Sample Sociology Paper on Blaming the Victim Approach

Several people experience at least one social problems. For instance, numerous individuals are poor and jobless, many are in chronic frailty, and many have family problems, drink a lot of liquor, or carry out criminal activities. At the point when we find out about these people, it is anything but difficult to imagine that their problems are theirs alone and that they and others with similar issues are altogether to fault for their troubles.

Sociology adopts an alternate strategy, as it focuses on that particular problems as frequently established in originating issues from parts of society itself. This fundamental understanding, as illustrated by C. Wright Mills’ (1959), gives an exemplary difference between personal and social issues. Individual inconveniences allude to an issue influencing people that the affected individual, just as other members of the society, regularly fault on the person’s very own and moral failings. Examples include such various problems as dietary issues, divorce, and joblessness. Public issues allude to social issues influencing numerous people and its source lies in the social structure and culture of a society. Problems in society accordingly help represent problems that people experience. Mills (1959) felt that numerous problems commonly viewed as personal issues are best perceived as social issues, and he instituted the term sociological imagination to allude to the capacity to value the primary reason for individual problems.

To show Mills’ perspective, we should utilize our sociological imaginations to see some contemporary social problems. We will first look into unemployment, which Mills himself examined. If a couple of individuals were jobless, Mills composed, we could sensibly clarify their joblessness by saying they were languid or needed good work propensities. Assuming this is the case, their joblessness would be their very own problem. However, when many individuals are jobless, joblessness is best perceived as a public issue because, as (Mills, 1959) put it, opportunities have been imploded. Both the right assertion of the problem and the scope of potential arrangements expect us to think about the monetary and political foundations of the society, and not just the individual circumstance and character of a disperse of people.

At the point when a couple of individuals are jobless, most would agree that their joblessness is their problem. In any case, when a considerable number of individuals are unemployed, as has been valid since the monetary plunge started in 2008, this vast joblessness is all the more precisely seen as a public issue. Accordingly, its causes lie not in the jobless people but instead in our society’s monetary and social frameworks.

The high US unemployment rate originating from the extreme financial plunge that started in 2008 gives a telling illustration of the point Mills was making. A considerable number of individuals lost their positions through no issue of their own. While a few people are without a doubt jobless because they are apathetic or need great work propensities, a more basic clarification zeroing in on the absence of change is expected to clarify why endless individuals were unemployed. Assuming this is the case, joblessness is best perceived as a public issue instead of an individual problem.

Getting on Mills’ bits of knowledge, William Ryan (1976) pointed out to the fact that Americans commonly feel that social problems, for example, neediness and joblessness originate from individual failings of individuals encountering these problems, not from auxiliary issues in the bigger society (Ryan, 1976). Utilizing Mills’ terms, Americans will, in general, consider social questions personal inconveniences instead of public issues. As Ryan (1976) put it, they will, in general, have confidence in accusing the casualty as opposed to blaming the framework.

To assist us with understanding the blaming-the-victim ideology, we should consider why helpless youngsters in metropolitan areas frequently learn almost nothing in their schools. As indicated by Ryan, the doctrine would state the children’s parents care less about their learning, neglect to instruct them about good study behaviours, and do not urge them to pay attention to class. This kind of clarification, he composed, may apply to individual guardians. Yet, it disregards a considerably more significant explanation: the pitiful state of America’s urban schools, which, he stated, are stuffed, frail structures, old reading material and obsolete equipment. To improve the tutoring of youngsters in metropolitan zones, we should enhance the schools themselves and not merely attempt to “improve” the guardians.

As this model recommends, a blaming the victim ideology focuses on solutions to social problems, for example, poverty and ignorance that are altogether different from those proposed by a more basic methodology that accuses the framework. If we charge the person in question, we will spend our little dollars to address the individual problems of people who experience the ill effects of poverty, lack of education, chronic frailty, dietary issues, and different troubles. If we instead accuse the framework, we would concentrate on the various social conditions, broken-down schools, social principles of female magnificence, and such, that represent these challenges. A sociological agreement proposes that the methodology is eventually expected to assist us with managing the social problems confronting us today. As these remarks would recommend, functionalism sees social problems as emerging from society’s characteristic advancement. At the point when a social issue happens, it may undermine a society’s strength. However, it does not imply that significant blemishes in community exist. Appropriately, continuous social change should be everything necessary to address the social issue.



Mills, C. W. (1959). The promise. The sociological imagination, 3-24.

Ryan, W. (1976). Blaming the victim (Vol. 226). Vintage.