A profound comprehension of social problems hinges largely on embracing the sociological imagination. Before delving into different theoretical perspectives that deepen our grasp of social issues, we thoroughly explore this foundational concept.

Numerous individuals personally encounter one or more social problems during their lives. This includes aspects such as poverty, unemployment, poor health, family issues, excessive alcohol consumption, or involvement in criminal activities. When we come across stories of such individuals, it’s simple to attribute their problems solely to them and believe that they, along with others facing similar issues, are solely responsible for their difficulties.

Sociology adopts a distinctive perspective by highlighting that individual challenges often have roots in societal factors. This fundamental insight, elucidated by C. Wright Mills in his classic work, The Sociological Imagination (1959), underscores the differentiation between personal troubles and public issues. Personal troubles denote individual problems that affect individuals and society commonly attribute to personal and moral shortcomings. Examples encompass diverse issues such as eating disorders, divorce, and unemployment.

On the other hand, public issues emanate from the social structure and culture of a society, impacting a broader population. Societal problems contribute significantly to the challenges individuals face. Mills argued that many problems traditionally viewed as private troubles are better understood as public issues. He coined the term sociological imagination to describe the capacity to recognize the structural foundations of individual problems.

To exemplify Mills’s perspective, let’s employ our sociological imaginations to comprehend some contemporary social issues. We’ll commence with unemployment, a topic Mills himself explored. If only a small number of individuals were without employment, Mills argued, we could reasonably attribute their joblessness to factors like laziness or a lack of good work habits, making it their personal trouble. However, when millions of people are unemployed, Mills contended that unemployment is more appropriately viewed as a public issue. According to Mills (1959), “the very structure of opportunities has collapsed” (p. 9). To accurately articulate the problem and consider potential solutions, it is necessary to scrutinize the economic and political institutions of society, rather than focusing solely on the personal circumstances and character of isolated individuals.

The substantial increase in the unemployment rate in the United States, resulting from the profound economic downturn that commenced in 2008, serves as a compelling illustration of Mills’s argument. Numerous individuals found themselves jobless through circumstances beyond their control. While it’s true that some people may be unemployed due to factors like laziness or a deficiency in work habits, a more comprehensive explanation rooted in the structural constraints of limited opportunities is essential to understand the widespread unemployment. In this context, it is more accurate to perceive unemployment as a public issue rather than an individual’s personal trouble.

Another societal challenge is eating disorders. Typically, we perceive an individual’s eating disorder as a personal issue arising from factors like a lack of control or low self-esteem. While this explanation has some validity, it falls short in helping us comprehend why so many individuals encounter the personal problems that lead to eating disorders. More significantly, this perspective overlooks the broader social and cultural influences that contribute to such disorders. Notably, many Americans with eating disorders are women, prompting us to inquire about the aspects of being a woman in American society that make eating disorders more prevalent.

To address this query, we must examine the societal standard of beauty for women, which places emphasis on a slender body (Boyd et al. 2011). If this cultural norm were absent, significantly fewer American women would suffer from eating disorders than they currently do. However, if this standard persists, even if every girl and woman with an eating disorder were cured, others would take their places unless there were efforts to alter this norm. From this perspective, understanding eating disorders as a public issue, rather than solely a personal trouble, provides a more comprehensive viewpoint.

Building on Mills’s observations, William Ryan (1976) highlighted that Americans commonly attribute social problems, such as poverty and unemployment, to the personal shortcomings of individuals facing these challenges, rather than recognizing structural issues within the broader society. In alignment with Mills’s terminology, Americans often perceive social problems as personal troubles rather than acknowledging them as public issues. In Ryan’s words, there is a tendency to place blame on the victim rather than critically examining the systemic factors at play.

