HARVARD UNIVERSITY
CONFLUENCE
AN INTERNATIONAL FORUM

10 WELD HALL
CAMBRIDGE 38, MASSACHUSETTS

HENRY A. KISSINGER, Editor
MARIE L. CARNEY, Administrative Assistant

PUBLISHED UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE
HARVARD SUMMER SCHOOL
OF ARTS AND SCIENCES AND OF EDUCATION

WILLIAM Y. ELLIOTT, Director

October 15, 1952

M. Bertrand de Jouvenel
284 Boulevard Saint-Germain
Paris
France

Dear M. de Jouvenel:

I am writing to you to explore the possibility of your undertaking an article for CONFLUENCE. It is a quarterly designed to give European and American intellectuals an opportunity to exchange views on contemporary problems in politics, philosophy, and the humanities. Each issue is in the form of a symposium on two subjects of mutual interest, with one topic carrying through two issues.

Our effort grew out of the 1951 session of the Harvard International Seminar which brought together twenty young European intellectual leaders for a discussion of contemporary problems. The very flattering response we have received both in Europe and in the United States expressed in a large volume of correspondence and in reviews in many major European journals has encouraged us to continue our effort.

We are now preparing a topic for CONFLUENCE on "The Diffusion of Ideologies" for which a synthesis of the two enclosed articles by Raymond Aron will serve as the nucleus of the discussion. The statement on Point Four is a concrete illustration of the general problem. I would not expect that any contributor cover all four points outlined by M. Aron on Page 3 of "Le Role des Ideologies" but rather concentrate on one or two and illustrate them with concrete examples. The article should not be primarily technical, however. Rather, I hope that the technical aspect would be used to support a more basic theoretical position.

One of the facets of this problem that particularly interests me is the tendency for resistance to totalitarianism taking cultural forms and the ability of the Communists to exploit this tendency so that many of the most valuable representatives of Western cultures found themselves in the Communist camp precisely because of their concern for values and their willingness to defend them. I think the problem of the Resistance Movement during the German occupation

M. de Jouvenal

-2-

October 15, 1952

might conceivably be worked into this. Needless to say, however, you would be free to focus your article on any particular problem you consider significant.

The article may be written in French and should be between 3-4,000 words in length. The enclosed two issues of CONFLUENCE will give you an idea of the type of article we have in mind. We would require your article by December 15th.

Could you let me know as soon as possible whether or not you will be willing to undertake this article for us? Because I hope to submit all articles to M. Aron for a concluding statement, it is most important that I have all contributors lined up in the very near future.

HAK:ndj
Encs. - 3

P.S. I understand that we have a friend in common -- Wilmore Kendall at Yale.

CHATEAU D'ANSERVILLE

PAR BORNEL
TÉL. 19

OISE / FRANCE

NOV 21 1952

November 17, 1952.

Dear Professor Kissinger,

I have been receiving *Confluence*, thanks probably to my friend Raymond Aron, or possibly to Professor William Y. Elliott, whom I was privileged to meet at an American Political Science convention. Had I a little more leisure, I would already have written to congratulate its editors.

I shall consequently be very pleased to try my hand at an article for you. Raymond Aron brilliantly introduced a discussion of the theme outlined, at a meeting of our Société Française de Science Politique. The discussion itself ranged far and wide. My mind was one of those which did not respond any too well. I found myself interested in what may be a minor part of the subject, the conditions of reception of an ideology.

Before settling down to spadework, on any part of the field, I will have to give some further thought to the whole vast expanse. As the obstacle of distance intervenes between us, I shall talk the subject over with Raymond Aron.

I must say that I find the date of the 15th of February somewhat close, as I have two courses of lectures to deliver or prepare within this period.

As you mention his name, may I ask you whether you have heard lately from Willmore Kendall? I had not a word since his marriage. If

February 27, 1953

M. Bertrand de Jouvenel
Chateau d'Ansville
Par Bornel
Oise, FRANCE

Dear M. de Jouvenel:

I do not want to let any more time pass without writing to tell you how much I enjoyed our meeting and conversation in Paris. I write you today regarding two problems -- to inquire whether and when we might expect your article and, secondly, to present a problem which I have already discussed with Gabriel Marcel and Raymond Aron.

