The Iron Law of Prohibition Purified to Steel: A General Theory of Prohibition and Intensification of Means to Ends

Roy Æ Hodges
Departments of Psychology and Sociology, Washington State University
WGSS-300: Intersections of Race, Class, Gender, & Sexuality
Dr. Lindsey Carman Williams, PhD
June 16, 2023

Author Note
Roy Hodges is a student at the Department of Psychology & Sociology, Washington State University.
The author has no conflicts of interests to disclose.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Roy Hodges, 5931 290th Ave. NE, Issaquah, WA, 28027.


Cowan’s iron law of prohibition is a theory covered by universities in address of prohibition against drugs and the increase in potencies amidst adaptations of supply and demand. That this theory is constrained to typologies of pharmacological typologies (e.g., cocaine/crack, marijuana/hashish, opiates) potentially leaves the value of the iron law of prohibition off the table of basic and applied sciences with respect to tangential or intersecting sociological spheres. Herein amidst sociological inquiry, themes are rendered and analyzed amidst four social situations for application of Cowan’s law. It is then concluded that Cowan’s law represents a basic social process applicable generally to matters of increasing prohibition and increasing potency in matters of consciousness alteration, where consciousness alteration intersects intersectionality in matters of stereotype, prejudice, and discrimination of social divisions. Confounds and alternate explanations are then offered, and concluded is a potential way in mitigating Cowan’s law in its effects through divisional redaction.

The Iron Law of Prohibition: 
A General Theory of Prohibited Means & Intensified Ends

Social divisions (e.g., race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality) had been studied extensively via positivist, constructionist, and additional perspectives of sociology. Objectivation, that is the manifestation of human expressivity through its products (Berger & Luckman, 1966), or the way in which said products “attain the character of objectivity” (p. 78), comes from the Hegalian/Marxian concept of versachlichung (i.e., “reification”; p. 222). It is asserted that this reification is the bridge between a basic social process (BSP) from externalization (i.e., projecting meaning into reality, pp. 122) toward internalization of said meanings (i.e., retrojection, pp. 78–79).

Language (i.e., objectified linguistic signification) is deemed the vehicle through which common objectivations are maintained (p. 51). Though divisions had oft been approached individually in sociology and sequentially in historiographic literature, sociologists have considered their intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1991) and matrixed domination (Collins, 2009). A question as to what produces these divisions, and their factorial intersections, producing relative deprivation to privilege amidst peoples is herein considered. Amidst this consideration, a root cause analysis (Wilson et al., 1993) in differentiating a core aspect of divisional objectivation had been the author’s topic of main concern.

In analysis, categories of Baynton’s (2001) ability-disability dimension as a potential driver for inequality shall be compared with two externalized and objectivated products of the evolutionary perspective and its subsequent application. These core categories had been linked up with stereotypes and prejudices informed by evolutionary perspectives, where these stereotypes and prejudices had informed a people’s discriminative activities. In further analysis, it shall be presented that a well-known BSP describing, predicting, and explaining phenomena surrounding,  leading up to, through, and following control of consciousness alteration—Cowan’s (1986) iron law of prohibition (ILoP)—is a theory generalizable in description, prediction, and explanation of intensification of  event scripts (e.g., sensory, perceptual, and motor behaviors) reflected in intensification of potencies of cognitive alterations in service to individual drives to satisfy arrival at homeostasis in needs (e.g., competency, relatedness, and autonomy [Deci & Ryan, 1985, 1991], need for uniqueness [Fromkin, 1970; Snyder & Fromkin, 1977], need for cognition [Cacioppo & Petty, 1982; Cohen et al., 1955] etc.). These efforts produce schemas, prototypes, and exemplars ascribing (i.e., objectivating) individual and group efforts subducting (i.e., rendering invisible) said needs.

Application of this analysis shall then turn toward examination of interchangeability of indicators across several situations to test for a generalized BSP of ILoP. Following this analysis shall be discussion, whereby awareness generalization of ILoP may present ethical challenges in spheres of family, market, and state. Subsequent discussion will be a presentation challenging prescription of application in presenting a redaction of approach leaving freedom and liberation from ILoP’s effects.

