First, a brief digression. What is ‘society?’ Is understanding ‘society’ sort of like asking a fish (assuming fish had the intellectual capacity to respond to questions) to describe water? Does it matter what water a fish is in? A creek? Pond? Lake? Stream? River? Estuary? Bay? Sound? Sea? Ocean? Obviously, certain kinds of aquatic and marine environments seem to generate different kinds and complements of species, of fish and beyond. This is part of biodiversity, which appears to be a pretty good evolutionary strategy for coping with rapid and unexpected change (which must therefore be a regular feature of the earth’s past).

But let’s not assume that human organization has developed any differently than any other species’. Does it matter what society we live in? Industrial? Agrarian? Urbanized? Suburban? Rural? Rich? Poor? North? South? Nuclear powers? Speaking languages spoken few other places in the world? Culturally diverse? Racially diverse? With strong religious traditions? Welfare state (in other words, does it have an economy that supports a tax base that provides services to a population, food, shelter, health, education, old-age care, recovery from natural disasters, public safety, etc.)? Democracy? Dictatorship?

Still struggling to wrap your head around all this? Well I’ve had 30-plus years of formally studying and learning from and about society, and I still feel that way. Put it in a more familiar context. If you’re a professional athlete, or follow sports … does it matter what team you play on or root for? Is it important to understand something about not just the team, but the organization that supports it? As a professional athlete in a team sport, there are coaches, other players, big and small ‘markets’ and a fluid player market that almost guarantees players won’t be living long-term in one community. Rules of the sport matter (e.g., using PDEs, CTE in football, games/season, salaries ….). Fans may have an almost unhealthy level of allegiance to their favorite team, planning weekends, vacations, shopping sprees, social events, weddings, divorces, around them.*

Maybe a sports analogy isn’t useful for you. We could ask the same question about family–does it matter what family you come from? Size? Location? Occupation of parents/adults? Emphasis on formal and higher education? Race? Ethnicity? Language spoken at home? Religious affiliation? Parenting styles? Social class? Understandings of sexual orientation and gender? Does community make a difference? Workplace? School? These are the kinds of things sociologists often work on–understanding the relationships between individuals and these social groups, organizations, institutions, places of worship, etc.

Obviously our experiences of the world are shaped by our environments, and much of those environments is social in nature (or at least many of us don’t feel the natural aspects of ‘environment’ much beyond ‘indoor’ and ‘outdoor’). But they’re organized around things like family, neighborhood, community, region, religion, economy, state, government, country, etc. And societies can be big. The United States has a population of over 325 million. One out of every three humans on earth live in China or India. The country of Estonia, in NE Europe, is considered very progressive, possessing a free press, high living standards and education levels for most all groups, greater gender equality and representation in public life, etc. But there are only 1.3 million Estonians. Equatorial Guinea–off the coast of the African continent, has about the same population as Estonia. But their leader is a dictator who has robbed the public treasury and captured much of the wealth of the country (Equatorial Guinea produces petroleum, which is essential to powering industrial societies, among other things). A few super-wealthy elite groups and individuals control how life looks for the large mass of impoverished citizens, who if they complain publicly may be subject to harassment, imprisonment, or worse. The lives of most Equatorial Guineans are in indirect ways affected by the demand in the industrial world for petroleum, which can produce great wealth and provide great advantages to those in the society who possess the means or power to capture that wealth, and either convince a population that they achieved their wealth through hard work, or simply shoot the dissenters (in which case they will need an army, and will want to pay the soldiers regularly, and definitely before teachers or other civil servants).

In both cases–Estonia and Equatorial Guinea–there are less people than there are living in and around Portland, Oregon. Solving the problems of citizens would probably be a lot less complicated, a lot less contentious, in a relatively racially homogeneous culture 1/250th the size of the US. And we as Americans are certainly not encouraged to think about the possible geopolitical consequences of regularly filling up our vehicles’ gas tanks with a highly-refined petroleum product (shoring up, for instance, autocratic regimes in volatile parts of the world).

