can be adequately cared for, withoutninfantilizing or coercing them, by merelynguaranteeing them their proper rights.nMr. Glasser’s argument, although punctuatednwith heart-rending examples, lacksnthe delicacy of touch of the other three.nAlthough the four authors do notnattempt to homogenize their views, therenis a current that runs throughout thenbook: “doing good” is a natural andncommendable human impulse, butntranslating this into social programsnand policies is a thorny problem fraughtnwith innumerable complicationsnand uncertainties. •nKershner’snResolutionnHoward E. Kershner: How to Staynin Love With One Woman for 70nYears;nNorthwood Institute; Cedar Hill, Texas.nTo accomplish it, one first and foremostnmust have an ample opportunity tonremain on this earth long enough. ThenGood Lord has blessed Dr Kershner withnexactly this circumstance. He thus hasnacquired both the necessary expertise andnthe chance to jot down and publish hisnimpressions and advice at the age of 86,nand he has done it with an amazingnfreshness of feeling and sensitivity. Dr.nKershner—an author, scholar and civicnleader, decorated by many foreign countriesnwith their high orders of merit— isnan authority on Christian economicndoctrines. Together with his religiousnallegiance, he admits a rather intenseninterest in the realm of the reciprocalnattraction of the genders which has beennhis sincere preoccupation since the agenof seven. Subsequently, at the age of 14,nhe fell in love, and that was it. Duringnthe ensuing 70 years he observed thatn”. . .all of one good man or woman is farnmore than bits and pieces of many.” Whilenwe would never suggest coercion, someneducators and moralists may want tonChronicles of Culturenmake Dr Kershner’s observations requirednreading.nThe superbly engaging nature of DrnKershner’s emotionality induces the suspicionnthat the modern psychoanalyticnapproach to the mysteries of sex is justnan exploitative hoax: if it suffices to bennormal and healthy in one’s impulsesnand preferences to achieve happiness innone’s love life—why call the analyst’sncouch a help,” DnLundborg’snPrivate SaganLouis B. Lundborg: Up To Now;nNorton; New York.nA dissonance may be detected betweennthe words private and saga, as epics arenseldom matters of privacy. It is, however,npeculiarly American to turn very personalncircumstances into topics of much largernsignificance and interest, even when greatnliterature is not the objective. It is especiallyneffective to cast these circumstancesnagainst the American West at the turnnof the century, and during the first halfnof this century, when the burgeoning ofnhuman energies and opportunities creatednan ambience from which fascinatingncareers blossomed. Mr Lundborg’s autobiographynbegins in a log cabin innMontana and takes him (and us) to thenchairman’s office of the Bank of America,nthe world’s largesj: bank. His accountnof the social and personal propellants ofnthe process that turned the son of anSwedish immigrant farmer into thenChairman of the Board reads like annexercise in Americanism—a wholesomenideology that is never called ideology bynideologists, especially those who hate itsnmotivations and its astonishing achievements.nMr Lundborg may lack a scholar’snrefined judgment on the causal factorsnand the more complicated ingredients ofncontemporary history, but his moral instinctsnand his theorizing are propernand engaging. DnnnIn FocusnGittelson’snHalf-Hearted EffortnNatalie Gittelson: Dominus—AnWoman Looks at Men’s Lives;nFarrar, Straus & Giroux. Inc.; New York.nThe image of a henpecked husband,nor a grotesquely timid suitor, ornan addle-headed lover, who is manipulatednand cuckolded by an enterprisingnfemale, has belonged, since time immemorial,nto literature, theater, farce. Innour era of cheaply popularized sociop.sychologism,nit is called liberation ofnwomen, emasculation or role-playing,nand is ascribed to the surge of thenwomen’s movement. Ms. Gittelsonnwrote a book to explain why it is so.nThe book commendably attempts objectivitynand insight and carries a convincingnintroductory observation that:n”When femininity becomes a matter fornconjecture, so too must masculinity.”nDeplorably, it is written in a standardnNeiv York Times Magazine jouvnaleseoracularnprose, thereby losing its onlynchance to be persuasive by means ofnirony and witticism.nMs. Gittelson seems to confirm, orneven feebly postulates, the ultimate nonsenseninherent in the current popculturalnscene, namely that men shouldn”redefine” their manhood, “raise” then”consciousness,” engage in anti-feministnbacklash. To anyone with a sense ofnmasculine dignity, such a precept smacksnof homosexual response. By acting so,nmen would acknowledge a fictitiousndefeat of the entire gender, while,nactually, we deal with the casualty ofnone generation, or even just a bunch ofnmasculine misfits whom Ms. Gittelsonnchose as her statistical specimen, displayingna sort of reportorial astigmatism.nIs the Dominus—the Master, the Man—nreally emerging from the pages of hernbook as representative for the contemporarynmale as she wishes us to believe.”nIn describing him, Ms. Gittelson, in spiten