LOURDES COLLEGE, INC.

General Capistrano Street, Cagayan de Oro City

Higher Education Department
Social Work Program

Philippine Social Realities and Social Welfare (SW 102)

2nd Semester, S.Y. 2024 – 2025

PART I - BASIC CONCEPTS: DEFINITION OF SOCIAL WELFARE, SOCIAL SERVICES, SOCIAL

REALITIES AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS

Social Work – is the profession which is primarily concerned with organized social service
activity aimed at facilitating and strengthening basic social relationships and the mutual adjustment
between individuals and their social environment for the good of the individual and of society by the use
of social work methods. (R.A. No. 4373)

Social Welfare – broadly speaking, it is an organized system of social services and institutions
designed to aid individuals, groups and communities to attain satisfying standards of life and health, and
personal and social relationships which permit them to develop their full capacities, and to promote their
well-being in harmony with the needs of their families and the community. (Walter Friedlander) It covers
practically everything that men do for the good of society. Gertrude Wilson characterizes social welfare as
an organized concern of all people for all people. According to Elizabeth Wickenden, social welfare
includes those laws, programs, benefits and services, which assure or strengthen provisions for meeting
social needs recognized as basic to the well-being of the population and the better functioning of the
social order. (Thelma Lee- Mendoza Revised Edition)

Social welfare – are preventive and developmental interventions that seek to support the
minimum basic requirements of the poor, particularly the poorest of the poor, and reduce risks associated
with unemployment, resettlement, marginalization, illness, disability, old age and loss of family care.
Social welfare and assistance programs usually comprise direct assistance in the form of cash or in-kind
transfers to the poorest and marginalized groups, as well as social services including family and
community support, alternative care and referral services. (The Philippines Social Protection Framework
and Strategy: An overview by Undersecretary Florita R. VIllar of DSWD)

Social Services – in a very general sense refers to those organized activities that are primarily and
directly concerned with the conservation, the protection, and the development of human beings; e.g
health, education, welfare. (Dictionary of Social Work, Philippine setting by Leonora Serafica-de
Guzman). Social Welfare would be a meaningless term unless there is concrete demonstration of its
“concern for the well-being of human society through actual social services.

Social Services refer to the variety of programs, projects and activities made available by public
or private agencies to individuals and families needing assistance. Social Welfare services are actions or
procedures that cover the basic well-being of the individuals and society. They may be provided as a
citizenship right or negotiated in the market, and managed by governments and institutions or private
sectors.

Reality is the sum or aggregate of all that is real or existent within a system, as opposed to that
which is only imaginary. The term is also used to refer to the ontological status of things, indicating their
existence. In physical terms, reality is the totality of a system, known and unknown. (Wikipidia)
 Social reality is distinct from biological reality or individual cognitive reality, representing as it
does a phenomenological level created through social interaction and thereby transcending individual
motives and actions. (Wikipidia)

The Nature of Social Problems

What is a Social Problem?

Reab and Zelznick (1961) define social problem as “a problem in human relationships which
seriously threatens society or impedes the important aspirations of many people.”

Mckee and Robertson (1975) state that a social problem exists when a significant number of
people or a number of significant people, perceive an undesirable difference between social ideals and
social realities, and believe that this difference can be eliminated by collective action.

One can note that this definition actually contains several ideas which Mckee and Robertson
enumerate and explain as follows:

1.​ Social problems involve the subjective perception of an objective condition.

For a social problem to exist, there must be a real, objective condition, such as crime,
drug abuse or poverty. But the mere existence of such condition is not enough to make it a
social problem. According to him, there must be a subjective response in people’s minds; they
must perceive the condition as presenting a problem. Public perception of a social problem
depends to a great extent on the visibility of the condition in question. For this reason, groups
that are newly aware of their disadvantaged condition often take dramatic action to bring their
plight to public attention. Movements, like women’s liberation, have attempted to attract
public attention by unusual methods, for their adherents realize that unless the situation they
complain of is widely perceived as a social problem, no social action will be taken to solve it.
The visibility of a social problem depends too on the willingness of the mass media to
develop publicity to it.

2.​ Social problems involve a gap between social ideals and social reality.

