DEFINING SOCIAL PROBLEMS: PUBLIC AND PROFESSIONAL PERSPECTIVES. ROBERT H. LAUER Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville

Transcription

1 DEFINING SOCIAL PROBLEMS: PUBLIC AND PROFESSIONAL PERSPECTIVES ROBERT H. LAUER Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville A common way of defining social problems is to include a subjective element; objective conditions only become social problems when they are perceived to be undesirable by some segment of the public. In their actual treatment of social problems, however, sociologists have contradicted their own definitions by ignoring public opinion in their selection of specific problems for study. A survey of Gallup Polls from 9 to 97 shows certain patterns in public definitions of problems and identifies the kind of concerns held by the public. An examination of thirty-four social problems texts shows the kind of problems treated by sociologists, and there is considerable disparity between the public and the professional perspectives. A resolution of this disparity is suggested in the form of a new definition of social problems that gives both professional and public opinion a place in identifying and analyzing social problems. One of the difficulties in the study of social problems is the initial task of definition. Definitions are important because they delimit the subject matter. When we define "social problems," we indicate what will and will not be covered in the study of social problems. Unfortunately, the literature contains ambiguities in the definitions, with the result that the subject matter itself becomes problematic. In this line, Kitsuse and Spector (97:07) have argued that neither the functionalist nor the value-conflict approach "succeeds in defining an unambiguous field of study, nor in distinguishing the subject matter of social problems from other categories of sociological analysis." A basic ambiguity in the definitions is the relationship of social problems to objective conditions in a society. One attempt to resolve this ambiguity is to argue that certain objective conditions become a social problem when those conditions are defined by people as problematic. In other words, social problems are a combination of objective and subjective elements, namely, certain objective conditions which are subjectively perceived to be undesirable and therefore defined as a problem. In this paper, I will show that the subjective element has been common in definitions of social problems, but that it fails to resolve the ambiguity. Specifically, it fails because sociologists do not adhere to their own definitions. Downloaded from by guest on February 9, 0 PROFESSIONAL DEFINITIONS A typical approach to the definition of social problems has been to include a subjective element. That is, social problems are said to exist when people define conditions as problematic. And which specific group of people are involved in the subjective definition? Typically, the "public" is said to define the situation as a problem. But how much of the public? Some have simply said a "significant" or "considerable" number of people must be involved (e.g., Cuber and Harper, 98:xiv; Horton and Leslie, 9:). Julian (97:9) and McKee and Robertson (97:) modify this to say that either a significant number of people or a Of course, not all sociologists would agree that the "public" is a valid basis for identifying problems. See Manis (97a and 97b) for a critique of definitions along different lines than I am pursuing here.

2 Public Opinion and Textbook Practice number of significant people must define the conditions as a problem. McNall (97:) identifies "strategically placed groups" as the definers. To talk about "significant people" and "strategically placed groups" is to open the possibility of sociologists or other social scientists defining conditions as a social problem, a point to which I shall return below. But most professionals locate the defining process in an ambiguous number of people in the society, people who represent a "public." A more useful approach has been offered by Mauss (97:-) who identifies an "issuespecific public," which is part of the general public and which is "made up of all the people who care about a certain issue, no matter what side of the issue they may be on." Out of the issue-specific public, Mauss argues, interest groups emerge to become the "champions" of social problems. Thus, within the general public there is a more narrow group which is aware of and concerned about particular issues, and out of that group emerges the activists who attempt to deal with the problematic condition in some way. While most definitions do not attempt to specify the nature of the public that defines conditions as problematic, then, most have included the public or some segment of the public as an essential component. As a recent text put it: "A social problem is ^public issue of narrow focus which is so defined by a public" (Green, 97:). The role of the sociologist then is to study the attitudes of people, attitudes which create and resolve social problems. This suggests also that social problems appear in the public consciousness before they are recognized by sociologists. Blumer (97:99) is explicit: "... in identifying social problems sociologists have consistently taken their cue from what happens to be in the focus of public concern." The idea that objective conditions only become social problems when there is public awareness goes back at least as far as the text of Bossard (98:), who defined problems as situations that involve a substantial number of people whose well-being is threatened, as defined by group mores. The mores dictate what will and will not be defined as a problem. In attempting to explain why certain conditions come to be defined as social problems, Bossard emphasized the role of social change. But while social change can create the conditions that are likely to be defined as problematic, those conditions per se do not comprise a social problem. Reinhardt, Meadows, and Gillette (9) also located social problems in social change, change that leads to "disadjustments." But they argued that the disadjustments must be recognized and defined as such: "... a social problem is a collective difficulty which the total public or some constituent group of the public thinks exists" (p. ). Many of the early texts rooted the study of social problems in social change, often approaching problems as the consequence of cultural lag. But the idea that objective conditions only become a social problem when so defined by some segment of the public is independent of the particular theoretical perspective used to explain the conditions. Sociologists of varying theoretical persuasions have agreed that objective conditions must be perceived as undesirable before they become social problems. Thus, the value-conflict school of thought also stressed the role of the public. Fuller and Myers (9: asserted that social problems are simply "what people think they are" regardless of the objective conditions. Following Fuller, Cuber and Harper (98:xiv) defined social problems in terms of conditions which are perceived by "a considerable number of individuals as undesirable" and as requiring some kind of action for their change. Cuber and Harper did not relegate the sociologist to the role of mere observer and analyst, however. They argued that both expert and public opinion entered into the definition of particular social conditions as a problem. But since the public does not accept social experts in the same sense as it accepts experts in the natural sciences, the sociologists can do little other than attempt to influence public opinion. "Put briefly, public opinion determines the pres- Downloaded from by guest on February 9, 0

