Surviving Solitary: Living and Working in Restricted Housing Units

Abstract

ed, there are almost no references to contemporary research or theory. The claims that are made are often poorly sourced, when they are sourced at all. The phrase ‘‘not a few’’ is used repeatedly throughout and is almost never accompanied by a reference to who those ‘‘not a few’’ claiming something might be. This ironically feels a bit like the academic version of the former president’s ‘‘many people are saying’’ trope. Further, the sections on contemporary issues, particularly the chapters on the Trump era, amount to little more than a blow-by-blow recounting of the indignities and inanities of Trump’s campaign and reign, pulled from newspaper headlines. In the end, there is (quite understandably) a lot of heat here, but also very little light to be gleaned from the analysis. Although I will resist the urge to create a laundry list of oversights and problems, as a multi-generational Appalachian I am compelled to note that calling J. D. Vance a ‘‘perceptive’’ analyst of the problems in the region (p. 86) is akin to cultural heresy among astute observers (see Harkins and McCarroll 2019). This is also rather ironic given that Vance is now a Trump toady and that Tropes of Intolerance largely operates as an anti-Trump argument from the perspective of both social science and liberal democracy. Vance’s (in)famous memoir is discussed as though it were an academic study, is called by the wrong title, and then is not even cited in the bibliography (nor is a block quote from Vance sourced on p. 87). In effect, this example is a telling microcosm of the broader problems plaguing the book. Ultimately, Tropes of Intolerance does not live up to its considerable promise. It is not entirely clear who the intended audience is supposed to be, although my guess would be students in an introductory race and ethnicity course. It will not be of much use for researchers, since contemporary theory and research is not incorporated. Given that fact, a clean, compelling introduction to ethnic prejudice would be expected, but there are too many problems, of both style and substance, to recommend the book for use in a college course. In the end, the book is a well-intentioned effort to use the tools of social science to dissect and combat contemporary bigotry, but the execution unfortunately leaves much to be desired.