All social problems involve a widespread perception of the difference between the
real – what is – and the ideal – what ought to be. The ideals of any society are based on the
values and attitudes of its people. Values are shared ideas about what is desirable, such as
belief in the sanctity of marriage, equal opportunity, etc. Attitudes are predispositions to
respond favorably toward particular people, events, or situations – such as feeling of
prejudice against an ethnic group. Because social values and attitudes are continually
changing, the gap between particular social ideals and particular social realities also changes.
Sometimes closing, sometimes widening – it results in the emergence of new social problems
and the disappearance of old ones.

The problem of environmental pollution provides an example of how changing

values and attitudes contribute to the emergence of a new social problem. We are now aware
of environmental pollution and take a very unfavorable attitude toward industrial pollutants.
The result is that environmental pollution, a subject that did not appear as a social problem a
few years ago, is now regarded as a critical social problem.
 3.​ Social problems must be perceived as problems by a significant number of people or by a
number of significant people.

No matter how undesirable a social condition may seem to a few people, it cannot be
regarded as a social problem until it is subjectively received as such as either by a significant
proportion of the population or by a number of people who occupy positions of power and
influence in society.

For example, the problem of juvenile delinquency reveals the importance both of
significant numbers of people and of numbers of significant people in leading public opinion
to perceive a social condition as a social problem and then to confront that problem by
collective action. Mckee and Robertson entertain the view that a few highly significant
individuals – a president or a pope – can place a “new” social problem before a population in
a single speech.

4.​ Social problems must be regarded as a capable of solution through collective action.

All societies experience social conditions that they recognize as undesirable, such as
disease, war, or a fume. But is only when people believe that they have the capacity to do
something about these conditions that the conditions are regarded as social problems.

Collective action may take many forms. In the extreme case, it can involve public
demonstrations, violence or even revolution, but more commonly it involves the efforts of
interest groups to inform, the public of the issues at stake and to persuade those in positions
of authority to make the necessary changes. Sometimes those authorities take the initiative
themselves; usually, however pressure of public opinion is necessary to provoke specific
changes. Solutions to social problems are rarely based on any one strategy or approach, but
legislative action is often a vital element in the process.

Reference: Contemporary Social Problems and Issues, Third Edition 1997 (Custodiosa A.
Sanchez and Fe B. Agpaoa) P

PART II – PERSPECTVES IN ANAYZING SOCIAL REALITIES

The evolutionary Theories

Early social scientists, particularly sociologists like Auguste Comte. Herbert Spertcer, Karl Marx,
Edward Tylor and others were influenced in their theorizing about society by the ideas of evolution as
profounded by Charles Darwin. Some held that society underwent a progressive development or unilinear
evolution toward progress. Some maintained a cyclical theory of social change. Others attributed the
factors or determinants of social change to an economic, demographic, geographic, racial, technological
or ideological factor. Others like Comte held at pluralistic. The main thesis in evolutionary theories is that
human societies developed from the simple or primitive condition to more complex or civilized forms and
passed through certain stages in the process. Models in the study of modernity go back to the
evolutionism of Spence and Durkheim concerning the process of change in terms of increasing social
differentiation and complexity.

Emile Durkheim’s Theory of Social Change

 A notable example of a social theorist who wrote within the evolutionary tradition was Emile
Durkheim. His ideas did not subscribe to the unilinear progression but rather to the notion of
everincreasing society’s complexity and relatedness. Durkheim held that societies grow from simple to
highly complex social organizations and accompanied by social cultural changes. He dichotomized these
societies into those characterized by mechanical and organic solidarity. In his book, On the Division of
Labor in Society (1964), he traced the development of social solidarity within human society, it must be
pointed out that evolutionism did not dominate Durkheim’s thought (Timasheff 1957:117). His insights
and interpretation of the process of increasing social complexity and social differentiation opened up a
basic and major approach toward the understanding of change in society.

Comparing archaic or primitive societies and advanced societies, Durkheim showed certain
differences, especially in the type of solidarity.

Primitive societies are usually small, consisting only of families and class with little division of
labor. The members are bound by common norms, values, ideas, outlooks and dialects, and thus become
similar. The similarity in behavior of the members is based on the likeness of and collective sentiments of
conscience which is the sum total of beliefs common to the average member of the society. The social
organization is integrated by a type of unity called mechanical solidarity. Under conditions of mechanical
solidarity, there are sanctions or means of social control to ensure conformity which are highly repressive
and primitive. The repressive, severe and punitive criminal law serves as a deterrent to violations of
norms and ensures mechanical solidarity.

