8/12/2019 Blumer1971

1/10

Social Problems as Collective Behavior

Author(s): Herbert BlumerSource: Social Problems, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Winter, 1971), pp. 298-306Published by: University of California Presson behalf of the Society for the Study of Social ProblemsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/799797.

Accessed: 02/09/2011 12:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of California Pressand Society for the Study of Social Problemsare collaborating with JSTOR to

digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Problems.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucalhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sssphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/799797?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/799797?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sssphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal

8/12/2019 Blumer1971

2/10

SOCIAL PROBLEMSOCIAL PROBLEMS

groupRelations.New York: Har-per and Row.1969 Sociology:The Study of HumanRelations, Third Edition. NewYork: Alfred A. Knopf.Rose,A. M., and H. R. Stub1955 Summary f studies on the inci-dence of mental disorders. InRose, 1955a:87-116.Rose, A. M., and L. Warshay1957 Adjustments of migrants tocities. SocialForces36(October):72-76.

groupRelations.New York: Har-per and Row.1969 Sociology:The Study of HumanRelations, Third Edition. NewYork: Alfred A. Knopf.Rose,A. M., and H. R. Stub1955 Summary f studies on the inci-dence of mental disorders. InRose, 1955a:87-116.Rose, A. M., and L. Warshay1957 Adjustments of migrants tocities. SocialForces36(October):72-76.

Stryker,S.1968 In memoriam:Arnold M. Rose(1918-1968). The AmericanSo-ciologist3(February):60-61.Westie, F. R.1968 TheAmericanDilemma:An em-piricaltest. Pp. 127-141 in Ray-mond W. Mack(ed.), Race,Classand Power.New York: AmericanBook Co.Young, K.1944 Review of 'An American Di-lemma.' American SociologicalReview 9(June): 326-330.

Stryker,S.1968 In memoriam:Arnold M. Rose(1918-1968). The AmericanSo-ciologist3(February):60-61.Westie, F. R.1968 TheAmericanDilemma:An em-piricaltest. Pp. 127-141 in Ray-mond W. Mack(ed.), Race,Classand Power.New York: AmericanBook Co.Young, K.1944 Review of 'An American Di-lemma.' American SociologicalReview 9(June): 326-330.

SOCIAL PROBLEMS AS COLLECTIVE BEHAVIORHERBERT BLUMER

Universityof California,BerkeleySociologistshaveerred n locatingsocialproblemsn objective onditions. nstead,social problemshave their being in a processof collectivedefinition.This process

determineswhethersocial problemswill arise, whether they become legitimated,how theyareshaped n discussion,how theycometo be addressed n officialpolicy,and how they are reconstitutedn putting plannedaction into effect. Sociologicaltheoryand studymustrespect his process.

SOCIAL PROBLEMS AS COLLECTIVE BEHAVIORHERBERT BLUMER

Universityof California,BerkeleySociologistshaveerred n locatingsocialproblemsn objective onditions. nstead,social problemshave their being in a processof collectivedefinition.This process

determineswhethersocial problemswill arise, whether they become legitimated,how theyareshaped n discussion,how theycometo be addressed n officialpolicy,and how they are reconstitutedn putting plannedaction into effect. Sociologicaltheoryand studymustrespect his process.My thesis is that social problemsare fundamentallyproductsof a pro-cess of collectivedefinitioninstead of

existing independentlyas a set of ob-jectivesocialarrangementswith an in-trinsicmakeup.This thesis challengesthe premiseunderlying he typicalsoci-ological study of social problems.Thethesis, if true,would call for a drasticreorientation of sociological theoryand researchn the caseof socialprob-lems.Let me begin with a brief accountof the typicalway in whichsociologistsapproach he study and analysisof so-cial problems.The approachpresumesthat a social problem exists as an ob-jectiveconditionor arrangementn thetextureof asociety.Theobjective ondi-tion orarrangements seenashavinganintrinsicallyharmful or malignantna-