In examining the ideology of blaming the victim, let’s explore the reasons why children from low-income backgrounds in urban areas often struggle academically. According to Ryan, an approach that blames the victim would attribute the children’s learning challenges to their parents’ perceived lack of concern for their education, failure to instill good study habits, and a lack of encouragement to take school seriously. While Ryan acknowledged that this explanation might be applicable to some parents, he emphasized a more crucial factor: the dismal condition of America’s urban schools. These schools, he argued, are overcrowded, run-down structures with outdated textbooks and obsolete equipment. To enhance the educational experiences of children in urban areas, Ryan asserted that the focus should be on improving the schools themselves rather than solely attempting to “improve” the parents.

As illustrated by this example, adopting a blaming the victim perspective leads to solutions for social issues such as poverty and illiteracy that diverge significantly from those proposed by a more structural approach that attributes responsibility to the system. If we subscribe to blaming the victim, our limited resources would be allocated to addressing the perceived personal shortcomings of individuals experiencing poverty, illiteracy, poor health, eating disorders, and similar challenges. Conversely, if we hold the system accountable, our focus shifts towards addressing various social conditions, such as run-down schools and cultural standards of female beauty, that contribute to these difficulties. A sociological understanding suggests that the latter approach is essential for effectively addressing the social problems confronting us today.

Theoretical Perspectives

A social analytic mindset or sociological thinking on social problems is guided by three theoretical perspectives: functionalist theory, conflict theory, and symbolic interactionist theory. While these perspectives examine the same social problems, they do so from distinct angles. Combining their insights provides a more comprehensive understanding of social problems than any single perspective can offer alone. Table 1, titled “Theory snapshot,” provides a concise summary of these three perspectives.

Table 1.  Theory Snapshot

_{Source: University of Minnesota Libraries. 2016. Social Problems: Continuity and Change. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing.}

Functionalism, also called the functionalist theory or perspective, emerged after two significant revolutions during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The first was the French Revolution of 1789, marked by intense violence and bloody terror that sent shockwaves throughout Europe. Fearing the spread of revolution to their own territories, the European aristocracy and intellectuals worried about the potential collapse of social order.

These concerns were further accentuated by the Industrial Revolution of the nineteenth century, which began in Europe and later extended to the United States. The industrial shift led to urbanization as people moved from farms to live near factories. The resulting growth of cities brought about poor living conditions, overcrowding, and decrepit surroundings, accompanied by a surge in crime. For European intellectuals, this served as additional evidence of social order breaking down.

In response to these challenges, intellectuals began advocating for a robust society characterized by strong social bonds, rules, and effective socialization to prevent the disintegration of social order. They warned that without these elements, social order would break down, leading to violence and other manifestations of social disorder.

Émile Durkheim (1858–1917), a key figure in the development of the sociological perspective, played a pivotal role in refining this framework. Drawing from the conservative intellectuals’ notion of the necessity for a strong society, Durkheim posited that human desires could lead to chaos unless society imposed limitations (Durkheim 1952). This control, he argued, was achieved through socialization and social integration. Socialization teaches individuals society’s rules and the importance of cooperation, fostering general agreement on critical norms and values. Simultaneously, social integration, encompassing ties to other individuals and social institutions like religion and the family, facilitates the process of socialization and reinforces respect for societal rules.

The contemporary functionalist perspective, rooted in Durkheim’s work and that of other conservative intellectuals from the nineteenth century, adopts the human body as a metaphor for understanding society. Similar to how the various organs and body parts serve crucial functions for the ongoing health and stability of the body, social institutions play analogous roles in maintaining the well-being and stability of society. Functionalism, therefore, underscores the significance of social institutions such as the family, religion, and education in establishing a stable society.

In line with the perspective of conservative intellectuals that influenced its development, functionalism exhibits skepticism toward rapid social change and significant social upheaval. The analogy to the human body aids in grasping this skepticism. Within our bodies, abrupt and rapid changes are viewed as indicators of potential health risks. For instance, if a leg bone is broken, walking becomes challenging; losing sight in both eyes results in a loss of vision. While gradual changes, like the growth of hair and nails, are considered normal, sudden changes, such as those described, are evidently problematic. In a parallel manner, the functionalist perspective deems sudden and rapid changes in society and its social institutions troublesome. Just as the human body evolved to its current form and functions in a way that made sense from an evolutionary standpoint, society evolved based on functional principles. Consequently, any abrupt change in society jeopardizes its stability and future.

