Montesquieu's Philosophy of Liberalism. By THOMAS L. PANGLE. (Chicago: Uni versity of Chicago Press, 1973. Pp. 336. $10.00.)

• Author: Thomas E. Pallas
• Published date: 01 March 1975
• Date: 01 March 1975
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/106591297502800128
• Published By: Sage Publications, Inc.
• Subject Matter: Articles

224

tion

may

have

begun

much

earlier

and

for

different

reasons

than

the

author

be-

lieves.

Since

his

groups,

hardly

a

comprehensive

cross-section

of

any

class,

are

to

be

found

in

all

classes

and

among

non-veterans,

psychological

or

ideological

in-

vestigations

seem

required.

However,

Helmer

rejects

psychological

explanations

of

radicalization

because

they

are

not

grounded

in

an

economic

theory

of

social

injustice.

Nevertheless,

his

conclusion

that

radicalism

did

not

originate

in

strictly

class

grievances

implies

the

possible

acceptance

by

the

working

class

of

a

broader

view

of

justice

than

that

provided

by

Helmer’s

modified

Marxism.

Contemporary

sociologists

will

criticize

Helmer’s

lack

of

&dquo;state

of

the

art&dquo;

techniques.

Beyond

raw

percentages

he

presents

no

statistical

analysis,

and

his

de-

tailed

breakdown

of

group

differences

often

results

in

samples

too

small

for

mean-

ingful

comparison.

Since

many

of

his

survey

questions

are

ambiguous

or

open-

ended,

the

author

is

not

always

able

to

let

his

evidence

speak

for

itself.

Such

loose

survey

techniques

are

very

sensitive

to

interviewer

bias,

a

problem

underlined

by

Helmer’s

numerous

rhetorical

interjections.

When

the

&dquo;juicers,&dquo;

but

not

the

&dquo;heads,&dquo;

report

seeing

few

war

crimes

and

believe

them

to

be

infrequent,

Helmer

explains

that

the

two

groups

have

understood

his

questions

differently

and

sug-

gests

that

the

&dquo;juicers&dquo;

are

denying

the

obvious

in

order

to

remain

silent

or

forget.

Although

combat

experiences

may

vary

greatly

squad-by-squad,

hamlet-by-hamlet,

even

minute-by-minute,

Helmer

is

certain

that

the

&dquo;heads&dquo;

correctly

describe

the

same

realities

which

the

&dquo;juicers&dquo;

perceive

incorrectly

or

report

falsely.

According

to

the

author,

the

failure

of

his

radicals

to

link

their

personal

cause

with

an

intense

class-consciousness

limits

their

ambition

to

mere

political

reform.

Nevertheless,

Helmer

presents

a

class

exploitation

theory

of

the

Vietnam

conflict

in

order

to

heighten

class

awareness,

and,

in

his

own

way,

bring

the

war

home.

Interestingly,

he

directs

his

arguments

toward

the

guilt

of

the

middle

class

rather

than

toward

any

resentment

among

the

American

working

class,

which

he

finds

completely

unready

for

revolutionary

mobilization.

Claremont

Graduate

School

RONALD

FRANK

LEHMAN

BOOK

NOTES

Montesquieu’s

Philosophy

of

Liberalism.

By

THOMAS

L.

PANGLE.

(Chicago:

Uni-

versity

of

Chicago

Press,

1973.

Pp.

336.

$10.00.)

Professor

Pangle’s

commentary

to

the

Spirit

of

the

Laws

seeks

to

resolve

what

have

generally

been

considered

as

&dquo;contradictions&dquo;

in

that

work

(e.g.,

the

tension

between

Montesquieu’s

natural

law

theory

and

the

relativism

of

his

&dquo;sociology&dquo; ) .

Supposing

that

Montesquieu

was

sufficiently

intelligent

to

avoid

obvious

inconsist-

encies,

Pangle

treats

apparent

inconsistencies

as

devices

used

by

Montesquieu

to

dis-

guise

his

true

teachings;

Pangle

thus

sets

out

to

illuminate

the

underlying

unity

of

Montesquieu’s

thought.

I

would

judge

Pangle’s

efforts

as

being

eminently

suc-

cessful ;

a

chief

virtue of

his

analysis

is

that

it

places

Montesquieu

clearly

in

the