SOCIOLOGICAL APPROACH TO SOCIAL PROBLEMS

The Sociological Perspective

Sociology starts with the notion of a "social environment" which surrounds and influences our everyday lives. Sociology sees people's behavior and self-identity as largely shaped and controlled by this environment and people's fate in life (outcomes, life chances) as largely determined by that environment. In other words, sociology starts with a cause and effect model where behavior and outcomes are effects caused by the social environment. The social environment is a complex mix of groups, organizations, networks, situations, institutions, ideas, attitudes, sanctions, power, etc. which exists "out there," i.e., pre-existing our individual lives and independent of individual control. "Out there" means this environment is an objective (vs, subjective) reality with its own properties, dynamics, and causal powers. Analytically the social environment has two aspects (dimensions): structural and cultural (material and symbolic). In reality these aspects are highly intertwined together and reciprocally shape each other but they can be separated out analytically. Structural aspects are the (more-or-less) solid forms of social life and the relations within and between these forms, e.g., the way things social life is organized into stable patterns. Structural aspects can include such things as groups, organizations, networks, status positions, demography, stratification systems, power relations, institutions, world systems, etc. Most of time sociologists mean the makeup and effects of the economy and political system (money and power) when referring to structural aspects. Cultural aspects are the symbolic systems (especially language) which provide people with the meaning of things, e.g., how to interpret the world. These symbol systems are the ways of classifying and categorizing things which shape people's perception, motives, and strategies of action. In reality the structural and cultural (material and symbolic) shape and influence each other. Symbols construct the social objects (the "things") which make up the structural dimension. Once created, these things take on a life of their own (become structural) and impact the people living in the social environment and how people experience life (interpret it). But because they're products of symbolic construction, these structures can be challenged and changed, although with great difficulty, by the people living in these structures and using these symbol systems. The social environment is structured into three level: macro, meso, and micro. It's useful to envision them as arranged in concentric circles, with the micro nested inside the meso and the meso nested inside the macro.

Macro Mes o

The micro (small) level is where you find people in face-to-face and mediated interaction, usually in small group settings. For many of these interactions the people assume limited identity and occupy a specific social position (e.g., teacher, student, customer, employee) and most interaction is governed by the rules of behavior for people in these positions. The micro is the level of everyday situations so it is the one we, as persons, experience directly and are most familiar with. At the opposite extreme is the macro (large) level of the whole society and the global system. This level is organized into institutions which provide the society with solutions to the problems of social

Micro

Sociological Approach to Social Problems

organization (e.g., producing new members - the family as an institution). So long as these institutions work as designed, the society continues to survive and supply the necessary conditions for its members (people at the micro level) to live and interact. Institutions also create the identities which people take on when interacting, the objects they orient themselves around during interaction, and rules they use to guide interaction. The macro is the level of demography where population structures (e.g., life expectancy, age pyramid, sex ratio) form the long-term context for institutions and interaction. The macro is also the level where societal-wide stratification systems (class, race, gender, age) are formed and grounded. Stratification distributes societal resources unevenly (inequality) and create groups of haves and have-nots. Between these two levels is the meso (in-between, intermediary) level of groups, organizations, and networks which are larger than small groups (beyond the micro level) and make real and concrete the macro phenomenon of institutions and stratification. The meso level is where the "society's work" gets done, where the institutional goals of the society are make into concrete goals and strategies of action. At the meso level the "technologies of social life" carry out institutional goals and create the arenas (settings) for micro-level interaction. All of this gives us a basic sociological model: Society structured as a set of institutions, system of stratification, and cultural systems Groups and organizations which carry out institutional goals Groups and categories created by the hierarchical stratification of resources Interaction patterns created by institutions, groups, organizational structures, and stratification Life chance (outcomes) determined by institutions and stratification

Simplified, sociological analysis focuses on five "things": Institutions Culture Stratification systems Organizations Status positions and categories

Gap Model of Social Problems

The notion of social problems can be pictured as a "gap" between reality and expectation.

