Society For The Study Of Social Problems Research Articles

Reality Disjunctures and Epistemological Encampment: Addressing Relevance in Constructionist Perspectives on Social Problems

Constructionist perspectives on social problems have remained a fairly encapsulated subfield of sociology, frequently seen as hostile to notions of objective reality. Interactions surrounding a 40-year retrospective panel discussion of its originating text, Spector and Kitsuse’s (1977) Constructing Social Problems (CSP), at the 2017 the Society for the Study of Social Problems (SSSP) meetings demonstrate that many of the same debates that CSP kicked off from its inception in 1977 continue to repeat themselves—unresolved—today. Arguments from 1993 about whether and how constructionist scholars should engage critical scholars are repeating unchanged in 2018, offering an example of Pollner’s reality disjunctures. Like the current debates in public politics, camps have drawn sides and declared the other illegitimate. There seems to be a tendency in the practice of sociology (perhaps academia more widely?) toward epistemological encampment (my term) – to view only one’s own epistemological leanings as valid. Rather than addressing theories of power or politics, this paper addresses the internal politics of sociological practices of epistemological encampment and argues there is no need to remain so encamped. Importantly, nothing in constructionism prevents its adherents from recognizing the effects of construction processes on material life. Further, recognizing CSP as a claims-making document extends a fully reflexive understanding of science in seeing the claims-making nature of all epistemological approaches. Instead of taking up camps, by engaging epistemology sociologists might focus on epistemic gain--what can be learned by viewing a social phenomenon via various epistemological lenses. If epistemologies are viewed as analytical tools rather than anointed ontological truths, a multi-epistemology approach could increase the relevance of constructionism to sociologists beyond the small camp of self-identified constructionists as well as deciphering constructionism’s uses to a larger public.

Globalizing Social Problems: An Agenda for the Twenty-First Century

The Society for the Study of Social Problems (SSSP) was founded 65 years ago with an explicit goal of bringing sociological research to bear on the pressing issues of the day in order to promote social justice. The ethos of the society’s founders, Elizabeth Briant Lee and Alfred McClung Lee (1976), was that sociology should be “a discipline to be used in the service of all people” (p. 5); their challenge to the society was to “be ready to accept the challenges of new issues and conditions as they arise” (p. 7). Many of the original leaders and presidents of the SSSP were animated by the same concern as the Lees about the plethora of problems impacting the post-World War II United States, including pervasive racism and poverty in an era of unprecedented economic growth and prosperity. But a brief glance at the early pages of Social Problems shows that there were also concerns about law, crime, and “deviant” behavior, human sexuality, families, mental health, addictions, disabilities, urbanization, migration, work and jobs, higher education, etc. Most of these topics and concerns, of course, remain central to research at our annual conferences today. A much more recent SSSP president, John Galliher (2002), provides a nice overview of the “cast of characters” and their various but overlapping vision of sociology in those early days; he particularly highlights the likely underappreciated leadership role that Jesse Bernard took in developing and promoting a feminist sensibility in sociology as an integral component to analyzing and acting on a range of social problems—still a hallmark of today’s SSSP.1

Presidential Address: Reimagining Social Problems: Moving Beyond Social Constructionism

For nearly half a century, social constructionism has captured the imagination of sociologists worldwide. Its presence has been felt within the intellectual circles of the discipline’s major professional associations, particularly in the Society for the Study of Social Problems (SSSP) where many prominent constructionists have served as presiding officers and/or editors of Social Problems . Yet, various theorists over the years have argued that social constructionism was never particularly well suited for furthering the cause of social activism (see, for example, Agger 1993). On this occasion, I wish to associate myself with these sentiments and will offer my own critical reading of constructionism. In my view, social constructionism was conceived in a self-imposed exile of “neutrality” that misplaced all of its chips on discovering a uniquely sociological theory of social problems. This overly academic and disciplinary fixation likewise failed to adequately situate the subjective elements of critical analysis in the objectively real context of capitalist social relations. Even now in its patched-up and re-politicized eclectic phase, its ability to generate new insights for confronting social problems is ebbing, as is its strategic capacity to interface with the “actually existing” struggles unfolding in the current global economic crisis.1 As always, theoretical malaise opens the door for alternative paradigmatic approaches and I believe that critical sociologists should seize the moment and move decisively through the opening. The historical moment demands that we as social scientists and social practitioners work in better tandem with popular movements, channeling our efforts more directly to synergize with and further concretize emerging visions of another possible world. For scholar activists, this requires a revitalized sociological imagination, a critical re-imagination that goes beyond mainstream constructionist analyses through re-engagement with the underlying political economy and with renewed emphasis on collective response and strategy building. There is no …