The Dimension of Ability-Disability & Survival of the Fittest

Baynton’s Root and Darwin’s Cloak. At the root of objectivated common social divisions, Baynton (2001) considered ability and its resultant inequality to be core to limitless social hierarchy. In review, Baynton’s core of ability is better operationalized as a dimension of ability-disability. An ability-disability dimension emerges through historiographic evidence of stereotype, prejudice, and discrimination amidst intersectional social division of a people (e.g., permutations of racial, ethnic, gender, class, and sexuality). Related to this ability-disability dimension, and its social behaviors, are internalized attitudinal scripts that had been served under the objectivated cloak of Darwin’s (1854) evolutionary theories addressing a “race for life”. 

Spencer’s Fittest. Subsequent evolutionary theory, Spencer’s (1864) “survival of the fittest” became common description conceptualizing species’ stereotype in thought, prejudice in feelings, and discrimination in behavior (using the model of tripartite attitude [Rosenberg & Hovland, 1960]). Baynton’s root of inequality—ability—etymologically had been observed to signify capacitance in doing or acting (Harper, 2023), and may be summed as perceived potential. Perceived potential (i.e., ability) is not only generally, but situationally attributed. For example, Blacks were at one time considered to have weak minds and considered to suffer harms from freedom (Baynton, 2001, pp. 38–39). Sub-groups of racial division compound with other divisions (e.g., race, class, sexuality).

Externalization of evolutionary processes underlying a “survival of the fittest” (i.e., the able) reified common or novel (i.e., objectivated) situations (e.g., slavery, eugenics) had served to internalize the very meanings (i.e., excuses and justifications) projected onto reality externalized. Objectified theoretical constructs thus far (e.g., externalization, objectivation, internalization etc.) are more overtly measured in behavior, but what of covert affairs in the cognitive and affective portion of attitude, and what of motivation? Motivations are oft covert and more difficult to measure outside of the controversial self-report (i.e., introspection). Yet, as the Thomas theorem states, perceived realities have real consequences (Thomas & Thomas, 1928, p. 572). Motivation in Berger & Luckman’s BSP may be in part studied through a concept seemingly out of left field, a common phrase which may, itself, have roots in the core ability-disability division though there is doubt (see MacLennan, 2018, cf. Callies, 2011, p. 74). Thusly, ILoP may be addressed.

Cowan’s (1986) Iron Law of Prohibition

Cowan’s (1986) ILoP asserts a cycle whereby, “the more intense the law enforcement, the more potent the drugs will become” (p. 27). More intense laws and enforcement (e.g., the drug war in US domestic affairs) had been perceived to drive suppliers to minimize of drug volumes/weights (i.e., bulk) and substitute concentrated/alternate forms. This response of suppliers had benefitted demand and is proposed to be regulated by self-preservation behaviors of individuals when faced with more potency. Cowan had used crack as an example of ILoP, as efforts amid a drug scare by media, government, and law enforcement painted crack as more addictive, though it is not, and that it had been used more by Blacks (Mosher & Akins, 2021, pp. 27–28). Against ILoP is the sobering reality that race (and class because of systemic racial discrimination related to evolutionary theory in ignorant application) is central to the war on drugs, where its campaigns are “often bound up with, and reinforce efforts to control and/or denigrate non-white populations” (Beckett & Brydolf-Horwitz, 2020, p. 510). Arguably these non-white populations are also more oft in poverty and working class. 

