Constructing the Crime Problem through the Media: Melodrama in Venezuela, 1950?99

• Author: Christopher Birkbeck
• Pages: 66-86

66

CRIME, DELINQUENCY AND JUSTICE

INTRODUCTION: THE STRUCTURE OF

SOCIAL PROBLEMS

A well established perspective in

sociology views social problems (including

the problem of crime) as socially constructed

(Spector and Kitsuse 1973). For readers not

familiar with this perspective, ‘construction’

should not be taken to mean causes: the

social constructionist perspective does not

involve the study of the social processes that

lead to social problems (as, for example,

when we look for the social causes of crime).

Rather, construction refers to the

constitution of the problem itself. Both

natural life and social life are filled with an

immense range of phenomena and

conditions, but none of them would be

problematic from the viewpoint of a

hypothetical impersonal observer because

problems involve negative evaluations, and

evaluation is a human — fundamentally

social — process. Social problems exist,

therefore, because at least some social actors

have developed a negative evaluation of a

particular set of circumstances or

conditions.2 With regard to crime, the

constructionist perspective does not see the

‘crime problem’ in the pictures painted by

official crime statistics or more ‘valid’

indicators of criminality such as

victimisation surveys or self-report data, but

in assertions that crime is a problem for

society. As constructionists point out, crime

(or some types of crime) may be seen as a

problem at some times and places but not at

others (e.g., Fishman 1978, McCorkle and

Miethe 1998).3

Constructing

the Crime

Problem

through the

Media:

Melodrama in

Venezuela, 1950-991

Four

Christopher Birkbeck

67

CONSTRUCTING THE CRIME PROBLEM THROUGH THE MEDIA

‘Construction’ is also a useful term because it implies the notion of structure,

that is, of constituent components that are organised and related in some

identifiable way. In turn, structure invites inquiry and may facilitate understanding

— in this case, the focus of attention being the discursive elements and practices

that give the problem its existence and character rather than the empirical

condition designated as a problem. Within the constructionist perspective, the

first researcher to explore the structure of social problems was Gusfield (1981) in

his study of the drinking-driving problem in the United States (US). Gusfield

postulated that social problems contain both a moral and a cognitive dimension.

The moral dimension represents the evaluative process already alluded to; it is

‘that which enables the situation to be viewed as painful, ignoble, immoral’ (1981,

9). The cognitive dimension

consists in beliefs about the facticity of the situation and events comprising the

problem…[For example, c]rime may be seen as a result of broken homes, poverty,

genetics, community disorganization, or any number and type of variables (1981, 9).

In addition, the cognitive dimension also includes a belief about the alterability

of phenomena, for if phenomena are perceived as unalterable they will not be

considered to be a problem.4 In fact, social problems require both a moral

judgement about the undesirability of a situation and a cognitive judgement about

its alterability, for if either is missing the problem ceases to exist.

Gusfield also distinguished between the attribution of two types of

responsibility by those who engage in debate and discussion regarding any social

problem. Causal responsibility refers to the conditions identified as producing

the problem (as, for example, when inequality is purported to cause crime), while

political responsibility identifies the person or institution that should do

something about the problem (for example, when the police are urged to crack

down on gang activities).

The first answers the question, How come? The second answers the question,

What is to be done? The first – causal responsibility – is a matter of belief or

cognition, an assertion about the sequence that factually accounts for the existence

of the problem. The second – political responsibility – is a matter of policy. It

asserts that somebody or some office is obligated to do something about the

problem, to eradicate or alleviate the harmful situation. (Gusfield 1981, 13-14)

Subsequently, other researchers have offered somewhat similar analyses of

the structure of social problems. For example, in their study of the nuclear power

‘issue’ in the US, Gamson and Modigliani (1989) proposed that media discourse

can be thought of as ‘…a set of interpretive packages that give meaning to an

issue. A package has an internal structure. At its core is a central organizing idea,

or frame, for making sense of relevant events, suggesting what is at issue.’ (1989,

3)