DOCSLIB.ORG

Dilemmas of Popular Revolution: Popular Sovereignty and the Crowd in Post-Revolutionary

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dilemmas of Popular Revolution: Popular Sovereignty and the Crowd in Post-Revolutionary Dilemmas of Popular Revolution: Popular Sovereignty and the Crowd in Post-Revolutionary America and Russia An Essay Presented by Abigail Rose Modaff to The Committee on Degrees in Social Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a degree with honors of Bachelor of Arts Harvard College March 2012 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………..……………………....3 I. THE THEORY OF REVOLUTION AND THE CHALLENGE OF THE CROWD………………………………………………………………..…………………….12 II. POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY: ALTERNATIVES TO THE CROWD………………………………..31 III. THE CROWD PROBLEM LEFT UN-SOLVED: EPISTEMOLOGICAL SEPARATION IN STALIN, TROTSKY, AND JEFFERSON………………………………………………………………….79 CONCLUSION………………….………………………………………………………..….120 BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………………..……..123 2 Introduction And we also know to our sorrow that freedom has been better preserved in countries where no revolution ever broke out, no matter how outrageous the circumstances of the powers that be. – Hannah Arendt1 On the long, wide road to Pulkovo-2 airport in St. Petersburg, Russia, taxis and snub-nosed marshrutka buses zoom past a larger-than-life monument: Lenin, fist thrust to the sky, leads a handful of bronze workers into the communist future. Four thousand miles away, in Boston, shadows of a very different revolution linger beneath the granite column at Bunker Hill, in a quiet park overlooking the city’s skyline. In both of these places, spaces claimed by revolution fill with everyday life. Russian children play in parks outside the Bolsheviks’ first headquarters, and Boston Harbor hosts entirely decorous tea parties. The recent revolutions in the Arab world, though, and the protracted battles in which many nations are still ensnared, have placed a sharp focus upon the moment of post-revolutionary transition. As we wait for the familiar rhythm of the everyday to reclaim the revolutionary space, we ask ourselves: how is it that post- revolutionary nations move from a time of rupture to a time of continuity? How do revolutionaries make sure that this transformation leaves their gains intact? And when we transition from novelty to normalcy, regardless of how it is done, do we inevitably lose something along the way? In this thesis, I will examine the contested and conflict-ridden space between revolution and post-revolution. I will focus upon two countries whose upheavals helped define the modern age: America, in the years roughly between 1787 and 1791, and Russia, largely between October 1917 and 1924. The purpose of this work is to examine a conceptual problem in the nature of revolution which helps to make sense of post-revolutionary conflict in America and Russia. To 1 Hannah Arendt, On Revolution (New York: Penguin Books, 2006), 106. 2 Hannah Arendt’s On Revolution, to take a prominent example, focuses upon the American and French Revolutions 3 accomplish this, I will advance a two-pronged argument: first, that all revolutionaries shared the same conceptual and practical task of defining popular sovereignty against the claims of the unmediated people; and second, that this common task provoked fiercely divergent ideas regarding what popular sovereignty meant and required, based not upon different valuations of popular sovereignty, but upon different understandings of how popular participation relates to the general good. I will use history and theory, similarity and difference, America and Russia, and revolution and post-revolution to inform one another, arguing that at their nexus lies a paradigm that reveals critical facets of revolution as both an abstract concept and a concrete goal in the minds of Lenin, Madison, and their fellow makers of history. The center of this work is what I call the challenge of the crowd. This conceptual problem of post-revolutionary transition, which will be explicated in the first chapter, offers an explanation of both the theoretical difficulties of post-revolutionary transition and the particular historical disputes that occurred in the American and Russian cases. The crowd-challenge paradigm locates the conceptual difficulty of concluding a revolution in the changes that must be made, after a revolutionary seizure of power, in the relationship between “the people,” the government, and the mass of citizens in their unmediated form, which I call “the crowd.” The experience of revolution allows for a certain type of spontaneous, independent mass action which both stakes a powerful claim to the appellation “popular sovereignty” and appears difficult to preserve with the post-revolutionary restoration of government. A dilemma thus appears in which claims of popular sovereignty by the government must defend themselves against the crowd’s deinstitutionalized representative claim by putting forth an alternative understanding of what “the people,” and their rule, truly mean. This construction of an alternative, in turn, forms the touchstone for post-revolutionary conflict. As I will explain in the latter half of chapter one, 4 the challenge of the crowd can be met by bridging the gap between rulers and ruled: creating a governmental manifestation of the popular voice which gains the possibility of predominance over the crowd by accessing the general good. In making this argument, my point is not the familiar one that the tension between constituent and constituted power exists within democratic societies, but that this tension shapes post-revolutionary proposals for the very manner in which power is to be constituted in the first place. In the immediate aftermath of