You can imagine that the leaders of a society, or those aspiring to be, might have different views and understandings about what problems exist, and how some entity like government might organize around solving them. You might imagine that certain groups would experience privilege, almost from the time of birth, to the extent they may be challenged to empathize with less-privileged groups, or even to understand how their advantages help determine their ‘social location’ (occupation, living arrangement, soci0-economic status, education level, etc.). Other groups might experience almost from birth pretty continuous struggle just to make ends meet from month-to-month, week-to-week, day-to-day. Some societies (Equatorial Guinea comes to mind) produce high levels of wealth inequality, others, like Estonia, ‘level’ the field by taxing the wealthier citizens to expand opportunities to all citizens to pursue their livelihoods and seek better lives for their children. Where does the US fit? The three richest billionaires make about the equivalent of the bottom half of the country’s–that’s 165 million people. Billionaires’ incomes increased by almost half a trillion dollars from March to September–that’s right, during the coronavirus pandemic. In the world? The top 1% captured 82% of the wealth in 2017.

Back to societies. From where do these people get their information? How do they develop a base of knowledge? Through the church/mosque/synagogue/temple/sweat lodge, etc.? Family? Schools? The workplace? Mass media? A patriarchal culture that seems to give more status and privilege to being male? Do we look out at the world and perceive as natural what may be instead very much manufactured by certain powerful institutions and industries that have access to mass media to produce a society more likely to reflect their values and serve their interests?

If your interest isn’t piqued at this point, maybe you’re not an aspiring social thinker. I might have wanted to become a biochemist if I could every wrap my head around chemical compounds in three dimensional space, but alas. It is still an acquired skill, improved with practice, certainly undervalued in a society where understanding and describing the water you’re swimming in may be perceived as much a threat as an asset. But that doesn’t mean you’re not affected by that relationship between individuals and societies. After all, you can choose not to vote, but you’ve essentially by doing so ceded some say in what that society looks like, how it responds to people’s needs, how it interacts with the rest of the world (through trade, conflict, migration, etc.).

It matters what society you live in, and it matters what your own ‘location’ is within that social setting. These things will affect the kinds of problems you’re likely to see, face, exploit, or try to solve. They will affect your own professional prospects, the kinds of problems or projects you might work on, the kinds of work that pays well enough to support a growing family, in a community, blah blah blah. Yes, your career aspirations are riding the same waves as others’. Understanding how your life, your work, interacts with the broader society holds potential economic and intellectual promise.

Social problems

But because societies are essentially ‘self-organizing’ systems–it isn’t like there was some architect that planned and oversees them, how they would look in 100 years time, what people or groups would pursue in the way of occupations proving useful to that society. There was no master plan, and so things can be messy, and problems are normal occurrences–thinking of problems as harms caused, intentionally or not, that affect people in somewhat predictable ways (and in the case of social problems, lots of them). Societies have a structure that, though individuals come and go in the system, tends to remain fairly stable and constant. Institutions like state, government, religion, family, culture, tend to persist. Think how messy they would be if they changed frequently. Imagine coming home every day, from a job that might change from week to week, to an apartment that has changed in location and size. Those adjustments would come too fast and frequently for enough social ‘order’ to allow people to co-exist in large numbers. Structures create stability, but they can also create problems by offering different groups different opportunities, rewards or punishments.

Society. You will live in one of these for most of your life. Why wouldn’t you want to understand more about how they function, and how you are both shaped by them and can work to address grievances?

We’ll take on one part of all that–social problems. But obviously, understanding social problems means understanding the contexts in which they occur, how they are experienced by different groups, how they are defined and understood and explained. Let’s start pretty simply, let’s take this one word at a time. We’ll start with problem, because it’s pretty easy to grasp. Bad things. Harm. Undesirable consequences. Then there’s social. A social problem is one that involves not just a few individuals. It is social–caused by people, whether by their actions or inactions, whether deliberate or unintentional, and it affects people. Sociologists usually think in terms of groups–some are categories (age, race, ethnicity, gender, social class, etc.). Some are groups (families, neighborhoods, organizations, movements, societies, etc.). Most of the time you would think that the people causing a problem were not the same people being affected by it. But can you think of a situation where that might be the case?