For a problem to exist, someones expectation has to be disappointed, thwarted, etc. Problems only exist when theres a gap. No gap, no problem. We have expectations about how the social world should work. They are our images of the good society. Social problems emerge when social reality does not live up to these expectations about quality of life, health, opportunity, prosperity, security, etc. Social problems, then, are social conditions that have been identified as negatively impact peoples lives. 2

Sociological Approach to Social Problems

What constitutes "harm" (negative outcome) is distinguished on three levels: Societal level Society is falling apart (breakdown, collapse, threat to survival) Dysfunctional side-effects of institutional processes Lack of invest in necessary infrastructure and processes of societal reproduction Individual level Significant decrease in life chances Systematic, structural disadvantage Marginalization or exclusion Cultural level Unrealized values (broken promises) High rates of deviance Harm (negative outcomes) at the societal level are seen as threats to everyone (all citizens, the whole population), although in reality it is usually more threatening to some more than others. Harm at the individual level is relative, i.e., some groups or categories of people are negatively impacted more than others (haves vs. have-nots). Harm at the cultural level is not "real material harm" but threat to some ideal, value, moral code, or norm. When comparing reality and the ideal, sociological analysis uses three implicit criteria to define the gap: 1. Moral Principles of justice, equity, non-exploitation, even-handedness, fairness, decency, equal opportunity, etc. These imply the "good society" depends upon meeting certain ethical obligations to every member of the society. Such obligations are very relevant to a society which promises citizenship and democracy. 2. Pragmatic Principles of efficiency, productivity, practical, utilitarian, cost effective, etc. These imply the "good society" is one that produces abundance and comfort for the greatest number of people. 3. Social Stability -- The "good society" is one where things are done the way they are supposed to be done so that the "optimal" outcomes can be achieved easily, cheaply, and predictably.

Sociological Analysis of Social Problems

Sociology uses two approaches, or sets of questions, when analyzing social problems. These approaches are not mutually exclusive but actually very complimentary. We dont have to choose between them but can switch back and forth to strengthen the insights of each. Dysfunctional System Imagine society as a system with each part (each institution) fitting and working together to bring about an "optimal outcome." A car engine is such a system, so is a computer. The "optimal" end for society is creation and maintenance of whatever is necessary for people to enjoy a secure, healthy, and productive life. The "good society" is one where things are done the way they are supposed to be done so that the "optimal" outcomes can be achieved easily, efficiently, and predictably.

Sociological Approach to Social Problems

Although, ironically, in reality some groups and types of people (the "haves") get to enjoy the "optimal" level while, for others (the "have-nots") society's functioning is "sub-optimal," at best. Even more chilling, optimal functioning for the "haves" often relies upon sub-optimal outcomes for the "have-nots." This is one way we to define exploitation, domination, privilege, and advantage. From this macro-level perspective, each institution or institutional practice must work properly if the whole society is going to be stable and produce an "optimal" outcome. Therefore, social problems occur when institutions fail and/or create outcomes that disrupt the system. We can use a simple functional model to analyze social problems as dysfunctions: 1. Start by figuring out what has to be accomplished (on a collective level) for the society to survive in its present form. For instance, any society needs people trained in the skills and knowledge necessary to run that society's technology. 2. Identify the location(s) within the society (the institutional domains) where those things are supposed to be accomplished. 3. Figure out what other institutions depend on these things being accomplished 4. Determine the success or failure of designated institutions in accomplishing their functional goals 5. Explain why this institution is falling short of accomplishing these goals 6. Project outward and explain the larger consequences of these failures for the whole society and people's lives living in that society Rather than starting from the society, we can do the same analysis starting from the institution (this is the approach we'll be using most this semester). To do this, ask a series of questions: 1. Why does this institution exist? What are its purposes? 2. What other parts of society depend on this institution? 3. How well is this institution doing its job? 4. What the implications for other institutions and the society as a whole if this institution malfunctions or falls short? Adverse Outcomes A basic sociological tenet is that people's chances in life for the "good things" (security, health, income, happiness, etc.) depend upon the social conditions surrounding them. These conditions, eg, housing, schools, jobs, government policies, social support, family structure, etc., provide resources and mental models. Without enough resources and/or the right kind of resources, people's life chances are diminished and they experience adverse outcomes (social problems). Without the right kind of mental models, people's life chances are diminished because they lack motivation, knowledge, abilities, etc. Social problems occur when certain social conditions seriously impede the chances of people to live the kind of life we expect they are entitled to live. At the heart of this perspective is the recognition of the effects of stratification where some groups dont experience "a problem" while other groups are negatively affected, sometimes severely. Again, but from a different perspective, this brings out the processes of exploitation and domination which are implied in social problems.