My thesis is that social problemsare fundamentallyproductsof a pro-cess of collectivedefinitioninstead ofexisting independentlyas a set of ob-jectivesocialarrangementswith an in-trinsicmakeup.This thesis challengesthe premiseunderlying he typicalsoci-ological study of social problems.Thethesis, if true,would call for a drasticreorientation of sociological theoryand researchn the caseof socialprob-lems.Let me begin with a brief accountof the typicalway in whichsociologistsapproach he study and analysisof so-cial problems.The approachpresumesthat a social problem exists as an ob-jectiveconditionor arrangementn thetextureof asociety.Theobjective ondi-tion orarrangements seenashavinganintrinsicallyharmful or malignantna-

turestanding n contrast o a normalorsocially healthful society. In sociolog-ical jargonit is a state of dysfunction,pathology, disorganization, or devi-ance. The task of the sociologistis toidentify the harmful condition or ar-rangementand to resolve it into itsessentialelements or parts.This analy-sis of the objective makeup of thesocial problemis usuallyaccompaniedby an identificationof the conditionswhich cause the problemand by pro-posalsas to how the problemmight behandled. In having analyzedthe ob-jective nature of the social problem,identified its causes, and pointed outhow the problemcould be handledorsolved the sociologistbelieves that hehas accomplished is scientificmission.The knowledgeand informationwhichhe has gatheredcan, on the one hand,

turestanding n contrast o a normalorsocially healthful society. In sociolog-ical jargonit is a state of dysfunction,pathology, disorganization, or devi-ance. The task of the sociologistis toidentify the harmful condition or ar-rangementand to resolve it into itsessentialelements or parts.This analy-sis of the objective makeup of thesocial problemis usuallyaccompaniedby an identificationof the conditionswhich cause the problemand by pro-posalsas to how the problemmight behandled. In having analyzedthe ob-jective nature of the social problem,identified its causes, and pointed outhow the problemcould be handledorsolved the sociologistbelieves that hehas accomplished is scientificmission.The knowledgeand informationwhichhe has gatheredcan, on the one hand,

29898

8/12/2019 Blumer1971

3/10

CollectiveBehaviorbe added to the store of scholarlyknowledgeand, on the other hand, beplacedat the disposalof policy makersand the general citizenry.This typical sociological approachseemson its face to be logical, reason-able, and justifiable.Yet, in my judg-ment, it reflectsa grossmisunderstand-ing of the nature of social problemsand, accordingly,s very ineffectual nproviding for their control. To givean initial indication of the deficiencyof the approach,et me indicatebrieflythe falsity or unproven characterofseveralof itskey assumptions r claims.First,currentsociological heoryandknowledge, in themselves,just do notenable the detectionor identification fsocial problems. Instead, sociologistsdiscernsocialproblemsonly after theyare recognizedas social problems byand in a society. Sociological recogni-tion follows in the wake of societalrecognition,veeringwith the winds ofthe public identification f socialprob-lems. Illustrationsare legion-I citeonly a few of recentmemory.Povertywas a conspicuoussocial problem forsociologistsa half-centuryago, only topracticallydisappearfrom the socio-logical scene in the 1940's and early1950's, and then to reappearin ourcurrent time. Racial injustice and.ex-ploitation in our society were fargreaterin the 1920's and 1930's thanthey are today; yet the sociologicalconcern they evoked was little untilthe chainof happenings following theSupremeCourtdecision on school de-segregationand the riot in Watts. En-vironmental pollution and ecologicaldestructionare socialproblemsof verylate vintage for sociologists althoughtheir presence and manifestationdatebackover manydecades. The problemof the inequality of women's status,emergingso vigorouslyon our current

