Angles Of Vision

How To Understand Social Problems

Leonard Beeghley

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• eBook ISBN: 9780429981906
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

Angles of Vision is a compact text that provides students with basic information about social problems and teaches them a strategy for understanding these issues. Students learn how to distinguish between individual and structural analyses and the importance of placing issues in a historical and international context to gain a clearer understanding. In so doing, students come to appreciate that sociology is a hypothesis-testing discipline. The author uses metaphors, vignettes, and humor to convey the fundamental concepts, key findings, and methods by which sociologists understand social problems.

1 The Study of Social Problems

Outline of Chapter 1

I. Defining Social Problems

A. The Extent of Harm

B. Identification and Political Recognition

C. Need for Improvement

II. Understanding Social Problems

A. Identifying the Facts

1. The Dimensions of Social Problems

2. Consequences of Social Problems

B. Explaining the Facts

1. Individuals and Social Problems

2. Social Structure and Social Problems

C. Exploring the Implications

The subjects covered in this book are familiar, almost too familiar. Everyone has attitudes about abortion, poverty, drugs, and all the other issues dealt with here. Yet precisely because these topics are so familiar, they are often not understood. This lack of insight occurs mainly because conventional interpretations of events are so easily accepted; they are common sense. But relying on explanations that seem obvious usually does not get us very far. The problem, as Randall Collins observes, is that for each commonsense interpretation there usually exists an opposing view that is equally commonsensical to those who believe it (1992:87). Such differences are difficult to reconcile without evidence and a framework for asking questions about that evidence. This book analyzes selected social problems. Its purpose is to help you view familiar subjects in new ways.

Most people realize in their everyday lives that familiar subjects have several aspects, not all of which are readily apparent. This is certainly so in financial dealings. To take a trite example, most people learn not to accept a telephone company's presentation at face value, since actual long distance charges are often significantly higher than customers were led to believe when they signed up for the service. Yet this insight also applies to more serious issues, such as intimate relationships. At some point, each of my children has ended a statement with "and that's the truth." Alas, it sometimes turned out that important elements of "the truth" had been omitted. In daily life, then, most people try to pierce through the conventional explanations offered by children, spouses, salesclerks, and others in order to find the nonobvious elements of their presentation.

Sociologists do the same thing, using a social scientific angle of vision. As one of the founders of sociology, Emile Durkheim, remarked, a science of society sometimes causes people "to see things in a different way from the ordinary, for the purpose of any science is to make discoveries, and all such discoveries more or less upset accepted opinions" (1895:31). For example, some people see the problem of abortion as simple: It is murder. For others, the problem is equally simple: Restrictions on abortion deny women the right to control their fertility and, hence, keep them unequal to men. Note that both positions are moral stances and each seems like common sense to its adherents. There must be some underlying issues that are not obvious. Our challenge, in daily living and in social science, is to figure out what they are, to avoid being deceived by familiarity.

Sociology offers one way of overcoming this difficulty. Phrased formally, sociology can be defined as a systematic attempt at seeing social life as clearly as possible, understanding its various dimensions, and doing so without being swayed by one's personal hopes and fears. Although this is a complex task and not every sociological analysis leads to clarity or insight, sociology at its best employs a debunking orientation that takes observers beyond common sense, that upsets accepted wisdom. Its message, as Peter Berger comments, is that things are not what they seem.¹

As I later explain, data in the form of systematic observations are necessary in order either to confirm or get past what seems like common sense. They indicate how often a harmful condition occurs and its consequences. Data usually lead to questions. One of my goals in this book is to teach you that the answers to questions depend on your angle of vision.

In order to illustrate how important the angle or vision is, imagine you are taking a course in art history and must do research on one of the paintings by the Dutch impressionist Vincent van Gogh, perhaps Café Terrace at Night (completed in 1888). As shown on the cover of this book, the painting depicts a modest establishment visited by ordinary citizens in the evenings, where they eat, drink, and socialize. Yet like much great art, this piece can be understood from several points of view, not all of them obvious.