Borrowing from Baynton’s root, differentiating law enforcement as legal discrimination, and drug’s causality of cognitive alteration, ILoP had been observed as a compelling core category to sociological studies of intersectionality of social division. In literature, ILoP has suffered the same fate of theories bound up by their own exemplars (e.g., Merton’s [1938] strain theory). That theory and generalization of said theory may be overshadowed by its exemplar is not new. For example, Merton’s (1938) anomie-strain theory is regularly associated with economics being central to strain in studies of deviancy (Mosher & Akins, 2021, p. 77; Thio et al., 2018), though this “sphere” had only been used as a matter of convenience (Merton, 1938, p. 676). Merton’s own prior example of “competitive athletics” (p. 675) should be enough defeat this fixated view, yet fixation itself is a matter of a natural prohibition in matters of sustained application (i.e., habituation)—this is yet more “fitting” for research on a bio-psycho-social explanation of ILoP and is outside the scope of this research. 

It is to this end that the means of literature review and analysis asks the following questions. Is ILoP a BSP pointing to a general theory of a people’s social behaviors of factorial discriminative moderation of cognitive/behavioral alteration where causes of alteration are themselves mediated by attempts (i.e., motives) to minimize discrimination (i.e., escape detection), ease consumption, and increase potency of said causes? Are the typologies of social division themselves evidentiary of consciousness alteration and self-preservation in users of a typology and its types? In other words, does intersectionality (i.e., superposition) of discrimination against sub-types of typologies of social divisions cause intensification of attitudes in marginalized communities?


In support of these questions, this literature review had been informed by GT perspectives (Glaser & Strauss, 1965, 1967; Glaser, 1978, 2001, 2003, 2005) and super-positional literature review (Hodges, 2023), whereby core categories are identified and sampled (e.g., S1..n). Amidst these, a free category which borrows from the concept of degrees of freedom in statistical analysis is allowed to emerge (e.g., Sdf). Constant comparison of literature had then been executed representing S and its potential interchangeability across intersectional studies of social divisions and its correlated/causal effects.

In review of an initial sample of literature (S), memos had been taken, sorted, and writeups produced, whereupon S sampled for differential aspects, and S″ sampled for any gaps in theoretical pacing, gaps in communication [to the community], or salient relations between core categories that had become evident in emergent positive construction. It is in the final phases of sampling and constant comparison that Sdf is oft emergent toward most salient categories.

Theoretical Sampling. The first category sampled (S1) had been Berger & Luckman’s (1966) constructs of externalization, objectivization, and internalization. Second (S2), is Baynton’s (2001) assertion that a dimension of ability-disability is at the root of inequality. Third (S3), is Cowan’s (1986) conception of ILoP functionally fixated in the realm of criminological studies of drugs and drug. Differentiating prototypes and exemplars (i.e., interchangeable indicators) of phenomena covered by theoretical construct integrated by theory of ILoP had been attempted. This is no different than differentiating prototypes and exemplars from BSPs in social theories, seeing through interchangeability of indicator, to reveal theoretical codes relating core categories in methodological application of grounded theory (GT) perspectives of scientific enquiry. To accomplish this analysis, a brief random sampling of literature had been executed on the topic of intensity of sexuality as sex itself alters consciousness—sex itself, has drug-like effects. Unfortunately, as random sampling is not yet available in university libraries, a convenience sample forced by pre-conceived notions of relevancy had been used in analysis in selecting from search results that evidenced studies relating to intensity of sexuality, metaphor, and use of pornography along social divisions. 

That S1…3 had been well accepted in sociological study, literature review of S3 used Cowan’s (1986) original article coining ILoP to construct (i.e., prime) a conceptual operational criterion for subsequent literature selection. With ILoP’s conceptual operationalization primed in working memory, S-n targeted keywords of “sexuality prohibition”, “pornography prohibition”, “gay prohibition”, “race intensity sexuality”, “race pornography use”, “sexual intensity”. Variations of these had been input into Washington State University Library’s SearchIt platform. Article results were examined for fit and relevancy (i.e., ability) with respect evidencing ILoP through interchangeability in (a) functional alterations of consciousness and (b) social prohibition of real or perceived causes of said alteration. With respect to the sample, motivational, intentional, or volitional ascribed purpose of prohibition had been considered less relevant to examination yet was reserved as potential candidates within Sdf.

