Recent from talks
Contribute something
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Social issue
View on Wikipedia
A social issue is a problem that affects many people within a society. It is a group of common problems in present-day society that many people strive to solve. It is often the consequence of factors extending beyond an individual's control. Social issues are the source of conflicting opinions on the grounds of what is perceived as morally correct or incorrect personal life or interpersonal social life decisions. Social issues are distinguished from economic issues; however, some issues (such as immigration) have both social and economic aspects. Some issues do not fall into either category, such as warfare.
Exemplary for social issues was the so-called social question in the beginning of the industrial revolution. Growing poverty on one and growing population and materialistic wealth on the other hand caused tension between very rich and poorest people inside society.[1]
There can be disagreements about what social issues are worth solving, or which should take precedence. Different individuals and different societies have different perceptions. In Rights of Man and Common Sense, Thomas Paine addresses the individual's duty to "allow the same rights to others as we allow ourselves." The failure to do so causes the creation of a social issue.
There are a variety of methods people use to combat social issues. Some people vote for leaders in a democracy to advance their ideals. Outside the political process, people donate or share their time, money, energy, or other resources. This often takes the form of volunteering. Nonprofit organizations are often formed for the sole purpose of solving a social issue. Community organizing involves gathering people together for a common purpose.
A distinct but related meaning of the term "social issue" (used particularly in the United States) refers to topics of national political interest, over which the public is deeply divided and which are the subject of intense partisan advocacy, debate, and voting. In this case "social issue" does not necessarily refer to an ill to be solved, but rather a topic to be discussed.
Personal issues
[edit]Personal issues are those that individuals deal with themselves and within a small range of their peers and relationships.[2] Personal issues can be any life-altering event. On the other hand, social issues involve values cherished by widespread society.[2] For example, a high unemployment rate that affects millions of people is a social issue.
Valence issues versus position issues
[edit]A valence issue is a social problem that people uniformly interpret the same way.[3] An example of a valence issue is child abuse, which is condemned across several societies. A position issue is a social problem in which the popular opinion among society is divided.[4] Different people may hold different and strongly-held views, which are not easily changed. An example of a position issue is abortion which, in some countries, has not generated a widespread consensus from the public.
Types
[edit]Generic types of social issues, along with examples of each, are as follows:
Economic issues
[edit]Unemployment rates vary by region, gender, educational attainment, and ethnic group.
In most countries (including developed countries), many people are poor and depend on welfare. In 2007 in Germany, one in six children are poor. That is up from only one in seventy-five in 1965. War also plays an important role in disturbing the economic status of a country by using money that was intended for welfare.[5]
Public health
[edit]Widespread health conditions (often characterized as epidemics or pandemics) are of concern to society as a whole. They can harm the quality of life, and the ability of people to contribute to society (e.g. by working), and can result in death.
Infectious diseases are often public health concerns because they can spread quickly and easily, affecting large numbers of people. The World Health Organization has an acute interest in combating infectious disease outbreaks by minimizing their geographic and numerical spread and treating the affected. Other conditions for which there is not yet a cure or even effective treatment, such as dementia, can be viewed as public health concerns in the long run.
Age discrimination
[edit]Throughout the life course, there are social problems associated with different ages. One such social problem is age discrimination. People often do not allow old people into high ranking position within their respective jobs because of their age, despite them having crucial experience and ample knowledge collected over many years of labour in the same field or another field with the same requirements as the current one.
Social inequality
[edit]Social inequality is "the state or quality of being unequal".[6] Inequality is the root of several social problems that occur when factors such as gender, disability, race, and age may affect the way a person is treated. A past example of inequality as a social problem is slavery in the United States. Africans brought to America were often enslaved and mistreated, and they did not share the same rights as the white population of America (for example, they were not allowed to vote).
Some civil rights movements have attempted to and often succeeded at, advancing equality and extending rights to marginalized groups. These include the women's rights movement (beginning around the 1920s), the civil rights movement in the United States for African-American equality (beginning around the 1950s).
Education and public schools
[edit]Education is unarguably the most important factor in a person's success in society. As a result, social problems can be raised by the unequal distribution of funding between public schools, such as that seen in the United States.[7] The weak organizational policy in the place and the lack of communication between public schools and the federal government have led to major effects on the future generation. Public schools that do not receive high standardized test scores are not being sufficiently funded and as a result, their students are not receiving what should be the maximum level of education.[8]
Work and occupations
[edit]Social problems in the workplace include occupational stress, theft, sexual harassment, wage inequality, gender inequality, racial inequality, health care disparities, and many more. In addition, common workplace issues that employees face include interpersonal conflict, communication problems (e.g. gossip), bullying, harassment, discrimination, low motivation and job satisfaction, and performance issues.
Environmental racism
[edit]Environmental racism exists when a particular place or town is subject to problematic environmental practices due to the racial and class components of that space. In general, the place or town is inhabited by lower-income and minority groups. Often, there is more pollution, factories, dumping, etc. that produce environmental hazards and health risks which are not seen in more affluent cities, such as those in Bangladesh.
Abortion debate
[edit]The abortion debate is the ongoing controversy surrounding the moral, legal, and religious status of induced abortion.[9] In English-speaking countries, the sides involved in the debate are the self-described "pro-choice" and "pro-life" movements. Pro-choice emphasizes the woman's choice of whether to terminate a pregnancy. Pro-life proposes the right of the embryo or fetus to gestate to term and be born. Both terms are considered loaded in mainstream media, where terms such as "abortion rights" or "anti-abortion" are generally preferred.[10] Each movement has, with varying results, sought to influence public opinion and to attain legal support for its position.
Other issues
[edit]Other issues may include education, lack of literacy and numeracy, corruption, school truancy, violence and bullying in schools, religious intolerance, immigration, political and religious extremism, discrimination of all sorts, the role of women, aging populations, gender issues, sexual orientation, unplanned parenthood, teenage pregnancy, child labour, war, inflation, wage inequality and many more.
By country
[edit]Canada
[edit]Poverty
[edit]The face of Canadian poverty is described as racialized, destitute, and young. It is common among whites, aboriginal, and black people communities, and racial minorities.[11] Additionally, racial minorities face both unemployment and underemployment compared to their counterparts. On reserves, poverty due to multiple factors has an exponential function. For instance, the sense of cultural isolation normally results from a deterioration of economic, social, and health conditions compared to those living off reserves. Poverty in Canada has a self-perpetuating system, where the societal mechanisms ensure that the poorest Canadians remain poor. Urban poverty is showcased through a lack of low-income housing for individuals and families and increasing homelessness.[12]
Racism and prejudice
[edit]The current prevalent forms of racism in Canada are structural racism (e.g. the Henry and Elfie Ginzberg experiment),[13] individualized racism (e.g. racial profiling by police that is broadly defined by the Ontario Human Rights Commission), and internalized racism (e.g. first-generation immigrants and refugees).[14] Social distance between whites and non-whites is a distinct aspect of the Canadian community that is identified through the isolation index. The anti-racism movement in Canada has borne aversive racism.[15]
Aging and discrimination
[edit]It is estimated that by 2030, seniors will make about 23% of the Canadian population.[16] This shrinks the labour force and real GDP growth rate, which may result in higher taxes. Additionally, Canada's fertility rate has been falling since 2009, especially in white families.[17] Immigrants with dependents is also not a conducive element for reducing the impact; however, they can increase the population rate of rural areas to increase financial activities. It is studied that Canadians openly practice ageism.[18] This discrimination based on age results in refusing jobs to qualified and willing candidates, while such negative attitudes are further legitimized by mass media. Filial responsibility is also an alien concept in the North American culture due to the prominence of individualism, except within indigenous communities. Those that attempt to uphold do not know how to perform (due to lack of precedence) and to a larger extent it might result in elder abuse. Public Health Agency of Canada reported[when?] that about 4 – 10% of seniors were facing elder abuse in Canada.[19]
This is both a cultural and historical phenomenon that contests against the basis of social beings able to satisfy needs of other people through companionship and social integration. It could be further seen in the failure of Canadian social institutions to meet the needs of the dependent aged within a systematic approach (e.g. trend of eldercare increasingly considered as a private matter rather than a public one and political leniency to "non-system" for elder care, as in the United States) and representation (e.g. non-representation of the stigmatized's oppressed voice to shape social institutions in ways that meet their needs). However, organizations like "Canada's Association for the Fifty-Plus" actively lobbies for reforming social policies.[20]
United States
[edit]Several social issues have been prominent in the history of the United States. Many of them have waxed or waned over time as conditions and values have changed. The term "social issue" has a broad meaning in the United States, as it refers not only to ills to be solved but also to any topic of widespread debate, involving deeply-held values and beliefs.
