Understanding Social Problems in Australia - Case Study Example

Management Name Institution Management Introduction Australia as at present that is up to the late twentieth century has various social problems. The majority of these social problems are poverty, homelessness, child abuse, and young people suffering from various illnesses plus also being unable to access education (Kenny, 2010 p.6). Others include lack of discipline, unavailability of healthcare facilities, vandalism, poor road status, lack of parental care and very many cases involving marriage disputes (Derks, & Roymans, 2009 p.17). The evidence here is basically from the reports in country's newspapers, radio and television news. However, some of these issues may not exist though the news coverage of them is what draws the public attention with regards to the common sense frameworks in the understating of social problems. Though, to some extent, these elements of social problems may not be common with the exception that they are presently what form the subject of discussion in Australia (Derks, & Roymans, 2009 p.24). Similarly, in the interest of the public, anxiety or concern there is need to engage in discussions concerning the social or social problems since they have those problems that draw a lot of public attention with regards to a society and at a particular time (Kenny, 2010 p.11). In this case, Australia will be the society of interest in the context of a discussion of issues about social or problems. The commonsense framework for understanding social problems Indeed, when singling out the commonsense framework for understanding social problems, there is the reason for stressing on it (Kenny, 2010 p.15). For instance, some societies may be facing other problems though what draws the publicity may be different with respect to the current social problems that the society faces (Layder, 2006 p.23). Also, it also remains a fact than when taking a study on the past history; it comes out that the list of the present social problems may be visible. Late in the nineteenth century, for instance, poverty, child mistreatments and cases of divorce formed part of the discussion concerning social problems, though, within them; some did not draw public attention (Kenny, 2010 p.21). In this regard, two theories are in place that could account for such variations. One of these concerns the social problems with respect to changes (Parke, & Clarke-Stewart, 2011 p.35). With regards to the same, during the period of nineteenth if happened that homeless people did not exist, and then cases of homeless people would not have been part of the social problem as it is presently. The other reason states that what people see as part of the social problem that it is changing (Parke, & Clarke-Stewart, 2011 p.42). Consequently, people in the nineteenth century may be were homeless but the situation was just a social problem instead of part of life or due to incidences of misfortune. For this reason, none of these aspects would be part of the social problem. There are some possible relationship with the social constructionist approach and concepts with regards to ideology and disclosure (Parke, & Clarke-Stewart, 2011 p.53). However, what accounts for the different strands that contribute to the perspective what people have in similarity is the way it stresses on the collective or shared understandings, interpretations or even representations of the nature of world plus those of actions that contribute towards defining its nature (Kenny, 2010 p.27). The only difference is how they perceive the constructions. For example, some that have an association with the ideology concepts often see construction as that aspect through which social groups can promote the legitimize their interests (Parke, & Clarke-Stewart, 2011 p.65). On the other hand, some that have a close relationship with the disclosure idea on their part see social constructions as a forming aspect instead of reflecting the social identifications and interest altogether. According to many scholars in the field of sociology, they state that there is a big difference between personal troubles and public issues (Layder, 2006 p.36). For instance, there are many troubles or problems faced by many individuals during their lifetimes. However, what remains to unique here is that not all these problems are as a result of public issues that at the same draws a lot of public interest as well as attentions or in scenarios that also demand their responses altogether (Layder, 2006 p.43). Elsewhere, the use of the term personal may be confusing at sometimes because it signifies that the difference between the individual and the collective experience is what matters. That said it remains to be important to differentiate between those issues that are private or need household attention plus those that are public which, in this case, needs social intervention or regulation (Layder, 2006 p.48). Similarly, what also constitutes the difference between such things that look private troubles or public issues is their magnitude. For instance, if very few people undergo some form of problems or troubles, and then the instance is may remain too private while not of public concern. However, in the case where most people undergo similar troubles or even fear they may have, the instance may also be part of the public issue (Layder, 2006 p.65). Similarly, the implication of this is that there is a degree of fragility or impermanence within the social problems. On top of this, social constructionism, in this case, is more of a way of seeing the world with regards to the possibility of other social constructions. The community development framework for understanding social problems Within the community development framework of understanding social problems, it's better first to look at the issue of social construction (Flint, 2013 p.45). Social construction on its part is that aspect of social science that concerns with the study of the social problems. Some authors on their side also formulated a more in-depth way of understanding the perspectives of social constructionism. The perspective, in this case, begins with the emphasis on one of the critical components of the human societies which is the role played by language (Haight & Taylor, 2007 p.28). For instance, in human societies, there is the tendency of the action to precede the understanding and intentions. Every individual has an intention with his or her actions to reach or realize the meaningful incomes. Most actions from each and every individual have the tendency of conveying messages to other society members (Haight, & Taylor, 2007 p.39). However, some aspects of social constructionist perspective may somehow have complications in their nature; the instance begins with an understanding of the simplicity in the case of departure. In this regard, the instance is the naming or labeling of things. The reason behind this identification is that the way naming of things occurs in our society has an influence on the way human beings show their attitude or behaviors towards them in particular (Hessle, 2014 p.32). On top of this, the name or label itself also comes with its expectations from the society members altogether. Most people who consider the approaches to social construction usually give their contradicting positions with what correlates with the features of the essentialism (Flint, 2013 p.35). In this regard, essentialism is refers to the belief in the determination of the instance of social behavior by considering the existing processes or essence which operates within the social contexts (Haight, & Taylor, 2007 p.45). Based on this notion, there is no need to confuse the instance with the more familiar utilization of the word where the definition of the term essential refers to that substance where someone cannot stay without in his or her life (Flint, 2013 p.46). On the other hand, in