Organized efforts to deal with the problem of war through channels other than those of traditional diplomacy seem peculiarly subject to frustration. Perhaps this is inevitable. Certainly it is common. The current disappointment with the achievements of UNESCO, which Professor Dunn examines in the opening pages of his book, is only the most recent and most obvious instance of the dismay which sometimes follows upon the discovery that the star to which the wagon supposedly has been hitched is, after all, a decidedly earth-bound horse. The fervor that often accompanies a desire to “do something” about international understanding seems to invite a kind of oversimplification that leads inevitably to disillusionment and despair. Social scientists are by no means immune from this affliction, although it is not peculiar to them. The myopias of academic specialization, confronted with the tremendous complexities of such a task in applied social science, may encourage a neglect of the limitations of particular specialties and produce oversimplifications at their peripheries.

In studying world affairs we are acutely conscious of the fact that many rivalries and conflicts are carried on with hostility on all sides, but within a framework of mutual respect. We have too many examples of honor among enemy soldiers to regard this as remarkable.

At the same time we know that one of the most exacerbated forms of conflict occurs when incompatible respect demands are involved. The “ex-colonials” of the globe are asserting themselves with vindictive passion against “white imperialists.” Most of these “ex-colonials” are colored, and they are reacting against the memory of years of humiliation, fancied or real, inflicted by the West. In some states of the “West,” notably the Union of South Africa and the United States, internal politics are torn by ethnic hostilities. Many historical cases support the proposition that conflict is peculiarly atrocious when an established system of caste is challenged, or is believed to be challenged. We recall the outrages perpetrated by serfs in revolt against lords, or by masters against revolting (or allegedly revolting) slaves.

The two studies under review were issued in the series of the Library of Policy Sciences, edited by Harold D. Lasswell and Saul K. Padover, and are concerned with different areas of knowledge about communications. Sykewar presents the first detailed description of the activities and operations of the Psychological Warfare Division of SHAEF. The evaluations may not be definitive, but Dr. Lerner, a former intelligence officer in PWD, has made an important contribution toward codifying the lessons learned in this policy field.

The scheduling of a joint section meeting of the American Political Science Association and the American Sociological Society on “The Understanding of a Foreign Culture” may be taken as evidence that American social scientists feel the study of foreign societies to be a problem of increasing concern. It may perhaps also indicate that they are not fully satisfied with the progress made to date. Since this is a period given to radical innovations in social science, however, it seems appropriate to offer the caution that our problem cannot properly be defined as one of developing a new science of foreign societies. There cannot be one social science for the study of one's own country and a different one for the study of other nations. The primary task is not that of making our research methods more adequate for the study of foreign societies, but of improving our conceptual tools and methodological equipment to make us more effective in the study of any society.