Ryan, Debi, and Toren Cragun's Blog

Suchman, Lucy A. 1987. Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press.

Rating:
3

Summary:
If you do read it, read only the last chapter and the conclusion.

Keep in mind that the title of the book is Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human Machine Communication. The majority of the book is the ‘plans and situated actions’ part.

The basic idea of the book is that humans don’t really function using plans. Plans, as the author defines them, are something akin to diagrams for behavior, explicating specific activities. Instead, the author argues that humans behave based on ‘situated actions’. Situated actions are, “the view that every course of action depends in essential ways upon its material and social circumstances. Rather than attempting to abstract action away from its circumstances and represent it as a rational plan, the approach is to study how people use their circumstances to achieve intelligent action.” (p. 50).

In other words, people have a goal in mind. To achieve their goal, people may or may not set up a plan (the author discusses how this could be culturally relative, but I think this is a weak point in her argument because she doesn’t really do a good job of distinguishing one type of plan from another), but what is important is that in trying to achieve their goal they are placed in situations that determine their actions. This could also be said: people behave in specific situations based upon the factors that affect the situation.

Let me give an example… Let’s say your goal is to get to the dentist. You set up a ‘plan’ for getting to the dentist prior to leaving. Your plan would include a calculation of the time and the route and your mode of transportation. The situated action approach would say that you can only understand the individual’s behavior in terms of their actions in specific situations. So you get in your car and on the way to the dentist’s office you run into a detour due to construction. If you had to follow your plan, you couldn’t make it to the dentist. But when you leave the road and find an alternate route, this behavior is only understood in terms of situated action. Does that explain it? Wow, and it only took me a few paragraphs.

The author discusses plans and situated actions in terms of conversations, cognitive science, ethnomethodology, and a whole bunch of other theoretical perspectives and technical jargon. In the end she finally gets to the human and machine communication. This is also where the book begins to get interesting. She studied how people interacted with copy machines that were trying to give people instructions. Her studies, undoubtedly helped the people at Xerox figure out ways to improve their copy machines and instructions for them. Like I said above, the last chapter and the conclusion are the most interesting parts of the book. Skip the rest and read them.

Review:
For someone so concerned with understanding how people communicate this book is horribly written and nearly unintelligible. The first six chapters are theory and examples of the theory that are completely unrelated to machines. The book finally gets to human and machine interaction after nearly one hundred pages of inchoate theory. And the human and machine interaction stuff isn’t really all that interesting – especially since it predates the 1990s, is talking about interaction with copying machines, and has nothing to do with computers.

The author should have chosen a specific approach and then stuck to it. Perhaps she could have tripled the length of the book and gave clear and understandable explanations of the theories (though I am pretty much convinced after having read the book that this would be impossible because of the author’s writing style) and used examples that applied only to human and machine interaction. Or she could have just jumped into her findings that dealt with human and machine interaction. The first approach could have been ‘dumbed down’ to make the book readable by the general public. The second approach could have served a more academic market.

The book reads something like a doctoral dissertation (it very well may be one, I don’t know) in that she gives some information on each theory, but not really enough to give someone a good understanding of it – something like a literature review – and cites examples of research that are completely unrelated to the topic of the book to illustrate the theories . The she presents her methods, results, and conclusion.

I guess my problem is that I was expecting a book that would actually be enjoyable to read, interesting, and would focus on human and machine communication. If that is what you are looking for, look somewhere else. This book is nearly impossible to understand. I read the book for a graduate level course in Ethnomethodology and I didn’t really understand it very well. By no means am I an expert in Ethnomethodology, but I’m pretty sure I know more about it than probably 95% of the world’s population (keep in mind I don’t know very much at all), so I’m pretty confident most people would find this book nearly impossible to decipher.

Wright, Stuart A. 1987. Leaving Cults: The Dynamics of Defection. Washington, DC: Society for the Scientific Study of Religion.