The final articles selected meeting ILoP criteria in S-n had been Böthe et al.’s (2018) study of hypersexuality, gender and sexual orientation; Keating’s (1993) study of revisionary techniques of gay and lesbian writers of color; Paasonen’s (2018) consideration of playfulness and play in sexual activity and identity; and Rothman’s (2021) study of the use of pornography in adolescents and young adults.

Analysis & Results

Prohibitive Tokenization and Hypersexuality in LGBTQ+ Communities

Böthe et al (2018) had provided evidence of hypersexuality along social divisions (e.g., gender, sexual orientation), where LGBTQ demographics self-reported higher levels of sexual compulsivity than heterosexual peers (e.g., more sexual partners, more casual sex partners, more frequent masturbation, more frequent and longer durations of pornography viewing). In advance of analysis, it had been evidenced in the authors’ literature review that this intensification had been the result of an internalization of homophobic experience (p. 2266). Large sample sizes (N = 31,883) had been used, therefore generalizing findings. It is arguable considering these findings, along with earlier literature that prohibition-like behaviors (i.e., discrimination) against individuals through population level externalization of idealized heterosexual norms (i.e., heteronormativity) had objectivized the same-sex relations (i.e., LGBTQ+ token) that had been religiously prohibited in a dominant Protestant culture that had historically discriminated against these individuals. That token theory predicts the forcing of stereotypes onto tokens, whereby individuals conform to token identity (Kanter, 1977, p. 211) supports socio-structural contributions to hypersexualized LGBTQ attitudes.

Revisionist Myths in Gay and Lesbian Writers of Color

Keating’s (1993) essay on mythmaking of “threshold people” challenging dominant patriarchal myths (e.g., western pedagogical frames [e.g., Aristotle, Socrates, etc.]) of “white womanhood” using non-western mythic material considers the boundary of the mythic vs. the literary (p. 77). In this review, Keating uncovers critique from contemporaries that mythic challenges to the literary are “unsophisticated, inaccurate, and naïve” (p. 76), yet presented evidence that mythic imagery had been used to deconstruct divisions (e.g., gender) and reconstruct new ones (i.e., deconstructive/reconstructive; p. 91). Externalization of “inside ideas” outwardly of Black womanhood, and others drew on goddess figures, nature, and emotionally charged forces of anger and fury (pp. 89–92). Historical prohibition on non-didactic forces in patriarchal ideals of white woman had been evidenced to be revised by writers borrowing from ideals of meso-American goddesses of tribes conquered by Aztecs and the Spanish (pp. 82–87). The intensity and compactness of these writings in the face of prohibition of idealized western women is notable and exemplifies Merton’s (1938) concept of rebellious replacement of cultural goals and institutional means (p. 676).

Intensification in Matters of Sexual Scripts

The intensification of sex had already been considered generally in Böthe et al., however greater consideration of sexuality in relation to feelings (i.e., affect) and thought (i.e., cognition), two components of attitude other than behavior. Paasonen (2018) considered feminist and queer affordances of concepts of playfulness and play (p. 537). Play is historically related to enablement of social connections, rapture, enthusiasm, exaltation, tension, followed by relaxation (p. 539). Some in the academic community had viewed reproductive sex of heterosexual relations as purposeful, where all other sex was not, where others distinguished between play and sex (pp. 539–540). Warning about play devoid of sex are present in literature, where the “nervous urgency of desire can push people from their zones of safety” (p. 541).

Against these perspectives are less dichotomous perceptions of the boundary between play and sex, where sex therapists consider sex toys, role play, and the skill development of each (p. 541). Sexual play and its scripts take on cultural norms, templates, scripts, and rules, along with the “fluid” destruction and reconstruction of them (p. 542). Furthermore bondage, domination, age-play, and pony play serve up greater intensity, and allow the exploration of power and mobility (pp. 542–543). The intensity of even greater forms of play, such as trauma play (i.e., BDSM) is seen to “increase, or restore, the liveliness and livability of bodies the affective capacities of which have violently truncated or cut” (Hammers, 2014; as cited in Paasonen, 2018). The greater the intensity of sexual play is associated with stigma associated with it, and there are risks to its disclosure public (Bezreh et al., 2012).