Social causes

First, caused by people’s actions: Consider pollution. We might want to define what kind(s) of pollution we’re talking about. Air, water, land . . . some might talk about noise or even sight pollution (e.g., what if all of the hillsides in the picturesque Grande Ronde Valley were opened up to development of subdivisions?). For our purposes, since most of us would agree that air quality can have an important effect on human well-being, we’ll stick with air pollution. One of the main causes of pollution is what people do–they drive cars, burn fuels to generate power, release toxic materials as by-products of industrial processes, use appliances that release CFCs (that damage the ozone layer). The carbon-based (i.e., anything that was at one time living tissue) fuels that we burn produce greenhouse gases, which lead to what scientists refer to as the greenhouse effect.

Most of the actions that produce these effects are deliberate, not accidental. But few think about filling up the tank as a contribution to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Few think that if they buy inexpensive clothing at WalMart that they may be supporting child labor or sweatshops in Asia (that is, our actions are contributing to social problems in other locales). Yet the results–a relentless increase in carbon production coming from industrial societies, are undeniable (we’ll learn more about the Keeling Curve later):

Source of data: CDIAC/SIO Source of graph: Wikipedia

How can inaction contribute to air pollution? Think about things people don’t do, that if they did, might reduce air pollution–mass transit in cities is often underused, underfunded, or practically nonexistent (especially in some Western cities). I once saw a bumper sticker on a Tri-met bus in Portland that said ‘because of me 216 cars are off the road today.’ (I know a few drivers who should have one of those on their cars . . . ). Conservation is often seen as a source of energy. In other words, what we don’t use is available for others to use.

Social consequences

Who is affected by air pollution? Are we all affected equally? Hardly. What groups would you think of first? Urban residents might be near the top of the list. Residents downwind of factories as well. The Northeast U.S. receives acid rain as a result of coal-fired power plants in the Midwest. People who live in downtown areas where traffic congestion is worse may suffer disproportionately. On days when there is a temperature inversion, respiratory patient visits to the ER skyrocket. People in Daqing, China don’t need to be told this (but these are some of the costs of economic growth born by others).

People who live in polluted areas often tend to be poorer as well, and we know that racial and ethnic minorities in the US are disproportionately poor (meaning the numbers below poverty are higher than their numbers in the general population). Generally, the more money you have, the more you can pay to remove yourself from some of the risks of modern life–e.g., moving out to the suburbs, the country, etc. But . . . when problems become global, it’s a bit trickier. The United States, with 4.5% of the world’s population, consumes 25% of the world’s resources. But we haven’t figured out a way to insulate ourselves from the environmental effects of all that consumption. More on that later in the course.

Problems

Hopefully this part has been answered in the previous discussion. Social problems have undesirable consequences for large numbers of people. We could say ‘social bad things,’ but somehow it doesn’t sound right. Also, keep in mind that if the effects of problems weren’t benefiting some group or groups, they probably would be addressed rather quickly, or wouldn’t appear to be ‘problems.’ How might this work for crime (warning: always watch out in this class for broad, general words, like ‘crime’ or ‘pollution’)? Think beyond benefits to individual criminals here. There’s a reason, for instance, that private corporations have entered the prison/corrections business.

Sociologists look at groups in society–organizations, families, communities, etc. We also try to disaggregate (subdivide into categories) the population–ask whether things affect people by race, by ethnicity, by age, by gender, etc. Different theorists look at the world differently. Some focus on the importance of social class (with respect to wealth and income, or work). Others may focus on the power of organizations to pursue their interests. When you’re thinking about who might be harmed/who might benefit from something, you might think in broader terms. And keep in mind–what you consider a problem may depend on your social location. So for a billionaire, the problem may seem like paying too many taxes to the government. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg was both praised and criticized for creating an organization that would ‘donate 99% of their wealth to charity.’ So, is he a philanthropist, or a tax cheat?

For someone at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale, the problems may be more daily, more urgent. Not enough food in the house to feed everyone. The threat of eviction for non-payment of rent. Losing heat in the winter because of getting behind on utility bills. A family member getting sick, with no insurance to avoid the simplest of health care.