The Library of Congress has an established index of social causes in the United States. Examples include academic cheating, church-state separation, hacking, evolution education, gangs, hate speech, suicide, urban sprawl, and unions.[21]
Social issues gain a particularly high-profile when a new president is elected. Elections are often impacted by several social issues, with many social issues discussed during debates, such as rights for abortion, LGBT people, and gun control.
Crime and the justice system
[edit]In the United States, the federal prison system has been unable to keep up with the steady increase of inmates over the past few years, causing major overcrowding. In the year 2012, the overcrowding level was 41 percent above "rated capacity" and was the highest level since 2004.[22]
In addition to being overcrowded, the federal prison system in the U.S. has also been at the center of controversy concerning the conditions in which prisoners are forced to live.
Hate crimes
[edit]Hate crimes are a social problem in the United States because they directly marginalize and target specific groups of people or specific communities based on their identities. Hate crimes can be committed as the result of hate-motivated behaviour, prejudice, and intolerance due to sexual orientation, gender expression, biological sex, ethnicity, race, religion, disability, or any other identity.[23] Hate crimes are a growing issue especially in school settings because of the young populations that exist. The majority of victims and perpetrators are teenagers and young adults (the population that exists within educational institutions). Hate crimes can result in physical or sexual assault or harassment, verbal harassment, robbery, and death.[24]
Obesity
[edit]Obesity is a prevalent social problem in today's society, with rates steadily increasing. According to the Weight-Control Information Network, since the early 1960s, the prevalence of obesity among adults more than doubled, increasing from 13.4 to 35.7 percent in U.S. adults aged 20 and older.[25] Today, two in three adults are considered overweight or obese, and one in six children aged 6–19 are considered obese. This disease gives birth to many other diseases and conditions like cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, depression, obstructive sleep and different types of cancer and osteoarthritis.[26]
Advertising junk food to children
[edit]The food industry has been criticized for promoting childhood obesity and ill-health by specifically targeting the child demographic in the marketing of unhealthy food products. The food products marketed often are deemed unhealthy due to their high calorie, fat, and sugar contents.[27] Reduction of marketing of unhealthy food products could significantly reduce the prevalence of obesity and its serious health consequences.[28] Former first lady Michelle Obama and Partnership for a Healthier America have proposed new rules that would limit junk food marketing in public schools.[29]
Hunger
[edit]Hunger is a social issue. In 2018, about 11.1% of American households were food insecure.
Media propaganda
[edit]Mass media may use propaganda as a means to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view, or to maintain the viewer's attention. Who owns a media outlet often determines things such as the types of social problems that are presented, how long the problems are aired, and how dramatically the problems are presented. The American media is often biased towards one or the other end of the political spectrum, with many media outlets having been accused of either being too conservative or too liberal.
Alcohol and other drugs
[edit]Drugs are at times the cause of social problems. Drugs such as cocaine and opiates are addictive for some users. A minority of users of such drugs may commit crimes to obtain more drugs. In some individuals, drugs such as methamphetamine have been known to contribute to violent behaviour, which would be considered a social problem.[30]
Drunk driving is on the rise and is the number two cause of accidental deaths, causing approximately 17,000 deaths each year. All but nine states in the United States have adopted the Administrative License Revocation (ALR). The ALR is enforced when a person is caught drinking and driving and found guilty, resulting in the loss of their license for a full year. This is a step that is being taken to try to avoid the occurrence of this social problem.[31]
Legal marijuana is a debatable topic. Marijuana can be used in the medical domain, and there is no accurate fact that shows marijuana kills. However, people believe marijuana is a gateway to other drugs, injures lungs, and inhibits function. Some states are legalizing medical marijuana, such as New Mexico, Arizona, and New York. Some states are also legalizing it for both medical and recreational purposes, such as Colorado, California, and Oregon.[citation needed]
Racism and racial inequality
[edit]Racism against various ethnic or minority groups has existed in the United States since the colonial era. African Americans in particular have faced restrictions on their political, social, and economic freedoms throughout much of United States history.
Additional social issues
- Healthcare in the United States
- Human rights in the United States
- Violence against LGBT people in the United States
- Domestic violence in the United States
- Gender inequality in the United States
- Gun violence in the United States
- Wealth inequality in the United States
- Income inequality in the United States
- Friendship recession
- Social media and teens
India
[edit]Corruption
[edit]India is ranked 75 out of 179 countries in Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index, but its score has improved consistently from 2.7 in 2002 to 3.1 in 2011.[32]
In India, corruption takes the form of bribes, tax evasion, exchange controls, embezzlement, etc. A 2005 study done by Transparency International[unreliable source?] (TI) India found that more than 50%[dubious – discuss] had firsthand[dubious – discuss] experience of paying bribe or peddling influence to complete a task in a public office.[33] The chief economic consequences of corruption are the loss to the exchequer and an increase in the cost of government-subsidised services, the unhealthy climate for investment, political instability, and unprincipled ethics.
The TI India study estimates the monetary value of petty corruption in eleven basic services provided by the government, such as education, healthcare, judiciary, police, etc., to be approximately Rs.21,068 crores.[33] India still ranks in the bottom quartile of developing nations in terms of the ease of doing business and compared to China and other lower developed Asian nations, the average time taken to secure the clearances for a startup or to invoke bankruptcy is much greater.[34] Recently,[when?] a revelation of tax evasion (Panama Papers' Leak) case involving several high-profile celebrities and businessmen has increased the number of corruption charges against the elite of the country.[citation needed]
Social structure
[edit]India is a multicultural country with different social identities formed from varying cultural norms, religious politics, linguistic differences, tolerance to changes in economic orientation, barriers to qualitative education, and mismanagement of resources.[35]
Poverty
[edit]The World Bank in 2011, based on 2005's PPPs International Comparison Program,[36] estimated 23.6% of the Indian population, or about 276 million people, lived below $1.25 per day on purchasing power parity.[37][38] According to the United Nation's Millennium Development Goal (MDG) programme, 270 million out of 1.2 billion Indians, or 21.9% of the population, lived below the poverty line of $1.25 between 2011 and 2012 (as compared to 41.6% between 2004 and 2005).[39]
Terrorism
[edit]The regions with long term terrorist activities today are Jammu and Kashmir (state-sponsored terrorism), Central India (Naxalism), and Seven Sister States (independence and autonomy movements). In the past, the Punjab insurgency led to militant activities in the Indian state of Punjab as well as the national capital of Delhi (e.g. Delhi serial blasts and anti-Sikh riots). As of 2006, at least 232 of the country's 606 districts were afflicted, at varying intensities, by several insurgent and terrorist movements. [40]
Additional social issues
[edit]- Caste-related violence in India
- Caste system in India
- Mandal Commission
- Reservation in India
- Unemployment in India
- Illegal immigration to India
- Refugees in India
- Fake news in India
- Malnutrition in India
- Poverty in India
- Religious violence in India
- Healthcare in India
- Domestic violence in India
- Gender inequality in India
- Income inequality in India
- Naxalite–Maoist insurgency
Germany
[edit]Poverty
[edit]Unemployment rates vary by region, gender, educational attainment, and ethnic group.
A growing number of Germans are poor and dependent on welfare.[citation needed] In 2007, one in six children depended on welfare. That is up from only one in seventy-five in 1965.[41] Poverty rates vary in different states. For instance, only 3.9% suffer from poverty in Bavaria, while 15.2% of Berlin's inhabitants are poor. Families that are headed by a single parent and working-class families with multiple children are most likely to be poor.

