What we've done so far

We've discussed the 'social' element, and the 'problem' elements. Social problems affect large numbers of people, and aren't merely the result of individual level problems. It could be that what in La Grande might not seem like a big problem (e.g., racism, because there is so little racial diversity here), when viewed through a broader lens, is a social problem on a grander scale. 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. In a job search situation, who benefits from racism? In some cases, non-whites have preferential treatment through affirmative action programs. In more cases, non-whites face discrimination in the job market. You should be getting a feel for how understanding both sides of that 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 problem--when we can't think of any, chances are that's a social problem in itself (hmmm . . . possible essay question in there somewhere?).

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. But theories allow us to tell 'stories' about how things work, they give us ways to understand phenomena, and if they're really useful, to make predictions.

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. 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).

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 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 and review by one's peers. It's based on what we can see or know with the senses, often using tested instruments or instrumentation (could be a survey or a microscope, a seismograph or a telescope ...).

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 (Do rich people have higher education, or are people with more education more likely to be rich?)
• Self-esteem and body image
• Political system and social inequality (Do political systems address social and economic inequalities, or reinforce them?)
• Economic productivity and technology (does technology increase workers' productivity? Or does it 'deskill' the workforce?)
• Innovation and need (do people invent because they need something? How do advertisers convince us that we need certain inventions that we've somehow managed to do without?)

Hopefully, you figured out that criminal activity can't cause your age, or that violent behavior doesn't determine one's gender. 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. Obviously, there are no clearcut answers. Social problems and relationships between these are complex. Beware of those offering simple answers. And beware of solutions ridiculing science. For instance, the federal government under Bush/Cheney spent billions in abstinence-only sex education, even though the vast majority of studies show it doesn't seem to work, and may have unintended consequences like higher STD rates. If it doesn't work, why does it receive so much taxpayer funding, and why is it given preference over more comprehensive programs that include discussion of contraception? Is the government advocating a moral position? Who benefits? Publishers? Pastors at Megachurches who have the ear of the White House?

Theory can be useful for thinking about social problems. I'll illustrate with Karl Marx's theory of class and class conflict. Marx felt that definitions of class should center around who owned the means to produce (whether that production is agricultural, industrial, etc.). So, who owned the factories and farms, and who worked for the owners? In other words, Marx thought that identifying and analyzing class differences--between the workers and the owners--was the best way to understand which groups had the most power in a society (the owners of the means, versus the peasantry, or the workers). He thought that eventually the owners would exploit the workers to the point of revolt, and that class conflict between the two groups drives big changes in society (for instance, from tribal to feudal society, or feudal to industrial society, or ultimately, from a capitalist to a socialist system). Marx says that there are really five stages that societies and history go through: tribal, feudal, capitalist, socialist, and communist. All societies will pass through the stages, because ultimately the working class is much larger and will become 'conscious' of its power. For instance, in a capitalist system, he says, owners exploit workers, taking part of their labor value (their potential wage) and claiming it as profit. Eventually, competition leads to overexploitation of workers, wages decline as capitalists try to 'cut costs' (think about 'outsourcing'), and could lead to the development of a class consciousness and, ultimately, rebellion. Some would ask 'Professor Marx, why hasn't U.S. society rebelled and become more socialist in nature?' Marx could say 'just wait, it'll happen. And besides, all Western governments figured have some combination of capitalism and socialism, to redistribute some of that excess wealth of the capitalists to workers through tax-funded programs.'

But waiting forever for a revoluation would make Marx's theory difficult if not impossible to test, wouldn't it? And again he would say that the U.S. has mixed enough elements of socialism and redistribution of wealth 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. He's been dead for some time now, but 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. At the same time, capitalist societies haven't all become socialist or communist states--is his prediction testable? If not--if he can always just say, 'just wait--it'll happen!' Then is it theory?

One thing that Marx is good for using is in understanding how certain groups in soceity have more power over the terms of a debate over social problems. If society is divided into an owning and a working class, according to Marx, who has more power to shape public debate? For instance, people who cheat on welfare become symbols of a broken system that needs to be fixed (via welfare reform, and the PRWORA, or personal responsibility and work opportunities reconciliation act of 1996). Whereas when the CEO of Enron is found having overseen the doctoring of books, with the advice and counsel of their auditing firm, and several executives reaped millions in profits or at least were able to sell their stock before the scandals became public (other shareholders didn't get the opportunit), we're often told by those in power 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, inevitably, leads to . .. guess what? More people needing welfare services. 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 is perceived as worse or more costly (remember, very few media outlets are owned by bleeding heart liberals who believe in the expansion of the welfare state).

In George Ritzer's book, 'McDonaldization,' we'll be looking at sociologist Max Weber's views on a process referred to as rationalization--another theoretical view of how societies change over time. 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. In addition, critics of Marx favor a more 'functionalist' view of society. In other words, change in society isn't driven by conflict--conflict is actually destabilizing. And efforts to maintain social order as things change (closer to Weber's notion of rationalization) are functional, they allow for social order and everyday functioning of schools, government, law enforcement, health care, telecommunications, transportation, and other critical functions of our society.

top of page

Framing social problems

We've been discussing in class how many news stories don't get picked up by the mainstream media. The media get to decide not only how they will cover a topic, but whether, where or when it will be covered (e.g., front page or 'stuffed,' up front on TV or as a human interest story). Projectcensored tries to highlight the most important stories of the year that do not get covered by the mainstream media (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox News, CNN, major daily newspapers, etc.).

One could make the case that this is a 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, or 'framing,' that most often sticks is that version of a debate that is backed by the most powerful groups with the greatest access to the media.