scene, was of peripheral sociologicalconcern a few years back. Withoutdrawingon otherillustrations, merelyassert that in identifying social prob-lemssociologistshaveconsistentlyakentheir cue from what happensto be inthe focus of public concern. This con-clusion is supported further by theindifference of sociologists and thepublic,alike,to manyquestionableandharmful dimensions of modern life.Such injuriousdimensionsmaybe cas-ually noted but despite their gravityaregiven the status of socialproblemsby sociologists. A few instances thatcome to mind are: the vast over-organizationhatis developing n mod-ern society,the unearned ncrement nland valueswhich Henry George cam-paigned against three-quartersof acenturyago, the injurioussocial effectsof our national highway system, thepernicious social consequencesof anideology of growth, the unsavoryside of establishedbusinesscodes;andmay I add for my Stateof California,a state water plan with hidden socialconsequencesof a repelling character.I think that the empirical record isclear that the designation of socialproblems by sociologists is derivedfrom the public designationof socialproblems.Let me add that, contraryto thepretensionsof sociologists,sociologicaltheory, by itself, has been conspicu-ously impotent to detect or identifysocial problems.This can be seen inthe case of the three most prestigefulsociologicalconceptscurrentlyused toexplain the emergenceof social prob-lems, namely, the conceptsof devi-ance, dysfunction, and structuralstrain. These conceptsare useless asmeans of identifying social problems.For one thing, none of them has a setof benchmarks hat enable the scholar

299

8/12/2019 Blumer1971

4/10

SOCIAL ROBLEMSto identify in the empiricalworld theso-called instances of deviance, dys-function, or structural train. Lackingsuch clear identifying characteristics,the scholar cannot take up each andevery social condition or arrangementin societyand establishthat it is or isnot an instanceof deviance,dysfunc-tion, or structural train.But this defi-ciency, however serious, is of lesserimportance n the matter I am con-sidering.Of far greatersignificance sthe inabilityof the scholarto explainwhy some of the instancesof deviance,dysfunction,or structural trainnotedby him fail to achieve the status ofsocialproblemswhereasotherinstancesdo reach his status.Thereareall kindsof deviance that do not gain recogni-tion as social problems;we are nevertold how or when deviancebecomesasocial problem. Similarly, there aremany alleged dysfunctionsor structuralstrains that never come to be seen associal problems;we are not told howand when so-called dysfunctions orstructuralstrains become social prob-lems. Obviously,deviance,dysfunction,and structural train on one side andsocial problemson the other side arenot equivalent.

If conventionalsociological heoryisso decisively incapable of detectingsocial problems and if sociologistsmake this detectionby following andusing the public recognitionof socialproblems, it would seem logical thatstudents of social problems ought tostudy the process by which a societycomesto recognize ts socialproblems.Sociologistshave conspicuously ailedto do this.A second deficiencyof the conven-tional sociologicalapproach s the as-sumption that a social problem existsbasically n the form of an identifiableobjective condition in a society. Soci-

ologists treat a socialproblemas if itsbeing consistedof a seriesof objectiveitems, such as rates of incidence, thekind of people involved in the prob-lem, their number, their types, theirsocial characteristics, nd the relationof their condition to variousselectedsocietalfactors.Is it assumedthat thereductionof a socialproblem nto suchobjectiveelementscatches he problemin its central character nd constitutesits scientificanalysis.In my judgmentthis assumptions erroneous.As I willshow muchclearer ater,a socialprob-lem existsprimarilyn terms of how itis defined and conceivedin a societyinsteadof being an objectiveconditionwith a definitiveobjectivemakeup.Thesocietaldefinition, and not the objec-tive makeupof a given social condi-tion, determineswhetherthe conditionexists as a socialproblem.The societaldefinitiongives the social problem itsnature, lays out how it is to be ap-proached, and shapes what is doneabout it. Alongside these decisive in-fluences, the so-called objective exis-tenceor makeupof the socialproblemis verysecondaryndeed. A sociologistmay note what he believes to be amalignantcondition in a society, butthe society may ignore completelyitspresence, n which event the conditionwill not exist as a social problem forthat society regardlessof its assertedobjectivebeing.Or,the objectivebreak-down made by a sociologist of asocietally recognized social problemmay differwidely from how the prob-lem is seen and approachedin thesociety.The objectiveanalysismadebyhim mayhave no influenceon what isdone with the problem and conse-quently have no realistic relation tothe problem. These few observationssuggest a clear need to study theprocess by which a society comes to