Sociological Approach to Social Problems

Often underlying this approach to social problems is an analysis in terms of moral principles, such as, of justice, equity, non-exploitation, even-handedness, fairness, decency, equal opportunity, etc. These imply the "good society" depends upon meeting certain ethical obligations to every member of the society. Such obligations are very relevant to a society which promises citizenship and democracy and they are closely tied to the agenda of rights (civil, social, and economic) and equal opportunity.
Although powerful as an analysis, using moral criteria creates difficulty when analyzing social problems. It's so easy to give morality lip service but difficult to live up to it. Often addressing the moral issues raised by social problems demands sacrifice from the "haves" and most people are not ready to make such sacrifices unless they benefit directly (self-interest). Most people have the attitude of "I'm not suffering from this social problem so why should I care? I feel sorry for those who are suffering and I know it's not fair but I'm not affected and, besides, I'll have to give up something to make things better for them. Let them solve their own problem, it's probably their fault anyway." As a result social problems can be ignored, lamented, analyzed, talked about, etc. but little or no real action or remedy is forthcoming.

Closely related to this is the analysis of social problems as "failed cultural promises," e.g., failure to live up to the culture's values and ideals. This interpretation sees cultural values set of "promises." For instance, our society's culture promises such things as equality, equal opportunity, individual freedom, etc. When society doesn't deliver on these promises, then a problem occurs. We can use a simple "what/who/why" model to analyze adverse effects. This asks what kinds of effects, adverse and otherwise, does the social environment have on people's lives and who is impacted adversely and who benefits, or is neutral. Then the analysis asks why certain groups are affected adversely while others are not. In other words, the analysis asks for a description of the life chances experienced by different groups and an explanation of the differences between these life chances. When looking for "what/who/why," sociological analysis use one or both of these methods: Statistical comparison between the social outcomes of different groups, e.g., racial groups, gender, people with different education levels, income groups, regional groups, etc. Trend analysis comparing how it is today with the situation in the past and projecting trends into the future.

Social Problems of Modernity

We live in a modern society so the social problems of our society are fundamentally shaped by the contours of modernity. With that in mind, let's look at the general conditions created by modernity that give rise to social problems. First, the complexity of modern society makes it fragile and prone to societal-wide social problems. This complexity is an necessary outcome of the structural differentiation that characterizes modern society. Differentiation occurs when areas of life, e.g., education, military, sports, media, etc., form themselves into semi-autonomous, specialized institutions. When that happens, then society depends on the interconnection and interdependence between these institutional sectors. If all institutions perform as expected, e.g., if they carry out their specialized tasks, then great, but if any sector becomes dysfunctional or breaks down, then the whole system (whole society) is in trouble. Second, the pace of change, an effect of institutional differentiation, creates social problems on two levels. First, because of institutional interdependence, if one or more institutions changes more rapidly 5

