Introduction: Minority Discourse: What Is to Be Done?

Author(s): Abdul R. JanMohamed and David Lloyd

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Cultural Critique, No. 7, The Nature and Context of Minority Discourse II (Autumn,
1987), pp. 5-17
Published by: University of Minnesota Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1354148 .
Accessed: 13/11/2011 13:21

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

University of Minnesota Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Cultural
Critique.

http://www.jstor.org
Introduction:
- What is to Be Done?
Minority Discourse

AbdulR. JanMohamedand David Lloyd

In his article in this issue, Henry Louis Gates, Jr. provides a fasci-
nating example of a minority intellectual, Alexander Crummell,
who accepted Euro-Americanhegemony so thoroughly that, after hav-
ing learnt Greek in order to prove that he was civilized, he was willing
to dismiss all African languages as "the speech of rude barbarians,"as
being "marked by brutal and vindictive sentiments, and those princi-
ples which show a predominance of the animal propensities." To the
extent that we minority intellectuals still communicate professionally
in Europeanlanguagesratherthan in our own languages,we are heirs of
Crummell. Every time we speak or write in English, French, German,
or one of the more marginalized European languages we pay homage
to Western intellectual and political hegemony. Despite this, it would
seem, Western humanism still considers us barbarians beyond the
pale of civilization; we are forever consigned to play the role of the
ontological, political, economic, and cultural Other according to the
schema of a manichean allegory that seems to be the central trope not
only of colonialist discourse but also of western humanism. The hege-

? 1987 by CulturalCritique.0882-4371 (Fall 1987). All rights reserved.

5
6 and DavidLloyd
AbdulR.JanMohamed

monic pressures that forced Crummell to reconstruct his entire world

in accordance with the values of the manichean allegory are just
as prevalenttoday, in spite of what we might have been led to believe by
the abolition of slavery, the "success" of the Civil Rights movement,
and the admission of a handful of minorities and women to the acade-
my. If evidence of this state of affairsis needed, it is aptly provided by
the response of the National Endowment for the Humanities to our
application for a subvention for the conference on "The Nature and
Context of Minority Discourse," a conference at which most of the pa-
pers that comprise these two special issues on "Minority Discourse"
were presented. Based on the documents that the NEH furnished, the
criterion of its negative decision is fairly clear. The external reviews so-
licited by the NEH fall into two groups: five that were to be returned to
NEH by November 7, 1985 and one that was to be returned "ASAP."
Some of the initial five reviewers had minor reservations about our
proposal, but they all recommended that the conference be funded.
However, the one solicited in haste (one presumes, at the last minute)
recommends rejection, and the summary of the NEH panel discussion
makes it clear that our proposal was indeed rejected on the basis of this
evaluation. After praising the credentials of the conference organizer,
the "ASAP"reviewerprovides fascinatingreasons for his negative eval-
uation:

I cannotbut feel thata conferencethatwould bringtogetherin a

few days of papersand discussionspecialistson Chicano,Afro-
American,Asian-American,Native-American,Afro-Caribbean,
African,Indian,Pacificisland,Aborigine,Maoriand otherethnic
literaturewould be anythingbut diffuse.A conferenceon ONE
[sic]of these literaturesmightbe in order;but even with the best
of planning,the proposedconferencewould almostcertainlyde-
volve into an academicTowerof Babel.It is not at all clearthata
specialiston Native-Americanliterature,for example, will have
muchto sayto someonespecializingin Africanliterature.It is also
unlikelythat the broad generalizationsProfessorJanMohamed
would have them addresswould bringthem any closer.

The ideological implications of this "evaluation" are self- evident: 1)

when Europeans come together to discuss their various national litera-
tures, they are seen as being able to communicate coherently across
 Introduction 7

