Chapter One

Social Problems
What is Sociology? Sociology is the systematic study of human society. When we look
at society with a sociological perspective, it means that we are able to see the general in
the particular and the strange in the familiar.
So, what does this mean exactly? Lets say that I am interested in knowing what kinds of
clothing fashions are popular for 18-24 year olds today. I could walk into any particular
undergraduate class and observe the ways that students dress. I could then make an
educated guess that these are the styles that are generally favored by young people. To
be certain, I would also need to see if young adults in the community dressed similarly.
The class may only reflect what is worn by college students. It stands to reason that
young adults would dress similarly across our culture since they are all exposed to the
same media, the same music, the same fashion magazines, etc. We could also observe
independent cultural differences across various social groupsalthough in the US there
are few styles that are 100% group specific.
Seeing the strange in the familiar requires you to step outside of your culture and look at
it with a new set of eyes. For example, think about the 4th Thursday in November
(Thanksgiving). Walk into nearly any household in the US and you will find a turkey on
the table. There may be other foods as well that are linked to family and/or cultural
traditions, but turkey tends to be front and center. Doesnt it seem odd that nearly all of
us sit down to practically identical meals on that one day? And this practice is imbedded
in our culture. How would you feel if you went home on Thanksgiving and there was a
pot roast on the table?
Sociologists try to look at other cultures with a non-discriminatory eye. Each culture is
equal, though they may be different. Also, we try to look at our own society with a nondiscriminatory eye, recognizing what motivates and encourages our behaviors, without
automatically assuming that our ways are right, and all others are wrong.
Every human being is a social scientist. Think about the ways you navigate the world.
You collect data every day to negotiate the circumstances in which you find yourself.
Social interaction becomes a trial and error practice of working out situations.
Unfortunately, while this trial and error practice is very useful to our social survival, it is
also the stuff that stereotypes and generalizations are made of. When I ask students to
describe the average alcoholic for me, students invariably answers that they are dirty,
unemployed, perhaps homeless, usually non-white, always poor, and usually male. We
tend to view alcoholics as homeless individuals, and we typically feel the homeless are
on the street because they have substance abuse issues. So in general, since this is the
assumption we make based on the data that weve collected (i.e. characters in the movie
and in the media, the homeless people that we see who appear to be either high or drunk,
etc), we might draw the conclusion that alcoholics are worthless individuals who are the
living outcasts of society.

And this is where the study of sociology is useful. The individual collects data based on
their day to day experiences. This data is then interpreted from the perspective of that
persons values and cultural beliefs. The sociologist however collects much more data
from a wide range of individuals, not just from personal experience. The data is then
interpreted from the perspective of a theoretical understanding of the social experience
rather than the personal values and opinions of the researcher.
When we broadly collect data on alcoholism, what we find is that the majority of
alcoholics are highly educated, middle to upper class whites, especially males. Black
females are the least likely to be alcoholics and black males are the next lowest on the
list. Data proves that our assumptions about alcohol addiction are incorrect. When these
statistics became well know, alcoholism began to be classified as a disease rather than a
failing of the individual. In fact, we find through research that the poor and the working
class have less money to spend on alcohol, and have more to lose in terms of employment
loss if they drink to excess. Pre-dinner cocktails are a habit of the wealthier in society,
not the poor. Just think about all of those soap operas that are so popularthe rich and
the beautiful always have a drink in their hand.
The sociological perspective helps us uncover the myths in our common sense. It asks us
to look at what we believe and why we believe it. It challenges us to find data to either
support our beliefs or to disprove them. It also helps us to understand ourselves and
others better. It helps us to find opportunities and to avoid constraints. It helps us to
actively participate in making our society a better place for all of us to live and it helps us
to not only encourage but to thrive on diversity.
The Role of Theories in Understanding Society
Sociology, like many of the behavioral sciences, was born during the social changes
wrought by the Industrial Revolution. Imagine what it must have been like to live during
this era. For the first time, people began to take real control of the environment. The
introduction of the steam engine made geographical distances manageable. The telegraph,
telephone and radio gave us control of the airwaves and fostered communication. The
ability to harness electricity gave us control of time as we were able to extend our
daylight through artificial means. While on the surface, all of these changes were
good, they took their toll on the social fabric.
Prior to the Industrial Revolution, generations of families lived and died in the areas in
which they were born. Inheritance (even if it was only a claim on the family homestead)
was typically restricted to the oldest son and any younger brothers were expected to
pursue other occupations or means to survive. The introduction of factories however,
provided new opportunities for occupational choices and the promises of class mobility
for the poor. People were drawn to these factories for jobs. This meant leaving behind
their families and their way of life.
Once in the cities, they were often met with severe poverty, unemployment, substandard
and/or inadequate housing and disease. The dramatic growth in the cities stressed the