Pornographic Use in US Adolescents and Young Adults

A large difference in the use of pornographic material in US adolescent and young adults evidence that heterosexual young adults learn most from pornography and their sexual partners, where gay and lesbians learn most from media and healthcare clinicians (Rothman et al., 2021). Black youth are more informed by non-sexually explicit media and parents than white youth. Hispanic adolescents are more likely to lean on parents than white youth as well.

That pornography itself is a visual audio medium easily transported, where today’s technology can carry the world’s library of freely accessible porn to be accessed anywhere and anytime is akin to the intensification of potency of consciousness alteration and its singular indicator of cause most oft considered drugs. While Rothman et al. reveal that there is less self-reported porn use in learning about sexuality amidst gay and lesbian youth and young adults associated with hypersexuality, it may be interpreted differently—prohibition on play and sex in heteronormativity may drive heteronormative youth and young adults to intensification of sexuality through pornography; intensification of sexuality in heteronormative US domestic youth is already evidenced by Schalet’s (2011) study of sexuality of American vs. Dutch youth.


Cowan’s (1986) ILoP, when differentiated to its functional and behavioral characteristics where typologies of its interchangeable indicators are abstracted, reveals application beyond drug wars, drug regulation, and the enforcement(s) of said regulation. ILoP is a sociologically relevant BSP applicable in studies of intersectionality and domination. Kanter’s (1977) token theory had become the most salient core emergent category of Sdf, and had offered compelling explanatory power alongside Berger & Luckman’s (1966) BSP of externalization, objectivation, and internalization. It is in this intersection that interactions demonstrate micro- to macro-level prohibitions arbitrarily administered through excuses and justifications recalled, present, or anticipated reactions to these prohibitions (i.e., techniques of neutralization, accounts; Scott & Lyman, 1968; Sykes & Matza, 1957) of minority/tokenized sub-divisions of social divisions leading to intensification of attitudes (i.e., thoughts, feelings, and behaviors) within those divisional typologies.

That LGBTQ+ communities oft celebrate sexuality (e.g., drag queens, pride parades, public play) and heterosexual youth and young adults turn to porn more oft than LGBTQ+ peers in matters of learning about sexuality demonstrates that no community is left out of ILoP. The effects are layered, complex, and super positioned for against each social division’s prohibitions are each social division’s intensifications. Considering this, one may consider a natural consequence, that of the rogue waves of intersecting social divisions (e.g., race, gender, sexuality, class) concomitant intersecting prohibitions (e.g., racial-intermixing, gender ascribed roles, censored public displays of sexuality, gated scientific recognition) inviting reactive intensification (e.g., this research). In this consideration there may be a time where a social prohibition is so vast, touching so many, or one with utmost prohibition, that the “iron” in ILoP is purified to steel, stainless, where the impurity of iron is itself, prohibited—until a people discovers purified/alternative substances altogether more easily transportable and more potent. Yet what is more potent than the drug-like effects of language in altering consciousness?

ILoP in the Furry Community. Turning to a more recent prototype of ILoP, it is no surprise therefore that there are entire communities of individuals exploring identities, meeting at conventions, to meet up in hallways and corridors as their true selves, adorned in intensely costly materials to engage in relations prohibited in general society, and for some these are sexual. Perhaps prohibitive effects against the indigenous, the native, the natural, and the sexual is evidenced in a newly formed community, though not new in its relations with cultures outside of dominant ethnocentric patriarchy. The potency of choice biography is nowhere more potent than in the individual expressions of covert-overt diversity in attitudes of the furry. The furry community is intense in the face of what appears as a prohibition identifying with a diversity of biological forms of nature. It is a community potent and finds ways to transport its gear and identity undiscovered, unknown, minimally, and anonymous. That this community’s identity, and real self can be redacted at will is evidentiary of the power of ILoP purified of iron’s impurity. 

