The Rhetorical Construction of Institutional Fact:
An Analysis of Social Problems Discourse

Draft. Not for Publication.
Not for Quotation. All Rights Reserved.

In this essay I examine discourse about such commonly discussed social problems as date rape and child abuse as part of a larger inquiry into the relationship between realism, relativism, and rhetoric. The topic of social problems recommends itself, on the one hand, because nothing seems more palpably real than, say, the trauma of coerced penetration of a woman's vagina, or the physical and emotional scars left on a child by an abusive parent. Those, especially, who care for or identify with the victims of social problems tend to view social problems as "out-there" facticities, not to be questioned. Yet, on the other hand, sociologists have come increasingly to the opinion that social problems are socially constructed. Indeed, many sociologists now treat putative social problems (the term is theirs) the way they do deviance: as claims-making activities telling us at least as much about the labeler as about the phenomenon labeled (e.g., Ibarra & Kitsuse, 1993).

The question thus presents itself: if social problems are social constructions, then in what sense, if at all, can they also be considered real? We will see that social constructionists vary in terms of their orientations toward "the real." Those whom Best (1989) calls "strict constructionists" adhere to a programmatic relativism that calls all reality claims into question (e.g., Gergen, 1994); Woolgar & Pawluch, 1985a; 1985b). Those whom Best (1989) calls "contextual constructionists" see no contradiction between realism and social constructionism, although they acknowledge that reality claims may vary widely depending upon the interests of claims-makers and the definitional criteria that they employ (e.g., Best, 1989; Hacking; 1991).