Social Problems

Full text

3
SOCIAL PROBLEMS
HAROLD
R.
KERBO
JAMES WILLIAM COLEMAN
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
T
he
study of social problems
in
the United States is
no
doubt one
of
the most difficult to summarize and
analyze within sociology. In contrast to family soci-
ology, criminology, social stratification, the sociology
of
sport, and so on, the study
of
social problems is always
shifting in terms
of
what
is
included or excluded
as
the
focus of study. But there is also the matter of shifting per-
spectives and theories within all the core issues within the
field
of
social problems, such
as
racial discrimination,
crime and delinquency, and sexual deviance, to name only
a
few
of
what have been among the core issues in the study
of social problems
in
America.
In what follows, we will briefly consider how social
problems have been studied in early American history
and then consider how social problems have been
defined in sociology textbooks and look at the trends in
these textbooks over the years. In the second half
of
this
chapter, we will examine more critically how the partic-
ular pattern
of
American values have influenced our
definitions
of
social problems, along with the impact
of
wealth and power on these definitions. With this
examination
of
wealth and power, we will consider
the impact
of
social movements on what comes to be
defined as social problems. A complete understanding
of
the impact
of
social movements, however, also
requires brief consideration
of
the causes
of
social
movements. Finally, we will consider how solutions to
social problems
are
also shaped by power, wealth, and
American value orientations.
A BRIEF HISTORY
OF
THE STUDY OF SOCIAL
PROBLEMS IN
THE
UNITED STATES
The first book in the United States with the title
Social
Problems was mostly likely that
by
Henry George,
first
published in 1883 (George 1939). But sociologists
such
as
George Herbert Mead were already discussing the natu:e
of
social problems and the need for social reform
ill
the late 1800s (see Mead 1899; Schwendinger
and
Schwendinger 1974:452-56). As industrialization took off
dramatically in the final two decades
of
the nineteenth
cen-
tury, so did many conditions that came to be defined
as
social problems, such as urban poverty, unemployment,
and crime. As the great historian Hofstader (1955)
noted
i
it was soon after this that the United States entered
one
0
its reoccurring cycles
of
reform movements (also
see
. 1 y
was
Garraty 1978).
It
was also a time when
SOCI0
og.
emerging as a major discipline
of
academic study
In
thde
d·
an
United States (Gouldner 1970; Schwen mger .
Schwendinger 1974). The timing
of
these two events
IS
no
doubt a reason why the study
of
social problems
becam~
·
.'
'ology
But
It
one 0 f the major subareas m Amencan
SOCI
'.,
·
'1"
d
l'ndl'viduahstlC
1h
was a so t e umque set
of
ut11tanan an
values in the United States that affected the development
"
.'
. ompanied
the
o
fA
mencan
SOCIology.
A crusadmg
spmt
acc 1
emergence
of
American sociology, with many of the ear
~
American sociologists coming from Christian clergy
ba~
grounds to a new secular orientation toward understandIng
362

Social Problems • 363
the
problems
of
the newly industrialized nation (Gouldner
1970).
It was also a liberal critique
of
the American society
rooted in the early discipline
of
U.S. sociology, different
from
that found in European sociology. From the mid-
nineteenth century, European sociology had developed
with the full range
of
perspectives, from radical critiques
of basic institutions provided by Marx to conservative sup-
port of the status quo from the likes
of
Herbert Spencer.
American sociology through the first half
of
the twentieth
century, in contrast, "came to dwell on those concrete insti-
tutional areas and social problems" (Gouldner 1970:93)
accepted by the dominate society from a perspective
of
how
to
make them work better rather than suggesting basic
change. "Indeed, nothing like Marxian sociology was even
recognized by American sociology until well after World
War
II" (McLellan 1973). There were,
of
course, Marxian
perspectives among European immigrants and the early
labor movement in the United States, but little
of
this
found its way into academic halls. It is telling that Talcott
Parsons's major book, designed to introduce Americans
to
European sociology in the early 1930s, had not one
mention
of
Marx
or
Marxian theory (Parsons 1937).
To
this
day,
social problems are not considered a major sub-
area in European sociology or offered as a course in many
European universities. The exception to this was sociology
in
the old Soviet Union, where the Soviet government
found the social problem orientation
of
functional sociol-
ogy
a useful perspective for "fine-tuning" the Soviet
society without criticism
of
the basic Soviet institutions
(Gouldner 1970:447-52).
WHAT
IS
A SOCIAL PROBLEM?
TEXTBOOK
DEFINITIONS
Standard "textbook" definitions
of
social problems are
generally grouped into three categories, with the second
two
categories most often used by sociologists themselves.
As
we
will consider in the following, however, there are
ma~y
more underlying assumptions about the nature
of
SOCIety
and humans that shape what sociologists as well as
the
general public come to define as social problems.
