Dear Editor

...but Political Pilgrims showed this was often not the case Well, Political Pilgrims shows nothing of the kind, since nowhere in the book are the statements of politicians compared with those of intellectuals, and "often" is a word that will cover just about anything What we are given as a conclusion is that a "significant portion" of intellectuals are on certain occasions more foolish than an undetermined number of politicians—and Hollander wonders why I consider his book bloated Britain's Riots No one enjoys admitting to being a racist The evasiveness of Lord Scarman's report on Britain's recent violence—ably chronicled by Norman Gelb ("Reading Britain's Riots," NL, January 11)—is a case in point Scarman followed a typical strategy in protesting that British racial discrimination is not intentional, that it is the result of tradition's less savory aspect rather than a conscious design The fact is that the white world's explicit intentions do not matter one iota to a black person out of a job, whether in Britain or America When racism is in the air, its familiar evils can be worked without any white person giving a second thought to the matter White America seemed to be aware of this at one tune, though now we have a President anxious to induce a little amnesia on the topic in the electorate, Britain has never known this or will it ever find out through such hesitant means as the Scarman report Los Angeles B JAMES RICKS Chemical Waste My jaw dropped when I read Thomas Land's piece on storing dangerous wastes in Holland ("Toxic Time Bombs," NL, January 25) He mentioned a Dutch proposal to collect wastes that could not be recycled "in secure and replaceable containers, perhaps on artificial islands built in the shallow parts of the North Sea " The North Sea1 I can remember seeing films of storms there with waves that towered over even very large ships And as any old salt will tell you, shallower is not necessarily safer when it comes to the battering torce ot water Let's hope the Dutch come up with a less hair-raising site tor their chemical waste dumps Los AngeLes J MONTGOMERY...

...I, of course, had exaggerated m my review because of the jolt I received each time her name appeared In a book purportedly about intellectuals, she should not have been cited at all The MacLaine example is part of a broader issue Hollander's notion of what an intellectual is It is true, as he states, that he devotes several pages to the problem of definitions, quoting such thinkers as Mannheim and Benda, but that discussion scarcely accounts for his inclusion of people like Jerry Rubin, Tom Hayden or David Rockefeller Hollander does attempt to explain why he mentions MacLaine and Jane Fonda, and rather than get into a fruitless debate on who is and who is not an intellectual, I will give his explanation "Actors or actresses (and other artists) may qualify as intellectuals if they are not totally absorbed by their occupational roles and have some demonstrated ability to reflect on and articulate larger issues and ideas, if they engage in social criticism " I stand by my statement questioning Hollander's powers of discrimination Hollander writes that 1 misread him because I took him to be saying something about intellectuals ir general when, as he indicates quite accurately, he wrote "significant portion" in his Preface He fails to note, though, that he goes on to say in the same paragraph that this group "in large measure set the tone of the times and shaped the established forms of social criticism " What is more, throughout the book he freely uses encompassing words and phrases like "intellectuals" and "Western intellectuals" without modifiers But let him have his qualification The problem remains, does that "significant portion" include all the people cited, many, some9 I questioned whether James Reston and Harrison Salisbury displayed the estrangement attributed to the "significant portion" and am told that they shared a "range of attitudes ' What attitudes'' What range7 Perhaps Hollander wishes to argue that all of the writers he mentions shared a predisposition to see what they wanted to see ("hopeful, affirming attitudes"), but he has not shown even that Some may have been persuaded by the "techniques of hospitality" which his book so ably details I stated in my review that I had the impression the people cited had in common only the quotations themselves I continue to have that impression Finally, we are left with the matter of what Political Pilgrims is actually about I said the book undeniably proves that very bright people are capable of mistakes, and observed that this was not a very enlightening conclusion Although the last paragraph of Hollander's letter seems to say this is precisely what he intended, look again "Many people" (though not those who have read The God That Failed, understand the concept ot " fellow-traveler," or are familiar with the career of Ezra Pound) believe that "intellectuals" THE NEW LEADER welcomes comment and criticism on any of its features, but letters should not exceed 300 words...

...make that "a significant portion") do better than politicians (many...