In the process of social development from the archaic to the more complex, advanced structures,
there are certain social changes. There is a decline in the collective conscience and the uniformity of ideas
with the replacement of the homologous social units by differentiation of units. The Division of Labor
increases. Progress results in specialized talks which make men dependent upon one another. The function
of the Division of Labor is the integration of society. Organic solidarity emerges based on the differences
and the growing interdependence for the goods and services of others. Organic solidarity fulfills a
particular function previously met by the mechanical form.

What is the cause of the increasing Division of Labor? This comes out with the increase in moral
density or social interaction, resulting from population pressure. The condition threatens the cohesion of
society because it is accompanied by intensified competitiveness. To reduce competition, it is necessary to
have a division of labor demanding differentiation and interdependence. With the development of society
and the consequent division of labor, various results ensue that:

1.​ Behavior is less guided by the collective conscience and more on the basis of individual
beliefs and tastes. What results is moral individualism stressing the values of equality, liberty,
fraternity and justice.
2.​ A significant dissociation between religion and law occurs.
3.​ Social control is based less on common beliefs and the rigid and repressive measures and
becomes replaced by contractual civil and administrative law calling for restitution of rights.
4.​ Political affairs are run less and less by the whole body of the group and more by specialized
bureaus and officials. Emphasis is on contractual relationships (Cohne 1968: 221 ff;
Timasheff 1957: 109 -110).

Searching for the cause of the appearance of the Division of Labor, Durkheim considered
variations of the social scene. Digressing with the prevailing belief of his time that the search for
happiness is the cause, he contended that the increasing population is the general cause. He held that
increasing population leads to intensified struggle for life, thus, to be a “Jack of all trades” becomes more
and more difficult. What is needed is to specialize in the fields of business, profession, and trades or to
narrow one’s sphere of operation in order to be able to compete. Thus, increases in the density of
population lead inevitably to an increase in the division of labor. Durkheim (1964) declared that the
division of labor produced solidarity not because it makes an individual an “exhangist” but because it
creates among men an entire system of rights and duties which link them together in a durable way. The
division of labor varies in direct proportion with the volume and density of societies and of society
progressing in a continuous manner in the course of social development. It is because societies become
regularly denser and more populous.

However, Durkheim felt that organic solidarity is not sufficient to integrate a society, to identify
points of societal stress, and to predict probable adjustment in the future. He pointed out that in the
process of modernization, the old forms of social organization like the family, the community and even
the territorial unit are swept away and replaced by the state. Lacking a larger collectivity with which an
individual can identify himself, there is a growth of isolation in him which may lead to a state of
alienation, anomic or extreme egoism. These are reflected in the increasing suicide rate. Which is the
remedy for this state of alienation and anomie in the modern society? Durkheim felt that the answer is in
the revival of mechanical solidarity along occupational decentralization and the putting up of a moral
individuality. He amends, “We must in the past the germs of new life which it contained and hasten their
development (1964:391)”. Durkheim offered the establishment of new communal societies along
occupational lines as one solution to the problem of social disintegration in a highly urbanized society
(Applebaum 1970:35).

Redfield’s Folk-Urban Continuum

Robert Redfiled’s Folk-urban Continuum is a construct of two ideal polar types with the folk
society on one end and the urban modern society on the other. Societies could be arranged in the order of
the degree of resemblance to the ideal type. While this approach does not provide much theoretical
insight, this presents a conceptualization of gross types in societal evolution and Redfield put up a
theoretical model to distinguish gross types. The folk ideal type might be a model for underdeveloped or
undeveloped societies in their incipient stage. Redfield gave certain characteristics of folk societies made
by many students to describe the folk type, as gleaned from observations of cities and peasant groups. He
never specified clearly the characteristics of the urban portion of the typology. By implication, the urban
ideal was characterized by the opposite traits or elements of the folk community. Redfield (1947) averred
that “the type is an imagined entity created only because through it we may hope to understand reality.”
These folk-urban ideal types may be comparable to distinctions of societies made by some authors like
Toennies, Gemeinschaft-Gesellscaft, Becker’s sacred-secular and Durkheim’s mechanical and organic
solidarity.

