Editor's Note

"Lively" is an understatement. Sociology is thriving, with new debates, broadened scope, new methodologies, and new questions. Of course it could not be otherwise. The world system is in the throes of reorganization and knowledge frameworks are being questioned, challenged, poked at, and probed. Normal social science continues, of course, and I feel it is the responsibility of Social Forces to continue to provide an outlet for outstanding normal social science as well as to provide an outlet for pioneering work even when that work is still underdeveloped.

Here I risk difficulties because I can lean too far one way or the other -- in protecting normal science or providing an environment for pioneering or controversial work. I have dealt with this difficulty in the following ways. First, a section offered in each issue on Public Social Science will be bracketed and distinct from papers that are submitted through regular channels. Second, I will be on the lookout for papers that are submitted through regular channels that ought be a vehicle for a debate, and invite rejoinders to such papers if they are accepted.

This issue of the journal illustrates both approaches. In the first section there is a stunning piece by James Mahoney (the lead article), with an equally stunning rejoinder by Alan Sica. I expect that this debate involving philosophical ideas, rationality, formal theory, and historical methodology will generate more discussion and we are opening up a space for this discussion on our Web page (http://socialforces.unc.edu). James Mahoney�s piece arrived over the transom and underwent the normal, grueling review that all submitted manuscripts undergo. He graciously agreed to the rejoinder. Both were anonymous until the last stage of the process, and the last I heard from the two of them was that they were clapping each other on the back, renewing ties of an earlier friendship, and sharpening their pencils for another round. Please go to our Web page to read Jim�s reply to Alan and to join this conversation.

The last section of the journal has two solicited pieces on reparations and they illustrate a striking contrast in worlds of knowledge and understanding. Rhoda Howard-Hassmann considers reparations from the perspective of normal social science, specifically from a social movement perspective, whereas Rodney Coates does so from the perspective of social justice. These paired pieces have different epistemological foundations, and those who participate in the online discussion on our Web site should recognize that Howard-Hassmann is treating reparations from a distinctively sociological perspective whereas Coates is deliberately blurring the lines between interpretation, criticism, and practice that W.E.B. Du Bois advocated doing. Please go to our Web site to join this conversation.

Besides these pieces, there are eleven outstanding articles in this issue: two on networks, four on mobilization and social movements; three on the military, and two on gender and equity for women. Please read these pieces understanding that the authors have all worked hard to communicate complex ideas and methodologies within given literatures and traditions while at the same time writing to reach a broader sociological audience.

It may be useful to mention a few editorial practices that I have introduced. Not all manuscripts that arrives is sent out for review. I have sought advice from the advisory board about diverting some papers to specialty journals, and, in particular, I am giving precedence to sociology pieces that relate to other social sciences and the core of sociology. I have turned back specialized papers in the areas of criminology, public health, and urban planning. Also, I occasionally reject pieces on the basis of a single extremely negative review when, having read the paper myself, agree with the reviewer.

We are launching a few e-publications. Some of these will be articles, and they will be archived with JSTOR and Project Muse and are therefore indexed in many of the abstracting services that Social Forces normally uses, such as Sociological Abstracts. Others will be public sociology pieces -- fresh...