Sociological Approach to Social Problems

than others, then instability can occur. Think of the problems caused by the hyper-rapid developments in technology in our society and the problems that causes for media, family, education, etc. Second, people have to deal with change. If it's gradual enough, they can adapt, but if it's very rapid and continual then anxiety, stress, anomie, helplessness, etc. can occur. Third, modern life tends to undermine primary groups. Good examples of primary groups are family, friends, and community. We depend on these groups for emotional support, financial support, and a place to escape from the rat race atmosphere of everyday life. They are our "haven in a heartless world." They are the only truly non-market areas of social life left in modern society. But modernity is harsh on the family and other forms primary group relations. Modern life makes it difficult to create and sustain these relationships. When it does, then we, as people, are exposed to the constant harsh, unforgiving realities of the market-driven, impersonal, stressful, and uncaring processes of modern life. Fourth, modern society tends to be very environment unfriendly. At the heart of modernity are the processes of industrialization and economic growth. Both of these require the escalating use of raw materials and energy and the continual destruction of natural habitat. We see nature as our "supplier" and "playground" and we give little thought to the effects on the natural environment. Additionally, we use nature as our "dumping ground," spewing into the atmosphere and into the ground the waste products of our way of life. As a consequence, modern society is increasingly faced with such potentially devastating problems as climate change (global warming), limits on fossil fuels (energy crisis), pollution, and species extinction. Fifth, modern society is increasingly a global society. While globalization itself is not necessarily a problem, it tends to create several problems. First, globalization, by necessity, disrupts and destroys local economies. Jobs are lost, industries disappear, wages stagnate or go down. Second, globalization tends to depress wages in income in developed countries, leading to increasing inequality. Third, while the economy may go global, many institutions, especially political ones, stay national, leading to disconnect and an inability to address social problems (think climate change). Finally, globalization means more societies (China, India, Brazil) are undergoing economic development. As these societies come "on line," the environmental destruction discussed above increases exponentially. Sixth, the heterogeneity of population in modern societies, the incredible mix of ethnic groups, racial groups, religions, sexual orientation, age groups, etc., contributes to social problems. It is difficult for such different groups to live peacefully together, although America has been remarkable successful on this score. Even with general peace there tends to be an underlying distrust and chronic tension between coexisting groups undermining attempts to define and solve social problems. Heterogeneity makes it difficult to create and maintain cultural consensus on priorities and solutions. Seventh, modern societies are class societies. Not only does this create inequality in income, wealth, and standard of living which is the source of many social problems but creates a fundamental cleavage in what are considered to be social problems and in how to address them. Many of the society's social problems negatively impact the have-nots more than the haves (that is almost inherent in the very nature of stratification) and, even more importantly, many of the conditions creating social problems for the havenots actually work to the benefit of the haves. So solving social problems often requires sacrifice by the haves, something they are not inclined to do and have the power to resist. Also population heterogeneity tends to be correlated with stratification so that the society is structured into dominant and minority groups, something that reinforces this fundamental cleavage.

Sociological Approach to Social Problems

Finally, modern societies tend towards democratic political structures. The very nature of democracy means more things are defined and treated as social problems. Democracy allows almost all groups and sectors in the society to have access to the election and lobbying processes thus putting multiple pressures on governments to address the concerns from all of these groups and sectors. This naturally puts many things on the social agenda as social problems. But this broad, liberal approach to social problems also tends towards political gridlock. Each group is fighting for its definition of social problems but there are only finite resources to solve these problems. Infinite problems championed by multiple groups struggling for finite resources often means government paralysis or inadequate responses. Additionally, government action itself (public policy) often has the unintended consequence of creating new social problems. With this as background, let's do a more concrete list of social problems associated with modern societies (some of these we will study in-depth): Family - The traditional family is rapidly being replaced by new forms of family life. While not a problem in itself, the radical nature and rapid nature of the change create social problems. Generally modern society is rough on family life, making it difficult to form and maintain families. Education - As societies become more modern, education becomes exponentially more important. Schooling itself is a modern invention but the promises of an education and the forms we use to educate are becoming increasingly difficult to achieve. Opportunity - Nothing may be more fundamental to modernity than the promise of prosperity and opportunity but providing that prosperity and opportunity are becoming increasingly difficult. In addition, the economic growth need for both is increasingly creating environmental crisis. Health and Health Care - Long life and general good health are fundamental life chances and access to the modern science of health care is a fundamental promise. The stress of modern life plus its effects on the natural environment make health difficult to achieve, and stratification creates health disparities between groups in modern society. Population - Population growth is major side effect of modernity. The vast majority of the humans that have ever lived have lived in modern societies. But the Earth remains the same. Overpopulation and the stress it puts on the natural environment are fundamental problems for modern societies. Environment - Industrialization and economic growth, both essential to modernity, destroy the natural environment. When it was young (nineteenth and first two thirds of twentieth century), this wasnt a problem for modernity but with maturity, nature is kicking back. We are reaching the natural limits that the natural environment can sustain the modern way of life. Climate change, energy shortages, food and water shortages, and poisonous pollution are all manifestations of this kick back. Crime and Terrorism - While not unique to modern society, the complexity of modernity accentuates these problems. Modernity thrives under social peace and relative tranquility. Violent and property crime and the fear of crime disrupt the everydayness of modern life. Terrorism and the threat of terrorism create fundamental insecurity and anxiety. Financial crime disrupt the economy. In addition, and ironically, the strategies and techniques to control crime and terrorism themselves become social problems.