There is an ongoing discussion about hunger in Germany. Reverend Bernd Siggelkow, founder of the Berlin-based soup kitchen "Die Arche," claimed that many German children go hungry each day. He blamed the lack of jobs, low welfare payments, and parents who were drug-addicted or mentally ill.[42] Siggelkow has been criticized by some people who said there was no hunger in Germany. SPD politician and board member of the German central bank, Thilo Sarrazin, said it was possible to live on welfare without going hungry if one did not buy fast food and cooked from scratch instead. He was criticized by The Left politician, Heidi Knake-Werner, who said it was not right "if well-paid people like us make recommendations to poor people about how they should shop."[43]
Birth rate
[edit]Germany has one of the lowest birth rates in the world. In 2012, its national fertility rate was 1.41 children per woman.[44] This is up slightly from the 2002 rate of 1.31, but it is still well below the replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman. (By contrast, the United States had a fertility rate of 2.06 in 2012).[45] Despite the nation's low birth rate, Germans are living longer, with 2012 estimates showcasing a life expectancy of 80.19 years (77.93 years for men and 82.58 years for women).[44] This demographic shift is already straining the country's social welfare structures and will produce further economic and social problems in the future.[46] The Mikrozensus in 2008 revealed that the number of children a German woman aged 40 to 75 had was closely linked to her educational achievement.[47][needs update]
Deprived neighbourhoods
[edit]So-called problem neighbourhoods ("Problemviertel") exist in Germany. These neighbourhoods have a high drop-out rate from secondary school. Children growing up in these neighbourhoods have only 1/7th the probability of going to college compared to a person growing up in another neighbourhood. Abuse of alcohol and drugs is common. Many people living in problem neighbourhoods are what is called a-people. They are poor out-of-work, and immigrants.
Often these neighbourhoods were founded out of good intentions. Many districts that later became problem neighbourhoods were founded in the 1960s and 1970s when the State wanted to provide better housing for poorer persons. As a result, big tenement buildings were built. The first tenants were mostly two-parent families, with at least one parent working. Many were happy with their neighbourhoods, but when the unemployment rate started increasing, more and more people lost their jobs. Moreover, families who could afford it started moving into better districts and only those who could not afford to move stayed in districts such as Hamburg-Mümmelmannsberg.[48])
Political extremism, racism and antisemitism
[edit]Since World War II, Germany has experienced intermittent turmoil from various groups. In the 1970s, radical leftist terrorist organizations, such as the Red Army Faction, engaged in a string of assassinations and kidnappings against political and business figures. Germany has also continued to struggle with far-right violence. Neo-Nazis are presently on the rise (this is in line with the younger generation of Germans growing older).[49] There is some debate as to whether hate crime is actually rising, or whether simply more arrests have been made due to increased law-enforcement efforts. The number of officially recognized violent hate crimes has risen from 759 in 2003 to 776 in 2005. According to a recent[when?] study, a majority of Jews living in Germany were worried about a rise in antisemitism. The concern of Jews in Germany was less than those in France, where 90% of Jews that were polled said that antisemitism had risen over the years.[50] Some[who?] have suggested that the increase in hate crime is related to the proliferation of right-wing parties, such as the National Democratic Party (NPD) in local elections.[51]
Iran
[edit]57 percent of the population has malnutrition,[52] while the Ministry of Interior has put population aging as priority first.[53] As of 2023 the country experiences mass economic inequality and extremely heavy inflation.[54][55][56] There is also political unrest.[57] The price of education[58] and health has steadily increased.[59][60][61] Iranian skilled workers and laborers are moving out of the country.[62][63][64]
France
[edit]Precarity and poverty
[edit]There is the fragility of income and social position in France, with several ways to measure this. One example is to look at unemployment. Within the European Union in May 2017, France was ranked 6th with its unemployment rate of 9.4 percent, as found by Statista. According to Observatoire des inégalités,[when?] France has between 5 and 8.9 million poor people, depending on the definition of poverty (this definition ranges from the poverty line at 50 percent of the median standard of living to 60 percent).
Gender inequality
[edit]Women suffer from economical and social problems in France. They are paid, on average, 6.8 percent less than men, according to l'insee. Women in France also face sexual harassment and other problems. These are some reasons why the Global Gender Gap report of 2016 has ranked France 17th with a score of 0.755 (on this ranking scale, reaching 1 means gender equality).[needs update]
See also
[edit]- Moral entrepreneur
- Moral panic – Fear that some evil threatens society
- Social constructionism – Sociological theory regarding shared understandings
- Social Problems – Sociology journal
- The Society for the Study of Social Problems – American sociological organization
- Wicked problem – Problem that is difficult or impossible to solve
References
[edit]- ^ Case, Holly (November 2016). "THE "SOCIAL QUESTION," 1820–1920*". Modern Intellectual History. 13 (3): 747–775. doi:10.1017/S1479244315000037. ISSN 1479-2443. Archived from the original on 23 April 2023. Retrieved 23 April 2023.
- ^ a b Mills, C. Wright (13 April 2000). The Sociological Imagination. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-513373-8. Retrieved 4 November 2018 – via Internet Archive.
- ^ "valence issue: Definition from". Answers.com. Archived from the original on 24 March 2014. Retrieved 8 March 2013.
- ^ Nelson, Barbara J. (15 April 1986). Making an Issue of Child Abuse: Political Agenda Setting for Social Problems. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226572017. Archived from the original on 19 April 2023. Retrieved 21 November 2020.
- ^ "Report des Kinderhilfswerkes: Jedes sechste Kind lebt in Armut". Archived from the original on 14 May 2009. Retrieved 12 September 2017.
- ^ "Inequality | Define Social Inequality at Dictionary.com". Dictionary.reference.com. Archived from the original on 6 March 2016. Retrieved 8 March 2013.
- ^ Bruce J. Biddle and David C. Berliner. "Educational Leadership: Beyond Instructional Leadership: Unequal School Funding in the United States". Ascd.org. Archived from the original on 28 December 2012. Retrieved 8 March 2013.
- ^ Scott, Dylan (23 August 2012). "Biggest Problem for Public Education? Lack of Funding, Poll Says". Governing.com. Archived from the original on 5 March 2013. Retrieved 8 March 2013.
- ^ Groome, Thomas. "To Win Again, Democrats Must Stop Being the Abortion Party." Archived 21 January 2018 at the Wayback Machine The New York Times. 27 March 2017.
- ^ For example: "Wall Street Journal style guide: Vol. 23, No. 1". The Wall Street Journal. 31 January 2010. Archived from the original on 25 May 2011. Retrieved 4 November 2011.
- ^ Lorne Tepperman; James E. Curtis; Albert Kwan (2007). Social Problems: A Canadian Perspective. Oxford University Press. pp. 35–39. ISBN 978-0-19-542500-0.
- ^ "Homelessness 'chronic' in Canada: study". CBC. Archived from the original on 2 January 2019. Retrieved 28 November 2019.
- ^ Henry, Frances; Ginzberg, Effie (1985). Who gets the work? a test of racial discrimination in employment. Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto, Urban Alliance on Race Relations. Toronto: Urban Alliance on Race Relations. Archived from the original on 31 July 2019. Retrieved 31 July 2019.
- ^ Moreau, S., Rousseau, C., Mekki-Berrada, A., TCMR & ÉRASME. (1999). Politiques d'immigration et santé mentale des réfugiés: profil et impact des séparations familiales, Nouvelles Pratiques Sociales, 11(2) – 12(1), 177–196.
- ^ Lorne Tepperman; James E. Curtis; Albert Kwan (2007). Social Problems: A Canadian Perspective. Oxford University Press. pp. 58–83. ISBN 978-0-19-542500-0.
- ^ Canada, Employment and Social Development (3 October 2016). "Government of Canada — Action for Seniors report". aem. Archived from the original on 13 August 2019. Retrieved 28 November 2019.
- ^ Government of Canada, Statistics Canada (5 June 2018). "Fertility: Overview, 2012 to 2016". www150.statcan.gc.ca. Archived from the original on 13 August 2019. Retrieved 28 November 2019.
- ^ Jönson, Håkan; Larsson, Annika Taghizadeh (2009). "The exclusion of older people in disability activism and policies — A case of inadvertent ageism?". Journal of Aging Studies. 23: 69–77. doi:10.1016/j.jaging.2007.09.001. Retrieved 28 November 2019.
- ^ "Elder Abuse". aem. 30 July 2009. Archived from the original on 13 August 2019. Retrieved 28 November 2019.