..
The public generally sees a social problem as any con-
d.Ihon
that is harmful to society; but the matter is not so
Simple,
for the meanings
of
such everyday terms as harm
and
SOciety
are far from clear. Social conditions that some
people see as a problem harm some segments
of
society
but
are beneficial to others. Take trade policy as an
example. Shareholders and others affiliated with multina-
ti?nal
COrporate
manufacturers typically argue that any
kmd
of trade restriction is a problem because government
reg
1t' .
d . u a
IOn
lllterferes with the free enterprise system and
nves up costs to consumers. On the other hand, domestic
w~rkers
and manufacturers argue that the government's
fallur~
to
exclude products produced in low-cost nations is
a
SOCIal
problem because it costs
jobs
and hurts domestic
business. As we will discuss in more detail later, one
person's social problem, in other words, is often another
person's solution. In fact, most people and organizations
define something as a social problem only if it harms (or
seems to harm) their own interests.
Sociologists have tried
to
take a less biased approach
with mixed results. Most
of
the early sociological works on
social problems held that a social problem exists when there
is a sizable difference between the ideals
of
a society and its
actual achievements. From this perspective, social prob-
lems are created by the failure to close the gap between the
way people want things
to
be and the way things really are.
Thus, racial discrimination
is
a social problem because
although we believe that everyone should receive fair and
equal treatment, some groups are still denied equal access
to education, employment, and housing. Before this defini-
tion can be applied, however, someone must first examine
the ideals and values
of
society and then decide whether
these goals are being achieved. From this perspective, soci-
ologists and other experts thus decide what
is
or
is
not a
problem because they believe they are the ones with the
skills necessary for measuring the desires and achievements
of
society (see Merton and Nisbet 1971).
Critics
of
this approach point out that no contemporary
society has a single, unified set
of
values and ideals. When
using this definition, sociologists must therefore decide
which standards they will use for judging whether or not a
certain condition is a social problem. Critics charge that
those ideals and values used as standards are selected on
the basis
of
the researcher's personal opinions and preju-
dices, not objective analysis.
The "social constructivists," who have become the
dominant school in social problems research, take a differ-
ent position, holding that a social problem exists when a
significant number
of
people believe that a certain condi-
tion
is in
fact
a problem. Here, the public (not a sociolo-
gist) decides what is or is not a social problem. The
sociologist's job is to determine which problems affect a
substantial number
of
people. Thus,
in
this view, pollution
did not become a social problem until environmental
activists and news reports attracted the public's attention to
conditions that had actually existed for some time (see
Blumer 1971; Spector and Kitsuse 1973).
The advantage
of
this definition is that it does not
require a value judgment by sociologists who try to decide
what is and is not a social problem: Such decisions are
made by "the public." However, a shortcoming
of
this
approach is that the public is often uninformed or mis-
guided and does not clearly understand its problems.
If
thousands
of
people were being poisoned by radiation leak-
ing from a nuclear power plant but didn't know it, wouldn't
that still be a social problem? A potentially more serious
shortcoming
of
this approach is its hidden political bias.
Obviously, in a mass society it
is
not simply the seriousness
of
the problem that wins it public attention but the. way
the corporate media present
it.
Furthermore, relatively
powerless groups with little money or political organization

364 • SOCIETAL PROBLEMS AND DISAFFECTIONS
are not able to get their problems recognized as social prob-
lems in the way that dominant groups can. Sociologists
using the constructivist approach in the study
of
social
problems creation have generally been very sensitive to the
role power plays in this process, but researchers focusing
more narrowly on individual social problems have often
unreflectively accepted the definitions
of
problematic con-
ditions provided by funding agencies or popular opinion
(Galliher and McCartney 1973; Useem 1976a, 1976b;
Kerbo 1981, 2006a:254-59).
But even these conflicting views
of
how social prob-
lems are to be defined miss important underlying assump-
tions that influence what people come to define
as
a social
problem. These underlying assumptions account for how
social problems are differently conceived across societies,
through history, and across lines such as race, class, and
religion within societies at one particular time. And it must
be recognized that sociologists have also been influenced
by these underlying and often hidden assumptions about
humans and societies.
THE
FIELD
TODAY:
TRENDS IN
"SOCIAL PROBLEMS" TEXTBOOKS
The question
of
which problems are serious enough to
warrant sociological attention has been a difficult and con-
troversial one over the years.