Redfield (1947) described the folk society as small, isolated, non-literate, and homogeneous, with
strong sense of group solidarity. The ways of living are conventionalized into that organized, integrated
coherent system called “culture”. The goals are set by the culture, making activities stimulating and
meaningful. The norms or designs for living guide the conventionalized behavior. The folkways and ores
of the culture are followed spontaneously and uncritically and they fix the rights and duties of the
individuals. Laws are not legislated but made up of traditional conceptions of rights and obligations. The
institutions are crescive, growing out informally from the folkways, mores and laws of the group.
Common practical knowledge guides the people. However, within the limits set by the custom, there is
motivation to excel in performance as the members are made to feel that what the culture prescribes them
to do is worth doing. The nuclear familial group and the kinship group are the units of action. The pattern
of kinship tends to extend outward from the group of genealogically related individuals into the whole
society. This is further extended by blood brotherhood, godparental relationship, and other ceremonial
sponsorship. Religion and magic centering in ritual festivals and worship pervade the life of the people.

The economy of folk societies is subsistence and is one of status rather than the market. The
group is economically independent of all other societies. The members produce what they consume. The
tolls and ways of production re shared by everybody. Division of labor is based on sex. Technology is
simple with relatively few tools which are secondary and tertiary non-manufactured ones.

Behavior is personal and intimate. Members are bound by a strong sense of belonging or “we
feeling”. The mutual like-mindedness results in strong group solidarity. In short, the society is sacred and
constitutes a little world by itself.

Redfield never specified clearly the characteristics of the urban portion of the typology. By
implication, urban life would be characterized by the opposite traits and elements of the folk society: large
population, high density, high literacy, heterogenecity, individualism, commercialism and secularism.

As mentioned earlier, there are a lot of criticisms levied against Redfield’s folk-urban
construction. As Miner (in Applebaum 1970): empirical evidence and the ideal type construct or whether
societies “hang together” as predicted by the ideal types; second, the question of how adequately is the
ideal type of characteristics defined and operationalized; and third, the theoretical insight provided by the
folk-urban concept.

Structural – Functionalism

The structural-functional perspective can be traced in the work of Durkheim, Cooley, Thomas and
Pareto.

Essentially, this theory conceives of society as a social system which has a structure made up of
parts. Within the social system is a complex integrated, mutually interrelated, and functionally
interdependent parts. Each part has its own identity and individuality while performing its function or
contributing to the maintenance, strengthening, and stability of the whole. Thus, we say that the function
of the family is reproduction to make for the continuity of the social group, or that the function of the
polity is the maintenance of peace and order. However, the whole is greater than its parts and has
properties and functions which encompass those in the parts.
 The society as a social system is composed of actors occupying statuses or structural positions
within the social system and perform roles or behavior patterns in relation to these positions. The
members are oriented toward the promotion of their needs as well as of society’s. Social behavior is
patterned by the expectations of others as well as by the cultural norms and values. Culture is also viewed
as a system composed of durable parts and stands in a complicated relationship of interdependence with
the social system (Timasheff 1976:26).

The structural functionalists hold that there is order, stability, and equilibrium in society. The
society maintains its order and stability or is functional when the needs of its members are met and in
return the members follow the shared norms and values. Disruption in the society occurs when he shared
norms and values are not conformed with or there are great changes in the society.

The ideas of Talcott Parsons

Parsons is one of the major functionalist theorists. He viewed society as a system composed of
parts which have functions in the total system. Parsons (18:51:25) considered a social system as a system
of process of interaction between actors. It is the structure of the relations between the actors involved in
the interactive process which is essentially the structure involved in the interactive process which is
essentially the structure of the social system. The structure of the social system is the patterned system of
relationships between the actors involved in the interactive process based on their statuses and roles. The
status is an actor’s place or position in the relationship. The social system has a physical or environmental
aspect, and the interactions within is defined and mediated in terms of culturally structured and shared
systems. The culture patterns consist of belief systems (cognitive aspect), systems of expressive
symbolism (affective aspect) which a social system needs for stability and equilibrium. Parsons stated that
stability or stable equilibrium is essential for any society. Stability results when the society tries to
develop routine ways of dealing with the less than perfect fit among its parts and the resultant conflicts
and tensions. Then the relations between its structure and the processes which go on within it and between
its environment are such as to maintain them. This maintenance is dependent on some processes which
would neutralize the internal or external sources of variability. There are also processes productive or
structural change (Parsons in Ezioni and Etzioni 1964).