- ^ Lorne Tepperman; James E. Curtis; Albert Kwan (2007). Social Problems: A Canadian Perspective. Oxford University Press. pp. 137–162. ISBN 978-0-19-542500-0.
- ^ "Table of contents for Social issues in America". catdir.loc.gov. Archived from the original on 14 January 2016. Retrieved 28 November 2019.
- ^ "Overcrowding In Federal Prisons Harms Inmates, Guards: GAO Report". Huffingtonpost.com. 14 September 2012. Archived from the original on 15 September 2018. Retrieved 8 March 2013.
- ^ National Crime Prevention Council
- ^ Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network (RAINN)
- ^ "Overweight and Obesity Statistics". Weight Control Information Network. Archived from the original on 13 February 2013. Retrieved 4 March 2013.
- ^ "Essay on Obesity For Students". Indiacelebratings. 17 January 2020. Archived from the original on 14 February 2021. Retrieved 8 February 2021.
- ^ Barnes, B. (2007). Limiting ads of junk food to children. The New York Times, 2.
- ^ Kraak, Vivica I., Mary Story, and Ellen A. Wartella, "Government and School Progress to Promote a Healthful Diet to American Children and Adolescents: A Comprehensive Review of the Available Evidence." American Journal of Preventive Medicine 42:3, (March 2012). 250–262.
- ^ "Michelle Obama Proposes Ban On In-School Junk Food Marketing". cbslocal.com. 25 February 2014. Archived from the original on 14 October 2022. Retrieved 4 November 2018.
- ^ "Cocaine". Erowid.org. Archived from the original on 6 October 2007. Retrieved 25 March 2013.
- ^ "Social Problems in American Society | Reader's Digest". Rd.com. 15 January 2013. Archived from the original on 17 December 2013. Retrieved 8 March 2013.
- ^ Believe it or not! India is becoming less corrupt Archived 9 June 2008 at the Wayback Machine. CNN-IBN. 26 September 2007.
- ^ a b Centre for Media Studies (2005), India Corruption Study 2005: To Improve Governance Volume – I: Key Highlights, Transparency International India.
- ^ Economic Survey 2004–2005, archived from the original on 16 December 2007, retrieved 1 September 2017
- ^ Gitika Commuri (4 October 2010). Indian Identity Narratives and the Politics of Security. SAGE Publications. ISBN 978-81-321-0521-3. Archived from the original on 16 February 2020. Retrieved 30 July 2019.
- ^ World Bank's $1.25/day poverty measure- countering the latest criticisms The World Bank (2010)
- ^ Note: 24.6% rate is based on 2005 PPP at $1.25 per day, International dollar basis, The World Bank (2015). A measured approach to ending poverty and boosting shared prosperity (PDF). World Bank Group. p. 50. ISBN 978-1-4648-0361-1. Archived (PDF) from the original on 9 October 2016. Retrieved 1 September 2017.
- ^ Chandy and Kharas, What Do New Price Data Mean for the Goal of Ending Extreme Poverty? Archived 18 July 2016 at the Wayback Machine Brookings Institution, Washington D.C. (May 2014)
- ^ "8% GDP growth helped reduce poverty: UN report". The Hindu: Mobile Edition. Archived from the original on 6 February 2015. Retrieved 29 July 2015.
- ^ "India Assessment 2014". Archived from the original on 16 August 2013. Retrieved 29 July 2015.
- ^ "Aktuelle Nachrichten – Inland Ausland Wirtschaft Kultur Sport". Archived from the original on 14 May 2009. Retrieved 12 September 2017.
- ^ Bernd Siggelkow, Wolfgang Büscher: Deutschlands vergessene Kinder – Hoffnungsgeschichten aus der Arche. Gerth Medien
- ^ "Sarrazin: So sollten Arbeitslose einkaufen". Der Tagesspiegel Online. 11 February 2008. Archived from the original on 26 February 2009. Retrieved 1 September 2017.
- ^ a b "The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency". 20 October 2021. Archived from the original on 9 January 2021. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
- ^ "The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency". 20 October 2021. Archived from the original on 21 March 2021. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
- ^ "A Germany Without Children?". 27 April 2005. Archived from the original on 19 October 2008. Retrieved 1 September 2017.
- ^ Statistisches Bundesamt. Mikrozensus 2008. Neue Daten zur Kinderlosigkeit in Deutschland. p. 27ff
- ^ Wolfgang Uchatius: "Armut in Deutschland – Die neue Unterschicht". Die Zeit. 10 March 2005
- ^ "Sharp Rise in Neo-Nazis in Germany". Archived from the original on 10 September 2010. Retrieved 1 September 2017.
- ^ "Aktuelle Nachrichten – Inland Ausland Wirtschaft Kultur Sport". tagesschau.de (in German). Archived from the original on 16 November 2015. Retrieved 28 November 2019.
- ^ [1](site down)
- ^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 12 July 2023. Retrieved 12 July 2023.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) - ^ "هیچ مسئلهای به اندازه مسئله "جمعیت" برای آینده کشور اهمیت ندارد". اعتمادآنلاین. 12 July 2023. Archived from the original on 12 July 2023. Retrieved 12 July 2023.
- ^ "شاهد اوج شکاف طبقاتی در جامعه هستیم". fa. 12 April 1402. Archived from the original on 9 July 2023. Retrieved 12 July 2023.
- ^ "دولت چارهاندیشی نکند فشار اقتصادی و شکاف طبقاتی پیامدهای ناگواری را به همراه خواهد داشت". خبرگزاری ایلنا. 12 July 2023. Archived from the original on 12 July 2023. Retrieved 12 July 2023.
- ^ ""شکاف طبقاتی" در سفرهای نوروزی؛ هتلهای گران پر شدند، هتلهای ارزان خالی ماندند". رادیو فردا. Archived from the original on 11 May 2023. Retrieved 12 July 2023.
- ^ "قالیباف: اگر فراخوان فقه حکمرانی را جدی میگرفتیم، امروز با مسئله حجاب مواجه نمیشدیم". fa. 19 April 1402. Archived from the original on 12 July 2023. Retrieved 12 July 2023.
- ^ "پولدارها در بهترین دانشگاهها؛ اختلاف طبقاتی به کنکور رسید". صدای آمریکا. 5 August 2022. Archived from the original on 6 June 2023. Retrieved 12 July 2023.
- ^ بهرامی, نجات (4 January 2022). "رفع شکاف طبقاتی در ایران؛ چرا و چگونه؟". رادیو فردا. Archived from the original on 18 February 2022. Retrieved 12 July 2023 – via www.radiofarda.com.
- ^ "آموزش را طبقاتی نکنید!". 29 January 2023. Archived from the original on 30 January 2023. Retrieved 12 July 2023.
- ^ "با بدترین نوع فقر مواجهیم". اعتمادآنلاین. 12 July 2023. Archived from the original on 28 May 2023. Retrieved 12 July 2023.
- ^ "3 هزار ایرانی در صف مهاجرت به قطر/ فقط نور چشمیهای دولت اعزام میشوند – تجارتنیوز". tejaratnews.com. 10 July 2023. Archived from the original on 12 July 2023. Retrieved 12 July 2023.
- ^ "افزایش میزان مهاجرت نیروی کار ایرانی به عراق – Dw – ۱۴۰۲/۴/۱۱". Deutsche Welle. Archived from the original on 9 July 2023. Retrieved 12 July 2023.
- ^ "چرا به جای رشد صنعت فناوری اطلاعات شاهد افزایش مهاجرت هستیم؟". 8 July 2023. Archived from the original on 12 July 2023. Retrieved 12 July 2023.