We
will consider this issue
from another perspective in the following. But for
now,
we
can note that the pressure
of
social movements is one
of
four interwoven factors that determined which problems
draw the most sociological attention. The public's percep-
tion
of
its problems
is
a second important factor that,
of
course, is strongly influenced by the media
of
mass com-
munication. Space does not permit an exploration
of
all the
factors that influence the media's decisions to tum its
attention on one problem and not another, but certainly the
corporate interests
of
the media conglomerates and the
various political and financial pressures to which they
are exposed are
of
prime importance (see, for example,
Domhoff 2006, on the "policy formation process"). But in
addition to the media, the public's perception
of
social
problems is also shaped by the actual experiences
of
every-
day people. So a third factor is the social crises that have a
wrenching impact on the public from time to time, as well
as the ongoing contradictions
of
industrial capitalism. In
January
of
2001, for example, terrorism was not mentioned
as a major problem in the Gallup Poll, but by the start
of
2002, it was the number one problem identified by the
respondents. With the start
of
the Iraq war the following
year, warfare and international tension replaced terrorism
on the list
of
national concerns. In 2001, less than 0.5 per-
cent
of
the poll respondents mentioned warfare and inter-
national tensions
as
the nation's most serious problem, but
by 2003,
35
percent did so (Gallup 2004). A final factor
involves the sociologists who are selecting the problems
for consideration.
Since most practicing sociologists hold some kind of
academic position, they function as semi-independent
intellectuals in the arena
of
social problems creation.
As such, they have considerably more independence
(although less visibility and influence) than scientists
and
advocates working for the corporations
or
other special
interest groups. But as noted in the foregoing, they
are,
nonetheless, still constrained by the need to obtain
finan-
cial support for their research and the political climate of
their universities. The paradigmatic shift that has occurred
in sociology in the last 50 years as it moved away from
the
functionalist perspective to a more critical conflict orienta-
tion has certainly been an important influence both in
the
problems that are given attention and in the ways in which
they are analyzed.
Since the focus
of
ociological research itself
is
deter-
mined as much by the priorities
of
the funding agencies
as
by the sociologists who carry it out, one
of
the best guides
to the changes in sociological concerns is the content of
the
social problems textbooks. A comparison
of
contemporary
texts with those from the earlier decades
of
the postwar era
shows that although organizational styles and definitions
vary, there
is
a significant group
of
problems that
have
maintained consistent sociological attention.
If
any social
problems can be said to occupy the center
of
sociological
concern, they are the ones related to crime and deviance.
Certain types
of
crime and deviance were given more
cov-
erage in one era than another, but all the major texts
have
an extensive coverage
of
this topic. Other constants are the
problems
of
the family, ethnic relations, population,
and
poverty or economic inequality. A second group of prob-
lems appears in some texts but not in others without
any
clear chronological pattern
of
increasing or
decreasi~g
attention. Surprisingly, given their importance in publIc
opinion polls, economic problems other than poverty
are
not consistently covered. Other problems in this category
include those
of
urbanization, sexuality, and education.
Finally, a third group
of
problems has shown
an
increase
or decrease in sociological interest over the years. The
first
edition
of
the best-selling text by Horton and Leslie (1955)
had chapters on two problems that are not seen in
l~t~r
texts: "Religious Problems and Conflicts" and
"C~vl1
Liberties and Subversion" (the focus
of
the latter
bemg
primarily on the dangers
of
communism). New social
movements during this period also brought new problems
to the foreground. By the time Joseph Julian's text replaced
Horton and Leslie as the top seller in the 1970s, several
new problems had joined the core
of
sociological interest.
In response to the rise
of
the environmental movement,
Julian's (1973) first edition contained a chapter on environ-
mental
problems-something
that became a mainstay of
social problems texts either on its own
or
with a presenta-
tion
of
population growth as a social problem. The
fem~nist
movement succeeded in adding another critical tOplC-
gender
inequity-to
the mainstream texts. The extremely
influential text, edited by Robert K. Merton and Robert
Nisbet (1976), first added a chapter on gender in its fourth

Social Problems • 365
edition, and Julian (1977) added a similar chapter the
following
year. More recently, there has been growing
attention
to
the problems faced by gays and lesbians, even
though
this topic has generally not been treated in an inde-
pendent chapter
of
its own. Although chapters on the prob-
lems
of aging are not quite as common, they also started
showing
up around the 1970s.
The main focus
of
most
of
these texts, like that
of
American sociology itself, has been on domestic issues,
but
there have been some important changes there as well.
As
the
memories
of
World War II began to fade, there was
some
decline in interest in events beyond America's bor-
ders.
Horton and Leslie originally had two chapters with
an
international focus, "Population" and "Warfare
and
International Organization," as did the Merton and
Nisbet text in its early editions. In 1976, however, Merton
and
Nisbet replaced their chapter on "Warfare
and··
Disarmament" with a chapter on "Violence," which
focused on criminal behavior, and Julian never had a
chapter on warfare. However, as the process
of
globaliza-
tion
won
increasing public attention in the 1990s, this
trend was slowly reversed. Not only did many
of
the texts
begin including more comparative material, but some
added a chapter on global inequality as Coleman and
Cressey (1993) did in their fifth edition.
