Changing Art, Changing Man by David Mandel (review)

Books 175 inhabited land’ (p. 62); the migration is not geographical , however, but a migration in time. There is a break between generations that is ‘wholly new: it is planetary and universal‘ (p. 64). I find Miss Mead’s thesis exceedingly interesting and forthe mostpart convincing. Thereis,however, a recurrent problem with typologies. How distinct are the types? To what degree are they independent ? Are there any pure types or do they always overlap? This problem is clearly recognized in the discussion of the cofigurative culture; ‘... there are few societies in which cofiguration has become the only form of cultural transmission and none is known in which this model alone has been preserved through generations’(p. 33). When we turn to prefigurative cultures, however, the description acquires a much more definitive and absolute character. Miss Mead presents as a key question: ‘What are the new conditions that have brought about the revolt of youth right around the world? (p. 69). Is this revolt really planetary, universal? Do we have enough information from all countries (China, Israel, for example) to permit this conclusion? As for the young generation, the articulate young rebels: ‘As membersof one species in an underdeveloped world community, they recognize that invidious distinctions based on race and caste are anachronisms. They insist on the vital necessity of some form of world order’ (p. 75). I only wish that this were asuniversalas she suggests among even the militant young. In some of our own (as yet unpublished) research, we did find substantial numbers taking this position but a great many of the students, particularly but not exclusively in the developing countries, were still very much concerned with national sovereignty. We are told further that none of the young ‘is untouched by the sense that there are no adults anywhere in the world from whom they can learn what the next steps shall be’ (p. 87). How about Marcuse, to whom Mead makes reference? How about the Maoists in many countries remote from China who swear by The Little Red Book? How about the young people who turned to Margaret Mead to say ‘you belong to us’ (p. 95)? Whatever sheherself may have felt about this, the fact remains that they, the young, clearly did think that she had something to offer to their cause. Youth, it seems to me, may be a state of mind as well as-and sometimes more than-a chronological stage. Perhaps theyoungrecognizedthat qualityin Margaret Mead. The few questions raised here do not alter the fact that this is a very stimulatingbook, written well and interestingly, eminently worth reading and pondering. The author holds out the hope that trust may be re-established ‘so that the elders may be permitted to work with them [the young] on the answers’ (p. 95). I can only echo that hope. We all owe gratitude to her for demonstrating how important it is for the whole world that such a hope should be realised. Now my final question is directed to the readers of (and perhaps also the writersfor) Leonardo. Art and science are, after all, highly significant aspects of culture. To what extent do the three varieties of culture (postfigurative, cofigurative and prefigurative )havemeaninginthe context ofLeonardo’s concerns? Changing Art, Changing Man. David Mandel. Horizon Press, New York, 1967. 162 pp. $5.00. Reviewed by :Ken Baynes* The author’s argument is simple. He says that the communication that flows from a great artist to his audience is uniquely valuable, not only for the individual or for society but for human evolution. Itis an appealingidea and onethat is, in many ways, convincing. The trouble is that the evidence presented in the book is of a rather amorphous and subjectivekind. And the casemade out is altogether too extremeand too exclusive. There is no difficulty in accepting that art is an important human activity:certainly as fundamental as, for example, science or technology. Equally, there is no difficulty in recognizing that it may have an effect on human evolution. It is much more difficultto acceptthat it isthe most important factor. To say that art alone will help to make possible a new phase of evolutionary developmentis to wrench it freefrom...