In brief, it had been our idea that we should put our contributions from France on a more regular basis. Up to now, I have been soliciting articles more or less ad hoc often without knowing precisely the special field of interest of the author or his general tendencies. You will agree that this makes it extremely difficult to start a significant discussion which is, after all, our intention. While I was in Paris, Gabriel Marcel proposed and Raymond Aron agreed that a committee be formed which would meet informally and advise us on certain questions which we might put to them. I know how very busy you are and must be and I can assure you that I would keep my requests to a minimum. On the other hand, I am sure you appreciate that it will be necessary to deepen our discussions continually and this cannot be done without a point of intellectual contact in France. I would be quite content if you would confine yourself initially to help with specific questions that I am putting to you. If, however, a problem should occur to you that you believe merits consideration I would find it most useful if one or the other of your group would write a defining statement along the lines of Raymond Aron's for "The Diffusion of Ideologies" and we could then circulate it to a number of individuals. I have found that the existence of a defining statement makes the whole discussion more vital.

I told Gabriel Marcel that we would be able to assist any such effort to the extent of a reasonable charge for secretarial expenses. I have also written him a rather long letter outlining our various problems and perhaps the next best thing would be to get in touch with him directly. Aron, I understand, is in the United States at the moment but as he told me, he was not planning to stay too long. Do let me know your reaction to this proposal. I hope very much that we can manage to stay in contact.

With best wishes,

Excerpt from Mr. Kissinger's letter to Gabriel Marcel dated February 15, 1953

"Our requirements are three-fold. We need individuals who will permit us to notify them of the topics we plan to discuss and who would then propose suitable authors. It would be a great help if somebody talked to these authors insofar as technical conditions make it possible to explain to them precisely what we have in mind. Secondly, in order to keep our discussions as close to the real problems as possible, it would be a great help if from time to time several individuals feel free to let us know what problems they consider most significant. This might take the form of a page or two specifying the topics together with a suggested outline of methods of treating them as well as authors to deal with them. Finally, in order to keep our book review section as alive as possible, we require suggestions from time to time regarding significant books that have appeared recently. I need not repeat how grateful I would be if you would consent to assist us with some or all of these tasks.

"In order to make this discussion more concrete, it might be useful if I outline some of the topics we are planning to discuss in the next few issues. In general, we are choosing topics which are capable of treatment from the philosophical, cultural and the more narrow sociological and political aspects. This is because it seems to us that the extreme compartmentalization of disciplines at the moment is perhaps one of the causes of our relative cultural sterility. In the great tradition of the West, it has always proved possible to find a plane from which the specific problems appear as only one aspect of a general position. In recommending contributors therefore, I should be most grateful if you suggested various types of authors: individuals who might deal with our topic from a political point of view, others who might write from a historical one, and still others who might write on it from a cultural and philosophical point of view. One topic for which we are interested in soliciting articles immediately is "The Role of Tradition in Culture and in Politics." There are so many aspects to this problem that I do not wish to specify them too precisely. Obvious foci for discussion include avant-gardism versus traditionalism in art or the re-emergence of the traditionalist parties in Europe at the end of the war, particularly those of the Catholic Left. Others would be a discussion of the relationship so often alleged between traditionalism and the totalitarian movements of the Right or whether, on the other hand, traditionalism represents the best guarantee against totalitarianism of any description. However, an author would be at complete liberty to focus on any aspect of the problem he considers significant. Nor is it at all necessary that he take an affirmative position to the problem of traditionalism.

"Another topic in which we are currently interested is "The Problem of Minorities." In this connection we would be interested in the French image of our race problem here. Also, we hope that the colonial aspects of the problem may be interesting for Europeans. However, here again, a contributor is at complete liberty to focus on any aspect he considers significant. Another topic is "The Role of Science in the Twentieth Century."

"There is also the problem of our proposed book review section. The first set of books we wanted to review was Camus' "L'Homme Revolte" and Chambers "The Witness." We do this not because I believe that these books are extremely significant but because precisely despite their lack of intrinsic significance, they have attracted such widespread attention. I would therefore propose that any reviewer deal with the books as

well as the reviews which in the case of Camus would involve the Sartre rebuttal
and in the case of Chambers, a number of significant discussions which I would send
to your reviewer. I would greatly appreciate your suggestions on it. Another set
of books I would like to review deal with the question of collaboration. It seems
to me that the presence of a totalitarian regime and a foreign occupation is
demoralizing not only for the opportunists but also for the decent individuals who
are confronted with the dilemma of whether to get out and give up all possibility
of influencing events or of working on the inside. I do not know which books that
have appeared in France you consider appropriate to this and I would very much
appreciate your suggestions. It has occurred to me that we might treat Laval's
Diaries as well as the defense of Laval which was recently brought out by, I
believe, his daughter-in-law. Stuart Hughes may do a piece on collaboration from
the American side and I would greatly appreciate your suggestions on the European
end of it. Beyond this, we haven't planned any but if you could suggest certain
topics and books together with it, I should be most grateful.

"I realize that this is quite a long letter but please feel free to do any part of it that you may find possible for you. It was a great pleasure to talk with you in Paris, and I hope that we may manage to stay in contact."