social and physical infrastructure. Imagine, for example, if the population of Detroit
more than quadrupled over the next year with people looking for jobs. Not only would
we not have the ability to employ them, we would not have the ability to house them.
Would the cities sewers be able to handle the growth in the population? Would our
garbage collectors be able to keep the litter from this population under control? And
what sort of people would we encounter? [Erik Larsens historical novel The Devil in the
White City gives a good account of the chaos and feel of Chicago as it grows rapidly in
the new industrial era of turn of the century Chicago. Think about Charles Dickens]i
Cities with low crime rates quickly became overcrowded. For every one job, there might
be 10 or more applicants. For every one apartment, there might be 5 families needing
housing. The sewers were not able to handle the waste. The city management couldnt
handle the increase in garbage production. In the absence of hygiene and antibiotics (not
to mention immunizations), disease began to spread. There were multiple epidemics here
and in Europe like Scarlett Fever, Small Pox, Tuberculosis, Cholera, Typhoid, and
Influenza, to name a few.
What happened is that philosophers began to look at society as a growing, changing,
living thing. They began to look at the consequences of these technological changes on
the social fabric. They began to develop theories to explain society.
Theoretical Paradigms:
For the purposes of this course these theories can be divided into three paradigms. The
word paradigm is borrowed from the biological sciences. It means category or
classification. For example, we know that an eagle, a sparrow and a robin are all
birds. Bird is the paradigm, the category in which we classify animals is based on shared
characteristics (feathers, wings, they can fly, they lay eggs, etc). Likewise, social theories
can be divided into the following paradigms, based on their characteristics.
Structural Functionalism This paradigm includes all theories that view society as a
system of structures or institutions, each with its own unique function. These structures
work together to promote solidarity and social growth.
Conflict Theory these theories view society as an arena of inequality. These
inequalities not only create problems in society, but also provide the catalyst for social
change.
Symbolic Interaction these theories argue that we create society through our
interactions with other humans. Society is made up of individuals with a number of
shared values and expectations.
What follows provides a broad overview of each:
I. Structural Functionalism

While there are many theorists who provide a structural functionalist perspective on
society, one of the first was Emil Durkheim. Durkheim looked at the changes in society
around the Industrial Revolution as a series of birthing pains. He argued that this
introduction of technology plus the greater density and complexity of society had created
a sense of normlessness or anomie in society. This anomie meant that we no longer
knew, as individuals within society, how to deal with our day to day lives. Durkheim also
argued that new technology created a need to develop new norms and so there was a
delay in societys ability to stabilize. Furthermore, Durkheim argued that the structures
of society worked together to keep society stable. Social problems occurred when old
structures failed in new social realities, or when this state of anomie prevented the
structures from being able to function appropriately. After adjusting to these new
circumstances he assumed new norms would emerge and institutions would work
together to develop and ensure stability once again.
There are common institutions in every society, though they may not appear or function
in the same manner everywhere. For example, medicine may mean hospitals and clinical
intervention to one society and traditional or herbal healing in another. However, these
medical institutions serve the same role in every community; providing for the health of
the citizens. The common institutions are: Family; Religion; Education; Medicine;
Government; Economy; Science; Technology; The Media.
What we must consider is that as society changes, and as society gets more complex the
relationships and practices once considered appropriate might become a problem to some.
This will generate new rules and relationships that may or may not return society to some
balance. Consider the case of music as it represents the intersection of Technology and
The Media.
Think of all the adolescents that were prosecuted for copyright violation for downloading
free music from the internet. Teens have shared music since the introduction of cassette
taps with dubbing capability. This was a normal expectation. With the spread of simple
record players and later tape decks it was each to share music with friends, though at first
the quality wasnt good. You could sit in front of the speaker of the record player (or if
you were clever figured out how to redirect the speaker wire) and recorded your albums
onto a tape recorder, or tape directly from the radio. By the early 80s, double cassette
players were introduced and became affordable. Rather than an album, you could now
purchase a cassette tape and dub it in the second cassette deck, producing a very good
copy of the music. Of course, today that quality is even better and its quicker to share.
It takes less than a minute to burn an entire copy of a music CD. Finally, the Internet
resulted in quick and easy access to music, and all along sharing the music had never
been a problem.
It became a problem when shareware began to show up on the Internet and people began
to copy entire CDs to these programs. Why is this a problem for some? Before the
shareware, you might burn one or two copies of your CDs for close friends. After
shareware, tens of thousands of downloads might be made of the CD that you upload to
share. This creates an economic problem for the music industry when a practice initially

