social construction, environmental concern

ch.2, ec-p.7 – identifying the value and utility of the sociological social construction approach to social  problems for examining public opinion and concern about environmental problems…

“Among the many challenges faced by analysts of public environmental concern (Dunlap and Jones, 2002), the fact that an individual’s views vary over time makes the social constructionist view on social problems advantageous. The relevance of environmental problems to different kinds of people and social groups also varies (Freudenburg, 1991). Although explorations of environmentalism’s social bases offer cross-sectional and longitudinal snapshots, they cannot fully explore the social processes in which ecological conditions are defined as problematic. This failure includes revealing the cultural resources and social factors such as religious tenets that shape people’s perceptions of ecological conditions.”

 

 

Related articles

• Churches need to be more involved in protecting environment (reporternews.com)
• Environmentalism The ‘Greatest Threat To Western Civilization’? (huffingtonpost.com)
• “Between God and Green”: an accomplished alumna and author presents a different side of sustainability (sewaneeoess.wordpress.com)
• An Argument for Religious Environmentalism (wrythings.wordpress.com)

what stories show : ch.2, p.13

a short and sweet closing paragraph to the section on social construction. occasionally i write stuff that quickens my pulse because it feels inspiring and reminds me why sociology gives me hope. this is one them, maybe it is for you… 

“Social constructionists adopt the interpretive approach “as a counter to survey research, which…fails to understand the meanings people attach to their lives and actions.” In contrast to quantifying individuals’ discrete attitudes, hearing individuals’ own stories facilitates study of the interaction of structure and agency in meaning construction. Agger advocates the approach because individuals’ stories “can be read to reveal both the ways in which they have been socialized to accept ‘reality’ as defined for them by dominant ideologies and institutions, and the ways in which they creatively resist and transform these definitions” (2006:??).”

 

Orphanage Photographers – Visual Sociology (Photo credit: Paul Chenoweth)

Related articles

• Why Sociology? (everydaysociologyblog.com)
• Sociology (thebishopsjournal.wordpress.com)
• I am a Sociologist Because . . . (everydaysociologyblog.com)
• Sociology Department Rankings for 2013 (orgtheory.wordpress.com)

summing up : ch.2, p.12

beginning to close the section on sociological social construction approach to social problems, one more paragraph and then on to section two: environmental concern – with a summary of its social bases and my review of the research on religion’s role in it…

“Today’s proponents of the social construction approach to social problems continue urging analysts to follow a “middle road” (Weinberg 2009:1) between its principled, narrow version (Ibarra and Kitsuse 1993) and other sociological traditions in which the objective conditions of social problems are assumed (Spector and Kitsuse 1977). They acknowledge a pragmatic and paradoxical challenge facing the social constructionist perspective is everyone’s inevitable embeddedness in the mundane social world. “Neither we as researchers nor those we study can ever intelligibly leave the domain of embodied, invested, and fully purposeful practical action” (Weinberg 2009#1). However, they contest the strict constructionist argument to ignore this (Ibarra and Kitsuse 1993). “Agnosticism regarding the structural contexts of human action comes at the cost of rendering that action normatively unaccountable or, in other words, unintelligible. General social problems theory cannot succeed if it is confined to the comparative analysis of social problems discourse in vacuo” (Weinberg 2009#1). Calling for a contextual social constructionist approach to social problems reflects the value proponents place on holding onto this analytical tension and balance. It comes from the belief that this perspective offers sociologists a clearer, wider vision on how some conditions, but not others, become defined as problems and why people’s views about them vary.”

 

I am very concerned about environmental problems (Photo credit: Gauravonomics)

Related articles

• China’s Top 6 Environmental Concerns (huffingtonpost.com)

other social problems models : ch.2, p.11

identifying various other versions of theories for the emergence and decline of public interest in social problems…

“Conceptually compatible theoretical models developed simultaneously with Spector and Kitsuse’s social construction of social problems. Hilgartner and Bosk (1988) applied a ‘public arenas’ metaphor to emphasize the social contest between claims-makers and the process through which definitions of environmental and social conditions are ascribed their status as ‘problems’ in public discourse. Other analysts focused on variation over time in public attention to and concern about problematic conditions. Downs (1972) described waves of resurgent, then dissipating, interest in ecological issues as the inevitable result of the public’s “issue attention cycle.” Dunlap (1992) viewed the cycle as a consequence of their “natural decline.” Others emphasized the role of organized, sustained, collective action such as social movements in constructions of meaning of problematic conditions (Mauss 1975). Best notes that, despite some compatibility, this social movement approach substantially differs from the social construction approach: “Constructionist analyses have obvious parallels with studies of social movements but, constructionists remain the only sociologists committed to the cause of developing a theory of social problems” (Best 2002:??).”

 

Before the Air Pollution Control Act of 1955, air pollution was not considered a national environmental problem. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Related articles

• World Bank chief pledges more efforts to combat climate change (nzweek.com)
• Two reasons climate change is not like other environmental problems (grist.org)

contextual constructionists : ch.2, p.10

the broader version of the sociological social construction approach to social problems…

“Contextual constructionists counter that “the language of claims does not exist independently of the social world; it is a product of—and influence on—that world” (Best 1993:141). They argue that strict constructionism ignores the pragmatic realities of the “social problems work” that both researchers and actors perform. Contextual constructionists advocate a more ethnomethodologically sensitive approach that reflects concern for “the interpretative practices by which everyday realities are locally accomplished, managed, and sustained” (Holstein and Miller 1993:152). They recommend a broadened focus to constructionism that includes “practices that link public interpretative structures to aspects of everyday realities” (Holstein and Miller 1993:152). Miller and Fox (1999) grant strict constructionism value as a theoretical ideal, but declare it untenable in practical research and applied applications.”