["How in Paris, and I hope that we may manage to set in contact.\"", "of it that you may find desirable for you. It was a great pleasure to talk with \"I realize that this is quite a long letter, but please feel free to go and buy", "to-day and look forward with great interest.", "and of it. I believe this, we haven't planned and put it how could we best confirm the American side and I would greatly appreciate your suggestions on the European side, the daughter-in-law. Start thinking what a piece on collaboration from Charles I will be of the defense of Louis which was recently brought out in 'A.' I appreciate your suggestions. It has occurred to me that we might treat this, I was considering events or of working on the inside. I do not know whether I could influence events or of working on the inside. I do not

MAR 4 1953

Château d'Ansville
par BORNEL / Oise
FRANCE

February 26, 1953.

Dear Mr. Kissinger,

Desiring to fulfill my promise to you while I am very hard-
pressed, I have not been able to give to this essay all the attention
I would have liked to. I hope it may do.

March 6, 1953

M. Bertrand de Jouvenel
Chateau d'Ansville
par Bornel/Oise
FRANCE

Dear M. de Jouvenel:

I was delighted to receive your article and your brief note. I very much like the ideas in your article but I frankly had the feeling that because of the heavy pressure I was putting on you, you did not have sufficient time to develop them as completely as you would have liked. Perhaps this was also due to the limited space I imposed on you. This applies particularly to your last two sections which are packed full of interesting hints, anyone of which would be useful to develop and which I am afraid lose their force for an American reader by the difficulty of understanding the context into which they are set. The alienation of the intellectual and the philosophical and theoretical implications of Communism seem to me to deserve a somewhat more extended treatment. Your section on "Pseudomorphosis" is a particularly apt one and is really the most original aspect in our symposium. I wonder if you could relate it a little more clearly to a theoretical argument than you have.

Since we are carrying this discussion through the September issue, I can offer you two alternative deadlines. If you would like the article to appear in the June issue, I would require your manuscript back no later than April 10th. If you wish it to appear in the September issue, you can wait until May 15th. Since I am afraid that the limitation of space I imposed on you is one of the first causes of the tightness of your article, I would like to tell you that you can extend it up to 4,500 words. Since this will require most probably a re-casting, we can offer you an additional $50 to the original $50 on which we had agreed.

I do not need to reiterate how very eager we are to have your
contribution because of your many admissions here.

HAK:pgm

["HVK:bm", "Henry V. Knaufner.", "Sincerely yours,", "contrition because of hom. much egotism here.", "I do not need to reference how exactly eager we are to have hom.", "agree.", "can offer you an additional $20 to the original $20 on which we had\n$4,200 margins. Since this will require more properly a re-reading, we\nhom. article? I would like to tell you that you can extend it no more\nthan 10 days. It would take it to about 10 days. Since I am sure that the limitation of\nyou can wait until May 1st. After that you can extend it no more to\nabout I have about 10 days. Since I am sure that the limitation of\nyou can extend it no more to about 10 days. It would take it to about 10 days.\nI can offer you two alternative desigues. It would like the article\nsince we are carrying this direction through the September issue.", "your hom page.", "if you could relate it a little more clearly to a theoretical argument\none and one self relate the most original section in om. abscissa. I wonder\nwhether I am right about the context into which they are set. The\nautumn I am sure they are set in the context into which they are set. The\nfirst of interesting points, anyone of which would be meant to interest\nthe reader. Perhaps this would be the first one to be mentioned above.\nabove sufficient time to complete them as completely as you may have\nthat possibility of the previous issues in hom. article put I think it would be\nvery much like the ideas in hom. article put I think it would be the best\narticle I could write the

Ansville, par Bornel, Oise

april 3rd

Dear Kissinger,

I hope this will now be all right for clarity
and length. Your friend Willmoore is coming to spend the Easter week-
-end with us, and Homans, who wrote that remarkable book on the Human
Group will also join us. I am sorry that you are so far away : this
would have been a nice occasion to have you here in good company.

Raymond Aron is returning immediately after
Easter from Rome. We shall then seek Gabriel Marcel together. Do
write to me when you have time. I am very greatly interested in yr
undertaking.

All the best

All the best

undertaking.

write to me when you have time. I am very greatly interested in Mr
Easter from Rome. We shall then seek Gabriel Marcel together. Do
Raymond Aron is returning immediately after

would have been a nice occasion to have you here in good company.
Group will also join us. I am sorry that you are so far away : this
--end with me, and Romane, who wrote that remarkable book on the Human
and length. Your friend Wilmore is coming to see the Easter week-

Dear Klaasinger,

April 3rd
Anaeraville, bar, Romeij, Orie

MAY 4 1953

April 30, 1953.