3 LAUER ence or absence of social problems; social scientists have a voice, but not the voice, in this public opinion" (Cuber and Harper, 98:7). Similarly, sociologists of varying other theoretical orientations include the subjective element in their definitions of social problems. Davis (97 approached the study of social problems from collective behavior theory, and especially the public opinion process. A social problem may involve either a real or imagined condition, he argued, but a problem only exists when a "considerable proportion of the members of a community" agree that it exists. Finally, we have already noted that the functionalist approach incorporates the subjective element. As Merton and Nisbet (97:) put it: "A social problem is a way of behavior that is regarded by a substantial part of a social order as being in violation of one or more generally accepted or approved norms." My quarrel at this point is not with the notion that there is a subjective element to social problems, but with the specific group of people who are involved in the subjective definition. Since the "public" is typically said to be involved, we should find that the subject matter of social problems texts and courses is congruent with public opinion. For, following Mauss, I would argue that public opinion on social problems provides us with a set of issues which are of concern to various publics (issue-specific publics). Such issues form the focal point around which various interest groups crystallize to champion their causes. This line of reasoning is supported by the fact that the issues identified by the public (discussed below in connection with Table I) all have their organized champions. To reiterate, then, sociologists define social problems in a way that makes public opinion a prime source for identifying which conditions to treat as problems. PUBLIC PERSPECTIVES Since November, 9, the Gallup Poll has queried Americans on the most important problem facing the people of this country. The phrasing of the question has varied slightly. Initially, it was: "What do you regard as the most vital issue before the American people today?" From 99 on, the question always dealt with the "most important problem" facing Americans, with the typical form being: "What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?" This open-ended question was asked of "a representative cross-section of the total United States adult, non-institutionalized population" (Gallup, 97, vol. l:v). I have tabulated the results of the poll for 9 and each year thereafter in which the question was asked. Table shows each problem which was named at least five times during the forty year period and the years in which it was named. There are a number of observations we can make from an examination of the table. First, although the number of problems identified varies from year to year (some of this, of course, is due to the omission from Table of problems which were not mentioned in at least five different years), there has been almost continual expression of concern with some problems war and peace and various economic matters. Second, some problems seem to be identified periodically taxes, foreign policy, and the lack of religion and morality. Third, some problems appear to have a limited time span during which they are identified. They may be transient concerns, such as concern with the atomic bomb from 9 to 9, or faddish concerns like that with Communism during certain periods. They may be basically resolved in the public eyelabor problems were identified almost continuously from 9 to 98, but have not been mentioned since. Finally, some problems emerge during the period and may either continue or, like labor problems, fade out of the public arena of concern. Thus, crime and delinquency Downloaded from by guest on February 9, 0 Results of the polls are reported in Gallup (97) and in The Gallup Opinion Index, Reports Number 00 (October, 97) and 8 (April, 97).