Rating:
7

Summary:
The objective of the book is to develop a theory as to why people leave new religious movements (a.k.a. cults). Wright first provides some background on new religious movements and religious exiting then proposes a theory to explain why people leave new religious movements. The theory has five basic propositions:

ONE: The less the degree to which the world-transforming movement effectively provides insulation from the larger society, the greater the likelihood of defection.
TWO: The less the degree to which the world-transforming movement effectively regulates two-person intimacy, the greater the likelihood of defection.”
THREE: The less the degree to which members of the world-transforming movement perceive the regulation of their time, lifestyle, labor, and sexual conduct as an urgent necessity, the greater the likelihood of defection.”
FOUR: The less the degree to which members of the world-transforming movement perceive the organization as fulfilling the affective needs of a primary or quasi-primary group, the greater the likelihood of defection.”
FIVE: The less the degree to which members perceive the leadership of the world-transforming movement as “exemplary,” the greater the likelihood of defection.”

The propositions are tested using 90 interviews with both current and former cult members from three new religious movements – The Unification Church (Moonies), Hare Krishna (ISKCON), and Children of God/Family of Love. The interviews were conducted in 1979 and 1980 and the interviewees were found using a snowball sampling technique.

Wright finds support for four of the five propositions, the exception being proposition four. According to Wright, “…defectors frequently pointed out that the quality and intensity of interpersonal relationships was one of the most positive aspects of their involvement” (p. 44). In short, factors that can lead people to leave new religious movements include: (1) physical separation (or insulation) from the movement; (2) the development of intimate interpersonal relationships, especially dyads; (3) a decline in the regulation and control of behavior; and (4) a disillusionment with the leader or leadership of the movement. Wright found that all of these factors can contribute to people leaving new religious movements.

Review:
Generally speaking, this book is quite good. While I think Wright’s propositions can be boiled down to a common factor – being confronted with alternative worldviews – his propositions are compelling and well-reasoned. Wright also explored a few additional ideas that are noteworthy. For instance, he found that among his interviewees, the longer you remained in the movement the more likely your exit would be overt, public, and controversial (p. 70). Individuals who had been in the movement for only a short period of time were more likely to exit covertly, sneaking out in the night to avoid conflict and controversy. Wright also found that the majority of the apostates in his sample reported they felt “wiser” for having participated in a new religious movement, even though they were no longer participating in it (p. 87). I thought this finding was a bit surprising given the stigma that often follows individuals who leave such movements. Unfortunately, Wright does not go into too much detail on this point.

Despite the well-reasoned propositions and generally intriguing findings, there are a couple of problems with this book. First, it seems clear that Wright has some sort of agenda, though it isn’t exactly clear what that agenda is. For instance, he begins the book with, “A number of people, including a few ministers and at least one well-known sociologist, have asked me, “Why are you defending cults?” As one with evangelical leanings, I am deeply disturbed by the growth of the Therapeutic State” (p. viii). This statement alone is not particularly troublesome given he is, at least indirectly, revealing his personal bias – he is an evangelical (Christian?). This bias does not surface again until the very end of the book when the author again turns to his personal positions on religion, “Moreover, the effect of some deprogrammings has been to strip the individual entirely of any religious orientation whatsoever. My conversations with some deprogrammed ex-members revealed an outright hostility to anything religious. As one individual working with a local anticult organization in New York stated, “All religion is brainwashing.” The perpetuation of this attitude, intentional or not, is to be questioned and challenged” (p. 93). Wright does not explain why having an anti-religious attitude should be questioned or challenged. It’s almost as though he takes as a given that a pro-religious or at least blasé attitude toward religion should be the standard. He follows this up by arguing that people who “want to belong to unconventional religious groups should be allowed to do so if they choose” (p. 96). While I agree – within reason (i.e., human sacrifice is out) – I fail to see how this isn’t the case today? If anything, religious groups are granted a lot of leeway in the U.S. and are even favored in many ways (e.g., they don’t pay taxes, etc.). I should note that Wright does not discuss his personal views on religion throughout the body of the text, so I am inclined to believe his personal views play little or no role in his findings. But I wasn’t very clear on what his personal views were nor why they were included in the text to begin with.

Another problem I had with the text is that Wright briefly turns to the rational choice/equilibrium theory work of Jacobs (1984) as an explanation of why people leave (p. 5). He advocates this approach and argues it is the best way to understand why people leave new religious movements. While I disagree that it is the best way to understand why people leave religions, I was then surprised by the fact that Wright does not refer back to the approach through the remainder of the text. Perhaps he intended to argue that his propositions could be derived from a rational choice or equilibrium approach, but if there is a connection there, Wright does not make it clear. So, not only do I disagree that the rational choice approach is the best way of explaining religious exiting but Wright, who seems to advocate it, does not connect the theory to his findings in this text.

