Previously in my series of posts I've noted the paucity of OF-work in the sociology of the alcohol-problems field. One of the consequences of that paucity is a remarkable lack of knowledge--or even awareness, in some quarters-- regarding the on-going change in "popular paradigms" that appears to be occurring in the addictions social arena, both in the U.S. and internationally. In other words, because they have been on assignment as honest hod-carry survey epidemiologists, our sociologists have had little time to devote to comprehending the social changes going on in this problem domain. This listserv group may be an infelicitious place to bring up those changes--I'm not sure. I've been struck, for example, by how many of the topics discussed herein are in essence the classic and enduring conundrums of the addiction treatment enterprise --the limits of free will v determinism, nomothetic v idiographic knowledge, diagnostic "lumpers" v "splitters", voluntary v involuntary treatment, abstinence v maintenance, etc.--and consequently cast less attention outside the clinic door & to the wider society. That's, of course, all well and good for list comprised of therapists. The same topical focuses, however, may make my comments on social change sound...well, like a waste of time--in which case, I apologize in advance.///In my own view, however, *something* historically significant has been happening in this social arena--and I'm intrigued and mystified by it. Perhaps it will be just as well to start with more backpeddling on my previous posts--namely, to start with the confession that the recent ascendancy of the "public health model" (PHM) (there are many names for it) suggests the distinct aroma of a sociological perspec- tive. And, if that's true, then all these honest, hod- carrying, mean-no-harm-to-anybody sociologists I've been talking about just can't have been quite so *benign* as my past descriptions have painted them! Maybe gun-slinging sociologists WERE shooting-up Alcoholismville after all--after dark and with silencers!///Let me begin with some historical fundamentals. First, sociological research was not the only--and certainly not the most famous--source of troubles for the disease conception in the post-Repeal American historical context. The troublemakers were many--& some have been at it since virtually the beginnings of the new movement. In an earlier day, psychiatry had squared-off against the classical disease concept (in the Krystal-Moore debate), which marked the first big round in the dispute over whether alcoholism was better regarded as a freestanding disease entity or a mere symptom of underlying psycho- pathology. Oddly enough, and virtually from the get-go, *alcohol science itself* became a major adversary and detractor re significant aspects of the classical disease conception. For example, Howard Haggard, paterfamilias of the Yale-based alcohol research effort, wasted little time in testing and rejecting the good Dr. Silkworth's "allergy theory" of alcoholism. And Haggard was not the movement's only major scientific & therapeutic hero who placed relatively little importance upon, or denigrated outright, disease thinking. Psychiatrist, and movement hero, Harry Tiebout--who did so much to articulate the genius of AA's "surrender" ideology to the contemporary scientific community--was genuinely impatient with overblown disease-concept claims by the mid-1950s. Behaviorist psychology mounted the most notorious attack on disease ideology--and drew the most famous counterattack in the Pendery et al. (1982) assault on the Sobells' research in prestigious *Science* magazine. END OF PART V