“Social problem is a generic term applied to a range of conditions and aberrant behaviours which are manifestations of social disorganization. It is a condition which most people in a society consider undesirable and want to correct by changing through some means of social engineering or social planning” (Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, 1994).

Let us first define a problem?

A problem is a condition of discontentment resented by someone. But when it is resented by many people, it becomes a social problem. For a problem to be social, it must involve a large number of people, sometimes groups and institutions, who consider a particular condition as undesirable and intolerable and want to correct through collective action.

Thus, not all problems are social, unless the discontented persons come in contact, and vocalize their discontentment and associate to do something for its solution. A problem becomes social when it is communi­cated to others and the activity of one person leads to similar activity of other persons. Thus, a social problem is different from an individual problem.

Individual problem is one which is felt by only one person or a small group of people. It does not affect the public at large. Its resolutions lie within the power and immediate milieu of the individual or group. A public issue however requires a collective approach for its solutions. No one individual or a few individuals are responsible for the appearance of a socially problematic situation and the control of this situation is also beyond the ability of one person or a few persons.

“Social problem is a generic term applied to a range of conditions and aberrant behaviours which are manifestations of social disorganization. It is a condition which most people in a society consider undesirable and want to correct by changing through some means of social engineering or social planning” (Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, 1994).

The concept of social problem was first developed by sociologists. Fuller and Myers in 1941. They defined it as ‘those conditions or situations which members of the society regard as a threat to their values’. Elucidating their ideas, they said at other place that it is ‘a condition which is defined by a considerable number of persons as a deviation from some social norms which they cherish’.

Reinhardt defined it as ‘a situation confronting a group or a section of society which inflicts injurious consequences that can be handled only collectively.’ Raab and Selznick (1959) hold that a social problem is ‘a problem of human relationship which seriously threatens society or impedes the important aspirations of many people’.

Merton and Nisbet (1961) have defined it as ‘a way of behaviour that is regarded by a substantial part of a social order as being in violation of one or more generally accepted or approved norms’. Walsh and Furfey have defined a social problem as a ‘devi­ation from the social ideal remediable by group effort’.

Horton and Leslie (1970) wrote that a social problem is ‘a condition which many people consider undesirable and want to correct. It is a condition affecting a significant number of people in ways considered undesirable, about which it is felt that something can be done through collective measures’.

Thus, in social problems two things must be present:

(1) An objective condition, like crime, poverty, communal tensions and so forth, the presence and magnitude of which can be observed, verified and measured by impartial social observers; and

(2) A subjective definition by some members of the society that the objective condition is a ‘problem’ and must be acted upon. Here is where values come into play. People start perceiving that some values are being threatened.

Elements of a Social Problems

Though the above cited definitions differ in ways these are explained, but the following important characteristics may be discerned from them:

1. A condition or situation resented as objectionable by a significant number of people.

2. It is considered as undesirable because of its injurious consequences.

3. All social problems want correction through collective action. They warrant change in conditions via some means of social engineering.

4. All aberrant behaviours or deviations from accepted norms are termed as social problems such as crime, juvenile delinquency, prostitution, rape, drug addiction, domestic violence, ethnic or communal tension.

5. Social problems are not static but change with the change in time and space. Changes in law and mores change the concept of social problem.

Recognizing an undesirable condition and defining it as a social problem are two different things. There can be disagreement if some people believe some condition or situation as undesirable but also think it unavoidable because it is a part of the human condition or the price we pay for ‘progress’ as we see in the case of environment imbalance caused by cutting of trees for constructing roads, dislodging people for constructing dams and canals, air and noise pollution due to increasing motor vehicles, rising rate of accidental deaths involving automobiles, etc.

The steadily rising rate of accidental deaths involving automobiles is long considered to be unavoidable but after effective criticism by many people, automobile safety became a social problem. In the initial stages of industrialization, development of slums and ghettos was also regarded as unavoidable and not a social problem.

People may not define a condition as a problem because it is desirable and natural, and not a threat to their values. Casteist/gender discrimination was not a problem for those who believe the castes/sexes to be naturally unequal. They would deny that differ­ential treatment is ‘discrimination’ (for them, integration is a threat to their values, and thus a social problem).