linguistic barriers, and such coherent communication is not only en-

couraged in conferences but even institutionalized in the form of
Comparative LiteratureDepartments in various universities across the
country; when ethnic minorities and Third World people want to do
so, their dialogue is represented, according to the ideology of human-
ism, as incoherent babble; 2) it is inconceivable to a western humanist
that a Native-Americanand an African,who have both been brutalized
by Euro-Americanimperialism and marginalizedby its hegemony, can
have anything relevant to say to each other; and 3) the various ethnic
minorities must be prevented from getting "close" to each other either
through broad generalizations or any other means. Eighteenth century
statutes in South Carolina and other states made the desire of Black
Americans to acquire literacy a criminal offence, and various colo-
nialist education policies systematicallyrepressed native education, as
South Africa still does; we have now been allowed to learn the master's
language, but our use of it to discuss issues that most concern us is still
defined as babble, an "incoherence" which Eurocentric humanist dis-
course still needs in order to emphasize by contrast its own civilized
coherence.
Given such a historically sustained negation of minority voices we
must realize that minority discourse, is, in the firstinstance, the product
of damage, of damage more or less systematicallyinflicted on cultures
produced as minorities by the dominant culture. The destruction in-
volved is manifold, bearing down on variantmodes of social formation,
dismantlingpreviouslyfunctionaleconomic systems, deracinatingwhole
populations at best, decimating them at worst. In time with this material
destruction, the cultural formations, languages, the diverse modes of
identity of the "minoritized peoples" are irreversibly affected, if not
eradicated, by the effects of their material deracination from the histor-
ically developed social and economic structures in terms of which
alone they "made sense." With a certain savage consistency, this very
truncation of development becomes both the mark and the legiti-
mation of marginalization. For the diverse possible modes of cultural
development that these societies represented are displaced by a single
model of historical development within which other cultures can only
be envisaged as the underdeveloped, the imperfect, the childlike, or-
where already deracinated by material domination-as inauthentic,
perverse, criminal. From this perspective, such cultures can only be
8 AbdulR.JanMohamed
and David Lloyd

seen as susceptible of development towards a higher level of cultural

achievement such as already attained by those of European stock.
Even the recognition of the damage already inflicted can be converted,
with a frisson of charitable pathos, into a stimulus toward the more
rapid assimilation of "disadvantaged" minorities into the dominant
culture's modes of being.
It is crucial, especially in the context of an issue that will seek in
some sense to celebrate the positive achievements and potential of mi-
nority discourse, to stress the real and continuing damage inflicted
upon minorities. For the pathos of hegemony is frequently matched
by its interested celebration of differences, but of differences in the
aestheticized form of recreations. Detached from the site of their pro-
duction, minority cultural forms become palatable:a form of practical
struggle like capoeira becomes recuperable as breakdance. Attention
to minority cultural forms requires accordingly a double vigilance,
both with respect to their availabilityfor hegemonic recuperation and
to their strategiesof resistance, strategieswhich will always be referable
to the specific material conditions out of which such forms are prod-
uced. Minority discourse is in this respect a mode of ideology in the
sense in which Marx in "On the Jewish Question" describes religion:
at once the sublimation and the expression of misery. But with the crit-
ical difference, that in the case of minority forms even the sublimation
of misery requires to be understood as primarilya strategyfor survival,
for the preservation in some form or other of cultural identity, and for
political critique. In the Afro-American culture, which, to the extent
that African slaves were deprived of their own cultures and prevented
from entering white American culture, is a paradigm of minority cul-
tures, this sublimation and expression-a comprehension and a cri-
tique-of misery finds its unique form, as Houston Baker,Jr. has point-
ed out, in the blues, "a mediationalsite where familiarantinomies are re-
solved ... in the office of adequate cultural understanding." This sub-
limation is not, then, one imposed from above by the dominant cul-
ture, nor is it the form in which that culture misrecognizes or legiti-
mates its oppressive practices. Rather, as Arif Dirlik argued in Cultural
Critique6, cultural practices are an intrinsic element of the economic
and political struggles of third world and minority peoples. Indeed,
exactly to the extent that such peoples are systematicallymarginalized
vis-a-vis the global economy, one might see the resort to cultural
 Introduction 9

