THE “END” OF MARRIAGE*

This article addresses four different meanings of the “end” of marriage. It rejects the broad interpretive assertion that Lawrence v. Texas and Goodridge v. Department of Public Health signal the destruction of the institution of marriage, though both are criticized for politicization and feeble legal analysis. Those decisions have provoked a backlash that may contribute to a rediscovery of and re‐valuation of the importance of the institution of (conjugal) marriage, as passage of state marriage amendments suggests. If Goodridge and Lawrence show that genderless unions are the ultimate form of marriage, they would lead to the end of democratic society as well as of the institution of marriage. The fragmentation of marriage by reduction to functional relationships is myopic. While current developments may make it harder for the institution of marriage to thrive, the institution of marriage is “here to stay.”     

ANGRY AGGRESSION AMONG THE “TRULY DISADVANTAGED”*

Violent incidents arising out of trivial conflicts and insults have been explained by subcultural theories of violence, but empirical support for those theories has been lacking. Recent cognitively oriented research on anger and aggression is combined in this analysis with W. Wilson's (1987) arguments about the “truly disadvantaged” to revise those theories. An individual-level theory explains the violent incidents, and an aggregate level theory explains the distribution of those incidents among social groups. A subculture of angry aggression arises under conditions of social isolation, when multiple feedback loops result in concentration effects.     

“CRACK,” STREET GANGS,AND VIOLENCE*

This investigation considers the connections among street gangs, “crack” cocaine, and violence associated with crack distribution during the initial years of crack proliferation. Data were extracted from the narcotics investigation files and homicide fires of five Los Angeles Police Department and Sheriff's Department areas where both crack and gangs were prominent. The aims were to compare for 1983–1985, when crack first emerged as a significant problem, hypotheses about (1) gang involvement in crack distribution and (2) concomitants of gang involvement, particularly violence. The analyses confirm a dramatic growth in crack sales, an accompanying increase in gang members involved, but a declining rate of involvement, and inconsistent evidence on the impact of gang involvement on sales events. We infer that crack distribution, while including many individual gang members, was not primarily a street gang phenomenon.     

“Dangerousness” within a juvenile institution

Experiments were conducted to test three hypotheses within a maximum security juvenile institution: (1) that the Overcontrolled Hostility (OH) scale, the Socialization (So) scale, and the Hand Test may be used to differentiate dangerous from nondangerous inmates; (2) that an instrument can be constructed that will differentiate dangerous from nondangerous youths; and (3) that there is a negative correlation between staff's perception of a youth's degree of dangerousness and their desire to not work with dangerous youths.The So, OH, and Hand Test were administered as was a twenty-five-word adjective checklist (the “TB”) with four response levels so that low scores signified dangerousness. A questionnaire produced a list of subjects with whom staff wanted to work and those with whom they did not want to work.The hypothesis that the So scale, the OH scale, and the Hand Test could discriminate between dangerous and nondangerous “subjects” was not confirmed. The hypothesis that an instrument could be constructed that would differentiate dangerous from nondangerous youths was confirmed. The hypothesis that staff's perception of dangerousness affects their working relationship with youths was solidly confirmed.     

The Odyssey of the Regulatory State: From a “Thin” Monomorphic Concept to a “Thick” and Polymorphic Concept

This article assesses the “odyssey” of the regulatory state from a mere American thin and monomorphic concept to a global, thick and polymorphic concept that captures some of the more important features of the capitalist–democratic state. The burgeoning literature on the regulatory state presents a confusing number of images and characterizations that are increasingly conflicting, and it too often presents a monomorphic conception of the regulatory state. The article suggests that we need to define the regulatory state rather than merely characterizing it. And we need to do so in a manner that will allow us to move beyond the specific institutional features of a certain era, nation, region, or sector. Rather than contrasting regulation with distribution and redistribution, and contrasting the regulatory state with other forms of state, I treat the regulatory state as one morph of the polymorphic capitalist state, a morph that may help constitute other morphs (such as the welfare state and the developmental state) instead of replacing them. This in turn may help remove the artificial walls between the regulatory scholarly community and other social scientists, and promote more fruitful social science.