Momens Srudir., In,. Forum, Vol. 5, No. 314. pp. 341-348. 1982 0277 5395:X2/030341 063 IWO Ptinted in Great Brllam. Pergamon Press Ltd

ON BEAUTIFUL SOULS, JUST WARRIORS AND FEMINIST CONSCIOUSNESS

JEAN BETHKE ELSHTAIN

Department of Political Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01002, U.S.A.

Synopsis-The author sketches, evaluates, and aims to disenthrall feminist thinkers from the grip of two powerfully and deeply held archetypes, the Beautiful Soul and the Just Warrior. Both these positions, with their many historic variants, operate to forestall consideration of possible alternatives on matters of war and peace, for feminists and non-feminists alike. The postures gear thinking a certain direction on the question of war itself and on the problem of male and female involvement in war.

After criticizing these received notions, and explaining why each is inadequate to our current historic needs, the author develops a perspective, maternal thinking, which, transformed by and infused with a particular mode of feminist consciousness can, she argues, help to place contemporary feminists in a powerful theoretical posture from which to challenge the militarist state and militaristic policies and thinking.

I propose to disenthrall us from the grip of two images-the Beautiful Soul and the Just Warrior-which now permeate much of our thinking on matters of women, men, and war. These archetypes embody certain powerful, received notions about the roles men and women have, and should, play in time of war. There are variations on the basic theme, which I shall discuss, but the images continue to operate both as deep background and as explicit justification in war and peace argumentation. I shall contend that for us to remain tied to these images we shall have made an implicit pact til death do us part, either in a nuclear holocaust or in the lingering twilight of the American experiment, already deeply damaged by the corruption of the Vietnam War and its aftermath. I shall propose an alternative: the transformation of maternal thinking in and through feminist consciousness.

The Beautiful Soul-the term comes from Hegels Phenomenology ofMind-was Hegels way of conveying the mode of consciousness of those human beings he dubbed the beautiful souls, beings frequently of great individual goodness and purity, yet beings cut-off and abstracted from the world of which they were a part (Hegel, 1979; pp. 383409). Beautiful Souls often condemn all or most of social reality even as they celebrate their own rarified sensibilities. Their fellow men and women become either villains or saints rather than imperfect and complex human beings, for the Beautiful Soul evaluates others from a standpoint that immunizes him or her from the stubborn reality of others and from the wider community. Non-beautiful souls, the vast majority, may go about their business largely as if the Beautiful Soul, in his or her perfectionism, did not exist. Occasionally a Beautiful Soul ofa particular kind may bear witness in such a way that the world, for one brief moment, must take notice before the waters close over and business-as-usual, including the business of war, goes on.

The world has long been able to accommodate and contain Beautiful Souls, including those whose total pacifism involved a counsel of passivity and withdrawal. Politics has been able to render impotent and ineffectual in any wider social sense the counsels of spiritual

341

userHighlight

userHighlight

userHighlight

342 JEAN BETHKE ELSHTAIN

perfectionism. Two features of the Beautiful Soul as an anti-war, anti-violence stances must be stressed. First, women historically, though neither uniformly nor exclusively, have been cast as societys beautiful souls. That is, they have served as the collective projection of a pure, rarified, self-sacrificing, otherworldly and pacific Other. There is a contrast model of the woman as Beautiful Soul in the image of man as the incorrigible beast. Elizabeth Cady Stanton enunciated this view when she condemned the male element in civilization as a destructive force, stern selfish, aggrandizing, loving war, violence, conquest, acquisition, breeding in the material and moral world alike discord, disorder, disease and death (Stanton, 1882; pp 351-352). Within contemporary feminist thought, the Beautiful Soul position has been celebrated as an ontological vision of pure female Be-ing, with women conceived as beings of an altogether different and superior sort from males who, in turn, are defined as brute-like and brutal. In the world of the Beautiful Soul, people are frequently judged by what they are, not by what they do.