4 Public Opinion and Textbook Practice TABLE Social Problems as Identified by Public Opinion, 9-97 Problem. War and peace (including neutrality). The economy, including unemployment. High cost of living including inflation. Taxes. Government spending. Labor problems 7. Foreign policy 8. Communism 9. Crime and delinquency 0. Civil rights and race. Farm problems. The atomic bomb. Lack of religion and morality. Poverty IS) n e> f) o 8 ( if) to o> en 97 98? en o if) CT> Years Problem Named n (0 If) s If) If) a O) o> en if) O) If) 9 O) o>,9 S O) s» 99 o r* a> If) and the race problem were first identified in the 90s and poverty emerged in 9; all have remained a public concern through the 970s. There appear then, to be at least three different patterns of public concern for social problems. Some problems are of more or less continual concern. Others appear periodically over time. And others have a natural history of emergence and disappearance. As we gather public opinion over a longer time span, of course, these patterns may prove to be somewhat different. The fact that public definitions of problems show such variations lends support to those who argue that the sociologist's task is the study of the defining process. But that process would seem to be more complex than they have recognized. Spector and Kitsuse (97) set forth a four-stage natural history model which begins with groups defining some conditions as somehow undesirable and ends with "the development of activities to create alternative, parallel, or counter-institutions as responses to the established procedures" (p. 7). But this ignores the various patterns reflected in public opinion and, incidentally, in the history of social problems in this country. Some problems are continually with us, some disappear from the arena of public concern, and some appear periodically to subside only to reappear. Table not only shows various patterns of public opinion about different problems, but also indicates the kinds of problems that are of concern. If we rank order the problems in terms of frequency of mention during the forty years, war and peace emerges as the greatest concern and farm problems as the least concern (Table ). There has been great concern with economic issues. In fact, we could summarize the results of the polls in the statement that the primary concerns over the forty year period have been economic and perceived threats to life and property. Downloaded from by guest on February 9, 0 PROFESSIONAL VS. PUBLIC PERSPECTIVES How do the professional definitions concur with public opinion? We have seen that professional definitions typically include a subjective element, and that the subjective element frequently involves the "public." In fact, out of twenty-four definitions of social problems which I found in thirty-four texts (listed below), twenty-one included the requirement that the public or some segment of the public must perceive the condition as a problem before we can justly say that a social problem exists. We have also seen, through forty years of

5 LAUER TABLE Problems Ordered by Frequency of Mention in Gallup Polls, 9-97 Problem Number of Time Identified in 9 Polls. War and peace. High cost of living, including inflation. The economy, including unemployment. Civil rights and race. Labor problems. Taxes 7. Crime and delinquency 8. Foreign policy 9. Communism 0. Lack of religion and morality. Government spending. Atomic bomb. Poverty. Farm problems Gallup polls, the nature of public concerns. In order to see how well professional treatments reflect public concerns, I examined thirty-four social problems texts to determine what problems they treated. These texts covered about the same time period as the polls. There were five texts from the 90s: Elliott and Merrill (9); Bossard (98); Murray and Flynn (98); Paustian and Oppenheimer (98); and Barnes (99). Four texts were from the 90s: Gillette and Reinhardt (9); Mowrer (9); Phelps (97); and Cuber and Harper (98). Six were from the 90s: Reinhardt, Meadows, and Gillette (9); Neumeyer (9); Lee and Lee (9); Bernard (97); Smith (97); and Raab and Selznick (99). Eight were from the 90s: Dynes, Clarke, Dinitz, and Ishino (9); Cole and Miller (9); Horton and Leslie (9); Landis (9); Dentler( 97); Lindenfeld (98); Perrucci and Pilisuk (98); and Gerson (99). Finally, eleven were published in the 970s: Davis (97; Merton and Nisbet (97); Sykes (97); Johnson (97); Julian (97); Eitzen (97); Giallombardo (97); Green (97); McKee and Robertson (97); McNall (97); and Mauss (97). Some of the books are readers, but all are designed for use in social problems courses. In Table, the problems selected in the thirty-four books are listed. I chose the fourteen most frequently selected problems, in order to compare them with the fourteen problems of the Gallup polls, and have listed them in rank order of number of times analyzed. As may be seen, throughout the period the most "popular" problem of sociologists was crime and delinquency. At the lower end of the list is the problem of greatest concern to the American public war and peace. In constrasting the public and professional perspectives, we must be cautious because of overlapping categories. That is, certain problems identified in the polls are probably included in some of the problems dealt with in texts. It may be that public concern over the "lack of religion and morality" reflects public awareness of crime rates and divorce statistics, among other things. Nevertheless, there are rather clear differences between the problems identified by the polls and those treated in social problems texts. Less than a third of the texts treated the problem most often named in the polls war and peace. The problem next in order of public concern, the high cost of living and inflation, was not directly treated at all in the thirty-four Downloaded from by guest on February 9, 0 The texts used were all those in the libraries of two large, Midwestern universities. Comparisons with others are welcome, but the scope of this particular study did not allow for other comparisons.

