feeling, thinking, and believing, of thengeneral awareness of our common destiny.nIn a marginal but nonethelessnbizarre aftermath overlooked by manynbut which may epitomize our age, thenconservative in America is now hated bynthe conservationist—that is, the liberalnor radical bigot or worshiper of old,nfailed, stale prejudices. In order to be anfighting philosophical proposition, Mr.nNisbet’s tract not only should have noticednthat (which it did), but it alsonshould have powerfully emphasized thengrotesquerie inherent in this Kafkaesquenmetamorphosis of a fair knight of progressninto a fanatic of reductionism. Thus,nif we dwell on Mr. Nisbet’s unaccentuatednforay into a semantic wilderness, thenquestion emerges: Is there a feasible,npositive scenario for what we today wishnto call conservatism as a blueprint fornhuman and social conduct? In othernwords: Is it possible to score big in thenconceptual struggle by renaming notions?nTo my mind, it is. Some new articulationnof moral superiority must benstressed, one that points out that thenmodern, enlightened conservative combatsnnot people but ideas, while hisnadversaries try to maim the carriers ofnideas they deem false, to ruin careers,nand to perform character assassinations.nThe liberal frame of mind somehowncraves violence directed against peoplenlike Westmoreland, Nixon, Reagan,nwhereas the conservative id does notnwallow in visions of the execution of anFriedan or a Fonda, for it is never surenthey won’t end up as repentant nunsn(history, the conservative breviary, isnreplete with similat examples). This isnthe situation that should be encapsulatednin a slogan, but Mr. Nisbet does notndeliver one. The notion and ethics ofnwork suddenly change in times of structuralnunemployment, which encompassesnnot just economic but also spiritualntorments and values. A conservativenknows more about spiritual values than anliberal, though he has difficulty translatingnthis knowledge into one mightilynreverberating word ofhope. Mr. Nisbet’snconservatism assumes a cerebral broad­n8nChronicles of Cultarenness, a generosity of inquiries, attimdesnof intellectual largess for his potentialnsympathizers. He has little to say aboutnhow to transubstantiate these virtuesnof mind into the quotidian patterns ofncomportment for the contemporary humannof median intelligence.n5o we have a sublime critique and anmessage of benign catastrophism. Nonmention of conservatism’s positivistnpotential or its faith in the fiimre. ButnNisbet, when read alongside GiambattistanVico, may provide another perspective:nany structural analysis of thenpresent must take into account the circularnrecurrence of ideals—values comenback modified to be sure, but with annastonishing freshness of substances refurbishednfor the necessities of the new age.nMr. Nisbet is gently pessimistic aboutnthat, but he never acmally denies the attainabilitynof a renewed logical andnmoral norm, or that the “old new”npricelessness of words like correctitude,nconvention, custom may once againnmerge into an indication oihow to live.nWith all his ardent reverence for the ideanof community, Mr. Nisbet knows thatnthe notorious Woodstock Festival, convokednin the name of communal idolatry,nwas a doleful flop exactly because itnflouted all ties to time-honored communalnexperience and wisdom. What henseems to neglect to inquire about isnwhat separates—or unites—wisdom andnknowledge, and what role is played bynempathy and malaise in the realm ofnideas. By now, it should be cleat that thensuccess of the modern version of conservatismnwill be found in the lore of composednideological systems as well as innthe vastness of world views that appealnto options, partialities, predilections.nMr. Nisbet shines when he explains thenfundamentals of our thinking andnbehavior as they transform from thenobscure past into organized cultures.nHe’s best at conveying the precious beliefnthat man should (but not must) benformed by forces that transcend him—nthe idiosyncratic Nisbetian “catechumenate”nof a mind that is rationalist tonnnthe core. He is less clear about what to donwith parish, neighborhood, guild, socialnclass, church, free associations—that is,nthe pillars of Nisbetian social order, andnthereby a supreme value—in a SiliconnValley-style socioeconomic environment.nHe invokes Burke, his great mentor:n”Tradition was for Burke absolutelynvital to both social order and freedom.”nWe have no quarrel with that, but Burkenwas, in his own way, strictly antitotemic;nthat is perhaps why his work is still valid.nIt’s difficult to imagine how in our timenof social and psychological mobility henwould defend parish, guild, and socialnclass without thoroughly updating thesencategories, even at a considerable ideologicalncost. It’s not that people oncenwere “better” because they were rigidlynmoral; no historical reality bears out suchna vision of the past, as moral principlenalone is not enough to make people better,ni/^they were better, it was becausenboth morality and principle were perceivednas attractive, desirable, alluring,nworth living and dying for. Such an imagencan be formed only through culture,neducative tenets, and—of all things—nfashionable mores. Tradition may beneither morally neutral or morally uplifting:nit is rooted in feelings which oncenagain bring imder consideration modernnconservatism’s semiotic problem—thatnis, the quandary of significant denomination.nIn modern Israel the most tremendousnsocial force is the adherence (ornsimply a desire to belong) to a powerfulnand meaningful tradition, and this emotionnmakes a natural conservative out of anprogressive, an atheist, a laborite, and anradical. What Mr. Nisbet means byn”social class” as a conservative value isnquite risky to ponder. We are far fromncertain whether a social entity may ornmay not be autonomous, closed, autarchic,ndefined once and forever in our agenof pluralism—which, after all, is laudednas an American conservative virtue. Withnpraiseworthy lucidity Mr. Nisbet arguesnmy own article of faith—that withoutnAquinas there would not be GeneralnMotors, that there is a chain of consequencesnthat binds seemingly disparaten