revolution, competing conceptions regarding how the general good is distilled from the opinions of the unmediated people create division within formerly united revolutionary coalitions. These divisions are centered around the challenge of the crowd, for only the construction of a manifestation of the people which can claim to represent the people better than the unmediated crowd – by accessing their truer, better selves whose voice speaks to the common good – can preserve the fragile prize of popular sovereignty past the conclusion of the revolutionary experience. In order for the people to rule themselves despite the presence of government, the people must not be identified solely with the crowd. The task of chapter one is to further explain this framework and to show how it builds upon theoretical arguments from the past century regarding the possibility and/or necessity of “permanent revolution.” With this theoretical framework in place, I will proceed, in the second and third chapters, to an examination of the American and Russian cases in depth, utilizing the insights provided by the perspective of the challenge of the crowd to break down these post-revolutionary conflicts and isolate their fundamental divergences. There are several reasons that the American and Russian revolutions are useful cases upon which to draw. Each is complex, well-studied, and well-documented, and they are both similar enough in certain ways and different enough in others to be able to inform one another. With regard to chronology, the role played by poverty, 5 and the use of terror, the American and Russian revolutions form opposite ends of the spectrum of "great revolutions" of the modern age (America, France, Russia -- the triad of oft-cited convulsions). This makes the fact that they share the problem of the crowd all the more striking, and challenges the notion that the dilemmas and failures of either (such as Stalinist terror or slavery) were caused by purely unique historical factors or that either case can provide a neat paradigm for success.2 But despite their differences, the two cases are nevertheless members of the same continuum, often discussed in relation to the French Revolution which they surrounded or as indicative of the character of the modern age. Moreover, these two revolutions are important in themselves. They mark the attempted instantiation of the two ideologies whose clashing paradigms helped define the twentieth century, and the primary tests of these ideologies against the realities of political life. Conclusions regarding these cases not only raise important questions for more general research, but are also relevant simply because the American and Russian Revolutions are well worth studying on their own. In the second and third chapters, I will utilize the framework of the challenge of the crowd to analyze the arguments, conflicts, and disputes that arose in the post-revolutionary days, months, and years in both nations. In chapter two, I will accentuate the stark differences in approach to the institutionalization of the popular voice that were inspired by the common challenge of the crowd. In the first half of the chapter, I will take on the ratification-era positions of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, casting their distinct conceptions of the purpose of representation as grappling with the location of the general good within a mutable popular voice. While the Anti-Federalists focused upon the derivation of the general good from immersion 2 Hannah Arendt’s On Revolution, to take a prominent example, focuses upon the American and French Revolutions and views the Russian Revolution almost entirely as an extension of France’s mistakes. For Arendt, the American Revolution held unique promise that was almost entirely lost to history. See Arendt, On Revolution, 7, 13-4, 34-48, 51- 66, 69, 82-5, 90-1, 98-9, 123-31, 138-40, 148, 171-6, 186-8, 207, 209-10, 213, 252-3. 6 within a homogeneous community, Federalists instead saw the general good as arising only from wisdom
Load more

Recommended publications
  • What Is Wrong in Heidegger's Revolution?
    CHAPTER 4 WHAT IS WRONG IN HEIDEGGER’S REVOLUTION? One of the consequences of Heidegger’s active participation in the National Socialist revolution is that the year 1933 functions as a kind of prism, separating Heideggerians and Heidegger’s detractors into different groups. At the same time, the different views and critiques provide light on Heidegger’s thought on revolution. The conundrum that Heidegger was both a Nazi and possibly the most influential philosopher of the 20th century forms a kind of entry-level exam for all wannabe revolutionary philosophers. This is also the reason why Heidegger’s thought on revolution forms a necessary background for Žižek. A SMALL MAN LIVING IN HARD TIMES Maybe the saddest but still quite an understandable apology—heard from some of Heidegger’s pupils1, from some commentators who haven’t looked at the matter in detail and from many orthodox Heideggerians who want to continue along the lines of the defence prepared by Heidegger himself—is the claim that Heidegger was basically an apolitical man, not very well aware of social questions, who is swept away, very briefly, in the powerful current of Nazism. Often the claim is combined with the general backdrop that philosophers and deep thinkers are not even supposed to be very sensitive towards their immediate surroundings. They deal with grander, deeper, if not eternal things. Forwarded by a philosopher, such a view is understandable, because it at the same time provides its presenter a kind of diplomatic immunity. For the same reason it is very sad, implying that philosophy should happen in an ivory tower (and, by being a comment on philosophy and politics, it manages to pull the rug from under itself).