The hard truth for feminists seeking to construct a theory of women and war is this: despite the paeons to the day when the Beautiful Souls all get together to curb and defeat the primitive beasts and to usher in the reign of harmony and peace, no sane person really believes in this outcome. It does seem rather late in the day for facile romanticism. We recognize that a rather nasty historic bargain has been struck here: Beautiful Souls may stay as sweet as they are while the boys will be boys. This demeaning and destructive pact must be broken. It offers only the deadly still of silence for the Beautiful Souls and the beasts, by definition, cannot speak to one another. A genuine dialogue might break the trance. Neither the Beautiful Souls, who do not want their presumptive purity and position of perfectionism threatened, nor the ugly beasts, who would prefer to continue to see their bestiality as inevitable, want the deal broken. Yet it must be if we are to break through to some alternative.

A second feature of the Beautiful Soul vision is that in the long history of struggle around questions of war and peace, Beautiful Souls who pre-judged all war as immoral have asked for and frequently received the protection of government in exchange for political passivity (Niebanck, 1972; p. 48). No feminist who seeks to participate in peace-making as a social and cultural activity of the greatest urgency, indeed as the end of collective human existence and the means through which that existence is conducted, can endorse such withdrawal. While this judgement is not meant to disallow entirely absolute pacifism as a way for some Christians to bear witness to the peace of the kingdom of God, it is very much a judgement against a passivity that simply plays into the hands of the powers-that-be. A counsel of spiritual perfectionism abstracted from particular situations and demands places this position beyond the reach of all but a few: it easily becomes smug and solipsistic. It separates the Beautiful Souls from the rest of us-though all women, cast from time-to-time in the image of the Beautiful Souls, have been given the historic task of perpetuating the cult of denial and true knowledge of self and other the Beautiful Soul position requires.

The second image which no longer offers a genuine alternative if we are serious about stemming the tides of war is that of the Just Warrior. As a response to the perils of war and possible nuclear destruction, the Just Warrior and that just war doctrine with which he is linked, is an inadequate frame for a compelling feminist anti-war alternative. The Just Warrior, interestingly, requires the female second line of defense--women as buddies and support troops who help to provide the material conditions and the spiritual sustenance which enables the Just Warrior to fight on. Within this historic image, somewhat at odds with that of the Beautiful Soul though womens war-time activitism never tarnished her image of

userHighlight

userHighlight

userHighlight

userHighlight

userHighlight

userHighlight

userHighlight

userHighlight

userHighlight

On Beautiful Souls, Just Warriors and Feminist Consciousness 343

the Beautiful Soul in ideology, myth, and legend, women kept the home fires burning, the farms and factories producing, the bandages, blankets and food stuffs flowing and the dead mourned.

The Just Warrior himself is regarded as a human being engaged in the regrettable but sometimes necessary task of collective violence in order to prevent some greater wrong. Just war theory is a complex body of ethical and political teaching that served vital purposes historically in limiting, questioning, and chastening violence. Its origins lay in the fact that early Christianity had to come to terms with a world that was power mad and evil to Christian eyes, yet to remain true, simultaneously, to the message of peace and love propounded by their God, the Prince of Peace. St Augustines discussion of war in his fourth century masterwork, The City of God (1972), marks the beginning of this long history of inquiry. Augustine opens his account of the just war by posing the unjust war as a contrast model. The paradigmatic case of the unjust war, for Augustine, was a war of imperialist conquest carried out by Rome. Consider the scale of those wars, with all that slaughter of human beings, all the human blood that was shed!, he cries (Augustine, 1972; p. 861). The just war, on the other hand, which Augustine does not celebrate but which he defends with regret, involves the use of force in defense of the common good (Murphy, 1980; p. 243). War is evil: this dictum has presumptive force. In order for it to be overriden a number of conditions must be met. Only certain situations are sufficient to justify a resort to war. Then, during the war, justice must prevail in its waging which is to be carried out in accordance with certain standards. (This means, for example, that not every particular warrior in a just war is a just warrior, for he may violate the rules of war.) War is conceived as a rule-governed activity with non-combatant immunity the most important of all rules (Walzer, 1977; p. 21).

The chief elements ofjust war theory--those conditions and situations that justify waging it and indicate how it is to be waged-were cast in Martin Luthers sixteenth century rendering as follows: (1) War must be the last resort to be used only after all other means have been exhausted; (2) war must clearly involve an act of redress of rights actually violated or a defense against unjust demands backed by the threat of force; (3) war must be openly and legally declared by a properly constituted government; (4) there must be a reasonable prospect for victory; (5) means must be proportionate to the ends; (6) war must be waged in such a way as to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants; (7) the victorious nation must not require the utter humiliation of the vanquished (Niebanck, 1972; pp. 29-3 1). The great and continuing strength of just war theory is that it sees politics and ethics as inseparable. Yet the Just Warrior cannot survive the nuclear age; neither can his mate, the Beautiful Soul.

