For instance, Americans value democracy and individual freedoms. Most Americans also place a high value on human equality 一 the idea, stated in the Declaration of Independence, that “all men are created equal. The point of view that there is enou^i agreement on social values so that Society can be analyzed in terms of the values it holds is callcd a unity or consensus view of society. This view will be contrasted later with a conflict view of society, which emphasizes conflicts of interest rather than agreements in values. It will become apparent that both views are useful in the analysis of social problems.

Political limits once belonged only to white men at least 21 years of age, and in some cases only if they were property owners. Now, political rights belong to all men and women 18 years of age or older who are citizens, whether black or white，rich or poor. Americans believe in equality not only of political rights but also of educational rights, working rights, rights in court, and many other rights. Consequently, when women or racial minorities are denied equal pay for their work or equal educational opportunities, the situation is regarded as a social problem, affecting large numbers of people in a manner contrary to our social values. Denial of equality in such cases involves conflict of interest; but the demand for equality is rooted in the consensus view that equality is a general American value.

Competition has always been an American value. Americans generally believe in competitive economic system, in competitive sports, in competitive grading systems in School, and in many other forms of competition. The consequence of such a belief, if stressed stron^y enou^i, is to downgrade those who achieve very little in the compeddve system. One anthropologist speaks of individual achievement as being so overwhelming in the American value system that it can easily turn into a rationale for inequality. A person believing stron^y enough in competition and finding himself, or herself，at a competitive advantage is not likely to surrender that advantage to others. Corporations in a dominant position in a particular field will try to eliminate any “upstart” competition that develops — and are quite likely to do so in the name of a competitive system. Thus a belief in one value can often collide with a belief in another, value. Attempts to maintain competitive advantages are part of the reason that the issue of equal ri^its for women and minority groups has become an American social problem.

The traditional American attitude toward progress has supported all kinds of technological changes, from horses to cars and tractors, from gaslight to electricity, from wood to gas, and, less fortunately, from gunpowder to atomic bombs. Progress has often dictated a change from small to large, as in the change from towns to cities and from partnerships to corporations.

The great emphasis on the type of progress here described can lead to a number of social problems: hi^iway congestion, air pollution, nuclear fallout, and the destruction of farmlands by hiiways, airports, and cities. A consequence of such change is a conflict in values between environmentalists on the one hand and real estate developers and industrial interests on the other. Conflict arises，in fact, as to what progress really means. Is progress to be measured purely in technological terms, or should progress mean an improvement in human happiness and the quality of life for this and future generations?

Hi^i values on competition and progress lead to arguments as to who is to blame for unfavorable conditions that arc not wiped away by progress. In one view, sodecy is largely at fault for hi rates of poverty, unemployment, and even crime. In the opposite view, people who arc poor or unemployed or break the law are to blame for thcir own problems, and little or no social concern or sympathy is in order. Sociologist S.M. Miller of Boston University argues that- the view taken by people is influenced strongly by thcir perception of how well the economy is doing. When a “can do •’ mood exists in sodcty, as in the years of the Kennedy administration, society tends to take responsibility for such problems as slums, poverty, and unemployment and feels chat something should be done through public acdon. When economic problems begin to arouse fears about the future, the emphasis becomes “fiscal responsibility,M and, along with it, a tendency to blame poverty, slums, and unemployment on individual pathology. Tlie blame for poverty is placed on the victim of poverty. Immigrants from Mexico and Asia are blamed for unemployment because they come looking for jobs. Foreigners and minorities make good scapegoats, i.e., people upon whom to place the blame for our own problems. In earlier times, the number of lynchings increased whenever cotton prices were low, a reflection of anger and (histradon that had to be taken out on someone. The present resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan probably also has its roots in economic anxieties.

Hadng the blame for social problems on others is a convenient way of rationalizing the ills of society: The thinking goes: there is nothing wrong with our way of life; the whole problem is that Americans are undermined by bad elements, such as foreigners, minorities，radicals, and the indolent poor. Blaming particular groups within society emphasizes the fact of internal conflicts of interest The “bad elements" within can easily be people with whom our interests dash, such as immigrants who may threaten our jobs. There are so many conflicts of interest within a society that some sociologists study social problems almost entirely from a conflict view.

Conflicts and Social Problems

Conflicts of interest are apparent in many kinds of social problems and social protests: labor unrest, race riots, boycotts of products, resistance to a military draft, and demonstrations against management or against laws and government policies. Conflicts of interest sometimes arise between particular industries (railroads versus trucking companies, for instance) or between sections of the country: A traditional area of internal conflict has been between social classes, and at present Americans have conflicts over morals and even over philosophies of life.