the person who, in my criteria, will be the one who will be the person we will call the mentally healthy individual. He will be living in the culture, getting along with it but not necessarily being a slave to it.

( Dr. Iscoe is a member of the faculty of the Psychology Department at the University of Texas. His insights on "The Autonomous Individual" are abridged from a recent address given to the students of the College House of the Community.)