seen as free marketing and word of mouth promotion of a groups music (and thereby a
boost to sales) because a large scale by-passing of the marketplace and the lost revenues
that ensued..
Now we have this dysfunction that has created a problem so we need the institutions of
society to band together to create and enforce a new norm of behavior. Economic
institutions in the economy initiate a complaint. The government is required to determine
that copyright laws apply and to enforce these laws. Parents are expected to enforce
these values at home as well, or be held accountable if they dont. Science and
technology work together as many of these download sites, such as Kaaza, are
intentionally infected with a virus or implanted with a filter that makes web access
impossible. Technology is now being used to make copying a CD difficult if not
impossible. The media begins a campaign to inform young people that this is illegal
behavior and spells out the consequences of violating the rules. Legal sites, such as Itunes, begin to show up to provide an affordable alternative to sharing music. Youll
notice that not every institution is involved because they may not relate to the problem at
hand. But in theory, structures and systems have functioned to return this part of society
to a semblance of order and routine.
II. Conflict Theory
A criticism of structural functionalism is that it tends to see society as being correctly
organized and any disruption is a problem that will be addressed so to return society to
this normal state. Therefore, when a social problem occurs, it is because one of the
institutions isnt doing its job or some change has created an anomaly. Conflict theorists,
in contract, reject this out of hand, saying that the fabric of society has intrinsic conflicts
of interests by different segments of society, and that power imbalances lead to social
inequality.
Most conflict theories are based on the works of Karl Marx. Marx argued that each
epoch in social history was organized around some principle of production generating
specific social and political structures and institutions designed to reproduce and sustain
that system. However, Marx argued, each epoch had within it inherent contradictions,
and as society grew more complex and dealt with those contradictions the tension
continued to build. In the end the essential conflict would lead to a change in how
society was organized.
Consider briefly feudal Europe. Marx argued that its primary organizing principles were
monopoly of power and agricultural production. As technological improvements in
agriculture led to more production those who controlled the instruments of power (local
chieftains, lords, nobility or royal families as the sphere of control get wider)
appropriated as much of the agricultural product as they could from farmers who, to
varying degree, were forced to remain on the land (serfs). This is a complex story that
includes a discussion of the type of government (monarchy) and religious institutions
(Catholicism) designed to protect and reproduce the social order and rationale for
feudalism. Eventually, Marx argued, the limitations on the productive forces and the

inherent tensions within the system gave birth to a revolutionary force which challenged
the nature of production (from agriculture to manufacturing), the nature of government
(from monarchy to some form of democracy) and social institutions (for example the
Protestant Reformation in reaction to the Catholic Church). In other words, the
NORMAL functioning of one system gave rise to conditions that necessarily generates
conflict, and under the right conditions will lead to social change.
We can apply the same sort of analysis on capitalism, the system that followed, and was
the revolutionary force challenging, feudalism. To understand the fundamental lines of
conflict and crises that we can anticipate within capitalism Marx undertook a similar
exploration of how the system worked, what were the social and political institutions
which supported and rationalized that system, and where as a consequence the tensions
and conflict will emerge which will have the potential for making a similar revolutionary
change. For Marx every epoch is challenged by a revolutioncapitalism with its banner
of freedom and democracy was just such a revolution (a mild one is England, and a very
bloody one in France).
To understand capitalism we have to understand how work became transformed from precapitalist to capitalist society. Assume that you lived in a small agrarian village. You
earn your living by growing grain to take to the market. A cobbler earns his/her living by
making shoes. How do you manage the exchange of grain for shoes? In essence it is a
marketplace like all marketplaces. You barterboth giving a little more than you want
and getting a little less that youd hoped. Each of you has participated in determining
what the product of your labor is worth. And most important for Marx, this was possible
because each of you had control over what you produced. Even the feudal lords who
came and took some of your product did so under their right backed by their control of
force, but there was no question it was the products of your labor.
It is different under capitalism. At first people who went to work controlled what they
made and were paid for the product of that labor, initially produced at home and later
produced in the back of the artisans shopbut now with the artisans tools and
materials. Eventually the need to exert control over the quality of work led to
standardized production under the watchful eye of the owner. This led to what many call
scientific management of the work process (see the work of Frederick Taylor) where
the workers every action is measured and controlled. In this way, workers increasingly
lost control over the knowledge required to perform work and became valued for the time
spent in the shop rather than for the product they could produce.
For Marx this meant that labor time rather than labor became what the worker could sell
in other words, labor became a commodity like all others. But unlike all others, Marx
argued labor-time was the only commodity that could generate more commodities than it
took for the owner of a company to pay the worker. In other words, in our example
above you exchanged grain for shoes as an exchange of equals based on the values of the
commodities and the time that went into producing each. Now, says Marx, unable to
control the means of production (you no longer control tools or raw materials) and forced
to sell your time at work, workers labor power (time at work) produces more in