Letter from the Co-Editors

In June of 2014, the editorial office of Social Problems moved to the University of Illinois-Chicago. As co-editors we are excited about the opportunity to contribute to the tradition of excellence of Social Problems . Our new editorial team includes associate editors Hector Carillo (Northwestern University), Sharon Collins (University of Illinois-Chicago), Heather Dalmage (Roosevelt University), David Embrick (Loyola University-Chicago), Roberto Gonzalez (Harvard University), Cedric Herring (University of Maryland), Moon-Kie Jung (University of Massachusetts-Amherst), Maria Krysan (University of Illinois-Chicago), Barbara Risman (University of Illinois-Chicago), and Rogelio Saenz (University of Texas-San Antonio). Our team also includes our managing editor, Deana Lewis, assistant editor, Lydia Hou, production editor, Amy Jo Woodruff, 66 advisory editors from the United States and nine other countries, and 21 student editors from the University of Illinois-Chicago, Harvard University, Northwestern University, Loyola University-Chicago, Duke University, and University of Texas-San Antonio. We would like to thank the outgoing editor Becky Pettit, and her editorial staff, for their assistance in helping us to transition the journal to UIC. We also want to acknowledge the assistance of Brandi Vigil. We want to thank the administrative team at the Society for the Study of Social Problems (SSSP), the Board of Directors of the SSSP, the Editorial and Publications Committee of the SSSP, and the staff at both the University of California Press and Oxford University Press for their support throughout this process of transition.

Thinking about Peace, Conflict, and War: An Introduction to the Special Issue

This special issue had humble beginnings. As a matter of fact, odds were stacked against it, especially given that the original plan for this topic was for a panel discussion based on submitted work to the 2009 Society for the Study of Social Problems (SSSP) Conference. However, not one abstract was received for this topic. I found this quite curious and alarming since at that time this country was engaged in two wars, there was continuous media coverage around “terrorist” activities, and we were experiencing frequent changes to our daily routines based on new security measures. Anti-war protestors were growing silent. It has been said that “sometimes no action is an action.” The lack of peace talk, or discussion of ending conflict and war was shocking—at least to me. I am old enough to remember Vietnam. I remember the protests and hearing plans from older “boys” to cross to Canada. I remember the activism on college campuses across the county from students organizing and shouting their views. I remember the news reports showing the destruction and disruption

Presidential Address: Crossing Borders: Community Activism, Globalization, and Social Justice

Borders are among the most ubiquitous features of social life. They help to define who we are, shape our sense of the world, and contour our surroundings. Borders and boundary maintenance can serve both negative and positive goals, for example, serving as both sites for the reproduction of, and resistance to, inequalities. On the one hand, creating and maintaining borders between nations, communities, and groups form the basis for some of the most violent conflicts both historically and in our present time. While capital flows freely across national borders, people are subject to systematic and oppressive social control that limits or channels their movement. Militarism, violence, and nationalism, along with the less tangible politics of fear, function to enforce borders and raise further questions: who gets to define borders? Who controls these borders? Who can cross, and under what circumstances? Boundary-drawing processes are also at work in the construction of social problems, as distinctions are made between deviancy and normalcy, illegitimate and legitimate acts. On the other hand, demands for the protection of the physical integrity of self, community, or nation include the goal of ensuring personal, social, and cultural freedoms. These appeals for the respect for borders include calls for the right to self-governance by native peoples and the right to bodily integrity by feminist, transgender, intersexed, antiviolence, and anti-sexist activists. Borders between academic disciplines are also policed and hotly contested. Boundaries between what counts as academic work and what is defined as nonacademic also informs the ways in which scholars can engage with activism and how students are socialized into academia. Like many members of the Society for the Study of Social Problems (SSSP), I situate my work at the border of scholarship and activism and disciplinary and interdisciplinary knowledge and practice. Locating myself in these academic borderlands (to borrow from Gloria Anzaldúúa [1987]), the scholar activist whose work has contributed most to the development of what is now called border theory), I have been interested in understanding how to link local organizing with extra-local and transnational movements for social and economic justice, as well as to understand the ways in which activists draw on transnational organizing frames and documents and extra-local organizing to support local struggles. In exploring these processes, I tried to cross as many intellectual borders as possible, including sites of knowledge production outside the academy.

