Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 06:16:14 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970122081528.1c0794a6@pop.uvm.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====================_853949728==_"
To: socgrad@csf.colorado.edu
From: TR Young <TR.Young@uvm.edu>
Subject: Reading attachments
--=====================_853949728==_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Matt Marr, along with others, could not 'read' the attachment I sent along
with the last mini-lecture.     

Since then, I think I have learned how to do it...I will try again with this
post...what I will do is call up the file in WP 6.0; save it as ascii, and
then attach it...I had tried to do it in something called 'generic' in WP51
which I had assumed was ascii but was not...do let me know if it works,

                                                TR

--=====================_853949728==_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


                    A BRIEF HISTORY OF STEPHEN PFOHL:
                                    
                         Paradigms in Collision

                                     
                                T. . Young

                         The Red Feather Institute
                                    and
                         Texas Woman's University


                             November 3, 1990
                              March 11, 1991
                              March 15, 1991
                               June 6, 1991
                               12 Jan, 1992


                                 ABSTRACT

     Stephen Pfohl and Stephen Hawking are used to explore the
     collision between two paradigms which orient the
     conceptualizations of and solutions for social problems. 
     The first, of which Hawking is an exemplar, is modern
     science and modernization theory.  In sociology, modern
     knowledge processes privilege structural-functionalism and
     deviancy theories.  The second, born of resistance and
     rebellion to ideas of privilege and domination, is called
     postmodernism.  Postmodern expressions are largely centered
     in art, music, religion, poetry, literature and science. 
     They challenge the hegemony of modern science and to
     supplement it as a knowledge process.  The candidacy of
     Pfohl as President of the SSSP and the social base which
     elected him offer to bring postmodernity into the center of
     social science.  The personal history of both Pfohl and
     Hawking are located in a larger social history fueled by
     worker struggles over profits and working conditions; by
     feminist struggles over gender roles and in anti-colonial
     struggles for autonomy and equality.  There are several
     futures social problems and social policy could take
     depending upon which paradigms are used.  The fate of a
          Pfohl or a Hawking in each future is considered.