Other than these two minor problems, this book is actually a pretty good treatise on exiting new religious movements. It should be noted, however, that Wright’s propositions and findings are really limited in application to just new religious movements. A close perusal of them reveals that they are tuned to characteristics of cults (e.g., living in close proximity, charismatic leaders, etc.). While Wright’s ideas work well at the level of new religious movements, they obviously will not apply very well to mainstream religions or to role exiting in general (Ebaugh 1988). This book is clearly an important one for researchers interested in new religious movements and religious exiting, but few people beyond that audience will find it of particular interest.

Wilson, William J. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Rating:
8

Summary:
This is basically Wilson’s policy suggestion resulting from The Declining Significance of Race

The author, William Julius Wilson, uses The Truly Disadvantaged to develop his earlier argument presented in The Declining Significance of Race. The author is basically arguing that race is less and less important when it comes to poverty and disadvantages in the capitalist economic system of the U.S. Where the real problems lie are in inner-city ghettoes and other poor neighborhoods.

To illustrate his argument, Wilson discusses how middle and upper-middle class blacks began moving out of inner-city neighborhoods starting in the 1960s (pp. 7, 50). The result of this transition was to concentrate poverty without the accompanying positive influence of more wealthy blacks. As a result of the increasing concentration of poverty, a culture of poverty has, to some degree, developed in these poverty stricken areas (pp. 58, 62). This culture is typified by increasing rates of out-of-wedlock births, crime, and other problems the author refers to as ‘social dislocation.’

Wilson develops his argument primarily as a response to the growing conservative approach to poverty, which basically lays the blame on the poor and claims welfare programs have only worsened the culture of poverty. This reasoning continues to claim that, as a result of welfare programs, inner-city poor have come to expect handouts. Wilson’s argument attempts to refute this notion by illustrating that the welfare programs aren’t to blame. Much of the blame, according to Wilson, lies on an economic system that has moved from industry to service, which disproportionately affects poor black men (pp. 45, 55). Black men, who generally have less education than white men, are increasingly unemployed as their jobs in manufacturing have been sent overseas. Because fewer black men have consistent incomes, the pool of marriageable black men is decreasing (p. 96). This results in growing out-of-wedlock births and single, welfare-dependent mothers.

The author concludes by arguing against race-based programs, claiming that they disproportionately benefit blacks that are already doing well (pp. 111-120). For instance, affirmative action can only be used to hire people into professional-type occupations when they already have the education that makes them eligible for the job. It does very little to pull people out of the ghetto. In place of race-based programs, the author argues for programs that target the poor across the board – disregarding race as the primary criteria (pp. 155, 163). He admits that these programs will take a long time to implement and effectively reduce the social dislocations that disproportionately affect poor blacks, but believes they will be more effective in the long run.

Review:
I think Wilson does a better job in this book than in The Declining Significance of Race of clearly presenting his arguments. In order to do this Wilson has to make blatant his policy suggestions and reveal his personal biases. But if you aren’t bothered by subjective policy suggestions rooted in empirical research, then you will likely find the author’s argument compelling.

I should note that much of the book is made up of particularly wordy discussions of technical issues and theories, but if you want to get the gist of the argument quickly, you can simply read chapter 7 (or my summary above), where Wilson clearly lays out what he is trying to accomplish.

I also think it is important to understand the implications of Wilson’s research for future research on race issues. Rather than grouping all blacks together, they should be broken down by their SES (or SES should be controlled in regression analysis). If the growing disparity between middle-class and under-class blacks has continued, grouping blacks into one broad category does not accurately reflect the social dislocation they are experiencing.

Overall, I think I would actually recommend this book over The Declining Significance of Race as it is clearer in its goal and argument. Whether you choose to agree with the author’s argument or not, it is clearly outlined and is rooted in sound empirical research. I think I agree with Wilson that class issues are now more significant in the U.S. than are race issues, though I don’t believe, as I think Wilson would agree, that race is no longer an issue. Race is an issue and should continue to be studies in some areas (e.g., religion, for one). But when it comes to social dislocation, disparities in healthcare, and some other issues that disproportionately affect blacks, it is becoming increasingly understood that the major factor involved is class and not race.