Dear Kissinger,

I should have answered before your kind letter of April 9,
acknowledging the receipt of my revised manuscript. It is nice that
you should have raised the fee, as I put in a lot of work on that piece:
I hope to receive it at your earliest convenience.

Regarding the meeting with Marcel and Aron, it is my impres-
sion that both of them are as much in the dark about your wishes as I
am myself. When I had the pleasure of meeting you, I conveyed my opi-
nion that set themes will never make for a good journal. As you want
contributors who do, or attempt to do, some thinking, you must be pre-
pared to take from them what they have on their mind, and not ask them
to reply to questions which may not be occupying them. The latter me-
thod is that which makes allUNESCO conferences unutterably futile.

I am periodically asked such questions as the impact of tele-
vision upon the mass mind: the honest answer is that I haven't thought
about it. Thinking is not an elastic activity which can occur about any-
thing. Any valuable thinking is in the nature of the exploitation of a
mind. All minds are of course connected, but if you pull me out of my
own pithead to make me dig at some other place, this will be very super-
ficial digging indeed.

Frankly, the last number gave me precisely this impression,
that good minds had striven to say something on themes to which they
were not profoundly wedded. If you want Confluence to be of real value,
you must not ask people to think about a subject set by an "examination

-2-

board", that is to expound the thoughts they do not have, but you must,
on the contrary, ask people who are "suspect" of doing some thinking,
to give an account of the way their mind is going, to communicate any
findings they have made, or to indicate those they are hoping to make.

I feel very strongly about this. It seems to me quite certain that the methods which are meet to ascertain whether students have acquired a definite knowledge, are completely unsuitable to the collection of knowledge"im Werden". I do very much hope that after you have exhausted the set of themes actually laid, you will cease and desist from this procedure.

It is very important to Marcel, Aron and myself to know your
position on this, as I think none of us three is minded to think up sub-
jects for other people to deal with. What we would like to do is to in-
form you of any valuable work actually being done in one of the fields
you are interested in, so that you might have the benefit of articles
from those so engaged, making original contributions. Or, if articles
were not desired, we could produce notes on intellectual events.

Do let me know your position about this as soon as you can,
as we propose to get together next week. We are, in fact, meeting Sa-
turday for a work-group meeting of the Association of Political Science,
and we shall take this occasion to set the date for a conversation about
*Confluence*. When are you coming back?

Please believe me

May 5, 1953

Mr. Bertrand de Jouvenel
Chateau d'Ansville
par Bornel/Oise, FRANCE

Dear Mr. de Jouvenel:

It was a great pleasure to receive your letter of April 30th. I am afraid there has been a slight misunderstanding regarding your proposed meeting because, as a matter of fact, it was Gabriel Marcel who suggested it, so that I assumed its purpose was clear. At any rate, I completely agree with every comment you make. There is absolutely no point in forcing oneself to write on a subject that one has not given a fair amount of thought to, and many of the weaknesses of CONFLUENCE are precisely due to the effort of individuals to consider topics not at the center of their thinking. Indeed, one of the reasons why I have asked Aron, Marcel and you to assist us is to overcome this difficulty. I am not necessarily wedded to the concept of a symposium form, but I do not think we have to make a final decision on that at the moment. It seems to me that your proposal and mine are not incompatible. I would be most eager for you to send me notes on intellectual events and let me know work in progress, and then to attempt to focus our discussions around that rather than the opposite. If I should find that there is not enough work in progress of a sufficiently similar character to make a symposium profitable, I would be quite prepared to abandon it.

I would never expect Marcel, Aron and you to think up subjects for others to discuss. What had occurred to me was, essentially, the procedure followed in our discussion on the "Diffusion of Ideologies." I had hoped that we might use CONFLUENCE to state investigations which seem of some importance to either Aron, Marcel or yourself; not, however, in the sense of merely suggesting a subject, but in the sense of writing a defining statement along the lines of Aron's in our last number. If such a defining statement were coupled with the notes on intellectual events you propose, you might then suggest to the individuals who work on that subject. At any rate, I am most eager that you consider CONFLUENCE as an outlet for your ideas whether in the form of a symposium or not. Since we are more or less obliged to continue the symposium form for the next few numbers, I would much appreciate your suggesting possible contributors for those topics. I am, therefore, enclosing an extract of a letter I have written Gabriel Marcel so that you might have some opportunity to think about it.

I would like to repeat that I am in agreement in principle with your proposal, that I would be very eager to find out the intellectual work in progress

Ansville, pur Bornel, Oise

may 28

Dear Kissinger

the meeting you desired did take place between Gabriel
Marcel, Raymond Aron and I, on the eve of a recent journey I was cal-
led upon to make to London, in order to adress the International
Press Institute : this journey and the pressure of work on my return
precluded my writing sooner.

