Search results

The purpose of this paper is to introduce measures of the motivation of tourists who travel to their ancestral homes. A set of learning exercises is presented for students and managers to apply understanding of these motives to tourism strategies.

The paper provides a brief review of the literature of heritage tourism and the special segment concerning travel with genealogical objectives. Survey data on motives to seek out ancestors are provided with learning exercises to link motives to tourism planning.

Data on the importance of multiple motives are presented with analytical measures of their overall importance levels and of differences between US and UK samples.

The motivational variables and data collection are primarily exploratory, focusing on samples that are interested in genealogy and heritage tourism. Further research could certainly be expanded to cover broader populations of tourists and genealogists.

By combining primary research with trade association research included in the paper students and tourism managers have the opportunity to apply research findings to tourism and hospitality decision making to attract and satisfy tourists who have genealogical goals in their travel agendas.

Data based on the important and growing domain of motivational research in ancestral/genealogical‐related tourism have not been presented for analysis and application until now. Strength of motives and differences between nationalities of tourists present a unique analytical opportunity in learning exercises.

Librarians serving family and local historians are concerned about a number of issues. Many want to learn more about the research process so they can better respond to patron needs. Some are interested in developing better genealogy and local history collections. Bibliographic control is another problem. How can librarians and researchers keep track of the flood tide of family and local history publications that appear each year? A related question is how one learns of the many indexes that exist or are being prepared throughout the country. There are literally millions of people involved in family and local history research. How does the researcher contact those who are researching the same family or community, or find out what others have done in the past? Many of those coming to libraries are seeking books or records that are not found in the local community. How does one locate these materials and gain access to them? Anyone wishing to share information about these or related topics should feel free to write the editor with his or her ideas.

The purpose of this paper is to outline an instructional design approach for further development of an African ancestry learning center in order to enhance its educational utility. This is being done in an effort to use technology in transformative ways that extends the practices and opportunities for African Americans.

Assessing the needs of learners, performing a content analysis, and designing online resources and systems that meet learner's needs accomplished this goal.

This paper identifies a design process whereby technology can be used to connect people of African descent to a lost history.

This paper provides a method to leverage technology for people of African descent to engage in genealogy research, while acknowledging their unique historical journey.

Purpose – This interpretive study aims to demonstrate how dialectics might hamper researchers' imagination, inspiration, and insight that can otherwise enhance the understanding of a variety of phenomena in consumer-market dynamics and subsequently propose Foucauldian genealogy as an alternative to theorize such dynamics in the current consumer culture.

Methodology/approach – An ethonographic field study is conducted in the context of X Games, followed by an empirical juxtaposition of semiotic square, as a dialectical analysis, and a genealogical analysis of the same textual data.

Findings – Consumer-market dynamics operate based on interactions and mutual facilitations among four theoretically and empirically distinct groups of consumers in the context of X Games: pragmatic, stigmatized, distinction-oriented, and self-normalizing consumers. The historic conflict between consumers and the market steeped in Hegelian dialectics is contested in the dynamics due to the switch of modes(arts) of being(consumption) made by individual consumers who respectively participate in the system through presentation and representation.

Implications – A multitude of reality/truth-making is present in the consumer-market dynamics; thus, the dialectical view of the systematic progression of the market is found to be less implicative than the genealogical view of the system as polyvalent power relations.

The chapter first emphasizes the aspects which Steuart (1767), Thornton (1802), Tooke (1844, 1838–1857), and Keynes (1923) have in common about the relation between the exchange rate and the short-term rate of interest: they all considered a temporary unfavorable foreign balance caused by an asymmetrical exogenous shock, which called for a discretionary policy favoring international short-term capital inflows to overcome the consequences of the deficit. These aspects draw an unorthodox genealogy on this issue between the four authors, contrary to the tradition originating in Hume and developed later by the British monetary orthodoxy. Secondly, the chapter shows that there was an analytical progress from Steuart (1767) to Keynes (1923), which however faced a limit: if it reinforced an unorthodox genealogy, it did not integrate the modern idea according to which international short-term capital movements may themselves be a source of external disequilibrium. The origin of this limit was probably in the question raised, which was the adjustment to an exogenous asymmetrical shock.

