Studying Social Problems in the Twenty-First Century
Studying Social Problems in the Twenty-First Century
Permalink:
shooting started. The gravity of the situation did not hit me until later, when I picked up my boy from preschool and showed my wife where the shooting was in relation to my office—literally around the corner. The full extent of it did not dawn on me until the next morning, when all of the news outlets were still talking about it. Then I looked at myself in the mirror and realized: Students were shot and killed at my university.
—Joseph Flynn, a Northern Illinois University professor, explains his reaction to the violence that occurred on his campus when a person opened fire inside a lecture hall, killed five students and wounded 20 others, and then took his own life. (Flynn, Kemp, and Madrid, 2008:C1)
2
For those of us who spend our days in a college setting, few things scare us more thanthe thought that violence might shatter our “protected” social environment in a lecture hall or other campus facility. Sadly, however, such shootings are becoming an all- too-common occurrence in educational settings, from elementary and secondary schools to colleges and universities, across the United States. And schools are only one of the many settings in which seemingly random acts of violence, typically involving guns and multiple injuries or deaths, take place. Violence has also become all too common in locations such as shopping malls, workplaces, hospitals, and other public spaces. Regardless of where the violence occurs, it leaves behind shock and anguish. Violence is the use of physical force to cause pain, injury, or death to another or damage to property. On an almost daily ba- sis, the Internet and global television news channels quickly spread word of the latest bombing, the latest massacre, or the latest murder. In the United States today, gunfire is one of the leading causes of death—only vehicular accidents take a higher toll on the lives of young people in this country. Indeed, this country has the highest homicide rate of any high-income nation. In this chapter, we explore what we can learn from sociology about social problems such as this.
None of us thought it was gunshots. [The shooter] didn’t say a single word the whole time. He didn’t say get down. He didn’t say anything. He just came in and started shooting. . . . I’m not sure how long it lasted. It felt like a really long time but was probably only a minute or so. He looked like, I guess you could say, serious. He didn’t look frightened at all. He didn’t look angry. Just a straight face. . . .
—Trey Perkins, a Virginia Tech University student, describes a scene of violence in the lecture hall where his German class met. Before the lone gun- man ended his shooting spree, 33 people were dead and more than two dozen others were wounded. (MSNBC.com, 2007)
I was in my office in Northern Illinois’s Department of Teaching and Learning when the
USING SOCIOLOGICAL INSIGHTS TO STUDY SOCIAL PROBLEMS
Sociologists who specialize in the study of social problems often focus on violence as a pressing social issue because it inflicts harm not only on victims and their families but also on entire communities and the nation. The study of social problems is one area of inquiry within sociology— the academic discipline that engages in the systematic study of human society and social interactions. A socio- logical examination of social problems focuses primarily on issues that affect an entire society—a large number of individuals who share the same geographical territory and are subject to the same political authority and dom- inant cultural expectations—and the groups and organizations that make up that society. Culture refers to the knowledge, language, values, customs, and material objects that are passed from person to person and from one generation to the next in a human group or society. Culture helps us to define what we think is right or wrong and to identify the kinds of behavior we believe should be identified as a social problem.
What Is a Social Problem?
A social problem is a social condition (such as poverty) or a pattern of behavior (such as substance abuse) that harms some individuals or all people in a society and that a sufficient number of people believe warrants public concern and collective action to bring about change. Social conditions or certain patterns of behavior are defined as social problems when they systematically disadvantage or harm a significant number of people or when they are seen as harmful by many of the people who wield power, wealth, and influence in a group or society. Problems that disadvantage or harm a signifi- cant number of people include violence, fear of crime, environmental pollution, and inadequate access to health care. Problems that may be viewed as harmful to people who have power, wealth, and influence are condi- tions that adversely affect their economic livelihood and social well-being, such as a weakening economy, inade- quate schools that do not produce the quality of workers that employers need, and high rates of crime that threaten their safety and security. To put it an- other way, social problems are social in their causes, consequences, and sources of possible resolution. Because social problems are social in their causes, public perceptions of what constitutes a social problem change
over time (see Table 1.1 on page 4). It is no surprise, for example, that concerns about war and terrorism are important to people in the United States today, whereas in times of peace concerns focus on issues such as drug abuse, poverty, and homelessness.
