man sees, strictly speaking, not whatnAdam saw but through what Adam saw,nthrough a lens of language, tradition,nand human association. To want morenis to aspire to be other than man.nExistential, phenomenological—call itnwhat you will—it means the loss of thenhuman and the normal. There Hes thenheresy and perhaps the key to Giacometti’snpeculiar integrity as well. In ansense, normality was alien to him.nJames Lord has written an intriguingnand highly sympathetic biography of annelusive man whose elusiveness is perhapsnbest seen in his art. But Lord doesnnot seem to realize that art cannotnsurvi’e on the terms Giacometti formulatednand served so doggedly. The exigenciesnof art call for a different aestheticnand a different kind of artist, a mannsomehow content with what he fundamentallynis, who retains, instead ofndiscarding, his human traditions, andntries to gi’e his vision form throughnthem. One wonders what Giacometti’snsculptures and paintings would ha’enlooked like if he had tried to see withnsuch ‘ision. All we know is that he didnnot.nCarl C. Curtis is assistant professor ofnEnglish at Liberty University.nSelling Outnthe Kidsnby Edward D. Snow Jr.nPricing the Priceless Child: ThenChanging Social Value of Children bynViviana A. Zelizer, New York: BasicnBooks.nMost parents, especially those withnteenagers, know the increasing costs ofnhaving children, but in Pricing thenPriceless Child, Viiana Zelizer investigatesnthe declining economic value ofnAmerican children during the past century.nZelizer charts this decline fromn1870-1930, noting the simultaneous increasenin the sentimental ‘alue of children.nShe notes that, starting in 1860,nthe economic value of American childrennincreased dramatically becausenrapid industrialization opened new factorynoccupations for poor children. Progressivenreformers, howe’er, recoiled atnthe concept of the economically “useful”nchild and were eventually able tonconince their fellow citizens that childrennshould be economically “worthless,”nbut emotionally “priceless.”nIt is to Zelizer’s credit that she recognizesnthe priority of moral and culturalnmovements over economic forces, butnshe fails to explain adequately the internalndynamics of the reform movementsnshe examines. She fails, for example, tonanalyze the religious and scripturalnteachings about children that inspirednmany reformers. It is remarkable, also,nthat Zelizer could devote so much attentionnto the industrial revolution,nchild insurance, wrongful child deathnlaws, and adoption practices in documentingnthe changing attitudes towardnchild labor and yet treat the push for an”family wage” only in passing, and thennwith derision as a plot by greedy capitalistsnand oppressive patriarchs tryingnto perpetuate the “cult of truenwomanhood.”nFor Progressive reformers trying tonliberate women and children from factoriesnand mines, where they performedndangerous and tedious labor for lownwages, no goal was more importantnthan the establishment of a “familynwage,” a single income sufficient for anman to support his wife and children innmodest comfort. Reformers recognizednthat real wages would never rise as longnas entire families were forced to competenagainst each other. For severalndecades the family-wage movementnsucceeded in shaping legislation andncultural norms so that virtually all childrennand most women were taken out ofnthe factory, while married men werengenerally paid more than the fewnwomen who remained in the workforce,neven when women did the samenwork. Much of the family-wage systemnwas oluntary, however, and when innthe I950’s women began to enter thenworkforce in great numbers, the legalnand social constraints holding thenfamily-wage system together quicklyncrumbled. Today, some fear that thenconstraints on child labor will be thennext to go. Some analysts credibh’ arguenthat the collapse of the family-wagensystem has contributed to the dramaticnincrease in social and domestic problemsnin America, and they argue for atnleast a partial restitution — perhapsnthrough tax reform.nCuriously, Zelizer’s laudable abilitynto understand the interplay between theneconomic, political, moral, culturalnforces in the 1870-1930 debate overnchild labor fails her when she turns tonexamine the contemporary scene. Shenseems oblivious to the rapid decline ofnthe American family in recent decadesnand to the need for political and culturalninitiatives to reverse this trend. Instead,nshe smiles kindly on the currentnfeminist egalitarian model of familynlife, calmly accepting the increasingnpresence of single and working mothersnnnin the workplace. She argues that establishednfamily roles can change and thatnthe demise of the full-time housewifenmay create a part-time “househusband”nand “housechild.” She will not admitnthat the unbridled pursuit of money andncareer by many women and men, at thenexpense of their families, has causednmany of our most serious contemporarynsocial problems.nZelizer is right to praise the Progressivenfoes of child labor for upholdingn”social, moral, and sacred values”nagainst the “rationalization andncommodification of the world.” But sonlong as she remains unwilling to confrontncontemporar}’ threats to the family,nincluding careerist feminism, shenwill only reinforce those forces that arenslowly making modern America as hostilento humane child-rearing as were thenmost squalid company towns of thenGilded Age.nEdward Snow is press secretary fornCongressman ]ames V. Hansenn(R-UT).nCASTRO, ISRAELnANDTHEPLOnby David KopllownThe Cuban American National Foundation, Inc.n”… it must now finally and frankly benasked: wfiat fias the actual progressionnof communist regimes in ttie SovietnUnion, Eastern Europe, no less than Cuba,nmeant for the demise or diminution ofnJewish existence as a visible entity?”nmVING LOUIS HOROWITZ,nRutgers UniversitynThe relationship between Cuba andnIsrael since the Castro revolution; thendiplomatic break with Israel; andnCastro’s growing ties with the PLO arendocumented In this 48-page study.nCopies available for $2.00 from:nCuban American National Foundationn1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.,nSuite 601nWashington, D.C. 20007nJUNE 1988/35n