Thinkers Who Would Be Doers See Social Injustice
          Wherever They Turn

          By WALTER GOODMAN

            It was a dire prospect that greeted
             the 5,000 or so sociologists who
          converged on two Washington hotels
          last week for the start of the 95th
          annual meeting of the American
          Sociological Association. Titled,
          with the flair for which their calling
          has become known, "Oppression,
          Domination and Liberation:
          Challenges for the 21st Century," the
          event promised insights not only into
          the "continuing problem" of racism
          but also into "other manifestations of
          social inequality such as class
          exploitation and oppression on the
          basis of gender, ethnicity, national origin, sexual preference, disability and
          age." It was a big tent.

          Like the political conventions that have enlivened the summer weeks, this
          one laid claim to great historical accomplishments and pledged further
          achievements. Instead of the rousing phrases of political party platforms,
          however, the platform of these sociologists was framed in the
          lab-sounding lingo of social science as it drew attention to the leading role
          of sociologists in researching "societal conditions and studying strategies
          for bringing social and political change, including individual and group
          protest against oppression."

          Workshops and seminars lured the conventioneers with an inclusive and
          diverse menu that signaled the assumptions of victimization to which this
          year's get-together was dedicated: "Beyond Triple Jeopardy: Women of
          Color, Public Policy and the Limits of Citizenship"; "Gender Oppression
          and Gender Democracy in Global Market Society"; "Postmodern
          Critiques of Science and the Rise of Reactionary Modernism in South
          Asia"; "Social Definitions of Virtue and Blame: Moral Fault in Child
          Care"; "Who Needs the Worker?: Restructuring in the 21st Century."
          The titles cried for a colonoscopy.

          On my way to a Saturday morning panel on "Gender Discrimination
          Revisited: Subtle, Blatant and Covert," I was stopped short by the
          appearance of Ralph Nader, which also evidently diverted other panelists
          from their proposed rounds. By comparison with the Nader event, which
          filled a sizable room, the gender panel made do with a sprinkling of two
          dozen women; when I peeped in, a small woman in a large hat was
          calling fervently and very sociologically for "a feminist paradigm."

          Mr. Nader was accompanied by two academics, Steven J. Rosenthal of
          Hampton University and Charles Derber of Boston College, and a
          Boeing machinist who kept reminding us that he brought a view from the
          shop floor. Mr. Rosenthal called for "an end to the system that we are all
          fighting against." He preached a nondiscriminatory policy of overthrow:
          "Every protest action that occurs deserves our support." Mr. Derber
          pretty much agreed, adding some plugs for the Nader candidacy. Mr.
          Nader's own talk, more or less on "After Seattle: The W.T.O. and the
          New World Order," was received with enthusiasm. Most of the audience
          rose to greet him and then gave him a warm send-off.

          What was a presidential candidate doing making a campaign address
          under the auspices of a group purportedly given to scientific
          independence of a sort? Well, his call for action against the ills of
          American society was thoroughly in the spirit of the occasion.

          I arrived early for "Confronting Racism, Sexism and Homophobia in
          Academia," drawn by a hard-sell come-on: "This thematic session
          problematizes institutional structures and culture in which women and
          minority academics function on a daily basis. . . . The second theme,
          'Marginality,' will focus on the questioning of prevailing paradigms in
          sociology that despite unreal claims display provincialism that is neither
          reflective nor representative of the experiences of women and minorities."
          It is the rare sociologist who can forgo a paradigm or two, but
          problematize began to sound as though somebody was kidding the
          profession's pretensions.

          The first panelist, Ann Tickamyer of
          Ohio University, was not as
          combative as the session's title. Her
          specialty of "spaciality," which I came
          to understand was the study of how
          the allotment of physical space is
          used by the powers that be to keep
          others in a subordinate condition,
          seemed a plausible undertaking, but
          Ms. Tickamyer's paper was so
          clogged with her craft's jargon
          ("access to gender space"; "maxi-
          and micro-analysis;" "complex
          multirational") that it left little
          breathing space.

          She was followed by Lionel Cantu, an assistant professor at the
          University of California at Santa Cruz, who kept announcing himself as "a
          pro-feminist gay Chicano." The gist of his talk was that everyone ought to
          fight against his own demons of prejudice.

          Why not? But a drawn-out account by the next speaker, in praise of the
          way the ancient Iroquois resolved disputes, drove me from the room and
          thus deprived me of the final contribution, a graduate student and an
          untenured professor "speaking out" against racism, sexism and
          homophobia. Most of the audience demonstrated its courtesy or
          solidarity or low expectations by staying on.

          The very well-attended Saturday afternoon session, "Sexism and
          Feminism: Challenges for the 21st Century," was organized by Joe R.
          Feagin of the University of Florida, the outgoing president of the
          American Sociological Association. Mr. Feagin, who is known for his
          championship of sociology's mission to redeem society, had reportedly
          encouraged the panelists to put in a few words along the way on how to
          achieve social justice, which may have accounted for a University of
          Cincinnati professor's resort to a praxis or two in calling for a fusion of
          theory and action and knowledge and power and so forth.

          The freshest voice here, as well as the zippiest phrase ("gender vertigo"),
          was supplied by Barbara Risman of North Carolina State University,
          who drew attention to the responsibility of women (as well as men) for
          ending sexism. Her even-handedness made her something of a daring
          figure in the chorus of exhortation.

          After a couple of quiet hours Sunday morning at the National Gallery of
          Art, I returned to my labors in time to catch "Marxism and Capitalism in
          the 21st Century." The analyses of the ups and downs of capitalism by
          Robert Brenner of the University of California in Los Angeles and the
          highs and lows of Marxism by Giovanni Arrighi of Johns Hopkins
          University were pretty straightforward, offering data and historical
          interpretation, with little of the rah-rah spirit that flavored other panels.

          That was exactly what displeased some in the audience, who sought a
          call to action. One critic even hurled the charge of "implicit racism" at the
          panelists for not acknowledging the pernicious situation in South Africa
          and had to be reprimanded by the moderator. Another wanted more in
          the way of paradigm and praxis. Mr. Brenner was spurred into uttering a
          few kind words for the Seattle protesters, but Mr. Arrighi refused any
          crowd-pleasing. He expressed skepticism at the thinking behind the
          antiglobal eruptions and went so far as to dismiss Marxist theory as a
          muddle that was failing to catch up to the continuing transformation of
          capitalism.

          It was a downer, but the audience found a restorative within the hour in
          Mr. Feagin's presidential address, a paean to "societal usefulness,"
          chock-full of condemnations of racism, sexism, exploitation, domination,
          resource inequality, environmental degradation and other sins. He got a
          solid round of applause.