march through the institutions,” to borrow a phrase. The book’s main flaw is in its lack of organization. There is no discernable order to the essays. This may highlight that there is “no one narrative” (xlviii), as Cronin writes in the introduction, but it risks key themes falling through the cracks. For example, several essays engage with the question of symbolic protest. They are naturally in conversation with each other but spread throughout the book. If the essays were grouped by theme, or by the author’s role in the strike, conversations, debates, and patterns would be clearer. There is a helpful introduction and timeline at the front, but it may have been more effective to spread commentary throughout the book as part of shorter introductions to thematic sections. Still, this is an engaging read, likely of interest to those new to the Columbia strike and those already well versed in its history. It is too long to assign to undergraduates, but an instructor could easily use selections. Students will likely enjoy the essays and the multiple, sometimes contradictory, views represented provide a pedagogical opportunity. How do historians weigh evidence? How can you use differing accounts to corroborate evidence? Who do you trust and why? Fifty years later, discussion along these lines would be a fitting legacy of the strike of 1968.

中文翻译：

---

失控：格雷戈里·贝特森（Gregory Bateson）、双重束缚和生态意识的兴起

穿过机构，”借用一句话。这本书的主要缺陷是缺乏组织。文章没有明显的顺序。正如克罗宁在引言中所写的那样，这可能突出表明“没有人的叙述”（xlviii），但它有可能使关键主题陷入困境。例如，有几篇文章涉及象征性抗议的问题。他们自然而然地相互交谈，但在整本书中传播开来。如果将文章按主题或作者在罢工中的角色分组，对话、辩论和模式会更清晰。前面有一个有用的介绍和时间表，但作为对主题部分的简短介绍的一部分，在整本书中散布评论可能更有效。尽管如此，这是一个引人入胜的阅读，那些刚接触哥伦比亚罢工和已经熟悉其历史的人可能会感兴趣。分配给本科生的时间太长，但教师可以轻松使用选择。学生可能会喜欢这些文章，并且所代表的多种有时相互矛盾的观点提供了教学机会。历史学家如何权衡证据？您如何使用不同的帐户来证实证据？你信任谁，为什么？五十年后，沿着这些思路进行的讨论将成为 1968 年罢工的合适遗产。历史学家如何权衡证据？您如何使用不同的帐户来证实证据？你信任谁，为什么？五十年后，沿着这些思路进行的讨论将成为 1968 年罢工的合适遗产。历史学家如何权衡证据？您如何使用不同的帐户来证实证据？你信任谁，为什么？五十年后，沿着这些思路进行的讨论将成为 1968 年罢工的合适遗产。