Traveling By Stationary BicyclenCharles Hatch Stoddard: LookingnForward; Macmillan; New York.nLouis Galambos: America at MiddlenAge: A New History of the UnitednStates in the Twentieth Century;nMcGraw-Hill; New York.nby John C. CaiazzanA. law school professor I know oncenopined that what the law in the UnitednStates could really use was completeneradication so that it could be startednover. He was dissatisfied with the growthnand myriad complexities of the law as itnexists in our modern age—appeals,nprecedents, judges’ opinions, new legalndoctrines, and new laws—always andnexponentially, new laws. The professor’snopinion is shared by others, and not justnwith regard to the law, but with regardnto other aspects of our modern societynas well, including the arrangements ofnour polity, our economy, our culture,nand even our Constitution. There is, innfact, a general sense that our presentnpolitical arrangements are not servingnus, that we have gone about as far as possiblenunder the old way of doing things.nThe author oi America at Middle Age,nLouis Galambos, a history professor atnJohns Hopkins, is inclined to accept thenpresent state of stasis, however, arguingnthat, after all, the American system presentiyndoes what it was designed to do,nand that any spastic eflforts to get it to donmore will only result in the politicalnequivalent of muscle strain or heart attack.nHe sees the limitations of Americanngovernment as comparable to those of anman reaching middle age, and says thatnthe best thing to do when stifihess andnshortness of breath begin to creep in isnnot to try to do too much, but to learn tonenjoy the benefits of middle age. CharlesnHatch Stoddard, an environmentalist andnDr. Caiazza is an administrator for thenUniversity of Massachusetts, Bostonnformer government bureaucrat, is thenauthor of Looking Forward: PlanningnAmerica’s Future, and he, on the othernhand, thinks that middle-aged Americanought to go on a diet, run six miles a day,nget into est, and find a guru. Otherwise,nhe says, our society is headed for thenequivalent of a fetal heart attack at 50.nIt is interesting that each writer—^innreaching for an analog for the presentnstate of American society—^uses the notionnof middle age, which, of course, refersnto a particular stage in the life of anhuman being. Indeed, Galambos basesnhis entire account of America in the lastn100 years on this comparison, whilenStoddard occasionally uses the conceptnof maturity to describe America in thenpresent day. There is an obvious dfficultynwith using the analogy of human growthnto describe a society, namely that middlenage in a human being is a prelude tonold age, which is a prelude to death.nWhile civilizations may be said to risenand fell, this does not happen in thensame way that human beings are bomnand die. The process is not as predictablenfor civilizations as it is for humans.nThere is, as it happens, a less homelynand more sophisticated theory available,nwhich can be found in the work of ann18th-century Italian historian, GiambattistanVico: his femous ricorsi In Vico’snthought, there are three stages any civilizationngoes through: the divine, thenheroic, and the human. This series is repeatednover and over again, in differentnforms, by different and successive civilizations.nSince ricorsi postulates a repeatablencycle, it can therefore account fornthe continuity of a race or a culturenthroughout the rises and demises ofnattendant civilizations more readily thanna simple analogy with the organic lifencycle. In a sense, Vico’s ricorsi is a spiraln—^rather than a closed circle ending inndeath—^allowing for a complete 360degreencycle of birth, growth, death,nwhich yet leaves a space between thenbeginning and the end points for a startnnnof another complete cycle. ApplyingnVico’s concept to the history of Americanlets us see that America is not necessarilyndeclining or in middle age, but may simplynbe spiraling its way into modernity.nIf it is, then it is most notable for both itselfnand for all other nations: America isnthe first really completely modem nation,nand whatever declines or stases we suffernwill be suffered by other nationsnafter us.nCjalambos, in tracing the developmentnof the United States in the 20thncentury, picks out two threads that leadnto the current crisis of modernity: thenrise of professions and something he callsnthe “triocracy.” He sees the rise of professions—^legal,nmedical, bureaucratic,nacademic, and many other categoriesnand subcategories—as a consequencenand manifestation of the complexity ofnour age. Each of the professions is an occupationalnspecialty requiring advancedntraining, but it is also an organizationnthat serves the advantage of its membership,ni.e., an interest group. For the secondnthread, he describes the rise of triocracyn(first mentioned, as far as I know,nby Tom Bethell in Harper’s) as a centralnfeature of Federal govemance. “Triocracy”ndesignates a three-sided stmcture:nan interest group itself (usually of a particularnprofession but not always, e.g.,nfermers, college students, or the military);nthe oflScials within the Federal bureaucracynwho are responsible for administeringnthe programs which affect the interestngroup (e.g., the Department of Agriculture,nthe Bureau of Student FinancialnAssistance, the Department of Defense);nand finally the legislators and legislativenstaffers who make the bills and appropriationsnthat fiind the activities of the interestngroup (e.g., the House Committeenon Agriculture, the Senate Committeenon Welfare and Culture, the defensencommittees of both Houses of Congress).nThe three parts of each triocracy interlock,nnone moving without the approvalniiiiiil?nJuly 1983n