Why can the warrior no longer be just and the soul no longer beautiful? My arguments make specific reference to an American context. So long as we, as Americans, stay within the language and presumptions ofjust and unjust war notions, so long as we remain locked into these terms of discourse and a search for justification for American involvement in a war must occur, our current political reality is such that justification can and always will be found by the policy elite who will commit this country to a war should one occur. The just war posture too easily falls into a rationalization: any war American fights, by definition, must be just because we are a country that believes it must justify itself.

My point is this: the way matters of war and peace decision-making are now set up, the just war conditions will always be found to pertain. The citizen is placed in a wholly re-active position. By the time the matter of whether a war is just or not gets debated-and this is the story of the Vietnam War-we will already be in it. Just war doctrine, properly applied,

userHighlight

userHighlight

userHighlight

userHighlight

userHighlight

userHighlight

userSticky NoteDetails of America's just war rationalization

344 JEAN BETHKE ELSH IAIN

requires debate of a particular, substantive kind. That debate will never take place in time under present political conditions, but every attempt will be made to convince concerned citizens, without the luxury of a debate which we cannot afford if we are to move quickly in a perilous situation, that the conditions and limitations required by the just war ethos have all been found and met in the judgement of those whose business it is to make such judgements. The inadquacies of just war doctrine, then, are forced upon us by the nature of the modern state combined with the nature of modern total war. .I (Z&n, 1979; p. 251).

Thinkers still struggling within the boundaries ofjust war doctrine as a way to eliminate or to curb war have stretched those boundaries to the breaking point. Such thinkers, including the last four popes, have come very close to the position that no modern war could ever be just. Pope John XXIII noted: . it is hardly possible to imagine that in the atomic era, war could be used as an instrument ofjustice (Murphy, 1980; p. 244). Pope Paul VI condemned the arms race as an utterly treacherous trap for humanity, a danger, an injustice, a theft from the poor and a folly (Hehir, 1980; p. 676). John Paul II at the United Nations cried: The ancients said, Si vis pacem, para bellum. But can our age really believe that the breath-taking spiral of armaments is at the service of world peace? In alleging the threat of a potential enemy, is it really not rather the intention to keep for oneself a means of threat in order to get the upper hand with the aid of ones own arsenal of destruction? Here too it is the human dimension of peace that tends to vanish in favor of ever new possible forms of imperialism (John Paul II, 1979; p. 266). Contemporary just war thinkers have condemned total war and nuclear weapons: have called for arms control and disarmament; and have insisted that the content of a nations strategic doctrine, which is filled with implicit moral as well as political premises, be scrupulously scrutinized and judged given the qualitative increase in destructive capacity introduced by nuclear weapons (Hehir, 1980; p. 676).

Just war doctrine-and Just Warriors-along with beautiful but passive souls, or women as homefront helpmeets, despite their lingering strengths and attractions, must make way for some alternative. If the heart of just war doctrine, as well as the Beautiful Soul image, is the proscription and repudiation of violence and destruction, the feminist thinker casting about for a new form for her thinking on war and peace can and should absorb the truths and strengths from these previous postures, positions, and images. It is to one alternative to the grip of these powerful images, that taps their strengths, that I now turn. It involves the transformation of what Sara Ruddick has called maternal thinking through the prism of a particular feminist consciousness.

The critical task that confronts the anti-war feminist is to determine how her feminist consciousness can be brought to bear on a world that holds human life very cheaply indeed, a world in peril of destruction. If feminists fail in this task or if, in the name of feminism, women succumb to the militarist mentality, including the notion that sex equality must be bought

1 It might be argued that every epoch rationalizes its war activities as just; that no society has ever been set up in which conditions to justify a war could not be found. This may well be true but it is somewhat beside the point, for there were previous eras when wars were flatly condemned as unjust and some peace-keeping was compelled. This was the function of the medieval church when it functioned true to its own mission. With the advent of the modern state, however, instruments and methods of manipulation, circumvention and cooptation have been enormously enhanced, thus rendering even more problematic the actual implementation of just war doctrine in practice.

userHighlight

userHighlight

userHighlight

userHighlight

On Beautiful Souls, Just Warriors and Feminist Consciousness 345

or earned through participation in militarized citizenship, another generation of mothers may well muse sadly and Murmur/Your doings as boys, as Thomas Hardy wrote in his powerful anti-war poem, The Souls of the Slain, only the next time round the lament could well be for daughters as well as sons. Why have women been willing to sacrifice their male children to the gods of war? Or, why have women been impotent to prevent this sacrifice? How can the evil be stopped?

