On “Marxism &nMotorcyclenMaintenance”nRather than answer Thomas Ashtonnpoint-by-point, I prefer to wear hisncritique {Chronicles, November 1985)nas a badge of honor. I am struck, in thenhistory of people and ideas, by thenfrequency of the distinction betweennpersonalities and their thoughts. ThenRousseau of The Confessions and thenRousseau of The Discourse on Inequalitynbeing perhaps the classic case. Civilitynas well as common sense dictatesnan appreciation of disjunctions as wellnas conjunctions.nIf being charged with “antipsychological”nis equated with coarsenad hominem remarks like “C. WrightnMills chased the future even morenfeverishly than he pursued his femalengraduate students,” then 1 stand rightlynaccused. It is precisely why, despitenyears of personal association withnMills, I chose not to highlight anHollywood-type gossip-column approachnto someone whose career mustnultimately be measured by his contributionsnto social research rather thann481 CHRONICLES OF CULTUREnPOLEMICS & EXCHANGESnBOOKS IN BRIEFnpublic exhibition.nMy book on Mills attempts to be fairnand balanced. It is quite critical of hisnlater phases and equally praising of hisnpioneering early efforts at reexaminingnstratification and power in Americannsociety. I would only point out that thencritical references to Trilling, Hofstadter,nand Kirk, mentioned by your reviewer,nderive from my text. I wouldnsubmit sir, that this in itself indicatesnthe essential balance and fairness ofnthe text.nTo present a strident condemnationn(or celebration) of an individual (Mills)ndead for nearly a quarter centurynwould serve no useful scholarly purpose.nI describe my book as a sociologicalnbiography—precisely to avoid thenrampant emotionalism exhibited by anreviewer who speaks of seeing Millsn”taking off on his motorcycle with angood-looking blond on the backseat.”nAnd to add that Mills “did not looknmuch like a scholar. He looked morenlike a bear that had lost a fight with anlawnmower” shows what reviewing innthe service of animus can lead to:nhubris.nIrving Louis HorowitznRutgers State UniversitynLocke: An Introduction by John W. Yolton; Basil Blackwell; New York; $29.95. A summarynprofile of a philosopher who left a problematic legacy in his advoeaey of liberal individualism,nof rationalized religion, and of a naturalized metaphysics.nIs Capitalism “Christian?; edited by Franky Schaeffer; Crossway; Westchester, IL; $9.95.nContributors—who include Paul Johnson, Peter Berger, Richard John Neuhaus, and R.nEmraett Tyrrell—do not baptize the stock exchange, but they do clear capitalism of most ofnthe charges made against it by the pious left.nTheological Dictionary of the New Testament; edited by Gerhard Kittel and GerhardnFriedrich; abridged by Geoffrey W. Bromiley; Eerdmans/Paternoster; Grand Rapids, MI. Atnlast, a one-volume abridgment of “the Kittle,” the nine-volume standard reference sonindispensable to serious New Testament scholarship. Details and some documentation arensacrificed in the shortening, but none of the original entries have been eliminated.nThe Intellectuals Speak Out About God: A Handbook for the Christian Student in anSecular Society; edited by Roy Abraham Varghese; Regnery Gateway; Chicago. Annimportant book of essays by intellectuals who found God, including Robert Jastrow, Sir JohnnEccles, Rupert Sheldrake, Stanley Jaki, and Wolfhart Pannenberg.nnnProfessor AshtonnReplies:nProf. Horowitz tells us that he isn”struck” by “the distinction betweennpersonalities and their thoughts”; hisnreaders, however, have no choice butnto be dumbstruck. Clinging to thennotion that what people think andnwhat they do may be severed is academicnindulgence at its worst. Andneven worse is the intention of modernnliberalism to free itself of moral evaluationnby taking the so-called high roadnthat bypasses the bankruptcy of itsnagenda. We can learn a great dealnmore about badges of honor in ThenScarlet Letter than in the “fair andnbalanced” “sociological biography”nbefore us. These works can only benthought of as precursors to studies ofnHitler’s intellectual life subtitled fascismnwithout the holocaust. Stalin sansngulag is sure to follow. ccnThomas L. AshtonnUniversity of MassachusettsnOn ”Animals andn’Other AwkwardnCases”’nIn his review of recent books by BernardnRollin and Mary Midgleyn{Chronicles, August 1985), Jay Mechlingnastutely presents some of thenstrengths and weaknesses in the currentndebate over animal rights. ThusnMary Midgley’s case for kinship andnmoral community in preference to the.ninbuilt limitations of the utilitariannstandpoint presents as not merely philosophicallynsound, but as in tune withntoday’s rapidly growing feeling for anmore holistic world pattern that is notnonly human but humane.nAs Stephen Clark’s untypically sub-n