modes of struggle as all the more necessary, even within the frame-
work of a Marxist analysis of such struggles. Hence the importance of
Allogan Slagle's successful struggle, described in his article, in using
Tolowa oral narrativesto obtain the United States Government's legal
recognition of the Tolowa "tribe."For many minorities, culture is not a
mere superstructure;all too often, in an ironic twist of a Sartreanphe-
nomenology, the physical survival of minority groups depends on the
recognition of its culture as viable.
These remarks, however, are not intended to justify a purely cultural
approach to minority discourse. On the contrary, the very recognition
of the value of minority cultural forms entails the examination of the
economic and political differences which determine their differences
from those of majority culture. The study-and the production-of
minority discourse requires, as an inevitable consequence of its mode
of existence, the transgression of the very disciplinary boundaries by
which culture appears as a sublimated form with universal validity.
This makes it virtuallytheprivileged domain of cultural critique. Taken
in this sense, minority discourse becomes capable of transcending its
relegation to and recuperation as ideological compensation, precisely
insofar as within it theoretical reflection and transformative practice
become, at least at the level of institutional formations, one and the
same.
Deleuze and Guattari'sobservation, in the articlewhich formed one
of the startingpoints for "The Conference on the Nature and Context
of Minority Discourse," that minor literature is necessarily collective,
here gains its validity. Out of the damage inflicted upon minority cul-
tures, which, as Fanon so clearly recognized, prevents their "develop-
ment" according to the Western model of individual and racial identi-
ty, emerges the possibility of a collective subjectivityformed in practice
rather than contemplation. For the collective nature of minority dis-
course is due not to the scarcity of talent, as Deleuze and Guattari
claim, but to other cultural and political factors. In those societies
caught in the transition form oral, mythic, collective cultures to the lit-
erate, "rational", individualistic values and characteristicsof Western
cultures, the writer more often than not manifests the collective nature
of social structuration in forms such as the novel, thus transforming
what were once efficacious vehicles for the representation of individ-
ually, atomistically oriented experiences. However, more importantly,
10 AbdulR.JanMohamed
andDavidLloyd

the collective nature of all minority discourse also derives from the fact
that minority individuals are always treated and forced to experience
themselves generically. Coerced into a negative, generic subject posi-
tion, the oppressed individual responds by transforming that position
into a positive, collective one. And therein, precisely, lies the basis of a
broad minority coalition: in spite of the enormous differences between
various minority cultures, which must be preserved, all of them occu-
py the same oppressed and "inferior" cultural, political, economic,
and material subject position in relation to the Western hegemony.
Just as it is vitally important to avoid the homogenization of cultural
differences, so it is equally important to recognize the common political
basis of a minority struggle, the efficacy of formations like the "Rain-
bow Coalition." The minority's attempt to negate the prior hegemonic
negation of itself is one of its most fundamental forms of affirmation.
As in the previous issue of CulturalCritique,a number of the articles
collected here indicate the strategicnature of minority preoccupation
with identityand non-identity.Hannan Hever examines the labyrinthine
complexity of the politics of minority identity in Anton Shammas'sAra-
besque.Hever examines how this novel, writtenin Hebrew by a Christian
Arab-"a minority within a minority within a minority"-refigures the
Israeli dilemma-the transformationof Israelfrom a nation of a perse-
cuted minority struggling for its existence to a majority nation per-
ceived by some as an oppressor of minorities. In a similar vein but in
an entirely different context, Arlene Teraoka demonstrates that the
identity constructed by the category of "Gastarbeiterliteratur," is itself a
site of ideological contestation and that all claims made on its behalf
are strategicand political. While both these articlesexamine minorities
who are obliged to write in the alien, dominant language, Ronald
Judy's essay, "The Modern Arab Novel: The Production of the Mar-
gin," (to be published in a later issue of CulturalCritique)analyzes the
birth of the moder Arab novel and its struggle to attain an adequate
polyvocality in the context of powerful if very different monological
imperatives-the Koranicand the Western imperialisticmonopolies of
truth. In spite of the diversity of these articles, all of them treat literary
forms not as autonomous products of a discrete aesthetic domain but
as cultural interventions in a field which is overdetermined by political,
economic, technological, religious, and even "biological" forces as
well as by those of culture itself.
 Introduction 11