Social issue
View on GrokipediaDefinition and Characteristics
Core Definition
A social issue, interchangeably referred to as a social problem in sociological literature, constitutes a condition or behavior that generates empirically verifiable negative consequences for a large segment of society, such as elevated rates of harm, reduced productivity, or institutional dysfunction, thereby warranting collective attention and potential remedial action.[10] This objective dimension requires substantiation through data, including statistical indicators like the U.S. youth homicide rate for males aged 15-24, which stood at levels 10 times higher than Canada's and up to 28 times higher than France's or Germany's in comparative analyses from the late 20th century, illustrating systemic impacts beyond isolated incidents.[11] Such issues inherently involve scalable harms that transcend personal agency, often rooted in structural factors like economic disparities or policy failures, rather than solely individual choices. The recognition of a social issue also encompasses a subjective component, wherein public or elite consensus deems the condition problematic and in need of societal intervention, though this perception must be critically evaluated against empirical evidence to avoid conflation with ideological preferences or amplified narratives lacking causal substantiation.[3] For instance, conditions like widespread poverty or substance abuse qualify when they hinder large populations from realizing potential, as measured by metrics such as malnutrition prevalence or unemployment correlations with crime, affecting not only direct victims but society broadly through indirect costs like increased welfare demands or public safety burdens.[11] Empirical criteria for classification emphasize measurable adversity, such as data on health outcomes, economic losses, or social disruption, distinguishing bona fide issues from anecdotal concerns; scholarly frameworks, including those requiring public outcry alongside value contradictions and proposed solutions, underscore the necessity of widespread agreement tempered by verifiable impacts to prevent overreach or misprioritization.[10][11]Distinction from Individual Problems
Social issues differ from individual problems primarily in scope, causation, and remedial pathways. Individual problems, often termed "personal troubles" by sociologist C. Wright Mills, arise within the confines of a person's biography, character, or immediate social milieu and can typically be addressed through private means such as personal effort, family support, or localized resources.[12] In contrast, social issues, or "public issues," transcend the individual, stemming from disruptions in the broader social structure—such as institutional failures, policy shortcomings, or cultural norms—and impact large populations, requiring collective, often governmental or societal-level responses.[13] This distinction hinges on empirical scale and causal locus: a single instance of financial distress might reflect personal mismanagement or misfortune, resolvable via budgeting or job-seeking within one's network, but mass indebtedness amid economic contraction signals systemic factors like inflationary policies or industrial decline affecting millions, as evidenced by the U.S. unemployment rate peaking at 14.8% in April 2020 due to pandemic-induced shutdowns rather than isolated laziness. Similarly, one person's alcohol dependency constitutes an individual health issue treatable through therapy or abstinence programs, whereas pervasive substance abuse epidemics, like the U.S. opioid crisis claiming over 100,000 lives annually by 2023, trace to pharmaceutical overprescription, regulatory lapses, and supply chain economics, demanding public health overhauls beyond personal willpower.[14] Critically, the boundary is not absolute; aggregation of personal troubles can reveal underlying public issues, but conflating the two risks obscuring causal realism by attributing structural failures to individual moral failings or vice versa. Mills emphasized that failing to apply this lens—termed the "sociological imagination"—leads to inadequate analysis, as private coping mechanisms prove insufficient against institutionalized barriers, such as when regional factory closures in the U.S. Rust Belt from 1979 to 1983 displaced over 2 million workers due to globalization and automation, not mere worker inadequacy.[12] Empirical studies in sociology reinforce that social recognition of issues emerges when data show patterned disparities, like income inequality where the top 1% captured 22.4% of U.S. pretax income by 2021, linking personal poverty to policy-driven wealth concentration rather than universal laziness. Resolution criteria further delineate the divide: individual problems yield to micro-level interventions with measurable personal outcomes, whereas social issues demand macro-level evidence-based reforms, often contested due to value conflicts over causation. For example, isolated domestic disputes may resolve via counseling, but endemic family breakdown correlating with 40-50% U.S. divorce rates since the 1970s implicates no-fault laws, welfare incentives, and cultural shifts, per longitudinal data from the National Center for Family & Marriage Research. This framework underscores that while personal agency matters, overemphasizing it for widespread harms ignores verifiable structural drivers, as seen in critiques of individualistic explanations for phenomena like urban decay in 1970s New York, where arson and abandonment affected 500,000 units amid fiscal insolvency, not just tenant negligence.Criteria for Social Recognition
A social issue gains recognition when it meets objective criteria of widespread harm, typically involving conditions or behaviors that impose negative consequences on large segments of the population, rather than isolated individuals. This requires empirical evidence of scale, such as prevalence rates affecting at least several percent of a society or measurable disruptions to social functions like economic productivity or public health.[3][2] For example, poverty is recognized as a social issue when household income data shows over 10% of a population below subsistence levels, correlating with elevated rates of crime and health deterioration across communities.[15] Such objective thresholds distinguish social issues from personal troubles, which stem from individual choices or circumstances addressable through private means, whereas social recognition demands proof of systemic patterns beyond personal agency.[16] Subjective criteria complement the objective by involving collective labeling of the condition as undesirable and amenable to societal intervention, often through public discourse or institutional claims-making. This perception arises when groups perceive the issue as violating core values, prompting demands for policy responses, but it varies by cultural context and can amplify minor harms while overlooking others with greater data-backed impacts.[8][17] Sociological analyses note that subjective elements enable diverse societal segments to define problems differently, yet reliance on them risks distortion from advocacy-driven narratives lacking empirical rigor.[18] Effective recognition thus integrates verifiable data—such as longitudinal studies tracking outcomes—with assessments of remedial feasibility via collective action, ensuring issues like urban decay or demographic shifts are elevated only when causal links to broad societal detriment are established. Mainstream academic frameworks, however, frequently prioritize subjective mobilization over objective metrics, potentially reflecting institutional biases that favor ideologically aligned concerns.[4] This approach underscores the need for causal analysis grounded in first-principles evaluation of harms, rather than uncritical acceptance of prevailing perceptions.[3]Historical Development
Pre-Modern Perspectives
In ancient Mesopotamian societies around 1750 BCE, codified laws such as the Code of Hammurabi addressed social disparities by imposing penalties scaled to social status, aiming to maintain order rather than eradicate inequality; for instance, fines for injuring a commoner differed from those against elites, reflecting acceptance of hierarchical norms as divinely ordained. Similar frameworks in ancient Egypt emphasized ma'at, a principle of cosmic balance, where pharaohs redistributed grain during Nile floods to mitigate famine, viewing social disruptions like scarcity as threats to harmony rather than inherent systemic flaws. Classical Greek philosophers, such as Aristotle in the 4th century BCE, conceptualized social issues like slavery and poverty through natural hierarchies, arguing in Politics that some humans were "natural slaves" suited for servitude due to intellectual inferiority, thus justifying bondage as essential for the polis's functioning without ethical qualms beyond practical utility. Plato, in The Republic circa 375 BCE, proposed ideal governance to curb excesses like wealth hoarding among guardians, but framed poverty and inequality as disruptions to justice achievable via philosophical rule, not egalitarian reform. Roman perspectives echoed this, with poverty rampant among urban plebs by the late Republic (circa 100 BCE), often leading to debt bondage despite bans like the Lex Poetelia Papiria in 326 BCE; elites like Cicero viewed slavery—encompassing up to 30-35% of Italy's population by the 1st century BCE—as economically vital, with manumission offering limited upward mobility but reinforcing patron-client dependencies over collective welfare.[19] In ancient China, Confucian thought from the 6th-5th centuries BCE prioritized he (harmony) as the antidote to social discord, attributing issues like familial strife or peasant unrest to failures in ritual propriety (li) and benevolence (ren); Confucius advocated moral rectification of rulers to restore order, as in Analects 2:21, where governance succeeds when people follow virtue, eschewing confrontation in favor of hierarchical roles to prevent chaos. This extended to viewing poverty as a cue for rulers' ethical lapses, remedied through exemplary conduct rather than redistribution, influencing imperial policies like the Western Han's (206 BCE-9 CE) emphasis on agricultural stability for societal equilibrium.[20] Medieval Christian Europe, from the 5th to 15th centuries CE, interpreted social ills such as famine, plague, and vagrancy through providential lenses, with theologians like Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) in Summa Theologica positing poverty as a potential path to spiritual merit while obligating alms-giving as natural law, though feudal structures perpetuated serfdom affecting 80-90% of the population without challenging bondage's morality. Church institutions dispensed charity via monasteries and hospitals, as during the 1348 Black Death when orders like the Alexian Brothers cared for the afflicted, framing epidemics not as policy failures but divine trials testing communal piety.[21] Dissenting views, such as those of 12th-century Waldensians, critiqued clerical wealth amid lay destitution but were suppressed, underscoring religion's role in stabilizing rather than upending social orders.Industrial and Modern Emergence