    [Show full text]
  • Reading Arendt's on Revolution After the Fall of the Wall
    Keeping the Republic: Reading Arendt’s On Revolution after the Fall of the Wall Dick Howard Introduction: From where do you speak, comrade? Two decades after the fall of the Wall seemed to announce – by default, as an unexpected gift – the triumph of democracy, optimism appears at best naïve, at worst an ideological manipulation of the most cynical type. The hope was that the twin forms of modern anti-politics – the imaginary planned society and the equally imaginary invisible hand of the market place – would be replaced by the rule of the demos; citizens together would determine the values of the commonwealth. The reality was at first the ‘New World Order’ of George H.W. Bush; then the indecisive interregnum of the Clinton years; and now the crass take over of democratic rhetoric by the neo-conservatives of George W. Bush. ‘Man is born free, yet everywhere he is in chains,’ wrote Rousseau at the outset of The Social Contract; how this came about was less important, he continued, than what made it legitimate: that was what needed explanation. So it is today; what is it about democracy that makes it the greatest threat to its own existence? In this context, it is well to reread Hannah Arendt’s On Revolution, published in 1963. On returning recently to my old (1965) paperback edition, I was struck by the spare red and black design of the cover, which was not (as I thought for a moment) a subtle allusion to the conflict of communism and anarchism for the realization of ‘true’ democracy, but simply the backdrop against which the editor stressed these sentences: ‘With nuclear power at a stalemate, revolutions have become the principal political factor of our time.
    [Show full text]
  • Havel and Habermas on Identity and Revolution
    260 Praxis International Praxis International 261 HAVEL AND HABERMAS ON IDENTITY AND REVOLUTION Martin J. Matuštík A few months before the November 1989 collapse of „real existing socialism” in Central and Eastern Europe, Habermas reflected on the revolutionary ideas of 1789. How is one to think within plural and secular modernity about a radical democratic republic? He notes the paradox of post-traditional ethical self-realization and moral self-determination: social revolutions project contents and forms that in a finite way transcend the revolutionary action, but revolution shipwrecks before the project gets off the ground. He proposes that to overcome the “sorrow” and the “melancholy” of projected revolutionary possibility, one must form post- traditional identities in those life-forms which are nurtured by a “permanent and everyday-becoming revolution.”1 In a key essay that comes to terms with the ideas and revolutions of November 1989, Habermas reiterates his proposal. But now he consoles the melancholy leftists who despair over the lost meaning of socialism. Has “socialism” become an empty phrase and “ritual oracle,” to use Havel’s characterizations?2 Does it designate merely the deposed mafia of the Communist nomenclature? Why are some unorthodox and reformed Western Marxists in a disenchanted condition of hopelessness? Has the utopia of non-authoritarian life-forms and open identity-formation been lost?3 Habermas stipulates that a „non-communist leftist“ translates the projected revolutionary possibility into a concrete, not concretistic, life-form based on the collective rational will-formation. This formal expression of a life-form means that a radical democratic republic provides that “placeless place” which cures revolutionary melancholy, and which complements and stabilizes post-traditional identity.
    [Show full text]
  • Hannah Arendt's Political Action: a Dialectic of Expression and Deliberation
    Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Dissertations Theses and Dissertations 2018 Hannah Arendt's Political Action: A Dialectic of Expression and Deliberation Paul Richard Leisen Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Leisen, Paul Richard, "Hannah Arendt's Political Action: A Dialectic of Expression and Deliberation" (2018). Dissertations. 3347. https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss/3347 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Copyright © 2018 Paul Richard Leisen LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO HANNAH ARENDT’S POLITICAL ACTION: A DIALECTIC OF EXPRESSION AND DELIBERATION A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY PROGRAM IN PHILOSOPHY BY PAUL R. LEISEN CHICAGO, IL DECEMBER 2018 Copyright by Paul R. Leisen, 2018 All rights reserved. “I’ll have grounds more relative than this–the play’s the thing Wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the King.” —Wm. Shakespeare, Hamlet, III.i.603 (RS 1159) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am fortunate to acknowledge the following people for their support and commitment to my work. Without their guidance, love, and shared investment, this project would not have come to fruition. KellyAnn Corcoran’s love and unwavering belief made the pursuit of this work possible. Our children: Betty, Matthias, Penelope, and Sven grew up as this project developed, they have known Hannah Arendt’s name for as long as they can remember.
