Download Sociological Imagination

Sociological Imagination
In l959, C. Wright Mills released a book entitled ‘The sociological
Imagination’. It was in this book that he laid out a set of guidelines of
how to carry out social analysis. But for a layman, what does the
term ‘sociological imagination’ actually mean?
In his own words, Mills claimed “it is the capacity to shift from one
perspective to another…the capacity to range from the most impersonal
and remote transformations to the most intimate features of the human
self – and to see the relations between the two of them.” Mills believed
that being able to see the relationship between the ordinary lives of
people and the wider social forces was the key to the sociological
imagination.
Fundamental to Mills’ theory is the idea of ‘public issues’ and ‘private
troubles’. An individual’s troubles are personal when they occur
because of the person’s character. Public issues, however, are a direct
result of the problems within society, they affect people hugely but
often the individual will assign the problem as their own personal
downfall rather than as a societal problem.
An ordinary man may get depressed about being unemployed and
automatically accept it as his own personal trouble. He will be condemned
as being ‘lazy’ or ‘work- shy’ and labelled simply as a ‘scrounger’. However,
if there are thousands of other individuals also unemployed, Mills argues it
should then be treated as a ‘public issue’.
Another good example of this is divorce. If only a few divorces occur
within a society than it can be seen as person troubles of the people
involved. If, however, masses of people are getting divorced every year
than it can be seen as a public issue where institutions like marriage, law
and media need to be looked at.
Mills suggested was that these sorts of problems are interwoven with the
large-scale problems of society where government policy may be
involved and therefore are a ‘public issue’.
It is clear from this that what sociology focuses on is the influence of
social forces on behaviour and how individuals and groups respond to
these forces.
In order to analyse the effects it is important to see the world with a
sociological state of mind and “..to see it whole.” (Mills. l959. l70). It is
using this ability to see the bigger picture that sociological explanations
can be developed. Some explanations are that of Emile Durkheim, a
French sociologist who came up with a theory for suicide.
Durkheim suggested that social forces are responsible for suicides,
underlying 4 main causes of suicide to do with social integration and
moral regulation. The first is Egoistic suicide in which the individual
experiences low levels of social integration and becomes detached from
social groups. Durkheim’s example of this was of unmarried people,
especially males, who had little social support or guidance.
The second is Altruistic suicide, which is a result of too much social
integration. This involved the individual becoming so immersed in their
social group that they lost sight of their individuality, resulting in sacrifice
of their own lives. Durkheim’s example of this was members of the
military. A modern example would be suicide bombers who surround
terrorism today.
The third is Anomic suicide associated with moral regulation. Durkheim
suggested this type was due to a sudden breakdown of social order or a
disruption in norms, for example the French revolution and the
emergence of a new industrial society.
The final type of suicide put forward by Durkheim is fatalistic suicide. This
would occur when the individual was forced to live in unbearable
circumstances or lived a very unrewarding life such as a slave.
559
Durkheim’s work on suicide demonstrates sociological imagination.
In the first chapter of his book, Mills writes that “The sociological
imagination enables its possessor to understand the larger historical
scene in terms of its meaning for the inner life and the external career
of a variety of individuals” (Mills. 1959. 12) Many people would argue
with Durkheim that suicide is purely a psychological act, but if that is
the case then why, as Durkheim questioned, does the rate of suicide
vary between societies? Why do the rates of suicide vary significantly
between different groups in societies? And why do the rates within
groups and societies remain fairly constant over time?
Durkheim sought to show that social behaviour and social development
was a result of social processes and therefore exercised a sociological
imagination. Sociology is regularly “dismissed as ‘an endless quest for
knowledge about trivia’ and is often criticised as being nothing more than
‘common sense’.”(Marsh. 2000. p.9)
Common sense is described simply as common knowledge which most
people assume to be true but has not actually been proven or disproved.
‘Zigmunt Bauman suggests that in order to think sociologically, we
must move beyond our common sense’. (www.coursework.info)
Sociologists base their ideas on evidence rather than on simple
assumption, and to do this their theories must be analysed and tested.
Therefore, although common sense may be at the root of sociology, it
is not in fact the same thing.