The Industrial Revolution, originating in Britain during the late 18th century and intensifying from the 1830s onward, precipitated widespread recognition of systemic societal dislocations as distinct from personal moral failings. Rapid mechanization and factory production drew millions from rural areas into urban centers, with England's urban population surpassing 50% by 1851, fostering overcrowded slums, contaminated water supplies, and recurrent epidemics such as cholera outbreaks in 1831–1832 and 1848–1849 that claimed tens of thousands of lives.[22] [23] These conditions, characterized by 16-hour workdays, child labor exploiting those under 10, and infant mortality rates exceeding 200 per 1,000 in industrial cities like Manchester, underscored causal links between economic transformation and collective harms, prompting parliamentary inquiries such as the 1831–1832 Sadler Committee, which documented worker testimonies on exploitation and deformities from machinery.[24] [25] Intellectual and literary responses formalized these as "social problems," evolving from the singular "social question" (Sozialfrage) in early 19th-century Europe—centered on wealth disparities amid proletarianization—to pluralized framings by mid-century. Friedrich Engels' 1845 analysis of Manchester's working-class districts detailed how factory proximity bred "fever districts" with death rates double the national average, attributing ills to capitalist organization rather than individual vice, influencing subsequent reformist thought.[26] Victorian "social problem novels," including Benjamin Disraeli's Sybil (1845) depicting class antagonism as "two nations" and Elizabeth Gaskell's Mary Barton (1848) exposing strike violence and pauperism, dramatized these dynamics, galvanizing public discourse and legislation like Britain's Factory Act of 1833, which restricted child labor under age 9.[27] [28] Continental parallels emerged, as in France's 1848 revolutions highlighting urban pauperism and Germany's 1870s state interventions under Otto von Bismarck to mitigate unrest through social insurance precursors.[29] In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, modernization amplified these recognitions through sociological institutionalization and progressive reforms, shifting analysis toward structural causation. The discipline of sociology, formalized by Auguste Comte in the 1830s but maturing with Émile Durkheim's 1897 treatise on suicide as a "social fact" tied to integration failures, provided frameworks for viewing anomie and division of labor as inherent to industrial societies.[30] In the United States, the Gilded Age's monopolistic excesses and immigrant influxes— with urban poverty rates hitting 20–30% in cities like New York by 1900—spurred muckraking exposés and the Progressive Era's interventions, including the 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire that killed 146 workers, catalyzing fire safety laws and labor unions.[31] This era marked social issues' transition to policy arenas, evidenced by the U.S. Census Bureau's 1890 declaration of the frontier's closure, signaling resource strains and calls for federal oversight of welfare and antitrust measures.[26]Post-WWII Expansion and Politicization
![Post-war housing reconstruction in Bremen-Vahr, Germany][float-right] Following World War II, Western governments expanded recognition of social issues through comprehensive welfare systems aimed at mitigating war-induced hardships such as displacement, poverty, and inadequate housing. In Europe, initiatives like Britain's National Health Service, established in 1948, institutionalized healthcare as a public entitlement to address widespread health disparities.[32] In the United States, the post-war economic boom reduced poverty rates from approximately 33% in 1945 while highlighting persistent inequalities, prompting federal responses including the GI Bill for veterans and suburban development to accommodate population growth.[33] These efforts reflected a shift toward viewing certain problems—previously treated as individual misfortunes—as collective responsibilities warranting state intervention, facilitated by affluence that allowed resources to be redirected from reconstruction to social programs.[34] Professionalization of fields addressing social issues accelerated, with the formation of the Council on Social Work Education in 1952 and the National Association of Social Workers in 1955 elevating social work to a structured discipline focused on systemic remedies.[35] The U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, created in 1953, centralized efforts to combat issues like child welfare and public health, expanding the scope of what constituted recognizable social problems beyond immediate war aftermath to include long-term societal inequities.[36] This era saw empirical data from post-war surveys underscore disparities, such as over 50% of rural homes lacking electricity in 1945, driving policy innovations like public housing projects that housed millions in rebuilt urban areas.[33] By the 1960s, these issues underwent significant politicization, as social movements leveraged them for ideological mobilization amid Cold War tensions and cultural upheavals. Civil rights activism, culminating in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, elevated racial discrimination from localized concerns to national political battlegrounds, with protests and legislation dividing public opinion along partisan lines.[37] President Lyndon B. Johnson's War on Poverty, launched in 1964 via the Economic Opportunity Act, introduced programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Food Stamps, explicitly framing poverty—then affecting about 19% of Americans—as a structural failure amenable to federal redistribution, intensifying debates over government roles versus personal agency.[35] [38] Counterculture and anti-war movements further politicized issues like youth alienation and military conscription, with television amplifying visuals of urban riots, Vietnam War casualties, and poverty, fostering a narrative of systemic malaise that permeated academic sociology.[39] C. Wright Mills' 1959 concept of the "sociological imagination," linking personal troubles to public issues, gained traction, encouraging analyses that prioritized institutional critiques over individual behaviors, though critics noted this paradigm often downplayed empirical evidence of behavioral causation in favor of conflict-oriented frameworks.[40] This shift coincided with left-leaning dominance in social sciences, where sources like university departments increasingly emphasized position-based politics, contributing to polarized policy responses and the rise of identity-framed grievances.[38] By decade's end, social issues had evolved from technocratic welfare targets to instruments of cultural and electoral contention, evident in backlash against Great Society expansions and the era's profound societal divisions.[41]Theoretical Frameworks
Valence Versus Position Issues
In political theory, valence issues refer to policy domains where the electorate exhibits near-universal agreement on the desired end-state, such as economic prosperity or public safety, with electoral competition centering on the perceived competence of actors to deliver those outcomes rather than fundamental disagreements over goals.[42][43] Position issues, by contrast, involve polarized preferences regarding the objectives themselves, where voters and parties diverge on what constitutes a preferable policy direction, such as the appropriate extent of government redistribution or regulatory intervention in markets.[42] This distinction, originating in spatial models of voting behavior, underscores that valence dimensions emphasize performance evaluations over ideological positioning, influencing how issues gain traction in democratic contests.[44] Applied to social issues, many qualify as valence concerns when public consensus prioritizes mitigation of harms like family breakdown or rising crime rates, shifting debates toward efficacy of interventions—such as enforcement strategies versus rehabilitative programs—rather than rejection of the harms outright.[45][43] For instance, widespread opposition to child poverty or substance abuse epidemics reflects valence agreement on eradication, yet disputes arise over causal attributions and remedies, with evidence indicating that competence perceptions on these fronts drive voter alignments more than abstract stances.[46] Position issues emerge in social domains entailing trade-offs in values, such as debates over immigration assimilation policies or educational curricula emphasizing traditional versus progressive norms, where factions advocate incompatible end-states informed by differing empirical priors on societal cohesion.[47] The valence-position framework aids in dissecting social issue dynamics by highlighting how apparent consensus on valence matters can mask underlying position-based conflicts over implementation, particularly when institutional biases skew competence assessments—evident in studies of Western democracies where parties leverage valence appeals to sidestep divisive positions.[47] Empirical analyses, including panel data from elections, reveal that valence evaluations correlate more strongly with vote shifts on social welfare topics like unemployment reduction than do position alignments, suggesting that effective policy scrutiny requires isolating competence from ideological posturing.[48] This lens promotes causal realism in social issue theorizing by directing attention to verifiable outcomes over rhetorical framing, though critiques note that valence consensus may erode under measurement scrutiny revealing latent divisions.[49]Objective Versus Subjective Evaluations
