Realism in Sociology and Social Work

¶ … sociological readings. One is by Herbert J. Gans, and the other by Peter L. Berger. While the readings are interesting, they are also relevant, even though, in the case of Gans, the narrative goes back to 1971,

The Uses of Poverty: The Poor Pay All

By attempting to associate poverty with "positive functions" Gans is stepping out into a narrative that would seem at the outset to be risky. After all, the image that most people have of poor people, poor neighborhoods in urban areas, rural poverty and "low income" minorities, is not a positive one.

But Gans makes a somewhat cynical (though valid) point when he says the fact of poverty "makes possible" certain "respectable professions"; those professions include people working in prisons, those involved in criminology, social workers, and those in the public health field. Moreover, Gans points out that poor people do the "dirty work" of taking jobs that nobody else wants; and he asserts that certain economic activities that involve "dirty work" (menial jobs like washing garments in hospitals, working in the fields, etc.) need to be done by someone, and why not the poor?

By taking these jobs the poor are helping the rich, which, Gans explains somewhat cryptically, helps the economy. He points out that housekeepers (domestics) "subsidize the middle and upper classes" and by doing so they free up the middle and upper class women so those people can engage in "cultural" activities like partying and other "civic" activities. The poor also pay a higher percentage of their earnings in taxes which benefits government services. His third reason for saying the poor help the economy is that the poor buy heroin and "cheap wine and liquors" -- and in addition, he lumps "prostitutes" with "Pentecostal ministers" when it comes to those who benefit from the poor.

Gans goes on to list reasons four, five, six, seven -- through thirteen -- and while there is not room on this paper to present all thirteen reasons, some of the most absurd and pessimistic will be mentioned, prior to presenting questions and answers. One of Gans' points (number eight) is that "someone has to be at the bottom" in order for sociologists and the media to rank others in terms of where they stand on the ladder of financial and social success.

Number eleven is also sarcastic and even callus, as Gans notes that the poor do not resist when their neighborhoods are "displaced" to make room for universities, hospitals, and freeways (think urban renewal). Hence the "major costs of the industrialization of agriculture" are borne by those in poverty, because they are powerless to resist being "pushed off the land without recompense"; and also, the poor have helped the military because they were drafted to serve as the "foot soldiers" in the Vietnam War.

In his last two pages, Gans suggests "alternatives" to his previous thirteen points, but just as the reader thinks Gans is getting serious, he turns the tables again. Without the poor, he states, those professional (who are "badly trained or incompetent") that serve the poor would need to find other roles, and Pentecostal religion "probably" would not survive without the poor (the suggestion is that the poor are dumb and are suckers for religious hacks). In short, Gans is saying that getting rid of poverty would cause the affluent to become "dysfunctional" by putting them out of work or making them take lower paying jobs.

Question #1: Is the use of "functional analysis" (cynicism) by Gans a constructive way to draw attention to the plight of the poor? Answer: Yes and no, because while it causes the reader to stop and think, it also belittles those at the bottom end of the socioeconomic ladder. Question #2: Is it fair to attack the Pentecostal (evangelical) faith by suggesting that only the poor are willing converts (because they assumed to be naive and gullible)? No, it is not fair, and while this essay is not supposed to be taken literally, attacking a particular religious faith is offensive and unnecessarily cruel. And it can be taken out of context very easily.

Peter L. Berger -- Invitation to Sociology (A Humanistic Perspective)

Berger's essay is nearly the opposite in tone and substance from Gans' essay. Berger is quite serious although he is given to be a little exaggeration and time to time. He begins his essay by basically criticizing those in college or elsewhere who aspire to become sociologists but don't have a realistic idea of what they are in for. Those who go into sociology often plan to become social workers so they can "help people" and be of benefit to the community, Berger explains. But on the other hand, he points out, that sociologists are not necessarily destined to be working with people or lifting people up; the training that a sociologist may receive could also make that person competent at promoting crime as well as fighting crime (it's just that the criminals -- "gangsters" -- lack "scientific sophistication" otherwise they might hire sociologists to help them in their evil deeds).

Berger explains that the tools that a sociologist acquires through education and training also open the door to "robbing" people of their money or selling them propaganda. He is not really trying to coax students to go into sociology for those questionable jobs, but rather he seems to be saying, not everyone studying sociology needs to "help people." An important thing to remember about social work, according to Berger, is that it is not necessarily "a practice" but rather it is "an attempt to understand."

The author quotes well-respected sociologist and theorist Max Weber saying that sociology is "value free," but that doesn't mean sociologists don't have values. Weber was just saying that the most important value a sociologist must have is "scientific integrity." That is, of course he or she has values and biases as a human, but the sociologist must think like a scientist and see "what is there" not worrying about what he or she might find. Berger uses the analogy of a spy: if the spy reports the intelligence he has found in terms of what his superiors hope to learn, "his reports are useless" because a valuable spy reports on what's really there, not what someone hopes to find there. And this analogy is important in understanding what Berger is presenting, because objective research and impartial investigations into social issues is at the heart of a social worker's duties and responsibilities. In other words, a social worker should not be out to change the world or save people from their own miseries (although working with people who are struggling is a vital part of the job as well). There are far more important tasks social workers should focus on, Berger insists.

In the 14th paragraph Berger informs the reader that, just like the professionals working in nuclear physics, a sociologist must be conversant with certain terminology. In fact the author says developing appropriate terminology might be more important for a person in the social sciences as it is in other scientific disciplines. That is because the language of social science tends to be "vague and confusing" as the language alludes to social reality. When it comes to ethnic groups, or races, or power "cliques," the sociologist must be absolutely clear in terms of definitions that apply to those groups, but avoid using terms that are not precise, and that can lead to what he calls "sociologese."