As implied by these observations, functionalism perceives social problems as emerging from the natural evolution of society. While a social problem may pose a threat to a society’s stability, it does not necessarily indicate fundamental flaws within society. Accordingly, functionalism suggests that gradual social reform should be sufficient to address social problems.

Furthermore, functionalism proposes that social problems must serve some functional purpose for society; otherwise, they would not persist. While this assertion is controversial, it holds true for many social problems. For instance, crime, despite being a significant social problem, contributes positively to the economy by generating jobs in law enforcement, the legal system, home security, and related sectors. The disappearance of crime would lead to unemployment for many individuals. Similarly, poverty, while a major social problem, serves a function by ensuring that certain essential jobs are performed, as individuals in poverty often undertake tasks that others may be unwilling to do. Poverty also sustains employment in social service agencies dedicated to assisting the economically disadvantaged (Gans 1972).

In many respects, conflict theory stands in opposition to functionalism, yet it ironically traces its roots back to the Industrial Revolution, chiefly through the contributions of Karl Marx (1818–1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820–1895). While conservative intellectuals were apprehensive about the potential mass violence resulting from industrialization, Marx and Engels decried the conditions they believed were accountable for such violence, specifically the capitalist society they perceived as responsible for these conditions. Rather than fearing the breakdown of social order represented by mass violence, they argued that revolutionary violence was necessary to eradicate capitalism and the poverty and misery they considered its inevitable outcomes (Marx 1906; Marx and Engels 1962).

According to Marx and Engels, every society is divided into two classes based on ownership of the means of production (tools, factories, etc.). In a capitalist society, the bourgeoisie, or ruling class, owns these means, while the proletariat, or working class, lacks ownership and is oppressed by the bourgeoisie. This inherent difference sparks an inherent conflict of interests, with the bourgeoisie striving to maintain its top position, while the proletariat seeks to rise from the bottom and overthrow the bourgeoisie to establish an egalitarian society.

In a capitalist society, Marx and Engels contended, revolution is inevitable due to structural contradictions inherent in capitalism. Since profit is capitalism’s primary goal, the bourgeoisie seeks to maximize profit by keeping wages low and spending as little as possible on working conditions. This focus on profit, Marx and Engels argued, eventually leads to the rise of class consciousness among workers, prompting them to revolt against the bourgeoisie to eliminate their oppression and exploitation.

Marx and Engels’ perspective on conflict arising from societal inequality forms the foundation of contemporary conflict theory. This theory posits that various groups in society have different interests rooted in their distinct social positions, leading to divergent views on crucial social issues. While some versions of the theory attribute conflict to divisions based on race, ethnicity, gender, and other differences, others, following Marx and Engels, see conflict arising from different positions in the economic structure. Overall, conflict theory underscores that different components of society contribute to ongoing inequality, in contrast to functionalist theory, which emphasizes their contribution to societal stability. Thus, while functionalist theory highlights the benefits of societal components for maintaining social stability, conflict theory advocates for social change to reduce inequality.

Feminist theory, emerging in sociology and other disciplines since the 1970s, is considered a specific application of conflict theory for our purposes. In this context, the conflict centers on gender inequality rather than the class inequality emphasized by Marx and Engels. Though multiple variations of feminist theory exist, they all emphasize the prevalence of gender inequality, positioning women as the subordinate sex in various dimensions of social, political, and economic life (Lorber 2010). Liberal feminists attribute gender inequality to differences in socialization, while Marxist feminists link it to the rise of capitalism, making women economically dependent on men. On the other hand, radical feminists view gender inequality as pervasive across all societies, not just capitalist ones.

