Social Problems

Constructionist Readings

Donileen Loseke

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• eBook ISBN: 9781351489782
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

This collection of focused essays is directed at several levels of students of social problems. It is accessible to the uninitiated, who are not familiar with the constructionist literature, and aimed at those who are not particularly interested in subtle theoretical and empirical issues of concern to academics studying social problems from constructionist perspectives. Some readings focus on the construction of problems by scientists and other professionals; others examine the work of social activists, mass media, and social service personnel. Among the topics included are studies of social inequalities and individual deviance; a comparison of the images of social problems in the United States with those in other countries; and an examination of the importance of politics and power in constructing public images of social problems.Constructionist perspectives have become the leading theoretical approach for sociology and allied fields in studying social problems. Yet constructionists' impact on the teaching of social problems has been far less dramatic. Undergraduate courses on social problems are often subject to a theoretical barrage of eclectic perspectives. Just as the first social problems textbooks did almost a century ago, textbooks continue to present a series of unrelated chapters, each devoted to a particular social problem. Social Problems is an effort at systematic analysis rather than random thought on the subject.Social Problems presents detailed case studies demonstrating how constructionist perspectives can actually be applied to understand particular social problems. While these articles can be read alone, the editors have organized these selections to correspond with the chapter topics in the second edition of Donileen Loseke's Thinking about Social Problems, an accessible introduction to constructionist approaches. At the same time, some instructors who use this edited collection might wish to provide th

I

Examining Social Problems

Introduction to Section I

In daily life, we encounter the world around us as an objective reality: It simply exists, it is real. And it’s obvious that our world is littered with social problems—a term used to label conditions believed to occur frequently, to be very troublesome in their consequences, and that therefore need to be eliminated. In political speeches, on the nightly news, in newspapers, and in classrooms we hear about multiple conditions called social problems: There are the problems of terrorism, poverty, drugs, and teens who go on killing rampages; we hear about an insolvent Social Security system, unaffordable medical care, pollution, crumbling highways, and drivers on these roads who are drunk or talking on cell phones while driving gas-guzzling SUVs with unsafe tires. There are missing children, abused children, pregnant children, drug-addicted children, and children who can’t read. Daily we are bombarded with claims about all the frequent and devastating conditions in our environment that ought to be changed. From this perspective, social problems are objective conditions, elements in our social environment that should be examined to determine their magnitude, causes, consequences, and resolutions. This is the perspective of daily life and, until recently, the most popular perspective among academics studying social problems.

Social constructionist perspectives, the framework for this reader, challenge this commonsense notion that social problems should be studied only as objective conditions assumed to exist in society Rather, constructionists focus on examining social problems as subjective definitions— how we think about social problems is as important as—sometimes more important than—objective characteristics of our world. This focus on examining subjective definitions leads to many questions: Why do we worry about some conditions and don’t worry about others that, objectively speaking, are just as devastating in their consequences? What do people say or do to convince others that a troublesome condition exists that must be changed? What are the consequences of the typical ways that social problems attract concern? How do our subjective understandings of social problems change the objective characteristics of our world? Indeed, how do those understandings change how we think about our own lives and the lives of those around us? Constructionist perspectives focus on how people create and respond to conditions, how we categorize and typify, how we subjectively construct the meanings of problems, and how our constructions influence how we act toward those conditions.

The readings in this section alert us to the importance of asking questions about how we define and understand the world around us. We should not assume that we worry about the things we should worry about, or don’t worry about things we need not worry about. These readings also demonstrate how attending only to social problems as objective realities can lead us to miss important characteristics of social problems: What we do—and don’t—worry about, as well as how we think about social problems, reflect the characteristics of the larger culture around us.