In such a field, the differentiationswhich permit the separation out

of bodies of knowledge and spheres of practice are-where they exist
at all-an alien and artificialimposition of the dominant culture and a
measure of its success in hegemonic penetration. For in practice, a sep-
arate cultural sphere cannot appear except as the index of an already
achieved exercise of hegemony. The function of "cultural forms" is
not, therefore, as in the West, ethical, leading to the formation of a
subject with universal claims, but, on the contrary, political, collec-
tively produced and provisional. Hence the apparent paradox of the
positiveevaluation of negation in AbdulJanMohamed's article: at stake
here is not an abstractethical self-sacrifice,but a necessity of collective
struggle determined by concrete situations. Negation and "actual
death" are the positive transformationof the negation already inflicted
by "social death" on the minority individual by virtue of her or his col-
lectivebeing.
We emphasize here expressly the positive transformativecapacity of
minority discourse, tracing in the models of alternative practice the
very characteristicsthat mustappear to the universalizing discourse of
the "majority" as weaknesses. The most thorough case for the trans-
formative imperative of minority discourse is made by Henry Louis
Gates,Jr., who urges us to turn to various minority literarytraditions
in order to discover the implicit literary theories that are embedded
therein, to use the various minority vernacularsas vehicles for theory,
and to redefine every institution in our own images.
But in this inevitably gradual process of revaluing values, which per-
force advances only by glimpse and paradox towards systematic for-
mulations, the role of the intellectual becomes doubly problematic.
For the intellectual is twice marginalized by the institutional structures
within which s/he must work (and which are as much a part of the quo-
tidian world of practice in contemporary Western society as factory or
home). Appreciating the collective nature of minority cultures, the in-
tellectual is nonetheless cut off from them, as Cornel West has already
argued in CulturalCritique1, by virtue of the relativeprivilege offered by
educational institutions as part of their hegemonizing function. Within
these institutions, however, the minority intellectual is, more often
than not, marginalized, in part individually as a direct result of contin-
uing racial or sexual discrimination, but, more importantly, since it is
here a question of an effect of structurewhich makes the acceptance of
12 and David Lloyd
AbdulR.JanMohamed

individualsirrelevant, as a result of the systemic relegation of minority

concerns to the periphery of academic work. No moral pathos attaches
to this double alienation of the minority intellectual, unpleasant as its
effects may be. For both forms of alienation spring as inevitably from
the modes of late capitalist society as do the systematic exploitation of
the less privileged minority groups and the feminization of poverty,
the demonization of third world peoples and homophobic hysteria.
The alienation of minority intellectuals derives not from the universal
anomie of spirits in the material world nor even from the intrinsic
"difficulties" of the theoretical work on which they may be engaged.
Both its aspects derive, rather, from the division of labor required by
economic rationalization and by the need to denigrate alternative
modes of rationality as, in Sylvia Wynter's phrase, the "ontological
Other."
An alienation so systematicallyproduced cannot, unfortunately, be
simply overcome by wishful identification with an abstractlyidealized
"minority collective." For both the alienation of the "minority intellec-
tual" and the collective identity which can emerge in the struggle
against domination are recto and verso of the same process of the ra-
tional division of labor, two complementary modes of the damage it
inflicts. To overcome that situation will entail a mutually complemen-
tarywork of theoretical critique and practicalstruggle which will clear-
ly take different forms in different spheres. And while the intellectual
cannot prescribe what is to be done in other spheres, within the aca-
demic sphere there are transformationsto be effected which will neces-
sarilybe complementary to those undertaken by minorities elsewhere.
The principal of these is the critique and reformulation of the tradi-
tional role of humanist intellectuals and of the disciplinary divisions
which sanction that role. For the systemic function of the traditional
humanist intellectual, as Wynter and JanMohamed variously demon-
strate, has always ultimately been the legitimation of the sets of dis-
criminations which economic and social domination requires. The
very claim to universality that humanism makes, while utopian in it-
self, is annulled by the developmental schema of world history
through which it is to be achieved. Actual exploitation is accordingly
legitimated from the perspective of a perpetually deferred universality.
The phenomena of exploitation may-and there is no doubt about this
-be criticized well-meaningly on individual grounds, but a critique
 Introduction 13

