Search results

This paper focuses on the role of myth in group identity maintenance. It begins by looking at the occupational group, but broadens to show how subsociety and the larger society affected the group's identity and actions. Mississippi Delta blues performers’ use of myth serves as the historical example, and this analysis shows how the group reacted to living in a segregated and racist society. Analysis of songs demonstrates how myth can play a role in tying together this subordinated group in society and perpetuate myth. How the blues subculture still employs these myths today is also addressed.

Warner Winslow Gardner's notes on The Institutional Theory of John R. Commons (1933) are published here for the first time, as far as the present editors can determine. The typewritten manuscript was found among the Robert Lee Hale papers at the Rare Book and Manuscript Library of Columbia University.² Gardner (1909–2003) was born in Richmond, Indiana. He went to Westtown School, a Quaker preparatory school in Pennsylvania for five years, and then to Swarthmore College, graduating in 1930. To escape unemployment, as he stated in his recorded reminiscences, Gardner took graduate work on a fellowship at Rutgers University, receiving a Master of Arts Degree in economics in 1931.³ From there he went to Columbia Law School, graduating in 1934. Quite significantly, Gardner attributed his decision of shifting from economics to law to his reading of Commons’ Legal Foundation of Capitalism:It would be 1930–31 and, in the course of that year, I read and was much impressed by a book by John R. Commons at the University of Wisconsin in which he tried to weave together economics and law. I thought, “aha,” here is a field that had real attraction and real potentiality. I ended up with an MA at the end of that year. Instead of going for a Ph.D. in economics, I thought I’d go to law school, study law and try to weave the two disciplines together into a meaningful structure. (Gardner, 1972, p. 16).

The first issue that requires examination is the question of how we got to this point to begin with. The answer to this question, of course, is a function of who “we” happens to be. The lawyers can blame Oliver Wendell Holmes (1897, p. 469), who made “the man of the future … the man of statistics and the master of economics.” The future, it would seem, is now. Legal Realist/Institutionalist lawyer-economists such as Walton Hamilton and Robert Lee Hale, who were economists on law school faculties before that tradition got started at Chicago, had something to do with this too, although neither they nor law-minded economists such as John R. Commons can be given credit or blame for the economic analysis of law – at least not directly.³ The birth of the economic analysis of law is very much a Chicago story – Coase, Becker, and Posner – although we must allow that Guido Calabresi also had more than a bit to do with these things.⁴

This paper is an initial attempt to discuss the American institutionalist movement as it changed and developed after 1945. Institutionalism in the inter-war period was a relatively coherent movement held together by a set of general methodological, theoretical, and ideological commitments (Rutherford, 2011). Although institutionalism always had its critics, it came under increased attack in the 1940s, and faced challenges from Keynesian economics, a revived neoclassicism, econometrics, and from new methodological approaches derived from various versions of positivism. The institutionalist response to these criticisms, and particularly the criticism that institutionalism “lacked theory,” is to be found in a variety of attempts to redefine institutionalism in new theoretical or methodological terms. Perhaps the most important of these is to be found in Clarence Ayres’ The Theory of Economic Progress (1944), although there were many others. These developments were accompanied by a significant amount of debate, disagreement, and uncertainty over future directions. Some of this is reflected in the early history of The Association for Evolutionary Economics.

In a review of the tragedy that occurred in Charlottesville Virginia on August 11, 2017, this essay discusses the public perspectives and the view of public culture for historical artifacts and monuments, especially those whose pasts do not align with the views of our community today. Based on the renaming of a public park and removal of a Confederate soldier statue, protestors made up of hate groups claiming loss of heritage and counter protestors converged on the site. As tempers escalated, a protestor drove his car into the counter protesters where multiple people were injured, one person was killed, and two responding police officers also lost their lives. Historically, and in other countries, the removal of monuments whose imagery and historical meaning are painful to the community today is a commonplace practice. Within the United States, however, this leads to protests, hate groups that claim these artifacts as their heritage, counter protests, and painful outcomes with harsh repercussions including loss of precious life, as occurred in Charlottesville. Libraries, and other GLAM institutions (galleries, libraries, archives, and museums), have a key responsibility for educating their communities on the true history of these artifacts. This outreach work is especially vital in communities where laws have been enacted that disallow the removal or relocation of monuments, even those whose effigies inspire hate, as is the case for 90 Civil War statues in North Carolina. This essay reviews key literature, as well as personal experiences through blog posts, relating to cultural heritage and its relationship to public culture. This review is done to identify productive measures that libraries can take to break the archaic perspective of being neutral and becoming social justice advocates for their communities.

Given Bali's prominence in Indonesia's hospitality industry, tourist hypermobility regarding food preferences following the COVID-19 pandemic continues to be a source of contention. As such, this chapter will investigate extreme mobility by examining how ‘the flashpackers’ construct their nomadic lifestyles. This chapter focuses on the ‘freedom to eat’ in a variety of different types of restaurants throughout the destination – creating a pattern of hypermobility. Flashpacker's hypermobility data come from a network analysis of TripAdvisor reviews – with Bali (Indonesia) serving as the case study location. According to the analysis's findings, there are eight distinct preference groups for food and beverage products in Bali. It was discovered that at least five ‘star factors’ contributed to preferences across the eight groups, including (1) ratings, (2) popularity, (3) ownership, (4) social media and (5) price. In light of these factors, the chapter concludes that research into hypermobility in small island destinations is still in its infancy. It is critical to promote thorough research into the influence and impact of hypermobility on all facets of the tourism industry, including local communities and to demonstrate the industry's economic contribution.