I shall move towards answering this question from the perspective of maternal thinking. The Beautiful Soul, remember, proposes to make each individual a beacon of light in the surrounding darkness and to draw others in on a life of spiritual perfectionism, or to repudiate them if they fail. But such counsel rarely percolates upward or outward; moreover, the Beautiful Soul position includes no notion of structural constraints-economic, political, ideological-under which people labor. The Just Warrior, on the other hand, does involve the real world, does place individuals under a set of political obligations. But under present circumstances, the individual must undertake those obligations from a position which he or she confronts as the passive recipient of afuit accompli with reference to war and peace policy- making. An alternative must take account of these realities without falling into its own naive perfectionism, or into an overly legalistic and circumscribed, hard-boiled realism.

Maternal thinking contains no neat programmatic outputs and it eschews tidy definitions of either personal or political realities. It involves human beings, particularly women who mother, in a way ofknowing. This way of knowing flows from living in the world and engaging in certain practices. It demands that one reflect critically on those practices and on that way of living. It links the individual with the social whole and ties the particular to the larger structural context in which it exists. Because maternal thinking involves a way of knowing from which ways of acting flow, and because this knowing is tied to interests, values, and imperatives that are not presumed to be absolute, final, and total, this alternative involves politics as human speech and action towards shared ends and purposes. Maternal thinking forges links between the big questions of war and peace and the nature of the political community with the world of everyday, ordinary reality.

What, then, is maternal thinking? I owe the notion to Sara Ruddick, who argues that maternal thinking grows out of the experience of mothering or of having been mothered: it is not some innate given of female nature (Ruddick, 1980; passim). Certainly not all modes of feminist thought are cast within the frame of maternal thinking. This mode of feminism recalls an earlier form of feminist thought linked with such activists and thinkers as Jane Addams and known as social feminism. Such feminism is rather dramatically at odds with what might be called absolute rights feminism. Rights feminists stress womens rights to individualistic achievement, opportunity, and power in the world as it is presently (and hierarchically) structured, including the right to achievement on the battle field. Where rights feminists stress individualism, social feminists, including maternal thinkers, press social responsibilities, duties to and for a wider communal framework.

For example: in an amicus curiae brief filed before the Supreme Court in its hearing on a case involving the constitutionality of an all-male draft, the National Organization for Women (NOW) ties compulsory universal military service to the concept of citizenship in a democracy, apparently not recognizing that the notion of militarized citizenship originates not with the theory and practice of democracy but with Machiavelli. There are, of course, women who argue that proving themselves in combat is part of equal opportunity for women. The point here is that by succumbing to received notions, such feminists simply draw women in on the ventures to which men historically have been subjected or which men historically have undertaken rather than attempting to find some alternative for men and women alike.

userHighlight

userHighlight

userHighlight

userHighlight

userHighlight

userHighlight

userHighlight

userHighlight

userHighlight

userHighlight

userHighlight

userHighlight

userHighlight

346 JEAN BFIHKE ELSHIAIN

Who is the maternal thinker? She is very much in and of the world. She is no Beautiful Soul. A powerful perspective on individual and social reality emerges from those features of maternal practice that are nearly unchanging. That is, all who mother or were mothered in a good enough fashion have had these experiences or engaged in these practices, hence known them on some level. (Though, to be sure, the woman who is mothering or has herself mothered has what might be called easier access to maternal knowledge.) Ruddick describes maternal practices by the interests mothers have in the preservation, the growth, and the acceptability of their children.

There are tensions between and among these imperatives for the third, acceptability, is always framed with reference to the judgements of the wider social world as every mother wants her child to become the sort of human being others can appreciate and accept. Preseruation and growth, however, are tied to and affirm the primacy of the particular, the concrete reality of each and every child. The perspective which flows from mothering practices, as these revolve around preservation and growth, asserts the primacy of keeping over acquiring, conserving the fragile over conquering, holding on to and protecting the vulnerable over controlling and coercing. Within this frame, what counts as failure is the death, injury or damage of a child through carelessness or neglect or the shunting and shaming of a child through over-control and domination.