  A BRIEF HISTORY OF STEPHEN PFOHL

     Paradigms in Collision


INTRODUCTION   Just as Stephen Hawking epitomizes, in many ways,
the apex of the modernist approach to knowledge and the
conceptualization of social problems; bright, courageous, almost
pure mind, engaging and productive of new insights confirmed by
the most elegant mathematics almost yearly, Stephen Pfohl is a
good subject with which to illuminate and humanize the mission
and methods of postmodern sociology in its more critical,
praxical dimensions.  Hawking embodies the newtonian idea that
the world has fixed, linear dynamics smoothly connected at every
scale of observation; that it is possible to generate a grand
unified theory which allows the prediction, and thus control, of
just about everything.  Pfohl, in his life and work, embodies the
variety and contradictory elements of the postmodern condition as
he explores new ways to embody the knowledge process in
sociology.   In these essays, I want deconstruct the life of both
Hawking and Pfohl in terms of the social context which brought
them forth.  Both are of an age; both are of the postwar
generation and both are central figures in the knowledge process
each, separately, embodies so well.
     The long and distinguished career of Hawking has been
reported at length in the international media; first class honors
at Oxford, graduate student in theoretical physics at Cambridge,
inducted into the Royal Society at age 35 and Lucasian Professor
at Cambridge, successor to the Chair in mathematics once held by
Newton (Paul Davis 1988:13).   Pfohl, on the other hand, is not
yet a public figure nor a star in the firmament of International
Science.  Pfohl began life in an ordinary American family, did
the expected things in school and developed into a creative
sociologist at Ohio State University, a land grant school charged
with turning out the lower middle class functionaries to staff
the managerial and technical posts of a stratified society. 
While Hawking (1988: 169) anticipates the final victory of the
newtonian paradigm, Pfohl (1989a, 1989b, 1990, 1991a, 1991b) sees
it surpassed and encompassed by a much larger, multi-faceted
knowledge process containing an infinite number of paradigms all
equally the art and authorship of human beings.
     Yet with all his rejection of orthodox social science and
elitist knowledge processes, Pfohl has been Chair of an Advisory
Committee to the Governor of the State of Massachusetts and a
research consultant to the Ohio Department of Mental Health.  In
1991, Pfohl was elected to the office of the President of a
scholarly society; the Society for the Study of Social Problems. 
Pfohl is a very radical sociologist.  He uses quite different
media and methods and has a quite different mission for sociology
than have past presidents of scholarly societies.  His more
immediate agenda is to open up the Society for the Study of
Social Problems in an effort to help overthrow economic, racial,
and heterosexual hierarchies (SSSP Newsletter Spring, 1990b:6).
     Pfohl wishes to intrude sociology into the policy process
rather than provide objective studies for the use of state
functionaries with which to manage the state's own agenda of
problems and priorities in crime and corrections (Pfohl, 1991a). 
Pfohl wants to confront class, racist and gender-based claims to
truthful knowledge with those of the poor, of radical feminists,
of postmodern scholars and activists.  Pfohl, as do many others,
wants to reintegrate the knowledge process in sociology with
history, philosophy, literary criticism, the performing arts and
"...even theoretical physics (Pfohl, 1990)."
     The epistemological stance of a postmodern sociologist as
Pfohl is very different from that of a modern sociologist;
instead of using charts, graphs, tables, descriptive and
inferential statistics, Pfohl uses slides, sound tapes, video
cassettes, moving picture projectors, and his own voice-over
lecture in a melange that overwhelms the senses and challenges
the imagination.  The method is not that of systematic analysis
toward nomothetic models of description and interpretation as
embodied so well by Hawking but rather of idiographic synthesis
involving the conference participants in a wider structure of
meaning than that ruptured by the fragmentation of news and
isolation of events from their larger political economy.
     Pfohl uses a decidedly postmodern language into which to
encode his campaign for the presidency and his perusal of social
problems; the language is not linear, distant, impersonal and
objective as is the language (mathematics) of Hawking.  Rather it
is angry, passionate, immediate, personal and often oblique; it
is the language of epic poetry and old testament prophecy.  
     Pfohl identifies quite a different set of social problems
from those on the official agenda of current political parties. 
Those who see social dynamics as intrinsically messy,
constructed, multi-perspectival, and episodic tend to reject
hierarchy, power, linear causality, management science and
instrumental rationality.  They tend to deconstruct all claims of
privileged social position to show the partisan agenda which
informs such claims (Baca-Zinn, 1990; Gilligan, 1982; Lyotard,
1984; Seidman, 1990; Young, 1990).  Those who understand the
deviancy concept as a politics tend to include control and
corrections in their inventory of social problems (Foucault,
1965; 1972; 1978; 1979).  While his opponent speaks of
organizational questions oriented to increasing membership,
balancing the budget of the society and  of 'influencing' those
who make policy (SSSP Newsletter, Spring 1990:4), Pfohl speaks of
replacing the decision makers with those oriented to the
postmodern understanding.  
     It is unlikely that Pfohl will take honorary degrees at
Chicago, Princeton and New York University all in the same year
as did Hawking.  But Pfohl is an important part of a cataclysmic
transformation of the old organon; of the old body of thought
that informs the knowledge process in social problems discourse. 
For those who work in emancipatory social science, social
problems center around egalitarian social relations, social
justice read as access to basic goods and services, control of
violence against women, nations, and the environment as well as a
plurality of social forms in which sensuality and sexuality are
oriented to intimacy and affirmation.
Personal Histories  I want to locate Stephen Pfohl and his
approach to the study of social problems first in his own
personal history as he understands it and then in a larger social
history as I understand it.  In so doing, we can better
understand why he and those who voted for him came to a very
different view of social problems theory and policy from that
which informs modern and premodern knowledge processes.  In his
1989 lecture at Central Michigan University on the 'Terror of the
Simulacra: Struggle for Justice and the Postmodern,' Pfohl began
his presentation with slides of his elementary school work. 
Pfohl remembered himself as a student in elementary school who
had internalized the patriarchal family structure as normative
and celebrated it in his 7th grade art.  The lecture went on to
show the dramatic conversion of Pfohl from heterosexual politics
toward a more democratic and pluralistic gender politics. 
     Pfohl presented a view of sexuality that is repressed and
distorted by most images of men in American cinema.  Rather than
channeling his own sexuality into violence and authoritarian
politics as do the characters played by John Wayne--or into
commodity sex as did the Jon Voight cowboy character in Midnight
Cowboy, Pfohl refocussed sexuality into all dimensions of his own
life including his work and his private life.  Pfohl displayed
images of his own nude body in a video tape upon which played the
images of alienated sex in commercial television images and