Various themes were discussed, we all agreed to suggest
the following : the PLACE, ATTITUDE and INFLUENCE of INTELLECTUALS in
SOCIETY. With the emphasis on PLACE and ATTITUDE. Indeed the last term
was thought of as bringing in too much.

It was suggested that such a study must begin with a
definition of the INTELLECTUAL. Who is thought of as such, but, a far
more important point, who thinks of himself as such ?

It was stressed that a number of people, previously
thought of and defining themselves as INTELLECTUALS, are now
in their own and in other eyes, TECHNICIANS. A discussion of the de-
-limitation, the changing frontiers and the changing numbers was re-
garded as called for. Item I

Item 2 was thought of as a survey of the present eco-
nomic status and moral standing of the various categories which can
be embraced in the bracket INTELLECTUALS. This should consist of nat-
ional studies. They should adopt the definition of the Intellectual,
or more precisely the various delimitations laid down in Item I. Con-
sequently, some working definitions and subdivisions have to be adop-
ted before we proceed to Item 2.

Item 3 consists in a study of the intellectual's atti-
tude or attitudes. How far are these attitude explained by values
which may be those of the intellectuals as a category ? What is the
relationship of these values to tradition, and to the present role
of the intellectual. What is their relation to the kind of operation
he performs ?

Item 4 ; what are the tensions existing between Society
and the Intellectuals by virtue of its being a Society and their
being Intellectuals ? What are the tensions existing within the in-
telligentsia. Does it form a sort of society of its own ? Has this
society its own inner conflicts ( Rousseau v. Diderot ) are ideolog-
ical differences dynamized by inherent antagonisms between types of
intellectuals etc.

Item 5 : what sort of influence do Intellectuals exert.
Of what nature is it ? Who is influential among the intellectuals ?
Are we justified in thinking that the minds which are the greatest,
are also the most influential ? Are we right in thinking that the
notions current on Society of to day <u>xxx</u>xxxind<u>x</u> have been coined by
the great or have they perhaps been run off from cheaper presses ?
If the notions do derive from the great, what sort of degradation
do their undergo etc.

I would fain label the various suggestions making up
this whole, but the meeting was of so harmonious a nature that it
is difficult to say what came from whom. We were all agreed that
this was of enormous importance, and we were all agreed as to how
it should be dealt with.

I was commissioned to report to you our agreement on
this point, I think it was the sense of the meeting that I should do
so at greater length than I have done, but it seemed reasonable to
find out beforehand if you were interested. An alternative theme
was suggested : " What is Social Justice ?". Also Gabriel Marcel
thought you might like to develop the theme dealt with in his pap-
er on Tradition. But there was no discussion of these two latter
points, the whole conversation was centered on the Intellectuals.

Please let me, or any other of us, know whether you
wish to proceed with this subject and what procedure would, in the
affirmative, suggest itself to you. It is my personal opinion that
if this theme is well dealt with, it might provide the material for
a timely book.

Hoping to hear from you, I wish you all the best

["HAK:stg", "Henry V. Kieflinger", "St. Germain, home.", "With best wishes,", "pans to your dimension.\nIt has appeared that it becomes to meet again, there will be a sufficient\nI am sending a copy of this letter to you and myself so that\nin following it.", "In following it,\nI am looking forward to your letter, and hope to see you some\nspecial definition of the scope and of the procedure how worth has\nin following it.", "In following it,\nI am sending some copy of this letter to you and myself so that\nI am looking forward to your letter, and hope to see you some\noccasionally in some future to be able to see you some time\nspecification of the scope and of the procedure how worth has\noccasionally in some future to be able to see you some time\nspecification of the scope and of the procedure how worth has\noccasionally in some future to be able to see you some time\noccasionally in some future to be able to

Ansville, parornel, Oise

My dear Kissinger,

The American way of doing things is predica-
ted upon the existence of resources we do not have. It has always
impressed me that you do not start upon a business or military ven-
ture without having collected all the means necessary to its suc-
cess. We do not operate that way simply because we cannot collect
the resources.

The present project is a case in point. It
so happens that you have picked out three man who do not enjoy aca
-demic tenure, for what it's worth in France, and who live from day
to day by the ceaseless wielding of their pen. None of us can concei
-vably devote time to conducting a research project as you seem to
desire. Each one of us has given much thought to the subject and
can deal with the whole or one of the parts, and this statement can
evoke responses and so forth.

You are dealing with artisans, with people
who have no capital, either their own or that of any institution be-
-hind them. The procedure must be adapted to that condition. You can
pass orders for pieces of work but you can not ask us to start a cor-
-poration.