If the system is to continue a persistent order or to undergo an orderly process of developmental

change, there are certain functional prerequisites that must be met. First, the social system must be so
structured that it is compatible with the conditions of the functions of its members and be integrated with
the cultural system. Second, the social system must have the support of the other system. Third, the
component members must be sufficiently motivated to meet its minimum needs like nutrition and public
safety. Fourth, the social system must be able to control disruptive behavior or deviant behavior. Fifth, the
social system must have minimum conditions of stability or orderly behavior to withstand deviance and
conflict (Parsons: 1951: 26-28).

A higher order unit of social structure than the role is an institution. As defined by Parsons
(1951:43), an institution is made up of a plurality of interdependent role-patterns or components of them.
It is a complex patterned, interdependent role expectations that have to do with the integrations of action
expectations that have to do with the integrations of action expectations with the valuepatterns. Since
institutionalization entails the patterning of value even in the social system and the internalization of value
systems in the human personality, it becomes an important integrative and stabilizing mechanism.
Institutionalization becomes the antithesis of anomie, the absence of structured complementarity of the
interaction process.

The types of institution comprising value-orientation patterns are as follows:

 1.​ Relational institutions which define the reciprocal roles and statuses of the members to the
interactive processes.
2.​ Regulative institutions which control and direct the pursuits of interest in terms of value
standards of the social system.
3.​ Cultural institutions which define obligations to the acceptance of cultural patterns as the
cognitive beliefs, systems of expressive symbols, and private moral obligations.

Parsons gave Four functional imperatives of all systems:

1.​ Adaptation or meeting the situational needs or requirements facing the system.
2.​ Goal-attainment or realizing the systems’ primary orientations and objectives.
3.​ Integration or regulating the interrelations of the other functional requirements.
4.​ Pattern-maintenance and tension reduction of providing, maintaining, and renewing both
motivational and cultural patterns.

The conflict Theories

Conflict theories focuses on change as a permanent and inseparable aspect of society with conflict
as an accompaniment of the change. Conflict theorists stress change and regard it as endemic to all
societies. Conflict theories see structural change everywhere and view class conflict and class exploitation
as the fundamental moving force in the development of society. Conflict theorists discount the
functionalists view of society being held together by shared values as forming a true consensus. To them,
this is an artificial consensus in which the dominant group or class imposes its values and rules upon the
rest of society. To the conflict theorists, the society is composed of different parts which are
interdependent not because of common values but because of the greater power of certain groups in
society who try to achieve their ends by taking advantage of others. The power of the privileged classes
can be expressed by coercion or the control over jobs, police courts and military. Class struggle ensues
and the conflicts end in order and stability.

Karl Marx : Theory of social changes

Conflict theory had its origin in the early sociologists, especially with Karl Marx. Conflict
theories constitute the legacy of Karl Marx. Marx (1818-1883) was German Jew who was trained in law
but changed to philosophy. He is popularly known as the original leader of the r evolutionary movement
which is divided into two branches: socialism and communism. He wrote a great deal and his best-known
works are The Communist Manifesto with Fredrich Engels and Das Capital. His impact and influence on
the twentieth century, especially on Russia and China, together with some countries in Asia, Africa, South
America and Europe have been great. He has inspired and influenced men like Vladimir Lenin, Leon
Trotsky and Joseph Stalin of Russia, Mao Tze Tung of China, Marshall Tito of Yugoslavia, Fidel Castro
of Cuba, Ho Chi Minh of Vietnam, Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, and Jose Ma. Sison of the Philippines,
among others.

For Marx, society is not a smoothly, functioning social system, rather, society is in a constant flux
of change. Its elements and structural form are always in continuous change which results to conflicts by
struggling groups and classes. Society thus is characterized by regularity of change which ensue from the
inevitable struggle between the workers and the owners of the means of production (the capitalists). In the
words of Marx, “without conflict there is no progress. This is the law which civilization has followed to
the present day.” Specifically stated, he wrote, the history of all societies up to the present is the history of
class struggle (communist manifesto, 1955: 1959).

