This article traces the development of the study of race and class in American political behavior. It starts by challenging the American exceptionalism thesis, particularly its premises regarding the diminutive role of social class and the absence of serious discussions about race. It then critically reviews the conventional scholarship on American political behavior and its reliance on objective indicators of social class as predictors of political preferences and participation. The article also highlights studies that have conceived of class as an important social identity and have thus measured it subjectively. It then discusses the surge of identity studies in the field of race, ethnicity, and politics (REP) and the turn toward an intersectional approach that rarely includes social class. The article ends with a discussion of the handful of studies that do consider the intersections of race and class, and underscores the need for more research of this type to advance our understanding of contemporary American political behavior. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Political Science, Volume 24 is May 2021. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
uranium and, occasionally, oil, could decide the fate of nations. Under those conditions, which joined mercantilism, colonialism, and industrialism, resource competition seemed to explain international wars. Even after World War II, Vitalis argues, the emergence of foundations like Resources for the Future reflected and contributed to the idea that resource scarcity could lead to increased competition.Except, as Vitalis demonstrates, it did not. Market mechanisms met consumers' needs even for "strategic" resources. Oil might seem to be the exception, but Vitalis argues that this had more to do with widespread misunderstandings about the oil crises of the 1970s than any well-established causal claims. The book proves a welcome and pointed complement to Emily Meierding's The Oil Wars Myth.Vitalis is on somewhat less persuasive ground when he discusses the modern history of the U.S.-Saudi relationship, which he explores to refute the recent but common claim that there has been a partnership between the two based on a trade of security provision for oil. Less persuasive does not mean unpersuasive, and his unpacking of Western mythmaking about Saudi reforms is a welcome coda to his earlier work. In general, Vitalis seems too eager to show that there was no deal than to explain what the relationship between Washington and Riyadh meant. Readers interested in this subject would be well advised to consult works like Victor McFarland's Oil Powers: A History of the U.S.-Saudi Alliance.A short, spirited polemic, Oilcraft deserves a wide readership. Vitalis provides a useful reference for those making the arguments that conservation and markets, not garrisons and aircraft carriers, should underpin U.S. energy supply. It is not the last word on the subject, however, despite its many strengths as a rebuttal. The incomplete parts of Vitalis's argument-such as how a myth so paper-thin could ever become so influential-can nevertheless serve as a stimulus for future research.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.