    [Show full text]
  • Trotsky and the Problem of Soviet Bureaucracy
    TROTSKY AND THE PROBLEM OF SOVIET BUREAUCRACY by Thomas Marshall Twiss B.A., Mount Union College, 1971 M.A., University of Pittsburgh, 1972 M.S., Drexel University, 1997 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh 2009 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES This dissertation was presented by Thomas Marshall Twiss It was defended on April 16, 2009 and approved by William Chase, Professor, Department of History Ronald H. Linden, Professor, Department of Political Science Ilya Prizel, Professor, Department of Political Science Dissertation Advisor: Jonathan Harris, Professor, Department of Political Science ii Copyright © by Thomas Marshall Twiss 2009 iii TROTSKY AND THE PROBLEM OF SOVIET BUREAUCRACY Thomas Marshall Twiss, PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2009 In 1917 the Bolsheviks anticipated, on the basis of the Marxist classics, that the proletarian revolution would put an end to bureaucracy. However, soon after the revolution many within the Bolshevik Party, including Trotsky, were denouncing Soviet bureaucracy as a persistent problem. In fact, for Trotsky the problem of Soviet bureaucracy became the central political and theoretical issue that preoccupied him for the remainder of his life. This study examines the development of Leon Trotsky’s views on that subject from the first years after the Russian Revolution through the completion of his work The Revolution Betrayed in 1936. In his various writings over these years Trotsky expressed three main understandings of the nature of the problem: During the civil war and the first years of NEP he denounced inefficiency in the distribution of supplies to the Red Army and resources throughout the economy as a whole.
    [Show full text]
  • Revolution and Culture: the Bogdanov-Lenin Controversy (Cornell, 1988) Library of Congress Cataloging-In-Publication Data Sochor, Zenovia A
    A. A. Bogdanov, 1873-1928 REVOLUTION AND CULTURE The Bogdanov-Lenin Controversy ZENOVIA A. SOCHOR Studies of the Harriman Institute CORNELL UNIVERSITY PRESS Ithaca and London Copyright © 1988 by Cornell University All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in a review, this book, or parts thereof, must not be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher. For information, address Cornell University Pres~, 124 Roberts Place, Ithaca, New York 14850. First published 1988 by Cornell University Press. • International Standard Book Number 0-8014-2088-1 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 87-25063 Printed in the United States of America Librarians: Library of Congress cataloging information appears on the last page of the book. The paper in this book is acid-free and meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources. To my parents, Joseph and Maria Sochor STUDIES OF THE HARRIMAN INSTITUTE Columbia University The W. Averell Harriman Institute for Advanced Study of the Soviet Union, Columbia University, sponsors the Studies of the Harriman Institute in the belief that their publication contributes to scholarly research and public understanding. In this way the Institute, while not necessarily endorsing their conclusions, is pleased to make available the results of some of the research conducted under its auspices. A list of the Studies appears at the back of the book. Contents Preface ix Part I Points of Departure 1. The Bogdanov-Lenin Controversy 3 2. Cultural Prerequisites of Revolution 21 3. Bogdanovism 42 Part II After October: Which Way to Socialism? 4.
