All economic activity is entangled in a web of social institutions, customs, beliefs and attitudes. Outcomes are indubitably affected by these background factors, some of which change slowly and gradually, others erratically. . . . Economic theory can only gain from being taught something about range of possibilities in human societies.Robert E. Solow, Economics: Is Something Missing? in William N. Parker (ed.), Economic History and Modern Economist (Oxford, UK, 1986), 22, 24.In a useful review of state of historical knowledge on farming in northern United States during nineteenth century, Jeremy Atack, Fred Bateman, and William Parker conclude that farmers behaved consistently with rational choice: they settled best soils first, their mobility patterns maximized their human capital, they diversified against risk, they responded to prices, they tried to smooth out seasonal labor usage, and they capitalized on knowledge of markets and production techniques. . . . While individual performance varied enormously, northern farmers as a group proved to be economically responsive actors in a capitalist system. The description attributes extraordinary efficiency to rise of what Max Weber defined as Zweckrationalitat, cost-effective adequation of means to goals. Of course, there were protesters who challenged that massive evolution because the system produced large numbers of who had much to complain about. Yet even if their fate were to succeed in sustaining authors' attention, they hardly ever to offer alternative visions of society because they accepted (what might be called) rules of game. Their discourses positively betrayed their marginalization, their incapacity to profit from development they proposed to rein in, to regulate, but not to stop. In any case, their objections were doomed to failure and thus corroborate evolution's overarching and assured success. The authors leave no doubt about inevitable forward march of progress, in this case triumph of most lucrative way of running a farm (or of modernization or, as it stands, capitalism).1The view from The First American Frontier, Wilma Dunaway's amply documented account of Transition to Capitalism in Southern between 1700 and 1860, provides a detailed, richly textured picture of how capitalist center expanded into known world's periphery. Capitalism, at once personified (it survives, grows, and combats) and reified (it combines three major mechanisms), determined and directed choices open to, and made by, region's inhabitants. They engaged in activities that linked Appalachia to world market: fur trade at very beginning, agriculture (grains, livestock, tobacco, cotton, fruits, and wool) and extractive industries (such as iron ore, copper, lead) later. The general movement's logic appears inescapable, and people's lives indeed reflect[ed] their location within hierarchical division of labor [in world system]. This peripheral, subordinate position in turn appeared to shape very forms of resistance to oppose juggernaut's inexorable forward march. The region as a whole seemed to be replicating many of characteristic patterns of development that had advanced to a higher technological level in other parts of capitalist world economy. In short, monographic narrative serves as an illustration of a general dynamic: economic efficiency based on regional advantages assured participation in world system, which left little, if indeed any, choice to people but to follow predetermined life paths.2Things, of course, appear in a different light when approached from other end. This is not to deny existence of big structures and large processes. But it means reaffirming place and role of women and men who encounter them. Take variegated social experiences of rural losers in long-term movement toward economic rationalization (moving to agricultural wage labor, to far-off lands, to other occupations? …