Detrimental effects of the natural aging process on the human cricoarytenoid joint have been hypothesized as a possible etiology for the voice changes seen in the aging population. Cellular events occurring at the histologic level, such as cricoarytenoid joint erosion or arthritis may lead to alterations in laryngeal structure which ultimately affect its function and performance. Seven normal human larynges of varying ages ranging from 29 to 69 years of age were examined histopathologically for changes in the cricoarytenoid joint. The synovium, joint space, periarticular muscle, and respiratory epithelium were evaluated for the presence of inflammatory changes or edema and degree of vascularity. The location and amount of ossification, elastin, and collagen formation were also noted. There were no appreciable changes noted in the synovium or joint space itself with increasing age. No differences were observed in the degree of elastin or collagen formation. However, there was progressive cricoid and arytenoid ossification and periarticular muscular atrophy and fibrosis. These findings suggest that other laryngeal changes may play a greater role in determining senescent vocal quality rather than changes within the cricoarytenoid joint itself.

No abstract

Last year's editorial, ''How can mainstream approaches become more critical?'' (Goldstein, Boer, King and Boyarin, 2015) provoked some strong responses. Initially, these occurred in social media-a place which one might think unlikely for intellectual discussion but in some ways has become its vanguard. There a debate ensued (mostly between Russell McCutcheon, Craig Martin, and CRR Editor Warren S. Goldstein), which was published subsequently in Religion Bulletin under the title ''On the Nature and Ends of Critique in the Study of Religion.'' 2 After that, we received two submissions, one by Craig Martin and the other by Timothy Fitzgerald, which were largely responses to the editorial. Both were published in the December 2015 issue of CRR (see Fitzgerald, 2015 andMartin, 2015). They focused on a line of inquiry we had neglected in our editorial, centering on the problems with the category of religion, which Fitzgerald has coined ''critical religion.'' Here, we want to engage critical religion as articulated by McCutcheon, Fitzgerald, and Martin, recognizing that they do not stand as a cohesive unit and that there may be as much disagreement between them as there is agreement. While we appreciate the many insights that critical religion has contributed to our understanding of religion as a category, we also find limitations in the debate over the category and the ensuing assumptions concerning the methods of scholarly analysis of religion. In juxtaposition to critical religion, we shall offer a critical theory of religion more narrowly defined (a position with which we closely identify).In the Facebook exchange, McCutcheon's and Martin's objections centered on our value laden approach-which is an aspect that we share with religious traditions. 1 We argued that in order to engage in critique, one must select values as a ground for evaluation. McCutcheon pointed out that values are socially located, and we agree. Nevertheless, we see his attempt to gain a historical, institutional understanding as similarly value laden

The authors discuss and extend the crisis theory of Habermas and Offe by adding and arguing for the semiautonomy of a fourth system—the ecological system. Based on Habermas's crisis systems theory and J. O'Connor's fiscal crisis-of-the-state thesis, they develop a crisis systems model (CSM) applicable to late capitalist societies. Within the framework of the CSM, they outline the three crises identified in earlier research— accumulation crisis of overproduction, accumulation crisis of underproduction, and social welfare legitimation—and argue for the relevance of a fourth crisis—the environmental legitimation crisis. They assess the empirical import of the CSM and the cogency of the environmental legitimation crisis by examining the evolving role of citizen participation in natural resource management in the United States. The authors conclude that the democratization of environmental decision making is, in part, an adaptive response by natural resources agencies to avoid an environmental legitimation crisis.

No abstract