For example, is “spanking” a social problem? Historically, this behavior in the United States was constructed as a form of “parental discipline.” It was evaluated by most Americans as something that was necessary—even good—for children. Spanking was a taken-for-granted condition in social life; it wasn’t evaluated as troublesome. Yet in “The Changing Meanings of Spanking,” Philip W. Davis examines how some people now construct spanking as a form of “child abuse,” as a condition that must be eliminated. His exploration of the changing meanings of spanking demonstrates how any particular condition doesn’t have a single, necessary meaning. The meaning of a condition can change over time. What is taken for granted in one historical era—spanking, racial discrimination, segregation, smoking cigarettes—can be transformed into a social problem in another era. Likewise, what is a social problem at one time—cohabiting outside marriage, employed mothers—can be considered not a social problem at another. No specific condition has a single, particular meaning. Because meanings are created by people, meanings can change over time.

Similarly, the same condition or behavior can be accorded the status of a social problem in one place but not in another. Consider a major social problem in Great Britain at this particular historical moment: “bullying in the workplace.” “Bullying” is an all-purpose term encompassing negative, uncivil behaviors in the workplace. While incivility certainly exists in American workplaces, we do not hear about “bullying” as a social problem. Why not? Why is “bullying” accorded the status of a social problem in Great Britain but not in the United States? Frank Furedi examines “Bullying as a Social Problem in Great Britain,” and considers how these two countries differ and how those differences lead to different evaluations of the same condition. What is—and what is not—evaluated as a social problem depends on the characteristics of the larger social, political, and cultural environments in which the condition exists.

Rather than assume Americans worry about what we should worry about and that we don’t worry about what we need not worry about, we can ask what do—and don’t—Americans worry about? We might ask, for example, why don’t we worry about the threat of earthquakes? Robert A. Stallings examines “The Problem with the Earthquake Problem.” He argues that scientists who study earthquakes believe the earthquake threat is very real yet the public does not seem worried. Textbooks on social problems don’t include the earthquake threat, public opinion polls don’t ask questions about it, preparing for earthquakes isn’t high on political agendas, and so on. Stallings illustrates how our perception of risk is more important than any objective indicators of risk. Our perception is that earthquakes are “no big deal”; therefore, the earthquake threat is not a social problem even though objective indicators could be used to argue that we should fear them.

As we move from simply assuming that social problems are objective conditions in the social environment to constructionist perspectives examining how we think about social problems, we start to question how we know what we know. How do we know that homelessness is a social problem? How do we know that we have a social problem of illegal drugs? What is our image of “homelessness” or “drug abuse”? Where do we get these images? Increasingly, we learn about the characteristics of the world around us from the mass media/popular culture. Consider the genre of television called “reality programming,” which presents itself simultaneously as fiction and fact. Gray Cavender considers how “Reality Television Constructs Crime.” He asks: What do we learn about the social problem of crime when we watch shows such as America’s Most Wanted, or Unsolved Mysteries? He argues that the major themes of television crime reality programs key into larger cultural concerns—what Americans believe and what we fear. He also demonstrates how a sense of “reality” on these programs is a social construction: It is scripted; it is achieved by things done by producers and show hosts that give watchers a feeling that “this is reality.” Although we might be led to thinking that these shows portray the reality of crime, it is a reality that does not mirror the objective characteristics of crime, it is a reality that is socially constructed by people.

The readings in this section all focus on questions about relationships between objective reality and subjective definitions, between the world existing outside us and our understandings of that world. In various ways, these readings demonstrate how we cannot simply assume that we worry about what we should worry about, that our worries are somehow rational rather than reflecting cultural biases, that our sources of knowledge supply us with facts rather than fiction. These readings set the stage for asking constructionist questions about how people construct reality and make our world meaningful.

1

The Changing Meanings of Spanking

Phillip W. Davis

Spanking is more than mild physical punishment to make children behave. It is also the focus of competing ideas, beliefs, and vocabularies put forth by critics and advocates in a debate over spanking’s definition, appropriateness, and implications. There is a long history of religious and secular justifications for spanking. Beliefs that spanking is natural, normal, and necessary form a “spare the rod ideology” that may perpetuate the practice. Trivializing terms such as “smack,” “spank,” and “whack” are at the heart of a rhetoric of punishment that presupposes the legitimacy of parental authority and makes assumptions about the impersonality of adult motivation. Spanking is a socially constructed reality; it means what people say it means.