As a matter of fact, there is nothing that it is
so urgent for Americans to understand about Europeans than to
understand that we are always working with our back to the
wall, and the wolf at the door. The proclaimed inefficacy of
Europe is I think due far less to the lack of know-how than
to the dearth of the wherewithal to proceed in a leisurely and
systematic manner.

Your sixth point, by the way, is very good. It was
my mistake that I failed to make it clear that we felt each
point should be dealt with from the two angles of "as sees by
the intellectuel" and "as seen by Society looking at the intel-
lectual".

June 19, 1953

M. Bertrand de Jouvenel
par Bornel, Oise
Ansville
FRANCE

Dear M. de Jouvenel:

Thank you very much for your letter. I quite appreciate your difficulty and if my memory serves me correctly, I mentioned to Marcel that we would be in a position to reimburse you for such technical problems as a certain amount for secretarial help and, needless to say, for your own work. I do not think that we are so very far apart in our approach in any case. I would be quite content to follow a procedure similar to the one adopted for the "Diffusion of Ideologies" topic. If it proved possible to have a defining statement of the nature of the problem, I would then undertake to circulate it to the individuals and groups I mentioned in my last letter. If therefore it would be possible to work up a defining statement for one or two of the categories we discussed, or indeed for all of them, it would strike me as the necessary first step. Again, needless to say, we would agree to pay for it at our usual rate. The only additional assistance I might ask is that you might let me know, as you indeed suggested once yourself, who in France has given some thought to these topics and might therefore write about it with some spontaneity. Your article will definitely appear in the next issue of CONFLUENCE. We got into a bad jam with our printer and I was forced to use Aron's which was completely edited for the last one, but I suppose it will not make any difference to you when it appears.

What do you know about Kendall's movement? The last I heard of him was through you and since then he seems to have disappeared from the face of the earth.

Will you ever have the pleasure of seeing you here?

HAK:eh

July 25, 1953.

Mrs. Nancy D. Jarvi, Secretary
Confluence
10 Weld Hall
Harvard University
Cambridge 38, Mass.
U.S.A.

Dear Mrs. Jarvi,

As Mr. de Jouvenel is away at the moment, I am enclosing
a short biographical note which will, I hope, serve your purposes.
I trust it will still arrive in time before your publishing dead-
line.

Enclosure

November 23, 1953

Dear M. de Jouvenel:

A few days ago I received a copy of the Cambridge Journal with your article on freedom. I thought it was an admirable piece. I am tired usually of these stale repetitions about freedom but this one was excellent, and I have circulated it among a number of people here, all of whom share my enthusiasm for it.

When I wrote you on June 19 I told you my general agreement with your proposal about a discussion on the intellectual. I wonder whether we can pick up this idea again and whom we might approach for a defining statement along the lines of Aron's for the "Diffusion of Ideologies." Since I have not heard from you for so long, I had in the meantime to decide on our future topics and I would much appreciate your advice as to possible contributors. They are "The Role of Science in the Twentieth Century" and "The Role of Religion." The ideas that have occurred to me for the topic on science include: the relation of the philosophy of science to ethics or to aesthetics, the responsibility of the scientist, science and politics, science and religion, and the scientific attack on metaphysics. However, a contributor need not take any of these as his focus. I have in mind less a purely technical paper than one which treats a theoretical position with concrete illustrations. We have not defined the topic on religion very precisely but I think it is relatively self-evident. As in all our topics, we are looking for articles both from the cultural and political point of view and representing as many different opinions as we can find.

I am also writing to Aron and Marcel.

I look forward to hearing from you.

With kind regards.

HAK:ef

HAK:et

Henry V. Kiehlingen

With kind regards.

I am also writing to you and Mancef.

point of view and representing as many different opinions as we can find.
As in all our topics, we are looking for articles both from the critical and political
defined the topic on religion very precisely but I think it is relatively self-evident,
then one which treats a theoretical position with concrete illustrations. We have not
need not take any of these as his own. I have in mind less a purely technical paper
science and religion, and the scientific attack on metaphysics. However, a contributor
equires or to aesthetics, the reabsolutism of the scientists, science and politics,
to me for the topic on science itself: the relation of the philosophy of science to
in the Twentieth Century, and "The Role of Religion." The ideas that have occurred
abandon your advice as to possible contributors. They are "The Role of Science
so long." I had in the meantime to decide on our future topics and I would much
prefer to the Discussion of Ideologies." Since I have not heard from you for
again and now we might approach for a definitive statement along the lines of
apost a discussion on the intellectual. I wonder whether we can pick up this idea
when I write you on June 19. I told you my General Agreement with your broadeet.

it among a number of people here, all of whom share an opinion with it.
Safe repetitions about freedom put this one we excellent, and I have circulated
on freedom. I thought it was an admirable piece. I am tired usually of these
A few days ago I received a copy of the Cambridge magazine with your article

November 33, 1933

February 3, 1954

M. Bertrand de Jouvenel
par Bornel, Oise
Ansville, FRANCE

Dear M. de Jouvenel:

I am sorry that there seems to have been a lapse in our correspondence, but it was certainly unintentional. I recall our meeting last year with the greatest warmth and pleasure.

