In the first chapter of Social Problems, Joel Best asserts that identifying social problems
is more difficult than it may seem, despite the fact that “[m]ost people have a
commonsense notion of what the term means” (p. 3). While I think that his examination
here of the objectivist and subjectivist modes of interpreting social problems
makes some useful, clarifying observations (particularly about the three major
failings of the objectivist approach), I feel that much of his explication of
the social problems process is essentially built upon commonsense observations
and explanations. This became especially apparent to me in the longer second
chapter. His ten-page breakdown of grounds, warrants and conclusions, for example,
seems to assume that readers have no familiarity with the rhetorical structure
of Western arguments; it therefore feels full of commonsense details to this
Western reader. Later explanations about the interaction of different claims
seems similarly long-winded to me. I did not assume that claims about social
problems act in ways very different from the way Best describes them.
Did
anyone else read these chapters differently, or feel that Best explained his
subject matter in an enlightening way? Do you think they may be more
enlightening to people who have not already taken most of a class on social
problems? And if you do agree with me, do you think that these commonsense explanations
are just part of a slow start to the book?
Hey Logan!
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the first two chapter of Best's book seem like very commonsense explanations. I think we both probably see the first chapters as commonsense explanations because we have been in a class talking about social problems. I did think that the breakdown of how we think about social problems and make claims is useful because it reminds one of the actual process that we go through to come up with these claims. This is useful just because most people, on a day-to-day basis, don't really think about the breakdown of what it is they are doing to make conclusions about social issues. I think as a start to the book Best had to put in these chapters just as an introduction to what he's talking about so he doesn't just jump into the deep end. But yes, I think he probably could have been a bit more brief in spelling out his arguments and giving most of his readers the benefit of the doubt that they, if they actually thought about it, could brak down what steps go into making a claim.