BOOKS

VIETNAM: A HISTORY
by Stanby Karnow
(Viking Ress; 750 pp.; $20.00)
William E . Colby

This blockbuster of a book, both in size and

scope-Vietnam from prehistory to today-marks a major advance in writings
about Americas tangled and tragic involvement in that turbulent country. During the
war a host of books appeared, some reporting various facets of the situation, some
trying to give coherent meaning to the jumbled and contradictory facts that swirled
through the news accounts and official reports; Frances Fitzgeralds Fire in the Luke,
David Halberstams The Best and the
Brighest, and Bernard Falls and Robert
Thompsons series of reports and critiques
are only a sampling. As Americans, and
particularly servicemen, returned from
Vietnam duty, some of the more articulate
among thqn produced fictional or factional
accounts of the combat experience, such as
Michael Herrs Dispatches and the film
Apocalypse Now. We continue to be flooded
with now-ittan-be-told books based on
hitherto classified material or giving alternate interpretations of particular developments; among these are, of course, thePentagon Papers, now including the negotiating
volumes edited by George C. Herring, recently published by the University of Texas
Press as The Secret Diplomacy of the Vietnam War. Even better known are the memoirs of President Nixon. Henry Kissinger,
General Westmoreland, and others. Then
there are Peter Braestrups analyses of mediacoverage of the 1968Tet attack; William
Shawcrosss polemic on Cambodia, Sideshow;Frank Snepps Decent Interval on the
fall of Saigon; Archimedes Pattis Why
Vietnam? regretting that the United States
dropped the option of dealing with Ho Chi
Minh as a Tito in 1945; and Arnold Isaacs
Without Honor about the final months of
Americas involvement in Vietnam.
Among all these,Karnows Viet leads
the field in the effort to provide a comprehensive account of that controversial war,
in part by reaSOn of the unique assets he
brings to the task. Kamows concern with
Viemam began in the early 195Os, when he
was reporting from Paris the French agony
over Dien Bien Phu. It continued for twenty
years, during which time he served as a
24

correspondent in Asia for Time-Life and

later for the Washington Posr. His book
benefits from his research and from contemporary interviews and reports of visits
both to battlefields and to the scenes of the
various coups. Karnow visited Vietnam
again for seven weeks in 1981 to interview
many of Americas erstwhileenemies, finding them surprisingly frank in their admission of North Vietnams deliberateprogram
not only to take the South but to manipulate
American opinion to make that goal possible. Finally, his reportorial skills were
reinforced by the experience of working
simultaneously on the book and on a thirteen-part television show airedby the Public
Broadcasting System in the fall of 1983.
The result is a remarkably readable book.
Out of the incredible tangle of people and
events in settings as diverse as the muddy
outposts of the Mekong Delta and the Oval
Office, Kamow weaves an interesting t a p
estry. His clear word pictures, sharp selection of dialogue, and faithful reflection of
the flow of events keep the readers anention focused on the drama of debate, dispute, and ambiguity. without miring him in
the swamp of stultifying detail that often
suffocated contemporary participants. He
lays bare the frustrationof Lyndon Johnson
over the North Vietnamese refusal to be
diverted from their stubborn belief in ultimate success, despite the devastating power
of the United States and the huge costs to
both peoples. He gives full play to h e drama
of decision-making in Washington, which
was profoundly complicated by the recalcitrance or the weaknesses of the South Vietnamese as well as by the struggles for
position and the problems of conscience
among the Americans involved. Kamows
book will be the benchmark against which
subsequent attempts to explain the American experience in Viemam will be judged.
And yet one must admit to flaws-which
stem perhaps from the very source of the
books strength: its journalistic nature. The
structureis dramatic. Karnow devotes about
half the volume, some threehundred pages.
to the buildup period from 1960 to 1968
and only a hundred to the seven years that

followebincluding the withdrawal of the

Americans, the tests of strengthof the South
Vietnamese, and the final fall. Karnows
postwar interviews lead to an even-handed
recognition of North Vietnamese failings
and harshness, but the disdain for South
Vietnams governments and armed forces
that was prevalent among journalists during
the war continues unabated. This is in spite
of the postwar evidence that many in the
South preferred their rule to that of the victors-even to the extent of risking death in
fleets of leaky boats. Despite Kamows disclaimer, there is a tone of inevitability to
the account rather than a focus on the critical
decision points at which different outcomes
might have occurred. This leaves the reader
vaguely dissatisfied: Can the enormous expenditure of blood, treasure, effort, and
prestige have left us no real lesson except
not to do it again? If we are to improve on
that sort of simplistic conclusion from the
years in Vietnam, it appears we must await
more reflective analyses of the experience.
From these we may derive more refined
judgments of what was wise and what was
not. IVY

RELIGION IN THE SECULAR CITY:

TOWARD A POSTMODERN
THEOLOGY
by Harvey Cox
(Simon and Schuster; 304 pp.; $16.95)
Joseph A . Varacalli

