the referees at the University of NorthnCarolina Press had been more vigilant.nCicero, young and old, knew, as didnJefferson and Adams in their correspondence,nthat freedom and characternare indissoluble. Without .one, thenother soon vanishes. James May hasnreminded us vividly how both elementsnworked together in the life of a greatnman to create great literature.nE. Christian Kopff teaches Greek andnLatin in Boulder, Colorado.nFamily FinancesnThe Family Wage: Work, Gender,nand Children in the ModernnEconomynedited by Bryce J. ChristensennRockford, IL: The Rockford Institute;n138 pp., $9.95nOnce a social ideal for many Americans—nprogressive reformers, labornleaders, enlightened businessmennlike Henry Ford, and some New Dealers—n”the family wage” has fallen intondisrepute in recent decades. Under thenspell of egalitarian feminists, America’snpolitical and cultural leaders now rejectnas hopelessly “sexist” the notion that anman should earn enough to support hisnwife and children. Yet not everyone hasnforgotten the family wage, nor is everyonenblind to the social costs of repudiatingnthe concept. This valuable littlenbook brings together four papers presentednat a conference held in thenspring of 1988 that examine the historicalnand contemporary significance ofnthe family wage. Although uneven, thenpapers combine to tell an important partnof the story of the unraveling of Americannfamily life.nIn the first essay, Allan Carlson investigatesnthe historical roots of thenfamily wage. He points out that innpreindustrial Europe, “family life foundna relatively natural setting” on farmsnand in villages. But the emergence ofnmarket capitalism created new economicnpressures that threatened family life.nNot only did wage competition betweennthe sexes erode the complementaritynof gender roles, but the new labornmarket failed to compensate for thenunusual burdens borne by fathers andnbachelors. Laissez-faire theorists such asnSmith and Ricardo still trusted that thenmarket would in time sort things outnequitably and provide wages sufficientlynhigh for family life. Marx and Engelsnpredicted that wage competition wouldnso undermine family life that it wouldnlead to social chaos, revolution, andneventually communism. Many socialnreformers, however, rejected bothnlaissez-faire optimism and communistndeterminism. They held that consciousnintervention into the wage market couldnprotect the family and forestall socialnchaos. Such was the guiding logic ofnCatholic philosophers. Progressives, andnearly 20th-century labor leaders whondemanded an end to the employmentnof children and married women, whilencalling for male wages high enough tonsupport a family.nIf the other three papers seem to lacknclarity and rigor, the reason may in partnbe that their authors are looking not atnthe coherent ideals of the past, but atnthe untidy realities of the present.n”Nineteenth-century Americans had anvery definite sense of the ideal family,”nstresses historian Maris Vinovskis. Inncontrast, Vinovskis finds that “this idealnof family life [appears] increasingly obsolete”nin contemporary America, asnfertility and marriage rates have fallen,nwhile rates for divorce, illegitimacy, andnfemale employment have climbed.nFriends of the family will not be heartenednby his survey of demographicntrends.nThe feminist attitude toward thenfamily wage receives attention fromnJean Bethke Elshtain. In Elshtain’s assessment,nthe family wage divides then”hard-line equal rights feminists,” whonrepudiate it as “little more than a conspiracynbetween and among patriarchsn… to keep women down,” from socialnfeminists, who regard it more favorablynas “a form of resistance to the worstnvagaries of capitalism on the part ofnmen and women of the workingnclasses.” Elshtain’s own position isnclear: “Those feminists who persist innpicturing a world of coequal individualistnmale and female careerists, avidlynexercising their free choices as theirnchildren are tended to in modern andnspacious day-care centers, endorse ansocial myth that is more fantastic by farnthan any ever embodied in the familynwage.” Yet Elshtain’s depiction of anfeminist tug-of-war on this issue isnnnmisleading. In fact, equal-rights feministsntotally dominate the contemporarynmovement, allowing the few remainingnsocial feminists no more thanntoken influence on their agenda.nLargely because of the triumph ofnfeminist doctrine, economist RichardnVedder faces an almost insuperablentask in trying to envision the “reconstructionnof the family wage.” Still, henmanages an intelligent discussion ofnhow inflationary policies drive up divorcenrates, recommending a numbernof fiscal reforms to bring federal spendingnunder control. Vedder also offersnsensible recommendations for reducingnthe anti-family eff^ects of the welfarensystem.nFortunately, the book does not concludenwith “the dismal science” ofneconomics. In an appended “Summarynof a Discussion,” editor BrycenChristensen provides an account of thenlively discussions of the 19 peoplenattending the conference. A diversengroup — scholars from several differentndisciplines, a labor leader, a businessnexecutive, a homemaker, a journalist,nand a foundation executive — the participantsnranged widely in their discussionnof the cultural and economicntrends affecting family life. Naturally,nthe discussion comments are suggestivenrather than definitive, but on somentopics, including the limitations of economics,nthe proper role of government,nand Catholic social thought, the exchangesnare heated enough to strikensparks.nThe Other JewishnAmericanby Elliot C. RothenbergnMembers of the Tribe: On thenRoad in Jewish Americanby Ze’ev ChafetsnNew York: Bantam Books; 259 pp.,n$18.95nFrom the general media and Jewishnweeklies published in most largenAmerican cities the reader will learnnmore than he cares to about the politicalnand social doings of what Ze’ev Chafetsncalls “federated Judaism,” an interlockingndirectorate of the leadership ofnJULY 1989/31n