RONALD L. TAYLOR University of Connecticut critical crossroads which may lead to new rigor and vigor in doing exactly that. In 1996, an issue of The Gerorltologist carried a group of papers on aging and the life course, followed by integrative comments from Matilda Riley. I believe she startled some readers by warning against what she labeled "life course reductionism." To some of us, she put her finger on phenomena we had found troubling. At the fiftieth anniversary of the Gerontological Society, I gave a brief presentation on sociology and gerontology. For lack of a better word, I expressed concerns about "microfication" in gerontology. For several reasons, the field has become increasingly oriented toward individuals, their current problems, and their immediate environments. Riley keeps reminding those who focus on "successful aging" that this is a matter of social structure, of societies aging well, as much as it is a project for individuals and their networks. In an eye-opening piece, Angela O'Rand and Richard Campbell (in Bengtson and Schaie 1998) draw an interesting parallel between aging research and work in epidemiology. They warn against an "individual risk factor bias," which limits our capacity to incorporate "fundamental causes," i.e., basic social conditions, in our analyses of aging. Arguing that current work tends to focus on proximate environments and recent events, O'Rand and Campbell suggest that we now need to make good use of a new class of statistical tool: multilevel models. These tools allow us to explore linkages among individual and contextual variables, and allow us to build further on insights gained through a previous favorite in life course research: event history models. The authors further argue that rapidly growing data bases on multiple aspects of aging in many societies provide unprecedented possibilities for strong comparative studies. Comparisons can address linkages between indiitical crossroads which may lead to new rigor d vigor in doing exactly that. 19 6, an issue of The Gerorltologist carried a oup of pa ers on aging a d the life cours , folvidual lives and levels of social context, which may change at different rates. This approach speaks to some of the concerns expres d in a paper by Dannefer and Uhlenberg (in Bengtson and Schaie 1998). In a statement that is bound to disturb many colleagues, they argue that in much life course research, including the work by Elder, "social context" is represented primarily by early life experience, which is then carried through time within the person. In other words, there is little attempt to analyze how the preserlt social structure is affecting individual aging outcomes. Again, it would seem that comparative work could shed light on how changing and contrasting contexts affect individuals of different ages. Seriously considering the complex challenges raised in some of these publications potentially might bring us back to classic sociological thought about age, social integration, and inequalities. But the study of aging also might actually make sociology wiser!