Three overall trends are therefore evident in the socio-
logical study
of
social problems in North America. As just
indicated, one trend has been toward greater inclusivity.
First African Americans, then other ethnic minorities, then
:-V
0men, and finally gays and lesbians have slowly won
Inclusion in what was originally an exclusively white male
vision
of
the world. A second trend has been the slow
expansion
of
sociological horizons to recognize the impor- .
tance of environmental concerns as well as to take a more
global perspective.
. A third trend, not as easily recognizable from our pre-
VIOUS
analysis, has been an underlying paradigmatic shift.
To
the extent that they used any explicit theoretical
approach, the earlier texts were based on functionalist
assumptions. Following Horton and Leslie (1955:27-32),
they
tended to argue that there were three theoretical
approaches to social problems: social disorganization,
personal deviance, and value conflict. The value-conflict
approach should not, however, be confused with contem-
por~
conflict theory inspired by Marxian thought. Its
baSIC
assumptions were clearly functionalist: Society
needed value consensus, and "value conflict" was there-
for~
a cause
of
social conflict (Fuller and Myers 1941).As
SOCiology
slowly adopted a more critical perspective, a few
~ooks
with an exclusively conflict orientation were pub-
lIshed, and for most
of
the other textbooks, this tripartite
approach was recast. The social disorganization approach
was
expanded and renamed to include all functionalist
theory.
The personal deviance approach expanded to
beco~e
the interactionist approach, which had less
of
a
functIOnalist cast and included other social psychological
phenomena in addition to deviance. Finally, the issue
of
value conflict was subsumed under the much broader and
more critical umbrella
of
a conflict approach (for example,
see Coleman and Cressey 1980).
Of the new trends that seem to be developing for the
twenty-first century,
an
increasing globalization perspec-
tive
is
most important. There
is
now
greater recognition
that for· the United States, globalization
is
creating new
social problems or making old ones such as poverty and
unemployment worse. The movement
of
U.S. factories
overseas and outsourcing
of
all kinds
of
work have helped
reduce wages for the· bottom half of. the American labor
force (see Kerbo 2006b:chaps. 2 and 3).
In
addition to this,
the antiglobalization movements
of
recent years, as well as
research on the negative impact
of
globalization for devel-
oping countries (Kerbo 2006b:chap. 4), have brought
greater attention
to
the subjects
of
world poverty, environ-
mental pollution; and global migration for most books
on
social problems. With global inequality expected to con-
tinue increasing for many years into the twenty-first cen-
tury, the trend will likely become more pronounced.
PARADIGM
ASSUMPTIONS
AND
DEFINING
SOCIAL
PROBLEMS
In
his classic work
The
Sociological
Imagination,
C.
Wright
Mills (1959) argued we should distinguish between '''the
personal troubles
of
milieu' and 'the public issues
of
social structure'"
(p.
8). For him,
of
course, it was "the
public issues
of
social structure" that should be the focus
of
sociology when defining the nature
of
a social problem.
Mills offered this example:
In these terms, consider unemployment. When;
in
a city of
100,000, only one man
is
unemployed, that is
his
personal
trouble, and for its relief
we
properly look
to
the character
of
the man
...
But when
in
a nation
of
50 million employees,
15
million men are unemployed, that
is
an
issue
...
Both the
correct statement
of
the problem and the
r~nge
of
possible
solutions require
llstoconsiderthe
•economic and political
institutions
of
the society, and not merely the personal situa-
tion and character
of
a scatter
of
individuals.
(P.·
9)
Mills; obviously, offers a definitioI19f social problems
thatfocus~s
on
th~
breakdown
of
basic social institutions
that must
take
care
of
individuals
a~d
assure the survival
of
the society
and
its
soc~al
institutions.
Hisplea
fora
focus
on social institutions. seems straightforward and obvious;
but
he
mades~ch
a pleabecause
of
the particular aspects
of
American
cUlture~hat7re~te
~
bias against this focus.
It has long·
been
recognized that power.(generally
dejfinl~d)andvalues
i~ter~ctto
.dete~ine
what comes
to
be
seen as social
problems~
Those with
.\Vealth
and
i~fluence
in government and/or the mass media in modem societies
are the ones most able to shape what the society comes
to
view as a social problem. But there are many forms
of
influence held by those below the top ranks in the society,
making the study
of
social problems overlap with the study

366 • SOCIETAL PROBLEMS AND DISAFFECTIONS
of
social movements. Several years ago, for example, one
of
the basic American social problems textbooks employed
the title Social Problems· as Social Movements (Mauss
1975).
As
we will consider in the following, however,
assuming that social movements help define social prob-
lems
is
also problematic because of the complex set
of
forces that make the emergence
of
social movements pos-
sible. But
in
addition to this, the recognition that social
movements help define social problems continues to
neglect the question of cultural assumptions and values
that make one country, in one historical epic, view condi-
tions differently for people in other· times and places, as
well as neglect the ability
of
those with wealth and power
to
shape the perspective on the causes and solutions to
social problems once they have been defined
as
such.