Sociologists apply theoretical perspectives and use a variety of research methods to examine social problems. Some social problems—such as violence and crime—are commonly viewed as conditions that affect all members of a population. Other social problems—such as racial discrimination—may be viewed (correctly or incor- rectly) as a condition that affects some members of a population more than others. However, all social prob- lems may be harmful to all members in a society whether they realize it or not. Sociological research, for example, has documented the extent to which racial dis- crimination by whites against African Americans and other people of color wastes the energies and resources of those individuals who engage in such racist actions as well as harming the targets of their actions (see Feagin and Sikes, 1994; Feagin and Vera, 1995).
Social problems often involve significant discrep- ancies between the ideals of a society and their actual achievement. For example, the United States was founded on basic democratic principles that include the right to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness,” as set forth in the Declaration of Independence. The rights of individuals are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, which also provides the legal basis for remedying injus- tices. Significant discrepancies exist, however, between the democratic ideal and its achievement. One such dis- crepancy is discrimination—actions or practices of dominant group members (or their representatives) that have a harmful impact on members of subordi- nate groups. Discrimination may be directed along class, racial, gender, and age lines. It also may be di- rected against subordinate group members whose sex- ual orientation, religion, nationality, or other attributes are devalued by those who discriminate against them. Sometimes, discrimination is acted out in the form of violence. This type of violent act is referred to as a hate crime—a physical attack against a person be- cause of assumptions regarding his or her racial group, ethnicity, religion, disability, sexual orienta- tion, national origin, or ancestry. Hate crime laws have been adopted on the federal and state level that increase the penalties for crimes committed when the perpetra- tor is motivated by the race, color, national origin, reli- gion, sexual orientation, gender, or disability of the victim. However, these laws vary widely, and seven states have no hate crime laws. Among those states that
Using Sociological Insights to Study Social Problems 3
have passed hate crime laws, some of the laws do not protect sexual orientation, which has been the most hotly debated issue regarding hate crime legislation. For many people, hate crimes are a personal problem because they believe that they have been the victim of violent attacks based on their race, sexual orientation, or both. Some analysts believe that people of color in the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered (GLBT) community are at greater risk of violence. As a Human Rights Campaign activist explained, “When a GLBT person of color is targeted for hate violence, it is difficult—if not impossible—to separate out race, sex- ual orientation, or gender identity discrimination in the treatment of the victim and the victim’s family and loved ones” (Human Rights Campaign, 2003).
When hate crimes have been reported prominently by the news media, some political leaders have taken a stronger stand against such violence, thus moving the problem from the personal to the social level. For exam- ple, when an African-American man in New York City was attacked with a baseball bat, leaving him with a fractured skull, the city’s mayor made public appear- ances around the city to show that the city would actively confront racial violence and would not tolerate it. As Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg stated, “I cannot stress it enough: We are going to live together, and no-
body, nobody, should ever feel that they will be attacked because of their ethnicity, their orientation, their reli- gion, where they live, their documented status, or any- thing else. Period. End of story” (quoted in Rutenberg and Kilgannon, 2005:A15). Public statements such as this and corresponding changes in social policy and law are the point at which personal problems and social issues begin to connect. Sociologists use a perspective known as the sociological imagination to explain this phenomenon.
The Sociological Imagination: Bringing Together the Personal
and the Social
How do our personal problems relate to the larger social problems in our society and around the world? Although each of us has numerous personal problems, ranging from how to pay our college tuition and where to find a job to more general concerns about safety, health, and war, we are not alone in these problems, and there are larger societal and global patterns that we can identify that are related to these issues. In one of the most popular phrases in the social sciences, the sociologist C. Wright Mills uniquely captured the
TABLE 1.1 Changing Perceptions of What Constitutes a Social Problem, 1950–2008
Nationwide polls taken over the last half century reflect dramatic changes in how people view social problems. Notice how responses to the question “What do you think is the most important problem facing the country today?” have changed over the years.
