Unit 4:

Mapping the field: Competing Constructions

4.1 Natural/social
In the previous section we looked at the issue of competing explanations of social problems. Here
we want to take a rather different approach by starting from one of the major dividing lines
between different types of explanation. These dividing lines are ones that recur in the definition,
interpretation and explanation of a range of social issues: for example, patterns of inequality
between men and women; crime and juvenile delinquency; the persistence of poverty, and so on.
Despite the fact that we have referred to these topics as social issues or social problems, the most
basic dividing line between different social constructions is the distinction between the natural
and the social. This might seem slightly confusing, given our focus here on social issues, but
ideas about the natural basis of social arrangements or social problems are widespread. There are
many claims about social issues that begin with the formulation ‘It's only natural that …’. For
example, it's only natural that ‘men go out to work’, ‘boys will be boys’, ‘people will not trust
other races’, and so on.

If we consider this approach as a ‘social construction’ – a way of perceiving or

understanding the world – instead of exploring it in ways which seek to challenge or
confirm the ‘facts’ on which it is based, what effect would that have?

Ideas about the natural basis of society or of social problems within society refer us to a set of
claims about the universal laws of biology or evolution that determine how we might behave.
Such ideas often place an emphasis on competition, conflict and struggles for evolutionary
success (the ‘survival of the fittest’). They identify a range of attributes as the biological basis of
human society and often insist that these are unchanging and unchangeable. In claims about the
natural, biological attributes are often brought forward as explanations of social patterns. Thus,
biological differences between men and women are drawn upon to explain differences in social
behaviour or patterns of social inequality. Classically, women's biological capacity to bear
children (whether they do so in practice or not) has been held to account for a range of social
patterns. For example, for many years women's exclusion from education was justified on the
grounds that they didn't need to know anything beyond being a wife and mother, because
stimulation of the brain would drain energy that should be devoted to the tasks of reproduction.
Equally, men's behaviour has been interpreted as the product of biological forces and drives. For
instance, biologists have developed an approach known as ‘parental investment theory’ to explain
why women are monogamous home-builders while men are philandering adulterers. According
to this theory, the different ‘investments’ which eggs and sperm represent for the two sexes,
produces a different orientation to the genetic challenge of reproduction. Women invest
qualitatively (the best chance for a small number of eggs), while men invest quantitatively
(scattering their seed). Such distinctions between men and women have been held to account for
a variety of social differences – in attitudes, behaviour, sexuality, patterns of employment, levels
of income, involvement in politics, and so on (Barash, 1981; Wilson, 1981).

While there are many arguments about whether there is evidence to support this sort of
explanation, our main concern with it here is as a distinctive type of social construction. It centres
on the claim that our social world is formed and constrained by a variety of natural causes and
conditions. The emphasis on the natural in this form of social construction provides a strong
claim to authority and truth, by referring to a world of natural laws that are seen as universal and
immutable. As a consequence, many of the social constructions that refer to natural conditions or
causes tend to warn against attempts to change or tamper with these natural laws. Social
‘interference’ – for example, attempts to promote greater equality between men and women – is
likely to have undesirable and ‘unnatural’ consequences.

Where social constructions that centre on ‘nature’ tend to be resistant to change, social
constructions that centre on the ‘social’ conditions and causes of social issues tend to imply the
possibility of change, reform or improvement. An emphasis on the social character of social
arrangements suggests that such patterns might be re-arranged. Thus, if some forms of
undesirable behaviour – such as delinquent behaviour by young men – are defined as resulting
from following bad examples, this construction implies that the provision of better role models
would lead to improved behaviour. By contrast, ‘natural’ constructions would draw attention to
the biological or genetic basis of such behaviour – ‘boys will be boys’ – indicating little hope for
intervention or change.

Despite the distinction between ‘natural’ and ‘social’ here, both types of approach to social issues
are examples of social construction. Each provides a way into defining, interpreting and acting in
the social world that we inhabit. Each also provides a framework within which events, actions
and types of people become meaningful, and which allows us to position ourselves in relation to
them. However, the distinction between natural and social orientations is a significant one
because of their different explanations of social behaviour. Different policy conclusions will also
be drawn.

Figure 4: ‘Boys will be boys’, but perhaps in need of better role models?
4.2 Levels of explanation
The distinction between the natural and the social is not the only significant one. Even the
social orientation in constructions of social problems is complicated by different sorts of
emphasis. The growth of social science since the late nineteenth century has ensured that a
variety of competing theories, disciplines and perspectives are available to us in our attempt to
make sense of social problems. Such theories have made their way into the realm of everyday or
common-sense constructions – we all know bits of economic theory, bits of psychology and even
bits of sociology. For the purposes of this unit, the most useful way of distinguishing the
differences in this approach involves considering different levels of explanation.

Constructions that stress the ‘social’ conditions and causes of social issues might begin with the
level of the individual, looking at character, personality, aptitudes, etc. Others might focus on the
family or kin group of the individual – how he or she is socialised, what behaviours, values,
outlooks are learned or acquired in the family setting. The third level would then be the locality –
patterns of social networks, peer groups and other local influences. Beyond this, one might look
to constructions that deal with the culture of a particular society – its values, orientations and
how these are communicated (the role of the mass media, education system, and so on). Finally,
some explanations look to social structures for the causes and conditions of problems – how the
society is arranged, how the resources and power are distributed, and how inequality is organised.
Different perspectives are likely to emphasise different levels of explanation.

Activity 5
Let us take another social issue, unemployment. Using the grid below, write against each level of
explanation the factors you think would be important in constructing social explanations of
unemployment.
Explanation Factors
Individual:
Familial:
Locality:
Cultural:
Structural:

Figure 5: How is unemployment socially constructed?

Discussion

We would have completed the grid as follows, but you may have had different answers.

Explanation Factors
Explanations might address either the attitudes or capabilities of unemployed
Individual: individuals. Are they actively looking for work, or are they work avoiders? Have
they got the sorts of technical and social skills that employers are demanding?
Has their upbringing or socialisation prepared them adequately for the world of
Familial: work? Have they got the right outlook? Are there family networks that help or
hinder them in obtaining work?
Are there particular possibilities or problems in the local pattern of employment?
Are people part of a local culture which makes them less employable or less
Locality:
interested in work? Some people talk about local ‘cultures of poverty’ which pass
on attitudes that make people less likely to look for or get jobs.
Do values in the wider society stress the merits of being employed? Do they
Cultural:
promote responsibility? Or do they encourage dependency and idleness?
Whose interests are served by unemployment? Does unemployment make labour
Structural: cheaper or more manageable for employers? Why does the level or scale of
unemployment change in different periods?

We do not intend this to be an exhaustive survey of all the different types of social explanations
of unemployment, but we hope it illustrates the range and the way in which different levels
provide a focus for such social explanations. A similar exercise could be undertaken for ‘natural’
constructions of unemployment and its causes. Are some people ‘naturally’ lazy or resistant to
work? Is ‘human nature’ itself pleasure-seeking and work-avoiding? Do some people fail to
respond to the sticks and carrots needed to make people work?

4.3 Summary
In this section we have tried to sketch some of the main lines of division in social constructions
of social issues. The distinction between the natural and the social in constructing the causes that
underlie social issues is a profound and recurrent one. A ‘social’ orientation involves the
construction of social causes and conditions as the explanations for social issues. However, it is
also important to bear in mind that such an orientation will itself be complicated by differences of
perspective, particularly about the level of society upon which the construction focuses.