300

8/12/2019 Blumer1971

5/10

CollectiveBehaviorsee, to define, and to handle theirsocial problems. Students of socialproblemsnotoriously gnore this proc-ess; and it scarcelyenters into socio-logical theory.There is a third highly question-able assumptionunderlyingthe typicalorientationof sociologistsin the studyof social problems.It is that the find-ings resulting from their study of theobjectivemakeupof a social problemprovidesocietywith the solid andeffec-tive means for remedial treatmentofthat problem. All that society has todo, or should do, is to takeheed of thefindings and to respect the lines oftreatment o which the findingspoint.This assumption s largelynonsense.Itignoresor misrepresentshow a societyacts in the case of its social problems.A social problem is always a focalpoint for the operation of divergentand conflicting interests, intentions,and objectives. It is the interplayofthese interestsand objectivesthat con-stitutes he way in which a societydealswith any one of its social problems.The sociologicalaccountof the objec-tive makeupof the problemstands faroutside of such interplay-indeed, maybe inconsequentialto it. This distantremovalof the sociologicalstudy fromthe real process through which asociety acts towards its social problemis a major explanationof the ineffec-tivenessof sociologicalstudies of socialproblems.The three central deficiencies thatI havementionedareonly a sketchof aneeded full fledged criticism of thetypical sociologicaltreatmentof socialproblems.But they serveas a clue andhence as an introduction to the de-velopment of my thesis that socialproblemslie in and are productsof aprocess of collective definition. Theprocess of collective definition is re-

sponsible for the emergenceof socialproblems, for the way in which theyare seen, for the way in which theyare approached and considered, forthe kind of officialremedialplan thatis laid out, and for the transformationof the remedialplan in its application.In short, the process of collectivedefinition determines the career andfate of socialproblems, romthe initialpoint of their appearanceo whatevermay be the terminal point in theircourse. They have their being funda-mentally in this process of collectivedefinition, instead of in some allegedobjective area of social malignancy.The failure to recognize and respectthis factconstitutes, n my opinion, thefundamental weakness in the socio-logical studyof socialproblemsand insociologicalknowledge of social prob-lems. Let me proceed to develop mythesis.To lodge the emergence, he career,and the fate of social problems in aprocessof collective definitioncalls forananalysisof the courseof thisprocess.I find that the processpasses throughfive stages.I shall label these: (1) theemergenceof a socialproblem,(2) thelegitimationof the problem, (3) themobilizationof action with regard tothe problem, (4) the formationof anofficial plan of action, and (5) thetransformationof the officialplan inits empirical mplementation. proposeto discuss briefly each of these fivestages.The Emergenceof Social Problems

Socialproblemsarenot the result ofan intrinsicmalfunctioningof a societybut are the result of a process ofdefinition in which a given conditionis pickedout and identifiedas a socialproblem. A social problem does notexist for a society unless it is recog-

301

8/12/2019 Blumer1971

6/10

SOCIAL PRORTF.MSnized by that society to exist. In notbeing aware of a social problem, asocietydoes not perceiveit, address t,discuss t, or do anythingaboutit. Theproblem is just not there. It is neces-sary, consequently, to consider thequestionof how socialproblemsarise.Despite its crucial importance thisquestion has been essentially ignoredby sociologists.It is a gross mistake to assume thatany kind of malignant or harmfulsocial condition or arrangementn asociety becomesautomaticallya socialproblemfor that society.The pagesofhistory are replete with instances ofdire social conditions unnoticed andunattendedin the societies in whichthey occurred. Intelligent observers,using the standards f one society,mayperceiveabidingharmfulconditions nanothersocietythat just do not appearas problemsto the membershipof thelattersociety.Further, ndividualswithkeen perceptionsof their own society,or who as a result of distressingex-periencemayperceivegiven social con-ditionsin theirsocietyas harmful,maybe impotent n awakeningany concernwith the conditions.Also, given socialconditionsmay be ignoredat one timeyet, without change in their makeup,become matters of grave concern atanother time. All of these kinds ofinstancesare so drearilyrepetitive asnot to require documentation.Themost casual observationand reflectionshows clearlythat the recognitionby asocietyof its socialproblems s a highlyselectiveprocess,withmanyharmfulso-cial conditions and arrangementsnoteven making a bid for attentionandwith others falling by the wayside inwhat is frequentlya fiercecompetitivestruggle.Manypush for societalrecog-nition but only a few come out of theend of the funnel.I would thinkthatstudentsof social