...Dear Editor Italian Men Silvio F Senigallia's pithy examination of "The Woes of Italian Feminism" (NL, January 11) reminded me of my trip to Rome two years ago Pleasant though it was for a middle-aged woman to be the object of so much male attention, I couldn't help noticing the complete absence of any chivalry on the part of Italians that was not connected with sexual interest No man holds a door fora woman in Italy, and it is impossible to shame an Italian man into giving up his seat on a bus for you Everywhere I looked I came upon machismo at its most degrading Senigallia's article brought me memories of what I thought back then "Thank God I'm not trying to be a feminist in this country'" New York Citv RUTH RAYMOND Intellectuals It is baffling to me why Barry Gewen, your reviewer of my book Political Pilgrims, regards my analysis of the political infatuation of Western intellectuals with Marxist totalitarian regimes as "a bloated polemic that demonstrates the anti-intellectualism rife among Right-wing intellectuals" ("Tourist Traps," NL, November 30,1981) This is all the more surprising since a few lines further on he notes that, "The amount of foolishness written on Communist societies over the last half century stands as one of the century's monuments to human gullibility " Gewen asserts with little foundation that I consider the attitudes probed in Political Pilgrims "representative of Western intellectuals in general " It depends on which attitudes we are talking about Alienation has certainly been more widespread than one of its specific outcomes, political Utopia-seeking leading to the pilgrimages In any event, I made it very clear in the Preface that "a significant portion of Western intellectuals and especially the more famous and influential among them" discussed in the book had "displayed at one time or another signs of political estrangement from their society in combination with hopeful, affirming attitudes toward certain revolutionary societies " (Italics added P H) Gewen thinks I should have been more discriminating in the selection of intellectuals and questions my inclusion of people like Daniel Berngan, Bruce Franklin or Staughton Lynd But they too are intellectuals, even if not as original or creative as Sartre, Edmund Wilson, Theodore Dreiser or G B Shaw To be sure, I did not use a checklist to justify each one of my sources On the other hand, when I used some questionable or marginally intellectual authors I went to great length to explain why I included them In any case, the vast majority of those quoted or referred to were intellectuals as the term is generally used, and 1 showed some awareness of such usage in a lengthy section of the book (pp 40-50) How Gewen, after having read this book, could have reached the conclusion that people of first-rate intelligence avoided the misjudgments the book cites, is a genuine mystery He mentions as examples Mary McCarthy and Susan Sontag, who said quite extraordinary things about Vietnam and Cuba, respectively (Sontag about both)—and both of whom, incidentally, have of late shown some recognition of their earlier errors (noted in the Preface) As far as James Reston and Harrison Salisbury are concerned, they also misjudged China under Mao and they did not have to be seekers of Utopia to do so, contrary to Gewen I stated early in the book that "Not all travelers chosen for this study were seekers of Utopia Rather, they represent a range of attitudes which include the quest for Utopia as well as milder degrees of favorable predisposition " Gewen is factually wrong when he claims that John Kenneth Galbraith "reserved his 'zealous affirmation' solely for the scenery" in China Perhaps a less hasty reading of the book might have allowed him to note Galbraith's lavish praise for Chinese egalitarian-ism and the rationality and efficiency of the Chinese economy (quoted on pp 306-307, 320), and his effusions about Chinese waiters and food Galbraith was also certain that "experienced economists" like himself could not be deceived (p 324) Gewen ism error as well when he asserts that I quoted Shirley MacLaine on China more frequently than anyone else In fact, I quoted Simone de Beauvoir, Arthur Gal-ston, Felix Greene, Galbraith, Simon Leys, the Concerned Asia Scholars, Maria Macciocchi, John K. Fairbank and Harrison Salisbury more often and at greater length than Ms MacLaine Alas, neither in regard to China nor the USSR nor Cuba nor Vietnam did I have to turn to "either an oldhne Stalinist or a second-rater " Some first-rate intellectuals even managed to be admirers of Stalin I may have quoted a handful of nonintellectuals or quasi-intellectuals, but regrettably this does not change the fact that far too many distinguished intellectuals went through stages of political infatuation with regimes undeserving of such ardors We have known for some time that politicians and officials (such as those Gewen refers to in his last paragraph) have said foolish things about various political systems However, many people have been under the impression that intellectuals, and especially the first-rate minds among them, do better Political Pilgrims showed that this is often not the case, and it tried to explain why A mherst, Mass PAUL HOLLANDER Barry Gewen replies Let me comment first on what Paul Hollander points out as two factual errors in my review 1) I stated quite clearly that J K Galbraith had made overly favorable remarks about China But I argued that the statements quoted failed to demonstrate the kind of "zealous affirmation" which Hollander describes as a common response of the political pilgrims In the same paragraph, I made a similar argument with respect to Mary McCarthy and Susan Sontag, and far from ignoring their misjudgments, as Hollander suggests I did, I quoted two particularly egregious comments by Sontag to show the impact of the book's quotations My point about Galbraith was one of emphasis, shading and use of language, and 1 am afraid that Hollander has missed it 2) Hollander's letter sent me back to his index for a citation count, something I had neglected to do, and yes, he is correct Other commentators on China are quoted more frequently than Shirley MacLaine She is cited "only" seven times...