ard of living. (Calling for a reduction innthe earth’s population does not seem anpractical way of dealing with this.)nHistorical inevitability is an importantnpart of world views; it makes predictionsnof the future seem inspired, partnof the unfolding of a rational plan. Andnhere lies the rub; inevitability may possiblynbe a guide for history as a whole,nbut it is a bad principle for the analysisnof politics. Politics, by its nature, is sonwrought up with individual events andntheir interaction that large-scale predictionsnbecome nearly impossible. Patternsnof social justice, as Robert Nozicknhas pointed out with regard to patternsnfor the distribution of wealth, are bynnature totalitarian, for historical developmentsnwill almost always contradictnany humanly prescribed pattern of socialnjustice. If such patterns as are prescribednby visions of the inevitability of thencourse of human history are to prevail,nthey must be imposed, as they are innMarxist countries. Where does Rifkinnstand on this? Unfortunately, his drift isnunmistakable: Rifkin’s entire presentationnpoints in the direction of totalitarianncontrol; There is an understated, but nonless real, element of Utopian idealism innRifkin’s thought, for he genuinely has annalternative vision of what our livesnshould be like. Such patterns, when putninto effect, however, become totalitariannstates. The mass of riien simply do notnwant to live in a style which demandsnthat they moderate their appetites, restrainntheir ambitions, or avoid mistakesnin their lives. Only a powerful, infrusivenand oppressive government can makenthem live that way. This is how idealismnbecomes tyranny, and that is what isnwrong with Rifkin’s vision. Entropy, hensays, is an iron law—but in the late 20thncentury, mankind has had enough ofniron laws.nXVifkin’s totalitarianism is distinctivenbecause it combines the agenda ofnthe radical left—total equality, governmentncontrol of the economy, the destructionnof capitalism—with a new impulsivenforce. Instead of the inevitabilitynof class warfare, Rifkin’s vision is powerednby his concept of the inevitabilitynof entropic decay. This is a vision of thenultimate winding down of the physicalnuniverse, a sense really of the ultimatenvictory of death and decay. This can benseen in Rifkin’s demand that practicallynevery aspect of our technologically basednculture be destroyed and, further, in hisnOur Age of the DerrierenMadge Garland and J. AndersonnBlack: A History of Fashion; WilliamnMorrow^ & Co.; New Yotk.nby Mary Ellen Foxnlivery style change in women’snclothing is predicated on the shift innfocus from one erogenous zone to another.nThis, at least, is the theory propoundednby the late James Laver, renownednBritish authority on fashion asna sociocultural phenomenon. The currentnconsensus is that the 1980’s willnbe the age of the derrifere.nThroughout civilization, differentntrendsetters have chosen varying areasnto emphasize, expose or cover up, thenend result being to draw attention tonthese areas and thus to excite and tontitillate. The Minoans uncovered thenbosom, while Medieval ladies frequentlynpadded the front of their dresses to simulatenpregnancy. The Empire styles ofnthe early 19th century were cut verynlow in the bosom, with the skirts fallingnin neoclassical columns from very highnwaists. This also gave an illusion ofnpregnancy, and it has been said thatnNapoleon, who wanted his female subjectsnto be as fruitful as possible in ordernto populate his armies, encouraged thisnlook as the epitome of femininity.nMale fashions have not been exemptnfrom the temptation to emphasize particularnparts of man’s personality. ThenDr. Fox advises a high-fashion boutiquenin Winnebago County, Illinois.nnninsistence that none of the alternatives,nfrom solar power to statistical thermodynamics,nwill avail us in our struggle tonescape. This bleak vision denies thatnspontaneity is a part of nature, that therenexists a human capacity for growth andnadaptation, and that, yes, the hand ofnProvidence is part of the history of humannaffairs. DnRenaissance male padded an area of hisnmidsection which became known as ancodpiece, while well-developed calves,nleft bare by a short tunic, were considerednso important that the hose werenfrequently stuffed to achieve the desiredncurves. During the French Revolution,nthe trousers of fashionable mennwere never tight and revealing enoughnfor their taste. Taking inspiration fromnNapoleon, men adopted skin-tight whitenbreeches, which were frequently putnon wet so that as they dried they clungneven more tightly to the body.nOur century, characterized by thendazzling rapidity of change, has shiftednthe focus of the body’s expository valuenevery decade. The turn of the centurynand the ‘teens first covered up and thennuncovered the ankle; the 20’s uncoverednthe leg up to (and sometimes including)nthe knee; the 30’s exposed the femalenback as a matter of course; the 40’snshifted to the bosom with the ubiquitousn”sweater girl”; the 50’s focusednon the bosom and the waist with thenpostwar “new look”; the 60’s discoverednthe unsuspected charms of thenknee; and the 70’s were enchanted bynthe braless, bobbing bosom. And now,nas we enter the 80’s, it seems as if thenrear end has become fashion’s most accentuatednpart. What is interesting—nand, I think, new—is that this posteriorncurve, flaunted in the tightest possiblenjeans from street and billboard, is androgynous.nIt is the one area of the bodynthat is basically asexual; women, mennand even children are anatomically simi-n^^mmmmmk^lnMarch/April 1981n