Chapter 1
|
Chapter 1
|
Key Concepts |
|
| conflict
theory objective reality of social problems person-blame social issues social movement |
social policy social problem structural-functional theory subjective nature of social problems symbolic interactionist theory system blame |
Warning: Critical Thinking AheadOver the past few years I have found myself frustrated with my social problems classes. It seemed like I covered important issues, but found my students bored or uninterested in much of the material. In an effort to energize the students in Social Problems, I have chosen to use Stanley Eitzen's (2000) Social Problems text. This text does not define and describe as much as it attempts to "look behind" the typical expectations associated with social problems. As the essentialists would contend, our text attempts to look past observable society, the descriptive level, to the causal level, which is often abstract and difficult to understand. Students may find some of the material in Eitzen highly controversial. They may, in fact, vehemently disagree with some of the points raised. This is GOOD! You don't have to agree with the material. It is, after all, only a perspective -- a way of looking at the social world -- and we all have perspectives. I would hope that, in the process, students share their points of view. I would also hope that students will be open to understanding the perspectives encountered. There are seldom right or wrong answers in Sociology -- only perspectives. The trick in a class like this is to be open to multiple perspectives. |
| "Focusing on the poor and ignoring the
system of power, privilege, and profit which makes them poor, is a little like blaming the
corpse for the murder" Michael Parenti (in Eitzen and Baca-Zinn, 2000) |
Definitionssocial issues
social movement
social policy
social problems
|
The student should realize that we are participants in what we study. To investigate a social problem is to become involved. We cannot be "objective" like the natural scientists. People create reality as they interact in society. To study a phenomenon is to alter it.
Bias is a preference or an inclination for something. Bias can inhibits impartial judgment. Realizing that we have biases is important. We have feelings and values. Such feelings and values determine what we study. However, once we have acknowledged our biases, we cannot only report facts that we discover that support our point of view.
The study of social problems cannot be value-free. Defining the problem to be investigated allows subjectivity to creep in. To identify a phenomenon as a problem implies that if falls short of some standard. The study of social problems cannot be value free.
The sociological imagination refers to the ability to see the relationship between individual experiences and the larger society (Kendall, 1998:7). As opposed to looking at isolated events (like slavery or drug abuse) by themselves, the student of social problems is encouraged to look at social problems in relation to other aspects of society like the economy, culture or religion. To paraphrase C. Wright Mills (1959), people do not usually define their personal problems in terms of historical change and institutional contradictions. People do not usually think of the connection between the patterns of their own lives and the course of world history. People live out biographies in the context of world events that are in turn determined by historically specified conditions. Both the lives of individuals and the course of world history is understood simultaneously.
Theoretical PerspectivesFunctionalist Theory
Conflict Theory
Symbolic Interactionist Theory
|
II. Toward A Definition of Social Problems
Eitzen (2003:7) argues that some social conditions are detrimental in any situation. In this sense, they have an objective character. There are conditions in society such as poverty, racism, sexism that cause material or psychological suffering for parts of the population. They prevent members of society from developing and using their full potential. This sort of suffering exists regardless of personal or cultural opinion. Those conditions are, therefore, social problems in any social setting.
A requirement of the sociological approach to the study of social problems is that students adapt a critical stance. It is important to note at this point that to use a critical approach is not necessarily to criticize. The critical approach calls into question existing myths, stereotypes, and official dogma.
Social research is always political! The study of social problems cannot be value-free. There is a tendency, however, to judge only that research that challenges the system as political. Often we hear the charge of BIAS directed only against research that finds fault with the system on behalf of the powerless. We hear the charge of bias when "research gives credence in any serious way, to the perspective of subordinate groups in some hierarchical relationship" (Eitzen, 1986:7). Seeing bias on these terms is peculiar because "it is easily ascertained that many more studies are biased in the direction of the interests of responsible officials than the other way around. We must not automatically accept only those definitions that define social problems from the point of view of those in power.
People in power control the mass media and, therefor, control public opinion. Often "relevant issues" are defined by those who wield power through the mass media.
Problems arise when the powerful, through the mass media, set the agenda.
- The media may overlook conditions that are detrimental to the relatively powerless segments of society.
- It diverts attention from what may constitute the most important social issues (see Eitzen, 2000:7).
- Attention may be diverted to specific social instances and away from the cause of many social problems. There is a tendency to focus on the characteristics of individuals. As Skolnick and Currie notes: "conventional social problem writing invariable returns to the symptoms of social ills rather than to the source" of those ills (Eitzen, 2000:7). We can categorize these approaches to social problems under what Eitzen calls the person-blame approach.
Examples:
- We study the criminal instead of the law or the prison system that tends to perpetuate crime.
- We scrutinize the mentally ill rather than the quality of life or social programs that initially bring on a mental breakdown that ultimately fails to accept responsibility by pushing the insane onto the street (deinstitutionalization) to "save the budget."
- We explore the culture of the poor rather than characteristics of the rich.
- We investigate the pathologies of students rather than inadequacies of higher education.
- We study the characteristics and consequences of poverty rather than the social structure that creates conditions that allow problems like poverty to exist.
Norm violations assume that a standard of behavior exists. People who study norm violations are interested in society's failures like the criminal, the mentally ill, or the school drop out. Eitzen (2003:10) contends, however, that norm violations are symptoms of social problems rather that the problem itself. Deviants, for example, are victims and should not be blamed entirely. The system in which they live is blamed as well.