In reality, it requires a belief in equality in order to define discrimination as a problem. There are people who still do not believe that poverty is a social problem. They regard it as unavoidable fate of the masses. Poor people are to blame for their own condition of poverty. Such people define poverty as the personal failure of those who are poor, not a consequence of the arrangement of social structure.

But such old notions have changed in the modern societies and people started believing that something could be done about such condition and society (government) should take step to do something.

Sources of Social Problems

A perfectly integrated society has no social problem. But no society is perfect, and cannot be perfect, so Utopian expectations are unwarranted. The existence of social problems indicates some unsatisfactory and value-threatening aspects of an otherwise satisfactory society.

The sources of social problems are so many and may be grouped as under:

1. Social problems occur because modern society is so complex, and so intricate in its internal organization that an inconsistent and loosely meshed social structure cannot help but generate strains and social tensions. Most social problems are intricate and interwoven, like housing, poverty, unemployment, and inequality.

2. If modern society is highly productive and highly rewarding in status and material goods for so many, it still has a dark side to it. There are costs and casualties to any social system. It is often said that progress has its own price.

Many developmental schemes have brought different types of problems for the people, e.g., construction of dams on the rivers has displaced many persons from their villages. Similarly, construction of roads has forced cutting of trees which in turn has led to environmental degradation. Roads construction has also displaced many persons.

3. Social change continually alters social structure and therefore disrupts established relations among social groups (such as relationship between Gujjars and Meenas in Rajasthan), redefines social roles (such as between working husband and wife), and renders some beliefs and behaviour patterns outmoded or dysfunctional.

Types of Social Problems

Sociologists distinguish between two types of social problems. First, problems of social organization which are created by the way the community or the society is organized. Community or society produces situations that some members of the society refuse to accept as right or necessary or even inevi­table.

These are, for instance, communalism, casteism, regionalism, poverty, gender discrimination, population, environmental imbalance (different kinds of pollution, health hazards, etc.). Second, problems of deviance having to do with the adjustment of people to conventional ways of living.

These include, for example, delinquency, drug addiction, alcoholism, mental illness, various forms of sexual behaviour (rape, incest, sodomy), bigamy, prostitution, vandalism and host of other behaviours, most of which are forbidden by law.

Social problems have been analyzed scientifically. We will examine some of the theoretical approaches which present universal explanations for all types of social problems.

Social Disorganization Approach

Social disorganization is a condition of a society, community or group in which there is a breakdown of social control, or of a social order, or of formal and informal norms that define permissible behaviour. It is char­acterized by the lack of co-operation, common values, unity, discipline and predictability.

Warren (1949:83-87) has described it as a condition involving:

(a) Lack of consensus (disagreement about group purposes),

(b) Lack of integration of institutions (often working at cross purposes), and

(c) Inadequate means of social control (preventing individuals from playing their individual roles due to confusion).

Elliott and Merrill (1950:20) have defined it as a process by which relationships between members of a group are broken or dissolved. Social disorganization occurs when there is a change in the equilib­rium of forces, a breakdown of the social structure so that the former pat­terns no longer apply, and the accepted forms of social control no longer function effectively.

This disruptive condition of society, which is evi­denced by normlessness, role conflict, social conflicts, and demoralization, increases social problems. For example, increasing in­dustrialization, spread of education, and women taking up paid work have affected the relations between husband and wife, and between par­ents and children.

Many of the old norms which governed the intra-family and inter-family relations seem to have broken down. Many people feel frustrated and unhappy. This is the condition of social disor­ganization, in which changes in the basic conditions of life, causing breakdown of traditional norms, have resulted in widespread discontent­ment and disillusionment. In other words, change has disrupted the organization of the formal system of behaviour. Talking of social disor­ganization in slum life, Whyte (1955:268) has referred to deviant or non-approved group organization in slums.

However, according to one school of thought, the state of social dis­organization does not always create social problems. For example, during Hitler’s regime, Germany was not a disorganized society nor dur­ing Stalin’s regime, was the Soviet Union in a state of disorganization; yet many conditions in these countries were shocking “deviations from the social ideal, demanding social action”, that is, there were social problems.

Reacting to this view, some scholars say that even if the social disorganization theory may not explain all social problems, it does ex­plain some of the social problems, for example, mental illness may not be a symptom of a disorganized society but corruption in the society does lead to the malfunctioning of institutions, lack of perfect consensus and the evasion of social control by some citizens.

