In conclusion to this incomplete analysis, let me make it clear that I am
not attacking either the emergentists, or the traditionalists. Value systems
must always be functional in terms of the demands of the social and eco-
nomic structure of a people. The traditional mode has been functional in
our society, and there is a staunchness, and a vitality in it that many of us
view with considerable nostalgia. But rugged individualism (in its expedi-
ent, ego-centered form), and rigid moralism (with its capacity for displaced
hate) become dysfunctional in a society where people are rubbing shoulders
in polyglot masses, and playing with a technology that may destroy every-
thing with a pushing of buttons. The emergentist position seems to be grow-
ing in strength. Social adaptability, relativistic outlooks, sensitivity to the
needs and opinions of others, and of the group, seem functional in this new
age. We need, as citizens, educators, anthropologists, and parents, to exam-
ine our premises more closely. The emergentist can become a group con-
formist -- an average man proud of his well-rounded averageness -- without
really meaning to at all.

And lastly, I would like to reiterate the basic theme of this article. Con-
flicts between groups centering on issues of educational relevance, and con-
fusions within the rank and file of educators, can be understood best, I
believe, in the perspective of the transformation of American culture that
proceeds without regard for personal fortune or institutional survival. This
transformation, it is true, can be guided and shaped to a considerable degree
by the human actors on the scene. But they cannot guide and shape their
destiny within this transformation if their energies are expended in knifing
attacks on each other in such a central arena as education, or if their ener-
gies are dissipated in personal confusions. I am arguing, therefore, for the
functional utility of understanding, and of insight into the all-encompassing
transformation of American culture and its educational-social resultants.

Gorer Geoffrey. 1948. The American People. New York: W. W. Norton & Company,
Inc.

Kluckhohn Clyde. 1949. Mirror for Man. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company,
Inc.

______, and Florence Kluckhohn. 1947. "American Culture: Generalized Ori-
entations and Class Patterns". In Conflicts of Power in Modern Culture, Seventh
Symposium of the Conference on Science, Philosophy, and Religion. New York:
Harper & Row.

Lantis Margaret (ed.). 1955. "The U.S.A. as Anthropologists See It". Special issue
of the American Anthropologist 57: 1113-1295.

Lipset Seymour, and Leo Lowenthal, eds. 1961. Culture and Social Character: The
Works of David Riesman Reviewed. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.

-108-