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.

This article selectively reviews and interprets the literature on self-concept and social change. It summarizes the view that in the 1970s the self-conception of Americans, modally considered, manifested a shift from institution to impulse, from social to reflective. The argument is made that in the 1980s the expression of impulse is becoming bureaucratized, newly formated in rationalization and modernization, effectively being institutionalized by assorted societal agents, including sociologists. Speculations arc offered about the implications of that change. Several suggestions are made regarding future research on self-concept and the broader notion of "self," particularly by symbolic interactionists and for the purpose of application. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]