In employing the social disorganization approach to social problems (Horton and Leslie, 1970:33), one looks to factors like: What were the traditional norms and practices? What were the major changes that made them ineffective? What are the old rules which have broken down par­tially or completely? What is the nature and direction of social change? Who are the disgruntled groups and what solutions do they propose? How various do proposed solutions fit in with the trend of social change? What may become the accepted rules in the future?

Cultural Lag Approach

Culture lag is a situation in which some parts of a culture change at a faster rate than other related parts resulting in the disruption of integra­tion and equilibrium of the culture; for example, the material culture changes more rapidly than the non-material culture in industrial societies through rapid advances in science and technology (Ogburn, 1966).

The theory of culture lag, in particular holds that in modern societies there has been a tendency for change in the political, educational, family and religious institutions to fall behind technological changes. It is thus easy to see how culture lag can create social problems. Even after rapid indus­trialization in the last quarter of the nineteenth century and in the first quarter of the twentieth century, some people were so influenced by the rigid restrictions of the caste system that they refused to work with mem­bers of other castes in the industries and preferred to remain unemployed and poor.

The first quarter of the twentieth century, thus, remained a pe­riod of culture lag. It took more than a generation to adapt ourselves to technological development in agriculture and industry. Our social insti­tutions, thus, retained the traditional flavour whereas technology advanced in the world. Though the culture lag theory explains some of the social problems (like AIDS, population explosion, etc.), it does not explain all social problems. It, therefore, cannot be accepted as a universal explanation of all social problems.

Value Conflict Approach

A value is a generalized principle of behaviour to which the members of a group feel a strong, emotionally-toned positive commitment and which provides a standard for judging specific acts and goals. Each member of the group is expected to remain committed to the values accepted by the group. Values, thus, provide the generalized standards of behaviour. Ex­amples of values are equality, justice, communal harmony, patriotism, mobility, collectivism, compromise, sacrifice, adjustment and so forth. Because of the strong emotional feeling attached to values and because they serve as standards for judging concrete goals or actions, they are often regarded as absolute (Theodorson, 1969: 456).

Different groups have different systems of values. Incompatibility between the values of two or more groups to the extent that the role per­formance of individuals is interfered with is called ‘value conflict’. This state of conflict may last only a short while or it may be a persistent problem.

For example, conflict in values of workers and employers leads to industrial unrest, strikes and lockouts; or conflict in values between land owners and landless labourers leads to agrarian unrest or agricul­tural labourers’ movements; or the liberal businessmen may believe in encouraging hard work, thrift, honesty and ambition and may reward these virtues financially, but on the other hand, the conservatives may differ profoundly with this view and may believe in the profit motive and individual initiative. Liberals and conservatives thus differ not only on matters of policies but more profoundly on those of values.

The value conflict theorists like Waller, Fuller, Cuber and Harper hold that clashes in value system are of basic importance in the origin and development of social problems. Waller (1936:924) has referred to the conflict between ‘organizational’ and ‘humanitarian’ values. The former favour private property and individualism, while the latter are vo­taries of remedying the misfortunes of others. But this theoretical approach is too vague.

The pro-pounders have not explained their views in concrete details. It is true that our current values overemphasize money and material possessions and this attitude encourages corruption, smuggling, drug trafficking, black-marketing, and taking of bribes but problems like white-collar crime cannot be re­duced to a conflict of values.

The problem of divorce may be the result of value conflict but all family problems cannot be explained merely in terms of disagreements between husband and wife or parents and children. Agreement on common values helps in maintaining harmo­nious interpersonal relations in family or outside it but it is not the only thing needed for family stability or group success.

Thus, the value conflict theory may be useful in some areas like economics, in the analy­sis of social problems, but it certainly cannot be accepted as a universal explanation. On applying the value conflict approach, questions which are gener­ally asked (Horton and Leslie, 1970:40) are: What are the values that are in conflict? How deep is the value conflict? What groups in the society hold to each of the competing values? How powerful are they? Which values are more consistent with other larger values such as democracy and freedom? What value sacrifices would each solution require? Are some problems insoluble at present because of certain irreconcilable value conflicts?

Personal Deviation Approach

Deviation is non-conformity to social norms. It is different from abnor­mal behaviour because the latter connotes psychological illness rather than social maladjustment or conflict. Thus, people who deviate from social norms are not necessarily mentally ill. In the social disorganization approach to social problems, one looks to the rules that have broken down and the changes that have taken place because of the breaking of the rules. In personal deviation approach, one looks to the motivation and behaviour of the deviants who are instru­mental in causing the problems.