of the rationalewhich grounds the distinctions that legitimate exploita-

tion cannot be produced systematicallyout of traditional humanism.
Herein lies the specific difference between the objective alienation
which the minority intellectual seeks to overcome and the pathos of
alienation which afflicts the traditional humanist. For the minority
intellectual is situationally opposed to that alienation, while the tradi-
tional intellectual either seeks to make the characteristicsof the alien
prefigurative of deferred universality or, in a recent version which
is just an insidiously logical development of the former, to accept posi-
tivistically as merely given the alienated conditions of labor in the
glorified form of "professionalism." Knowing that exploitation and
discrimination are neither the inevitable products of universal history
nor rationally justifiable, but, rather, the products of concrete and
contestable historical developments, the minority intellectual is com-
mitted to the critique of the structures which continue to legitimate
them.
In the ongoing process by which this critique is being effected,
the foundation of separate departments of Ethnic Studies, Women's
Studies and-with conspicuous scarcity-Gay-Lesbian Studies has
been a crucial moment, allowing at least the possibility of collectively
exploring modes of knowledge counter to those of the dominant cul-
ture. But it is increasingly recognized, and by none more than those
who must almost daily work to maintain even the meager funding that
their "special programs" receive, that it is insufficient to establish such
units as reservations or special preserves within academic institutions
whose dominant practices are intrinsically opposed to the interests of
minorities. Until recently, "affirmativeaction" in the humanities has
meant the creation of these special units that have been relegated to
the margins of the universities; at best, such action has confined itself
to the quantitativelevel: it has resulted in a few more minority intellec-
tuals in the academy. However, we must now move beyond numerical
presence and special programs. What we must require from the insti-
tutions and from ourselves is the intellectualequivalent of "affirmative
action." In the first place, we must see that a "humanism" which sys-
tematically ignores, as it has done at least since Matthew Arnold con-
signed the dominated to the realm of anarchy, all issues concerned
with the relations of domination is in a sense profoundly bankrupt.
Since relations of domination permeate every facet of our personal and
14 and David Lloyd
AbdulR.JanMohamed

social lives, as well as of our literatureand culture, a critique of culture

that ignores such relations can be, at best, a distorted one. From a mi-
nority view point, a viable humanism must be centered around a cri-
tique of domination. In the second place, it follows that most of those
who hold power and those whose subject positions are protected by
the prevailing hegemony will be more interested in the efficacious use
of power than in examining its misuse. By contrast, those who are
dominated will better understand the devastating effects of misused
power; they are in a better position to document and analyze, as the
contemporary resurgence in Blackwomen's writing illustrates,how re-
lations of domination can destroy the "human" potential of its victims.
Their concerns must be at the center not only of a minority discourse
but also of "humanism" as such, that is, of a utopian exploration of
human potentiality.
However, the perpetual return of theory to the concrete givens of
domination which, rather than the separation of culture as a discrete
sphere, minority discourse implies, tends equally against the reification
of any dominated group's experience as in some sense "privileged."
Just as domination works by constant adjustment, so the strategies of
the dominated must remain fluid in their objects as in their soli-
darities. Apposite here is Sylvia Wynter's critique of the various isms
which single out particularspecifications of"ontological otherness" as
a singular field of political action: the tactical necessities which deter-
mine such manoeuvres only too rapidly ossify into new domains of
relative privilege, leaving, as the racial bias of even the feminization of
poverty indicates, a bottom line of discrimination and exclusion which
is all the more imposing upon those who suffer from it. What this cri-
tique of former and current practices of minority groups implies is
that, on the one hand, minority groups need constantly to form and to
re-form ever more inclusive solidarities (a process to which the Berke-
ley conference sought to contribute within its limited sphere), and, on
the other, that the formations, material and intellectual, by which
"minorities"are constitutedmust be put under ever-increasingpressure.
The two programsare, of course, complementary.For the critiqueof the
current basis of disciplinarydivisions within the academic institutions,
and the consequent, at first experimental production of other
syntheses or bodies of knowledge, will lead inevitablyto the erosion of
those structuresby which the marginalizationof "special programs" is
 Introduction 15

