Search

The article points the weaknesses of Richard Bland and Roy Wallis' commentary about the essay on status inconsistency and participation in social movements. The comment began with observations concerning the status inconsistency method represented in the essay and moved to a broader criticism of the notion of status defense. However, Bland and Wallis missed the point of the essay. For instance, they defined status more narrowly than Zurcher and Kirkpatrick in "Citizens for Decency". Moreover, they accused the authors of obsessively seeking some ulterior motive among anti-pornography crusaders which could explain their participation. Finally, they offered no evidence to demonstrate that overrewarded inconsistents would be expected to engage in resistance to changes in their social environment which might threaten their over-rewarded situation.