Two factors that need explanation in the personal deviation approach are:

(i) How does personal deviancy de­velop?

(ii) What types of personal deviation are frequently involved in social problems?

Personal deviancy develops because of either:

(a) An in­dividual’s inability to follow generally accepted norms, or

(b) An individual’s failure to accept generally accepted norms.

The first is caused because of a person’s emotional, social or biological deficiency, that is, some persons are so constituted biologically, emotionally, or so­cially that they are incapable of adhering consistently to generally accepted standards. The socially deficient do not truly violate norms; rather they manifest an inability to learn and follow the norms. The cause of emotional deficiency is bio-psychological. These deviants that constitute social problems and also contribute to problems often require medical, psychiatric and environmental or social therapies.

On the other hand, an individual’s failure to accept social norms has something to do with deficiency in socialization. These individuals, though have learnt the norms and values like honesty, truthfulness, integrity, justice and co­operation, they cannot put them into practice.

They remain disposed to telling lies, cheating, exploiting, and defaming others when it suits their pur­poses. Their deviance does not produce any guilt-feeling or shame in them. They may change sides abruptly and completely on a social issue if it serves their purpose. They care little whether social problems exist and whether they are solved or not so long the situation can be used for their vested interest.

Horton and Leslie (1970:35-36) have referred to three types of per­sonal deviations:

(i) Deviation that results from conformity to norms of diverse reference groups. Because of cultural variability, most people are exposed to different sets of norms that may be in conflict with one an­other. For example, a person may belong to one religion or caste but his professional role may literally force him to deviate from the norms of his religion/caste. Similarly, a clerk as well as an officer may accept bribe because it serves economic interests,

(ii) Deviation that results from the existence of deviant sub-cultures, for example, the criminal norms in slum areas of large cities,

(iii) Outright deviation from generally ac­cepted norms. Deliberately hiding one’s income while, filling income tax returns provides a good example of this type of deviation.

In applying the personal deviation approach to social problems, the questions asked (Horton and Leslie, 1970:37) are: What deviant per­sons/groups are involved? Are deviants themselves the problem or they help creating the problem? What deviant sub-cultures are involved? What alternatives are there for dealing with the deviants?

Anomie Approach

This approach was propounded by Merton. Anomie is a condition char­acterized by the relative absence or weakening or confusion of norms and values in a society or a group. The concept of anomie was originally developed by Durkheim to explain division of labour and suicide but it was Merton who used this concept 41 years after the publication of Durkheim’s book Suicide to explain deviant behaviour in terms of functioning of social and cultural structures in the society (Merton, 1938:672-73). Anomie involves a breakdown in the cultural structure, occurring particularly when there is disjunction between cultural norms and goals and the socially structured capacities of members of the group to act in accordance with them.

Anomie is the counterpart of the idea of social solidarity. Just as so­cial solidarity is a state of collective ideological integration, anomie is a state of confusion, insecurity and normlessness. According to Merton, the disjunction between goals and means and the consequent strain leads to the weakening of men’s commitment to the culturally prescribed goals or institutionalized means, that is, to a state of anomie.

Merton maintains that people adapt themselves to this disjunction either by re­jecting the cultural goals or the institutionalized means or both. He gives four varieties of deviant behaviour. Merton, thus, locates the sources of strain not in the characteristics of individuals but in the culture and/or social structure.

He says, “the social problem arises not from people fail­ing to live up to the requirements of their social statuses but from the faulty organization of these statuses into a reasonably coherent social system” (Merton and Nisbet, 1971:823). However, Merton’s theory is incomplete and inadequate. All social problems cannot be perceived as the result of the responses to strains or mode of adaptation and adjustment.

Broadly, social problems can be divided into two types. Social problems at the individual level and social problems at the collective level. Social problems at the individual level include juvenile delinquency, drug addiction, suicide etc. Social problems at the collective level emerge when the mechanisms of social control fail to regulate the behaviour of its members or when there is breakdown of effective institutional functioning. For example, poverty, exploitation, population explosion, untouchability, famine, floods etc.

