Snell-Cangemi Paradigm of Social Problems for Social Problem Textbooks: Definition, Strategy, Outcome

 

Introduction

 

This article will present a paradigm to clarify that social problems have  an evolutionary path of definitions, strategies, and outcomes.

 

Whatever the source, social problems emerge in both short term and sporadic ways and long term and institutional ways. Regardless of the source, configuration, strategies or outcomes,  social problems do have a common  evolutionary characteristic of having a definition of what is considered a problem,  a strategy for some resolution, and a potential consensus about the outcome  or resolution(if there is one.)

 

Paradigm

 

The authors of this article would like to make sense of all this, by providing a paradigm that may  clarify and render an easier observation of what is called a social problem.  How there might be a consensus about

a strategy or strategies to resolve the problem or let it be, and how we feel about the outcome. Further, we want to do this for both procedural democracies as well as authoritarian and totalitarian countries.

 

Democratic Bias

 

We believe that  social problems textbooks do assume that the readers are American and that a procedural democratic model is provided. As an example, if one reads Kornblum and Julian(1998) the authors discuss  the assumptions about a social problem on 14-16. Most have a democratic bias and they should because the readers will live in a democratic society. In other words, in authoritarian and totalitarian states numerous social problems do not exist because ideology and theology of the nation does not allow for their recognition. AIDS may be killing large numbers of people, but if ideology does not permit discussion of this issue, official reports will not include it. Or, if problems do exist ,it is because of  outside forces and these individuals must be terminated or imprisoned . Thus, a  problem is quickly resolved. This can apply to numerous other problems. Therefore, we want to make clear that the paradigm will include  many societies including democratic and authoritarian nations.

 

This democratic thesis is also in Sullivan (1997) The author on page 27, discusses 3 reasons why social problems should be discussed in an international context, none of the reasons take into account that a country will not acknowledge that problem even exist if it makes ideology or theology vulnerable. Heiner (1999) reader on social problems assumes for the most part a democratic bias. Thus, there are examples of social problems in authoritarian countries, but the strategies to “solve” these problems are democratic ones. Soroka and Bryjak (1999) do take into account where ideology and crime within an authoritarian country conflict. But in the main, there are democratic premises about “resolutions.” This as is should be given the readership. We just want to maintain that social problems emerge around the world and we want to acknowledge it in our paradigm.

 

 

 

 

Other Paradigms

 

The area that we venture into is  not new. Others have tried to simplify the process of social problem/strategy/outcome. Soroka and Bryjak(1999) suggest that social problems be perceived as a tri-level phenomena. Kornblum and Julian(998) provide a natural history of a cyclical model of a social condition becoming a social problem giving rise to dissent and  to the final stage of institutional legitimacy. This same natural history is in Horton, Leslie, and Larson (1991.)Sullivan (1997) provides a model from policy formation to closure. He also makes an insightful comment on “solving” problems that a significant majority do not want solved or do not want to pay for the “resolution.” Mooney, Knox, and Schacht(1997) suggest understanding a problem is the best non-model which includes a confluence of the three major sociological theories of conflict, functionalism, and interactionism. Coleman and Cressey(1990) suggest a non-model of interpreting the claims that an issue is a social problem.Jones, Gallagher, and  McFalls (1988) suggest seeing a social problem as a synthesis and intermixture of objective and subjective dimensions. Curran and Renzetti (1993) suggest social problems are policy analysis of two dual paradigms:conflict and functionalism.Farley (1992) indicates a non-model of order and conflict not being incompatible. Feagin(1986) offers five propositions of critical-conflict sociology,  the first of defining the problem in critical-conflict premesis to the fifth which is  the downward drift to grass roots resolution.

 

Snell-Cangemi Paradigm

 

The authors would like to suggest a parsimonious paradigm. It’s practical value is that practitioners, citizens, and academicians should be able to point to this table and indicate that this is where the social problem is located at this time in it’s evolutionary path. At this point, the conflicting parties are given some clarity in the heated discussion of the problem. In other words, where are  we in the evolution of this? In the quagmire of numerous voices, is there a path to indicate that there may be an outcome or a resolution? Or, if we discover, that resolution is not possible, where are we if we should revisit  it in a couple of years? The paradigm takes into  account violent strategies as well as peaceful ones; it also deals with democratic and other than democratic societies.

 

We understand that certain intelligentsia on the Right and what is left of the Left see that procedural democracies are really clever manipulations of the elite (however defined.) Further, we understand that democracy and non-democracy or other than democracy is fraught with definitional problems. Other than for this scenario which focuses on definiton,strategy, and outcome, we understand the immense complexities of the definitions of  democracy, republics, authoritarian states, and totalitarian societies, and we will let others argue about these differences and the validity of the terms just listed.