Twenty years after the book that made him

famous, Harvey Cox has come to believe
that the great era of modem theology, of
which what is loosely called liberal theology. ..was the most characteristicexpression, is drawing to a close, just as the modern era itself is ending. Where, he asks,
do we go from the SecularCity? The answer
depends on which paradigm of social change
underlies ones thought.
Of the numerous paradigms available,
two are presently vying for supremacy: the
Marxist and the classical European. Those
who, likc Cox, believe that the internal contradictions of late capitalismwill soon bring
us to a new stage in world history must
answer the question with a compatible
postmodern theology. Those who, like
the present reviewer, are skeptical that
Western civilization is in its death throes
will answer: Nowhere in particular. There
arent many opportunities for stepping to
right or left in the classical paradigm, especially as formulated by Max Weber. The
movement from traditional to modem

is a movement along a one-way street, and

the implications for theology are quite different from the implications Cox unfolds.
In the final analysis, theological thinkers
must place their bets on one of these two
competing worldviews.
Since Cox has placed his bet on the disappearance of life as we secular Westemers know it, the future lies with the virtuous popular struggles of the oppressed of
the Third World. Evidence for this rejection
of the secularism of the West may be seen
in the appearance of neo-traditional religious groupings and in the reassertion of
religion as a political force. Though one
example of this is the rise of fundamentalist
Protestantism, more important for Cox is
the creation of base communities, inspired originally by Latin American liberation theology, where the spiritual and material needs of the global poor axe addressed.
As Cox puts it: Both movements are
strongly antimodernist; to understand them
is to understand why modern religion and
its theological rationale seem fated for dissolution. Cox prefers the base communities: I do not believe fundamentalism has
much to offer a postmodem theology.
Cox envisions a new Christian reformation, a new theology rising not from the

existing and decadent intellectual centers of

the West but from the bottom and from
the edges. Readers might be interested to
know how Cox understands h e role that
sherry-sipping Harvard theologians will play
in the revolution to come. placing, as he
does, such faith in the inner motivation and
social discontent of the proletariat. As he
sees it, this new theology cannot be successfully formulated unless the modem liberal legacy is appropriated and incorporated. Only a theology that has taken the
modem age seriously will be able to take
seriously what is coming next. No one can
move beyond the secular city who has not
first passed through it.Cox apparently sets
for himself and his followers the crucial task
of bridging the gap between the old and the
new theologies. Indeed, by now proposing
a more relevant theology, Cox is implicitly
claiming for himself a crucial involvement
in no less than two watershed theological
eras. Not bad for less than a lifetime!
Cox explains the initial rise and eventual
fall of liberal theology in a display of bold
theorizing. At its inception it served its purpose: emancipation from the circumscribed
theologies of traditional societies. Given the
failure of modern s o c i e t i e d y which Cox
presumably means modern, democratic,

capitalist societies-to establish a sufficient

measure of social, economic, and religious
justice, liberal theology, once part of the
solution, has become part of the problem. The charisma has become routinized and, hence, part of an oppressive status quo. The values we rightly associate
withthemodernage-the liberty, equality.
and fraternity of the French Revolutionare all endangered today not by the dead
hand of tradition but by modemity itself,
and they can be salvaged only by moving
beyond it.
The classical model of social change
has quite different theological implications
from the quasi-Marxist ones of Cox. Modernity, according to the classical model,
represents an end to history. Following Weber, modern societies are stuck with many
things: bureaucracy, science, technology, a
certain amount and type of secularization,
and with cultural and religious pluralism.
There are, consequently, limits to the reconstruction of modem social life. Modernity, then. requires that some kind of liberal theology be granted ultimate stature.
At the same time, however, modernity encourages the development of neo-traditional
theologies to represent the various discontents of modernity and is a sort of clear-

NOW, SUBSCRIBING To WORLDVIRN

IS AS EASY AS DIALING THE PHONE!
SIMPLY CALL TOLL FEDATATELm 800-341-1522

In Maine, call collect 236-2896

Weekdays 6 AM to 9 PM, EST,

riday Till 5 PM)

A FULL YEAR OF WORLDVIEW

FOR ONLY $15.00!

(Special Student Price, only $8.75!)

Use DATATELTM
to order a new subscription for yourself or a friend, or
to renew your current subscription.
Remember, the call is free.

25

inghouse for ideas, including theological

ideas. In a nutshell, the modem theological

task is, in the context of the classical paradigm, an exercise in the sociology of
lolowledge and of truth; it explains why
certain theologies share an affinity with certain sociohistorical p u p s and tries, further. to determine the relative QUth content of each formulation. Ibe WO& of Avery
Dulles. especially in his Models of the
Church and Models of Revelafion. are excellent examples of such thinking.
In one respect Coxs thinking contributes
something to the more middle-of-the-road
thinking of Dulles. Cox insists that future
theology must take into account more fully
the folk religion of the average person. For
all its brilliance and all its balance, the work
of Dulles represents the high tradition of
theological thought, while Coxs postmodem theology will. allegedly, be more
attentiveto the theology of the masses. Still,
if Rofessor Cox txuly wishes to listen to
what the little people have to say, he had
better be prepared to hear some unpleasant
things, things he may be forced to dismiss
as false consciousness.
Coxs work will convince no one not
already a believer in the Marxist paradigm
of history. He is. after all, singing to the
choir. Nevertheless, his book will be a best
seller. Such success is due not only to the
fact that there are many guilt-ridden romantic Western intellectuals out there in
bookstore land but that Cox so lucidly and
neatly articulates the current &/chic. Indeed, I look forward to reviewing the inevitable sequel of this work, to be subtitled,
no doubt, toward a post-postmodern theology. m