advertisements.  Pfohl made the point that commodity capitalism
captures human sexuality and uses it to create desire for
commodities and thus create layers and layers of false needs
suffused with false sexuality.  
     However, Pfohl's central point in his presentation was to
locate both Colonel Oliver North, himself and the etiology of
social problems in the events of the 1960s and '70s.  In so
doing, he is much indebted to Baudrillard who asserted that
images now dominate social and personal life.  Offering text on
the activities of Oliver North as well as his own biography,
Pfohl tried to account for two very different life courses coming
out of much the same social dynamics.  He focussed upon the way
in which social facts are constructed and reconstructed by the
state and by capitalist media to justify the 'imperial
domination' by the United States of other countries and of its
own citizens to produce the vast numbers of Ollie Norths in the
United States and to celebrate as 'victory' the devastation of
Iraq.  He, himself, is produced by a reaction to those images
which use cultural capital; patriotism, machismo, and racism to
mask social problems.
     Pfohl grounded the postmodern condition in the ways such
created facts are produced, distributed and inculcated into the
psyche of the mass only to parasitize their consciousness.  By
such means are simulacra (images) used in "...industrialized,
stratified, racist, imperial and patriarchal western society" to
colonize desire and to neutralize moral outrage.  The eye of the
camera becomes the "I" of the self in the massified social
psychology of the media.  It is a social problem of the first
magnitude when one is inserted into a commercial in which one
realizes one's humanity by buying and using goods.  It is a
social problem of equal magnitude when one is inserted,
uncritically, into a political process that leads to the mass
murder of people in Vietnam, Cambodia or the Persian Gulf.  Pfohl
came to an awareness of this colonization of his own psyche and
reclaimed it to more human purpose in his work and life; his
tenure as president of SSSP is to help other academics come to
such awareness and thus, consider the process by which some
activities come to be constructed as social problems while other,
more harmful activities are accepted as normative, natural and
necessary (Pfohl, 1991b).  The story of how Pfohl and members of
the SSSP came to such awareness is part of a larger social
history transcends personal histories.  I offer a version gleaned
from sources.
Social Histories    There were many events and processes that
produced the Stephen Hawkings of the age while they politicized
the Stephen Pfohls and Oliver Norths.  The major signifying event
in the lives of all three men has been the cold war and the
uneven struggle toward social justice in the third world.  The
story of that struggle is long and complex; the short version is
that capitalist societies, lead by the United States, organized
the knowledge process in such a way as to serve the political and
legitimacy needs of developed countries at the expense of 120
some third world countries.  France, England, Germany, Japan,
Italy and Canada along with the USA, invest the genius of their
young men and women into weapons of war; into communications
technology; into imaging and interpretation of real and possible
targets as well as into low intensity warfare.  Parallel to this
great investment by state agencies is a similar investment by 
national and multinational corporations which hire the great
talents of artists, writers, poets, singers, comedians, actors
and cinematographers to create other images and impressions in
the creation of a dramaturgical society; one in which image is
offered in lieu of service, quality or honest agency.  Images are
cheaper than performance, hence profit drives the dramaturgical
society toward such investment of time and talent.
     These two great investments generated a postmodern condition
in which signs and images are used to mystify and mobilize entire
populations in the 20th century.  They are used to mask the
really severe problems of poverty, crime, inequality and
authoritarian control.  It is against this use of images (this
terror of the simulcra) and against this use of the knowledge
process (the postmodern condition) that Pfohl speaks while
Hawking gives a certain genius to it.  Oliver North is, at the
same time, a dark, clever and ultimately innocent agent who works
underground to engineer the destabilization of third world
governments on behalf of, in this reading, exploitative market
economies.  North and Hawking serve the same interests; that of
modern science and capitalist modernization.   Pfohl serves the
complex and uneven interests of postmodern resentment and
rebellion to a new, neat, tidy and profitable world order.  Pfohl
(1991b:2) intends the 1992 meetings of the SSSP to critique the
oppressive and privileged nature of that New World Order: indeed,
for Pfohl it is the source of much of the social problems found
around the world today.
     Capitalism has, of course, many positive moments.  It is
flexible, creative, enlivening, and productive beyond anything
before it.  It tends to destroy the ancient structures of
privilege and oppression.  It requires a knowledge process that
is incomparably better than that of any heretofore existing
economic system.  In its best moments, it is democratic, feisty
and often responsive to human need.  The image making capacity of
the capitalist state and private corporations illuminate these
very features.  Yet capitalism has negative moments--moments
which are just as real and operative as those mentioned above but
far less visible in the images given off by state, market,
university and professional societies such as the SSSP.  It is
the stuff of which social problems are made; it tends to
disemploy people; it tends to use scarce raw materials with
abandonment; it tends to pollute and to profane the environment;
it tends to concentrate wealth in private hands while responding
to shifting interest groups rather than to community needs; it
tends to objectify and to depersonalize all human relations and
it tends to bend the legal and political system to its own image. 
As Pfohl said, and Marx before him, capitalism exploit the most
sacred needs of people; law, religion, sexuality, community, and
status are grist for the image making.
     As the new capitalist world order consolidates, the center
of social problems shift, tectonically, from personality and
primary group dynamics to international movement of labor,
images, surplus capital, food, raw materials, and military
weapons.  In the past 50 years, social problems have been,
increasingly, internationalized.  Disemployment in Detroit is
connected to wage patterns in Korea or Japan.  Drug trade in
Florida or Georgia is connected to rural poverty in Columbia and
Peru.  Pollution in Puerto Rico and India is tied to citizen
activism in the USA.  Hunger in Africa now is fueled by the
agribusiness operations in sub-sahara.  The Persian Gulf war
solved energy problems for millions of Americans with a cost of
the death of but ten Americans; however it produced untold misery
for millions of Kuwaitis, Iraqis, and Kurds.  Its effects will
continue, erratically, to create social problems for Israelis,
Jordanians, Turks, and Syrians as well.  It is this understanding
of social problems dynamics that Pfohl and other postmodernists
wish to register in the consciousness of students, voters, and
academics everywhere. 
     At the same time existing forms of socialism has negative
moments; rigid, overly centralized, repressive of critique,
suspicious of sensuality and playfulness, unable to transform
itself toward the radical democracy of praxis that is central to
the vision of Marx and other social democrats.  Socialism, were
it used the bureaucratic model to effect its praiseworthy goals--
failed dramatically.  The images of that failure suffuse
