s Abstract Economic sociology and economics have tried to explain the organization and stability of market capitalism mostly by arguing for the effects of social structure on the patterning of relations, or for the role of the price system in balancing the demands of individual economic actors. In North America, the primary alternative to structural and individualist theories of market order has been network theory, a meso-level attempt to bridge over-and undersocialized views of actors. In Europe, the primary attempt to develop more realistic economics has centered on the role of conventions in shaping economic activity. We describe theories of market order, show how convention theory and related approaches represent a novel alternative, and suggest how convention theory can supplement network theory and institutional approaches to understanding market order.

No abstract

During the Gulf War, U.S. media portrayed Vietnam-era protesters as having treated American soldiers shamefully during the Vietnam War. Even Gulf War protesters lent credence to this historical interpretation. By "supporting the troops," dissenters distanced themselves from their counterparts during the Vietnam era and its "remembered" anti-troop sentiments. But after analysis of Vietnam era media, we find that the media of the time-consistent with most subsequent published accounts-did not report the movement as "anti-troop." Although policymakers frequently attempted to imply that protesters were anti-troop, we find virtually no instances of protesters themselves being reported as targeting the troops. Our findings show that the memory of protester-troop antagonism is not so much the product of conflict between these two groups, but rather of a selectively remembered and edited past. Just as it hamstrung the anti-war movement during the Gulf War, the current recollection may endure as part of the conditions facing opponents of future military actions.

No abstract

In this in-depth case analysis of the massive Guadalupe Dunes oil field spill in California’s San Luis Obispo County, it is argued that understanding community members’ interpretations of risk requires attention to the broader social and historical contexts within which interpretation occurs. This conceptualization differs from conventional approaches to studying risk that tend to treat the phenomena more narrowly, as discrete “variables” that can be measured objectively by experts or that can be assessed as reactions of lay people to single, isolated events. The main finding from this study is that community members’ interpretations of the risks posed by the Guadalupe Dunes spill (the largest in U.S. history) were affected profoundly by the social and environmental history of the local area. In this case, perceptions of present and future risk associated with the massive contamination of Guadalupe Dunes grew more from impressions of the way corporate and governmental institutions in the area mishandled this and previous oil-related hazards than from fear of health risks associated with the discrete Guadalupe Dunes event. Community members reacted to the threat from the immediate event but also experienced a more encompassing sense of risk associated with a perceived breach of trust on the part of corporate and governmental institutions. From their impression of institutional neglect, misconduct, and cover-up, they developed a sense of institutional failure and feelings of betrayal and anger. As this case suggests, when a complete breakdown in trust of this kind occurs, community members’ perceptions of and reactions to risk can be seen as “rational” but cannot be understood as merely calculative responses to the physical hazards associated only with the immediate, discrete event. By reporting how community members and other members of the lay public experienced this more encompassing sense of risk, this study illustrates the critical importance of context in risk research. Implications for developing theories of risk perception are discussed.