We’ll start with poverty–what causes poverty? Is it caused by a lack of formal education among the poor? Generational ‘cultures’ that learn how to survive on welfare assistance? Government policy that ‘coddles’ the marginally motivated? Lazy individuals? Single parenthood? Income and wealth inequality? Changes in the life course (i.e., young newlyweds, retirees living on fixed income)? Sheer dumb luck–for the kids, anyway–of the birthday lottery (Denmark seems to think so)? Larger economic forces leading to unemployment (most recent trend–a ‘brain drain‘ at the federal level, which might give some a soft landing with state government)? Geography (e.g., poorly-maintained sections of inner cities, Tribal reservations, Appalachia, Gulf Coast …)? Race and ethnicity? How would we know? Can we ‘test’ some hypotheses? How does the US compare with other countries? One thing is for sure–the causes are complex, and impossible to understand without looking at both the circumstances of the individual, as well as their social location. And . . . can we understand poverty without understanding something about power in society, which groups have it, and how they use it (potentially to affect how wealth is distributed, or tax revenues redistributed)?

Divorce and ‘proximate’ vs ‘ultimate’ causation–We’re using divorce here because it provides some different ways to think about social problems, but divorce in itself isn’t necessarily a social problem–divorce can represent the end of a dysfunctional, even violent marriage and relationship (and interpersonal violence is yet another social problem), which affects not only the married couple but their dependents. Cause can be tricky, and there is a need to distinguish between ‘ultimate‘ and ‘proximate‘ causation–the things that families see as causes of divorce–differences in the family, new family members (children …) creating more stresses, economic stresses, loss of a job or other calamity (health-related, for instance), abuse and domestic violence, infidelity, age (presuming those marriages starting younger are more likely to end in divorce), etc. Those are ‘proximate‘ causes–things people can relate to because they can happen in a family or relationship. Those are things one is likely to hear in a divorce court hearing.

Ultimate causation

But there are also bigger possible causes, of a more structural nature. For instance, the economy has changed, more people (and especially more women) are in the workforce, they have more independence, financially and in how they spend their time, than they might otherwise have had. Sometimes even two incomes in the household isn’t enough (stagnant wages over the last three decades and historic inequality), where one income was sufficient 50 years ago (prices of other things have risen–housing, health care, transportation). There are cultural changes that make divorce more acceptable, some churches and religious institutions have softened their stances, popular media play a role in this as well. But divorce is often still stigmatized, and divorce has contributed to a ‘feminization’ of poverty. Women are much more likely to end up with custody of children after a divorce, in single-parent households, struggling to make ends meet often on some combination of low wage work, public assistance, and scrambling for child care.

The US welfare system hasn’t really changed in a way that reflects this changing reality of more single parent-headed households. But these are patterns in the broader society, not the result of individuals all making independent decisions, exercising their agency, detached from broader social, cultural and economic forces in society.

So what?

Now obviously, these more structural changes wouldn’t hold weight in a divorce court. It’s not like a couple could go into court and claim that ‘changing social mores or US trade policies are to blame for our failed marriage.’ But as the economy changes, stresses on the more vulnerable families will increase, and they tend to make divorce more likely. More probable. As fewer people marry, and cultural changes cast a different light on the institution of marriage (as something other than a lifetime proposition), divorce becomes more likely, even if the ‘trigger’ or ‘proximal’ events are similar (with the exception of spousal infidelity revealing itself via social media, maybe). And keep in mind . . . . one of the leading causes of divorce is . . . . marriage.

The financial crisis of 2008–There was a crisis in the early part of the 2000s, and this refers to that as well as the ‘Great Recession’ that economists say began in 2007-08. Lots of factors precipitated this–people trying to borrow more money for a house than they could afford, banks willing to lend the money, a large portion of these loans high-risk and predatory (and then sell the loans off as high-return real estate investments), government regulators failing to police lending and housing markets, people charging up too much on their credit cards, going for investment schemes that now seemed painfully too good to be true, etc. The fluidity of the capitalist economic system means people are hired and fired every day, as money circulates and investors make choices. Thousands of people. If you happen to have a job in a community where an industry has been affected by global economic forces (say, a company deciding to move its manufacturing to Asia where labor is 1/10 the cost), you will feel those changes. In a rural area, the loss of one large employer can have a lasting effect on a town’s economy (e.g., Jen-Weld in Klamath Falls). A household in debt with two incomes that suddenly loses one has maybe a few months’ before facing some hard choices. Maybe their budget has been based on two incomes, and they have to quickly make some hard choices. But occasionally, these ‘regular’ calamities faced by households become much larger events, affecting millions. Such was the case in the recent recession.