electronic media and, in so doing, tend to mask the failures of
advanced, multinational capitalism.
The Larger Sweep of History   In the long march of history
capitalism displaced feudalism, primitive socialism and slavery. 
It offered a new social formation to praise and appropriated the
concept of the modern to distance itself from the problems of the
past.  In the 1600s and 1700s, Revolutions broke out in England,
France, Germany, and the American colonies.  Capitalism unleased
much in the way of genius, energy, and initiative.  Capitalist
governments supported colonial expansion to solve the twinborn
problems of surplus labor and surplus capital.  Anti-colonial
revolutions shook the Americas and in the Asian countries in the
1800s.  In the 1900s, war discredited societies which had, for
centuries, claimed to be the repository of advanced culture; the
apex of social evolution and endorsed as such by organized
religion (Charles Tilly, 1989).  
     Current dynamics of internationalized capitalism continues
to shift the centers of wealth, status and power around the
world.  The center of capitalism moved from the city states of
Italy in the 1300s to the free cities of Europe in the 1600s and
thence to the new cities of America in the 1800s (Wallerstein,
1979).  From the United States, the center of capitalism shifted
to Japan in the 20th century and, perchance, towards Taipei, Hong
Kong, Singapore, and Seoul in the 21st.  With each shift in the
center of the capitalist world, the center of modernity as well
as notions of social and cultural superiority shifted.  In the
years to come, the most 'modern' civilization in the world might
said to be in Rio de Janeiro, Bombay, or Mexico City where ever
costs are lower and profits higher; wherever economic power joins
with military power to determine ideas of superiority and to
enlist social scientists in the task of research, prediction and
control of production and of dissent.
     Modern science, and thus both Hawking and Pfohl, was born
out of the ferment of social revolution created by capitalism
(Hawthorne, 1987; Kline, 1972; Weaver, 1987).  Postmodern
critique is born out of political upheaval and out of the social
experimentation created by capitalism as by resistance to it
(Jameson, 1984; Kroker and Cook, 1988; Thompson, 1963;
Wallerstein, 1979).  While most scholars focus upon postmodern
critique of literature and its quaint lexicon, the real sources
of postmodern critique and postmodern science came from a
different social base.  
The Recent Past     Social problems at home proliferate.  Budget
deficits, fiscal crises in housing, savings and loan industries,
securities exchange scandals, deterioration of the
infrastructure, expanding military budgets, layer after layer of
unproductive workers in the multitudinous private and public
control systems of the United States; increasing crime rates and
degradation of agricultural land as well as the environment all
converge to demand policy from the political process.  Some want
to move toward a police state using more police and prisons; some
want to move toward a friendly fascism using high tech spinoffs
from the aerospace industry together with medical science; some
want to improve the welfare state and some want to adopt the
social justice programs of Sweden, Switzerland, New Zealand and
other low crime societies.  The tactics used to respond to these
social problems depend, sensitively, upon which of these
paradigms one uses to organize the knowledge process.
     With the advent of social turmoil, the ability of sociology
and other social sciences to uphold a model of social
organization and definitions of social problems that privilege
Western Europe and North America development was weakened.  As
the problems of capitalist states came to be pinned to the
internal dynamics of commodity capitalism, claims of superiority
and progress were called into question.  As a two tiered systems
of employment opportunity and security, of ownership and wealth,
of health care, housing, status, power, as well as vulnerability
to crime develop and diverge, they undermine the claims of
legitimacy and demands for voluntary compliance by Western
capitalist societies.  
     The happy vision of progress offered by structural-
functionalism to graduate students in sociology in the '60 and
'70s did not sit well with young men and women at Ohio State,
Michigan, Wisconsin, Berkeley and a hundred other 'major'
universities.  Postmodern critique represented by social critics
such as Baudrillard, Lyotard, Foucault, Derrida and now Pfohl,
hold that the social systems in America and Europe are neither
natural, superior, nor stable as modernist social scientists
assume and claim.  Postmodernists such as Pfohl do not see the
collapse of the center of either the capitalist world or the
socialist as a moral calamity but rather as a moral victory with
an uncertain future.  In his candidacy Pfohl promises workshops
to address issues related to the cultural and political
implications of postmodern society.  He suggests a postmodern
format for such workshops (SSSP: 6).  In so doing, Pfohl is
helping bring a postmodern science to birth.
     In the past century, especially in the past 20 years, there
has developed postmodern views that the neat and closed world of
Newton and Laplace does not exist.  The dreams of Saint-Simon and
his secretary, Auguste Comte, of Laplace, Dodd, Homans, Lundberg,
and others who work out of the paradigm of logical positivism,
for a social physics vaporize.  Faith in rationality, in
prediction and control, in modern science and management science
as well as faith in governance by elites and experts now stand
discredited and held inadequate to the human project.  A perfect
society run by a college of scientists yields back to human
judgement and human will and public discourse in emancipatory
expressions of the postmodern.  
     There is a social base which found that solutions to social
problems posed by modern scientists and modern sociologists
tended to shift most of the costs of this uncertain progress upon
those who are vulnerable, poorly organized or locked into a
social paradigm oriented to trust and naive acceptance of
whatever comes.  It is these social bases, more so than social
problems theorists, to whom one should credit for postmodern
approaches to social problems.  Baudrillard, Lyotard, Derrida,
Foucault and other academics tend to speak in closed and
mystifying codes to which only they are privy.
Social Bases of Postmodern Understanding     Out of the stubborn
refusal of women to agree that they were inferior to men came
postmodern gender relations (Baca-Zinn, 1990; Cheal, 1989);
Mitchell, 1973; Richardson, 1989); out of the contemptuous
refusal of third world people to accept that they were inferior
and uncivilized came postmodern anthropology; out of the bitter
economic struggles of workers came the postmodern politics of
economic democracy (Thompson, 1963); critical theorists and
postmodern artists followed close behind (Held, 1980).  Pfohl and
a whole generation of students and social activists around the
world responded to these understandings.
     Anti-colonial warfare in India, the Spanish colonies, East
Africa, Vietnam and today in South Africa challenged the standard
model of genetic and social evolution that privileges White
European political, economic, religious and artistic hegemony. 
The children of colonial subjects went to school at Oxford,
Cambridge, Paris, Harvard and Moscow only to learn that their
culture and their social relations were premodern and needed to
be modernized.  The instrument of liberation was to be an
indigenous army trained, indoctrinated, equipped and led by the
civilized nations of the whole.  But many of these students had
seen colonialism from the bottom or middle and wrote of its
negativities.  American students in the 60s and 70s began to get