One angle of vision would involve using a spectroscope to analyze the chemical composition of the paint, as van Gogh's work is characterized by bright colors. Another approach would be to use a magnifying glass to examine the artist's brush technique, since van Gogh used heavy, slashing strokes. A third perspective would be to look closely at it from a short distance to see how the images fit together. Finally, you might move several feet away to get an overall view. These last two steps are important because, as with many impressionist works, what viewers see changes at varying distances. Each of these angles of vision provides different yet complementary information. Each level of analysis is valid. And combining them leads to greater insight about the painting.

In this book, I emphasize two angles of vision—individual and structural—that, taken together, provide a more complete view of the problems facing our society. For example, one factor that helps to explain why individuals use drugs is the stress caused by unemployment, an individual issue. Yet as I argue, this information says little about why so many people ingest harmful substances. To deal with this problem it is necessary to look at structural factors. It turns out that all affluent societies display relatively high levels of drug use, so there must be something about affluent social structures that leads lots of people to "do drugs." Considered jointly, then, these two angles of vision, which I explain in more detail in a few moments, provide complementary ways of understanding.

Right now, however, a definition of social problems is necessary. The process of defining our topic not only illustrates the importance of viewing familiar subjects in new ways, it also suggests some fundamental characteristics of the United States.

Defining Social Problems

Defining social problems might seem straightforward. Everybody knows what they are. Indeed, the table of contents of this book provides a list of well-known subjects: ill health, gender inequality, and so on. But definition by example constitutes a poor tactic because it does not indicate why some issues become problematic while others do not. This fact is important because, perhaps surprisingly, not all harmful conditions are recognized as social problems.

Consider the harm caused by drug and automobile use. In 1995 almost 12,000 persons died from drug-related causes, only some of which involved illegal substances (NCHS, 1996b:22). Illicit drugs, like heroin and cocaine, are associated with crimes costing millions of dollars each year. Basing their judgments on such evidence, many people conclude that drugs constitute a major problem in the United States. This seems like common sense. Yet automobiles pose greater risks and costs than drugs. In 1995 about 42,000 persons died in automobile accidents and countless more were injured. Motor vehicle mishaps, in fact, are the leading cause of death in the population under 35 years of age. Further, property damage from these collisions totals billions of dollars each year. In addition, auto use creates air pollution, resulting in discomfort and illness for millions of people. Finally, automobile use contributes to the greenhouse effect, atmospheric warming, which may produce significant economic dislocation in the future. These differences mean that cars are inherently more harmful to human life than drugs. After all, people are three times more likely to die from using cars as drugs. Perhaps we ought to "just say no" to automobile use? This seems like common sense (!?).

My point, of course, is that a little data can turn common sense on its head. It is clear that the issues labeled "social problems" have hidden dimensions that go beyond a simple calculation of harm. As observers, we need guidelines to help us understand why such things as drug and auto use are evaluated differently. A definition of social problems provides such direction.

Here is the definition used in this book: A social problem is a harmful condition identified by a significant number of people and recognized politically as needing improvement. According to this definition, social problems have three aspects that should be discussed. (1) An objective part shows the extent of harm. (2) A subjective component indicates that a harmful condition has been identified and political debate ensued. And (3) an optimistic aspect suggests that people believe the condition can be improved.²

The Extent of Harm

Harm comes in many forms. People can be physically hurt, they can lose money or power, their moral values can be offended, or the environment in which they live can be degraded. In every case, however, harm must be a factual situation whose dimensions can be accurately described. Those asserting that either drugs or cars constitute a social problem must show the extent of drug and automobile use and its consequences. Ideally, as I later emphasize, such a description would examine both historical and international data because they help to place an issue into perspective. For example, reporting how drug use varies over time and from one nation to another leads to greater understanding. Moreover, such information helps to show the harm caused by both drugs and policies designed to cope with them. Without gathering data that are as objective as possible (a demanding task), it is hard to assess the seriousness of a social problem. It is also difficult to identify the hidden factors involved.

Nonetheless, merely showing the existence of harm is not sufficient, as the different evaluations of automobile and drug use reveal. No matter how objective the data, some conditions that produce relatively little harm are defined as social problems while others that produce far more death, destruction, and cost are not treated in this way. Additional information is obviously needed.