Roof, Wade Clark, and William McKinney. 1987. American Mainline Religion: Its Changing Shape and Future. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Rating:
10

Summary:
The broad goal of this book is to explore the changes experienced by mainline religious groups. The authors are a bit schizophrenic in their use of “mainline.” Their first definition seems simple enough, “By mainline (or mainstream which is a frequently used synonym), we mean the dominant, culturally established faiths held by the majority of Americans” (p. 6). But they later change their definition to reflect a more nuanced understanding of the religious landscape of the 1980s, “What is meant by the term religious mainline? If mainline means anything it means a place in the center, but even that is not easy to define in today’s fluid religious context. “The ‘mainline’ or ‘mainstream’ of a phenomenon,” writes Richard John Neuhaus, “would seem to be that reality which requires little explanation. It is the obvious, the normative, the taken-for-granted. It is the standard of comparison against which the marginal, the fringe, the curious are all defined” (p. 73). In a sense the authors are forced to change their definition of the mainline to reflect the growth of conservative Protestantism that started in the 1970s; given its prominence, the second definition would increasingly be referring to conservative religious groups in the U.S. Despite recognizing the changing religious landscape, the authors continue to use their earlier definition of mainline, using the older religious traditions in the U.S. (Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, etc.) as their comparison groups.

The authors argue that mainline religions, those traditionally considered to belong to the WASP (white Anglo-Saxon Protestant) category, dominated the religious establishment throughout the nineteenth and much of the twentieth century, “For a hundred years or more, Americans made very little of pluralism; in self-perception if not in fact, the United States was a white country in which Protestant Christianity set the norms of religious observance and moral conduct. WASP influence shaped much of the public life. Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Jews, and blacks often experienced prejudice and discrimination at the hands of a religious majority that viewed its identity as the same as the nation’s. The dominant religious tradition provided the symbolism and mythology that shaped the nation’s folklore, literature, theater, art, and music” (p. 35). But the authors also find that the cultural dominance of the mainline religions is on the decline, with two categories increasing both their share of the U.S. religious market and their sway on its culture: secular individuals or religious nonaffiliates (or “religious nones”; see p. 170) and religious conservatives, particularly conservative Protestants.

These changes are attributed, at least in part, to the “new voluntarism” and religious pluralism that leads to a breakdown in plausibility structures that function to maintain religious belief and affiliation. Voluntarism is a key focus of the book and refers to, “greater choice in religious affiliation and the more privatized psychology of religious faith and identity, in keeping with the cultural mood of the sixties and seventies” (p. 9). The religious nones have benefited the most from voluntarism and pluralism as the undermining of plausibility structures leads toward a disillusionment from organized religion.

The breakdown of plausibility structures also helps explain the rise of conservative groups – they tend to develop stronger plausibility structures (support networks of both people and ideas) that help to maintain religious belief. As a result, they have positioned themselves well in the religious marketplace and have a compelling product to sell (regardless of whether you believe they are actually providing a tangible product or not).

The ultimate conclusion of the book is that the religious mainline in the U.S. is on the decline. It not only isn’t holding the center, which was its former bastion of strength, but is losing its long-time adherents as they age and die. What’s more, the elderly are not being replaced by the young. Individuals raised in mainline religions today are more likely to drop out of religion altogether or move toward more conservative religious belief. In short, the future of mainline religions in the U.S. is bleak (later research has confirmed these findings).

Review:
Anyone interested in the growth and decline of mainline religions up to the mid 1980s must read this book. It is well-written and on-target. The authors are clearly informed about their subject matter and present remarkable insights about the both the history and future of mainline religions.

The only problem I had with this book is that the authors tend to get a little wordy in their descriptions and explanations, which led my mind to wander at times. There are plenty of concrete examples and statistics in the book, but the occasional, longer-than-necessary tangent into the abstract makes the book a bit more boring than it needs to be. Other than this small, general problem, the book has everything going for it.

