We have just seen that sociology regards individuals as social beings influenced in many ways by their social environment and perhaps less free to behave and think than Americans ordinarily assume. If this insight suggests to you that sociology might have some other surprising things to say about the social world, you are certainly correct. Max Weber (1864–1920), a founder of sociology, wrote long ago that a major goal of sociology was to reveal and explain “inconvenient facts” (Gerth & Mills, 1946, p. 147). These facts include the profound influence of society on the individual and also, as we shall see throughout this book, the existence and extent of social inequality.
In line with Weber’s observation, as sociologists use sociological perspective in their theory and research, they often challenge conventional understandings of how society works and of controversial social issues. This emphasis is referred to as the debunking motif, to which we now turn.
The Debunking Motif
As Peter L. Berger (1963, pp. 23–24) noted in his classic book Invitation to Sociology, “The first wisdom of sociology is this—things are not what they seem.” Social reality, he said, has “many layers of meaning,” and a goal of sociology is to help us discover these multiple meanings. He continued, “People who like to avoid shocking discoveries… should stay away from sociology.”
As Berger was emphasizing, sociology helps us see through conventional understandings of how society works. He referred to this theme of sociology as the . By “looking for levels of reality other than those given in the official interpretations of society” (p. 38), Berger said, sociology looks beyond the on-the-surface understanding of social reality and helps us recognize the value of alternative understandings. In this manner, sociology often challenges conventional understandings about social reality and social institutions.
For example, suppose two people meet at a college dance. They are interested in getting to know each other. What would be an on-the-surface understanding and description of their interaction over the next few minutes? What do they say? If they are like a typical couple who just met, they will ask questions like, “what’s your name, where are you from, what dorm do you live in, and/or what’s your major?” Now, such a description of their interaction is okay as far as it goes, but what is really going on here? Does either of the two people really care that much about the other person’s answers to these questions? Isn’t each one more concerned about how the other person is responding, both verbally and nonverbally, during this brief interaction? For example, is the other person paying attention and smiling? Isn’t this kind of understanding a more complete analysis of these few minutes of interaction than an understanding based solely on the answers to questions like, “what’s your major?” For the most complete understanding of this brief encounter, then, we must look beyond the rather superficial things the two people are telling each other to uncover the true meaning of what is going on.
As another example, consider the power structure in a city or state. To know who has the power to make decisions, we would probably consult a city or state charter or constitution that spells out the powers of the branches of government. This written document would indicate who makes decisions and has power, but what would it not talk about? To put it another way, who or what else has power to influence the decisions elected officials make? Big corporations? Labor unions? The media? Lobbying groups representing all sorts of interests? The city or state charter or constitution may indicate who has the power to make decisions, but this understanding would be limited unless one looks beyond these written documents to get a deeper, more complete understanding of how power really operates in the setting being studied.
Social Structure and the Sociological Imagination
One way sociology achieves a more complete understanding of social reality is through its focus on the importance of the social forces affecting our behavior, attitudes, life choices, and life chances. This focus involves an emphasis on —patterned social interaction and social institutions through which a society is organized. Some people belong to many networks of social relationships, including groups like the PTA and the Boy or Girl Scouts, while other people have fewer such networks. Some people grew up on streets where the houses were crowded together, while other people grew up in areas where the homes were much farther apart. These are some examples of the sorts of factors that form an important part of our social environment and backgrounds.
In addition, society or a group ranks people in a hierarchy, with some more “equal” than others, this is commonly known as . In the United States and most other industrial societies, such things as wealth, power, race and ethnicity, and gender help determine one’s social ranking, or position. Some people are at the top of society, while many more are in the middle or at the bottom. People’s positions in society’s hierarchy in turn often have profound consequences for their attitudes, behaviors, life choices, and life chances, both for themselves and for their children.
In recognizing the importance of social structure, sociology stresses that individual problems are often rooted in problems stemming from the many facets of society. This key insight informed C. Wright Mills’s (1959) classic distinction between and . Personal troubles refer to a problem affecting individuals that the affected individual, as well as other members of society, typically blame on the individual’s own failings. Examples include such different problems as eating disorders, divorce, and unemployment. Public issues, whose source lies in the social structure and culture of a society, refer to social problems affecting many individuals. Thus problems in society help account for problems that individuals experience. Mills felt that many problems ordinarily considered private troubles are best understood as public issues, and he coined the term —the ability to see societal patterns that influence individual and group life.
