THE CONCEPT OF “SOCIAL PROBLEMS”

Some event or condition becomes a “problem” when reality doesn’t live up to our expectations, when
there’s a gap between expectation and reality.

For a problem to exist, someone’s expectation has to be disappointed, thwarted, etc. Problems only exist
when there’s a gap. No gap, no problem.
We have expectations about how the social world should work. They are our images of “the good
society.” Social problems emerge when social reality does not live up to these expectations about quality
of life, health, opportunity, prosperity, security, etc. Social problems, then, are social conditions that have
been identified as negatively impact people’s lives.
A social problem exists when:
a. Some outcome, condition, or behavior is deemed undesirable (negative impact, dysfunctional,
dangerous, etc.)
b. Impacts a significant number of people in ways that either cause serious harm (injury) and/or
threaten the stability and prosperity of the society
c. Is seen as fixable.
Who gets to “deem it undesirable” and what criteria they use makinge that judgment are important parts
of the definition of “social problem.” An outcome, condition, or behavior only becomes a social problem
when some group(s) has the power to label it as a “problem,” can get their labeling heard on the public
agenda, and can mobilize action and resources aimed at “solving” that problem.
Who gets negatively impacted, how severely, and how many people are affected is important in defining a
social problem. Something is more likely to be deemed a problem if it impacts people with high status,
power, or wealth. Conditions, etc. that impact the lower class or people with “less importance” are often
denied the label “social problem.” Negative impacts on only a small portion of the population, especially if
that portion happens to be “unimportant” or “powerless,” usually aren’t labeled as social problems.
Additionally, the label of social problem is usually reserved for negative impacts seen as threatening the
overall stability or prosperity of the society. When the impact has wide ramifications or implications, i.e.,
seen as a generalized harm spilling beyond specific institutional boundaries, then it’s a good candidate for
the social problems labeling. Again, the definition of “stability” and “generalized harm” are controlled by
those with power and influence. They get to decide when something threatens the “whole society.”
Constructing a “Social Problem”
A social problem exists when some event or condition doesn’t live up to our expectations, when there’s a
gap between expectation and reality. Things would be simple if everyone agreed about what constitutes a
“good society” but no such consensus exists. Therefore, no consensus exists about what is or is not a
social problem or how problems should be defined and framed.
As a comparison, think about engineering problems. When it comes to machinery we can usually muster
a consensus about “running properly” vs. “broken down.” It’s clear what’s expected from an air conditioner
– how much air at what temperature – so we can easily agree when one is broken. Most people could
easily identify a “properly running” car – moves when gas pedal gets pressed, rides smoothly, gets good
gas mileage, etc. – and most would agree that car broken down on the side of the road is “a problem.”
Unfortunately we don’t have such clear cut standards of “running properly” when it comes to social
problems. Not only do different individuals and groups have very different notions of how society should
be and should work, processes of power decide which of these notions carries the day. Winners in the
struggle for power get to define which standards are applied and, therefore, what social conditions are
considered “social problems.”
The Concept of “Social Problems”

To grasp this further, compare social problems to the medical concept of disease. A disease is something
that disturbs normal, optimal body functioning, a pathology resulting in identifiable symptoms. Social
problems can be seen as “symptoms” indicating an underlying social disease. But in medicine there is a
socially-recognized group of professionals (physicians) that set standards for “optimal functioning” and
“disease” (officially it’s called the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)) and we give them the
social power to interpret situations as “disease” according to these professionally-established standards
and apply solutions (clinical medicine) based upon these standards.
We don’t have an “ICD” for social problems or socially-recognized experts with legitimate power to
interpret when social problems occur and prescribe how to fix them. Instead, all we have are messy,
inconclusive processes of labeling, struggle, and power. People struggle mightily over the power to make
claims about whether social conditions are “problems” and how problems should be framed.
Before moving on we need to explore one other dimension of social problems. Sometimes a social
condition or behavior may be labeled as a social problem because it threatens important values, even if it
doesn’t actually disrupt the social order. When is abortion a social problem? Not when a large number of
abortions occur but when the very idea of abortion is proposed as socially acceptable.
Again, compare this to medicine and engineering. Medicine talks about “health risks” as conditions that
may not present symptoms right now but over the long run increase the likelihood of disease and illness.
Engineering defines “optimal performance” as a machine’s full potential, e.g., gas mileage or tread wear,
so that a car that’s not getting its best gas mileage or with tread wear below a defined safety standard
(usually within 1/16th of an inch of the surface of the tire) would be defined as a problem. Like medical
risk factors, suboptimal performance, or safety standards, social problems can be defined as “threat to
values” even if the social order hasn’t broken down.
Social problems are socially constructed when an influential group asserts (claims) that a certain social
condition negatively affects a large number of people and may be remedied by some kind of policy, law,
therapy, or other intervention. Notice two key terms used here:
• Asserts: Social problems are constructed out of and during communication, usually a mixture
of mass communication, public relations, and political lobbying
• Influential group: Social problems are constructed by people with power making claims that
certain objective conditions constitute problems worthy of social attention and political
remedy
Constructing a social problem means controlling the public agenda and mobilizing political resources to
remedy the social condition labeled (framed) as problematic. This process is highly competitive, as
various claims-makers seek to have their problem definition – rather than that of a competitor – accepted
by the media and political decision makers.
Components of the public agenda
- What people are talking about
- Policy goals of organizations
- Allocation of resources (money and people) in organizational budgets
Not all social conditions negatively impacting people’s lives become elevated to the status of "social
problem." Some are ignored. Others are treated as “natural,” inevitable, resulting from personal or moral
failure, or unimportant. A select few social conditions get highlighted by public attention and become
transformed from “personal trouble” to “social problem.”