different readings of history, economics and politics from
analysts and theorists abroad.
     While modernization theorists from American universities,
under the aegis of A.I.D. and the C.I.A. were helping elites in
Asia, Africa and South America to manage their economic
'development,' colonial rebels from Gandhi to Ho Chi Minh, Agosto
Sandino and Jomo Kenyetta refused to believe that their own ways
of thinking, ways of feeling and ways of living were inferior to
what modern science and modern economics offered.  In the last
half of the 20th century, Iranian Muslims refused to agree that
the Shah of Iran, the C.I.A. and the Agency for International
Development offered the best vision of a happy and prosperous
society.  Buddhist monks in Vietnam refused to agree that General
Diem or General Nhu, the C.I.A., Operation Phoenix, and the
Catholic Church were superior forms of social and religious
endeavor.  In Central America, the liberation theology movement
refused to concede that President Duarte, the C.I.A., the
military death squads in El Salvador are the best possible agents
to entrust control of political and economic life.  Former agents
of the C.I.A. wrote and told their stories; students of the 60s
and 70s read their version of American foreign policy and were
appalled.
     It became clear to some students and scholars from France,
England, the USA and Sweden as well as many third world students
studying abroad that neither the theories and theorems of
structural-functionalism nor the propositions and axioms of
modernization theory explained American politics at home nor
American military action in the Far East (Cereseto, 1982; Gorin,
1982).  A sizeable portion of young scholars read Marx (1976;
1977) as more cogent to the dynamics of social life in America
than were the works of Durkheim, Spencer, Merton or Parsons.  For
students abroad, Lenin (1915) was a better theorist about the
functions of capitalism than were George Homans (1967) or Robert
Merton (1957).  While Homans was praising exchange and Merton was
giving a gloss of legitimacy to functionalism, Lenin was tying
capitalism to colonial expansion and the need for new areas to
invest the capital gained from low wages and high prices in the
'developed' nations.  The membership of the SSSP and the American
Humanist Society are filled with such scholars even if most
members of the ASA and the ACS still live and work out of the
modernist paradigm.
     The long and hidden history of the struggles of Black people
in America against slavery and against racism became more visible
in the 1950s and 1960s.  These struggles, along with the Anti-war
movements forced a wide-ranging critique of social problems
theory.  With the advent of such social protest, modern sociology
was hard pressed to maintain a model of social organization that
privileged existing structures of inequality and existing control 
functions of modern society as essential to peace and progress. 
The stratification of society by race, gender, class, and
bureaucratic power are taught by modernist sociologists such as
Davis and Moore to be functional and necessary.  Pfohl, and those
who voted for him would, if they could, use a professional
society to help destroy the very structures of power and
privilege that Moore, Davis, Parsons, and Merton held to be
functional.  
     As more and more oppressed nations and oppressed peoples
refused to accept the elitist patterns of social order and the
technicized approaches to social change engineered by Western
powers; as more and more subjects held up their own society as
equal or superior to Western society; as more and more problems
were revealed in modern societies, faith in progress, unilinear
evolution and the superiority of Western culture was call into
question.  Thus arose the postmodern.  Feminists, artists and
rebel priests were central to postmodernism in the world.
Feminism and the Postmodern   Laurel Walum Richardson (1989), has
voiced her strenuous objection to the elimination of women's
voices from the history of post-modernism and from emancipatory
dimensions in the philosophy of science.  She cites a wide
variety of feminist scholars who have helped bring post-modern
understandings into the discipline and into the university.  That
many senior males in the discipline pay little attention to their
works is more a reflection on their closed world view than upon
the worth of the work.  As Richardson says, the work of women
provides an exemplar of how sociology as a profession can be a
"political-moral actor in a postmodernist discourse and a
postmodern world."  (1989:14)  It would profit the human project
greatly were we able to listen to these voices in quiet and
serious discourse about what we are to make of sociology and
social problems in the 21st century.
     Feminist scholars claim that patriarchy was not the natural
order of things (Tanner, 1970).  Juliet Mitchell (1973) points
out that the family appears as a natural object but is actually a
cultural creation.  She notes that there is nothing inevitable
about the form or the role of the family anymore than there is
about the role of women.  Mitchell says that the key structures
which converge to shape the vast range of roles and myths of
woman are the mode of production; the mode of reproduction of the
population; the way in which children are socialized and the
forms of sexual relationship permitted men and women in history
(1973: 101).
     Mitchell says that, in order for women to get out from under
gender oppression today, it is necessary that myths about ideal
family size; about ideal gender/sexual relations, about natural
economic roles and about mothering as the sole form in which
adequate socialization can occur--these myths must change. (1973:
173 et passim).  Sociology and sociologists of the family have
perpetuated these myths (Cheal, 1989).  A post-modern sociology
can do much to open up the full range of prosocial practices
within these four realms of social life and to separate them from
each other.
     Maxine Baca Zinn, in her 1989 Cheryl Miller Lecture tries to
reset the study of minority families from a theoretical paradigm
in which such families are viewed as deviant and imperfect
distortions of the standard white, middle class family.  She
relocates the study of minority families inside the dynamics of
patriarchal power relations and inside the political economy of a
racial division of labor (Baca Zinn: 1990:72).  
     Rather than viewing the existing structures of capitalist
production as a solution to family relationships by providing
opportunity and economic security for men and women, Baca Zinn
cites a wide variety of feminist studies which hold that
capitalism exploits alienated race and gender relations (1990:
79).  Capitalism offered women economic roles that were far from
the standard middle class role of mother, home-maker and
supportive and submissive wife.  Slavery forced Black women out
of the home and into the fields.  During capitalist
industrialization, Black, Latino and Asian American men were
excluded from jobs open to white migrants.  The racial exclusion
forced minority women into the labor markets at much greater
proportions than White migrant women.
     Stephan Pfohl, in his 1989 lecture at Central Michigan
University, joined with postmodern feminists in trying to support
a view of human sexuality and multi-dimensional gender relations
which legitimate a wide variety of gay, lesbian, and heterosexual
forms of intimacy outside of patriarchal heterosexual marriage
forms.  For such scholars, there can be any number of genders and
any number of ways to do intimacy, sensuality and interpersonal
love.
Cultural Rebellion  The role of art, music, sculpture, dance,
theatre and literature in creating a postmodern consciousness and
humanizing postmodern understanding is large, rich and expanding. 
Even without specific instruction, deconstruction, or analysis,