I am writing to you today to inquire into the possibility of your collaborating again with us on a topic we are now planning for CONFERENCE. It is the "Ethics of Loyalty" which we are using because so many Europeans have asked us to print something about McCarthyism. This is, of course, a serious problem and I will have several articles on it. But I do believe that the issue is really more fundamental and is in no sense confined to the United States. It is how to rescue the individual from the claims of the group, and the conflict between the morality of the group and the moral precepts of the individual. I think that our European contributors have a great deal to tell us about their own experience with a problem which is not fully understood in the United States. It seems to me that Europe has had its own profound experience of the conflict of loyalties brought on either by foreign occupations or by totalitarian dictatorships or both. I have always felt that these phenomena presented particularly subtle problems which only those who have lived through them have a moral right to discuss. It is clear that very often the knave and the hero are distinguished less by their action than by their motivation, and this may contribute to the erosion of all moral restraints during totalitarian periods. Again, it would be interesting to discuss the structure of the phenomenon of collaboration; its psychological causes and its moral content as well as the problems it has raised in the post-war period. Finally, there is the problem of the individual when confronted with a totalitarian movement such as Communism that has not yet triumphed. I would not expect our contributors to deal with all these phenomena in one article but only those aspects they consider most significant.

I am most hopeful that you will be interested in doing a piece along these lines, and, in any case, I would also like your suggestions as to other possible contributors. I have also asked such figures as Albert Camus, Graham Greene, and Michael Polanyi among others to contribute.

So that we may properly plan our symposium, I would be very grateful if you could let me know as soon as possible whether you can undertake this. We are in a position to offer you $100 for your effort which should be about four thousand words long. I would require your article by April 10th, but if this were quite

mores long. I would require your article by April 10th, put it this time were quite a position to offer you $100 for your effort which should be about four thousands could let me know as soon as possible whether you can undertake this. Be sure in so that we wish properly plan our approach. I would be very grateful if you

contributed. I have also asked and figures as Vipert Gamma, Graham Greene, and fines, and, in any case, I would also like your suggestions as to other possible ideas that we may probably plan our approach. I would be very grateful if you

not expect our contributors to deal with all these phenomena in one article put a totalitarian movement such as Communism that does not let triumph. I would say period. Truthfully, there is the problem of the individual when contrasted with cause and its moral content as well as the problems it has raised in the best-to-distinguish the structure of the phenomenon of collaboration: its socio-political moiety restrains during totalitarian periods. Again, it would be interesting action than by their motivation, and this may contribute to the elevation of all is clear that exactly often the grave and the hero are distinguished less by their which only those who have lived through them have a moral right to discuss. It is clear always felt that these phenomena presented particularly ample problems brought on either by foreign occupations or by totalitarian dictatorialisms or both. me that Europe has had its own profound experience of the conflict of loyalties with a problem which is not fully understood in the United States. It seems to our European contributors have a great deal to tell me about their own experience the morality of the Group and the moral concepts of the individual. I think that to rescue the individual from the claims of the Group, and the conflict between more fundamentals and is in no sense confined to the United States. It is now I will have several articles on it. But I do believe that the issue is really to print something about McCarthyism. This is, of course, a serious problem and "Ethics of Loyalty," which we are reading because so many European have asked us to join with us on a topic we are now planning for COMINTERNOR. It is the

I am writing to you today to indicate into the possibility of your collaborating with me.

I am sorry that there are some to have been a lapse in our correspondence, but it was certainly unintentional. I recall our meeting last year with the greatest warmth and pleasure.

Dear M. de Tomeneuf:

Unserliehe, BRUNO
Ber. Bonnef, Ote
M. Bertrand de Tomeneuf

February 3, 1954

M. Bertrand de Jouvenel
par Bornel, Oise
Ansville, France

November 23, 1954

Dear M. de Jouvenel:

By now you will no doubt have received a note from the Summer School inviting you to teach here during the summer. I need not add what a great pleasure it would be to have you here, and that I very strongly support the invitation to you, and indeed proposed it. I hope very much that you will be with us this summer.