Identification and Political Recognition

The recognition of social problems requires a subjective assessment by a "significant number" of people (Fuller and Myers, 1941). There has been considerable controversy in sociology as to how many persons are "significant," and it is easy to see why this question seems difficult to resolve. Does it take a majority of the population? An intense minority? A single powerful person? An expert or group of experts? In fact, there are occasions when each of these entities succeeds in claiming that a harmful condition constitutes a social problem. Thus, the answer has less to do with the absolute number of people who assert a condition is harmful than their influence in society.

The process or identifying a social problem typically involves feedback between the public and opinion leaders, those who bring issues to people's attention and teach them where their interests lie (Katz and Lazarsfeld, 1955). Most individuals use family and friends as their primary opinion leaders simply because of their emotional ties to them and the frequency of talking with them. But more distant opinion leaders exist as well. Some of them are politicians, such as the president, governors, members of Congress, and state legislators. Others are political activists concerned about specific issues. Still others are moral entrepreneurs, such as clergy, who want public policy to reflect a specific ethical position (Becker, 1963). Finally, some are idea brokers, such as professors, journalists, and experts in think tanks (Smith, 1991). These categories are not mutually exclusive; some opinion leaders fall into more than one. Their common characteristic is an active attempt at identifying social problems. In so doing, they place issues before the public, which responds (or not).

Here is an example of how the feedback between ordinary people and opinion leaders works. In 1962 a journalist named Michael Harrington wrote a book about the poor, The Other America, that sold well and also came to the attention of President John Kennedy. Many of the insights in this book were rather new and startling at the time because even though poverty was widespread, it was not considered a social problem. The issues Harrington raised were debated within the administration, and shortly after Kennedy's death, President Lyndon Johnson declared a War on Poverty. Moreover, during this same period many poor persons were demonstrating dissatisfaction—sometimes in unruly fashion—with their situation in life. As a result, then, of actions by an idea broker, the public's purchasing and reading the book, attention from politicians, and protests by impoverished persons, a harmful condition that most people (the nonpoor) had ignored was transformed into a social problem that remains vexing today. The issue was framed and political debate ensued in a complex interaction among opinion leaders and the public.³

Politics, at least in democratic societies, is a competitive process in which individuals and groups vie to get the attention of decisionmakers and ordinary citizens. The task, as C. Wright Mills phrased it in The Sociological Imagination (1959:8), is to transform the harm experienced by individuals as private troubles into public issues, into social problems that can be improved. Once this process is understood, it becomes clear that social problems change over time as political issues change.

Sometimes a condition accepted as right at one time becomes unacceptable and hence harmful later on. For example, the inequality that is intrinsic to traditional marriages (in which the husband is employed outside the home while the wife works inside) was considered by both men and women as natural just a few years ago, which meant that gender inequality was not deemed harmful. But tim es change, and this phenomenon is now considered a social problem because it restricts both women's and men's choices.

Sometimes a condition denned as harmful at one time becomes acceptable later on. For example, the acceptability of suicide among older persons appears to be increasing in the context of an aging population. This change indicates a rising concern about the current tendency to extend life without regard to its quality.

Note, however, that data were implicit in the examples used above. People claiming that gender inequality is a social problem point to the facts, such as income differences, marital roles, and the like. On this basis, they argue that such variations ought to be reduced. So there is always an interplay between the facts and subjective interpretation.

This interaction has important implications for understanding social problems. On the one hand, people select from reality certain issues to notice (drugs, for example), while ignoring others (cars). As a famous sociological aphorism states: If individuals define their situations as real, then they are real in their consequences. The authors of this statement, William I. Thomas and Dorothy Swaine Thomas, meant that there is a subjective component to human life that must always be taken into account (1928:272). On the other hand, the facts, the extent of harm as verified by observation, constitute a necessary counterpoint to people's subjective sense. The facts are vital because, in Robert K. Merton's words, "if people do not define real situations as real, they are nonetheless real in their consequences" (1976:22). Put differently, what you do not know can indeed hurt you. This is why I emphasize the importance of determining the amount of harm a condition produces. The definition of social problems, then, rests on these twin poles: data and their subjective interpretation. T...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• 1 The Study of Social Problems
• 2 Abortion
• 3 Gender Inequality
• 4 Racial and Ethnic Inequality
• 5 Poverty
• 6 Drugs
• 7 Homicide
• 8 An Aging Population
• 9 Health
• 10 Reflections on the Study of Social Problems
• Glossary
• References
• Index