justified. In time, the experimental nature of these new syntheses will

give way to an increasingly systematic refutation of the "pseudo-scien-
tific" and "pseudo-rational" formulations on whose basis minorities
continue to be oppressed. Of these processes, the articles by Nancy
Hartsock, LataMani, and SylviaWynter in this issue already offer out-
standing examples in their respective fields.
From the present, necessarilylimited perspective,it seems at least sure
that, whatevershifts of this natureminoritieswill prove capable of effect-
ing, they will be unsatisfactoryinsofar as they do not permit of a far
greaterrealacceptance of difference and diversitythan is at present evi-
dent in any sphere of Westernsociety.The realizationof this goal will de-
pend not, despite the possible implicationsof SylviaWynter'sarticle, on
an epochal rupture at the discursive level, a hope which would retain a
large element of idealism, but on radical transformationsof the mate-
rial structures of exploitation. On such transformations alone could
the effectiveness of any new formations which we can intellectually
project be predicated, and to think otherwise in the context of continu-
ing genocide, exploitation, and technological destruction is to risk an
impermissible disproportion. But this is not, at the other extreme, to
relegate intellectual work to perpetual adventism, an idealistic waiting
for some historically inevitable precipitation of a class formation pow-
erful enough to "smash the system." Openings for intervention are va-
rious and multiple at any moment, and indeed, as Nancy Hartsock
points out, most of the terms of a criticalminority discourse have been
forged precisely in the practices of engaged minority groups. To cling
solely to the role of an "intellectual" as to a singular and determinate
identity would be fatuous where the process of the rational division of
labor has made of every moder subject a fragmented or multiple
identity, functioning now as a professor, now as one among women,
now as a tenant, now as a black employee, now as a lesbian feminist.
The gain that can be located in this situation by a criticalminority dis-
course lies in the recognition that these multiple identities are neither
reducible nor impermeable to one another, that there is no sphere of
universal and objective knowledge or of purely economic rationality,
that what is worked out in one sphere can be communicated in another,
that institutional boundaries will always need to be transgressedin the
interests of political and cultural struggle. And insofar as the practices
that emerge in any of these spheres remain referableto the fundamental
16 and DavidLloyd
AbdulR.JanMohamed

goal of a society based on the possibility of uncoerced economic self-de-

termination, on which basis alone can effective political or cultural
self-determination be based, they do not become isolated and abstract
utopian activities.
The effort of criticalminority discourse to produce social and cultur-
al formations genuinely tolerant of difference and, even more so, its
project of critiquing those dominant structures which tend to reduce
the human to a single universal mode, account for its apparent affi-
nities to poststructuralism and post-modernism. But, as Kum Kum
Sangaripoints out, it is essential not to collapse the distinction between
the discourses of minorities and the third world and those of western
intellectuals; above all, apparently "postmodern" minority texts must
not be seen as representations of the dissolving bourgeois subject. Cer-
tainly there is an overlap, especially in the realm of gender issues, and
virtuallywithout exception the contributors to these two volumes owe
much methodologically to the criticalreading of poststructuralistwrit-
ings. But where the point of departure of poststructuralismlies within
the Western tradition and works to deconstruct its identity formations
"from within," the critical difference is that minorities, by virtue of
their very social being, must begin from a position of objective non-
identitywhich is rooted in their economic and cultural marginalization
vis-a-vis the "West."The non-identity which the criticalWestern intel-
lectual seeks to (re)produce discursively is for minorities a given of
their social existence. But as such a given it is not yet by any means an
index of liberation, not even of that formal and abstract liberation
which is all that poststructuralism,in itself and disarticulatedfrom any
actual process of struggle, could offer. On the contrary,the non-iden-
tity of minorities remains the sign of material damage to which the
only coherent response is struggle, not ironic distantiation.To be sure,
the fact that the material damage is legitimated by humanist institu-
tions and their universal claims entails as its logical corollary the
demystification of "the figure of man." And to be sure, the non-identi-
ty experienced by minorities as the oppressive effects of Western
philosophies of identity is the strongest reason that a rigorously critical
minority discourse, in its positive transformation of the discourses
emerging from that non-identity, should not merely fall back upon the
oppositional affirmation of an essential ethnic or gender identity. For
in minority discourse the abstract philosophical questions of essence
 Introduction 17

and ethics are transformed into questions of practice, the only mean-
ingful response to the question "Whatis or ought to be?" has to be the
question: "What is to be done?"

__

B1

A Critical Review Volume XXXII 1987

PierreBourdieuon SymbolicClass Struggle

Section
Special on ThePolitics
ofDecline:
UlricliBeckon ChernobylandRisk Society
ElizabethNicholson The Anti-NuclearMovement
ArvindRajagopalon The BliopalDisaster
JeffreyBale on Riglit-WiiigTerrorism
ChristianJoppkeon Crisisof the WelfareState
Lisa Brushon WelfareWarsin Britain
and
Dialoguewith ErikOlinWright
Tributeto HerbertBluier

Individuals:$6.00 Discountson BackIssues

Institutions:$12.00 andMulti-VolumeOrders

THE BERKELEYJOURNALOF SOCIOLOGY

Univ.of Calif. 458A Barrows11all Berkeley,CA 94720