In recent decades I have been studying efforts to hard-engineer solutions to soft-social problems, particularly as this involves culture and questions of law, order, security, and surveillance. I sought to understand the ideas associated with efforts to solve problems through science and technology. What I learned about the importance of analyzing the culture of social problem solutions for law and order questions applies to other issues.

In contrast to the previous articles in this volume, which focus directly on problems such as the environment, health, poverty, discrimination, and violence, this chapter argues that how we think about problems, in particular the search for quick technical solutions, can also be a problem. It is a problem in failing to see how the parts of the social order are interdependent (they are “systemic”) and interventions into complex, complicated, and fluid social situations will rarely make a problem disappear. Even when there is overall improvement, there will often be unwanted surprises—whether in some ways worsening the situation or bringing new problems.

Among the nations of the world, the United States most clearly reflects the optimistic, techno-surveillance worldview found within a broader technocratic and commercial celebratory ethos. Statements about technical solutions to social problems, whether made by those technocrats, government officials, aspiring politicians, merchants, or interest groups, need to be analyzed for their empirical, logical, and value components.

In 1928 Lyndon Johnson, in his first job interview to be a teacher, was asked where he stood on the then-contentious issue of Darwin and evolution. Knowing there were differences of opinion, he paused before saying he thought he could teach it either way. So it is with many of the great debates about social problems. Without careful analysis persons of good will (and not so good will) can take strongly opposed positions on a given social issue without necessarily being fools, liars or compassionless. Rather, as with the tale of the blind persons and the pachyderm, they are focused on different parts of the elephant.

The difficulty of agreeing on what concepts mean and on how best to measure and assess a problem are factors here, as are multiple, competing and often unclear goals.