Scale

Does the ‘large numbers of people’ part mean that small towns can’t have social problems? No. But it’s also wise to think about whether problems seen at the local level resemble problems at some broader level, whether regional, state, national, international, etc. Problems in one rural community may be similar to problems experienced in other communities, such as unemployment, drug or alcohol addiction, lack of services for the elderly (rural areas tend to be ‘older’), lack of access to a wide range of health care services.

Other questions

There are other things that will help you identify and think about social problems:

Is anyone being harmed? What kind of harm (Physical? Economic? Psychological?)? This may be an easy one with war (or maybe not), but for some social problems you’ll have to delve in greater depth.

What groups are being harmed? (sociologists tend to look at social groups, organizations, classifications for looking at variables such as age, gender, ethnicity, race. The unemployed may be a group particularly affected by a social problem, such as economic recession and loss of investor confidence in the stock market).

Thinking about social problems

A good exercise for you would be to take a problem, and go through the process of trying to identify exactly what the problem is. For instance, is unemployment the result of 9/11 and the economic consequences? Is it the result of irresponsible corporate practices that lead to layoffs of thousands? Is it because of foreign competition and cheap labor overseas? Capital substitution that replaces human workers with machines? Inflexible working conditions that make it difficult for some groups of workers (e.g., single mothers) to hold on to their jobs? There are different arguments to be made, a bit of truth in each of them.

Who benefits?

If no one was benefiting from a social problem, would it exist? Does anyone benefit from poverty? People who pay lower tax rates? Payday loan companies? Low wage employers? Predatory websites? Do you feel like you got a deal when the price of a gallon of gas goes down, and maybe you even drive more? This is never as simple as a minority of people benefiting at the expense of the majority. Nicotine addiction levies a terrible toll on a society. But tobacco growers benefit. Cigarette manufacturers benefit (especially when the clientele may be addicted). Those gas station convenience stores do a thriving business. Many people smoke who may not be addicted. Should they be denied that privilege? States tax tobacco at high rates and use the money to fund public services. Ask yourself, for a given social problem, what groups might be in a position to benefit, and you’ll have some sense of how difficult it would be to eliminate them. The more powerful and politically connected the beneficiaries, or the more numerous (e.g., in the case of consumers), the bigger the challenge.

Framing a problem

While there is no ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ answer, some social problem constructions are more persuasive than others–they account for complexity, they back up claims with evidence, they identify groups that are being harmed, and try to identify possible causes of problems, they admit that reasonable people can disagree, that how one views social problems depends on one’s perspective (e.g., welfare recipient versus social worker versus republican/democratic Congress member), and they often admit that they may be espousing a particular political viewpoint. But neither can we dismiss others’ views as either ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative.’ You need to do more than say someone is a ‘liberal.’ You need to show how that viewpoint is liberal, and how it may be biased. Same goes for conservative viewpoints.

But there is no doubt that how a problem is ‘framed’ will influence how it is perceived by the public. There is great competition to ‘frame’ social problems, and those with access to popular and mass media have more opportunities to have their views of the world seen as simply the natural order of things.

What to do?

What can be done about a particular problem? Are there policy issues? Should we let the market decide (e.g., should we raise the price of gasoline to reduce consumption and air pollution)? Should we build more mass transit systems? Will we have to reduce other government budgets (e.g., welfare programs) to do so, and will that exacerbate other social problems? Should we push for greater energy conservation, and greater development of renewable sources of energy? Others say that the market will eventually adjust itself, that people won’t be willing to pay for pollution, and that better technologies will come along as a result of private investment and consumption. What do you think?

In the end, the goal here is to get you to think about problems in a while different way, in a structural way. You’re already beginning to do it, whether you realize it or not. It comes with trying to tie the details to a bigger picture (for instance, local school board clashing over book censorship or curricular issues, or Nevadans protesting the siting of a nuclear waste repository).

Refer to the week 1 readings for more specifics on how to think about these five questions.

*Yes, let’s suspend for the present moment the radical changes wrought in 2020 by a global pandemic to sports.