2
The Concept of “Social Problems”

Common pattern of this transformation

1. People perceive a gap between their expectations for a “good society” and actual social reality
ƒ Some social condition or pattern of behavior seen as incompatible with the quality of life
expected to exist in society (the condition or behavior results in undesirable outcomes or
consequences for themselves or others)
ƒ Some social condition or behavior seen as incompatible with values or ideology that, for
them, describe the “good society” [e.g., flag burning, gay marriage]
Sometimes the perception emerges more or less “spontaneously” and other times it is orchestrated
by specific groups or organizations
To qualify as a candidate as a social problem, the social condition or behavior must satisfy three
necessary conditions:
A. Negatively affects large number of people (extent)
Two qualifications on this condition: If the people impacted are powerful or important or
from a “morally sensitive” (e.g., the disabled, children), then the number of people
impacted can be smaller
B. Impacts persist over a long period of time (duration)
C. People believe it’s possible to solve the problem through collective action (capability)
This is why the weather or death aren’t considered a social problems, at least not at our
present level of technology, or why
2. The gap is labeled a “social problem” and framed using values, language, assumptions, and
evidence supporting the expectations for a “good society”
Framing has four parts:
a. An image (vision) of the “good society”
b. Causal explanations for why the society deviates from the path to the “good society”
c. Descriptions of how the social problem negatively impacts on people’s lives
d. Solutions for getting the society back to the path to the “good society”
3. The “problem” receives public attention, becomes part of the public agenda, and enters into the
public dialogue/debate
ƒ Public agenda and dialogue take place in the political arena and the media
ƒ Some attention and dialogue occurs more or less spontaneously while other gets
orchestrated by groups and organizations
ƒ Part of the dialogue is moral (what constitutes a “good society”) and part is practical (how the
social problems impact on people’s self-interests)
ƒ The public agenda is a highly competitive arena so each claim must fight for attention. Some
claims wither on the vine, never making a significant ripple in the public agenda, and,
therefore, don’t become social problems.
4. Groups and organizations advocating for claims about the social problem struggle for resources
in the political arena
ƒ The political arena is highly competitive so each claim must fight for scarce resources. Some
claims lose the fight and, therefore, don’t become social problems.
This struggle has three dimensions
a. Struggle to set and control the public agenda