Marx Assumption is that the structure of society is determined by economic organization,

particularly the ownership of property. He maintained that the key to the understanding of structure and
conflict in any period lies in the mode of [production, specifically in its technology for this determines the
relations of production(the organization of production), and together they constitute the substructure of
society. The other elements like social institutions, values and beliefs make up the superstructure. To
Marx, influence is not shared by many groups but is exercised only by those who control economic
resources. He hypothesized that economic institutions are dominant and relatively autonomous. Large
corporations and financial institutions exert much greater influence on other institutions such as the
schools, government and church than can be exerted on them in return. His Theory of social change holds
that all human history is a conflict between opposing social issues. Inherent in any economic system that
supports inequality are forces that generate class conflicts. These class struggles and conflicts will end
later in a revolutionary reconstruction of society at large or in the common destruction of the contending
classes.

Marx’ dialectic scheme

Two basic postulates in Marxism revolve on first, economic determinism and second, on the
mechanisms of change.

Economic determinism is the view that the economic factor is fundamental determinant of the
structure and development of society. The economic factor consists essentially of the state of technology
which refers to the relations into which men must and do enter to produce goods more effectively that
they could if working separately. This organization of production constitutes the economic substructure
which shapes the whole super-structure. The latter includes the political organization, the juridical, law,
religion, philosophy, art, literature, science, and morality. These various components of the super-structure
are established by the victorious class after a successful battle. Thus, the economic movement is necessary
to produce these results.

The mechanism of change involves the development of the class structure. In the explanation of
social change, Marx borrowed the dialectic scheme of George Hegel, a German Philosopher. This
dialectic scheme makes us of the three ever present phases. According to this view, everything in the
world, including society passes by a kind of dialectic necessity through three stages of affirmation or
thesis, negation or antithesis and reconciliation of opposites or synthesis. The dialectic process continues
with new conflicts and accommodations, always marking the historical process (Timasheff 1967:4).

At the start of every system of economic production, there is thesis or affirmation. One the system
of economic production becomes socially entrenched, obstacles to the application of new technological
inventions and the use of newly discovered markets and supplies of raw materials are formed.
Development cannot stop at this stage; hence the established social order must be overcome by a social
revolution. This is especially true of capitalistic society which came into existence with the industrial
revolution.

In a capitalistic society, two or more social classes exists namely:

1.​ The bourgeosie - composed of the property owners and the capitalists
2.​ The proletariat – make up the laborers and the wage earners.

The propertied class is dominant class who try to take advantage, if nor exploit the proletariat.
The exploited proletariat recognize their inferior and subordinate position. This is the stage of the
antithesis or negation. Intense struggle between the two social classes is inevitable. These classes tend to
polarize, and the society breaks up into two hostile classes, namely, the bourgeoisie or the property
owners and the proletariat or the laborers. In the process of polarization, their situation becomes
increasingly extreme, with sections of the proletariat becoming extremely poor while the bourgeosie or
the capitalists become wealthier. The classes become more homogeneous and other groupings like the
middle class are absorbed into the two classes and align with them.

The ideas of Lenin

Vlademir Lenin, a Russian writer and chief leader of the Russian Revolution in 1917 and head of
the Soviet government from 1917 to 1924, in his pamphlet “Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism ,
applied Marxist theory in the analysis of imperialism.

As commonly used, imperialism, denotes the domination of the vast territories by force and the
subsequent exploitation of their populations and resources. Deviating from the popular definition of
imperialism, Lenin defined imperialism as the “role of finance capital”, the highest stage of capitalism in
which the separation of the ownership of capital (the rentier) from the productive application of capital
(the entrepreneur). Imperialism developed from the rapid concentration of capital in the hands of a few
monopolies. This came out with the division of markets of their home countries and then through the
export capital and formation of international cartels which divided control over the world market.

Imperialism has certain basic features:

1.​ Monopolistic control of production and capital which play a decisive role in economic life
2.​ The creation of “finance capital” by a financial oligarchy as a result of the merger of bank
capital and industrial capital.
3.​ The export of capital which has become very essential to the oligarchy
4.​ The formation of international capitalist monopolies which share the world among
themselves
5.​ The completion of territorial division of the world as a whole among the greatest capital
powers