those exposed to such art forms sense, wholistically, the subtext
of that art: there are no absolute standards in art, music,
painting, literature and poetry toward which every great artist
moves and upon which every work of art can be scaled.  The
postmodern understanding of art is that all art forms emerge out
of the social, political and economic milieu in which they are
created and in which they find an audience (Grout, 1980; Kroker
and Cook, 1988).  The idea of absolute standards for judging
which musician is great; which artist is superior; which novelist
is worthy to make the list of great books or which play is an
enduring classic--this idea contains a worldview that resonates
with the idea of order, perfection and the method of successive
approximations toward greatness in the modernist paradigm.  It is
a theory of art forms which privileges one truth over others and
resonates equally with a social philosophy that privileges one
class over others, one gender over others, one ethnic group or
one occupation over others. 
     Marxian intellectuals and revolutionaries initiated a rich
and varied trove of art criticism that fueled postmodern
understandings of art as both the mirror and the catalyst of any
given epoch (Prawer, 1978; Solomon, 1979).  Marx said of art that
it is not difficult to grasp that art is bound up in the social
formation in which it appears.  Georg Lukacs, Walter Benjamin,
Rosa Luxembourg, Leon Trotsky, Bertolt Brecht, Ernst Fischer as
well as Gorki, Sartre, Gramsci, Marcuse, Malraux, Ernst Bloch,
and Theodore Adorno have explored the connections of the novel,
painting, drama and theatre to power and privilege.  
     Raymond Williams, Stuart Hall, E.P Thompson and a whole
generation of cultural marxists in contemporary England have
looked at the role of newspapers, television, and radio in
shaping consciousness.  They speak in a varied language to call
for an artistic consciousness that refuses to celebrate one
social formation; one historical epoch; one genre of art over
others in other social formations and other epochs.  Raymond
Williams, at Jesus College, Cambridge has been particularly
prolific in decentering literary criticism in his long list of
works and in his special critique of F.R. Leavis.  Leavis took
the position that there were universal standards in literary
criticism while Williams (1977:199) insisted that, against claims
of "...objectivity, neutrality, simple fidelity to the
truth...rather, "...we must recognize these kinds of claims as
ratifying formulas of those who offer their own sense and
procedures as universal" (1977: 201).
     Postmodern painting give visions of nightmare instead of
utopias promised by modernity; of cubes instead of faces, of
watches that melted or people who were lifeless.  Goya painted
the dark side of war while Picasso turned everyday objects into
art.  Edward Hopper looked at the fullness of life and painted
emptiness.  Eric Fischl gave us a different view of sexuality and
sensuality.  In the paintings of Alex Colville, intimacy and
sociality are created by commodities more so than be activity
(Kroker and Cook, 1987:280).
Postmodern Music    In the 1840s, Franz Liszt was creating
discursive piano fantasies on traditional operas, improvising
with orchestral arrangements and dreamed of a "republic of music"
in which idealistic musicians would set the tone and direction of
cultural work and thus civilize humanity (Walker, 1989).  Liszt
saw the piano as an ennobling instrument akin to the printing
press which, when found in every household, would 'multiply'
original works of art and thus democratize art.  If Liszt was
modernist with his ideas on the leading role of musicians in
cultural work, he was decidedly postmodern in his musical theory
and practice.
     In the unsettled days before and after the first world war,
Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern introduced several decidedly
different musical inventions: tonality was decentered, style was 
compressed and there developed a sense that music is cerebral
rather than passionate and romantic (Grout: 733).  With the
advent of John Cage, efforts of musicians to control every aspect
of music; tone, rhythm, color, timbre, form, tempo were
surrendered.  Just at a time when mechanical creation of musical
harmonics became possible with electronic organs, pianos, and
computer programmed scores recorded on digital compact laser
discs for perfect sound reproduction, John Cage and postmodern
musicians loosened composers, performers, and listeners from the
iron cage of absolute and eternal sameness.
Postmodern Morality      Parallel to the rejection of
positivistic modalities of social philosophy and, via Kohlberg,
the scientific study of human morality, Carol Gilligan (1982;
1989) worked toward a postmodern understanding of morality with
which to challenge that of both Kohlberg and Piaget.  In her
defense of female morality, she holds that women view people as
more important in any moral judgment than are abstract
principles.  The application of abstract principles unmediated by
wisdom and judgment can result in a woman being put in prison for
disobeying a court order to surrender a child to a father when
the woman has good reason to believe the father has sexually
abused the child.  The application of abstract principle can
result in the release of a vicious killer on technical grounds by
a male dominated Supreme Court only to see that person kill again
in a particular vicious way.  Male dominated law making bodies
tend to make absolutistic rules on abortion and other issues
ignoring the larger consequences to teenage women who have been
sexually assaulted by fathers, uncles, stepfathers, boy friends
and an occasional stranger.  Women tend to set aside logic and
rational application of principles on behalf of mercy and
compassion.  Gilligan has informed a whole new generation of
psychologists and child development scholars who see quite a
different way to foster moral growth.
     Postmodern moral philosophy stresses collectivity rather
than hierarchy; intuition in addition to analysis; flexibility
rather than dominance and direction rather than specific goals
(Allen, 1990).  Postmodern understanding of moral decisions
locates morality in the dialectics between human desire and
social organization.  One cannot easily be moral in an immoral
society nor is it easy to be immoral in a praxis society (Young,
1990:139).  With both God and Natural law decentered, human
praxis became the linchpin of moral philosophy (Marx, 1976;
Markovic, 1974) for critical theorists.  For others, God and the
drama of the Holy continues to inform the struggle for social
justice.
Postmodern Religion Premodern understandings of the knowledge
process joined postmodern sensibility as new theologies arose to
interpret the drama of the holy through the eyes of the poor and
the oppressed (Berryman, 1987).  Premodern approaches to
knowledge were often community based and used social drama to
generate states of awareness and receptivity that tapped into the
deep structures of social life and natural law.  Postmodern
religious sensibility does the same thing but emphasizes the
human hand in that drama of the Holy (Young, 1991).
     In 1968, a conference of Catholic priests with a smattering
of Protestant clerics assembled to adopt a multi-dimensional
theology that worked to challenge a literal interpretation of the
Christian Bible and its focus on personal sin as a source of evil
in the world.  Liberation theology in Latin America is built upon
the work of many radical priests and philosophers especially
Gustavo Gutierrez, but can be summed up in the work of Jose'
Miranda  who says that the transformation of the 'hellish lives'
of the poor would be an act of salvation that would
"...marvelously display the incarnation of God's love and God's
grace."   The Catholic Bishops' statement that came out of the
Medellin Conference says, in part:

