they are uncounted, we cannot know just how many there are. Arguing that the dark figure is large, perhaps very large (“The cases we know about are just the tip of the iceberg!”), makes any estimate seem possible, even reasonable. We know that some victims do not report rapes, but what proportion of rapes goes unreported? Is it two in three? Surveys that ask people whether they’ve been victimized by a crime and, if so, whether they reported the crime to the police, find that about two-thirds of all rapes go unreported.13 But surely these surveys are imperfect; some rape victims undoubtedly refuse to tell the interviewer they’ve been victimized, so there still must be a dark figure. Some antirape activists argue that the dark figure of unreported rapes is very large, that only one rape in ten gets reported (this would mean that, for every two victims who fail to report their attacks to the police but tell an interviewer about the crimes, seven others refuse to confide in the interviewer).14 Such arguments make an impassioned defense of any guess possible.
Activists are by no means the only people who make statistical guesses. It is difficult to count users of illicit drugs (who of course try to conceal their drug use), but government agencies charged with enforcing drug laws face demands for such statistics. Many of the numbers they present—estimates for the number of addicts, the amounts addicts steal, the volume of illicit drugs produced in different countries, and so on—cannot bear close inspection. They are basically guesses and, because having a big drug problem makes the agencies’ work seem more important, the officials’ guesses tend to exaggerate the problem’s size.15 It makes little difference whether those promoting social problems are activists or officials: when it is difficult to measure a social problem accurately, guessing offers a solution; and there usually are advantages to guessing high.
There is nothing terribly wrong with guessing what the size of a social problem might be. Often we can’t know the true extent of a problem. Making an educated guess—and making it clear that it’s just someone’s best guess—gives us a starting point. The real trouble begins when people begin treating the guess as a fact, repeating the figure, forgetting how it came into being, embellishing it, developing an emotional stake in its promotion and survival, and attacking those who dare to question what was, remember, originally just someone’s best guess. Unfortunately, this process occurs all too often when social problems first come to public attention, because at that stage, a guess may be all anyone has got.
DEFINING
Any attempt to talk about a social problem has to involve some sort of definition, some answer to the question: “What is the nature of this problem?” The definition can be—and often is—vague; sometimes it is little more than an example. For instance, a television news story may tell us about a particular child who was beaten to death, and then say, “This is an example of child abuse.” The example takes the place of a precise definition of the problem. One difficulty with this practice is that media coverage usually features dramatic, especially disturbing examples because they make the story more compelling. Using the worst case to characterize a social problem encourages us to view that case as typical and to think about the problem in extreme terms. This distorts our understanding of the problem. Relatively few cases of child abuse involve fatal beatings; comparatively mundane cases of neglect are far more common. But defining child abuse through examples of fatal beatings can shape how we think about the problem, and child-protection policies designed to prevent fatalities may not be the best way to protect children from neglect. Whenever examples substitute for definitions, there is a risk that our understanding of the problem will be distorted.
Of course, not all definitions of social problems depend on dramatic examples. People promoting social problems sometimes do offer definitions. When they do so, they tend to prefer general, broad, inclusive definitions. Broad definitions encompass more cases—and more kinds of cases. Suppose we want to define sexual violence. Certainly our definition should include rapes. But what about attempted rapes—should they be included? Does being groped or fondled count? What about seeing a stranger briefly expose himself? A narrow definition—say, “sexual violence is forcible sexual contact involving penetration”—will include far fewer cases than a broad definition—for example, “sexual violence is any uninvited sexual action.”16 This has obvious implications for social statistics because broad definitions support much larger estimates of a problem’s size.*
No definition of a social problem is perfect, but there are two principal ways such definitions can be flawed. On the one hand, we may worry that a definition is too broad, that it encompasses more than it ought to include. That is, broad definitions identify some cases as part of the problem that we might think ought not to be included; statisticians call such cases false positives (that is, they mistakenly identify cases as part of the problem). On the other hand, a definition that is too narrow excludes cases that we might think ought to be included; these are false negatives (incorrectly identified as not being part of the problem).17
In general, activists trying to create a new social problem view false negatives as more troubling than false positives. Remember that activists often feel frustrated because they want to get people concerned about some social condition that has been ignored. The general failure to recognize and acknowledge that something is wrong is part of what the activists want to correct; therefore, they may be especially careful not to make things worse themselves by defining the problem too narrowly. A definition that is too narrow fails to recognize the problem’s full extent; in doing so, it continues ignoring at least a part of the harm and suffering that ought to be recognized. Thus, activists might point to an example of a woman traumatized by a flasher exposing himself, and then argue that the definition of sexual violence needs to be broad enough to acknowledge the harm suffered by that woman. Activists sometimes favor definitions broad enough to encompass every case that ought to be included; that is, they promote broad definitions in hopes of eliminating all false negatives. Remember, too, that broad definitions make it easier to justify the big numbers advocates prefer.
However, broad definitions invite criticism. Not everyone finds it helpful to lump rape and flashing into a single category of sexual violence. Such broad definitions obscure important differences within the category: rape and flashing both may be unwanted, but classifying them together may imply they are equally serious. Worse, broad definitions encompass cases that not everyone considers instances of social problems; that is, while they minimize false negatives, they do so at the cost of maximizing cases that critics may see as false positives. Consider the long-running debate over the definition of pornography.18 What ought to be considered pornographic? Presumably hard-core videos of people having sex are included in virtually all definitions. But is Playboy pornographic? What about nude sculptures, or the annual Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue? Some antipornography activists may favor a very broad, inclusive definition, while their critics may argue that such definitions are too broad (“That’s not pornography!”).
Clearly, the definition of a social problem will affect statistics about that problem. The broader the definition, the easier it is to justify large estimates for a problem’s extent. When someone announces that millions of Americans are illiterate, it is important to ask how that announcement defines illiteracy.19 Some might assume that illiteracy means that a person cannot read or write at all, but the speaker may be referring to “functional illiteracy” (that is, the inability to read a newspaper or a map or to fill out a job application or an income tax form). Does illiterate mean not reading at all? Not reading at the third-grade level? Not reading at the sixth-grade level? Defining illiteracy narrowly (as being unable to read at all) will include far fewer people and therefore produce far lower statistical estimates than a broad definition (being unable to read at the sixth-grade level).
Often, definitions include multiple elements, each of which can serve to make the definition broader or narrower. Consider homelessness again. What should a definition of homelessness encompass? Should it include the cause of homelessness? If a tornado destroys a neighborhood and the residents have to be housed in temporary emergency shelters, are they homeless, or should we count only people whose poverty makes them homeless?