Ethical Implications

Despite these social movements, there is one aspect of understanding of ILoP that is sobering. Like any independent variable discovered to moderate/mediate a dependent variable it controls, strain inducing market structures invite adaptive manipulation. That humanity is already aware of ILoP invites a serial position effect benefitting aggregated power to manipulate prohibition in pursuit of said power’s desired social intensification. Knowing this one merely need connect (via causal relations) the prohibited to the intensified, where once it was more random, and now more controlled. The author sees these attempts as no different than desiring to develop a halting problem invalidated trolly problem (Turning, 1937) of Maxwell’s (1871) demon sorting energetic valence (i.e., heat) as applied to discriminative social control.  ILoP was made public in theory in 1986, and it has been 37 years since at the time of this writing—that, at the time of this writing, had been four decades to increase its precision in application.

As often with research of national security, theories made public are oft preceded by theories protected private. Even ILoP affects enforced prohibition on publicizing theories in support of national security. Sneakers’ Seatec Astronomy is alive and well. Against nature’s prohibition against immortality, omniscience, and omnipotence… re-birth, re-discovery, and [red-acted] are perhaps the fittest ability intensifications of them all. The myth joins the literary. Such is the play and relaxation—a petition drafted—<re|ad>dressing the long put off compounded grievance of inequality.

Limitations & Theoretical Issues

Unfortunately, due to the brief time allotted to this literature review, and limited funds, theoretical coverage in breadth and depth had not yet considered alternate and contentious perspectives, though the author does not particularly subscribe to these forms of philosophical methodology. It is possible that while there are neurocorrelates to ILoP, which the author does find evidence in advance of, there are most likely intersections of schemas, prototypes, and exemplars concomitant in the psychology of individual to collective (i.e., individual to social psychology). It is altogether possible that ILoP is an illusory phenomenon socially constructed, and that a simpler Occam’s Razor explanation may offer a revealing operationalized measure of its cause and effect (e.g., the role of the cortical midline structures in amplifying/attenuating saliency hierarchies dependent on repeated impressions of event scripts [e.g., turning away from, turning toward] rooted in childhood to adult development).

Another limitation, because of insufficient time and resources, is the consideration of self-regulation and control amidst increasing potency of drug-like effects in matters of various methods and means of cognitive alteration in the situations analyzed. It is possible that through subsequent research, specific means related to said self-regulation and control of ILoP’s intensified cause(s) may be discovered. However, the author cautions future theoretical researchers and emphasizes seeing through the interchangeability of regulation and control’s prototypes and exemplars through to underlying phenomena. Further research in this area would complete and round out a full mediation model with respect to ILoP helpful in matters of individual, family, market, and state.

There are most likely confounds at play in cursory research of ILoP, requiring greater controls. For example, across history, greater investments in preservation of childhood may confound some of the effects of ILoP in this research’s analyzed situations. It is possible that greater freedom amidst a generalized to localized youthful life course had led to greater shocks in transitions to fixated industrial-era structured hierarchies dependent on replenishment of peoples in the maintenance and continuation of said hierarchies. This may be partly explained by psychological reactance theory (PRT; Brehm, 1966), where individuals in face of real or anticipated threats to freedom, experience increased arousal (i.e., intensity of [emotional] valence), and thereby pursue restoration of said freedom. PRT in this case may offer not only an alternate explanation of ILoP, but also convergent validity in support of its generalization. However, considering that ILoP’s preceding independent variable of prohibition may be applied in matters of a dimension of freedom-work, it is no small inference to conclude that “you have to work” is a variant of prohibition against freedom at the boundary of transition from youth to adult. The contraction of this transition may itself be a result of yet another prohibition, that of the prohibition against child employment—ILoP exhibits recursive application.

With respect to possible explanations of self-regulation and control like behaviors within ILoP, additional confounds may be considered. For example, set-point theory (Hall & Heymsfield, 2009), positive/negative social appraisal (Arnold, 1960), and social desirability (see Holden & Passey, 2009) may offer additional reasonable analogies and partial explanations, though a great variety of explanations remain and would exhaust writer and reader alike. These may account for biological, psychological, and greater sociological forces summed up more easily by ILoP or more easily by respective theorizations.

