Study Of Social Problems Essay Research Paper

Study Of Social Problems Essay, Research Paper

The definition of a social problem varies greatly depending on whether an objectivist

approach or a constructionist approach is taken. This is because sociologists that adopt these

unique perspectives will differ in how they view the nature of a social problem. The

objectivist definition of a social problem is perhaps more common sense because it “suggests

that the essence of social problems lies in objective social conditions and that some

conditions are problems.” [1] This definition focuses around the evaluation of conditions in

society to decide whether they are harmful to either individuals or society, and then defining

them as social problems. If a condition fails to meet a given criterion of harm, it then would

not be considered a social problem.

While this process of defining social problems in terms of objective conditions may

seem adequate, further analysis reveals serious flaws. Foremost “it minimizes or even

ignores the subjective nature of social problems.” [2] This becomes apparent when one realizes that not all harmful conditions are considered to be social problems, such as the nutritional concerns of a high fat diet. Another flaw in considering social problems to be the result of objective conditions of harm is that “the objective conditions that people define as social problems have relatively little in common.” [3] A list of social problems will have a great

variety of topics with no common theme, nor common causes and effects. It may appear that

social problems are inevitably subjective, and that a more valid definition could be sought in

the constructionist perspective.

The constructionist perspective to social problems focuses on the processes by which

people designate some social conditions as social problems. This approach assumes that

what is or is not a social problem is a product, or construction of social activities known as

claimsmaking. [4] This approach is quite unique as a social problem refers to the activities of

individuals or groups, which make assertions towards some harmful condition. The

constructionists will focus on and examine what the claimsmakers say about conditions,

rather than the conditions themselves. [5] This examination will often take the form of case

studies, in which sociologists will look at how a particular public issue is constructed.

Constructionism is also interested in problem identification, or its perception and

definition. Of interest is how certain conditions come to be defined as problems by certain

groups, as this usually reflects an issue of power that this group stands to lose or benefit

from. Typification, or the characterization of a problem’s nature [6] is also important to

sociologists. Typification will take the common forms of assuming a particular orientation

for a problem, in order to provide a solution, as well as using typifying examples to capture

public attention. Examples of this can be found later in this paper, in the discussion of Best’s

logical structure of claimsmaking as applied to child sexual abuse.

While constructionists agree that social problems are a subjective phenomenon, there

is a division among them over the nature of constructionism, which manifests into the strict

and the contextual approaches to constructionism. Strict constructionism, as advocated by

John I. Kitsuse [7], emphasizes the subjective view of a condition, and regardless of the

analysts view, does not see the condition as an objective problem. Rather than providing an

objective analysis, the strict constructionist will focus on who is making the claim, and what

type of logic is being used. They will examine to what extent various claims are accepted,

and by whom, and the impact that they have.

This goal of assumption free sociology was found to be virtually impossible because

every claim is made at a certain place and time, and in a certain language. Languages

represent the world in different ways, and in particular represent processes differently, and to

ignore fundamental objective conditions such as these is not possible. Strict constructionism

is flawed because the physical world offers too much objective feedback to be completely

subjectively interpreted.

It is not surprising then the majority of constructionists reject the strict approach

because of the apparent impossibilities of having no objectiveness when analyzing

claimsmaking. The majority of sociologists examining claimsmaking use contextual

constructionism, which attempts to locate claimsmaking within its context. [8] Contextual

constructionists recognize that claims occur at a particular moment in time, at a certain

place, by a specific group or individual. Because claims occur within these contexts, it is

important to recognize and understand them, because this is often the key to understanding

why a condition is being considered a social problem. Contextualists also study the apparent

discrepancies between objective harm and subjective concern. For example how some

conditions for which there is great objective harm such as marijuana, receive less attention

than something with less objective harm such as cigarettes. Also of importance is how the

amount of subjective concern will vary over time, when the amount of objective harm

remains constant.

Joel Best’s model of the logical structure of claimsmaking contains three main