With her statement of the elemental features of maternal thinking, Ruddick has framed an implicit critique of those social policies modern war inevitably brings in its wake and requires. Control is the key term. War begins with the acquisition of human bodies and the silencing of human souls (for the Greeks logistikon, the soul, meant the power to speak and in war-time those powers are eviscerated). Conscription is the direct control of human beings and is unacceptable, not because we are all selfish individualists who refuse to accept any demands placed upon us in the name of the larger community and the public good, but because conscription dictates to the very heart and soul of the human being the most frightful thing of all: to kill. What counts as a failure within the maternal perspective overcontrol and death-is located in the heart of the war-making powers of the modern state, including its right to declare wars, to compel some to fight, to mobilize others to support the war effort with their labor and their loyalty. Modern war fails under the terms of the maternal perspective because it leads to the creation of a state of emergency that is a threat to democracy. In a time of war, the state not only commits itself against an external enemy; it moves internally to quash enemies within, to force silence and obedience. Writes Ruddick:

. I have identified four characteristics of maternal practice which I believe incompatable with the military mind . . These are mothers preservative love, female-maternal sexuality, female-maternal cognitive holism, and a maternal-pacifist philosophy of conflict (Ruddick, 1981; p. 16).

Yet mothers in the past have not been a consistent, coherent force set in opposition to state war-making powers, despite the fact that they, presumably, have had access to maternal thinking as Ruddick, and I, have sketched it. Why? The tensions within maternal thinking help US to understand this. Women engaged in maternal practices frequently feel compelled to override preservation and growth in favor of the social value of acceptability. They train their sons for obedience; their daughters to be Beautiful Souls or helpmeets, good girls who do not complain or who suffer in silence. To assert the primacy of acceptability, as one dimension of maternal thinking, slides into support at present either for a just war posture or,

userHighlight

userHighlight

userHighlight

userHighlight

userHighlight

userHighlight

On Beautiful Souls, Just Warriors and Feminist Consciousness 347

most unhappily of all, should women suppress entirely the values of preservation and growth, towards full acquiesence in militarism and statism.

What can be done about the bind that the social world puts on maternal practices and imbeds within the imperatives that flow from these practices? The answer lies in the transformation of acceptability into a value not at odds with the injunctions to preserve the concrete integrity of each and every child. This means acceptability must become a felt interest within a world that allows the mothers interest in her childs preservation and growth to flourish. To achieve such a world, women must concern themselves with the nature of public reality, with that social context in which maternal practices occur, rather than limiting their concerns to the smaller world. They must participate in the project of social justice, human dignity, and freedom, for so long as maternal practices and thinking take place within relations of dominance, in a society governed increasingly by a technocratic politics and an unaccountable professional managerial class with sophisticated methods of surveillance and control at their disposal, mothers will continue to feel they must stress acceptability, teaching their children to grow up to accept authority, to obey, and to be good.

The transformation of maternal thinking in and through feminist consciousness aims to bring maternal thinking to bear upon the social world, rather than to repudiate maternal practices and to treat maternal thinking as unliberated and unworthy from a feminist rights perspective. If maternal thought can reach out and enter the wider world, can challenge and critique it, that world will be transformed slowly, over time, if it is to be transformed at all. This feminist project requires time. One of the most hideous things about war is that it destroys time; it breaks into and crushes the integrity of the human life cycle; it stymies that dialectical transformation of consciousness that only a public dialogue and open debate, over time, can bring about. Any political system that holds human speech in contempt, and any political movement, including those modes of feminism which hold mothering in contempt, are at odds with maternal thinking as a form of feminist consciousness.