In addition to the general conclusions drawn from the text, the book makes a variety of very good points, some of which are worth noting here. For instance, the authors note that the percentage of United Statesians who are Protestants is on the decline (from 67% in 1952 to 57% in 1985). While that finding is not surprising on its own, the corresponding change in the Protestant mentality in the U.S. as noted by Herberg is interesting, “Protestantism in America today presents the anomaly of a strong majority group with a growing minority consciousness” (p. 15). As anyone who follows the religious right can attest, this politically powerful block of voters are keen to claim they are picked on and shunned, when in fact Protestantism in the U.S. remains the dominant religious group. The “victim” mentality, while effective in gaining attention and media exposure, is a ruse and should be seen for what it is – a ploy to increase political influence and power. Protestantism may be a shrinking religious body in the U.S., but it is still the 600 lb. gorilla among chimps (well, Catholicism is now about a 500 lb. gorilla).

Another interesting point worth noting here is the contrast between nonaffiliates and individuals who are the most likely to be religious, “Studies show that the “unchurched” are disproportionately young, male, white, well educated, nonsouthern, and frequent movers. They are less conformist on social issues and cultural attitudes and far more tolerant and open to change. In profile characteristics they are the mirror image of those who are the most religiously committed—older persons, females, blacks, the lesser educated, southerners, and the geographically stable. So striking are the contrasts that the possibility of a growing cleavage between religious and secular America appeared more likely during the 1970s than at any time in the past quarter century” (p. 17). While I don’t think anyone should find it surprising that these two groups of people are extremely distinct, I do think many of the implications that can be drawn from this finding are interesting. For instance, if you look toward the specific congregations that are growing today, the “mega-churches,” it’s not hard to see where they are targeting their marketing efforts – toward those who fit the profile of the nonaffiliates rather than those who are traditionally religious. Additionally, and I find this point particularly interesting, many of the values embodied in U.S. culture are actually those seen in the nonaffiliates – young, educated, successful, mobile, tolerant (well, kind of). The fact that those values are prized in U.S. culture but the U.S. remains highly religious is an intriguing contrast.

An extension of the previous point is hinted at in the book, but not pushed toward its ultimate implication, “Among the religious communities there are disparities in age structures, some being more lopsided than others… Affiliates of all faiths are older than nonaffiliates; Jews are older than both Protestants and Catholics; Protestants are older than Catholics. Within Protestantism there are some striking differences: white Protestants are older than black Protestants, and liberal Protestants are older than conservative Protestants” (p. 153). What the authors imply but do not state outright is that the growing and vibrant religious groups (including religious nones) also tend to the be youngest ones (in terms of the age of the adherents and not necessarily in terms of the ages of the religions themselves). Certainly youth plays a part in that, but it also seems to tie into the marketing strategies of the religious groups who are growing (mega-churches and conservative bodies; there is no marketing strategy for religious disaffiliation, at least not a concerted one). While the authors may not have wanted to push their findings to include this assertion, I find the possibility of such a connection fascinating.

Overall, this is a well-written (if occasionally boring) book that is well worth reading for anyone with an interest in mainline religions, their history, and their future. The findings of the book point toward an increasingly bleak future for the religious bodies that at one time dominated the religious landscape in the U.S. Barring substantial changes and revitalizing efforts within their ranks, the future of the mainline is decline, obsolescence, and ultimately demise.

Menchu, Rigoberta. 1987. I, Rigoberta Menchu: An Indian Woman in Guatemala. Verso.

Rating:
1

Summary:
The book is primarily an autobiography, but it was derived uniquely. According to the introduction, Rigoberta Menchu, the subject of the biography, recounted her life story to Elisabeth Burgos-Debray, an anthropologist, during a visit to France. Burgos-Debray then transcribed and translated the stories, edited them, and compiled them into this biography.

The book is mostly chronological, following Menchu’s life growing up in what she refers to as the “altiplano” – the mountains where her family’s farm and permanent home was – as well as her family’s regular trips to the “fincas,” which were farms owned by wealthy landowners who paid Guatemalan Indians to work the crops. As conditions worsened for Menchu, her family, and other Indians and poor “Ladinos” (mixed Spanish and Indian individuals) in the 1970s, Menchu finds her entire family caught up in the revolutionary conflict that includes incessant raids by the military on villages. According to her story, Menchu’s father, Vicente Menchu, was the first to get heavily involved in organizing the poor and raising consciousness. Rigoberta soon follower her father and became involved in organizing the poor in an effort to raising their standard of living and to find ways to clean up the corruption and greed that was the Guatemalan government of the time. The Menchu activism eventually leads to the horrific deaths of her younger brother, father, and mother – all recounted in gory detail. Eventually Rigoberta feels so threatened by the government and military that she flees the country, finding sanctuary in Mexico for a time. Once the conflict cooled, she returned to lead an organization that bears her father’s name and continues his cause.