Sociological analyses
of
sociology itself, a form
of
"deconstructionism" popular among professional sociolo-
gists during the 1960s and .1970s, long before the current
fad in humanities, has shown that "paradigm assumptions"
or "metatheoretical assumptions" shape all sociological
theories at least
to
some degree (Gouldner 1970; Strasser
1976; Ritzer 2005). And while all scientific disciplines are
influenced by these political, religious, or cultural assump-
tions (Kuhn 1970), these assumptions shape some fields
within the social sciences to a greater extent than others.
Theories and research on politically sensitive subjects such
as
crime and poverty, along with most subjects within the
general area
of
social problems, are most influenced by
these paradigm assumptions (Galliher and McCartney
1973; Useem 1976a, 1976b; Kerbo 1981).
To
understand theories and research on social problems
in the American society, it is first important to examine
some
of
the general American values that shape views on
these subjects. Various international opinion polls show the
following: Americans have the highest scores on (1) indi-
vidualism (Hofstede 1991), (2) beliefs in the existence
of
equality
of
opportunity, (3) beliefs that government cannot
and should not reduce inequality or poverty (Ladd and
Bowman .1998), and (4) beliefs that high levels
of
poverty
and inequality are acceptable (Verba et al. 1987; Ladd and
Bowman 1998). For the study
of
social problems in gen-
eral, this has meant that American values suggest that indi-
viduals themselves are responsible for their problems
rather than some aspect
of
the society or basic institutions.
In contrast to the early appeals
of
C.
Wright Mills noted in
the foregoing, content analyses
of
articles on social prob-
lems published in American sociology journals through the
second half of the twentieth century confirm that the focus
tends. to be on the characteristics
of
individuals rather
than problems
of
society (Galliher and McCartney 1973;
Useem 1976a, 1976b; Kerbo 1981, 2006a:254-59).
This
r~search
also shows that it
is
not simply the views
of
sociologists themselves that set the trend toward blam-
ing the characteristics
of
individuals for social problems as
much as the assumptions
of
funding agencies; most social
science research is funded by government agencies and
private foundations that are more interested in controlling
social problems rather than changing aspects
of
the
society
that are often at the root
of
social problems (Kerbo
1981).
Interviews with social scientists indicate that they are
most
often conducting research on questions that they know
will
get funding rather than on what they think are the
most
important sociological questions
or
subjects in which
they
are most interested (Useem 1976a, 1976b). What
this
research suggests is that while the rich and powerful
may
not always define what is seen as a social problem, they
do
have extensive influence over what we think are the
causes
and solutions to social problems. They help set
the
research agendas, what gets research attention, and
what
gets talked about in government circles and the
mass
media through this influence on the social sciences
through research funding (see Domhoff 2006:77-132).
This is not to say, however, that the assumptions
and
interests
of
the less affluent and politically powerless
do
not shape what we come to define as social problems.
For
example, an abundance
of
research has shown that the
civil
rights movements
of
the 1960s, and especially the violent
demonstrations and riots
of
that period, shaped
the
American society's definition
of
poverty as a social
prob-
lem (piven and Cloward 1971, 1977). Indeed, several
stud-
ies have shown strong correlations between urban riots
of
the 1960s and the expansion
of
welfare benefits
to
the
poor
(Betz 1974; Kelly and Snyder 1980; Isaac and Kelly
1981).
The tie between social movements and what comes
to
be defined as social problems is especially critical
in
the
United States. Compared with the rest
of
the industrial-
ized world,
of
course, a much smaller percentage of
Americans tend to vote during national elections. But
an
even bigger contrast to other industrialized nations
is
the
class makeup
of
those who do vote in the United States:
Toward the upper-income levels, some
70-80
percent
.of
Americans who are eligible to vote do so, compared
WIth
30 percent or less for people with a
below-a~er~ge
income. This is not the case with other industrial
soCIetIes,
where the voter turnout is about the same at every income
level (Piven and Cloward 1988, 2000; Kerbo
and
Gonzalez 2003). This is to say, therefore, that when
!he
less affluent and less politically powerful in the
Ull1te~
States have influenced definitions
of
social problems,
It
has been comparatively more often done in the streets
than through the political process.
THE CAUSES
OF
SOCIAL
MOVEMENTS AND
THEIR
IMPACT
ON
DEFINITIONS
OF
SOCIAL PROBLEMS
Recognizing that social movements are important in iden-
tifying what a society comes to view as a social problem
forces us to ask how social movements themselves emerge.