1950 1965 1975
War 40% Civil rights 52% High cost of living 60%
The economy 15% Vietnam War 22% Unemployment 20%
Unemployment 10% Other international problems
14% Dissatisfaction with government
7%
Communism 8% Racial strife 13% Energy crisis 7%
1990 2005 2008
Budget deficit 21% War in Iraq 19% The economy 35%
Drug abuse 18% The economy/jobs 18% Situation in Iraq/War 21%
Poverty, homelessness 7% Terrorism (general) 6% Health care 8%
The economy 7% Health care 5% Fuel/oil prices 8%
Social Security 4% Immigration/Illegal aliens 6%
Moral/family values 4% Unemployment/jobs 5%
Sources: New York Times, 1996b; The Polling Report, 2005; Gallup, 2008.
4 CHAPTER 1 Studying Social Problems in the Twenty-First Century
essence of how our personal troubles are related to the larger social issues in society. According to Mills, the sociological imagination is the ability to see the rela- tionship between individual experiences and the larger society. The sociological imagination enables us to connect the private problems of individuals to public issues. Public issues (or social problems) are matters beyond a person’s control that originate at the regional or national level and can be resolved only by collective action. Mills (1959b) used unemployment as an exam- ple of how people may erroneously separate personal troubles from public issues in their thinking. The unemployed individual may view his or her unemploy- ment as a personal trouble concerning only the individual, other family members, and friends. However, widespread unemployment resulting from economic changes, corporate decisions (downsizing or relocating a
plant abroad), or technological innovations (computers and advanced telecommunications systems displacing workers) is a public issue. The sociological imagination helps us to shift our focus to the larger social context and see how personal troubles may be related to public is- sues. For example, it is easy for the victims of violent crimes and their families to see themselves as individual victims rather than placing such attacks within the larger, collective context of a society that often tolerates violence.
Sociologists make connections between personal and public issues in society through microlevel and macrolevel analysis. Microlevel analysis focuses on small-group relations and social interaction among individuals. Using microlevel analysis, a sociologist might investigate how fear of unemployment affects workers and their immediate families. In contrast, macrolevel analysis focuses on social processes occurring at the societal level, especially in large-scale organizations and major social institutions such as politics, government, and the economy. Using macrolevel analysis, a sociologist might examine how the loss of millions of jobs in recent decades has affected the U.S. economy. As Mills suggested, a systematic study of a social problem such as unemployment gives us a clearer picture of the relationship between macrolevel structures such as the U.S. economy and microlevel social interactions among people in their homes, work- places, and communities.
What can we gain by using a sociological per- spective to study social problems? A sociological examination of social problems enables us to move beyond myths and common-sense notions, to gain new insights into ourselves, and to develop an aware- ness of the connection between our own world and the worlds of other people. According to sociologist Peter Berger (1963:23), a sociological examination al- lows us to realize that “things are not what they seem.” Indeed, most social problems are multifaceted. When we recognize this, we can approach pressing national and global concerns in new ways and make better decisions about those concerns. By taking a global perspective on social problems, we soon realize that the lives of all people are closely intertwined and that any one nation’s problems are part of a larger global problem. Examining violence as a social prob- lem, for example, makes it possible for us to look at the causes and consequences of this type of behavior on a global basis. It also makes it possible for us to look more closely at our own society to see how we respond to such problems through social policy.
■ Although some people think that being unemployed is a personal problem, widespread unemployment is a public issue. These laid-off employees are only a few of the thousands of U.S. workers who have lost their jobs in recent years. What can we gain by applying a sociological perspective to social problems such as un- employment?
Using Sociological Insights to Study Social Problems 5
An example is the renewed call by many members of society for gun control in the aftermath of each new episode of gun-related violence and the contradictory assertion from organizations such as the National Rifle Association that gun-control laws are neither needed nor effective (see Box 1.1). As this example shows, what constitutes a social problem and what should be done about that problem is often a contro- versial topic.
DO WE HAVE A PROBLEM? SUBJECTIVE AWARENESS AND
OBJECTIVE REALITY
A subjective awareness that a social problem exists usu- ally emerges before the objective reality of the problem is acknowledged. Subjective awareness tends to be
It’s not that I run around scared all day long, but if something happens to me, I do want to be prepared.
—Brent Tenney describes why he carries a loaded 9 mm semiautomatic with him to class at the University of Utah (MSNBC.com, 2007).
I don’t see the need for [a gun] here, so that could only lead to trouble.
—Timmy Allin, another University of Utah student, believes that guns on campus might create more problems than they solve (MSNBC.com, 2007).
