Folklore of Capitalism (1937), can be supplemented by later works, including The Bottlenecks of Business (1940) and Democracy and Free Enterprise (1942); by Edward N. Kearny's rather humdrum study, Thurman Arnold, Social Critic (1970); and by Ellis Hawley, The New Deal and the Problem of Monopoly (1966), which describes Arnold's antitrust campaign and some of the reasons for its failure.

The extensive body of commentary on Gunnar Myrdal, An American Dilemma (1944), attests to the book's status both as a sociological classic and as a reference point in the civil rights movement. David Southern, Gunnar Myrdal and Black‐ White Relations (1987), provides a useful introduction to this commentary. Among the early reviews that helped to establish Myrdal's study as definitive, see, in particular, the ones by Robert S. Lynd, Saturday Review of Literature, 22 April 1944, 5ff.; E. Franklin Frazier, American Journal of Sociology 50 (1945): 555-57, and Crisis 51 (April 1944): I05ff.; Frank Tannenbaum, Political Science Quarterly 59 (1944): 321-40; Henry Steele Commager, American Mercury 60 (1945): 751-56; Charles E. Wyzanski, Jr., Harvard Law Review 58 (Dec. 1944): 285-91; Harold F. Gosnell, American Political Science Review 38 (1944): 995-96; Frances Gaither, New York Times Book Review, 2 April 1944; Harold Fey, Christian Century 61 (1944): 433-34; and Buell Gallagher, Christendom 60 (1944): 476-88. Reinhold Niebuhr argued, in Christianity and Society I0 (spring 1945): 21-24, that racial bigotry sprang from "something darker and more terrible than mere stupidity" and that its eradication would therefore depend more on contrition than on enlightenment. Ralph Ellison, in a piece written for Antioch Review in the mid-forties but published only twenty years later in Shadow and Act (1964), pointed out that Myrdal overlooked the role black people would have to play in their own liberation. Most of the criticism of Myrdal, however, came not from people like Niebuhr and Ellison but from those who refused to consider race a moral issue at all or denied, at any rate, that white people felt uneasy about racial discrimination or perceived any contradiction between racism and American values. For the first type of criticism, see Herbert Aptheker, "A Liberal Dilemma," New Masses 59 (14 May 1946): 3-6; Oliver C. Cox, "An American Dilemma: A Mystical Approach to the Study of Race Relations," Journal of Negro Education 14 (1945): 132-48; and Ernest Kaiser, "Racial Dialectics: The Aptheker-Myrdal Controvery," Phylon 9 (1948): 295-302. Variations on the second position appeared in Mordecai Grossman, "Caste or Democracy?" Contemporary Jewish Record 7 (Oct. 1944): 475-86; Oliver Golightly, "Race, Values, and Guilt," Social Forces 26 (Dec. 1947): 125-39; Sophia Fagin McDowell, "The Myrdal Concept of 'An American Dilemma,' " Social Forces 30 (Oct. 1951): 87-91; Ernest Q. Campbell, "Moral Discomfort and Racial Segregation," Social Forces 39 (March 1961): 228-34; and Nahum Z. Medalia, "Myrdal's Assumptions on Race Relations," Social Forces 40 (March 1962): 223-37. A twentieth-anniversary round-table discussion by James Baldwin, Nathan Glazer, Sidney Hook, and Myrdal himself, in Commentary 37 (March 1964): 25-42, turned largely on the question of whether Americans cared enough about the principle of racial equality to feel uneasy about the practice of racial inequality. Orlando Patterson, "The Moral Crisis of the Black American,"

-559-