Though these limitations in analysis, potential confounds, analogies, and partial/alternate explanations remain, to think outside the functionally fixated box, it seems more likely that ILoP’s intensification intersects strongly with cognitive alteration in pursuit of flow’s optimal arousal as correlated with emotional experience of joy absent self-conception (Csikszentmihalyi, 1978; Csikszentmihalyi, 2014/1982; Csikszentmihalyi & Nakamura, 2014). Flow may offer more reliable and valid measures of drug-like intensification, though it is cautioned that placebo effects in both pharmacology, therapeutic practices, and environs these are administered within are well-known in literature.

Having stated these limitations, it is suggested that greater control of potential confounds is preceded by greater operationalization of ILoP’s overtly measured independency and dependency in variability. Having said this, that ILoP may be applied intersectionally amidst a sea of social behaviors is a rich field potentially opening new doors to the regulation and control of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. ILoP finds application not only is sociological study and application (i.e., basic and applied sciences), but also psychological, governmental, economic, and military, and intelligence spheres. 


Ending a discussion at this point would be satisfactory of basic science, yet amidst a cultural frame prohibitive of basic science isolate application, favoring intensification of application (i.e., Mertonian strain adaptive innovation), it is now fitting to turn toward “what to do about” matters of efforts to manipulate through ILoP’s cause-effect relation in matters of intersections of prohibition and dominant matrices of prohibition (to stand on the shoulders of theoretical constructs, recognizing the value of citation of these themes (e.g., intersectionality [Crenshaw, 1991], and matrixed domination [Collins, 2009]). To this means [to an ends], I offer no direct resolution. It is the reader’s decision what to do with it. Therein are the degrees of freedom of evolution amidst fixed non-freedoms—a freedom of the reader from internalizations that I am most interested in. 

So rather than Spencer’s survival of the fittest, Kanter’s dominant subduction of token, and majority marginalization of minority, I am more interested in a bridge breaking (i.e., antiversachlichung) queer thriving of the curious through science, religion, and art, though not limited to these prototypes, in limitless creativity. This is the stuff matrices of division are made of, emerge from, and subduct in—such are the plate tectonics of Austin’s speech acts in permutations of common linguistic frames; and that is a “whole ’nother [factorial] ball of wax” molding internalization of joint attention to turn toward in investigation. The prohibition/intensification of Maxwell’s demon lives. As Washington State University’s Edward R. Murrow signed off with, “good night, and good luck”. 


Arnold, M. B. (1960). Emotion and personality: Psychological aspects (Vol. 1). Columbia University Press.

Baynton, D. C. (2001). Disability and the justification of inequality in American history. In P. K. Longmore & L. Umansky (Eds.), The New Disability History: American Perspectives (pp. 33–57). New York University Press.

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Penguin Books.

Bezreh, T., Weinberg, T. S., & Edgar, T. (2012). BDSM Disclosure and Stigma Management: Identifying Opportunities for Sex Education. American Journal of Sexuality Education7(1), 37–61.

Bőthe, B., Bartók, R., Tóth-Király, I., Reid, R. C., Griffiths, M. D., Demetrovics, Z., Orosz, G. (2018). Hypersexuality, gender, and sexual orientation: A large-scale psychometric survey study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47, 2265–2276.

Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press.

Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116-131.

Callies, M. (2011). Widening the goalposts of cognitive metaphor research. In A. Lohöfer, M. Callies, & W. R. Keller, Bi-directionality in the cognitive sciences (pp. 57–81). John Benjamins Publishing Company.  

Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. Routledge.

Cohen, A. R., Stotland, E., & Wolfe, D. M. (1955). An experimental investigation of need for cognition. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(2), 291–294.  

Cowan, R. (1986). How the narcs created crack: A war against ourselves. National Review, 38(23), 26-34.

Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity Politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). Toward a psychology of optimal experience. In M. Csikszentmihalyi (Ed.), Flow and the foundations of positive psychology: The collected works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (pp. 209-226). Springer. (Original work published 1982)

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Nakamura, J. (1989). The dynamics of intrinsic motivation: A study of adolescents. In C. Ames, & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Goals and cognitions (vol. 3, pp. 45-72). Academic Press.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1978). Attention and the holistic approach to behavior. In K. S. Pope & J. L. Singer (Eds.), The stream of consciousness: Scientific investigations into the flow of human experience (pp. 335–358). Plenum. 

Darwin, C. (1859). The origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. John Murray.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Perspectives on motivation (Vol. 38, pp. 237-288). University of Nebraska Press.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer Science & Business Media.

Fromkin, H. L. (1970). Effects of experimentally aroused feelings of undistinctiveness upon valuation of scarce and novel experiences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(3), 521–529.

Glaser, B. G. (2005). The Grounded Theory perspective III: Theoretical coding. Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. G. (2003). The Grounded Theory perspective II: Description’s remodeling of Grounded Theory methodology.Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. G. (2001). The Grounded Theory perspective: Conceptualization contrasted with description. Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of Grounded Theory. Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for qualitative research. AldineTransaction.

Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1965). Awareness of dying. AldineTransaction.

Hall, K. D., & Heymsfield, S. B. (2009). Models use leptin and calculus to count calories. Cell Metabolism9(1), 3-4.

Hammers, C. (2014). Corporeality, sadomasochism and sexual trauma. Body & Society, 20(2), 68–90.

Harper, D. (2023). Ability (n.). Online Etymology Dictionary

Hodges, R. A. E. (2023). Introduction and discussion as the pith to the seed of paradigmatic superpositional therapeutic relations [Unpublished manuscript]. Department of Psychology, Washington State University.

Holden, R. R., & Passey, J. (2009). Social desirability. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 441–454). The Guilford Press.

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. Basic Books.

Keating, A-L. (1993). Myth smashers, myth makers: (Re)visionary techniques in the works of Paula Gunn Allen, Gloria Anzaldúa, and Audre Lorde. In E. S. Nelson (Ed.), Critical essays: Gay and lesbian writers of color (pp. 73–95). Harrington Park Press.

MacLennan, A. (2018, March 17). Chicago Cubs history: The ‘way out in left field’ truth. Bleed Cubbie Blue

Maxwell, J. C. (1888). Theory of heat. Longman’s, Green, & Co.

Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3, 672–682.

Mosher, C. J., & Akins, S. M. (2021). Drugs and drug policy, 2nd ed. Sage.

Paasonen, S. (2018). Many splendored things: Sexuality, playfulness, and play. Sexualities, 21(4), 537­–551.

Rothman, E. F., Beckmeyer, J. J., Herbenic, D., Tsung-Chieh, F., Dodge, B., & Fortenberry, J. D. (2021). The prevalence of using pornography for information about how to have sex: Findings from a nationally representative survey of U.S. adolescents and young adults. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50, 629–646.

Schalet, A. T. (2011). Not under my roof: Parents, teens, and the culture of sex. University of Chicago Press.

Scott, M. B., & Lyman, S. M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33(1), 46-62.

Snyder, C. R., & Fromkin, H. L. (1977). Abnormality as a positive characteristic: The development and validation of a scale measuring need for uniqueness. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 86, 518–527.

Sykes, G. M., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 664-670.

Thio, A., Taylor, J., Schwartz, M. D. (2018). Deviant behavior, 12th edition. Pearson.

Thomas, W. I., &. Thomas, D. S. (1928). The child in America: Behavior problems and programs. Knopf.

Turing, A. M. (1937). On computable numbers, with an application to the entscheidungsproblem. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society Series 2, 42, 230-265.

Wilson, P. F., Dell, L. D., Anderson, G. F. (1993). Root cause analysis: A tool for total quality management. ASQ Quality Press.