Controversial topics such as spanking cause people to trade competing images and moral vocabularies. They look selectively at certain parts of the “problem” and not at others. My purpose is to compare the traditional defense of spanking with the emergent criticism of spanking, identifying the claims and counterclaims spanking’s advocates and critics have made in the popular press since mid-century. I will limit my focus to the debate over spanking by parents, recognizing that there is a parallel debate about spanking in schools. In general I argue that the debate over spanking has become more complex in its themes and vocabularies. New definitions of spanking supplement older ones, and what was once primarily a child-rearing issue has become a child-protection issue as well.

Traditional Defenses Of Spanking

Spanking’s advocates traditionally use a rhetoric and vocabulary that paint spanking as the reasonable reaction of responsible parents to their wayward children. They claim that spanking is (1) the sign of nonpermissiveness, (2) anticipatory socialization, (3) God’s will, (4) a morally neutral childrearing tool, and (5) a psychic release.

The Sign of Nonpermissiveness

Advocates often present spanking as an answer to the problem of permissive parents who are responsible for much of the “youth problem.” The argument is that parents’ lax attitudes result in the “undercontrol” of their children who go on to become delinquents, hippies, political activists, liars, cheaters, and thieves who lack respect for authority. In this view, failure to spank becomes the benchmark of permissiveness. Advocates also argue that character flaws lie behind the permissiveness of parents who do not spank; they lack the courage and responsibility that spanking is said to require. According to these advocates, parents who don’t spank have neglected their responsibilities, taken the easy way out, or let themselves be duped by experts into taking a scientifically progressive but unwittingly troubled path.

Anticipatory Socialization

A second claim is that spanking effectively prepares children for the tribulations of life and the vagaries of adulthood. Some advocates argue that children will profit from spankings once they enter the real world, a world that is characteristically more difficult and demanding than family life. One advocate wrote that going “back to the hairbrush” prepares children for life’s “booby-traps”: “... the poor kids, when they eventually break out of the cocoon of an undisciplined childhood, are completely unprepared for the fenced-in and booby-trapped pattern of conventional adult life.” This statement appeals to the idea that modernity and nonspanking are an unfortunate combination and that old-fashioned approaches better prepare children for the confinements of adult life.

God’s Will

Religious themes appear when authors mention “biblical sanctions” as a traditional argument for spanking. James Dobson, author of Dare to Discipline, writes from the standpoint of Christian fundamentalism and is notorious among critics for his advocacy of spanking and switching: “I think we should not eliminate a biblically sanctioned approach to raising children because it is abused in some cases” (quoted in Neff 1993).

A Morally Neutral Childrearing Tool

Advocates often refer to spanking as a tool, technique, or method, writing about it as if its use were but the impersonal and mechanical application of a morally neutral procedure. The virtues of this technique are said to include speed, efficiency, and efficacy. Spanking creates obedience and respect with minimum effort and without long, “dragged-out” discussions. These claims contend that the good child is an obedient child and that faster techniques are superior to slower ones. Defining spanking as a tool or method suggests that spankers are purposive rather than aimless, and depicts spanking as a logical activity rather than an emotional outburst. The overall image of parents who spank is that their “applications” are part of a method that is reasonable, systematic, and even merciful. The definition of spanking as a childrearing tool or technique is especially clear in the widespread claim that spanking should be used as a last resort, only after other, presumably less harsh, efforts have failed. The rhetoric of “last resorts” implies that spankers possess the knowledge and ability to mete out penalties of varying severity in the proper sequence.