6 Public Opinion and Textbook Practice 7 TABLE Social Problems as Identified by Textbooks, 9-97 Number of Times An alyzed Problem 9--9 (N = ) <N = ) (N = ) 90-9 (N = 8) (N = ) Total (N = ). Crime and delinquency. Marriage and the family. Population (including migration and immigration. Race and ethnic relations. Poverty. Health, mental and physical 7. Education 8. Labor and working conditions 9. Urban and rural problems 0. Personal pathologies: alcholism, suicide. drugs. The polity. Unemployment (as separate issue from poverty). Ecology. War and peace 0 texts. Two of the problems most frequently dealt with in the texts-marriage and the family and population were not mentioned in thirty years of polls (although, as noted above, public concern with "lack of religion and morality" may partly stem from an awareness of divorce rates). In sum, we must conclude from a comparison of Tables and that the problems of greatest concern to the public-that is, the problems identified by issue-specific publics-are generally not of highest priority in textbooks on social problems and some are even ignored in the latter. On the other hand, the problems most frequently treated in the textbooks are generally not among the most frequently named in public opinion polls, and some have never been identified as problems. What makes this particularly important, of course, is that twenty-one of the twenty-four definitions found in the texts specifically include public perception and identification as an integral part of any condition which is a social problem. It would appear, then, that in spite of the way in which social problems are defined by sociologists, the problems dealt with in the texts reflect professional interests and areas of expertise rather than the concerns and definitions of issue-specific publics. Either the definitions or the subject matter of the texts should be altered if we are to be consistent Downloaded from by guest on February 9, 0 CONCLUSION Sociologists have rather consistently violated their own definitions of social problems in choosing the particular problems to be treated in texts. This raises a number of issues. Should the definitions be revised so that sociologists can be considered an issue-specific public, one of the segments of the public (or at least one of the "significant" groups) who define conditions as a problem? Or should the subject matter of texts be revised so that public concerns are treated instead of the interests and areas of expertise of sociologists? If the former course

7 8 LAUER is taken, we will recognize professionals as one type of interest group, a group that engages in a social construction of reality in the process of identifying and analyzing social problems (Mauss, 97:9-. Furthermore, we will be accepting a role for sociologists which has been affirmed as far back as Comte, who argued that, as priests of the Religion of Humanity, sociologists would guide mankind in achieving love, order, and progress (Lauer, 97:). On the other hand, we will also find ourselves immersed again in the debate about value-free science. And we will certainly find ourselves open to the charge of intellectual imperialism who are we to define for the public at large what is problematic for them? But if we take the latter course, and treat those matters suggested by public opinion polls, sociologists are going to have to acquire experience in some new areas, particularly in economics, and we might find ourselves charged with intruding into questions that are better handled by other disciplines. I would like to suggest another alternative a new definition, one that follows the lead of Cuber and Harper in giving both expert and public opinion a place in the definition of social problems. I intend to elaborate upon this definition in a subsequent paper. At this point, it will suffice to say that the definition utilizes the notion of "quality of life" which has been receiving considerable attention in our nation. The concern with quality of life in America is reflected in numerous things from safety standards for children's toys to governmental subsidies for the arts. Cities have been evaluated by researchers in terms of the quality of life available in them, and a number of cities and counties have made studies of their own areas in order to determine their quality of life. Such studies normally gather data on, among other things, job opportunities; educational achievement; economic inequality; accessibility of public services and cultural and educational institutions; indicators of health care; and crime rates. The point at which public opinion can enter into the definition of social problems is with respect to the quality of life. That is, public opinion should be used to ascertain the desired quality of life. People can define for themselves the kind of life they regard as ideal. The sociologist identifies those conditions which are incompatible with the desired quality of life, and analyzes the causes of those conditions. Both public opinion and sociological expertise then become integral parts of the definition of social problems. This approach resolves the contradiction between the definitions and the subject matter now found in social problems texts. For it is no longer a matter of whether the public or some segment of the public identifies, say, crime as a serious problem; rather, it is a question of whether the sociologists can show that crime is incompatible with the public's desired quality of life. Similarly, the fact that public opinion polls show alack of concern with population growth does not mean that the latter should not be treated as a social problem as long as the sociologist can demonstrate how population growth contradicts the desired quality of life. In this approach the role of the public is not as great as in current text-book definitions, and the role of the sociologist is much greater than that proposed by Cuber and Harper. But this approach makes the definition compatible with the subject matter and affirms both the importance of public definitions and the expertise of the sociologist. Downloaded from by guest on February 9, 0 As an anonymous referee of an earlier version of this paper pointed out, an implication of this "intruding" is that we might seriously consider a broadening of graduate education so that sociologists would be more competent to deal with the neglected issues. Such definitions will not be so heterogeneous as to preclude their usefulness. The studies of quality of life show a number of shared concerns and aspirations not only among Americans but among people throughout the world. See, for example, the "rank order of personal concerns" of people in nations in Cantril (9:7-77).

