In the previous lecture page we covered the ‘social’ element, and the ‘problem’ elements. Social problems affect large numbers of people, and aren’t merely the result of individuals’ problems. It could be that what in La Grande might not seem like a big problem (e.g., racism), at least to people with light skin color, when viewed through a broader lens, is a social problem on a grander scale (and in La Grande, if your skin is not light in tone). It’s important that we consider the people being affected–it’s a problem if some of those effects are undesirable. But we can likely figure that some people will probably benefit as well. For instance, whites enjoy many ‘invisible’ privileges by virtue of their skin color–they’re more likely to see people who look like them in public places, on television, in the news, in government, as teachers (though this depends on how racially segregated or diverse an area might be), etc.

You should be getting a feel for how understanding both sides of that dynamic–some are harmed, some benefit (usually the beneficiaries are fewer than those harmed)–gives you a deeper understanding of a specific social problem, and gives you a framework, or starting point, to think about them. And don’t forget–there are always alternative conceptions of social problems–when we can’t think of any, chances are that’s a social problem in itself (hmmm . . . possible essay question in there somewhere?). The example of drinking and driving below illustrates.

Role of theory

Theories provide us with further ways to think about social problems. Theory is in a sense the language of science. We do studies and research, trying to explain something. Physicists focus on the behavior of matter and energy. Biologists on living organisms and their anatomy, classification, behavior, etc. Social scientists look at various aspects of human societies. Theory tries to explain these aspects in terms of cause-effect relationships. Social science is science–but since humans are less predictable than, say, planets, stars, or bacteria colonies, yes, social scientists have big challenges explaining and predicting.

No one is pretending to be able to predict with deadly certainty how things will turn out. Theories are generally probabilistic. That means that there is a certain probability, for instance, that something will happen. For instance, people of color are disproportionately represented in the US Armed Services. And disproportionately poor. The military provides economic opportunities. But we can’t say all people of color will enlist in the military–we can’t get into individuals’ heads. What we can say is that people of color–and of a certain age–are more likely to enlist in the military than whites. Now there are more whites in the military, but that’s because the US population is about 63% white. Non-whites are overrepresented among the ranks of the poor and the enlisted–that is, more likely than whites to consider enlistment, relative to their numbers.

When it comes to people and their actions, our theories are usually better at trying to explain them than predicting them. Theories cannot be proven, but they can be disproved, and they must be testable–that is, we need to be able to show instances when they don’t do a very good job of explaining or predicting (which then suggests the need for a broader theory). Surveys and statistical analyses represent two ways of testing theories. If we want to know, for instance, whether an abstinence-only sex education program in high school works, we can test the outcomes through various means (they don’t work–and in some cases have been shown to increase STDs where teens weren’t using any protection).

Now, what is science? Very generally, it’s a way of knowing, based on logic, observation, testing of ideas through agreed upon methods of inquiry, brought to bear on questions of how the world (in our case, the social world) works. It is wholly different than other ways of knowing, for instance through religions and faith, or through trial and error sorts of mechanisms. Social sciences have many different methods (e.g., surveys, experiments, historical methods, econometrics, field research such as anthropologists have traditionally undertaken). Science isn’t a privileged way of knowing, and in fact there is a lot of disagreement about exactly what science is or should be, but it does involve logic, observation, testing of ideas, and a fair amount of rigor.

In general, theories try to explain relationships between variables, to understand what causes what. Variables that cause things to happen are independent variables. Those that get affected are dependent variables. Go through some of the following and see if you can figure out which causes which:

• Age and criminal activity
• Gender and violent behavior
• Income level and education
• Self-esteem and body image
• Political system and social inequality
• Economic productivity and technology
• Innovation and need

Hopefully, you figured out that criminal activity can’t cause your age, or that violent behavior doesn’t determine one’s gender. That doesn’t mean that all young people are criminals, or all men are domestic abusers. That’s where probability comes in–younger people are more likely to commit crimes, domestic violence is more likely (way more likely, over 95%) men on women. Some of the above, though, are less clear, and the arrow from the cause to the effect may actually be double-sided (e.g., more education leads to higher income potential, but families with higher income can influence the education of their offspring as well). We could test some of the above variables and their relationships, and our results might support or question underlying theories.

Some theories are quite useful for thinking about social problems. Let’s briefly entertain Karl Marx’s theory of class and class conflict (by the way, this material is just to help you grasp these ideas–I won’t be testing you on Marx’s theories). Marx felt that definitions of class should center around who owned the means to produce (whether that production is agricultural, industrial, etc.)–who owned the factory, or the farm–versus who was working to produce the goods or services. In other words, Marx believed that to understand society you have to understand these two classes–the owners (or capitalists) and the workers, and class conflict between the two groups drives social change. Marx said that there are really five stages through which societies historically pass: tribal, feudal, capitalist, socialist, and communist. Within the first four are planted the seeds of their own destruction. For instance, in a capitalist system, said Marx, owners exploit workers, turning their surplus labor value (i.e., they’re underpaid) into profit. Eventually, competition leads to overexploitation of the workers, and could lead to the development of a class consciousness (that is, their shared interests in social change) and, ultimately, rebellion. Some would ask ‘then why hasn’t U.S. society rebelled and become more socialist in nature?’ Marx could say ‘just wait,’ it’ll happen. But that would make his theory difficult to test, wouldn’t it? He might also say that the U.S. has mixed enough elements of socialism and redistribution of wealth (e.g., Social security, welfare assistance programs) to keep people from figuring out that they’re being exploited (adding to that a dose of ‘commodity fetishism’, essentially the idea that Americans are so consumed with consumption, that it has become a form of worship and distracts them from the alienating nature of work and the exploitation of many in the working class by the ruling, owning class).