I am writing to you primarily to get your advice on a topic which we are now in the process of preparing for Confluence. It is the relation of advanced to underdeveloped countries, including the colonial problem. I should like to have it dealt with both from the political and the economic point of view, from the point of view, that is, of what assistance advanced countries can give underdeveloped areas in achieving political and economic stability, and what their relations will be afterwards. It seems to me that the colonial problem of France would be a special sub-heading under this.

I would be very interested, of course, to have you do an article on that subject, which I would require by January 15. We are in a position to offer you $100 for an article of between three and four thousand words. I would greatly appreciate your advice as to other possible authors.

Do let me hear from you about this as soon as possible.

Kind regards.

HAK:jm

Dear Kissinger,

in the piece I sent you, could you possibly
I wonder, if you are using it, insert the enclosed, to replace
page 9 and to run until the subtitle"Self-government and the
use of land " in page 10.

I would appreciate it.

April 20, 1955

Dear M. de Jouvenel:

I am terribly sorry not having answered you before
this, but for many reasons, some of which I hope to be able to dis-
personally with you soon, this has been a terribly hectic spring for
me. You will probably realize that we have had to put back the
topic on underdeveloped countries, and the first issue in which this
topic is discussed is only now being considered.

I am frank to say that I consider your piece the one that
has more brilliant ideas on the topic than any other we have received
so far. The major thing wrong with it right now, as you yourself
recognize, is that it has too many themes that intermingle, and that
what it really requires is a measure of discipline. Would it be
possible to rewrite it, keeping the basic outline, but stating the
propositions a little more systematically, and perhaps expanding
one or two points?

It seems to me, for example, that your idea of the difference
between a democratic and a monarchic state is a brilliant one. This
deserves some expansion. Also it seems to me worth discussing the
difference about the idea of a Frenchman and that of an Englishman --
that you are an Englishman by birth but a Frenchman by education and
that this may account for the different cultural impact in the colonies
of the two nations.

Do try to work on this for me and get it back to me by June 1.
Could you let me know immediately, please whether I can count on it?
In view of the extra time you will have to spend on it, we could offer
you $125 for the article.

My wife and I will be visiting Paris in the middle of May for
about a week. I hope very much that I shall have a chance to see you
then. I look forward to hearing from you as to whether you will under-
take the revision.

P.2. I am encoding reprints of two articles I have hitherto recently.

Hendrik Kraemer

Sincerely yours,

take the retraction.

then. I took forward to hearing from you so to speak. You will understand a week. I hope very much that I should have a chance to see you with my title and I will be waiting here in the middle of the week for you.

Don't say for the article.

In any case the extra time you will have to absorb on it, we could offer. Could you let me know immediately, please whether I can come on it? Do try to work on this for me and get it back to me as soon as possible.

of the two nations.

that this may account for the bitterest爭of between the colonies that you are an Englishman and that of a Frenchman and that of an Englishman — difference about the ideas of a Frenchman and that of an Englishman — differences some expansion. Also it seems to me work in generalising the between a democratic and a monarchical state is a difficult one. This is seems to me for example, that your ideas of the difference one or two have,

propositions a little more systematically, and perhaps adjusting

possible to rewrite it, keeping the precise outline, put before the what it really intends as a message of teaching. Would it be recognised? Is that it has too much themes that intemperably, and that so far. The major thing wrong with it, right now, is your own idea. It has more prattish ideas on the force than often we have received I am afraid to say that I consider your piece the one that

force is decreased is only now being considered.

force on underdeveloped countries, and the fact that same in which this
me. You will probably realise that we have had to put back the
bureaucracy with your own, this has been a terrible mistake, arising to
this, put for many reasons, some of which I hope to be able to give
I am sorry I cannot help you not having answered you before.

Dear M. de Jomneuf:

Unserliehe, BRUNCE
bar. Bonnet, Orie
M. Bertrand de Jomneuf

Vorrt SO, 1322

July 18, 1955

Dear M. de Jouvenel:

It was a great pleasure to see you again in
Europe, and I do hope that when you visit the United States
this fall you will be in touch with me. As I told you, I
shall spend much of my time with the Council on Foreign
Relations and you can get in touch with me either there or
at my office here. You have so many admirers up here,
however, that I do wish you would allot a day or so for a visit
to Cambridge.

I am writing this letter only to remind you about
the article we discussed. Do let me have it by August 15.
I have since seen your essay for the Foreign Policy Research
Institute, and it seems to me that something like that, together
with a more philosophical introduction about the nature of
conversion, which we discussed in your office, would be
admirable. Do let me know whether I can count on you.

I am sending a copy of this letter to Paris so as
to make sure this reaches you.

Best regards.

P.S. I spent the day with Strausz-Hupe in Philadelphia and
learned with great pleasure that he is the man who sent
you your recruitment irises.