problems would almost automaticallysee the need to study this process bywhich given social conditions or ar-rangementscome to be recognizedassocial problems. But by and large,sociologistsdo not either see the needor detour around t. Sociologicalplati-tudes, such as that the perceptionofsocial problemsdepend on ideologiesor on traditionalbeliefs, tell us practi-cally nothingaboutwhata societypicksout as its social problemsand how itcomes to pick them out. We havescarcely any studies, and pitifullylimited knowledge, of such relevantmattersas the following: the role ofagitation in getting recognitionfor aproblem;the role of violence in gain-ing such recognition;the play of in-terest groups who seek to shut offrecognitionof a problem;the role ofother interestgroupswho foresee ma-terialgains by elevatinga given condi-tion to a problem (as in the case ofpolice with the current problem ofcrime and drugs); the role of politicalfiguresin fomentingconcernwith cer-tain problemsand putting the damperon concernwith other conditions;therole of powerful organizations andcorporations oing the samething; theimpotencyof powerlessgroupsto gainattentionfor what they believe to beproblems;the role of the mass mediain selecting social problems;and theinfluence of adventitious happeningsthat shockpublicsensitivities.We havehere a vast field which beckonsstudyand which needs to be studied if weare to understand he simple but basicmatterof how socialproblemsemerge.And I repeatthat if theydon't emerge,they don't even begin a life.Legitimationof SocialProblems

Societalrecognitiongives birth to asocial problem.But if the social prob-lem is to move along on its courseand

302

8/12/2019 Blumer1971

7/10

CollectiveBehaviornot die aborning, t must acquiresociallegitimacy. It may seem strange tospeakof socialproblemshaving to be-come legitimated. Yet after gaininginitial recognition, a social problemmust acquiresocial endorsement f itis to be taken seriously and moveforward n its career.It must acquireanecessary egreeof respectabilitywhichentitlesit to considerationn the recog-nized arenasof public discussion. Inour society such arenas are the press,other media of communication,thechurch,the school, civic organizations,legislativechambers,and the assemblyplaces of officialdom. f a social prob-lem does not carrythe credentialofrespectability necessary for entranceinto these arenas, t is doomed.Do notthink becausea given social conditionor arrangements recognizedas graveby somepeople in a society-by peoplewho indeed attract attention to it bytheir agitation-that this means thatthe problem will break through intothe arena of public consideration.Tothe contrary, he assertedproblemmaybe regarded as insignificant, as notworthy of consideration, as in theacceptedorderof things and thus notto be tamperedwith, as distasteful tocodes of propriety, or as merely theshouting of questionableor subversiveelements in a society. Any of theseconditionscanblock a recognizedprob-lem from gaining legitimacy. If thesocialproblemfails to get legitimacy tfloundersand languishesoutsideof thearenaof public action.I want to stressthatamongthe widevarietyof socialconditionsor arrange-ments that are recognizedas harmfulby differing sets of people, there arerelativelyfew that achieve legitimacy.Here again we are confronted with aselectiveprocess n which, so to speak,many budding social problems arechoked off, othersare ignored, others

are avoided,othershave to fight theirway to a respectable tatus,and othersare rushed along to legitimacy by astrong and influential backing. Weknowverylittle of this selectiveprocessthroughwhich socialproblemshave topass in order to reach the stage oflegitimacy. Certainlysuch passage isnot due merelyto the intrinsicgravityof the socialproblem.Nor is it due tomerely the prior state of public in-terest or knowledge; nor to the so-called ideologies of the public. Theselective process is far more compli-catedthan is suggestedby thesesimple,commonplace deas. Obviously, manyof the factorswhich operateto affectthe recognitionof socialproblemscon-tinue to play a part in the legitimationof socialproblems.But it seemsevidentthat there are other contributingfac-tors throughwhich the elusive qualityof social respectabilitycomes to beattachedto social problems.We justdo not have much knowledge aboutthis process,since it is scarcely tudied.It is certainlya cardinalmatter thatshould be engaging the concern ofstudentsof socialproblems.Mobilizationof Action