Sociological Approach to Social Problems

Discrimination - Equal opportunity for all is a basic promise of modernity, to be evaluated and rewarded strictly on individual talents and achievements and not group-based identity, such as race or gender. While blatant prejudice and discrimination have largely been erased, structural forms of group-based inequality still operate in our society.

Constructing a Social Problem

The gap model seems easy. A social problem exists when some event or condition doesnt live up to our expectations, when theres a gap between expectation and reality. Things would be simple if everyone agreed about what constitutes a good society but no such consensus exists. Therefore, no consensus exists about what is or is not a social problem or how problems should be defined and framed. As a comparison, think about engineering problems. When it comes to machinery we can usually muster a consensus about running properly vs. broken down. Its clear whats expected from an air conditioner how much air at what temperature so we can easily agree when one is broken. Most people could easily identify a properly running car moves when gas pedal gets pressed, rides smoothly, gets good gas mileage, etc. and most would agree that car broken down on the side of the road is a problem. Unfortunately we dont have such clear cut standards of running properly when it comes to social problems. Not only do different individuals and groups have very different notions of how society should be and should work, processes of power decide which of these notions carries the day. Winners in the struggle for power get to define which standards are applied and, therefore, what social conditions are considered social problems. To grasp this further, compare social problems to the medical concept of disease. A disease is something that disturbs normal, optimal body functioning, a pathology resulting in identifiable symptoms. Social problems can be seen as symptoms indicating an underlying social disease. But in medicine there is a socially-recognized group of professionals (physicians) that set standards for optimal functioning and disease (officially its called the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)) and we give them the social power to interpret situations as disease according to these professionally-established standards and apply solutions (clinical medicine) based upon these standards. We dont have an ICD for social problems or socially-recognized experts with legitimate power to interpret when social problems occur and prescribe how to fix them. Instead, all we have are messy, inconclusive processes of labeling, struggle, and power. People struggle mightily over the power to make claims about whether social conditions are problems and how problems should be framed. Before moving on we need to explore one other dimension of social problems. Sometimes a social condition or behavior may be labeled as a social problem because it threatens important values, even if it doesnt actually disrupt the social order. When is abortion a social problem? Not when a large number of abortions occur but when the very idea of abortion is proposed as socially acceptable. Again, compare this to medicine and engineering. Medicine talks about health risks as conditions that may not present symptoms right now but over the long run increase the likelihood of disease and illness. Engineering defines optimal performance as a machines full potential, e.g., gas mileage or tread wear, so that a car thats not getting its best gas mileage or with tread wear below a defined safety standard (usually within 1/16th of an inch of the surface of the tire) would be defined as a problem. Like medical risk factors, suboptimal performance, or safety standards, social problems can be defined as threat to values even if the social order hasnt broken down.

Sociological Approach to Social Problems

Social problems are socially constructed when an influential group asserts (claims) that a certain social condition negatively affects a large number of people and may be remedied by some kind of policy, law, therapy, or other intervention. Notice two key terms used here: Asserts: Social problems are constructed out of and during communication, usually a mixture of mass communication, public relations, and political lobbying Influential group: Social problems are constructed by people with power making claims that certain objective conditions constitute problems worthy of social attention and political remedy Constructing a social problem means controlling the public agenda and mobilizing political resources to remedy the social condition labeled (framed) as problematic. This process is highly competitive, as various claims-makers seek to have their problem definition rather than that of a competitor accepted by the media and political decision makers. Components of the public agenda What people are talking about Policy goals of organizations Allocation of resources (money and people) in organizational budgets

Not all social conditions negatively impacting peoples lives become elevated to the status of "social problem." Some are ignored. Others are treated as natural, inevitable, resulting from personal or moral failure, or unimportant. A select few social conditions get highlighted by public attention and become transformed from personal trouble to social problem. Not all social conditions negatively impacting peoples lives become elevated to the status of "social problem." Some are ignored. Others are treated as natural, inevitable, resulting from personal or moral failure, or unimportant. A select few social conditions get highlighted by public attention and become transformed from personal trouble to social problem. For example, here are some "objective conditions" which exist today but not all of them are considered to be social problems, at least by a majority of claims-makers with power. Infant mortality rates Prevalence of hunger in the US CEO salaries and bonuses Alcohol use Legalized gambling Grade inflation Public swearing Gender wage gap Low number of prenatal clinics Legalization of gun ownership Income inequality Tobacco use Decline of religion ATM usage fees Pre-marital sex

Each of the above represents an existing condition which threatens the well-being of the United States and, in some cases, the entire world. Also all are objective conditions that really exist! But we all realize that many of them draw relatively little public concern-- Why? Four conditions must be met before an objective reality in the greater society becomes elevated to the special status of "social problem." 1. The objective condition must be perceived to be a social problem publicly. That is, there must be some public outcry. People must become actively involved in discussing the problem. Public attention becomes directed toward that social condition.

