FROM A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE, THERE ARE TWO MAJOR METHODS OF STUDYING SOCIAL PHENOMENA. ONE IS TO OBTAIN OVERALL DATA ON THEIR INCIDENCE AND RELATE THEM TO VALUES OF OTHER VARIABLES BY USING STATISTICAL METHODS IN ORDER TO MAKE SOME MEANINGFUL AND USEFUL GENERALIZATIONS. THE OTHER CONCENTRATES ON WHY A CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGES IN DEVIANT BEHAVIOR WHILE ANOTHER DOES NOT. A MAJOR DIFFICULTY IN CONDUCTING SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH IS THE MULTIPLICITY OF CONFLICTING AND OVERLAPPING DEFINITIONS OF TERMS. WHILE POWER CONVEYS ON ITS POSSESSOR THE CAPABILITY TO USE FORCE, FORCE CAN BE BE DEFINED AS THE APPLICATION OR EXERCISE OF POWER. VIOLENCE IS DEFINED AS THE ILLEGITIMATE USE OF FORCE. TERRORISM IS THE APEX OF VIOLENCE. ACCORDING TO MOTIVATIONS OF TERRORIST GROUPS, TERRORISM CAN BE CLASSIFIED AS PSYCHOPATHIC, IDEOLOGICAL, AND PRAGMATIC. FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO SOCIAL CHANGE ARE ECOLOGICAL OR ICONIC. WILL, OR THE DETERMINATION TO ACT, DEPENDS ON THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: RECOGNITION OF THE GAP BETWEEN THE IDEAL AND THE ACTUAL, CATHECTION OF THIS GAP, AND VOLITION THAT LEADS TO THE DECISION TO USE POWER IN ORDER TO CLOSE THE GAP. DISCONTENT IS AT THE HEART OF THE SOCIAL CHANGE PROCESS. IT VARIES DIRECTLY WITH THE LEVEL OF ASPIRATION AND INVERSELY WITH THE LEVEL OF ATTAINMENT. MODERNIZATION HAS HAD AN IMPACT ON THE PROPENSITY FOR VIOLENCE AND CONTRIBUTES THROUGH SOCIAL ORGANIZATION TO EXPANDING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR VIOLENCE AND TERRORISM. CHANGES IN THE UNDERSTANDING OF VIOLENCE AND TERRORISM AND IN ATTITUDES ARE NEEDED IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE THESE PROBLEMS. LONG-RANGE SUGGESTIONS FOR LOWERING THE PROPENSITY TOWARD VIOLENCE ARE GIVEN PRECEDENCE OVER SHORT-RANGE POLICIES. ILLUSTRATIONS OF AND TABULAR DATA ON POWER, FORCE, VIOLENCE, AND TERRORISM AND A SCHEMATIC OF A MODEL OF CHANGE ARE PRESENTED. NOTES ARE INCLUDED. (DEP)