If a socialproblemmanagesto passthroughthe stages of societalrecogni-tion andof sociallegitimation, t entersa new stage in its career.The problemnow becomes the objectof discussion,of controversy, f differingdepictions,and of diverseclaims.Those who seekchanges in the area of the problemclash with those who endeavor toprotect vested interests in the area.Exaggeratedclaims and distorted de-pictions, subserving vested interests,become commonplace.Outsiders, lessinvolved, bring their sentiments andimagesto bear on their framingof theproblem.Discussion,advocacy,evalua-tion, falsification,diversionary actics,

303

8/12/2019 Blumer1971

8/10

SOCIALPROBLEMSand advancingof proposalstake placein the media of communication, ncasual meetings, organized meetings,legislative chambers, and committeehearings.All of this constitutesa mo-bilizationof the society for action onthe social problem. It seems scarcelynecessary o point out that the fate ofthe socialproblemdependsgreatlyonwhat happens in this processof mo-bilization. How the problemcomes tobe defined,how it is bent in responseto awakenedsentiment,how it is de-picted to protectvested interests,andhow it reflects the play of strategicposition and power-all are appropri-ate questions that suggest the impor-tance of the process of mobilizationfor action.

Again, as far as I can see, studentsof socialproblemsby-passconcernwithand considerationof this stage of thecollective defining process. Our bestknowledgeof this stagehascome fromstudents of public opinion. Yet theircontribution s fragmentaryand woe-fully inadequate,primarilybecause ofa lackof detailedempiricalanalysisofthe process.The studentsof the publicopinionprocesstell us little about howgiven social problemscome to survivein their confrontationsand how theyare redefined n orderto achieve suchsurvival.Similarly, hey tell us next tonothing about how other social prob-lems languish,perishor just fade awayin this stage. That students of socialproblemsshould overlook this crucialstage in the fate of social problemsseemsto me to be extraordinarilyhort-sighted.Formationof An OfficialPlan of Action

Thisstage n thecareer f socialprob-lems represents the decision of asocietyas to how it will actwith regard

to the given problem.It consistsof thehammering ogetherof an officialplanof action,such as takesplace in legis-lativecommittees,egislativechambers,and executiveboards.The officialplanis almostalwaysa productof bargain-ing, in which diverse views and in-terests are accommodated.Compro-mises, concessions, radeoffs,deferenceto influence, response to power, andjudgmentsof what maybe workable-all play a partin the final formulation.This is a defining and redefiningprocess in a concentratedform-theforming, the re-workingand the re-casting of a collective picture of thesocial problem, so that what emergesmay be a far cry from how the prob-lem was viewed in the earlierstage ofits career. The official plan that isenactedconstitutes,n itself, the officialdefinitionof the problem; t representshow the society through its officialapparatusperceives the problem andintends to act toward the problem.These observationsare commonplace.Yet, they point to the operationof adefiningprocess hat has telling signifi-cance for the fate of the problem.Surely,effectiveand relevantstudy ofsocial problemsshould embrace whathappensto the problemin the processof agreeingon officialaction.Implementation f the OfficialPlan

To assume that an officialplan andits implementation n practiceare thesame is to fly in the face of facts. In-variably o some degree, frequentlytoa large degree, the plan as put intopractice is modified, twisted and re-shaped,and takes on unforeseenaccre-tions. This is to be expected.The im-plementationof the plan ushers in anew processof collectivedefinition.Itsets the stagefor the formationof newlines of action on the part of those