commodity form than the they get paid in money (and the commodities that can
purchase). The difference, argues Marx, is the source of all profit in the capitalist system.
This surplus goes into creating all the social and political institutions we have come to
see as our societymuch in the same way the lavish spending of the feudal nobility and
heavy taxation let to the fine cathedrals, magnificent castles and even opulent town
centers of wealthier merchant cities. And for Marx the productive energies and potential
of capitalism, and the dynamic nature of technological change, meant that there was more
and more produced exceeding the limits imposed by the land for a social system based on
agriculture.
However, instead of a society based on control over the forces of power (weapons and
armies) we now have a society based on a seemingly voluntary exchange but limited by
the control and ownership of those means of production. We now have capital (machines,
raw materials, credit) essential for production controlled by one class of people while the
rest have to sell their labor power to survive, and in that exchange capitalist benefit.
Initial lines of conflict for Marx become that of the conflict of the haves versus the havenots and his belief that sooner or later all members of society will either be owners or
workers. Eventually the workers will see that the system is unjust and restrictive and
forge their own revolutionary movement for changelike capitalism before it in the face
of feudalism, a change of economic relations, the nature of government, and all the other
institutions of society.
More contemporary theorists argue that this framework, while useful, ignores other
important social divisions that are the cause of structural conflict in society. We are
divided by race, age and sex, to name some prominent divisions. We can add to that
religion, ethnicity, and other cleavages that create conflict and tension in any society.
Unlike structural functionalists who see society, when it is functioning properly, in
harmony and peace, conflict theorists argue that when there is no tension it usually means
the dispossessed or subordinate groups are necessarily suppressed and in reality the
normal state of any society is conflictone that inevitably leads to social upheaval and
development, and hopefully positive change.
Symbolic Interaction
Both Conflict and Structural Functionalist theories are macro level theories. This means
that they look at the big picture of society, paying closer attention to how social
institutions work together and/or against one another to promote social growth and
stability. On the other hand, symbolic interaction looks at society from the micro level,
focusing on the individual and the way that we interact with one another and with social
institutions. Symbolic Interaction argues that society is essentially created and
maintained through the interactions of individuals.
Two early theorists in this area were Mead and Cooley. Meads theory of self
development resembled Freuds theory of personality development. While Freud

identified the Id, Ego and Superego as parts of the personality, he placed their
development in very early childhood, within the family, putting the largest responsibility
of childhood development on the parents. Meads theory placed personality development
with the context of society, with the parents playing a role but not the only role.
Furthermore, he argued that the personality continues to develop much later into
adolescence and early adulthood.
Mead identified three parts of the personality; the Me, the I and the Other, and one social
characteristic; the Generalized Other. Imagine what happens when parents have their
first baby. At first they may be overwhelmed with the knowledge that they are truly
expected to take care of this little human! For Mead the initial interaction is clear: baby
screams, parents jump. Mead identifies this first social interaction as the Me. The
baby is really not aware of the parents as individuals. It is aware that it is wet and cold so
it cries. Like magic it has a dry warm diaper. It realizes its hungry. It cries. Like
magic it is fed. This simple interaction is based only on the needs of the infant without
any awareness that it is 2 am and the parents are exhausted. The baby just doesnt care.
For Mead this stage of the personality continues until the baby is a toddler.
Something interesting happens then. The baby learns to walk and begins to talk. One of
its first words is guaranteed to be no and the baby will use it often. Now the parents
have more of a challenge in parenting. If they dont restrict babys behavior it will stick a
fork in a power outlet or run into traffic, and baby can now get its toys from the toy box.
Parents can either continue to react or they can insist that children need to have consistent
boundaries on their behavior in order to function well in society. So they begin to teach
the baby to behave properly using some age appropriate discipline to encourage certain
behavior. Baby will react to this by entering the I stage of development. It is now
aware that not only are its parents real, but that they have power to control behavior.
Baby now does what is expected because it wants to avoid punishment. Mead argues that
this stage will last until the child is around 7 or so (each child being different). The more
consistent the discipline, the quicker the child will learn the desired behaviors.
The next stage of development is the Other. One day the child realizes for itself that
there are consequences of actions, and realizes that his or her safety and cleanliness are
important to the parents. It now begins to behave not only to avoid punishment, but
because it understands why the rules are necessary. Now the rules are also important to
the child. It can view society from the perspective of others. This stage begins when
child truly begins to understand the difference between right and wrong.
Meads last stage of social development is formulation of the Generalized Other. Think
about the men and women that we see in movies and magazines. These people are
supposed to be (for the most part) models of ideal people. We try to do everything we
can to emulate them. We cut our hair the same way, wear the same types of clothing, diet
to be model thin or lift weights to be model pumped. We are striving towards (even if
only in our dreams) this ideal, one that for the vast majority of us is unattainable. Even
the models have their imperfections airbrushed away! Mead argues that this social ideal