Social problems can also be divided into following types in relation to their causative factors:

1. Social problems due to social factors.
2. Social problems due to cultural factors.
3. Social problems due to economic factors.
4. Social problems due to political and legal factors.
5. Social problems due to ecological factors.

Social Problems Due to Social Factors

The nature of heterogeneous societies has been the cause of a number of social problems. In heterogeneous societies like India, where there are people of several religions, castes, linguistic groups and tribal groups living together, several types of social problems can be seen.

The conflict among the different religious groups has given rise to the problem of communalism. In India, Hindu-Muslim conflict has been a major problem. We have also seen conflict between Hindus and Sikhs and between Hindus and Christians. Similarly, the caste system in India has divided the society into various groups. It has led to the discrimination of one group by the other. The problem of untouchability in India is due to the caste system. Caste system is also responsible for the educational backwardness of the country. Traditionally, the caste determined the eligibility of the people for education. In the traditional system, education was considered to be the prerogative of the upper castes. As a result, the masses were deprived of education. This explains the high rate of illiteracy in India.

Another social factor that may lead to social problem is language. In a country where several languages are spoken, conflict between different linguistic groups can be seen. In India, we have experienced the conflict between different linguistic groups. For example, in Assam and Tamil Nadu.

Social Problems Due to Cultural Factors

Several cultural factors have been responsible for a number of social problems. In a traditional society like India, some of the cultural factors that have led to social problems are:

• Male child preference,
• Patriarchal system,
• Lack of regard for public property.

In India the value system is such that a son in the family is considered necessary. It is desirable to have more sons. As a result, the members in the family go on multiplying. This has led to population explosion. The population in India has grown at a phenomenal rate after independence. At present, the population of the country is well beyond one billion that makes India the second most populated country of the world.

As elsewhere in the world, Indian society, by and large, has been patriarchal where woman is subjected to man. They are not seen beyond the roles of a wife or a mother. The woman is given an inferior social status to that of a man in almost every walk of life. As a result, almost half of the population has remained deprived. This deprivation is compounded when the woman belongs to the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe.

Another trait of the Indian society that has implications for corruption is the disregard for public property. This lack of respect for public property is one of the root causes of corruption, black money, tax evasion, misappropriation of public goods and use of substandard materials in public construction.

Social Problems Due to Economic Factors

Economic factors are also responsible for some of the major social problems being faced by the contemporary society. It is more conspicuous in societies of developing countries like India. Unequal distribution of wealth has led to disparity in the distribution of benefits occurring due to development. As a result there is the problem of poverty. Poverty in turn aggravates other problems like high morbidity and mortality, crime, slum, illiteracy, etc.

Further, the process of urbanisation and industrialisation in India has been very slow. This has resulted in regional disparity in economic development. There are pockets of development where high level of urban and industrial growth can be seen. However, the other regions are still under-developed. It has attracted large number of people to migrate from the under-developed region to the developed region. This in turn has affected the population structure of both the regions. In addition to it, the regions receiving the migrants are facing the problems of slum, congestion, unemployment, pollution, etc.

Social Problems Due to Political and Legal Factors

Some of the political factors that may cause social problems include electoral politics, political functioning, corruption, etc. In order to win elections and come to power, political parties do not shy away from using communal or parochial modes of mobilisation like caste, religion, and language. Even some of the decisions taken by the ruling party may lead to social problem as they may benefit a particular section of the society at the cost of the entire society. It may result in conflict between different sections of the society. Another problem is the increasing political corruption. Leaders are found indulging in nepotism and red-tapism. They are also seen accepting money in return of some favour.

Social Problems Due to Ecological Factors

Earlier, in an attempt to develop rapidly, environment was grossly ignored. The ecological consequence of such an attempt has now emerged as a major social problem. Rapid industrialisation has led to increase in environmental pollution that includes air pollution, water pollution, noise pollution, and degradation and desertification of the land. This in turn has led to increased morbidity and mortality, emergence of new types of diseases, global warming, ozone depletion, floods etc. that has threatened the existence of mankind itself. Further, to feed the increasing population of the world more and more land is being brought under cultivation. This has disturbed the global ecological balance. Application of modern technological inputs in agriculture like the pesticides, weedicides, insecticides, high yielding variety of seeds, genetically modified crops are threatening the biodiversity of the world. It has also increased the probability of the emergence of super weeds and insects that may be beyond the human control.