have led us to take up arms against other nations. Unlike Sparta, for example, we have never been forced into continual preocupation with common national dangers or with the arts of war. Nor are we a homogeneous social group; our diverse national and racial origins tend to keep us a conglomerate of sub-cultures which has not yet emerged into a typical culture. We do not habitually idealize military pursuits, or the qualities of physical strength and heroism. We do not expect, periodically and eagerly, to be off with our comrades into battle, nor do we habitually measure individual worth by proficiency or leadership in this direction.

In a military establishment imbued with an intense national pride and espirit de guerre, and possessing a commonly-shared and well-established set of national, group, and individual ideals, it is very doubtful whether homosexual behavior would be considered a threat to discipline, or even related to it. This would be chiefly because so many other factors operate to preserve and enhance discipline. However, military establishments based chiefly on conscription, and in nations lacking a deeplyshared common culture and purpose, the exact opposite could be true. Discipline under these conditions tends to become mechanical and unwilling; command lacks the personal, cooperative element; and thus the whole structure can be easily fractured by any kind of close, personal attachment among its members.

The two types of military establishment mentioned here are not the result of an arbitrary whim on the part of a few general officers or a government ministry; they are the reflection of an entire social order. The times, not to mention the methods of warfare, have advanced far beyond those of semi-primitive, warlike cultures; and it seems incredible that a civilized nation must revert

to a lesser social level before it can reach a semblance of cultural and ideological unity, or before it can reach an intelligent and concerted estimate of its large minority groups -including the homosexual.

It is due, in part, to our lack of a broad cultural coordination that we tend to judge others by isolated acts or conditions by details rather than by the stature and proportions of character as a whole, and by the overall tenor of the individual life. Unlike the Spartan or other warrior or, in fact, unlike any member of a closely amalgamated group, we so seldom grasp the totality of the individual, in the context of group life, that we praise or condemn according to shreds and particles. Nowhere is this tendency more evident than in our sexual mores, where non-conformity in this one field, plus a hard core of misunderstanding and prejudice, can blacken a person's life in the eyes of others, and render all virtues null and void. This tendency is reflected in our laws and, of necessity, in the institutions which support them. To reverse it and to gain a better sense of of proportion, there should be no need to regress to the limited ideals of ancient societies, or to become warlike, or militaristic, or even regimented. Educational leadership can entirely suffice, providing it is heeded.

Concerning the homosexual and the military at present, it seems more than likely that the homosexual will learn to deserve his place in the military before the military will revise its attitudes toward the homosexual. This much is certain that before the military can alter its policy on the subject, the general public must; and this includes the homosexual himself, who must learn to apply some honest self-criticism, and who must learn to work with compatible social forces instead of merely in opposition to the attacks of his critics.

13