Solving Social Problems

Before taking this class, you may have wondered what the point would be of taking a whole class on social problems (who knows, maybe you still wonder this, but I hope not!). The reason why colleges offer, and why we take, courses on social problems is in order to solve social problems, we first have to acknowledge that they exist and discuss them. From there we can go on to coming up with and implementing strategies that can improve the social world for everyone.
Barriers to solving social problems
Social problems are generally very large scale, complex, and deeply rooted in society, so quick fixes are generally not viable long-term solutions (though, as a society that likes to see results instantly, we often want quick-fix or band-aid solutions, which tend not to get to the real cause of the social problem).
To begin, at the start of the semester we learned about how social problems are created by people, so the solution also lies with people. While everyone can contribute to making social change and solving problems, some people have more ability to contribute to and institute change than others, particularly people with more wealth and power in society. After all, members of the power elite are the main decision-makers in society who shape laws, influence the economy and labor market, set the minimum wage, determine the tax code, and impact society’s structure and individuals’ lives in countless ways. These are the individuals who are most able to effect change, but a main problem is that there is little incentive for people who are part of the power elite to do this since they often benefit from the status quo and the inequalities and social problems that currently exist.
The sociological approach to solving social problems generally does not get a lot of attention from the power elite (and even society in general) for a few reasons. To begin, sociologists’ recommendation to solve social problems in the first place is subversive, as it challenges the way we have structured society—particularly because society is structured in a way that is intended to maintain the status quo by protecting those in power and oppressing those with less. As such, solving social problems threatens the privileged positions of people who are in power. Furthermore, solving social problems also threatens core American ideologies of capitalism and individualism; capitalism and the pursuit of profit lies at the root of many of our social problems, and solving social problems requires us to think and act for the collective good, rather than for individual benefit.
Much of the problem also stems from our culture, traditions, and beliefs. We have been socialized to believe that the way society is structured is correct, justified, and legitimate, which means that many people do not challenge it, even if societal structure puts them at a disadvantage or causes them social problems. So just as the power elite have reasons for not wanting to challenge the status quo or make changes, everyday people with less (or even no) power are often not motivated because they believe that any problems that exist do for a legitimate reason. As such, moves to change society are often greeted by the power elite and the general public with skepticism, at best, or oppression—even when those changes could benefit the larger society.
At the beginning of the semester we talked about person-blame versus system-blame approaches to looking at social problems. In the U.S., we often take a person-blame approach, which identifies the root of social problems as coming from individuals who are problematic, deficient, or pathological for society. Using that logic, the solution would be to fix those individuals to get them to conform to society’s norms so the problem will go away. What we now understand is that “problematic” people are a symptom of problems that exist within the way society is structured. Sociologists, therefore, take the system-blame approach, which recognizes that to solve social problems the structure of society has to change.
In order to solve social problems, we, as a society and culture, have to be honest with ourselves about the kinds of problems we have, where they come from, and what can be done to solve them. Take the problem of poverty in the U.S., for example. A major factor that perpetuates poverty is the American cultural belief in meritocracy, or the idea that people achieve based on the effort and work they put in. If the U.S. were truly meritocratic, as we have been taught to believe, that would mean that people who are poor are poor because they didn’t work hard enough. (This is one reason why there is so little support for public programs and subsidies for the poor, because we believe the poor to be undeserving because they are not “hard workers.”) We cannot even begin to solve this social problem until we first stop believing the myth of meritocracy, which we have been taught to believe by those in power to justify their privileged position. Once we critically understand social problems by looking only at facts and setting aside myths we can start to work on solving problems.
The government has the most power to enact social change by implementing policies that reduce wealth inequality and provide equal access to services and other resources that aid people in getting what they need (e.g., good education and jobs, housing, healthy food, etc.). As mentioned before, it is generally difficult to get politicians on board with solving social problems. This is because not only are those in the power elite invested in maintaining their power, but the U.S. has a plutocratic government structure, so those who are making and voting on government policies are often wealthy—so they are invested in maintaining power and maintaining their wealth (and wealth inequality is a major contributor to social problems).