8 Public Opinion and Textbook Practice 9 REFERENCES Barnes, Harry Elmer 99 Society in Transition: Problems of a Changing Age. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Bernard, Jessie 97 Social Problems at Midcentury: Role, Status, and Stress in a Context of Abundance. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Blumer, Herbert 97 "Social problems as collective behavior." Social Problems 8(Winter):98-0. Bossard, James H. S. 98 Social Change and Social Problems. Revised edition. New York: Harper & Brothers. Cantril, Hadley 9 The Pattern of Human Concerns. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press. Cole, William E. and Charles H. Miller 9 Social Problems: A Sociological Interpretation. New York: David McKay. Cuber, John R. and Robert A. Harper 98 Problems of American Society: Values in Conflict. New York: Henry Holt and Company. Davis, F. James 970 Social Problems: Enduring Major Issues and Social Change. New York: The Free Press. Den tier, Robert A. 97 Major Social Problems. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company. Dynes, Russell R., Alfred C. Clarke, Simon Dinitz, and Iwao Ishino 9 Social Problems: Dissensus and Deviation in an Industrial Society. New York: Oxford University Press. Eitzen, D. Stanley 97 Social Structure and Social Problems in America. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Elliott, Mabel A. Francis E. Merrill 9 Social Disorganization. New York: Harper & Brothers. Fuller, Richard C. and Richard D. Myers 9 "The natural history of a social problem." American Sociological Review (June):0-8. Gallup, George H. 97 The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion vols. New York: Random House. Gerson, Walter M., ed. 99 Social Problems in a Changing World. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company. Giallombardo, Rose, ed. 97 Contemporary Social Issues. Santa Barbara: Hamilton Publishing Company. Gillette, John M. and James M. Reinhardt 9 Problems of a Changing Social Order. New York: American Book Company. Green, Arnold W. 97 Social Problems: Arena of Conflict. New York: McGraw-Hill. Horton, Paul B. and Gerald R. Leslie 9 The Sociology of Social Problems. Third edition. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Johnson, Elmer H. 97 Social Problems of Urban Man. Homewood,.: The Dorsey Press. Julian, Joseph 97 Social Problems. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Kitsuse, John I. and Malcolm Spector 97 "Toward a sociology of social problems: social conditions, value-judgments, and social problems." Social Problems 0(Spring):07-9. Landis, Judson R. (ed.) 9 Current Perspectives on Social Problems. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc. Lauer, Robert H. 97 Perspectives on Social Change. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. Lee, Elizabeth Briant and Alfred McClung Lee (eds.) 9 Social Problems in America: A Source Book. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Lindenfeld, Frank 98 Radical Perspectives on Social Problems. New York: Macmillan. ^ McKee, Michael and Ian Robertson "~-~, 97 Social Problems. New York: Random House. McNall, Scott, G. 97 Social Problems Today. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. Manis, Jerome G. 97a "The concept of social problems: Vox populi and sociological analysis." Social Problems (February): 0-. Downloaded from by guest on February 9, 0

9 0 LAUER 97b "Assessing the seriousness of social problems." Social Problems (October): -. Mauss, Armand L. 97 Social Problems as Social Movements. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company. Merton, Robert K. and Robert Nisbet (eds.) 97 Contemporary Social Problems.Third edition. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. Mowrer, Ernest R. 9 Disorganization: Personal and Social. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company. Murray, Raymond W. and Frank T. Flynn 98 Social Problems. New York: F. S. Crofts & Co. Neumeyer, Martin H. 9 Social Problems and the Changing Society. New York: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc. Paustian, Paul W. and J. John Oppenheimer 98 Problems of Modern Society. New York: McGraw-Hill. Perrucci, Robert and Marc Pilisuk 98 The Triple Revolution: Social Problems in Depth. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. Phelps, Harold A. 97 Contemporary Social Problems. Third edition. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Raab, Earl and Gertrude Jaeger Selznick 99 Major Social Problems. Evanston,.: Row, Peterson and Company. Reinhardt, James M., Paul Meadows, and John M. Gillette 9 Social Problems and Social Policy. New York: American Book Company. Smith, T. Lynn et al. 97 Social Problems. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company. Spector, Malcolm and John I. Kitsuse 97 "Social problems: A re-formulation." Social Problems (Fall): -9. Sykes, Gresham M. 97 Social Problems in America. Glenview,.: Scott, Foresman and Company. Downloaded from by guest on February 9, 0