304

8/12/2019 Blumer1971

9/10

CollectiveBehaviorinvolved in the social problem andthose touchedby the plan. The peoplewho are in dangerof losing advantagesstrive to restrictthe plan or bend itsoperation to new directions. Thosewho stand to benefit from the planmayseek to exploit new opportunities.Or both groups may work out newaccommodativearrangementsunfore-seen in the plan. The administrationand the operatingpersonnelare proneto substitute their policies for theofficialpolicyunderlying he plan. Fre-quently,various kinds of subterraneanadjustmentsare developedwhich leaveintact centralareas of the social prob-lem or transformother of its areasinways that were never officially in-tended. The kind of accommodations,blockages,unanticipated ccretions, ndunintended transformationsof whichI am speakingcan be seen abundantlyin the case of many past attemptstoput officialplans into actual practice.Suchconsequenceswereconspicuousnthe implementationof the prohibitionamendment.They are notorious n thecase of the regulatoryagencies in ourcountry. They are to be seen in thecaseof most new law enforcementpro-grams designedto combat the problemof crime. I scarcelyknow of any facetof the generalareaof social problemsthat is more important, less under-stood, and less studiedthan that of theunforeseenand unintendedrestructur-ing of the areaof a socialproblem hatarises from the implementationof anofficialplan of treatment.I am unableto understandwhy students of socialproblems, in both their studies andtheir formulationof theory,can affordto ignore this crucialstep in the life-being of social problems.I hope thatmy discussionof the fivediscerniblestages in the full careerofsocialproblemsbringsout the need for

developinga new perspectiveand ap-proach n the sociolgicalstudyof socialproblems. It seems to me to be in-dubitably necessary to place socialproblemsin the context of a processof collectivedefinition.It is thisprocesswhich determineswhethersocialprob-lems are recognizedto exist, whetherthey qualify for consideration,howthey are to be considered,what is tobe done aboutthem, and how they arereconstitutedn the effortsundertakento control them. Socialproblemshavetheir being, theircareer,and their fatein this process.To ignore this processcan yield only fragmentary nowledgeand a fictitiouspictureof social prob-lems.

My discussion should not be con-struedas denyingvalue to the conven-tional way in which sociologists ap-proach the topic of social problems.Knowledge of the objective makeupof socialproblems(which is theiraim)should be sought as a correctiveforignoranceor misinformationconcern-ing this objectivemakeup. Yet, suchknowledge is grossly inadequatewithregardeitherto the handling of socialproblems or to the development ofsociologicaltheory.In the handling ofsocialproblems,knowledgeof the ob-jective makeup of the social problemarea s of significance nly to the extentthat the knowledge enters into theprocess of collective definition whichdetermines he fate of socialproblems.In this processthe knowledgemay beignored, distorted, or smothered byother considerations.For me, it is self-evidentthatsociologistswho wish theirstudies of social problems to bringabout improvedconditions had betterstudy and understandthe process ofcollective definition through whichchanges are made. On the side ofsociological theory, knowledge of the

305

8/12/2019 Blumer1971

10/10

SOCIAL PROBLEMSOCIAL PROBLEMS

objectivemakeupof socialproblems sessentiallyuseless.It is uselessbecause,as I have sought to show, social prob-lemsdo not lie in the objectiveareas owhich theypoint but in the processofbeing seen and definedin the society.All the empiricalevidence that I canfind points indubitably o this concu-sion. I would welcomeany evidence tothe contrary.Sociologistswho seek todevelop theory of social problemsonthe premise that social problems arelodged in somekind of objectivesocialstructureare misreadingtheir world.To attributesocial problems to pre-sumed structural trains,upsets in theequilibriumof the social system, dys-

objectivemakeupof socialproblems sessentiallyuseless.It is uselessbecause,as I have sought to show, social prob-lemsdo not lie in the objectiveareas owhich theypoint but in the processofbeing seen and definedin the society.All the empiricalevidence that I canfind points indubitably o this concu-sion. I would welcomeany evidence tothe contrary.Sociologistswho seek todevelop theory of social problemsonthe premise that social problems arelodged in somekind of objectivesocialstructureare misreadingtheir world.To attributesocial problems to pre-sumed structural trains,upsets in theequilibriumof the social system, dys-

functions,breakdownof social norms,clash of social values, or deviationfrom social conformity, is to un-wittingly transfer to a suppositioussocial structurewhat belongs to theprocess of collective definition. As Ihave said earlier,no one of these con-cepts is capable of explaining whysome of the empiricalnstances overedby the conceptbecome socialproblemsand others do not. This explanationmustbe soughtin the processof collec-tive definition.If sociological heoryisto be grounded in knowledge of theempiricalworld of social problems,itmust heed and respect the nature ofthat empiricalworld.

