There is an excellent article in the last issue of The Nation by Barbara Ehrenreich on "new creationsim" -- radical social constructivism asserting unqueness of human nature, stemming from a certain brand of postmodernism, and characterised by its hostility toward "hard" sciences. However, Ehrenreich seems to miss the class dimension of the problem, a strange omission for a democratic socialist, indeed. Enclosed is a copy my letter to The Nation's editor on that subject. Any comments? ws encl. ------------------------------- In her otherwise excellent article on the "new creationism" (June 9, 1997), Barbara Ehrenreich misses an important factor contributing to the spread of this phenomenon - the class structure of the American society. More specifically, the over-growth of the "scribbling class." The US has a much larger university-educated class than any other industrialized nation: 24% of the population 25 to 64 years of age, as compared to the mean 12% for the OECD countries. The economist John Kenneth Galbraith once described his profession as "suppliers of needed conclusions to those in a position to pay for them." That apt characterization pertains to other scribbling professions as well. Together with the product-oriented culture of the academe ("publish or perish"), the large size of the university-educated class translates not only into the oversupply of the producers of intellectual commodity, but also into the substantial demand for such a commodity. Cultural identity politics and cultural relativism espoused by "new creationists" are not just the matter of personal taste for scientific nihilism. The professed absence of human commonality and the relativism of scientific standards to narrowly defined group interests are also instrumental in developing market niches which, in turn, reduce direct competition among producers of intellectual commodity, aka critical evaluation of research results and claims to scientific validity. In such an intellectual climate, anything that is printed passes for "scientific truth." The more bizarre an intellectual commodity, the greater its chances of becoming a fetish for someone in search of unique cultural identity. This is yet another example of what Marx aptly described as the powerful influence of the forces of material production on the production and distribution of ideas of our age. wojtek sokolowski institute for policy studies johns hopkins university baltimore, md 21218 [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (410) 516-4056 fax: (410) 516-8233