Hopefully, you’ll be able to see as the course wears on how Marx’s ideas might be useful in understanding or looking at certain social problems, such as the dramatic increase in wealth inequality in the US over the last three decades. Though he’s been dead for over a century, his ideas live on . . . there must be some nuggets of truth and wisdom in them, even if we can say that his theories are difficult to test and haven’t always withstood the test of time.

Marx’s ideas also have value in understanding how certain groups in society have more power over how social problems are debated in public. For instance, people who ‘cheat’ on welfare become symbols of a broken system that needs to be fixed. The ‘fix’ often involves making it harder to apply for and receive public assistance. Whereas when the chief executive officer (CEO) of a major corporation is found to have engaged in fraud–fraud that may have been very profitable for him, his company, and his company’s investors–we may be told by financial newscasts, other CEOs, perhaps even the White House, that the problems are really limited to a ‘few bad apples.’ The economic costs to society when 10,000 people are laid off or lose their pensions because of corporate crime, inevitably, leads to . .. guess what? More people needing welfare. This should give you an idea of what sorts of philosophies the media cover on debates about corruption in the private and public sector, and which are perceived as ‘worse’ or more costly. When it comes to audience, most programming targets affluent consumers who can afford expensive cars, jewelry, vacations, etc. Should we expect the ‘news’ to make them feel bad about the suffering of the poor?

In George Ritzer’s book, ‘McDonaldization of Society,’ we’ll be looking at sociologist Max Weber’s views on a process referred to as rationalization. We will discuss other theories as well, and they’ll be introduced to show you how certain viewpoints help enlighten debates on some of the social issues we’ll discuss in class. So though we won’t often relate discussions back to theory per se, it is the stuff underlying most of sociological thought. The social sciences, contrary to what you might have heard somewhere, are not opinion-based. They’re simply more complex to the extent that explaining human and social behavior are complex, and humans at the individual level are pesky critters.

And so what do we know about social problems? And how do we know it? Are news media that make their money on advertising able to provide us with the coverage we need to make informed decisions, to understand what’s really going on in society? Or is this possibly another social problem? I’m pointing it out to highlight the importance of understanding that the way social problems get treated is socially constructed, and that the social construction that most often sticks is that version of a debate that is backed by the most influence and power. There is no math formula for figuring out what a social problem is–these are contested, and the playing field is rarely if ever level.

Gusfield and drinking and driving

Sociologist Joseph Gusfield talks about three more things that, along with theory, and an understanding of what ‘social’ (groups, interaction, lots of people affected) and ‘problem’ (undesirable consequences for some) entail, gives us more tools for analyzing social problems. He makes some important points that I’ll list:

• Not all problems are public, social problems
• Perceptions of problems change over time (consider homosexuality, race, divorce, mental illness, AIDS, war, civil rights, the environment, etc.)–they are part of history and historical processes
• ‘Ownership‘ of social problems addresses the question of who has the power to dictate the terms of public debate. Who has access to media that might allow them to have the most influence over what most people think?
• Causal responsibility addresses questions of what is causing a specific social problem (from the specific viewpoint of whoever the ‘owner’ is, that is). Who’s being blamed? Are the poor responsible for poverty? Are the causes more structural? Does public policy favor the wealthy and politically connected?
• Political responsibility addresses what to do and who should do it (often we place the government in this role, but obviously the government isn’t the only entity that can or needs to address social problems).

Consider drinking and driving (in the abstract, of course). Drinking and driving is an individual problem–people make mistakes, right? Some people have a problem with their alcohol consumption. This may get worse on the weekends. Throw in technology, though, a vehicle that weighs several tons and when going at a high rate of speed does things that make physicists shudder, and you have the makings of a public problem, depending on who ‘owns’ the debate, or who gets to construct the problem, and how they attribute causal and political responsibility.

So . . . . is drinking and driving the fault of car manufacturers? Is Henry Ford ultimately to blame for efficiently mass producing cars and making them available to more people? Is it a moral problem about individuals’ choices and failings of character?

Gusfield says the problem isn’t just a private, personal problem of drinking too much and getting behind the wheel. Nor is it a case of character failure or inability to adhere to religious principles (as Churches may have claimed in the 19th century). It is also an institutional problem. The beverage industry. Automotive safety versus design. Add a trillion dollar advertising industry. Hello? We live in a drinking and car culture!

