As for Maslow’s other need —n”belongingness” — Murray maintainsnthat this is best achieved through thenother enabling conditions. He quitenrightly insists that the “little platoons”nof work, family, and communityn(church should have been added) formn”the nexus within which the pursuit ofnhappiness is worked out.”nMurray wants to challenge the conventionalnthinking in social policy analysis,nand he is most persuasive when hentakes the public policy communitynhead-on, demonstrating how unexaminednsuppositions regarding the naturenof man act to undermine programneffectiveness. Rarely, as Murray pointsnout, do the makers of public policyneven bother to question what problemnthey are supposed to be solving. Donthey know how to measure success? Ifnpoverty programs reduce the presentnincidence of material hardship, but atnthe same time increase the future likelihoodnof welfare dependency, to whatnextent can they be scored a success?nThese are the kinds of questions thatnneed to be raised by the human servicesnindustry.nIf there are three prescriptives thatnMurray offers for better program development,nthey are that a) social policynshould be framed from the perspectivenof the individual, b) social policynneeds to be sensitive to the interconnectednessnof the constituent propertiesnof human happiness, and c) socialnpolicy should set limits, recognizingnthe need for a stopping point.nTo put it another way, a social policynthat neglects the role of how selfinterestednindividuals will respond tongovernment programs is bound to fail.nMuch the same can be said of programsnthat are instituted without theirncreators having thought through thencause and effect relationship that existsnbetween the attainment of one goodn(e.g., the acquisition of material rewards)nand the attainment of anothern(self-respect). A social policy that putsnno limits on its ambitions will necessarilyninhibit the pursuit of happiness.nIf Murray were satisfied to contributenthese kernels of wisdom, his booknwould be nothing but a sequel tonLosing Ground. But his reach is muchnhigher, extending to a contentious portraitnof the individual, society, and thenstate.nFor Murray, human beings “actingn34/CHRONICLESnin a private capacity if restrained fromnthe use of force have a remarkably goodnhistory.” To those who say what ofnslumlords, racists, and other assortednrip-off artists, Murray replies that nonenwould stay in business for very longnwithout the connivance of the state.nIndeed he argues that unless impedednby the state, people will a) tropisticallyncreate the conditions under which materialnresources will be satisfactorilynattained, b) establish norms of safety, c)ndevelop norms of self-respect, and d)ncreate intrinsically rewarding activities.nIn short, the pursuit of happiness isncontingent on the near absence of thenstate.nBut as Murray knows, it is preciselynbecause private persons do use force,nand have indeed done so throughoutnall of history, that government is necessary.nAnd why doesn’t Murray informnus of the details of the “remarkablyngood history” that men and womennhave established when the use of forcenhas been held at bay? Are the cardinalnsins of greed, envy, lust, and so on,nalways predicated on the use of force?nIs there any society, culled from all thenanthropological literature, that Murrayncan point to as instructive?nPart of the problem with Murray’snportrait is his unwillingness to grapplenwith history. He prefers to engage us innendless “thought experiments,” • mostnof which, he readily concedes, havenlittle to do with the real world. So henworks out analytically, to his satisfaction,nwhat he cannot demonstrate withnethnographic research.nWhat is one to make of a social criticnwho thinks it “odd” that social problemsneven exist? Who says that it isn”damned odd” and “unnatural” thatnthe schools are a mess? Murray seemsnto think that because having goodnschools and good teachers is inneveryone’s interest, it is a function ofnstatist distortions that the crisis in educationnexists. Moreover, his “thoughtnexperiments” allow no role for racism,nsexism, NEA’s, or ACLU’s, but in thenreal world of prejudice, interest groups,nand ideology, social policymakers mustndeal with the cards they’ve been dealt.nAnd this much must be said: the ultimatendealer is not government, butninherently flawed men and women. Itnis private persons, after all, who createnpublic institutions.nIf the source of all evil for Marxists isnnncapitalism, for libertarians it is the state.nThose who believe in original sin willnnot be impressed by either explanation.nAnd that is why they will find thisnvolume wanting, despite its insightsninto the failures of contemporary socialnpolicy analysis.nWilliam A. Donohue is the author ofnThe Politics of the American CivilnLiberties Union, and an associatenprofessor of sociology at La RochenCollege in Pittsburgh.nReading, Writing,n’Rithmetic and Warnby Michael W. AlbinnPalestinian Universities UndernOccupationnhy Antony T. SullivannCairo: The American University innCairo Press; 133 pp.nTwenty-five years ago when I was anschoolteacher in an Afghannmountain valley I came across a book bynan English pedagogue called TeachingnEnglish Under Difficult Circumstances.nI was reminded of that title as I readnthis informative monograph by MiddlenEast commentator Antony Sullivan.nHis short book might have been subtitled,n”Teaching the Liberal Arts UndernNext to Impossible Circumstances.”nCan you imagine higher educationnconducted in less hospitable conditionsnthan in Gaza and the West Banknduring the past ten years? Students andnprofessors are under unendurablenstrain to perform such mundane tasksnas attending class, writing term papers,nand sitting for exams in the face ofnpolitical provocation from the PLOnand its kin, while trying simultaneouslynto keep Israeli occupation authorities atnbay. The fact that higher education hasnsurvived at all is a cause for wonderment.nAnother surprise is that three ofnthe four Palestinian colleges are patternednon American models. Theynprovide a four-year program of studynbased on the grade point system. Thenclassroom, rather than the tutorial session,nis the focus of teaching. Independentnstudy and use of the library, asnwell as concentrated exposure to thenclassics of Western and Arabic litera-n