It
is not our intent to review all the literature on the causes
. l't ature
of
social movements, but a brief summary
of
thIS
1 er
. . 1 h " . 1 blems
have
IS
essentIa w en consIdenng how
SOCIa
pro
been defined in the United States.

For many years the study
of
social movements was dom-
inated by theories based on some form
of
"deprivation"
argument. In other words, social movements were seen
to
emerge and attract widespread membership because partic-
ipants felt a sense
of
anger or outrage at their condition.
Recognizing that long-standing deprivations do not always
or even often spark widespread social movement activity
(such as decades
or
centuries
of
discrimination and
exploitation
of
a minority group by the majority), most
deprivation theories
of
social movements attempted to
explain how some type
of
change leads to a redefinition
of
the
situation. The most popular
of
this type
of
theory
has
been called "relative deprivation theory" or "J-curve
theory" (Davies 1962, 1969; Gurr 1970). During the early
1800s, Tocqueville (1955) recognized that, ironically,
social movements and revolutions tend to emerge when
conditions are actually improving. More recent refinements
of "relative deprivation theory" distinguish between what is
called "value expectations" and "value capabilities." .When
value capabilities are low (such as high levels
of
poverty)
and have been so for a long period
of
time, people come to
accept their situation or assume improvements are unlikely
or impossible. People in deprived situations are often, even
likely, to be persuaded that they themselves are responsible
for their condition and thus have no one else to· blame.
(Piven and Cloward 1971; Gans 1972). This is to say
that
low-value capabilities are usually associated with low-
value expectations over long periods
of
time. Thus, to
understand the emergence
of
social movements, relative·
deprivation theories suggest the need to understand how
value capabilities and value expectations move apart.
Obviously, the gap between the
two·
can develop
because value capabilities worsen (such as a big jump in
unemployment
of
the working class), thus creating a gap
between previous expectations and newly lowered capabil-
ities. Faced with a sudden crisis, people· seldom·
(1.
:S:SUIHlt:
th~ir
situation is hopeless or that they deserve their wors-
enmg situation. However, as Tocqueville (1955) was first
to
recognize, social movements and revolutions actually
s~em
to
Occur
when long-standing conditions
of
depriva-
tIon are actually improving. Refinement
.•
of
relative
?eprivation-type theories has come to suggestthat improv- .
~ng
conditions quickly raise levels
of
expectation, but
Improving conditions seldom occur without fluctuation,
meaning that a sudden downturn in improving conditions
cr~ates
the gap between value capabilities and value expec-
tatI?ns.
It
is anger or fear that improvements
achIeved will be short lived that motivate more and more
people to join a social movement.
While research has shown that
some
form
of
"relative
depriv t' "
a
Ion
seems to have preceded many social move-
me~ts,
others have noted that this is not always the
case-
nor
IS
anger or a sense
of
deprivation in and
of
itself usually
suffi
.
.
IClent
to make a social movement.
In
recent years, what
IS
generally referred to as "resource mobilization theory"
has become much more popular among sociologists
attempting
to
explain the development and spread
of
social
Social Problems • 367
movements (for original development·
of
the perspective,
see McCarthy and Zald 1977).
In
its basics, resource mobi-
lization theory
is
a form
of
conflict theory focused on the
balance
of
power between authorities (or the more power-
ful in a society) and those with possible grievances.
Reduced power
of
authorities, increased power among
those with a grievance, or both can lead
to
a strong social
movement.
The concept oL"resources"
in
resource mobilization
theory refers to any value or condition that can be used
to
the advantage of a group. Obviously important are such
things
as
money, publicity, arms, and the ability to interact
with and organize larger numbers
of
people for the cause.
In one
of
the first studies using resource mobilization
theory, for example, Paige (1975). was able to show that
certain· kinds
of
crops.· and certain types
of
agricultural
organization (such as wet rice agriculture with absentee
landowners) are more likely associated with peasant
revolts and revolutions because
of
the ability peasants
have to interactfreely, share common grievances, and be
organized to oppose landowners. Likewise, the loss
of
legitimacy and the ability. to punish opponents or hide
information are conditions that reduce the power and
resources
of
authorities. Ted Gurr (1970) has produced a
long list
of
possible resources that includes things such as
terrain (ability
to
hide or ability
of
authorities to uncover
rebels), food supplies, and outside allies that can influence
the power and size
of
social movements;
Perhaps more than any other social movement in recent
American history, the
ne\\T
resource mobilization theory
of
s6cial movements led to a reanalysis
of
the civil rights
movement. Because
of
this
extensive reanalysis
of
the
causes
of
the civil rights movement, it is worth considering
in more detail here how a particular social problem, racism
and discrimination, came
to
be widely defined as a social
problem in the second half
of
the fwentieth century.
Civil Rights Movement
Considering· the· importance
of
the civil rights. move-
ment in the United States for defining racism, discrimina-
tion, and poverty
as
social pr()?I9ms, it is useful to consider
. how this social
move
ll1
ent
e
ll1
erged apd
to
consider the
value
of
the social movement theories described in the
foregoing.
