Social Constructionism in Analyzing Social Problems - Essay Example

Social Problems Name Student ID Course Lecturer Date 1. How can we define a social problem? Social problems are the products of a process of collective definition. In reference to sociologists, social problems are a dual phenomenon consisting of objective and subjective components that reflects two perspectives in sociology. Positivist perspective is that in view of objective reality, a social problem is distinctly and utterly real in that it possesses harmful quality verified by the experience of some people and opposed to positive qualities of a social well being. In this instant, the harmful nature of this experience is evident for offering negativity rather than positivity that contributes social well being. For instance, poverty is termed a social problem as opposed to prosperity as a social well being. In this regard, social problems are objective and identifiable negative societal conditions (Bosk & Hilgartner 2006). On the other hand, a theory by Blumer in 1971 and Spector and Kitsue 1733, 1977 discards the theory that social problems are objective and identifiable societal conditions that have intrinsically harmful effects. These scholars urge that the so called inherently negative traits of a social condition do not originate from the problem itself rather socially constructed from human minds. Despite that socially constructed problem is not intrinsically real; these possess the potential to cause real consequences to those involved. This perspective portrays social problems as subjective perception. Thus, social problem is a concept engaged by people to define a certain condition. This means, if people perceive something as social problem it will be so and if perceived otherwise it is something else. Perception renders same thing to be both a social problem and exactly it opposite. For instance, those opposing abortion terms it as murder, meaning a social problem, whereas those supporting abortion regard it as a solution to address the issue of unwanted pregnancies. Simply put social problems are mentally subjective or constructed problems, both in terms of the particular acts and interactions problem (Schneider 1985). Another definition of social problem arises from first differentiating a personal from a social problem. This has to do with numbers, meaning whether the problem at hand involves a few or many people. If just a few suffer from the problem, then it is a personal problem; if however many people are negatively affects many, it is therefore a social problem As such, according to sociologists social problems are harmful social conditions that impacts more than one person, other than that it is a personal problem. For instance, terrorism is a social problem as it is a social condition perceived to be harmful to many people (Dolch et al 2007). Moreover, social problems can be defined in regard to the causation. Thus, if the causes of a problem are psychological in nature, then, they can only be personal problems or issues. However, if the causes for a problem are sociological in the form of some larger social forces like the prevalent media portrayal of sexuality, then this is a social problem. Therefore, social problems are the problems caused through sociological aspects (Loseke & Best 2003). In view of the above a normative structure for social problems via the subjective perspective would be; Social condition Possesses negative consequences Affects worldwide, Psychical world Caused sociologically References Bosk, C. L. (2006). The Rise and Fall of Social Problems: A public Arenas Model. The American Journal of Socialogy, Vol 94, No. 1 , 53-78. Dolch, N. A. (2007). Social problems : a case study approach (2nd Ed). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Loseke, D. R. (2003). Social problems : constructionist readings. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Schneider, J. W. (1985). Social Problems Theory: The Constructionist View. Annual Review of Sociology; Vol. 11: , 209-229. Stam, H. J. (2001). Introduction: Social Constructionism and Its Critics. Theory & Psychology Vol. 11 No 3 , 291–296. 2. How does social constructionism help us analyze social problems? Social constructionism can be referred to as a perspective that agrees or believes that a great deal of human life lives as it does owing to social and interpersonal influences. This theory however does not elude the imperative role played by both genetic factors in human life but rather notes the influences of social factors that works in conjunction with genetically inherited factors to define life. As such, social constructionism is interested in subject that anthropologists refer to as culture, and what sociologists entitle society; which is the collective facets of all that is psychological (Loseke & Best, 2003). Social constructionism argues that individuals are integral with cultural, historical evolution and political at specific times and places. Except for the humans inherited and developmental factors, social constructionism hypothesizes the rest of the human facets are created, maintained and destroyed over time through interaction with others. And bearing in mind that genetic material and cultural practices are different, renders none universal human nature. Therefore, social constructionism outlines the vitality of socialization and enculturation amongst known people, their influence, and who impacts human mutual existence (Stam 2001). Hence, social problems exist primarily on terms of how it is defined and conceived in society (Bosk & Hilgartner 2006). As such, many scholars have approved Blumer`s theory that social problems are projections of collective sentiments rather than simple mirrors of objective conditions in society. This is so as many situations exist in the society which could be termed social problems but are not so defined. As such, any theory outlining social problems as mere reflections of objective conditions cannot exactly tell why some conditions are defined as problems, or why the command a great deal