In addition to the biographical account, Menchu details many of the customs and beliefs of the Guatemalan Indians. These forays into cultural anthropology include discussions of: growing and harvesting food, tending and herding animals, rites of passage – in particular moving into adulthood and marriage, death ceremonies, and communal bonding. There is no real rhyme or reason as to when the cultural descriptions are presented, but they do sometimes tie back into the story.

Review:
Unfortunately, Menchu’s account was later found to have been embellished, exaggerated, and/or made up whole cloth. A clear treatise on the lies and controversies surrounding this biography can be found on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigoberta_Menchu . Apparently some of the stories and accounts related in the book piqued the attention of actual anthropologists who then made a variety of attempts to verify the stories and accounts. In their efforts to verify the stories, these researchers found that the actual story is much less dramatic and far less compelling – Menchu didn’t grow up as poor as she claims and there were no fiery immolations, though she did lose members of her family during the revolution.

Knowing ahead of time that the book was controversial, I read it from that perspective and found a variety of indicators that most likely pass muster unless you know what to look for. For instance, on page 187 she mentions that, in the case of her father’s death, she “…can’t invent my own personal version from my imagination.” But in the case of her brother’s death, that is exactly what she did. Reading the book with an awareness that it was not true highlighted comments like this as they seem to be internal justifications that are designed to prevent people from questioning Menchu’s account. She claims she can’t make stuff up, but she does. I’m just guessing here, but I think the reason she forgoes giving many details of her father’s death is because there were a lot of people involved who could easily refute anything that was untrue. That was clearly not the case for her brother’s and mother’s deaths.

Menchu uses a slightly different approach in talking about her mother’s death, “And I want to say in advance that I have in my hands details of every step of the rape and torture suffered by my mother. I don’t want to reveal too many things because it will implicate some companeros who are still doing their work very well” (p. 198). This statement is also intriguing in light of the information that Menchu embellished her story. Menchu mentions that she has all sorts of information about her mother’s torturous rape and death, but that she doesn’t want to reveal it all. However, when you read the account, it is pretty clear that it is not only fictitious but unknowable as much of the time her mother was either alone or guarded by a single individual. Unless the individual guard(s) came directly to Menchu and recounted every gory detail and unless someone actually went back to where her mother died and followed the decomposition process over a lengthy period of time, it would be impossible for Menchu to have the information she does. Her mother’s death may have been horrific, but embellishing it with fiction is really no way to honor that death.

Another characteristic of the book that might lead someone to question it is the none-too-subtle Marxist and feminist undertones that periodically surface in the biography. For instance, near the end Menchu says, “The Bible taught me that. I tried to explain this to a Marxist companera, who asked me how could I pretend to fight for revolution being a Christian. I told her that the whole truth is not found in the Bible, but neither is the whole truth in Marxism, and that she had to accept that. We have to defend ourselves against our enemy but, as Christians, we must also defend our faith within the revolutionary process” (p. 246). Here, Menchu is painted as defending Marxism while maintaining a very liberal Christian perspective. Additionally, while Menchu seems manifestly okay with the machismo and patriarchy that is rampant in traditional Latin America, she also disavows marriage and having kids and argues that men and women are equal and should be on equal footing at all times, especially in social movements. Ironically, I don’t disagree with a lot of these sentiments, but I still find their inclusion in this book to be something other than coincidental.

In short, the book is vague enough that it can get away with the lies, but it also gives some specifics to seem legitimate. It would be a very compelling – if occasionally wandering – story, if it were only true. As it stands, a careful reading of the text highlights many of the indicators that the book should not be taken as a forthright account of Rigoberta Menchu’s life. I wish I had known what I know now when I originally was required to read this in my women’s studies class at the University of Utah; that would have made for a very interesting discussion… Oh well.