functions,breakdownof social norms,clash of social values, or deviationfrom social conformity, is to un-wittingly transfer to a suppositioussocial structurewhat belongs to theprocess of collective definition. As Ihave said earlier,no one of these con-cepts is capable of explaining whysome of the empiricalnstances overedby the conceptbecome socialproblemsand others do not. This explanationmustbe soughtin the processof collec-tive definition.If sociological heoryisto be grounded in knowledge of theempiricalworld of social problems,itmust heed and respect the nature ofthat empiricalworld.

STABLE WORKERS, BLACK AND WHlTE*JOSEPHA. KAHLCornell University

JOHN M. GOERINGWashington UniversityA study of stable working and middle-class men, both black and white, showstwo comparative tendencies: 1) the two races are similar on job aspirations andsatisfactions, both races indicating economic ambition, a sense of personal securityin employment, adequate advancement on the job and in consumption, and highhopes for children; 2) the two races differ in political perspectives, with the

blacks indicating a sense of partial marginality to the system reflecting discrimina-tion, and a determination to protest. Putting the two tendencies together, it isconcluded that stable jobs among blacks are associated with high levels of personalsatisfaction but not with political conservatism, since awareness of group depriva-tion and desire to protest are independent of personal achievement and are notfrustrated responses to blocked ambition.

STABLE WORKERS, BLACK AND WHlTE*JOSEPHA. KAHLCornell University

JOHN M. GOERINGWashington UniversityA study of stable working and middle-class men, both black and white, showstwo comparative tendencies: 1) the two races are similar on job aspirations andsatisfactions, both races indicating economic ambition, a sense of personal securityin employment, adequate advancement on the job and in consumption, and highhopes for children; 2) the two races differ in political perspectives, with the

blacks indicating a sense of partial marginality to the system reflecting discrimina-tion, and a determination to protest. Putting the two tendencies together, it isconcluded that stable jobs among blacks are associated with high levels of personalsatisfaction but not with political conservatism, since awareness of group depriva-tion and desire to protest are independent of personal achievement and are notfrustrated responses to blocked ambition.There has been muchinterest n re-cent years in sociological studies ofAmericanNegroes. Most of this inter-est, however,has been directed at the* This article reports a small segmentof a cooperative research endeavor. In thedesign, field work, and analysis stages ourco-workers were: Mrs. Martha Batt, John L.Brown, Charles K. Cummings, Eduardo

There has been muchinterest n re-cent years in sociological studies ofAmericanNegroes. Most of this inter-est, however,has been directed at the* This article reports a small segmentof a cooperative research endeavor. In thedesign, field work, and analysis stages ourco-workers were: Mrs. Martha Batt, John L.Brown, Charles K. Cummings, Eduardo

Munoz, Herman Noah, William Pollard,Robert Sheak, Glaucio A. Dillon Soares,and Michael Wright; Lee Rainwater servedas consultant. We were supported by agrant from the Ford Foundation to TheInteramerican Group for Comparative So-ciology, administered by the Social ScienceInstitute, Washington University, St. Louis;by N. S. F. grant G22296 to that Univer-sity's Computer Center; and by the Centerfor International Studies and the Office ofComputer Services, Cornell University.

Munoz, Herman Noah, William Pollard,Robert Sheak, Glaucio A. Dillon Soares,and Michael Wright; Lee Rainwater servedas consultant. We were supported by agrant from the Ford Foundation to TheInteramerican Group for Comparative So-ciology, administered by the Social ScienceInstitute, Washington University, St. Louis;by N. S. F. grant G22296 to that Univer-sity's Computer Center; and by the Centerfor International Studies and the Office ofComputer Services, Cornell University.

30606