Relative
d~privation
theory
..
has
some
success
in
explaining
\\Thy
the.
more violent stage
of
the civil rights
movement
em~rged
in
the mid-1969s. Sociologists using
this perspective argue that the more violent stage
of
the
civil rights movement was in response to a white "back-
lash" that resulted in some
setba~ks
to
the
earlier achieve-
ments
of
the civil rights movelllent from
the
1950s (Davies
1969). However, relative deprivation theory has difficulty
in explaining why the civil rights movement suddenly
appeared in the early 1950s, while so.
many.
oth~r
attempted social movements by black Amencans faIled
III
earlier American history. In recent years, research has

368
• SOCIETAL PROBLEMS AND DISAFFECTIONS
shown resource mobilization theory
to
be a powerful tool
in
understanding why the civil rights movement became
widespread and powerful when and where it did so
(McAdam 1982).
In summary, the civil rights movement benefited from
several changes that occurred
in
the American society after
World
War
II.
Among the most important changes was
agricultural mechanization, which moved a majority
of
black Americans from rural areas and agricultural jobs into
large cities all over the United States. Larger concentra-
tions of black Americans
in
urban areas provided the abil-
ity
to
reach and organize far greater numbers of social
movement participants than before. A key to organiza-
tional ability
was
also found in the huge churches domi-
nated
by
black Americans in large cities in the southern
United States. These black churches made possible organi-
zation within the denomination and across churches all
over the South. At the same time, these large black
churches provided support for social movement partici-
pants and their families when they were jailed or injured in
social movement activities.
Among other new resources in the 1950s were more
mass-media exposure
to
actions against black Americans
and social movement activities that had remained rela-
tively. hidden
in
small cities and rural areas throughout
the South in previous generations. But related to this was
political change,
as
the Democratic Party lost its previ-
ously solid majority in the South.
To
counter this loss, the
Democratic Party decided to "go for" new urban concen-
trations of potential black votes in the late 1950s.
It
was
politicalization
of
black grievances in the presidential
election
of
1960 that gave black social movement
activists more resources
of
many kinds and John
F..
Kennedy the presidency in one
of
the closest elections
when
newly organized black voters gave him overwhelming
support.
Movements
of
Affiuence
The foregoing analysis of social movements and their
causes
as
instrumental in defining what comes
to
be seen
as
a social problem, however, should not be seen
as
rein-
forcing the common assumption that social movements
are primarily by and for the poor and oppressed.
We
must
recognize the distinction between what has been called
"movements
of
crisis" and "movements
of
affluence"
(Kerbo 1982). Most movements
of
crisis are made up
of
people who face critical problems such
as
poverty, dis-
crimination, or some other deprivation. Most movements
of
affluence, on the other hand, involve people who are rel-
atively comfortable, if not affluent, and have the luxury
of
devoting their attention and energy on "moral issues."
Current social movements in the United States that are
usually pushed by people on the political right (such
as
the
anti-abortion movement)
as
well
as
the political left (such
as
the environmental movement and antiglobalization)
must be included among these movements
of
affluence,
which focus on moral issues or issues that
are
not
of
immediate harm to individual social movement
participants.
SOLUTIONS
TO
SOCIAL PROBLEMS
We
can conclude with an examination
of
what are consid-
ered "solutions" to social problems. While the possible
solutions
to
social problems are seldom recognized,
they
are equally,
if
not more, shaped by power and influence
in
a society. Over the last four decades in the United States,
the extent and seriousness
of
many,
if
not most,
social
problems have remained relatively unchanged.
For
example, while violent crime and property crime
have
dropped in recent years, violent crime especially remains
at high levels compared with other industrial nations.
Drug
use has gone up and down within only a narrow
range.
Teenage pregnancy has dropped only slightly. Poverty
rates have ranged between
11
and
15
percent of
the
American population in the last 40 years, among the
high-
est in the industrialized world. These continuing
high
levels
of
social problems in the United States might
sug-
gest that relatively little has been learned about the subject
in the last half century
of
sociological research. The
real-
ity,
however, is quite different. Even more complex
than
definitions
of
social problems is finding solutions that
do
not adversely affect groups with more political and/or
eco-
nomic power or impinge on important values of the
domi-
nant group in the society. Consideration
of
possible
solutions to poverty and inequality will be useful
in
demonstrating the point.
In most
of
the original European Union countries,
poverty rates are substantially below the American
rate~.