Objective evaluations of social issues prioritize empirical, verifiable indicators of harm, dysfunction, or societal cost, independent of individual or collective perceptions. These include quantifiable metrics such as crime victimization rates, disease prevalence, or family dissolution statistics that demonstrate tangible impacts on human welfare and social order. For example, the objective harm from substance dependencies is evidenced by data showing over 100,000 drug overdose deaths in the United States in 2021, primarily from opioids, correlating with increased emergency room visits and economic burdens exceeding $1 trillion annually in healthcare and lost productivity. Such measures allow for causal analysis grounded in observable outcomes, like elevated child poverty rates (21% in single-parent households versus 4% in married-couple families) linked to family structure disruptions, rather than relying on interpretive claims. Subjective evaluations, by contrast, emphasize perceived threats, moral valuations, and public sentiment, often derived from surveys, media narratives, or advocacy claims that may amplify or distort underlying conditions. These assessments treat social issues as socially constructed through processes of definition and claims-making, where a condition gains problem status based on collective concern rather than inherent severity. In sociology, this aligns with constructionist perspectives, which posit that issues like homelessness become "problems" not solely due to objective metrics (e.g., 580,000 unsheltered individuals in the U.S. on a single night in 2020) but through subjective mobilization by interest groups.[50] However, subjective views can decouple from reality; for instance, public perceptions of rising crime often peak during media-saturated periods despite declining objective rates, as seen in Gallup surveys from the 1990s to 2010s where fear levels rose amid falling violent crime by over 50%. The tension between these approaches affects policy prioritization and analysis. Objectivist frameworks demand thresholds of widespread harm—such as epidemiological data on health disparities or econometric models of economic drag from low workforce participation—before deeming an issue social in scope, fostering evidence-based interventions. Subjective elements, while useful for gauging legitimacy and mobilization, risk bias from institutional influences; mainstream media and academic sources, often exhibiting ideological skews toward certain narratives, may elevate perceptually salient but empirically marginal concerns (e.g., overemphasizing identity-based grievances amid stagnant mobility data).[51] Empirical studies indicate that objective indicators better predict long-term societal costs, as subjective social status correlates weakly with actual outcomes like wealth accumulation compared to income-based measures.[52] Integrating both, with primacy to objective data, supports causal realism by distinguishing verifiable dysfunction from constructed urgency, though constructionist accounts from sociology texts warrant scrutiny for underplaying inherent harms in favor of definitional processes.[8]Causal Realism in Analysis
Causal realism asserts that causation in social domains operates through identifiable mechanisms and powers inherent to social entities, enabling rigorous analysis of how factors produce outcomes in issues like inequality or disorder. This framework rejects purely associational accounts, insisting instead on tracing processes such as feedback loops in institutions or normative influences on behavior that generate persistent social patterns. Empirical validation requires methods that approximate experimentation, confirming that purported causes genuinely intervene in the causal chain rather than merely covary.[53][54] In dissecting social issues, causal realism prioritizes mechanisms over abstract structures, evaluating whether elements like policy incentives or cultural transmissions directly propel phenomena such as rising single parenthood rates, which reached 40% in the U.S. by 2020 and correlate with intergenerational poverty persistence. For instance, longitudinal data from twin studies demonstrate that genetic and environmental behavioral factors, including impulsivity and educational attainment, causally mediate economic outcomes more robustly than aggregate inequality metrics alone. This approach exposes limitations in structural explanations, which often conflate correlation with causation; randomized evaluations of antipoverty programs, such as the 1990s Moving to Opportunity experiment, revealed no broad causal reductions in distress despite relocation from high-poverty areas, underscoring unaddressed individual-level mechanisms.[55][56] Analyses grounded in causal realism must contend with source biases, as academic and media institutions frequently amplify unverified structural attributions—e.g., framing disparities solely as discrimination artifacts—while downplaying agency-driven causes like work ethic variations, evidenced by labor market experiments showing skill mismatches as primary barriers over bias. Rigorous causal inference, via techniques like regression discontinuity designs applied to welfare reforms, has quantified how benefit cliffs disincentivize employment, with U.S. data from the 1996 reform indicating a 10-15% employment rise among affected single mothers due to altered incentives. Such findings demand skepticism toward ideologically favored narratives lacking counterfactual controls, favoring instead mechanism-based interventions that target verifiable causal pathways.[57][58]Etiology and Causes
Individual Agency and Behavior
Individual agency encompasses the capacity of persons to make autonomous decisions that influence personal outcomes and, in aggregate, contribute to broader social issues. Empirical research indicates that traits such as self-control and delayed gratification, which are amenable to individual effort, predict success in avoiding pathologies like substance abuse, educational underachievement, and criminal involvement. For instance, longitudinal studies following children who resisted immediate rewards in experimental settings have shown correlations with higher academic performance and lower rates of behavioral problems in adulthood, underscoring how personal restraint can mitigate risks of social dysfunction.[59][60] Replications of these findings, while noting moderating factors like socioeconomic status, affirm that individual behavioral choices remain pivotal even amid environmental constraints.[61] In the domain of family formation, individual decisions regarding marriage, cohabitation, and childbearing exert causal influence on social stability. Data reveal that children raised in intact, two-parent households experience lower incidences of poverty and delinquency compared to those in single-parent arrangements, with non-marital births—often resulting from uncoordinated personal choices—elevating risks of intergenerational disadvantage.[62] This pattern holds across datasets, where the refusal to commit to stable partnerships correlates with heightened family breakdown, which in turn amplifies crime rates through diminished parental supervision and moral guidance.[63] Twin studies further illuminate this by estimating heritability in mate selection and reproductive behaviors at moderate levels (around 20-40%), leaving substantial variance attributable to non-shared environmental factors and deliberate choices, rather than deterministic genetics or uniform family environments.[64][65] Criminal behavior exemplifies agency in its most direct form, as offenses typically stem from volitional acts rather than inexorable external forces. Victimization surveys and offender self-reports demonstrate that personal moral lapses and impulsivity drive participation in violence and theft, with family instability—itself a product of prior individual decisions—serving as a proximal enabler rather than a root excuse.[62] Behavioral genetic analyses, including twin comparisons, attribute 40-60% of variance in antisocial conduct to heritable predispositions, yet the remainder reflects unique experiences and choices, affirming that interventions targeting personal accountability yield reductions in recidivism beyond structural reforms alone.[65] Similarly, in economic spheres, habits like consistent employment and financial prudence, forged through individual discipline, distinguish trajectories out of poverty, countering narratives that overemphasize systemic barriers while underplaying volitional factors.[66] These patterns highlight causal realism: while biology and context shape propensities, observable social issues arise from the summation of accountable human actions.Cultural and Moral Factors
Cultural shifts toward moral relativism and away from traditional ethical frameworks have been linked to diminished personal accountability, contributing to behaviors that exacerbate social issues such as family disruption and crime. Empirical analyses indicate that the decline in adherence to absolute moral standards, often accompanying secularization, correlates with reduced social cohesion and higher incidences of deviant behavior; for instance, societies with stronger communal moral norms exhibit lower rates of family breakdown, which in turn mitigates pathways to poverty and criminality.[67][68] The erosion of traditional values emphasizing marital permanence and familial duty has directly fueled rises in divorce and single parenthood, with data showing that children from intact, two-parent households experience poverty rates approximately 80% lower than those from single-parent families.[69][70] This cultural de-emphasis on lifelong commitment, evident in the U.S. where out-of-wedlock births rose from 5% in 1960 to over 40% by 2020, perpetuates cycles of economic disadvantage and behavioral issues, as single-parent structures correlate with elevated juvenile delinquency risks due to weakened moral guidance and supervision.[68][71] Moral factors, including the cultural normalization of relativism over objective ethics, undermine inhibitions against antisocial conduct; studies attribute up to 90% of the variance in violent crime rates among demographics to family structure instability rather than socioeconomic status alone, implying that cultural endorsements of individualism superseding collective moral responsibilities amplify such outcomes.[62][72] In regions with persistent traditional moral cultures, like certain immigrant communities maintaining strong familial ethics, crime involvement remains notably lower despite economic pressures, highlighting causality rooted in value systems rather than material conditions.[63][73] Furthermore, the retreat from religious moral anchors, which historically provided frameworks for self-control and community accountability, aligns with empirical patterns of heightened substance dependencies and identity conflicts; cross-national data reveal that higher secularization tracks with increased relativism, fostering environments where subjective evaluations override evidence-based behavioral norms, thus sustaining broader social pathologies.[74][75]Structural and Institutional Contributors
