In this article I revisit a number if old, yet unresolved, sociological debates in order to propose that a “redefined” standard of truth (i.e., a polyvocal standard that derives from negating the influences of coercive power) offers a means through which to develop a united theoretical and methodological framework for sociological science. I argue that, although agency (i.e., the human capacity to think and act in a novel fashion that defies the constraints of established social environments) needs to be defined in terms that are oppositional to structural constraint, agency and social structure must also be compatible and co-productive. As such, I also assert that the micro level of individual behavior is interactively linked to macro structures through the media of three dimensional power. Finally, redefined truth facilitates a broader and more inclusive definition of sociological subject matter, and creates bridges for widely disparate sociological theories, while also advocating a working alternative to the conventional definition of “good science.”

 In what follows I propose a solution to the paradox of emancipation (i.e., a theoretical impasse that results from the twin problems of relativity and coercion that one must confront when explicating the third dimension of power) by suggesting that actors have the capacity to “redefine reality” (McGettigan, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001a). This solution has implications for a number of unresolved dilemmas concerning the subject matter and methodology of sociological science. As evidenced in the three faces of power debate, conventional approaches to sociological science employ methods that are designed to suit a constrained definition of disciplinary subject matter. I argue that to successfully observe the third face of power one must expand one’s definition of “good science” to better accommodate the multi-dimensional nature of empirical reality—and, in doing so, sociologists will be able to more fully and systematically conceptualize the interactive linkages (Alexander, 1987; Ritzer, 2000b) between the various levels of sociological structure and interactivity.

Consideration of the role that power plays in the dynamics between actors and social structures varies according to one’s definition of scientific truth and influences the way one conducts sociological science. As such, critics (Collins 1991, 1997; Denzin, 1997; Seidman 1991; Smith 1991, 1996) have accused conventional sociology of imposing exclusive constraints on knowledge while also endorsing endemically unjust features of the contemporary social environment. However, such critics have been unable to develop a comprehensive substitute for the flawed scientific epistemology that they disavow. In an effort to overcome the epistemological dilemmas of standpoint perspectives, I advance a redefined standard of truth that, I argue, permits social scientists to more adequately compass the terrain of sociological subject matter and also to fashion a coherent alternative to “good science.”