To illustrate Mills’s viewpoint, let’s use our sociological imaginations to understand some important contemporary social problems. We will start with unemployment, which Mills himself discussed. If only a few people were unemployed, Mills wrote, we could reasonably explain their unemployment by saying they were lazy, lacked good work habits, and so forth. If so, their unemployment would be their own personal trouble. But when millions of people are out of work, unemployment is best understood as a public issue because, as Mills (1959, p. 9) put it, “the very structure of opportunities has collapsed. Both the correct statement of the problem and the range of possible solutions require us to consider the economic and political institutions of the society, and not merely the personal situation and character of a scatter of individuals.”
The unemployment rate stemming from the severe economic downturn that began in 2008 provides a telling example of the point Mills was making. Millions of people lost their jobs through no fault of their own. While some individuals are undoubtedly unemployed because they are lazy or lack good work habits, a more structural explanation focusing on lack of opportunity is needed to explain why so many people were out of work. If so, unemployment is best understood in this example as a public issue rather than a personal trouble.
Although eating disorders often stem from personal problems, they also may reflect a cultural emphasis for women to have slender bodies. Christy McKenna – grab – CC BY-SA 2.0.
Another contemporary problem is crime. If crime were only a personal trouble, then we could blame crime on the moral failings of individuals, and some explanations of crime do precisely this. But such an approach ignores the fact that crime is a public issue, because structural factors such as inequality and the physical characteristics of communities contribute to higher crime rates among certain groups in American society. As an illustration, consider identical twins separated at birth. One twin grows up in a wealthy area, with a low rate of conventional (personal and property) crime, while the other twin grows up in a low income area with a higher rate of conventional crime. Twenty years later, which twin will be more likely to have committed a conventional crime? You probably answered the twin growing up in the low income neighborhood. If so, you recognize that there is something about growing up in such a neighborhood that increases the chances of a person committing conventional crimes. That “something” is the structural factors just mentioned, making criminal behavior a public issue, not just a personal trouble.
A third problem is eating disorders. We usually consider a person’s eating disorder to be a personal trouble that stems from a lack of control, low self-esteem, or another personal problem. This explanation may be okay as far as it goes, but it does not help us understand why so many people have the personal problems that lead to eating disorders. Perhaps more important, this belief also neglects the larger social and cultural forces that help explain such disorders. For example, most Americans with eating disorders are women, not men. This gender difference forces us to ask what it is about being a woman in American society that makes eating disorders so much more common. To begin to answer this question, we need to look to the standard of beauty for women that emphasizes a slender body (Whitehead & Kurz, 2008). If this cultural standard did not exist, possibly far fewer American women would suffer from eating disorders than do now. Even if every girl and woman with an eating disorder were cured, others would take their places unless we could somehow change the cultural standard of female slenderness. To the extent this explanation makes sense, eating disorders can be understood as a public issue, not just as a personal trouble.
Picking up on Mills’s insights, William Ryan (1976) pointed out that Americans typically think that social problems such as poverty and unemployment stem from personal failings of the people experiencing these problems, not from structural problems in the larger society. Using Mills’s terms, Americans tend to think of social problems as personal troubles rather than public issues (Mills 1959). As Ryan put it, they tend to believe in rather than (Ryan 1976).
To help us understand a blaming-the-victim ideology, let’s consider why impoverished children in urban areas may often learn very little in their schools. A blaming-the-victim approach, according to Ryan, would say that the children’s parents do not care about their learning, fail to teach them good study habits, and do not encourage them to take school seriously. This type of explanation may apply to some parents, in Ryan’s opinion, but it ignores a much more important reason: the daunting shape of America’s urban schools, which are crumbling structures housing old textbooks and out-of-date equipment. To improve the schooling of children in urban areas, he wrote, we must improve the schools themselves, and not just try to “improve” the parents.
As this example suggests, a blaming-the-victim approach points to solutions to social problems such as poverty and illiteracy that are very different from those suggested by a more structural approach that “blames the system.” If we blame the victim, we would spend our limited dollars to address the personal failings of individuals who suffer from poverty, illiteracy, poor health, eating disorders and other difficulties. If instead we blame the system, we would focus our attention on the various social conditions (deteriorating schools, cultural standards of female beauty, etc.) that account for these difficulties. A sociological perspective suggests that the latter approach is ultimately needed to help us deal successfully with the social problems we face.