Structural causes might include financial institutions engaged in predatory lending practices taking advantage of a ‘housing bubble’ (artificial increase in the value of property, think about who might benefit from that). High risk loans that weren’t insured, creating a ‘liquidity crisis’ that industry insisted the Government needed to solve with cash (handed over to the financial industry, not people losing their homes). The regulation of investment banks was a problem that critics had identified much earlier, but the mortgage industry, investment banking, the ratings agencies (that were giving these high-risk loans AAA ratings–firms like Standard & Poor and Moody’s), and companies like AIG that were offering to ‘insure’ these bundled loans (but not being required to actually put any money away to pay off claims), were all doing well as the value of real estate continued to climb, despite the fact that people’s incomes weren’t following.

How was this possible? Credit! And high risk loans where people were hardly paying any money down, and could simply walk away from a loan where they were paying on a house whose value had dropped 25-50%. A lack of regulation/oversight on the part of government, especially the Security and Exchange Commission, as well as members of Congress relying on campaign donations from the financial services industry, courting lobbyists, and a corporate ‘police force’ (the Securities and Exchange Commission) essentially ‘captured’ by the industry it was supposed to regulate, investors in banks and other institutions looking at the short-term returns rather than the longer-term risks, financial analysts in the media whose salaries are paid by corporate advertisers benefiting from the economic investment ‘boom’ (that preceded the ‘bust’ …), etc.

Complexity

As the above suggest, the causes of social problems are complex. Be wary of ‘experts’ or politicians promoting simple causes and simple solutions–see who’s paying their salaries or funding their campaigns. And if they’re on financial news networks, see which advertisers are paying the network’s bills. And keep in mind, that in many cases, those causing the problems are benefiting in some way–they may not always be aware of it (e.g., how many of us think of increasing the likelihood of war in the Middle East or global warming when we’re filling our gas tanks?), but then those are often the most difficult social problems to address–when the majority of people benefit in some tangible way. Who wants gas prices to double or triple?

Also, causation itself is a tricky thing. Just because two things are related (e.g., education and income), doesn’t mean one necessarily causes the other. It’s usually more complex. Consider this: 1) as people gain more formal education, they increase their lifetime income earning potential. 2) as people gain more formal education and are exposed to a wider range of ideas and ways of thinking, their political views tend to become more ‘liberal.’ In addition, as people age and acquire more life experience, 3) their politics tend to become more ‘liberal’ (keep in mind, we’re talking about likelihoods, probabilities, not any given individual’s behavior). But, 4) as people earn more money–and incomes do tend to increase over a person’s working life–their views become more ‘conservative’ (in an effort, no doubt, to hold on to more of their money rather than pay higher taxes). Now these are all probabilistic statements–that means we’re talking about the likelihood of things happening, and on average people are more likely to follow those trends above, but obviously not all people do–we can’t make predictions about individuals, just averages within a population. Which is a good thing, because it means none of us are simply billiard balls being knocked around a table by pre-determined forces beyond our control. We do have some latitude to make choices. Although, sometimes, we are led to believe we’re making our own choices when we’re just following the crowd, or very good efforts of persuasion. And yet we have some measure of agency. But structures constrain those choices–class, race, gender, ethnicity, religion, geography, primary language, sexual orientation, for instance–and some people and groups clearly have fewer choices than others. Sociologists make predictions about those likelihoods based on memberships in groups or categories (race, ethnicity, gender, age, geography, social class …).

So be wary of people who talk about causation as if it’s simple cause – effect. They either are woefully underinformed on an issue, are being paid lots of money to espouse a specific point of view–as we might expect from a politician seeking public office, or a corporate CEO speaking at the annual shareholders’ convention–or are at least partially blinded by ideology and rhetoric. Makes for entertaining TV viewing. Sometimes. Often higher blood pressure. But such dialogue generates much more heat than light.