Often, when one attempts to understand deviance, they will look at characteristics of the individual to explain deviance. Eitzen (2003:10) suggests that the source of deviance is found within the social structure. Society plays a role in creating and sustaining deviance by labeling those viewed as abnormal.
Comparing The U.S. With Other
Industrialized Nations
|
There is a strong tendency to blame social problems on the individual rather than on the social. Most people define a social problem as behavior that deviates from the norms and standards of society. Because people do not ordinarily examine critically the way business is conducted in society, they tend to question the exceptions. The system is not only taken for granted; it has, for most people, an aura of sacredness because of traditions and customs they associate with the system.
Logically, those who deviate are the source of trouble. The obvious question observers ask is, why do these people deviate from norms? Because most people view themselves as law abiding, they feel those who deviate do so because of some kind of unusual circumstances: accidents, illness, personal defect, character flaw, or maladjustment. The flaw, then, depends on the deviant, not of societal arrangements (Eitzen, 2000:10). For example, a person-blamer might argue that a poor person is poor because he or she is not bright enough to succeed. In other words, the deviant is the cause of his or her own problem.
1. Cultural Deprivation
Eitzen (2003:14) contends that people who blame the victim cite cultural deprivation as the "cause" of social problems. Culture is seen as the "cause" of the problem. In other words, people who blame the victims see culture of the group with the problem as inferior and deficient when compared to the culture of the dominant group.
For example, kids who don't do well is school have parents who don't speak proper English or who are uneducated.
The system blame approach would tend to blame institutions for social problems. For example, a student's failure might be seen as a result of a failure in the educational systems to meets the needs of the student.
2. Recidivism
How successful are Prisons in rehabilitating criminals? Not VERY! Three-fourths of the released criminals are re-arrested within four years.Recidivism refers to ex-offenders who are arrested for another criminal offense once they have been released from jail (Eitzen, 2000:12).
3. Social Darwinism
The discoveries of Charles Darwin had a profound impact on other branches of scientific inquiry. Charles Darwin, of course, is famous for his Theory of Evolution. In the world of biology the species most fit survived while those less fit eventually became extinct.
Social Darwinism is a distorted view of Darwin's theory of evolution. Many social scientists, most notably Herbert Spencer, attempted to apply the logic of Charles Darwin to the social world. The essence of the social Darwinist perspective is that races or cultures, who occupied a "superior position" in the social world, deserved that position because they were the most socially fit (Eitzen and Baca-Zinn, 1994:170).
According to Spencer "the poor are poor because they are unfit." Spencer argued that "poverty is nature's way of 'excreting ... unhealthy, imbecile, slow, vacillating, faithless members' of society in order to make room for the fit" (Eitzen and Baca-Zinn, 1994:170).
Social Darwinists, therefore, oppose social programs because, they argue, social programs perpetuate the existence of the unfit group who would probably disappear in the absence of social welfare.
1. Person-Blame Distracts Attention Away from Institutions
When one uses only the person blame approach, it frees the government, the economy, and the educational system from blame. The person blame approach ignores the strains that are caused by inequalities within the system.
2. Person-Blame Makes it More Difficult to Institute Systemic Change
By excluding the existing order from blame it makes it only that much harder to initiate change in economic, social, or political institutions.
3. Person-Blame Allows the Powerful to Control Dissidents
Blaming the individual allows the government to "control" dissidents more easily. Deviants are sent to prisons or hospitals for rehabilitation. Such an approach directs attention away from the system. It also eliminates the individual under consideration. It focuses treatment on the individual in terms of counseling, behavior modification, or psychotherapy.
4. Person-Blame Reinforces Stereotypes
Person blame also has the potential to reinforce stereotypes. It tends to argue that people are placed in the system according to their ability or inability.
1. Sometimes Individuals are the Problem
Blaming the system also presents problems for social scientists as well. Ultimately the system is made up of people. Society results from the interaction of individuals. Individuals are sometimes aggressive, means, and nasty(Eitzen, 2000:14). Systemic explanations for social problems is only part of the truth. The system-blame approach may, there fore, absolve individuals from responsibility for their actions.
Example:
When a robber breaks into your house, damn the problems with the system. You have problems with that particular individual.
2. System-Blame: A Dogmatic Approach?
Blaming the system is only part of the truth. Blaming the system tends to assume a very rigid dogmatic approach to the understanding of society. It tends to present a picture that people have no free will (Eitzen, 2000:15).
I tend to use the system-blame approach for a couple of reasons.
- Since most people tend to blame individuals, we need a balance.
- Sociology is concerned with societal issues and society's institutional framework is responsible for creating many social problems.
- Since institutions are human creations, we should change them when they no longer serve the will of the people. Democratic conceptions of society have always held that institutions exist to serve people, not vice versa. Institutions, therefore, are to be accountable to the people whose lives they affect. When an institution, any institution, even the most "socially valued" -- is found to conflict with human needs, democratic thought holds that it ought to be changed or abolished (in Eitzen, 2000: 15-16). Accepting the system-blame approach is a necessary precondition to restructuring society along more human needs.
Eitzen, D. Stanley and Maxine Baca-Zinn
1986 Social Problems. (3rd Ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
1994 Social Problems. (6th Ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
2000 Social Problems. (8th Ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
2003 Social Problems. (9th Ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Kendall, Diana
1998 Social Problems in a Diverse Society. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