THE RECOVERY OF POLITICAL

THEORY: LIMITS AND
PossiBiLmEs
by Wllllam C. Havard
(Louisiana State University Ress; 228 pp.;
522.50)

Barbara Kellerman

The reader is leery at first. How many collections of essays written over a twentyyear period hang together to make a good
book? And how significant can a book be
whose main topic is the contemporary history of American political science? It is the
considerable achievement of this volume
that thesereservationsgradually ebb. Moreover. the author finally convinces us that
the passion which drives each of these essays ought to fuel the debate within the

academy-d
the public discourseas well.
At first glance these essays-most of
which 6rst appeared in German publications
or in American journals of general intellectual interest-appear to cover a broad
range. The opening piece is a reflection,
from the vantage point of the early 1960s.
on the problems of being an intellectual in
an era that no longer sustains the idea that
knowledge and reason alone can remedy
what ails us. Although this first essay is less
well developed than some of the later ones,
it serves to introduce the theme that underlies the whole collection. Simply put,
Havard would have us-aU of us-adopt a
holistic approach to politics. Such a perspective would, first, enable us to understand, viscerally and intellectually,that politics cannot be abstracted from other modes
of human experience;second, it would have
us make sure that students of politics concem themselves with what has been ref e d to as the quaternarian structure,
namely the interrelations among man and
society, the universe and God.
Havards point is that both the period of
Enlightenment and the contemporary study
of politics have suffered from some of the
same deficiencies. When we obscure certain realities of existence such as the ubiquity of good and evil, say, or the certainty
that mans aspirations for perfection will
outrun his capacities, we preclude the possibility of all but the most superficial understanding of political activity.
The next four pieces provide lacerating
criticisn+largely on grounds already mentioned he-f
recent political science. In
particular, Havard laments the waxing of
behavioralism and the waning of political
philosophy. He chides behavioralists for
trying to quantify the struggle of men and
women to settle public issues, and he mocks
them for their futile attempts to separate
facts from values and develop a valuefree social science. Havard further charges
them with working on problems that are
either so trivial or so obvious that it is a
work of supererogation to prove them,
and suggests that instead of limiting their
investigations to only the most superficial
manifestations of political experience, they
try their hand at a more profound exploration of the nature of man.
It should be noted that Harvards attacks
on those in the mainstream of his own discipline are by no means confined to the
substance of their work. Their language is
alsogrist for his mill. Charging that political
scientists are wont to express relatively
simple ideas in an unnecessarily pompous
and obscurantist form. he accuses them
further of %onhived obscurity, meaning-

less repetition of in words and phrases,

tonured construction, and sheer ugliness of
expression.
Potitid theorists Eric Voegelin (to whom
this collection is dedicated) and Michael
Oakeshott are the subjects of the next three
essays. Although interesting, these pieces
are difficult to categorize, clearly assuming
that the reader is familiar with the work of
both men. Thus, they are not introductory;
nor do they constitute overviews. But neither are they ordinary critical analyses.
Rather, they are personal reflections on the
persons and ideas of two of this centurys
most important political philosophers. Havard Ends their work perhaps the most significant contemporary contributions to the
study of politics. His discussions of Voegelin and Oakeshotts work allow Havard
the opportunity to advance his own cause:
Voegelins work exemplifies the idea that
the study of Western politics must be
grounded in a broadly based study of Westem man, especially the history of ideas; and
Oakeshotts analysis of the defects of rationalism in modern politics leads him inevitably to decry the loss of coherence, unity,
and wholeness of knowlege about the a p
propriate ways of attending to our social
and political life.
The two concluding pieces address Havards main concern: how to give political
education intellectual and practical consequence. Oakeshott, for example, defines
politics as the activity of attending to the
general arrangements of a set of people
whom chance or choice have brought together. From this definition he concludes
that the appropriate engagement of an undergraduate student of politics at a university will be to be taught and to learn
something about the modes of thought and
manners of speaking of an historian and
philosopher. Havards argument is much
the same. By excoriating mainstream political scientists for failing to recognize that
the end of political education is analogous
to the end of education in general-knowlam and condition of manedge about the n
and by charging that the run-of-the-market
political science textbook is little more than
a blending machine that stirs together
packets of indigestible information and a
few samples of the latest remains from the
synthetic research smorgasbord. Havard
makes a ringing plea for another approach
altogether: liberal studies in political education.
One might fairly apply to this book (as
to many collection. of essays written for
different purposes over a long period of
time) the clichC that it raises more questions
than it answers. How, in Havards opinion,