Sociology and Social Reform: Public Sociology
Our discussion of Mills’ and Ryan’s perspectives points to the implications of a sociological understanding for changing the social world. This understanding suggests the need to focus on the various aspects of the social environment that help explain both social issues and private troubles, to recall Mills’s terms.
The use of sociological knowledge to achieve social reform was a key theme of sociology as it developed in the United States after emerging at the University of Chicago in the 1890s (Calhoun, 2007). The early Chicago sociologists aimed to use their research to achieve social reform and, in particular, to reduce poverty and its related effects. They worked closely with Jane Addams (1860–1935), a renowned social worker who founded Hull House (a home for the poor in Chicago) in 1899 and won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1931. Addams gained much attention for her analyses of poverty and other social problems of the time, and her book Twenty Years at Hull House remains a moving account of her work with the poor and ill in Chicago (Deegan, 1990).
About the same time, W. E. B. Du Bois (1868–1963), a sociologist and the first African American to obtain a PhD from Harvard University, wrote groundbreaking books and articles on race in American society and, more specifically, on the problems facing African Americans (Morris, 2007). One of these works was his 1899 book The Philadelphia Negro: A Social Study, which attributed the problems facing Philadelphia blacks to racial prejudice among whites. Du Bois also helped found the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). A contemporary of Du Bois was Ida B. Wells-Barnett (1862–1931), a former slave who became an activist for women’s rights and worked tirelessly to improve the conditions of African Americans. She wrote several studies of lynching and joined Du Bois in helping to found the NAACP (Bay, 2009).
American sociology has never fully lost its early calling, but by the 1940s and 1950s many sociologists had developed a more scientific, professional orientation that disregarded social reform (Calhoun, 2007). In 1951, a group of sociologists who felt that sociology had abandoned the discipline’s early social reform orientation formed a new national association, the Society for the Study of Social Problems (SSSP). SSSP’s primary aim today remains the use of sociological knowledge to achieve social justice (http://sssp1.org). During the 1960s, a new wave of young sociologists, influenced by the political events and social movements of that tumultuous period, took up the mantle of social reform and clashed with their older colleagues. A healthy tension has existed since then between sociologists who see social reform as a major goal of their work and those who favor sociological knowledge for its own sake.
In 2004, the president of the American Sociological Association, Michael Burawoy, called for “public sociology,” or the use of sociological insights and findings to address social issues and achieve social change (Burawoy, 2005). His call ignited much excitement and debate, as public sociology became the theme or prime topic of several national and regional sociology conferences and of special issues or sections of major sociological journals. Several sociology departments began degree programs or concentrations in public sociology. In the spirit of public sociology, the chapters that follow aim to show the relevance of sociological knowledge for social reform.
Blaming the System – the social structure of society is held responsible for creating many social problems.
Blaming the Victim – when harm is inflicted by one person to another person, the harmed person is held responsible for the harm done to them.
Debunking Motif – looking beyond the on-the-surface understanding of social reality and recognizing the value of alternative sociological understandings.
Personal Troubles – refer to a problem affecting individuals that the affected individual, as well as other members of society, typically blame on the individual’s own failings.
Public Issues – when the source lies in the social structure and culture of a society that refers to social problems affecting many individuals.
Sociological Imagination – the ability to see societal patterns that influence individual and group life.
Social Inequality – society or a group ranks people in a hierarchy, with some more “equal” than others.
Social Structure – patterned social interaction and social institutions through which a society is organized.
Continue to Section 1.3 Theoretical Perspectives in Sociology
looking beyond the on-the-surface understandings of social reality and recognizing the value of alternative sociological understandings
the social patterns through which a society is organized
the hierarchical ranking of people or groups within a society, where some people or groups have greater access to goods and resources than others
refer to a problem affecting individuals that the affected individual, as well as other members of society, typically blame on the individual’s own failings
when the source of a social problem affecting many individuals lies in the social structure and culture of a society
the ability to see societal patterns that influence individual and group life
when harm is inflicted by one person to another person, the harmed person is held responsible for the harm done to them
the social structure of society is held responsible for creating many social problems