    [Show full text]
  • The Course Deals with Five Hundred Years of World History Beginning from 1492 Until Today
    MIT OpenCourseWare http://ocw.mit.edu 21H.912 The World Since 1492 Fall 2004 For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of History 21H.912: HASS-D The World Since 1492 MW 2.30-4 Fall 2008 Dr. Bedross Der Matossian Description The course deals with five hundred years of world history, beginning from 1492 until the present. Rather than trying to do a chronological survey of all the events and processes that shaped the last five hundred years of global history, the course will focus on specific geographic regions and key related themes and processes that had enormous impact in shaping our contemporary world. To reach this aim, the class will focus on several central themes. These include political and social transformation; the global formation of capitalist economies and industrialization; colonialism and imperialism; nationalism; the emergence of modern states; and the rise of consumer society. While any of these themes could serve the subject for an entire semester, we will discuss them in conjunction with each other and the ways in which they interact. In addition, the class will be based on various types of readings ranging from primary sources, historical narratives, and historiography, to works of fiction and movies. This is intended to familiarize students with the craft of historical work and the process of creating historiography. Finally, the class is aimed at developing the tools that students need in order to understand, analyze, and critically perceive history and historiography, not only to understand the past but also to better understand the contemporary world.
    [Show full text]
  • Present Day Ideas on Revolution
    PRESENT DAY IDEAS ON REVOLUTION. BY GILBERT REID. REVOLUTION is a word used of late more frequently than any other. Its use by many classes of society and in so many parts of the world indicates a general unrest and discontent, the usual precursor of revolutionary movements, unless met half way by opposing- and dominating forces in society and in the nation. Once let general discontent get started and revolution will not be long in coming. Use of the word revolution has a wider application than ever before. There are all kinds of revolution, some good and some bad. It is hard to think straight in the midst of confusion of ideas over the meaning of a word as dominating as revolution. There have been national revolutions all through the past, but now we hear of schemes for a world or international revolution. Along with revolution, instigated by radicals, there is counter-revolution, instigated by reactionaries. Thus it is that devotees of monarchism and absolutism are at one time anti-revolution and at another pro- revolution. ProHfic discussion now exists concerning social revolution, industrial revolution, and even moral revolution and spiritual rev- volution. Those who support the existing order find revolution- ists in abundance—among Socialists of the Left Wing, among ad- vocates of the Soviet system, and among Bolsheviks, Spartarcides^ syndicalists, communists, anarchists, I. W. W.'s, and other kinds of radical thinkers and busy agitators. These suspected revolu- tionists, rightly or wrongly, are looked upon by the intelligencia as of the worst and most dangerous type in human society.
    [Show full text]
  • Hannah Arendt, the 'Grammar of Politics,' and the American Revolution
    HANNAH ARENDT, THE ‘GRAMMAR OF POLITICS,’ AND THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION Draft: Not for Distribution Caroline Ashcroft Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Cambridge [email protected] I Despite Hannah Arendt’s admiration for her adopted homeland of America – or, perhaps, because of it – she was never sparing in her criticism of what she believed to be the deep and manifold flaws of the political culture and reality of the United States in the twentieth century. The political failures of America, while never approaching the depths of European totalitarianism, nonetheless mirrored many of the problems that resulted in catastrophe in Europe, and were in large part a result of America’s adoption of a European political heritage. This heritage, or rather, the dominant and problematic element which Arendt rejected, in large part was the result of the French Revolution and a particular notion of ‘the social’ which emerged from it. For Arendt, this could hardly be considered a political tradition, but rather a tradition of anti-politics. The social was nothing less than the breakdown of the traditional political distinctions that structured politics, most importantly, the intrusion of traditionally private concerns into the public sphere, and the reduction of the political to the level of economic concerns. What this had led to, both in Europe and contemporary America, was the breakdown of politics understood as a form of action, leaving men in a condition of political paralysis, unable to understand and engage each other, and thus, with the problems of the modern world. Yet while Arendt worried about the growing predominance of the anti-politics of the social in contemporary American culture, she also thought she saw, within the fabric of the American political system, a way that it could potentially be redeemed.