Another barrier to solving social problems through policy is the fact that politicians must be elected, so there is a disincentive to implement long-term strategies to solving social problems, which are generally unpopular because they are costly and do not yield results quickly. Politicians generally prioritize their own popularity and ability to win an election over solving social problems. Furthermore, many politicians are dependent on a handful of very wealthy campaign donors (including individuals, businesses, and special interest groups, as we discussed in the wealth and power unit), so there is an incentive for them to introduce and support policy that work in those donors’ favor—which is often contrary to the favor of those with less power. Politicians who are serious about social change tend to face barriers to implementing it, particularly because congress has historically been, and remains, so divided by party, making it difficult to get enough support to pass legislation that could lead to social change.
The irony is that policy and programs that could solve social problems would eventually no longer be necessary once the programs are successful in reaching their goals. For example, policies that aim to offer people equal opportunity to succeed (i.e., universal prenatal coverage, health care and food access, adequate funding for public schools, low-cost higher education, skill and job training programs) reduce the influence that environmental and social context and inequities have on our ability to succeed. Instead our accomplishments would be dependent more upon what we each, as individuals, did to reach our goals, making the U.S. an actual meritocracy.
Where could the money come from?
Because wealth inequality is at the core of many of the social problems in the U.S., wealth redistribution in the form of taxing wealthy individuals and corporations more heavily and investing those funds in programs for middle- and low-income people, could go a long way in reducing poverty and increasing opportunity. However, taxes for the wealthy are routinely cut under the assumption that gains for the wealthy eventually trickle down to everyone else, despite a dearth of evidence that this is the case. In fact, corporations receive billions of dollars each year in subsidies from the federal, state, and local government. Furthermore, those with the highest incomes have more legal tax loopholes available to them, and routinely spend a lower percentage of their income on taxes than middle- and low-income individuals. In fact, in 2019, there was a total of $1.3 trillion in tax expenditures, or money that went unpaid in taxes through deductions, lower tax rates, exclusions, and deferrals. That revenue could have been budgeted toward programs that could help solve social problems.
If we don’t want to get money to solve social problems through raising taxes, instead funds could be used that are normally budgeted toward other programs. The U.S. spends more money on defense (the military) than any other nation. In 2021, the federal government spent $754 billion for defense alone. This is about half of all nondiscretionary spending (which includes education, healthcare, housing, transportation, and veterans’ benefits). If some of the funding for defense were rerouted to education, healthcare, and other services that people need, this could be a major step in the direction of creating more equality.
Other logistical challenges
Oddly enough, with all of this talk about budgets and finance, as the government cuts taxes and provides subsidies, particularly for the very rich, you’d think that it could afford to do so. In fact, the U.S. is in an enormous amount of debt (check out the national debt clock), which means that any time taxes are cut, funding for a program also gets cut. Usually the first programs that get cuts are those for the poor (since we think of the poor as undeserving), such as head start programs or food stamps.
As we learned toward the beginning of the semester, the economic and labor market structures in the U.S. have changed since the 1970s, contributing to growing income and wealth inequality, which compounds social problems. It is hard to reverse that trend, however, when taxes and social welfare programs are cut. Furthermore, a weakening of labor unions means less income security for many workers. Unions engage in collective bargaining with employers by negotiating for fair wages, retirement, benefits, and time off from work for employees. As unions have become less common and have lost the strength that they once had a generation ago, it is easier for employers to pay lower wages.
Finally, voting for politicians who push for social change is a way that everyday people can contribute to solving social problems. (And if you can’t vote, you can always encourage others to.) However, there is widespread voter apathy in the U.S., meaning that people generally don’t feel motivated to vote. Low- and middle-income people feel often feel this way because they believe that their vote doesn’t count, they know that politicians don’t necessarily have their interests in mind, and/or they feel as though they don’t have the ability to influence the political system because they don’t have a lot of money to lobby, or advocate, for themselves. This is hugely problematic because people who could benefit most from social change are the least likely to vote.