Although Utah is the only state (as of 2008) that has enacted a law expressly allowing individuals to carry concealed weapons on public college campuses, the issue of whether students, fac- ulty, and staff (in addition to public safety personnel) should be allowed to possess guns or other concealed weapons on campuses comes up each time another shooting occurs at a U.S. college or university (Archibold, 2008). Although social policy questions regarding this issue typically are framed in terms of “concealed weapons,” the focus of these discussions is primarily on guns. As Katherine S. Newman and her associ- ates found in a study of public school violence, gun availabil- ity is a key reason why many school shootings are so deadly: “Mass murders tend not to happen—in school or anywhere else—when knives are the only weapon available” (Newman,
Fox, Harding, Mehta, and Roth, 2005:69). As the number of guns in the United States has doubled over the past four decades, to more than 200 million today, young people’s access to guns has also increased rapidly. To curb the high number of deaths related to firearms in this nation, pro-gun control advocates believe that we need social policies that reg- ulate the gun industry and gun ownership. However, oppo- nents of gun-control measures argue that regulation will not curb random violence perpetrated by a few disturbed or frus- trated individuals.
What is social policy and how is it supposed to alleviate such
problems as violence in society? Social scientists use the term
social policy to refer to a written set of ideas and goals that are for-
mally adopted by a relevant decision-making body, for example, a
government bureaucracy, a state legislature, or the U.S. Congress.
According to the sociologist Joel Best (1999:143), we often think
of social policy as a means of “declaring war” on a social problem.
Social policy discussions on gun-related violence at the state and
federal levels have focused on how to win the “war” on guns.
However, as Best (1999:147) notes,“Warfare presumes that fight-
ing the enemy is a common cause for the entire society; individu-
als should set aside their doubts and reservations and join in
the larger struggle. . . . Declaring war, then, is a call for a united,
committed campaign against a social problem.”
In the case of gun-related violence, there is a profound
lack of societal consensus on the causes of the problem and
what should be done about it. Some favor regulation of the
gun industry and gun ownership; others believe that regula-
tion will not curb random violence perpetrated by frustrated
individuals. Underlying the arguments for and against gun
control are these words from the Second Amendment to the
Social Problems and Social Policy “Packing Heat”: Should College Students Be Allowed to Carry Guns on Campus?
Box 1.1
6 CHAPTER 1 Studying Social Problems in the Twenty-First Century
Do We Have a Problem? Subjective Awareness and Objective Reality 7
expressed as a feeling of uneasiness or skepticism about something, but the feeling is not founded on any con- crete evidence that a problem actually exists. A subjec- tive awareness that there is potential for violent acts in public settings such as schools, day-care centers, businesses, and churches exists even when there has been no recent violence in one of these settings. However, when new killings take place, our subjective awareness shifts to being an objective reality.
Consider, for example, the differences in subjective awareness and objective reality when it comes to vio- lence in the media. Many people feel uncomfortable with the increasingly graphic nature of portrayals of
violence on television and in films and video games. Initially, parents have a subjective awareness that these depictions might be harmful for their children and perhaps for the larger society. However, it is only when we have facts to support our beliefs that there is a link between media violence and actual behavior that we move beyond a subjective awareness of the issue. Indeed, recent studies show that media violence may in- fluence how people think and act. According to one study, boys and girls who watch a lot of violence on television have a heightened risk of aggressive adult behavior including spousal abuse and criminal offenses (Huesmann, Moise-Titus, Podolski, and Eron, 2003).
U.S. Constitution: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and
bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Those in favor of legislation
to regulate the gun industry and gun ownership argue that the
Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual’s right
to own guns: The right “to keep and bear Arms” applies only to
those citizens who do so as part of an official state militia
(Lazare, 1999:57). However, in 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s
right to own a gun for personal use. In other words, people
have a constitutionally protected right to keep a loaded hand-
gun at home for self-defense. This is in keeping with an argu-
ment long made by spokespersons for the National Rifle
Association (NRA), a powerful group with about 4 million
members nationwide and a $20 to $30 million lobbying
budget, which has stated that gun control regulations violate
the individual’s constitutional right to own a gun (Schwartz,
2008) and would not be an effective means of curbing random
acts of violence on school campuses and elsewhere.