 

 

strict constructionists : ch.2, p.9

brief mention of the narrow version of the sociological social construction approach to social problems…

“Analysts adopting a social construction approach to social problems in this era of the theory formed two camps, “strict” and “contextual” constructionists. Strict constructionists contended that analysts must confine themselves to focusing only on claims-making activities and their “symbol and language bound character” since “the strict constructionist never leaves language” (Ibarra and Kitsuse 1993). In this formulation, analysts were urged to remember that “it is ‘they’ (as members of the settings we are studying) and not ‘us’ (as analysts) who do the work of realizing the characteristics of the worlds in which they live” (Weinberg 2009#1).”

 

 

Related articles

• ::: Summary: “The Promises of Constructivism” (Latour, 2000)::: (constanzasilva.com)

focus on process, claims : ch.2, p.8

rather than the social or structural causes of objective conditions…

“After this seminal text detailing the social construction approach to social problems appeared, past presidents of the Society for the Study of Social Problems extended Blumer’s original notion (Lopata 1984). Although arising from and still compatible with other theoretical traditions in sociology, proponents argued its distinction came from its presumption “that social problems are the definitional activities of people around conditions and conduct they find troublesome, including others’ definitional activities” (Schneider 1985). This stance not only shifted the analytical focus, but consequentially changed analysts’ relationship to the object of study (social problems). On the basis of professional research and personal activism, analysts become their own subjects. “Sociologists who act as experts on problematic conditions are social problems participants. They become part of the problems rather than an analysis of it” (Schneider 1985). Advocates of the social constructionist approach to the study of social problems made unequivocal, value-based assertions about the purpose of their work. “Sociologists of social problems should not concern themselves with the validity of participants’ (their colleagues included) claims about conditions, but with how such claims and definitions are created, documented, pressed, and kept alive. Documenting claims or definitions about conditions constitutes participation. The point is to account for the viability of these claims, not judge whether they are true” (Schneider 1985).”

 

English: Underlying structure of the social construction of reality (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

a problems “natural history” : ch.2, p.7

what’s the sociological social constructionist process for how conditions become problematic?

“Spector and Kitsuse outline the process and activities involved in defining conditions as problematic by conceptualizing it as a “heuristic, four-stage natural history model” (Schneider 1985). Stage one includes “collective attempts to remedy a condition that some group perceives and judges offensive and undesirable…Initial social problems activities consist of attempts to transform private troubles into public issues” (Spector and Kitsuse 1973:148). Stage two occurs when “governmental agencies or other official and influential institutions” acknowledge these claims (Spector and Kitsuse 1973:154). Whether stage three comes next is contingent on first, official agencies or institutions accepting these claims and then responding, and secondly, this response becoming seen itself as problematic. If this occurs, stage four commences when advocates (claimants, claimsmakers) of problematic conditions declare “that it is no longer possible to ‘work within the system’…” and they set out to craft alternative institutions (Spector and Kitsuse 1973:156).”

a sociology of problems : ch.2, p.6

the emergence of the social construction perspective on problematic conditions…

“Following Blumer, Spector and Kitsuse initiated a more systematic approach for examining interpretations of social reality with the provocative claim, ”there is no adequate definition of social problems within sociology, and there is not and never has been a sociology of social problems” (1977:??). Their treatise expounded on the pithier, but limited, notion that problematic conditions arise in society when “a significant number of people or a number of significant people” see them as such (Julian 1973:9). Kitsuse and Spector aimed to explain this phenomenon by focusing on both the social process and people’s actions in their everyday lives (Kitsuse and Spector 1973; Spector and Kitsuse 1973). They proposed that “social problems be conceived and defined as an activity by which groups identify ‘problems’ which they claim to be harmful, undesirable, unjust and in need of corrective attention. By this definition, every condition claimed to be a problem by whatever group on whatever grounds qualifies as subject matter for the study of social problems. In this view of meaning construction, a social problem is not seen as an ‘objective condition but rather as the process of interaction between claimants that is organized by what they claim to be ‘a problem’” (Spector and Kitsuse 1977).”

The Society for the Study of Social Problems (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Related articles

• Everyday Activists (everydaysociologyblog.com)

its symbolic interactionism roots : ch.2, p.5

on the contemporary, proximal theoretical origins and connections between social construction sociological perspective…

“Especially in recent decades, interest among sociologists has grown about how, when, and why people see some conditions as problems and not others (REF… Turner, Alexander, Collins theory cite?). Calls for a subjectivist view toward social problems by Blumer precipitated its contemporary emergence. He argued “social problems have their being in a process of collective definition. This process determines whether social problems will arise, whether they become legitimated, how they are shaped in discussion, how they come to be addressed in official policy, and how they are reconstituted in putting planned action into effect” (Blumer 1971). As a symbolic interactionist, Blumer opposed previous conceptions of social problems as “objective conditions and social arrangements” merely awaiting discovery by sociologists and other social scientists. His declaration was soon followed by several articles and a book manuscript that “exercised a profound and productive influence on contemporary social constructionism and social problems theory” (Weinberg 2009#1).”

Related articles

• Symbolic Interactionism on the Road (everydaysociologyblog.com)