of attention , whereas others, equally harmful or dangerous are not. For instance, the plight of indigenous people`s destruction of cultures and killings in large numbers of South America receive less attention than laboratory animals of scientific research. Social constructionism is the most dominant paradigm in the sociological study of social problems. This mode leans towards a more subjective and relativistic approach. Social constructionist posits that the level to which a social problem is professed as problematic and the kind of problem is understood to be is a function of a social interaction. Moreover, constructionists argue that similar conditions do not necessarily spell similar social problems. For this matter, something is perceived as social problem it will be so and if perceived otherwise it is something else. In this case, perception renders same thing to be both a social problem and exactly it opposite. This is so because troublesome conditions may not essentially be or become social problems, unless the same is constructed to be a social problem. In other words, social problems are constructed from assertion which triggers perception to make claims of the putative social circumstances. Therefore, social problems are not a not as a result of some malfunctioning part but rather consequences of the social-cultural system as a whole. In other words, social problems are socially constructed in stipulations of the particular acts and interactions problem partakers practice, and in terms of the process of such activities through time (Schneider 1985). Conclusively, social constructionism notion helps people in avoiding the fallacy of retrospective determinism which argument that things would not have worked out any other way than they do. References Bosk, C. L., & Hilgartner, S 2006, The Rise and Fall of Social Problems: A public Arenas Model. The American Journal of Socialogy, Vol 94, No. 1 , 53-78. Loseke, D. R., & Best, L, A 2003, Social problems : constructionist readings. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Schneider, J. W 1985, Social Problems Theory: The Constructionist View. Annual Review of Sociology; Vol. 11: , 209-229. Stam, H. J 2001, Introduction: Social Constructionism and Its Critics. Theory & Psychology Vol. 11 No 3 , 291–296. 3. In what way does the structure/agency debate inform how we study social problems? The structure-agency debate entails claims of social entities status, and the degree of freedom or constraint of agency. It is a framework that debates how individual action(s) are governed by a pervasive structure resulting to constraints. Particularly, the debates surround the relationship and interactions of individual members and the established institutions that govern such individuals. There are myriad of outcomes that result from such interaction. Some debates conclude on compatibility characteristic of structure and agency while others will see the two as existing in antagonism. It is possible therefore to understand the cause, development and solution to problems when agency and structure is analyzed. Agency daily experiences involve freedom and constraints and the inner capability to shape its future is confronted by impersonal constraints of the structure (Archer 1996). Consequently, these debates not only address technical problem involved with structure ad agency but also confront some pressing social problem that pertain to human condition. Antony Giddens a contemporary sociologist developed Structuration Theory. To him social structures are both the medium and the outcome of social action. He advances that the reflexity that exists between the structure and the agency enables people to consciously alter their place in social structure. When the systems of norms are altered, the agency is seen to diverge from the general agreement. For instance sexuality orientations has for a long time defined the most acceptable sexual behaviors and conduct. This follows regulation enforced by taboos and social sanctions like stigma. As individual move to other ‘abnormal’ orientations such as homosexuality, that accounts to social problem. Giddens argument support how globalization and emerging post-traditional society have allowed greater social reflexity (Bunzel 2008). Social problem therefore arises from contention between social knowledge; based on structure and self-knowledge; based on agency. The normative question about human freedom shows that the structure does not completely control people and people are not free to act as it pleases them. The reality is seen in the actions and deeds of individuals but not in structural forces which are intangible. For Giddens the actor possess the casual powers to choose to intervene or not to intervene in what is going on in the world. The actual and contemplated casual intervention which is an ongoing process is inherent with human. However, since the agency is tied to power, it determines whether individual would have acted otherwise. It is the agency-structure debates that reveal how society has devised mechanisms to define problems. This is enhanced by intangible norms and forces of the structure enforced over the agency. However, agency is not a passive actor and therefore their actions and deeds re-invent new ways of survival different from the prescribed ones. This is a continuous process as change is continuous. Such attempts to break from the structure are interpreted as ‘different’ or out of the norm. The structure will try to re-adjust the agency to the norm and this result to social problems (Ritzer 1992). The agency notwithstanding, cannot function without the structure and thus structure has to re-invent to fit to the new forms that result. References Archer, M.S., 1996. Culture and Agency: The Place of Culture in Social Theory, Cambridge University Press. Bunzel, D 2008, Agency-Structure Debate, International Encyclopedia of Organization Studies. Sage Publications. Ritzer, G., 1992. Agency-Structure Integration. In G. Ritzer, ed. Contemporary Sociological Theory. McGraw Hill, pp. 427-456. Read More