     Capitalism must be overcome.  It is a great wrong, the
     cumulative sin, the rotten root, the tree that bears us the
     fruit we know:  poverty, hunger, sickness, and death to the
     great majority.  ...we want a world in which the fruits of
     labor are shared by everyone,  We want a world in which one
     works not to get rich but to provide clothing, shoes, water,
     and light.  We want a world in which money will be in the
     service of men [sic], not man at the service of money. 
     (Carmody: 59)

     Liberation theology, then joins structural sin of capitalism
and political oppression to the personal sins of greed, lust,
envy, avarice, sloth and gluttony.  Structural sin is the
crystallization in social institutions of centuries of personal
sin.
     There are other theologies to push toward a postmodern
morality and theology; feminist theology centered around the work
of Mary Daly, Sister Elisabeth Schussler-Fiorenza and Rosemary
Radford Ruether reinterprets early Christian works to recover the
lost roles of women in creating the drama of the Holy (Carmody:
167).  The work of Mary Daly returns to pre-patriarchal religion
to insist upon a religion that is nature oriented and life
affirming.  Feminist liberation is distinctly postmodern in that
it explicitly rejects aggressive, rigid, domineering inflexible
male phallic religions.  American Bishops, all male, have issued
a Pastoral Letter (1989) to join with their sisters to condemn
sexism in society and religion as unworthy of those who seek to
affirm Jesus in their life.
     Black Liberation theology is informed both by muslim and by
Christian doctrine.  In its muslim expression, Black liberation
theology restores dignity and grace to the Black male but runs
counter to both feminist and marxist expressions of liberating
religion.  In its Christian format, it tends to focus upon racism
rather than class or gender as the source of structural evil.  In
the work of Vincent Harding, Black theology looks at sin and evil
through the eyes of poor minorities.  He stresses that it was the
poor whom Jesus befriended and beatified (Carmody: 163).    
Deprived of the symbols of success in a white male dominated
class society, the Black male face an overwhelming crisis.  While
the pretheoretical and prereligious mode of response is to turn
to the alienated economics of crime; the alienated politics of
rape and gender violence; the alienated social philosophy of the
selfish ego, Harding and other Black theologians work for social
justice and social change in this world.  In these readings of
the social problems of the black underclass, it is racism rather
than race which is the major signifying event of their lives and
the disemployment, poverty and early death which comes with it.  
These readings of Christian theology have suffused academic and
religious discourse.  They are profoundly important in defining
social problems and social policy from a postmodern point of view
which is consonant with and complementary to that of radical
feminists, social democrats, and the postmodern sensibility
within the SSSP.
Conclusion     Each economic formation has a social division of
labor that releases the great genius of some of its people:
slavery give us Socrates, Plato and Aristotle; feudalism gave us
Copernicus and Galileo; Commercial capitalism offered up Bacon,
Newton, and William Blake while Albert Einstein come out of
industrial capitalism.  Just so, Stephen Hawkings and Stephen
Pfohls arise in a time of transnational finance capitalism. 
Feminist struggles, anticolonial struggles, class-based struggles
in Europe and the Americas as well as rebellion and resistance in
art, literature, music and poetry joined with quantum mechanics,
probability theory and chaos theory to create postmodern
understandings with which to approach the study and solution to
social problems. 
     We now ride on a great postmodern wave; everything from time
and space to music and literature has been decentered along with
the earth, the sun and the few billion insignificant creatures
floating on a speck of dust in a universe without center, edge or
destiny.  What we do with the future is now ours to decide as
never before in all of human history.  Chaos theory instructs us
that all future states of any natural or social system dwell in a
very open basin of outcomes; that there are qualitatively
different regions which await human choice and human struggle
(Allen, 1990; Gleick, 1988; Mandelbrot, 1977; Young, 1991a and
1999b).  We have the technology, the politics, the economics and
the genius to put together several different futures.  We no
longer are crippled by an understanding of the dynamics of the
world in which change is forever frozen in the same repetitive
cycles; in which causality is mechanical and in which the future
of every event is determined, entirely, from the past.
The Future of Social Problems The task of choosing and shaping
the future is facilitated by giving each of the more probable
futures a name, an image and a character.  As far as I can see,
there are five futures awaiting.  Which we will chose depends
upon how we conceive social problems, how we understand their
source and what social policy we chose with which to deal with
them.  Those who work out of premodern sensibility will tend to
speak of the Will of God, of compliance to Holy writ, to mercy
and fellowship.  Those who work out of the modern paradigm will
tend to speak of sound data, good theory, fair analysis and
adequate research design.  Those who work out of a postmodern
paradigm will speak of tolerance, variation, experimentation,
plurality and, perchance, praxis.  It is possible that the worst
of all three paradigms are deployed to deal with social problems. 
If so, we might see a fragmenting of social justice and a life
boat ethics of which one can glimpse in a Soylent Green future.
     A Soylent Green future offers maximal private economics and
minimal public amenities as bifurcations of wealth and power and
status increase.  The voices of the Sex Pistols and the hidden
vices of organized crime preempt postmodernism in that future. 
Yet it is a future with a lot of exciting possibilities since
everything goes.  In such a future, a Hawking would work for a
multinational corporation and live quite a nice life while a
Pfohl would be ruthlessly repressed by state or by private
policing squads.
     There is a genteel welfare state of the sort toward which
Great Britain, arguably, is moving and in which wealth, status
and power differences are frozen in their present cycles by a
fairly generous laissez faire welfare state that provides decent
health care, adequate housing, efficient transportation,
excellent schooling for the elite and sufficient foods from
former colonies with minimal intrusion in the lives of its
welfare clients.  For those at the very bottom, there is
opportunity and security far better than in the colonies from
which food and profits come.  Postmodern expressions are confined
to intellectuals and fringe movements; tolerated but carefully
contained in a very British manner.  The Hawkings of the future
would be employed by the state to help consolidate power and
privilege of the corporatist state; while the Pfohls would be
coddled, cozened and confined in an privileged professional class
which collects and displays postmodern artifacts as evidence of
their own liberality.
     There is a friendly fascist future emerging which uses
modern science and its potential for control.  In such a future
computer engineers and communications experts join up with
doctors and psychologists to manage everything, cure everything
and institutionalize all who do not fit existing models of
probity.  The private sector hires an increasing array of private
security technicians to watch employees, customers and
competitors.  The state hires still more technicians to quantify
and to measure and measure out relief from social problems.  They
watch and manage the surplus population that lives on a meager,
intrusive and mean-spirited welfare.  Postmodernism is limited to
the more pretheoretical and privatized versions of life style and
art form.  A Hawking would be doing pretty much as he now does;
putting his vast genius to work on problems set by the state
while Pfohl would be writing and speaking to polite but
indifferent audiences; both would have long dossiers on file. 
The file on Hawking would be used to make a case that he is
deserving of honors...as indeed he would.  The file on Pfohl
would be used to certify that he is emotionally unstable and in
need of medical care...as indeed he would, given such a
patronizing view.  Most intelligentsia who defect from such a
society would feel emotionally exhausted.
     There are premodern religious nation-states emerging to
challenge modern and postmodern theory and policy for social
problems.  It is a stern but compassionate future; there is
community, mutual aid and caring support for those who accept its
theology and theocratic discipline.  Fundamentalist solutions to
social problems are well received in the muslim nations from
Indonesia to Morocco not excepting the southern soviet republics. 
The Muslim nations, variously can claim varying success in
dealing with problems of health, crime, housing and hunger. 
Fundamentalists strive and win state power and cultural hegemony
in Israel; they too have much to show in the moderation of social
problems.  There is a solid core of born-again Christians in the
USA and in what was the USSR; as times get worse for more and
more excluded from the pyramids of bureaucratic state power or
ruling class privilege, they push for a future that recenters the
teachings of Moses, Christ, Mohammed, and the Buddha.  A Hawking
would be a rabbinical scholar or a Islamic mathematician while a
Pfohl would follow in the steps of an old testament prophet or
set himself as guru to a village or region.
     Then too, there is the bureaucratic socialism of the USSR,
which, as a result of a very fragmented Glasnost and a poorly
engineered Perestoika, no longer shapes the knowledge process in
its own image--nor images to its own distorted self knowledge. 
Centralized control of all economics, culture, science and
politics will still attract the proto-fascists of the future. 
Postmodernism does not sit well inside such a social structure;
images of deviancy, corruption and 'hooliganism' are deployed by
the state to discourage and to ground the legal process against
those who do not conform to state policy.  Both Hawking and Pfohl
could well wind up in an underground knowledge process. 
Bureaucratic socialism has lost much of its future in the past
few years but the appeal of massified politics in an
informationally and interactionally poor democracy might well
spin out new forms of centralized control in Japan, India, Brazil
or China.
     A most congenial future for postmodernism in its more
praxical and emancipatory moments is, I believe, a democratic
market socialism (Roemer, 1990; Kenworthy, 1990).  In such
economies, the flexibility and innovation of market dynamics are
linked to collective goals by a variety of ownership patterns and
by a less intrusive system for the redistribution of wealth.  If
joined with pluralist politics in gender relations; active
support and respect for cultural heritages from the several
hundred ethnic cultures; careful conservation of the land, soil,
and biological diversity of the earth as well as collective
politics at work, school, church, and play, a democratic market
socialism would define the strong democracy of which Bernard
Barber (1984) speaks so eloquently.  In a genuinely democratic
and socialist society, a Stephen Hawking and a Stephen Pfohl
would participate both as citizens and as scientists in the
shaping of the future but they would not be privileged by virtue
of their special expertise in matters of policy; science would be
the servant rather than the master.
     An expanding knowledge process and an improving information
network are available in the thousands of newspapers, television
channels, magazines, journals, radio stations and churches,
schools and conferences that comprise the knowledge system today. 
With such media, social problems theorists and researchers can
make visible the various futures that await us; can compare and
contrast elements from all of them.   Image making ceases to be a
betrayal and a terror in that future but a promise and a tool for
human emancipation.  Perhaps that is the best legacy that
Derrida, Baudrillard, Lyotard, Pfohl and others give; a warning
against what they see lumbering toward the future and a prophecy
that it need not be part of the world order in the 21st century. 
Given good critique and good politics, we can fuse elements from
premodern, modern and postmodern knowledge process into a more
human and humane world policy as we seek to define and address
social problems.  The future is ours in ways it could not be in
either premodern or modern times alone; the operative question
is, What will we do with it???                                References

