What's the Problem Represented to Be?
The power to push an agenda rests in the power to define the problem.
When analyzing any social policy, Carol Bacchi argues that the first question we need to ask is not “What problem does this policy solve?” but “What's the problem represented to be?” Policies implicitly ask us to take the problems they address for granted. Less clear is how policies define the problems they are purporting to address — and whose interests are supported by these definitions.
For example, a new government initiative to expand childcare services might ostensibly claim to solve the problem of parents’ inability to take part in the labour force. This “problem representation” deflects us from considering other potential reasons new parents are not joining the workforce. It furthermore positions childcare as primarily serving the interests of adults and economic growth, subsequently deemphasizing questions of the benefits or implications for children themselves. In Carol Bacchi's words, “policy is not the government's best effort to solve ‘problems’; rather, policies produce ‘problems’ with particular meanings that affect what gets done or not done, and how people live their lives.”1
Bacchi's question, “What's the problem represented to be?” has far-reaching applications beyond government policy. For instance, try asking, “How do digital media platforms represent the problems they exist to solve?” We might begin by examining their advertised assertion to help people connect with one another. If framing the problem as a lack of human connection, what solution do they proffer? Ostensibly, they define social disconnection as a data circulation issue. If everyone knows what everyone else is doing constantly, people wouldn't feel isolated. (After all, what are “friends” if not people who are constantly in the know regarding one another's business?) Putting aside this remarkably narrow and impoverished concept of friendship — as if human intimacy is a byproduct of filling out and reading surveys — the crucial issue for our analysis is determining who benefits by this definition? The reason for asking, “What is the problem represented to be?” is to interrogate, “Who’s interests are served when we all see and define the problem in the same way?”
Angelique Bletsas & Chris Beasley (Eds). (2012). Engaging with Carol Bacchi : strategic interventions and exchanges. Adelaide : The University of Adelaide Press. p. 22
What's the Problem Represented to Be?
"Who benefits by this definition" and who benefits from us buying into it. I would have once believed this to be a way of encouraging critical thinking. However, I then see how conspiracy theorists and far-right thinkers (the overlap of these two is significant), they also contend with the question "who benefits from this" "Who’s interests are served when we all see and define the problem in the same way?" but frame their answers with theories of the deep state and poorly edited videos of world domination. Whether world domination or corporate greed or downright xenophobia, the problem still exists. I wonder if our inability to solve these issues is in part because we cant first and foremost face this part of ourselves that carry an inexplicable and unjustifiable fear/hate/distrust of others that we find educated justifications for them, to preserve the idea that the problem is everything but ourselves.
However, in the end, I myself would rather ask the questions as you have posed them, they are much easier to deal with and may bring about some change for the better. Because this world has shown the violence ppl carry when ones exposes something about them they never wanted exposed, especially when it flies in the face of who they thought they were or tried to present they were. The same for ourselves. Except in some cases, this ignorance causes death.
Lol now see if we were discussing this over a whiskey neat it wouldn't sound so far-fetched
If discussions about policy or public program development began with “what problem are we trying to solve” we would create very different solutions that we do/have.
More often, it begins with “this is what we are being asked to do by X person” and X person is typically the person who holds the most power. They have already jumped to solutioning without asking questions about who’s implicated, who’s left out, what data we have to understand the issue/support the solution.
Then comes the game of telephone where the request is actioned down through the chain of command, details are filtered out, interpretations are applied and, by the time it comes down to the advisor meant to develop the solution, the message is unrecognizable.
There are number of discretionary moments in that game of telephone - where the discussion could shift, the ‘problem’ question could be asked, the request clarified, different people could be included in the discussion to hear the request first-hand. Acting in those discretionary moments requires foresight, intentionality, and courage to go against the status quo.
Working in the public service, there is a swell of support for digital** approaches to public policy and programs. Too often, the cresting wave hits a breakwater called Political Will. As we have people in office who better understand and better reflect the needs/wants/challenges of folks outside the historically dominant groups, we will see a serious shift.
**I use ‘digital’ here in a broad, culture sense to mean ‘against status quo, using technology/tools/information to improve outcomes and products**