is intended to be unattainable. It keeps us constantly striving to be better which means

that society will maintain control by setting these ideal targets for behavior.
Cooley looked at how we interact in society as well. He developed the theory of the
Looking Glass Self. Cooley was on faculty at U of M. and was abnormally shy. While
he wrote many books, he avoided face to face professional interactions. Even as he did
this, he understood that his shyness was a function of self-esteem. His theory argues that
when we view ourselves socially, we are not seeing ourselves as we truly are, but rather
as a reflection in the reactions of others. Society becomes the mirror in which we view
ourselves. So consider if a professor comes to class one morning and looks out at a sea
of sleeping or yawning faces. That person can assume that the class had a late night, or
think the lecture is boring. If the latter, the professor may try to spice up the class lecture
a little. Or the professor may have a harder time teaching because he or she believes that
they am not good at it. Either way, the professor is going to look for an explanation of
the classs behavior.
The healthier ones self esteem, the more likely the individual will look to others for an
explanation of a social interaction. The less healthy, the more likely the individual will
look inward. Now of course the professor may truly be boring, but only if the professor
cant find an explanation in the crowd for the behavior will there be some self-reflection
to change my behavior. A really good example of Cooleys theory is the problem of
anorexia. She (although more men are becoming anorexic, this is still primarily a female
illness) judges the reactions of others incorrectly, seeing an overweight image reflected
back to her even as she slowly starves.
Conclusion
Sociologists have been studying social problems for almost 150 years. The discipline
grew out of the social upheaval of economic change accelerated by the industrial
revolution, a time when society became increasingly urban and denser. The cities were
overcrowded and disease was rampant as people literally starved to death on the streets.
The infrastructure of the city was unprepared for the influx of new folks, and housing was
inadequate, substandard and overcrowded. For this country the Great Immigration that
started by the end of the Civil War meant that there were also diverse cultures and
languages trying to coexist. Competition for jobs was fierce and crime rates increased
dramatically as this nation was transformed from a rural to an urban society. Today
Sociologists struggle to make sense of many of these same problems: poverty,
substandard education and housing, crime, poor health and racial and ethnic
discrimination remain problems today. The study of social problems remains an
important concern and likely will for generations to come.

As told to John Forster (from The Life of Charles Dickens):

The blacking-warehouse was the last house on the left-hand side of the way, at old Hungerford Stairs.
It was a crazy, tumble-down old house, abutting of course on the river, and literally overrun with rats.
Its wainscoted rooms, and its rotten floors and staircase, and the old gray rats swarming down in the
cellars, and the sound of their squeaking and scuffling coming up the stairs at all times, and the dirt
and decay of the place, rise up visibly before me, as if I were there again. The counting-house was on
the first floor, looking over the coal-barges and the river. There was a recess in it, in which I was to sit
and work. My work was to cover the pots of paste-blacking; first with a piece of oil-paper, and then
with a piece of blue paper; to tie them round with a string; and then to clip the paper close and neat,
all round, until it looked as smart as a pot of ointment from an apothecary's shop. When a certain
number of grosses of pots had attained this pitch of perfection, I was to paste on each a printed label,
and then go on again with more pots. Two or three other boys were kept at similar duty down-stairs on
similar wages. One of them came up, in a ragged apron and a paper cap, on the first Monday morning,
to show me the trick of using the string and tying the knot. His name was Bob Fagin; and I took the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Dickens
liberty of using his name, long afterwards, in Oliver Twist.