 

Further, the paradigm does not assume that one social problem exists in a vacuum, but is tied to many others. Additionally, we do not assume that any of the parties will like the outcome. It is possible  that the resolution may have the latent function of making things worse than they already were.  Nor, does it assume any of the etiology of any one theory or theories. We assume that somehow and in some way, certain parties (elite, intelligentsia, or masses) or some other configuration when aroused seek a resolution. We also assume that a resolution can give rise to other social problems or the initial debate can return in a restoration movement.

 

What the paradigm promises is clarity and simplicity in seeing the path of a problem, but not answers to any particular problem. Hopefully, when conflicting parties are in the midst of battle, cooler heads can say by pointing to the paradigm: This is where we are. The paradigm can not tell the parties, this is what we should do next.. We believe the value of this is that many times, emotions are so heated that even knowing or having an idea about the present state of the social problems leaves conflicted parties  a little less bewildered and less angry.

 

Thus, the paradigm.

 

 

 

Table 1. about  here.

 

 

 

As one can see there are atleast two options in the definition phase. We agree or we disagree. How do we determine those definitions? Polls, focus groups, assessment of interest groups and legislatures, or the wishes of a dictator  or ruling elite are part of this process. It is more likely that we will disagree. However, agreement for what ever reasons is probable or possible at strategic times in history. The definition is also called the goal. It may be that practitioners will begin to see that the goal is really goals and thus each possible subset within the definition or goal has to sectioned into another table and given a priority. We do not have the time in this short article to dwell further into this area. However, the subsets, may help give clarity to defining the problem(s.)

 

All the above remarks apply to strategy and outcome or resolution. We also want to note that  there are unusual periods in history when there is near unanimity relative to a social problem, however unlikely that seems. Additionally, we want to note that if there is a resolution, it may quite likely give rise to other problem(s) in other areas of society. Reality appears to be chaotic with an underlying order. All of this however we suggest others argue.

 

Scenarios

 

 A.  CONSENSUS SCENARIO

Scenario 1: Agree/agree/agree(A-B-C)  Definition: This is probably the best of all worlds and the worst. In the utopian version, the totality of the definiton find few who dissent with the goal, strategy, or outcome. Example: An example is a natural disaster. One may argue about safety precautions, but on the whole the phenomna is so overwhelming that there is general agreement in all three areas. On the other hand, for some other social problems,  it could be that large majorities of the population perceive a problem, recognize a strategy or strategies, and have a vision of an outcome or resolution, but a powerful force at the top opposes even the recognition that the social problem exists in dictatorial societies. In procedural democracies, it is possible that powerful lobbies or elite can through numerous manipulations, give the appearance that nothing can be done or that it is not worth doing. Or that some thing was done when in fact little has changed. One should read this for democratic societies as something most agree. It is to the benefit of most parties and the outcome or resolution is thought to be acceptable. This is  a likely scenario,  is  considered  a social problem .

 

B.   DEFINITION SCENARIO

Scenario 2: Disagree/agree/agree(D-B-C) Now we approach something more like every day reality

Definition: In procedural democracies we disagree that there is a problem. However, if there is a strategic moment in time when a confluence of events occurs, it is possible if not probable that we can move to a strategy or strategies, and we think the outcome is desirable. Example: In the case of health care , we may disagree about universal versus fee paid medicine, but we will probably find that in terms of strategy, we want board certified medical practitioners to perform the tasks and we want that the public to be “healthy” because of the procedures of the practitioners. In non-democracies, the elite may disagree about who shall have medical coverage, but the official ideology indicates that all are covered by talented medical practitioners. This is a likely scenario.

 

 

 

 

C.   STRATEGIES/OUTCOME SCENARIO

Scenario 3: Agree/disagree/disagree(A-E-F) Here again, is a likely scenario in a procedural democracy. Definition: We agree that there is street crime and we want that citizens feel safe in their homes and public places, however we disagree about what to do about offenders (strategy) and what will be the likely outcome. Example: There appears to be some consensus about incarceration, but what to do about drug users (not major dealers) and what is the outcome is not “settled.” It may be that it becomes so costly to incarcerate nonviolent offenders (we will leave that definition for another time) that there becomes some resolution about strategy and outcome. There is also the questions of those who are so very old  or so very physically ill that they appear relatively less likely to commit crime. In non-democracies, policies come from the top and changes are announced as if an adjustment was necessary to an already very workable system In the mean time, there is yet to be an agree ment on strategy or outcome.