In other words, if I want people to support the notion that faculty at EOU are underpaid, I might try to interpret all the problems the university has as a product of faculty exploitation--insufficient time to publish, overextended in the classroom, having to take odd jobs to make ends meet, ultimately unable to offer the kind of curriculum that will be competitive and attract students. There are obviously other ways to try to 'construct' declining tuition revenue and resources--maybe the economy is in a downturn. Maybe funding from the state is shrinking as a result, and tuition has become too expensive. Maybe other regional universities are investing in greater marketing of traditionally EOU students. These would all be 'constructions,' or ways to think about the problem, each leading to different kinds of proposed solutions to tackle it. But without access to the media, how far would these arguments get? If businesses are trying to avoid more taxes (for instance to support higher education), and less concerned about 'liberal arts' degrees than training of workers in technical areas, might they have more money and resources to go to the media, to go to the state legislature, and make their case? Coudl they hire PR firms to do it for them? Frame it as a case of universities not providing 'good customer service,' sucking up 'huge subsidies' from public funds, and providing little in the way lf 'measurable outcomes?' Could they use average county-level incomes and make faculty look greedy and self-serving? How would faculty respond? Below is an example of drunk driving and how it can be 'framed,' and who benefits from certain kinds of 'social constructions' or frames.

Gusfield and drinking and driving--framing social problems

Even a problem such as drunk driving can be socially constructed in ways that influence policy debates. 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:

1. Not all problems are public, social problems
2. Perceptions of problems change over time (look at homosexuality, race, divorce, mental illness, AIDS, war, civil rights, the environment, etc.)--they are part of history and historical processes
3. Ownership (framing) of social problems addresses the question of who has the power to set the terms of the public debate? Who 'owns' the issue, and can have the most influence?
4. Causal responsibility addresses questions of what is causing a specific social problem (from the specific viewpoint of whoever the 'owner' is, that is).
5. Political responsibility addresses who should do something about it (often we place the government in this role).

Take the case of drinking and driving. Drinking and driving was seen as an individual problem--people make mistakes, right? Some people have a problem with their alcohol. 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 has the power to construct or frame the problem, and how they attribute causal and political responsibility.

Gusfield says the problem isn't just a private, personal problem, or a case of character flaw or inability to adhere to religious principles (as Churches may have claimed in the 19th century). It is a problem that transcends social class (even the 43rd president was charged with DUI in his 20s). It is also an institutional problem. The beverage industry. Automotive safety versus design. Hello?? We live in a car culture! Americans do everything in and from their cars. And some of them drink too much.

But things have changed in the last two 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, all of the sudden 'ownership' 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 (most of the websites have 'age checks' now. How comforting). The terms of the debate are changing. Auto makers have made cars safer over time, but also bigger and heavier. Reassuring, right? Unless you have a smaller car, and the Ford Mastadon's bumper is at about the level of your temple on the road. But people do discuss and debate the problem with SUVs and safety--the ownership of 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, with large PR budgets, 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. But smokers have won lawsuits in the courts, 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. Ownership of the debate is important, because it allows certain groups to place blame, and decide who should be doing something about it. You would think a site called 'consumer freedom' would be advocating for consumer safety, no? You would be wrong. They basically argue that faulty products are okay as long as directions and warnings are printed on their packaging.

It isn't like private property--no one totally 'owns' the right to define a social problem. For instance, there is a lot of public debate and conflicting definition over environmental problems. Think about who is able to use the media--an expensive proposition for most. Commercial advertisers have lots of exposure. News outlets, too. It's easier to claim 'ownership' of a debate for groups that have easy access. Large corporations can hire public relations firms to manufacture news stories that appear independent (meet John Berlau, from the Competitive Enterprise Institute).

Think of some simple framings, and how powerful they were--9/11 was perpetrated by 'terrorists who hate our freedoms.' Fast forward to Iraq, where Saddam Hussein had 'weapons of mass destruction' (and what do we call the US' 10,000 nuclear warheads? Daisy cutters?? This is from a cool xbox game 'world in flames!').

But what to do about it, and who should do it??

As for political responsibility, or who should do something about it?? 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 cause are lazy, unmotivated individuals who aren't willing to work hard. Welfare reform is consistent with this assumption--people need to get off welfare and get a job (but are there jobs out there that pay living wages, do they cover possible child care costs, health benefits, will workers get fired if they or their children get sick and they have to miss work, are single mothers particularly hurt by low wage, low-security employment?)

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 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

It would be a good idea to take a social problem, and try to figure out who the competing groups are attempting to gain 'ownership' over the debate. How do their versions differ, and what differences are there in who is responsible for the problem, and what should be done about it?

Conversely, it is good practice to make the case for a social problem. For instance, we've discussed whether the art of Thomas Kinkade represents a social problem in the discussion sessions this week. Some said it did; others said it didn't. The point is not to decide--the problems can be constructed in different ways. The point is to think about what constitutes social problems--is anyone harmed? Who? Who benefits? What has Kinkade done to the art world? What's wrong with mass production of art? We certainly have seen the mass production of fast food in the last 10-15 years. Is it possible that Kinkade and his commercialized, 'lifestyle branding' have little to do with art? Or has it hurt other artists who still produce individual works, not driven by commercialism or marketing? Are people buying these expensive prints on credit, going into debt to own a Kinkade reproduction? Or could the current fascination with Thomas Kinkade represent something much larger, for instance what Marx might refer to as 'commodity fetishism?' By that argument, we may long for a simpler time, but we express that longing by going out and buying expensive things to hang on our walls.

Hopefully you're beginning to see that no one is going to read you the gospel of social problems. There is no such thing. That doesn't mean that some arguments aren't better than others, though, and what makes an argument strong is the ability to use some of the thinking tools we've discussed in making a case. It is critical to be skeptical, consider the source, think about alternative arguments, and in the end, think for yourself. 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 . . .