Sociological Approach to Social Problems

2. The condition must involve a gap between social ideals and social reality. That is, the condition must run counter to the values of the larger society. At the beginning of the 20th century alcohol abuse was perceived to be a very serious social problem, responsible for family breakdown, abandonment of children, accidental death at work, and violence in society. A "Temperance Movement" emerged that further consolidated public opinion to a point that people wanted to do something about it. 3. A significant proportion of the population must be involved in defining the problem. (A large proportion of the population must be concerned about the condition It must have national attention. If only a small segment of the population gets involved you have an interest group pushing for the general public to do something about the condition-- not a social problem). 4. The condition must be capable of solution through collective action by people. If no solution is perceived possible, people will resign themselves to their fate. A good example is government bureaucracy-- If everyone takes the attitude that "you can't fight city hall", government bureaucracy doesn't emerge as a social problem. Rather, it is a part of life that everyone must live with. Even if certain objective reality exists and each of the above conditions is met, there are still other factors which will determine the degree to which something comes to be perceived as a social problem. 1. If people affected by a condition are influential, or powerful, the condition is more likely to be considered a social problem than if those affected are not influential. When a condition begins to affect the white middle class, particularly those able to influence government policy, or the content of the mass media, the chances of it being considered a social problem increase substantially. Example: Hard drug addiction had been a lower class, black problem for some time before it reached the suburban white middle class. But when it began to affect middle class kids, we see the emergence of a new social problem! 2. A condition affecting a relatively small segment of the population is less likely to be considered a social problem than if it has adverse effects on a much larger segment of society. Example: The poverty of Native Americans has received much less attention than the poverty of Black Americans. Why? Native Americans are a relatively small and isolated segment of the U.S. population. African Americans are a much larger minority and are much more visible. The poverty of African Americans also has a greater impact on the middle classes than that of Native Americans. 3. A rapid increase in the number of people affected by a social condition is also important-perhaps even as important as the number of people affected! Example: People become accustomed to the prevailing levels of crime, pollution, and urban congestion-- But a sharp increase in the intensity of any of these leads to elevated public concern. One airline crash every year is grounds for concern, but not for the definition of a social problem. But, five crashes in one month will get the public's attention! 4. The mass media also plays an important role in the selection and definition of social problems. It gives selective attention to certain conditions. The liberal press will highlight certain issues while the conservative press will select others. 10

Sociological Approach to Social Problems

Example: A good example is the controversy over the Monica Lewinsky affair. The liberal press lamented it, but maintained that the larger issue was the quality of the job that the President was doing. The conservative press saw it as a basic flaw in the moral fabric of the presidency and counter to the values of the larger society. On this issue, the general public seems to have sided with the liberal position if public opinion ratings of the President's job performance are to be believed. 5. Finally, ideology plays an important role in determining which conditions are singled out as social problems. Example: If the general population has adopted a Marxist ideology, then such things as corporate power, militarism, imperialism, etc. will be perceived as serious social problems in the U.S. However, if the public, as a whole, holds conservative values then "big government," "national defense," and "declining morality" will be perceived as social problems. Ideology also determines how a social problem is defined. Conservatives and liberals agree that America has a poverty problem-- but they do not agree on a specific definition of the problem, nor do they agree on how the problem should be solved. Example: Conservatives will perceive poverty as being caused by lack of intelligence, lack of motivation, lack of the ability to delay gratification, and other personal characteristics of those who are poor. Thus, they will tend to defend the system, or in the case of radical conservatives, will argue for a dismantling of the "welfare state" and a return to the free market system. Liberals emphasize the lack of opportunity and structural factors in the system. The system must be adjusted to open up opportunity. Radical liberals will advocate overthrowing the current system of government and establishing something entirely new.

11