 

D.   OUTCOME SCENARIO

Scenario 4: Agree/agree/disagree(A-B-F)  This is a very likely scenario. Definition: We thought that we had the problem clearly defined and thought the strategy would work and it did not. However, we are divided about the outcome. Example: This could apply to early drug awareness programs.. We thought that it would save so many from the despair of  hard drugs and alcohol. It appears that it hasn’t worked as well as we wanted. . Or that the outcome is arguable.  However, we understand that  numerous pathologies are linked with alcohol and other recreational drugs, and the restrictions of alcohol and other drugs is subject to debate . In a non-democracy, the initial solution is revised but rarely completely rescinded if it violates ideology or theology. In some  countries, alcoholism and drug abuse do not exist because those with the problem are exported.

 .

E.   FUTURIST SCENARIO

Scenario 5:Disagree/agree/disagree(D-B-F) This is not very usual.  Definiton: We disagree that there is a problem, and we do not like or guess the outcome, because  we do not agree that there is a problem in the first place. All we do know  is that we may share a democratic strategy in its resolution. Example: This scenario is for the future. It is a social problem that is not even a social condition ( a problem waiting for the limelight of attention.)We are not worried about it now in a democracies or other than democracies. An example may be  an every day activity that is considered normal until a future activist defines it, by giving it a name. Some become “conscious of kind” or aware that they are or think they are a victimized group, and scenario 5 moves into another scenario.

 

F.   HISTORIC SCENARIO

Scenario 6:Agree/disagree/agree (A-E-F)  This is very likely. Definition:We agree on the problem and we liked the outcome, but we muddled and/or  struggled  through the strategy.Example: This may be history. It is a settled social problem and we can revisit it in documentaries and textbooks. A good example may be slavery of African-Americans. There is still a minority that support slavery,but the overwhelming majority don’t want it. We fought a civil war over it and it is now appears to be gone. Social problems textbooks talk about it in past tense. A settled social problem in non-democracies celebrate it in their history books if it honors theology and ideology

 

G.   STRUGGLE SCENARIO

Scenario 7: Disagree/disagree/disagree (D-E-F)  This is a likely scenario.Definiton: All compromise, negoiation, and democratic strategies breakdown. Example:Thus some form of war emerges. Regardless of the label or form of violence is now acceptable. This means that suffering, dismemberment, and killing is now thought to be the choice of last resort. It may be done reluctantly or with celebration, but it is carried out. It is a likely scenario that is sometimes called civil war, insugency, insurrection, rebellion and related.

This example applies equally to democratic and other than democratic societies.

 

 

OBSERVATIONS

 

We believe that the Snell-Cangemi social problems paradigm takes into account the following:

1. the three major theories found in most social science disciplines dealing with conflict , equilibrium ,and meaning .2. past, present, future  3. peace and war scenarios 4. democratic and other than democratic societies  5. variations among peaceful disagreements.

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

We have  presented a paradigm that looks at  options based on definition/strategy/ and outcome.

There are seven scenarios or alternatives. Two deal with  contemporary consensus / struggle. Two involve the future and the past.  The other three are variations around the three stages of definition/strategy/outcome in the present.

 

The paradigm is useful for providing clarity about the evolution and possible resolution of a social problem.

 

 

 

REFERENCES CITED

 

Coleman, Joseph and Donald Cressy (1991) SOCIAL PROBLEMS, New York: Addison, Wesley, Longham.

 

Curran, Daniel and Claire Renzetti (1993) SOCIAL PROBLEMS, Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

 

Farley, John (1992) American Social Problems, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

 

Feaagin, Joe (1986) SOCIAL PROBLEMS: A CRITICAL POWER-CONFLICT PERSPECTIVE,

Engelwood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

 

Heiner, Robert (1999) SOCIAL PROBLEMS AND SOCIAL SOLUTIONS: A CROSS CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE, Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

 

Horton, Paul; Leslie, Gerald, and Richard Larson(1991) THE SOCIOLOGY OF SOCIAL PROBLEMS, Engelwood Cliffs, New Jersey: Simon and Schuster.

 

Jones, Brian; Gallagher, Bernard, and Joseph McFalls (1988) SOCIAL PROBLEMS: ISSUES, OPINIONS AND SOLUTIONS, New York: Mc Graw Hill

 

Kornblum, William and Joseph Julian (1998) SOCIAL PROBLEMS, Uppeer Saddle Creek, New Jersey,: Prentice-Hall.

 

Mooney, Linda; Knox, David and Caroline Schacht, UNDERSTANDING  SOCIAL              PROBLEMS,Minneapolis/St. Paul; West Publishers.

 

Sullivan, Thomas (1997) INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL PROBLEMS, Boston: Allyn & Bacon.