All Things to All People or Nothing for Some: Justice, Diversity, and Democracy in Sociological Societies

This presidential address first explores the increasingly popular position known as racial realism, which argues that the problem of racism has largely been solved, and places blame for any tenacious remnants of racism on a small group of intransigent white extremists and on people of color themselves. The racial realist perspective is not difficult for sociologists to dispute, using the extant research on institutional racism and its effects on people of color. However, the address then examines how white privilege is ingrained not only in the society at large, but also in the discipline of sociology itself and, more particularly, in sociological professional societies, including the Society for the Study of Social Problems (SSSP), both historically and contemporaneously. The address concludes with suggestions for improving the culture and practices of SSSP with regard to issues of privilege, race, and ethnicity.

The Chaining of Social Problems: Solutions and Unintended Consequences in the Age of Betrayal

Social problems are linked in complex, dynamic, and interconnected webs. As a result, “solving” social problems creates both opportunities and constraints that, in turn, generate other problems through a process that I term the “chaining of social problems.” This argument depends on the understanding of the role of unanticipated consequences, a point made by Robert Merton, and subsequently by Lewis Coser in his 1968 Presidential Address to the Society for the Study of Social Problems (SSSP). I consider four methods by which problem solutions can create further problems: incrementalism, slotting, counter-movements, and unintended effects. To explore how social problems are chained I examine twentieth-century episodes of political subversion and regime disloyalty in the United States, examining five moments of contention and their effects: the Palmer Raids of 1919 and 1920, the Brown Scare of 1940 to 1944, McCarthyism from 1947 to 1954, attacks on the New Left from 1965 through 1971, and the aftermath of 9/11 from 2001 to 2005.

Advocacy and the SSSP: An analysis of research articles in social problems

This study examines the extent of advocacy in the research articles appearing in the journalSocial Problems from 1953–1992. The Society for the Study of Social Problems (SSSP) was founded in order to counter the mainstream scientism of the American Sociological Society. Becker’s presidential address to the SSSP in 1966 confronted the issue of advocacy and the consequences associated with research that does not explicitly “take sides.” The present study investigates advocacy inSocial Problems by means of a typology drawn from Becker’s address. The findings indicate that political advocacy has increased sharply over the duration ofSocial Problems. Implications of the findings are discussed in the context of value-neutrality and its relation to social problems research.

Re-forming the SSSP: Questions of “praxis”

The Society for the Study of Social Problems (SSSP) emerged from a social movement of sociologists who wanted to apply their social science knowledge to a society riddled by cruel inequities. Recently the distinctive mission of SSSP has come under scrutiny. The organization must make some structural innovations to generate fresh and critical approaches to contemporary social problems. These innovations would include: restructuring annual meetings to reflect the urgency of social problems; being reflexive about forms of knowledge; increasing the interdisciplinary emphasis of research; promoting activism within society and the social sciences; experimenting with alternative formats of meetings.

Constraints on a Reform Movement: Relationships between SSSP and ASA, 1951-1970

The Society for the Study of Social Problems (SSSP) was originally a social movement that challenged the post World War II leadership of the American Sociological Society (ASS) and took an adversary position in a controversy over the uses of sociology and the merits of different styles of research. Yet it later lost its critical ardor and became a “mainstream” organization, primarily of sociologists specializing in the study of social problems. The founding and evolution of SSSP are analyzed in terms of a dilemma faced by many movements. In order to influence nonparticipants, a movement must establish its credibility, but in seeking to do so, it is often constrained by their outlooks and may have to compromise its initial goals. In the case of SSSP, this problem was related to its efforts to legitimate itself within the broader discipline. Such efforts are shown to have blunted the opposition of some early SSSP leaders to the leaders of the American Sociological Society. The discipline's standards, traditions, and rewards are then shown to have influenced SSSP's evolution, with the decline of interdisciplinary ties and changes in Social Problems receiving the most attention.

Report of the First Joint Meeting of the Society for the Study of Social Problems (SSSP) and the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues (SPSSI), February 14-15, 1953

Report of the First Joint Meeting of the Society for the Study of Social Problems (SSSP) and the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues (SPSSI), February 14-15, 1953

Report of the First Joint Meeting of the Society for the Study of Social Problems (SSSP) and the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues (SPSSI), February 14-15, 1953

Report of the First Joint Meeting of the Society for the Study of Social Problems (SSSP) and the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues (SPSSI), February 14-15, 1953