But things have changed in the last three decades. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) has been influential in that process. Remember–social problems are part of historical processes–once you can change the debate, show how a problem is public, and show what sorts of tragedies it may cause, and personalize the victims–both the deceased and their survivors–all of the sudden ‘ownership,’ or attributing cause, has become more muddled. While we still may not focus most of our attention on the beverage industry, occasionally they have to produce and air ‘don’t drink and drive’ messages (Anheuser Busch illustrates well). The terms of the debate are changing. Auto makers have made cars safer over time, but also bigger and heavier. What happens when the Ford Mastadon 650 extended cab meets the Toyota Tiny Tot? Yet insurance companies offer better rates to the heavy cars–even if the accidents they’re involved in cause more serious injuries. The debate on the drinking-driving problem is mixed, though, and often has focused on punishment and the courts, rather than what Gusfield considers to be the liability of some large institutions in society that could do more to prevent deaths or reduce injuries.

Ask yourself this: Why haven’t lawyers gone after the liquor industry the way they’ve attacked the tobacco industry in recent years? One could argue that ‘cars don’t kill, drivers do.’ Some sort of argument about personal responsibility. It’s about freedom, right, Jenny?? But smokers suing tobacco companies have won many lawsuits, despite the fact that it has been common knowledge that tobacco will turn a healthy pair of lungs into shriveled carbon over a lifetime of smoking. Attributing cause is important, because it allows certain groups to place blame, and decide who should be doing something about it. In other words, ‘framing’ the problem is critical, and those with the money can use it to persuade the public that responsibility rests with the individual.

This isn’t like private property–no one ‘owns’ the right to define a social problem. But some people and groups have larger megaphones than others. Their arguments dominate public debate. Was the recent economic recession and housing market collapse the responsibility of irresponsible lending practices and criminal behavior on the part of the financial industry, or was it irresponsible people borrowing more money to purchase a house than they could afford to repay? Rick Santelli had an opinion (and a forum on cable news), and by the next day it had triggered the Tea Party movement.

As for political responsibility–who should do something about it, and what–we have different answers, again based on who’s definition or construction of a social problem we’re listening to. Poverty we can all agree is a problem. But some groups say the causes are lazy, unmotivated individuals who aren’t willing to work hard. Welfare ‘reform’ passed in the form of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, and was consistent with this assumption–people needed to get off welfare and get a job. But what about the 10-15% of people who simply can’t find work? Or those who can’t find full-time work? Or those who are trapped in low-wage, dead-end jobs? What happens if someone in the family gets sick and they have no health insurance? What kinds of schools do kids attend in lower-income neighborhoods–do they prepare them for college, or even encourage them to consider it? How can single parents–most of them mothers–work, manage the household, raise children, and pay the bills, if they can’t find a job that pays them a ‘living wage?’

Others say that some people, no matter how hard they work, still won’t have the opportunities to advance because they haven’t gone to the right schools, didn’t mix with the right crowd, were never encouraged or didn’t know what sorts of programs might have been available to help them achieve their goals, etc. This is a structural argument–that we need to look at the structure of opportunity, and make sure that people of all classes, races, ethnicities, regions, both men and women, have opportunities to identify and pursue their aspirations. Affirmative action programs, financial aid for schools, fights over how education should be funded (property tax-based systems ensure the best schools are in the wealthiest neighborhoods), are programs that are consistent with this argument and who should do something about it.

Others would say that welfare itself is the problem–it creates dependency among its recipients (you’ll find examples of this philosophy at the Heritage Foundation Website).

Three pretty different arguments, and all claiming to address the problem of poverty.

Thinking exercise

To grasp these concepts, it would be a good idea for you to take a social problem, and try to figure out who the competing groups are attempting to gain ‘ownership’ over the debate–that is, gain the upper hand in persuading how the public perceives the problem. How do their versions differ, and what differences are there in who is responsible for the problem, who has the money and time to even think about such things, and what do the ‘experts’ say should be done?

Not all experts are equal. Always good to check credentials, consider the quality of the information, and remember that scientific knowledge is generated through a process of peer review–that is, things that get published have been scrutinized by a scholar’s colleagues, there is often the reputation of a scientific journal at stake, and these people aren’t generally doing this to make a profit.

Hopefully you’re beginning to see that no one is going to read you the gospel of social problems. No such thing exists. That doesn’t mean that some arguments aren’t better or more convincing than others, though, and what makes an argument strong is the ability to use some of the thinking tools we’ve already discussed in making a case. What do you know, and how do you know it? It is important to be skeptical, to consider the source, to think about alternative arguments and perspectives, and in the end, think for yourself (but using some critical thinking tools). One could certainly make the case that the manipulation of media consumers, to the extent it affects their behavior, attitudes, votes, etc., is a social problem . . .

Gusfield, J. 1981. The Culture of Public Problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (chapter 1, ‘the culture of public problems’, pp 1-23).