Using the purchasing power parity (PPP) method of esti-
mating currency values, and using the poverty line estab-
lished by the U.S. Census Bureau (roughly
$11
per
day
per
person), during the late 1990s (the most recent years
we
have data for several European countries) the U.S. poverty
rate was over
13
percent, compared with about 7 percent
in Germany and the Netherlands and around 4 percent
in Scandinavian countries (Smeeding, Rainwater,
and
Burtless 2001:51). But while the American poverty rates
are comparatively high, unemployment at around 4
to
5
percent in the same time period was low compared
to
o~er
10
percent unemployment in most original EU
countne.s.
There are two interacting explanations for this: First,
In
.
are
contrast
to
the United States, European labor umons
strong enough to force government action to keep poverty
low even at the expense
of
higher unemployment rates
(Esping-Anderson 1990; Thelen 1991; Goodin et al.
1999;
Kerbo and Gonzalez 2003). Second, opinion polls indicate
.
ns
that Europeans are more concerned than are Amenca
.
.,
ns
and
about high inequality and poverty among theIr
Cltize
believe that governments have the responsibility to reduce
poverty and inequality (Verba et al. 1987; Ladd
~n~
Bowman 1998). These two explanations are also behlll

Social Problems •
369
accept has led the American public to generally the
argument that the government should not be allowed
to
raise taxes, increase unemployment benefits, or raise
minimum-wage laws to reduce poverty. Rather: the argu-
ment is that corporations and the rich should be left alone
as
much as possible to generate wealth that will then
opportunities that will reduce poverty among expand
job
Americans. (For a broader discussion
of
this German
vs.
American contrast, see Kerbo and Strasser 2000, Kerbo
power
of
2006b:chap. 3.)-ln
Germany,byc?ntrast,;the
labor unions and labor laws' already instituted with labor
will not allow such government inaction
as
union pressure
a presumed solution
to
the problem
of
poverty.
Another example can be briefly considered. Several
studies indicate that high employmept rates are
in~trumen
tal in producing crime (BIau and
cBlau
1982; Williams
1984), which at least in part helps explainthe lower crime
rates
in
the United States from the' early 1990s to the
present. Thus, a guaranteed
job
after release
from
prison
would significantly reduce the rate
of
recidivism. But since
1930s, American politicians have
not
been willing
to
the
create employment through government programs in times
of
high unemployment or guarantee jobs
to
felons released
have;·been suc-from prison. The American corporate elite
cessful in blocking such governmentjob guarantees
or
jobs
created
by
government,~ven
though
it
isc1ear this'would
be one viables?IHtion
to
high
rat~s
of
cri~e.
.
There.~re
many other exalllples: Decriminaliiing drugs
would likely help reduce .both
pr?perty,crim~
.'.
and drug
addiction
asit
has in some European countries,
a~d
more
,sex education,and freer access to condoms\\;'0Hld
,~elp
"reduce teenage pregnancyrates,
w~i~h.~re
fa~hii~herinthe
United States;than'in
Eu~ope.
B~ta~with
definitions
of
~hat
is or'is
.nota~ocial'problem/power'andinfluence
in
combination with particular societal value orientations that
a~soinvol~~~,
be exploited by 'those with power are
with what
come
to be viewed
as
accepted solutions to
problems!
'J}'
'
Table
36.1
Comparative Impact
of
Welfare and
Unemployment Benefits on Reducing Poverty'
Poverty Poverty
(Prewelfare (After Welfare Percentage
Country
Payments)
(%)
Payments)
(%)
Reduction
Sweden
34.1
6.7 -8004
Denmark
26.9 7.5 -72.1
England
29.2 14.6 -50.0
Belgium
28.4 5.5 -80.6
Germany
22.0 7.6 -65.5
The
Netherlands 22.8 6.7 -70.6
France
21.6 7.5 -65.3
Italy
18.4
6.5
-64.7
Spain
28.2
lOA
-63.1
United
States 26.7
19.1
-28.5
SOURCE:
Constructed from data presented by Smeeding (1997),
Mishel, Bernstein, and Schmitt (1999:377), and Nieuwbeerta (2001).
a.
Poverty measured by income below 50 percent
of
median income in
the
nation. Data are available from 1989 to 1994.
government
the
figures we see in Table 36.1. Without
about the same or action, poverty rates in Europe would
be
~ven
higher than in the United States.
But
government
Interventions in Europe reduce poverty,rates by;50
t080
per~ent,
compared with only a 28.percent reduction in
the
Not surprisingly, the
EU
country
withthe
Ulllted States.
weakest unions today and values closest to the United
~tates,
the United Kingdom, has the lowest rate
of
reduc-
In~
poverty through government action in Europe
.....
and,
•.
USillg
the PPP $11 per day poverty
line,
.a poverty: rate
of
15.! pe.rcent compared with 13.6 percent
in
the same
time
United States (Smeeding
et
al.2001:51)
..
' penod
ill
the
The contrast between
Germanyand
the United States is
~ost
clear. The influence
of
the Americancorporateelite,
In
the context
of
American values stressing individualism,