Welfare systems, intended to support vulnerable populations, have inadvertently altered family formation incentives by substituting state aid for traditional spousal or paternal economic roles, leading to higher rates of single motherhood and reduced marriage. Empirical analyses indicate that means-tested benefits correlate with a decline in marriage among low-income groups, as benefits phase out sharply with household income, effectively penalizing two-parent households.[76] [77] Studies of welfare participation show it reduces the hazard ratio of transitioning to marriage by approximately 33% during receipt periods.[78] In the U.S., the expansion of such programs from the 1960s onward coincided with nonmarital birth rates rising from 5% in 1960 to over 40% by 2010, with evidence linking aid generosity to fertility decisions outside marriage.[66] Family law reforms, particularly the adoption of unilateral no-fault divorce statutes, lowered barriers to marital dissolution, contributing to elevated divorce rates and subsequent child instability. California's 1969 law, the first in the nation, preceded a national trend; event-study designs reveal divorce rates surged by up to 10-15% in the three years post-reform in adopting states.[79] [80] This institutional change, by removing fault requirements and enabling divorce without spousal consent, facilitated a doubling of U.S. divorce rates from 2.2 per 1,000 in 1960 to 5.2 per 1,000 by 1980, with long-term effects on family cohesion despite some stabilization after a decade.[81] Public education institutions, characterized by centralized control and teachers' union influence, have perpetuated skill gaps through inadequate instructional focus and resource misallocation, hindering economic and social mobility. U.S. students' math proficiency fell to 26% at grade level in 2023 per NAEP data, with low-income districts showing wider disparities due to chronic underperformance in core subjects.[82] [83] Bureaucratic structures and resistance to accountability measures, such as performance-based funding, correlate with stagnant outcomes; for instance, socioeconomic achievement gaps persist from kindergarten entry, widening over time in under-resourced systems.[84] [85] Regulatory frameworks imposed by government agencies erect barriers to entrepreneurship and labor market entry, exacerbating economic inequality and reducing intergenerational mobility. Occupational licensing requirements, expanded since the 1950s, now cover 25% of U.S. jobs, disproportionately affecting low-skill workers and correlating with a 1940-1980 mobility decline from 90% to 50% of children out-earning parents.[86] [87] Zoning and land-use regulations further stifle housing supply and geographic mobility, with states like California seeing interstate migration drop 50% since 1990, limiting access to opportunity-rich areas.[88] These institutional rigidities, often justified as protective, empirically constrain small business formation, where regulatory compliance costs average $12,000 annually for startups.[86]Economic and Technological Pressures
Economic pressures, including wage stagnation and escalating housing costs, have contributed to delayed family formation and declining fertility rates, straining demographic stability. In the United States, the fertility rate reached a record low of approximately 1.62 births per woman in 2024, coinciding with housing prices that have outpaced wage growth for decades, making homeownership and child-rearing less feasible for younger adults.[89] Similar patterns appear internationally; in South Korea, the total fertility rate fell from 1.24 in 2015 to 0.72 in 2023 amid a sharp rise in urban housing costs, which empirical studies link to reduced childbearing decisions due to financial burdens on space and stability.[90] These dynamics exacerbate family disruptions, as economic hardship correlates with higher relationship instability in cohabiting and married couples, per longitudinal data on socioeconomic status and family processes.[91] Job displacement from globalization and automation further intensifies inequality and social strain, particularly for low-skilled workers. Automation is projected to displace around 85 million jobs globally by 2025, though it may create 97 million new ones, often requiring skills mismatches that leave displaced workers in prolonged unemployment or underemployment.[92] Combined with globalization's offshoring effects, this has accelerated income polarization; for instance, artificial intelligence could impact nearly 40% of worldwide jobs, widening gaps between high- and low-wage earners and eroding community ties in affected regions.[93] Such economic dislocation drives crime rates, as poverty and inequality serve as key predictors; studies show that resource deprivation prompts survival-oriented criminal behavior, with socioeconomic exclusion correlating to higher antisocial activities and reduced social trust.[94][95] Technological advancements, notably social media proliferation, impose additional pressures by undermining mental health and social cohesion. Excessive social media use among adolescents is associated with elevated risks of depression, anxiety, and suicidality, with systematic reviews indicating stronger correlations for platforms emphasizing comparison and validation metrics like likes.[96][97] For Gen Z, heavy engagement often amplifies negative self-perception and isolation, despite some benefits in peer support, contributing to broader societal issues like increased substance dependencies and identity conflicts.[98] These effects compound economic stressors, as tech-driven job shifts leave individuals more vulnerable to addictive digital escapes that erode real-world relationships and civic engagement.[99]Major Categories
Family and Demographic Disruptions
Global fertility rates have declined sharply over recent decades, falling from 4.9 children per woman in the 1950s to 2.3 in 2023, with projections indicating further drops that will push many nations below the replacement level of 2.1.[100] [101] In the United States, the general fertility rate decreased 1% from 2023 to 2024, reaching 53.8 births per 1,000 females aged 15–44.[102] This trend, observed across regions including Europe and Asia, stems from factors such as delayed childbearing, economic costs of raising children, and cultural shifts prioritizing individual career and lifestyle choices over family formation.[103] The rise in family instability exacerbates these demographic pressures. In the US, the percentage of children living in single-parent households nearly tripled from 9% in 1960 to 25% in 2023, predominantly in mother-only arrangements.[104] Divorce rates, while declining from 4.0 per 1,000 population in 2000 to 2.4 in 2022, have left a cumulative impact: the share of ever-married women who are separated or divorced rose from under 1% in 1900 to 20% in 2022.[105] [106] Children in such households face elevated risks, including higher poverty rates—nearly 30% live below the poverty line compared to intact families—and poorer outcomes in physical health, academic performance, and social-emotional development.[107] [108] Studies consistently show that children from intact, married biological-parent homes exhibit better well-being across metrics like school achievement and mental health, with single-parent family increases linked to higher child mortality and behavioral issues.[75] [109] These disruptions contribute to broader demographic imbalances, particularly population aging and shrinking workforces. Low fertility shifts dependency ratios, with fewer working-age individuals supporting a growing elderly population; by 2100, regions like Europe could see youth scarcity amplifying economic strains on pensions and healthcare.[110] [111] In high-income countries, fertility below replacement levels since the 1970s has led to projected population declines without immigration offsets, raising challenges for labor markets, innovation, and fiscal sustainability.[112] Family breakdown compounds this by correlating with lower future fertility among affected children, perpetuating cycles of smaller cohorts and heightened social service demands.[69]Crime and Public Order
In Western societies, crime rates surged in the wake of the 2020 social unrest and pandemic disruptions, with violent offenses such as homicides rising by approximately 30% in major U.S. cities during 2020-2021 compared to pre-2020 baselines.[113] This spike correlated with reductions in proactive policing following movements advocating for decreased law enforcement budgets and presence, which empirical reviews link to subsequent increases in disorder-related crimes.[114] By 2024, U.S. violent crime had declined nationally by an estimated 4.5% from 2023 levels, including a 15-17% drop in murders and non-negligent manslaughters, though aggravated assaults remained slightly elevated relative to 2019.[115] [116] Property crimes followed a similar pattern in the U.S., falling 8.1% in 2024 amid broader declines in motor vehicle thefts by nearly 20%, yet public reports of retail theft epidemics—such as organized shoplifting rings in urban centers—persisted, contributing to business closures and heightened perceptions of insecurity.[117] In Europe, trends diverged with property offenses rising in 2023: thefts increased by 4.8%, robberies by 2.7%, and burglaries by 4.2% across the EU, while intentional homicides edged up 1.5%.[118] [119] Countries like France and Sweden recorded elevated crime indices, with urban areas facing persistent challenges from gang-related violence and opportunistic theft.[120] Overall, U.S. homicide rates remained substantially higher than European averages, at around 5-6 per 100,000 versus under 2 per 100,000, reflecting entrenched disparities in violent crime prevalence.[121] Public order disruptions compounded these issues, particularly in urban settings where homelessness intertwined with open drug use and vagrancy. In the U.S., nearly two-thirds of homeless individuals reported lifetime use of hard drugs like methamphetamine or opioids, fueling visible encampments, public intoxication, and associated petty crimes that eroded civic spaces.[122] Federal responses in 2025 prioritized enforcement against urban camping and public drug consumption, conditioning grants on local compliance to restore order.[122] Similar patterns emerged in European cities, where lax enforcement of anti-vagrancy laws correlated with rising disorder, though official statistics often undercaptured subjective safety declines reported by residents.[123]| Crime Type | U.S. Change 2023-2024 | EU Trend 2023 |
|---|---|---|
| Homicide | -15% to -17% | +1.5% |
| Violent Crime Overall | -4.5% | Stable to slight rise |
| Property Crime | -8.1% | +2.7% to +4.8% (thefts/burglaries) |