3
The Concept of “Social Problems”

b. Mobilization of supporters
c. Formation of coalitions and negotiations over compromises
Conditions and Problems
We can certainly go too far using this perspective. Social problems cannot be completely divorced from
objective social conditions. While social conditions alone are not sufficient for something to become a
social problem and often they're not even necessary, claims not firmly grounded in actual, important
social conditions often fail or only exist as short-term panics.
Social conditions affect people's lives. To the degree affected people and their advocates can articulate
the impact and assert need, the condition becomes a social problem. If the condition diminishes or
disappears, further claims-making may fall on deaf ears and the social problem sinks below the
threshold of being a problem. The same happens if the problem's importance declines relative to other
claimed problems (the "war on drugs," a high priority before "9/11," has largely disappeared behind the
shadow cast by the "war on terrorism"). Clever or well-funded claims-makers may be able to keep an
issue alive for a while even when its underlying condition has largely disappeared.
We need a language for distinguishing conditions from problems and a logic for linking them together.
Unfortunately we don't have either. Social conditions are how the social environment impacts on
people's lives. Conditions relevant to social problems negatively impact people's lives. Such problematic
conditions harm, injure, kill, damage, disadvantage, spoil, discriminate, inconvenience, disrupt, or
frustrate. People want to avoid or escape them because they result in a lower standard of living or lower
quality of life, perhaps significantly lower.
The logic connecting conditions and problems is complex. Conditions underlie problems, most of the
time. Conditions exist before being treated as problems and may exist after they cease being treated as
problems. The universe of conditions is far greater than universe of problems and problems only
represent a small sample of conditions.
Conditions may create pressure for claims-making but conditions along don't create problems. Claims
create problems. Most problematic conditions never get to be social problems. A small sample of
conditions gets elevated to the status of social problems by the claims-making process. Claims-making
uses news stories, official statistics, advocates and advocacy organizations, helping professionals,
government legislation, and other social processes focused on identifying, describing, diagnosing, and
fixing these problems. Over time a social problem may lose its label and sink back down to just being a
condition.

4
The Concept of “Social Problems”

Problems not firmly linked to or grounded in conditions will most likely fade out of existence, although
clever or well-funded claims-makers keep an issue alive for a while even when its underlying condition
has largely disappeared. Most social problems are real and authentic; they're grounded in real
conditions. A few are moral panics and a small subset are "phantom" problems. Moral panics = .
Phantom problems are fabricated from the fears and anxieties of claims-makers and their audiences.
Claims-Makers
We can envision the claims-making "space" as a pyramid. Victims and people affected by the problem
form the apex of the pyramid, with the base formed by advocacy groups, media, policy-makers, and
professionals (analysts / consultants / managers).
Victims and advocates are the "amateurs" in this system, while the others are "the professionals."
Sometimes amateur victims and advocates will transform themselves and become part of the
professional system. The professionals are career-oriented people linked in an interdependent,
interconnected system of information exchange, mutual favors, and deal-making, all of which can make
them appear cynical and inauthentic to the amateurs. Not all relations between professionals are
mutually supportive, often professionals engage in fierce, bloody competition and conflict, but they are all
linked together in common environment where actions impact on each other in a thousand ways.

Victims/Advocates
Victims directly feel the impact of the social conditions. Their distress, concern, fear, anger, etc. forms
the primal energy that drives the social problems engine. Advocates publicize the plight of victims,
agitate for their cause, lobby on their behalf, and generally work as activists for the victims. Often
advocates are politicized, activist victims who are natural leaders. Victims and advocates make up the
"raw politics" of social problems.
Advocacy Organizations
These come in two primary flavors:
1. Organizations formed specifically to deal with this problem (e.g., Coalition for the
Homeless)

5
The Concept of “Social Problems”

2. General philanthropic organizations that treat the problem as within their sphere of action
(e.g., Urban League)
The first flavor is often created by advocates. Over time the organization may generalize beyond the
immediate problem(s) that formed its origin point, and over time founding advocates often lose control of
the organization to professionals.
Usually an advocacy organization functions in a larger network of advocacy organizations and as part of
a coalition with other organizations working in the same social problems area.
Examples of Advocacy Organizations
Our American Values Planned Parenthood

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) National Organization for Women (NOW)

Pro-Life America National Coalition for the Homeless

Policy-Makers
These include politicians and their aides in both the legislative and executive branches at the federal,
state, and local levels of government. It also includes government functionaries working in government
bureaucracies and offices. It can often include courts and judges.
Media
This includes both print and broadcast media. There exists a tight, symbiotic relationship between the
media and claims-makers. Investigative journalism can sometimes be the source of claims but most
often claims-makers use the media to push their agenda. Either way, the media is not a passive, neutral
player in this game.
Professionals
These include analysts, therapists, social workers, consultants, managers, and other people who have
built careers around the social problem. They are often hired as key leaders and employees to staff
advocacy organizations, although many professionals work independently. When running advocacy
organizations, they often find themselves struggling with victims and advocates for control of the issue
and control of the organizations.
Often conflict develops between professionals and advocates, a common friction when career
professionals and natural, politicized leaders try to lead in the same arena. They drift apart in their
agendas and priorities. Professionals often steal issues and the limelight, something that may greatly
anger advocate leaders. Professionals often take over advocacy organizations and form a career-
oriented managerial core. To advocate leaders, professionals often appear cynical and overly pragmatic.