The labor theory of value (LTV) offers a lucid and forceful example of a “theory” thought to stand outside “history.” Considered as an “objective” form of theorizing, the LTV seeks transhistorical truths about the relationship between humans and nature – whereby, as everyone knows, value in the world is produced by the fundamental force of human labor power. Marx is typically taken to have subscribed to some form of the LTV, and thus to have signed on to this form of theorizing. This article refuses to treat Marx as an analytic, ahistorical theorist who would either affirm or deny the LTV. Rather, I read Marx as a genealogist who excavates the story of labor and value within the specific historical context of an emerging capitalist social formation. This genealogical approach to Marx, and particularly to his less-often-discussed, Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, shows plainly that Marx never subscribed to the LTV, but more importantly that he eschewed the form of theory that the LTV presumes. Rather than seeking to make transhistorical theoretical claims about the relation between labor and value, Marx meant to demonstrate to his readers something about the way in which a definite and concrete (historically situated) capitalist social formation establishes value. A capitalist social formation establishes its own specific value relations, by first constituting, and then dissimulating, a link between labor and value.

This chapter provides a genealogy of the Gladue–Ipeelee principle of special consideration of Indigenous circumstances at sentencing. The principle is codified in the 1996 statutory requirement that “all available sanctions other than imprisonment … should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders” (s. 718.2e of the Criminal Code of Canada). Using the Foucaultian genealogy method to produce a “history of the present,” this chapter eschews normative questions of how s. 718.2e has “failed” to reduce Indigenous over-incarceration to instead focus on how practices of “special consideration” reproduce settler-state paternalism. This chapter addresses three key components of the Gladue–Ipeelee principle: the collection of circumstances information, the characterization of those circumstances, and finally their consideration at sentencing. Part one focuses on questions of legitimacy and authority and explicates how authority and responsibility to produce Indigenous circumstances knowledge was transferred from the Department of Indian Affairs (DIA) to Indigenous Courtworker organizations in the late 1960s/early 1970s. Part two identifies how authority shapes problematization by examining the characterization of Indigenous circumstances in the two eras, finding that present-day Gladue reports articulate an Indigenous history and critique of colonialism as the root cause of Indigenous criminalization, whereas DIA reports prior to 1970 generally characterized this criminalization as a “failure to assimilate.” Part three focuses on the structural reproduction of power relations by exploring historical continuities in judicial and executive-branch consideration of Indigenous circumstances, suggesting that the Gladue–Ipeelee principle reinscribes a colonial “mercy” framework of diminished responsibility. The author discusses how the principle operates in the shadow of Indigenous over-incarceration as a form of state “recognition” and a technique of governance to encourage Indigenous participation in the settler justice system and suggests that the Gladue–Ipeelee principle produces a governing effect that reinforces settler-state authority by recirculating colonial practices and discourses of settler superiority.

Based on Latour’s view that humans and non-humans swap properties, this paper explores whether objects embody similar properties as human beings and whether these properties per se orient dispossession practices.

This study adopts Latour’s pragmatogonies as a theoretical perspective to explore the complex interplay between humans and non-humans in the context of dispossession. Thirty-two in-depth interviews focus on the object itself (its characteristics, qualities, and capacities in association with its endo and exo relations) to understand how objects act on dispossession.

The results depict objects as consisting of various material elements and possessing symmetrical properties as humans to facilitate, hinder, and channel dispossession. Objects emerge as having genealogies, undergoing physical changes, adapting to misfortunes, and having citizenship duties.

Our analyses reveal a complex network of people and things; all acting in the course of dispossession. We call for further research on object–subject networks/assemblages as dynamic and co-productive. We suggest that research focus should be on what objects might become or how they connect and evolve as they deteriorate, shift, and renew in interaction with their environment.

Our study challenges the dichotomy between material objects and human beings. We underline that objects are not ephemeral and transient but they are moving and circulating as they deteriorate, transform, enact new roles, and construct evolving identities.

This chapter discusses an instance of spectacular reproduction that circulated in US media during the late 2010s. Through the use of commercial DNA tests, it was revealed that a fertility doctor, Donald Cline, had used his own sperm to impregnate scores of women who had sought fertility treatment from him during the 1980s. More than 60 biogenetic children, now in their mid to late 30s, were identified by early 2020. This instance illustrates several concepts and concerns that might further guide the social and cultural study of human reproduction and especially the uses of reproductive technologies: (1) Most of us encounter instances of extraordinary reproduction from a mediated distance, yet they may shape and inform our expectations and experiences of ordinary reproduction in our everyday lives. How might the concept of spectacle help us understand what is perceived and understood about reproductive technologies? (2) Reproductive technologies offer ‘fixes’ for disruptions of not only reproduction but also kinship. A focus of this chapter is on genetic genealogy tests as a re(tro)productive technology, which produces children, parents, and kinship in hindsight. (3) The social and cultural study of reproductive technologies ought to take a longitudinal approach that both includes a lifecourse perspective and takes into account the historical contexts in which the technologies become developed and individuals encounter them.