Conflict theory, in its diverse forms, perceives social problems as originating from society’s inherent inequality. Depending on the version of conflict theory considered, the inequality contributing to social problems may be based on social class, race and ethnicity, gender, or some other dimension of society’s hierarchy. As any of these inequalities represents a fundamental flaw in society, conflict theory contends that significant social change is necessary to address the multitude of social problems.

Symbolic interactionism directs attention to the interaction of individuals and how they interpret these interactions. Rooted in the works of early 1900s American sociologists, social psychologists, and philosophers exploring human consciousness and action, Herbert Blumer (1969), a sociologist at the University of Chicago, further developed symbolic interactionism. The term itself was coined by Blumer. Symbolic interactionists, drawing on Blumer’s insights, argue that people do not merely conform to predefined societal roles; instead, they actively construct these roles during interaction. Through negotiation and the social construction of reality, individuals rely heavily on symbols, such as words and gestures, to establish a shared understanding of their interactions.

An illustrative symbol is the act of shaking hands, widely recognized in the United States and many other societies as a symbol of greeting and friendship. This simple gesture conveys traits of niceness and politeness. Refusing to shake hands in such a context is often interpreted as a sign of dislike or insult, altering the dynamics of the interaction. Symbolic interactionists contend that people’s understanding of encounters is shaped by their actions during interaction and their use and interpretation of symbols. In essence, social order is made possible because individuals learn the meanings of various symbols (e.g., shaking hands) and apply these meanings to different situations. The importance of common understandings of symbols becomes evident in diverse cultural contexts, where symbols may carry distinct meanings.

Symbolic interactionism perceives social problems as emerging from the interactions of individuals, holding significance in two key aspects. Firstly, socially problematic behaviors like crime and drug use are often acquired through interactions with individuals engaged in these behaviors. People adopt the attitudes justifying these behaviors and learn any necessary techniques from these interactions. Secondly, perceptions of social problems are also acquired through interactions with others, as their beliefs and perspectives influence one’s own views.

Aligned closely with the social constructionist view discussed earlier, symbolic interactionism underscores the subjective nature of social problems. Both perspectives highlight the importance of perceptions, emphasizing that these perceptions often matter as much as objective reality in determining whether a given condition or behavior qualifies as a social problem. Additionally, they influence the types of solutions various parties might advocate for a particular social problem.

Theoretical application

To provide you with a more nuanced understanding of the perspectives offered by these three theoretical frameworks, let’s consider how they might approach armed robbery, a highly serious form of crime. It’s important to recognize that combining the insights of all three perspectives offers a more comprehensive understanding of armed robbery than any single perspective can provide on its own.

From a functionalist standpoint, armed robbery might be seen as serving positive functions for society, such as the job-creating role mentioned earlier for crime in general. While acknowledging the need to reduce armed robbery, a functionalist approach would likely assume that extensive societal changes may neither be wise nor necessary as part of the effort to curb crime.

In contrast, conflict theory would adopt a markedly different approach to understanding armed robbery. It might highlight that a significant portion of street criminals comes from impoverished backgrounds, emphasizing that armed robbery is a consequence of the despair and frustration resulting from poverty, along with a lack of job opportunities and other avenues for economic and social success. According to conflict theory, the roots of street crime lie in society as much as, if not more than, in the individuals committing these crimes. To address armed robbery and street crime, conflict theory would advocate substantial changes in the economic structure of society.

Symbolic interactionism, on the other hand, would concentrate on how armed robbers make decisions regarding when and where to commit their acts and how their interactions with other criminals reinforce their criminal tendencies. It would also examine the behavior of victims when confronted by a robber. To mitigate armed robbery, symbolic interactionism might suggest programs aimed at reducing opportunities for interaction among potential criminal offenders. For instance, after-school programs could be promoted to keep at-risk youths engaged in conventional activities, reducing the time they spend with peers who might lead them into trouble.