Allen, Kathleen E.       1990  "Making Sense out of Chaos; Leading and Living in Dynamic Systems.  Student
     Development Series,  Mount St. Mary's College.  May.

Baca Zinn, Maxine  1990  "Family, Feminism and Race in America." in Gender and Society: V.4, No.1, March: 
     68-82.

Barber, B. J., 1984  Strong Democracy:  Participatory Politics for a New Age.  University of California
     Press: Berkeley.

Berryman, Phillip.  1987  Liberation Theology.  New York: Pantheon Books.

Carmody, John and Denise  1985  Contemporary Catholic Theology.  San Francisco: Harper and Row.

Cereseto, S.   1983  "A test of four inequality models: comparing socialist and capitalist development." 
     The Insurgent Sociologist.

Cheal, David  1989   Family Theory after the Big Bang:  Post-modern Knowledge and the Sociology of the
     Family.  Presented at the 1989 meetings of the American Sociological Association, San Francisco.

Foucault, M.  1965/1988  Madness and Civilization.  New York: Pantheon.

     1972  The Archeology of Knowledge.  Tr. A.M. Smith.  New York Pantheon.

     1978  The History of Sexuality. V. 2 of the Uses of Pleasure. Tr. Robert Hurley.  New York:
     Pantheon.

     1979  Discipline and Punishment.  Tr. A. M. Smith.  New York: Pantheon.

Gleick, James,  1988  Chaos: Making a New Science.  New York: Penguin Books.

Gilligan, Carol  1982   In Another Voice.  Cambridge:  Harvard University Press.

Gilman, Richard.  1974  The Making of Modern Drama.  Reprint by Da Capo Press of the Farrar, Straus, and
     Giroux edition, New York.

Gorin, Z.      1982   Modernization, Dependency on Marxism:  A Side by Side Test.  Red Feather:  The Red
     Feather Institute.


Grout, Donald Jay  1980  A History of Western Music.  New York: W.W. Norton and Company.

Hawking, Stephen W.  1988  A Brief History of Time.  New York: Bantam Books.

Hawthorn, Geoffrey, 1987  Enlightenment and Despair: A History of Social Theory.  2nd edition.  Cambridge:
     Cambridge University Press.

Held, David,  1980  Introduction to Critical Theory.  London:  Hutchinson University Press.

Homans, George 1967  The Nature of Social Science. New York: Harbinger Books (Harcourt, Brace and World).

Hull, David L.  1988  Science as Process.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Jameson, Frederick   1984.  Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism.  New Left Review 146,
     July-August: 53.

Kenworthy, Lane     1990  What kind of Economic System?  A Leftist Guide, in Socialist Review,  V.20, No.2:
     102-124.

Kroker, Arthur and David Cook  1988  The Postmodern Scene.  Montreal: New World Perspectives.

Kung, Hans.  1988  Theology for the Third Millennium: An Ecumenical view.  New York: Doubleday.

Lenin, V. I.,  1915-16  Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism  in Complete Works,  London: Lawrence
     and Wishart.

Lyotard, J.-F.  1984  The Postmodern Condition.  Minneapolis: the University of Minneapolis Press.

Mandelbrot, Benoit  1977  The Fractal Geometry of Nature.  New York:  Freeman.

Markovic, Mihailo   1974    From Affluence to Praxis.  Boston:  Beacon.

2Marx, Karl  1976  The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Dirk Struik, editor.  New York:
     International Publishers.

Marx, Karl  1977  Theses on Feuerbach,  in Selected Writings.  David McLellan, ed.  Oxford: Oxford
     University Press. Pp. 156-57.  [Paris Manuscripts, 1845?]

Merton, Robert 1957  Social Theory and Social Structure.  New York:  The Free Press. 

Mills, C. Wright    1959   The Sociological Imagination.  New York: Oxford University Press.

Mitchell, Juliet,  1973  Women's Estate  New York: Vintage Books.

Pfohl, Stephen and Avery Gordon, 1986, Criminological Displacements, in Social Problems, V. 33, No. 6,
     Oct/Dec, pp. 94-113.

Pfohl, Stephen  1989a  Lecture on the Terror of the Simulacra given at Central Michigan University.  

     1989b  Personal Communication.

     1990a  Chapter 10, "Terror of the Simulacra: Struggles for Justice and the Postmodern," included in
     New Directions in the Study of Justice, Law and Social Control,  edited by the School of Justice
     Studies at Arizona State University.  New York: Plenum Press.

     1990b  Candidate Statement of the 1990 Presidential election of the Society for the Study of Social
     Problems.  SSSP Newsletter; V. 21 No.1 Spring.

     1991b  Postmodernity as a Social Problem: race, class and gender in the 'New World Order.'  Draft
     statement of the 1991-1992 Conference Theme.

Prawer, S.S.   1978   Karl Marx and World Literature.  Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Reese, W. L., 1980  Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion.  New Jersey: Humanities Press.

Richardson, Laurel  1989  "Speakers Whose Voices Matter:  Toward a Feminist Postmodernist Sociological
     Praxis.  Forthcoming in Studies of Symbolic Interactionism.

Roemer, John   1990  Market Socialism.  A paper presented at the Conference of Radical Scholars and
     Activists in Chicago, August.

Seidman, Steven  1990  "Against Theory as Foundational Discourse,"  in Perspectives: The Theory Section
     Newsletter of the American Sociological Society, V. 13, No.2.

Solomon, M.  1979  Marxism and Art  Detroit: the University of Detroit Press.

SSSP Newsletter, V.21 No.1, Spring, 1990.

Tanner, Leslie B.  1970  Voices From Women's Liberation.  New York:  New American Library  [A Mentor Book].

Thompson, E.P.      1963  The Making of the English Working Class.  London: Gollancz.

Tilly, Charles  1989  Changing Forms of Revolution.  The Working Paper Series of the Center for Studies of
     Social Change at the New School for Social Research.

Walker, Alan  1989  Franz Liszt, V. 2: The Weimar Years, 1848-1861.  New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Wallerstein, Immanuel  1979  The Capitalist World Economy  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Weaver, Jefferson, ed., 1987  The World of Physics, Vol. I: the Aristotlean Cosmos and the Newtonian System. 
     New York:  Simon and Schuster.

Williams, Raymond.  1965  The Long Revolution  Harmondsworth:  Penguin Press.

     1977  Marxism and Literature, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

     1977  Modern Tragedy.  London: Verso Editions [Revised from the Chatto and Windus edition, 1966].

Young, T. R.  1990  The Drama of Social Life: Essays in Postmodern Social Psychology.  Rutgers: Transaction
     Books.

     1991a  Change and Chaos Theory.  Forthcoming in the Social Science Journal.  28(3).  Fall.

     1991b  Chaos theory and Symbolic Interaction.  Forthcoming in the Journal of Symbolic Interaction,
     14:3, Fall.

     1991c  Paradigm Theory.  Draft article available from the Red Feather Institute, 8085 Essex,
     Weidman, Mi., 48893.
                                 ENDNOTES


--=====================_853949728==_--