American feminists are in a bind. A feminist politics and theory that goes beyond narrow, self-interested reaction towards one that incorporates a vision of social justice and resolute compassion into its conceptual heart could begin to pave the way for a dialogue with that potential constituency that has thus far been alienated from feminism along lines of class, race, religion and traditional beliefs. To this end, feminists must not junk all received notions of traditional feminity and motherhood-this is something maternal thinking tells us- instead they must appropriate and transform these images. This means American feminists must begin to look with greater suspicion upon the state. By looking to government as the new Mr Right to protect them, guarantee their equality, and clean up their messes, many American feminists locked themselves into a position from which it has become difficult to reject equality through the state, even if that includes military service. Such statist feminism has insulated itself from radically new modes of social change both here and abroad-modes that often draw upon deeply held religious values about community life that are rejected by many U.S. feminists, and that regard the state with suspicion, out of hard-won knowledge that all governments, unless checked, sooner or later resort to armies and police to advance their goals . . (Close, 1980; p. 373).

Maternal thinking may provide the grounds for a rapprochement between feminists and non-feminist women, a meeting of minds that can best take place in and through a feminist transformed maternal perspective. For any woman who mothers or has mothered in the direct sense and, with greater difficulty, any person who has been mothered, is capable, in

userHighlight

userHighlight

userHighlight

userHighlight

348 JEAN BETHKE ELSHTAIN

principle, through empathy and reflection, of entering into this mode of consciousness, of understanding what the political and moral generalization of what Ruddick calls attentive love to all children is about (Ruddick, 1980; p. 29). To teach communities how to value childrens lives, to treat children as ends-in-themselves, the perspective immanent within maternal practices must be boldly developed and rendered political without losing sight of the concrete reality of each mother and child with which it begins.

What I am proposing is that feminists must be about their mothers business; that we must come to understand the perspective and way of knowing that flows from mothering and the action intrinsically linked to this knowing. This could lead to some interesting new political alliances: between mothers and sons, for example, and against militarist fathers. Maternal thinking as an alternative to Beautiful Souls and Just Warriors can do the following for us: it can answer the realist recognition that the world is tough and we must not be naive about it in a way Beautiful Souls cannot. For against Beautiful Souls the maternal thinker knows we cannot opt out of the world, nor remain pure within it. Every mother recognizes the world as a perilous place. With the Beautiful Souls, however, maternal thinkers recognize that human reality is about matters of the spirit, not just about power or material conditions. It incorporates idealist truths even as it remains aware of harsh realities. A politically transformed maternal thinking ties feminism into the larger frame of a communitarian theory of politics. It anticipates the possibility that we might come to experience deeply moving patriotic ties as our links to a way of life that does not have to coerce devotion. It embraces the dignity of each and every human being, for each and every human being was once a child who needed attentive love.

The daunting challenge which confronts feminist reflections on war and peace is that should we fail this time, there will be no one left: no Beautiful Souls, no Just Warriors, not even the cry of the suffering mother. We must, with Albert Camus, stake everything on the formidable gamble: that words are more powerful than munitions, words that were first taught us, that first entered our hearts and formed our identifies in and through what we call the Mother Tongue (Camus, 1972; p. 55).

REFERENCES

Augustine, St. 1972. The City of God, David Knowles ed., Penguin Books, Baltimore, Maryland. Camus, Albert. 1972. Neither Victims nor Executioners. World Without War Publications, Chicago. Close, Sandy. 1980. War and peace and the Left. The Nation 372-374. Hegel, G. W. F. 1979. The Phenomenology of Spirit, translated by Andrew V. Miller. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Hehir, Father J. Bryan. 1980. Moral doctrine on modern war. Origins 9 (42) 675480. John Paul II. 1979. John Paul II: on pilgrimage, the U.N. address. Origins 9 (17) 258- 266. Murphy, Bishop P. Francis. 1980. War and peace: questions and convictions. Origins 10, (16) 241-247. Niebanck, Richard J. 1972. Conscience, War, and the Selectiue Objector. Lutheran Church in America, Board of

Social Ministry. Ruddick, Sara. 1981. Thinking maternally in public: some thoughts on women and peace. Unpublished manuscript. Ruddick, Sara. 1980. Maternal thinking. Unpublished manuscript. Stanton, Elizabeth Cady, Susan B. Anthony and Matilda Joslyn Gage. 1882. History of Woman SuJ@age, Vol. II.

Charles Mann, Rochester, New York. Walzer, Michael. 1977. Just and Unjust Wars. Basic Books, New York. Zahn, Gordon. 1979. Another Parr ofthe War. The Camp Simon Srory. University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst,

Mass.

userHighlight

userHighlight

userHighlight

userHighlight