should an economist excludenman’s theological concerns from hisnstudy of disappointment, no one couldnseriously object: it was alter all Caesar’snimage embossed on the coin Christ heldnup. But Hirschman does not. Repeatedlynhe raises the issue of the human impulsento devotion and every time he discreditsnthe validity of belief in the transcendent.nHe thus truncates the meaning of thenquotes from Young and Johnson, bothndevout Christians, by arguing that despitenthe traditional use of such observationsnabout man’s insatiability as “thenstarting point for discussions about thenexistence of God,” they are properlynconsidered merely as symptomatic of “ancertain phase of Western civilization.” Itnis indeed the Western notion of thenotherworldly that Hirschman mostncategorically repudiates: in his closingnchapter he argues that the publicprivatencycle he has chronicled harmonizesnnicely with pantheistic Hinduismnbut not with “the almost vindictivenmonotony of Judeo-Christian stricturesnby which we gain or forfeit salvation byn… one consistentiy virtuous character.”nThe Western mind is not pantheistic,nhowever, and any analysis of Westernnsocioeconomic culture which expresslynrepudiates its intimations of the transcendentnleaves not a Hindu sense ofndharma but only a militantly secularnutopianism. When, for example, Hirschmanntells us that the disappointmentnengendered by the failure of Enlightenmentnsocial ideals is attributable to an”poverty of our imagination thatnparadoxically produces images of ‘total’nchange in lieu of more modest expectations,”nhe is in a sense correct; however,nhe evidently does not understand thatnthe modern imagination suffers from thenimpoverishment of extremism preciselynbecause it has been secularized. Indeed,nHirschman seems more secularist thannHindu when he compares medieval pilgrimagesnto modern attendance atnsporting events and again when henrather glibly asserts that “in an age innwhich religious fervor is at a low ebb”nVimmmmmmm^mmmmnChronicles of Ctiltarenpublic activism possesses the “ability tonsatisfy vaguely felt needs for higher purposenand meaning.” So completely doesnHirschman equate public activity withnreligion that he even quotes a statementnby Pascal concerning the joy Christiansnfind in seeking holiness to explain “thenfusion of—or confusion between—nThe Historical TricyclenThe Village Voice Anthology (1956-n1980); Edited by Geoflfrey Stokes;nQuill; New York.nDavid Harris: Dreams Die Hard:nThree Men’s Journeys Through ^enSixties; St Martin’s/Marek; New York.nbyDanielJ.OTVeiln1 hese two books present a chroniclenof issues and personalities of the turbulentnperiod (1960’s-1970’s) thatnshaped our contemporary society. Individualnexpression, search for community,ncivil rights, feminism, sexual exploration,nrevolution, the questioning of oldnorthodoxies and the assertion of newnones—all are present. Stokes has assembledna representative sample of periodnVillage Voice essays. The Harris booknportrays the interrelationship and exploitsnof three youth leaders—^DavidnHarris, Dennis Sweeney, and Allard Lowenstein—^asnseen or remembered bynHarris. It is a story of youthful recruitment,nadventure, disillusionment, andnfinally assassination. Together the booksneffectively capture the flavor of one ofnthe more abrasive eras in American historynand invite a scrutiny of that periodnof systemic disorder. Why did then1950’s—a time of order, stability,npatriotism, and satisfaction—evolveninto the tempestuous 60’s? Does Vietnamnreally explain it? Why does thenEisenhower era, from today’s perspec-nDr. O’Neil teaches political science atnthe University of Arizonannnstriving and attaining” common amongnpolitical crusaders. The confusion is realnhere, but it is Hirschman’s, not Pascal’s.nThe author oithePensees knew full wellnthe difference between the abiding consolationsnof worship and the viciousncycle of disappointment in which allnprofane enthusiasms are trapped. Dntive, seem a Golden Age? Who were thenpeople most vulnerable to the slogans ofndisorder and who were thefr leaders? Isnour society better or worse for havingnexperienced that trauma?nJust as such traditional students ofnrevolution as Plato, Burke, and Tocquevillenhad predicted, revolutionnstemmed from a cleavage in the dominantnelite rather than from an explosionnat the bottom. Persons who had beennrichly endowed by American societynfound it wanting and became its mostnscathing critics. University students—nperhaps the most indulged sector ofnAmerican life—^played a major role.nThese student dissidents came not fromnthe community colleges and mediocrentechnical institutions but from thensanctuaries of the elite, Harris’s bookncenters on Stanford: Lowenstein’s recruitmentnof student activists, Harris’snown election as student-body president,nand Sweeney’s well-publicized missionaryntravel from the classroom to Mississippi.nThere is much about meetings,norganizational strategy, and happeningsnand very little about study, contemplation,nor academic challenge. The youngnprivileged class searched for somethingnlacking in its routinized existence. Theneffort progressed with maximal publicity,nconstant hosannas, and seeminglynunlimited excursion funds. Numerousnsaints were canonized without theninconvenience of martyrdom.nWhy do the privileged, at certainnpoints in history, reject the system thatnhas nurtured and elevated them? Whyndid so many French and Russian sons ofn