What is the nature of social problems?
By A. Swaby-Burton, Contributor

HI AGAIN. In this week's lesson, I would like you to focus on the question above and see if you can come up with your own arguments to support or answer the question asked.

According to Robert Merton, a social problem 'exists' whenever there is a sizeable discrepancy between what 'is' and what 'people' think out to be. This definition implies that there is both a factual and an evaluative aspect to social problems and it is how these two aspects are combined that is the source of disagreement among sociologists.

One reason for the above statement is basically how we designate an issue as a social problem and this will have further implications. In essence, it would suggest a need for change; it implies a judgement concerning social priorities and it voices and pushes strongly for the allocation of resources, and if I might add, allocation in the right hand where it will go to the right places. Looking closely at these three implications, would undoubtedly suggest that social problems are inherently political phenomena.

DURKHEIM'S, MERTON'S VIEW

This analysis of social problems was never fully appreciated by Durkheim. He believed that it was possible to identify social problems objectively. In the Rules of Sociological Method, Durkheim defined pathological social phenomena as social facts that disturb the normal functioning of society.

Due to the fact that Durkheim see this normal functioning as dependent on the power of the collective conscience, he saw social problems in modern societies stemming mainly from the decline in the moral force that societies exert over individuals. Thus, in his theory of 'anomie', Durkheim argued that social stability was threatened because in complex societies, the integration of the individual with the demands of the collective life will weaken.

Durkheim's ideas were developed by Merton, who argues that where societies and institutions work inefficiently, one can describe them as being dysfunctional. Merton applied this to the study of deviance which he saw as a response to a breakdown in the relationship between culturally valid goals and institutionally approved means.

In organisations, for example, the position of officials within that organisation may encourage behaviour patterns that actively prevent the organisation from achieving its goals. In both cases, Merton argues that a major function of the sociologist is to make these latest social problems manifest.

The ideas of both Durkheim and Merton rest upon a consensus view of society. In Durkheim, the overriding need for social order is assumed and in Merton, the goals of many organisations and many societies are never questioned. This leads both theorists to identify the needs of society with the interests of its ruling groups. Although it may be true that a concern for social order and efficiency is a fundamental social problem to these who stand to gain from existing arrangements to those who fall in the disadvantaged groups, it often seems that it is a radical social change that is needed.

INTERACTIONISTS VIEW

Unlike the functionalists, who focus on the objective consequences of institutionalised behaviour, interactionists emphasise its subjective meaning. From this perspective a social problem is anything that is so labelled. In this premise, interactionists recommend that sociologists should concentrate on researching how social problems can be defined as such.

In practice, this has led interactionists to identify with those persons who we would classify as the 'have nots' the 'underdogs' and to examine ways in which social institutions create problems for their clients. The difference between this view and that of the functionalist is well explained by the study of poverty. For functionalists, the problem of poverty is the problem of the poor themselves and of the dysfunctional aspects of their culture. However, when this problem is looked at from the point of view of the poor, it is often the inadequacies of welfare provisions. Let's look at Jamaica, for example. Many persons who are classified as poor based on the fact that they are unable to provide the basic necessities for themselves and sometimes for their children, refuse to access social welfare benefits because of the many labels that are place on them and the stigmatisation of social workers, poor relief officers and in particular the society at large. It is the same with crime and mental illness. Although it is commonly the people to whom these labels are applied who are regarded as the social problem. Interactionists emphasise that the 'problems' are identified, explained and sometimes even created by the experts themselves.

LEMART'S VIEW

One of the most extreme exponents of this view is Edwin Lemart. He claims that social control leads to deviance. However, if one were to take the point of view of the 'have nots', or the 'underdogs' to its logical conclusion, it would imply, for example, that the courts create crime, welfare service create poverty and the psychiatric profession creates mental illness. There is certainly evidence that these institutions can be counterproductive. For example, police action can lead to 'deviancy amplification', the welfare services do undermine the self respect of claimants. Despite all of this, it is a mistake to consider that there is nothing more to social problems than mere labelling. Apart from any other consideration, this is to overlook the material basis of suffering and its relationship to the distribution of power in society.

It is the wider implications of power that are neglected by both functionalism and interactionism.

Join me in the next issue as I explore Marx's explanation of this question and more on to look at crime and violence in the Caribbean area in particular Jamaica.