the obvious cases, the issue of essentialism finds its way in the reflection concerning the notion that each and every individual has his or her basic personality. Through these basic personalities, indeed is what contribute the determination of the relationship between others and as they seek to fit within the wider perspective of the social system. On the same note, the theory of some similar or shared human nature may also form part of the essentials (Kenny, 2010 p.32). Following this instance, any argument that seeks the explanation of the social or human behavior in broader perspectives of biological functions or evolutionary pressures such as the survival for the fittest cases may also be part of the essentials (Flint, 2013 p.57). However, critics of essentialism do have restrictions with the instance of inquiring about biological determinism. In this regard, they only concentrate on inquiring about any possible explanation that leads to the best way of understanding the social phenomena. The social phenomena, in this case, are what may apply to the analysis of the underlying truth that is close to exposure or revelation in other words (Flint, 2013 p.68). An example here is the case of classical Marxism that continues to receive a lot of criticism due to its virtue of seeing history as the cause of the fundamental conflicts that exists between classes sharing the same capitalist mode of harnessing wealth. As study that seeks to know more about the social arrangements, social constructionism begins with the mundane point where it notes that naming of things affect people’s actions, consequently leads to the development of the approaches with regards the whole of the society as that institution which is more socially constructed (Wainryb, Smetana, & Turiel, 2008 p.28). For instance, an earlier attempt at the reinforcement of this approach regarded it as that option by which human beings could develop the sequence of occurrences of incidences or violence in life. In this case, the social constructions led to the simplification of the business of living through the establishment of those sequences of mutual expectations (Wainryb, Smetana, & Turiel, 2008 p.36). A good example here is the case of a mother being this way same to a father or child being the other way, and the system continues in the same progressive manner. Such case of simplifications indeed formed part of the energy saving devices. However, instead of allowing for negotiations in each and every component of life within also every social encounter, social constructions in this case just enhance the simplifications of various categories of people and their behaviors included (Wainryb, Smetana, & Turiel, 2008 p.46). The instance, in this case, is what triggered people to develop as they could accommodate all the assumptions for granted. As time progressed, most these assumptions emerged to habits of these people in such a manner that their minds need very little thoughts or attentions. Consequently, they ended up forgetting that constructions were there and, as a result, they went through naturalization in them. The instance is because the instance carries with it the reality of the world (Wainryb, Smetana, & Turiel, 2008 p.53). Along the process, people ended up reproducing most of these constructions together with the assumptions they had into their behaviors. Indeed, the production together with the reproduction of social order takes place through such ways in which people act within the social constructions (Pietilä, 2007 p.26). With regards to the same, individuals may find themselves operating within the limited scope of choices or positions or, in other words, the subject positions that exist within the social order. For example, a mother on some occasions may find herself in such situations where she is a homemaker, working mother or a single mother (Pietilä, 2007 p.37). The instance, in this case, best explains the construction of the set of expectations and how this particular mother will act due to these variations of options in her life. Elsewhere, social problems are not all about the biology but specifically the social expectations (Piotrowski, 2006 p.29). With reference to the case of a label mother, many names linked with socially constructed identities or sequences in the society have a proper way of their establishment where in this case majority of the members of the society just take them as natural. Taking the perspective of a social constructionist standpoint, the nature of the world may appear to be such warning due to the deeply rooted patterns of the social expectations as at present (Piotrowski, 2006 p.34). For instance, the most deeply rooted aspect of the social problems is the nature of the social arrangements that today if taken for granted becomes hard to correlate as being social. In spite of this, the attribution that people associate them is that result in the development of such forces that are far much beyond the reach of the society as a whole (Parke, & Clarke-Stewart, 2011). In this regard, the point here is not to refuse relevant biological or natural variations among people or even to reject the availability of some biological drives within people’s knowledge such as the instance where every has to feed him or herself. Instead, they should positively affirm the value of the ways where such variations occur in the process of the development of social problems (Lennie & Tacchi, 2013 p.33). Consequently, that person who gives birth to a child is a mother though a person may also become a mother by adopting a child. However, what remains unclear is where similar assumptions result from the behaviors that accrues from the biological relationship in all societies at all occasions and also in various classes. Conclusion As seen through this study, the issue of social construction may appear ethereal since it entails the delicate matters or what such matters signifies plus their interpretations definitions. The instance, in this case, may sound to be rather intangible in conjunction with the real world despite the real world itself containing the tough facts, solid components and also a grim of realities altogether with it. Indeed, what forms part of attraction in the social constructionism as a perspective is that section that offers the suggestion that the social world may somehow be less solid and also permanent compared to the emphasis on the hard facts of life as it may imply. After all social problems define the construction of the social world where, in this case, it factors in the definitions produced and the propounded interpretations. In this regard, the social problems provide a highlight of the temporary nature of the soil life. References Derks, T., & Roymans, N. (2009). Ethnic Constructs In Antiquity. Amsterdam: Amsterdam Univ. Press. Flint, R. (2013). Practice Of Sustainable Community Development. New York: Springer. Haight, W., & Taylor, E. (2007). Human Behavior For Social Work Practice. Chicago, Ill.: Lyceum Books. Hessle, S. (2014). Environmental Change And Sustainable Social Development. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Kenny, S. (2010). Developing communities for the future. South Melbourne, Vic.: Cengage Learning. Layder, D. (2006). Understanding Social Theory. London: Sage Publications. Lennie, J., & Tacchi, J. (2013). Evaluating Communication For Development. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Parke, R., & Clarke-Stewart, A. (2011). Social Development. Hoboken, NJ: J. Wiley & Sons. Pietilä, T. (2007). Gossip, Markets, And Gender. Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press. Piotrowski, P. (2006). Understanding Problems Of Social Pathology. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Wainryb, C., Smetana, J., & Turiel, E. (2008). Social Development, Social Inequalities, And Social Justice. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Read More