A Psychic Release

Another common contention is that spanking resolves particular conflicts by somehow allowing parents and their children to start over, because it “clears the air.” Some authors claim that spanking frees children from guilt by providing them with an opportunity for repentance or offers a cathartic release of the parent’s tension and anger. Advocates also contend that parents who don’t spank will find other, less healthy, ways of expressing their anger. If they don’t become neurotically guilty, insecure, or repressed, parents may erupt later and do greater harm to the child, for all their progressive efforts to conform to the new psychology.

THE CRITICS RESPOND

Critics of spanking claim that these traditional defenses are flawed for a variety of reasons. They argue that, rather than preventing youth problems, spanking creates them. For one thing, spanking makes children untrustworthy because children might cheat or lie in order to avoid spankings. Critics also claim that, although spanking may “work” in the immediate situation, its effects are highly limited because it can cause children’s rebellion and resentment. They also argue that, while it may be effective, it is effective for the wrong reason. Instead of complying voluntarily out of respect based on reason, children who are spanked comply out of fear. Critics claim that spankers are irresponsible, because they are avoiding the harder but superior alternatives. Spankers worry too much about teaching the values of respect and authority, oblivious to the fact that spanking really teaches the legitimacy of aggression, brute strength, and revenge. Critics also contend that spanking can easily escalate. Critics argue that the true meaning of discipline involves teaching children the lesson of self-control, whereas “physical discipline” only teaches them “might makes right.”

In sum, since mid-century advocates and critics in the popular press have been invoking several different meanings of spanking. Advocates for spanking claim that children are “underdisciplined,” that they need to be spanked, that parents who do not spank are mollycoddling their children, that being spanked doesn’t harm children, and that nonspanking parents are irresponsible. Critics respond that spanking is futile at best and counterproductive at worst. In this traditional debate, advocates emphasize the drawbacks of permissiveness as a cause of delinquency and rebellion, and critics argue that discipline should involve teaching and self-control.

EMERGENT MEANINGS

The traditional claims about spanking persist. But spanking’s critics bring newer, supplementary meanings to the debate, meanings that coincide with changing concerns and arguments borrowed from debates over other issues.

Spanking Is Compulsive

The critics’ first new claim is that spanking is compulsive, habit-forming, or addictive. This claim depicts parents as people who have lost their autonomy by becoming dependent on a highly satisfying behavior that they can abandon only with considerable difficulty. Critics compare spanking to smoking, because both practices are legal, harmful, and habitual, and given the widespread criticisms of each, they are increasingly secretive practices. Responding to a report that time out is more popular with parents than spanking, for example, one pediatrician was skeptical, saying that “spankers today are like closet smokers.”

Spanking Is a Demeaning, Violent Act

Critics routinely echo the view of most family violence researchers that spanking is a form of violence. They describe spanking as an act of violence that models violent behavior for the child and teaches children that violence is socially acceptable. Critics argue that spanking humiliates and devalues the child and demonstrates that physical violence is a good way to solve problems. For critics, spanking is a prime example of minor violence that later causes adult violence, especially by those who experience frequent, severe spankings as children. With increasing frequency, newspaper and magazine articles interweave references to spanking and abuse and some emphasize that a “fine line” separates spanking and abuse, a line that is too easily crossed.

The Advocates Respond

Advocates have had little say about the idea that spanking is a compulsion, but they take issue with critics who claim it is violent or abusive. Some claim that critics are less concerned about raising children than they are about social appearances. Some writers make increasingly sharp distinctions between spanking and abuse, between “an occasional swat” and spankings, or between rare swats and corporal punishment. Some advocates tell parents just what to do so that they will not be considered abusive:

Spank only for a few specific offenses, such as blatant disrespect and defiance. ... John Rosemond, in his Knight News Service newspaper column “Parent and Child,” gives these guidelin...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Preface
• I. Examining Social Problems
• II. Claims-Makers and Audiences
• III. Constructing Conditions
• IV. Constructing People
• V. Constructing Solutions
• VI. Social Problems and Everyday Life
• VII. Social Problems and Troubled People
• VIII. Evaluating Constructionist Perspectives on Social Problems