    [Show full text]
  • MORDAN POLITICAL THOUGHT, THEORY & CONTEMPORARY IDEOLOGIES(201) TOPIC NAME-LENINISM Introduction
    SOS POLITICAL SCIENCE & PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION M.A POLITICAL SCIENCE II SEM POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY: MORDAN POLITICAL THOUGHT, THEORY & CONTEMPORARY IDEOLOGIES(201) TOPIC NAME-LENINISM Introduction ■ Leninism is a political theory about how the revolutionary communist party should be organized. It says it should be a dictatorship of the proletariat (the working class holds the power). It is considered one of the first steps towards socialism (where the workers own the factories, etc.).[1] It is one part of Marxism– Leninism, which emphasizes the transition from capitalism to socialism. Ideas ■ Democratic Centralism, also known as the idea of the vanguard party. Like other communists, Lenin wanted to see a socialist revolution led by the working class. But he thought the workersneeded strong leadership in the form of a Revolutionary Party based on Democratic Centralism. Lenin wanted Communist political parties in every country to lead the revolution. He thought the vanguard party would need to have strong discipline, or it would fail. ■ The idea that capitalism is the cause of imperialism (empire- building). He thought that imperialism was the "highest stage" of capitalism. What did Lenin say about socialism? ■ Leninism is a political theory developed by Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin that proposes the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, led by a revolutionary vanguard party, as the political prelude to the establishment of socialism. The function of the Leninist vanguard party is to provide the working classes with
    [Show full text]
  • “The Intellectual,” Vaclav Havel Has Written
    “The intellectual,” Vaclav Havel has written, “should constantly disturb, should bear witness to the misery of the world, should be provocative by being independent, should rebel against all hidden and open pressure and manipulations, should be the chief doubter of systems, of power and its incantations, should be a witness to their mendacity.”1 In this wonderfully eloquent passage, composed in 1986 when the Czechoslovakia’s Communist regime still had the capacity to make life hellish for those who dared to oppose it, Havel provides a particularly vivid expression of the perspective that has dominated most thinking and writing about intellectuals: that they are “disturbers of the peace” whose ultimate responsibility is to tell the truth, even (and perhaps especially) if it arouses the ire of the established authorities. In so arguing, Havel joins a long tradition of discourse about intellectuals beginning with Zola and extending though Benda and Orwell to Kolakowski and many others which insists that the proper function of intellect is, in the memorable words of Ignazio Silone, “the humble and courageous service of truth.”2 That this viewpoint, which we shall call here the “moralist” tradition, retains vitality today is illustrated by no less a figure then Edward Said, who in delivering the prestigious Reith Lectures for the BBC in 1993, repeatedly emphasized that the tasks of the contemporary intellectual is “to speak the truth to power.”3 For the social theorist who wishes to understand the place of intellectuals in politics, the fundamental problem with the moralist tradition exemplified by Havel is that it treats intellectuals not as they actually are, but as they should be.
    [Show full text]
  • 1962-1963 Undergraduate Catalogue
    FOUNDED 1791 • BURLINGTON, VERMONT Bulletin of THE UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT THE CATALOGUE • 1962-1963 ANNOUNCEMENTS • 1963-1 964 Cover photo: The Guy V. Bailey Library completed in 1961. Photo by Eldred. Inside back cover: Entrance to Bailey Library. Photo by Eldred. Cover design by John MacLeod. Printed by Queen City Printers Inc. CORRESPONDENCE Admissions Requests for a catalogue, or information concerning admission poli­ cies and procedures, rooms and tuition Undergraduate Colleges Director of Admissions College of Medicine Dean of the College of Medicine Graduate College Dean of the Graduate College Evening Division Director of Evening Division Summer Session Director of the Summer Session Conferences and Institutes Director of Conferences and Institutes Transcripts of Records Office of Admissions and Records Scholarships and Loans Director of Financial Aid Employment of Seniors and Alumni Director of Placement Matters of Alumni Interest Alumni Secretary Matters of General University Interest The President Bulletin of the University of Vermont VOLUME 60 APRIL, 1963 NUMBER 13 Published by the University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, sixteen times a year—once each in December, February, April, May, June, and August; twice in September and November; and three times in January and March. Second-class postage paid at Burlington, Vermont. THE CONTENTS PERSONNEL 1 INTRODUCTION 24 STUDENT LIFE 3 J THE ADMISSION OF STUDENTS 44 STUDENT EXPENSES 47 GENERAL INFORMATION S2 THE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE 37 THE COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES 70 THE SCHOOL OF DENTAL HYGIENE 77 THE COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND NURSING 79 THE COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY 88 THE GRADUATE COLLEGE 97 THE COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 107 THE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION 110 COURSES OF INSTRUCTION 114 THE ALUMNI COUNCIL 195 ENROLLMENT STATISTICS 197 DEGREES AND PRIZES 200 LOAN FUNDS, SCHOLARSHIPS, AND PRIZES 213 GENERAL INDEX '222 ACADEMIC CALENDAR 225 THE UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT J The University is located at Burlington, Vermont, overlooking an at­ tractive tree-shaded city situated on the shores of Lake Champlain.
    [Show full text]