What solutions exist for the quandary over gun regula-
tions? Best notes that declaring war on a social problem such
as gun-related violence is difficult for several reasons. First,
social problems are not simple issues: Most problems have
multiple causes and a variety of possible solutions. Second, it
is difficult to determine what constitutes victory in such a war.
Third, it takes a long time to see the outcome of changes in
social policies, and efforts to produce change may receive
reduced funding or be eliminated before significant changes
actually occur. Finally, it is impossible to rally everyone be-
hind a single policy, and much time is therefore spent arguing
over how to proceed, how much money to spend, and who or
what is the real enemy (Best, 1999). In the final analysis, the
problem of gun violence is a chronic problem in the United
States that has yet to be successfully addressed by social policy
and its implementation.
In the meantime, we return to the question we initially
raised about students possessing guns at college. Those per-
sons who believe that students should be allowed to carry
guns on campus for self-defense assert that no acts of violence
have occurred at universities where students are legally
allowed to carry concealed handguns. They also note that
many states set the legal age limit at 21 for obtaining a con-
cealed handgun license, which means that the students who
obtain such a license typically are juniors or seniors, not
beginning college students. By contrast, those individuals and
organizations that strongly object to non–law enforcement
personnel “packing heat” on college campuses argue that
when guns are readily available, there is a greater likelihood of
lethal outcomes because people have violent force right at
their fingertips when they fear for their safety or become
involved in an emotionally volatile situation.
What will be the future of guns on college campuses? If
the past is any indication, people will let the issue drop during
the time period when no violence occurs, but when the next
episode of violence transpires, there will be new demands
from state lawmakers, gun-control advocates, and gun rights
lobbyists to turn their specific point of view into legislation,
perhaps including a law granting students the right to carry
firearms at their college or university. How do you feel about
this very polarizing social policy issue? Would you feel
more—or less—safe if you knew that more people were carry-
ing concealed weapons on your campus?
Box 1.1 (continued)
8 CHAPTER 1 Studying Social Problems in the Twenty-First Century
Moreover, the American Psychological Association has concluded that viewing violence on television and in other media does promote aggressive behavior in chil- dren as well as in adults (Ritter, 2003). Children’s identi- fication with television characters and the perceived realism of television violence may be linked to aggres- sion in adulthood, regardless of a child’s intellectual ability or his or her family income level. The more that children watch media violence, the more likely they are to participate in rough play and eventually to engage in violence as adults (Zimring and Hawkins, 1997; Huesmann, Moise-Titus, Podolski, and Eron, 2003). As researchers gather additional data to support their arguments, the link between extensive media watching and the potential for violence grows stronger, moving into the realm of objective reality rather than being merely a subjective awareness of isolated individuals.
However, even the gathering of objective facts does not always result in consensus on social issues. Individuals and groups may question the validity of the facts, or they may dispute the facts by using other data that they hope demonstrate a different perspective. Examples of objective conditions that may or may not be considered by every- one to be social problems include environmental pollu- tion and resource depletion, war, health care, and changes in moral values. Religious and political views influence how people define social problems and what they think the possible solutions might be. Often, one person’s solu- tion to a problem is viewed as a problem by another person. For example, some people see abortion as a solu- tion to an unwanted pregnancy, whereas others believe that abortion is a serious social problem. Abortion and end-of-life decisions (such as assisted suicide and “right to die” cases) are only two of the many issues that are strongly influenced by religion and politics in the United States. To analyze the conditions that must be met before an objective reality becomes identified as a social prob- lem, see Box 1.2.
Just like other people, sociologists usually have strong opinions about what is “good” and “bad” in society and what might be done to improve conditions. However, so- ciologists know their opinions are often subjective. Thus, they use theory and systematic research techniques and report their findings to other social scientists for consider- ation. In other words, sociologists strive to view social problems objectively. Of course, complete objectivity may not be an attainable—or desirable—goal in studying hu- man behavior. Max Weber, an early German sociologist, acknowledged that complete objectivity might be impos- sible but pointed out that verstehen (“understanding” or “insight”) was critical to any analysis of social problems.
According to Weber, verstehen enables individuals to see the world as others see it and to empathize with them. Verstehen, in turn, enables us to use the sociological imag- ination and employ social theory rather than our own opinions to analyze social problems.