In direct contrast to sociological theories are two main explanations, the
‘naturalistic’ and the ‘individualistic’.These oppose theories put forward
by famous sociologists such as Durkheim and Karl Marx, and contradict
Mills’ ideas surrounding the sociological imagination. These alternative
explanations see social behaviour as a result of inherent and
psychological rather than a product of interaction.
The naturalistic explanation identifies natural reasons for human
behaviour such as biological inherent traits and genes. It proposes that
we are like animals, in that we are biologically programmed by nature
and governed by instinct (Jones. The naturalistic explanation, for
example, would assign war to man’s natural aggressiveness. It explains
marriage by saying that it is natural for a man and woman to fall in love,
settle down, get married and have children.
For the man to go out to work, the woman to stay home and care for the
children, and for the children to want to live at home until roughly the age
of 18. (Jones)The naturalistic explanation claims it is unnatural for any
individual not to have these instincts.The fact that people within a society
learn to accept these norms, values and roles (Mills. 29) without ever
questioning it is called in sociological terms ‘socialization’.
“Deeply immersed in our daily routines, though, we hardly ever pause to
think about the meaning of what we have gone through: even less often
have we the opportunity to compare our private experiences with the
fate of others, to see the social in the individual, the general in the
particular, this is precisely what sociologists can do for us. We would
them to show us how our individual biographies intertwine with the
history we share with human beings.” (Bauman 1990, quoted in Giddens
1997a: 14)
Theorists in the naturalistic explanation such as Edward O. Wilson,
Desmond Morris, Konrad Lorenz and Richard Dawkins have used it to
devise what is called ‘sociobiology’. This explains human social behaviour
in terms of biology and evolution and has explained rape as simple an
underlying bio-logic within males.
This method of approach directly opposes the concept of sociological
imagination, the ability “..to grasp history and biography and the
relations between the two within society.” (Mills. 1959. 12) The other
‘non-social’ approach, the individualistic explanation, relies on the idea
that behaviour is a product of individual characters or abilities
suggesting that for instance educational achievement is the result of
higher intelligence.
Sociologists would ask why then do children from working class homes
do so badly compared with children from middle class homes? (jones)
They argue that it is unrealistic to suggest that having a particular
occupation rather than another will determine the intelligence of your
child and that educational achievement must therefore be influenced by
a child’s background and social environment. The individualistic approach
explains crime in a similar way, that criminals are ‘mad or bad’, born
rather than made.
Sociologists point out that the rate of crime convicts is highest among
young working class males, especially blacks. They question as to whether
it is really believable that criminal personalities are likely to be
concentrated within this social category. Sociologists use their sociological
imagination to question widely accepted facts such as these and therefore
perceive ‘public issues’ and ‘private troubles’ as two aspects of a single
issue.
It is clear that Mills believed that society shaped individuals, but he also
believed that individuals help to shape society. “By the fact of this living,
he contributes, however minutely, to the shaping of this society and to
the course of its history, even as he is made by society and by its
historical push and shove.” (Mills. 1959. 12).
From this study it has been learned that sociology involves questioning
the norm. Questioning the norm involves realising that behaviour is
primarily social rather than biological, and that every day routines are
learned, familiar processes which brainwash people in contributing to the
everyday hamster wheel of life. Functionalism, which was born in the
19th century as a response to a ‘crisis of order’, promotes this idea that
a functioning and orderly society relies on central value system from
which individuals derive their common values. ()
No matter what theory it may be, whether it is a academically recognised
study or a moment of realisation by one insignificant individual, it is
generally accepted that a sociological imagination is required in order to
do this, as written in his book Mills states that “in order to think
sociologically, we need to develop the sociological imagination”, that is,
to look beyond the norm and see the world as an outside observer.
An excellent description of sociology is this written by Zygmunt Bauman
in 1990. “When repeated often enough, things tend to become familiar,
and familiar things tend are self explanatory, they present no problems
and arouse no curiosity… In an encounter with that familiar world ruled by
habits and reciprocally reasserting beliefs, sociology acts as a meddlesome
and often irritating stranger. It disturbs the comfortably quiet way of life
by asking questions noone among the ‘locals’ remember being asked, let
alone answered. Such questions make evident things into puzzles: they
defamiliarize the familiar. Suddenly the daily way of life must come under
scrutiny. It now appears to be just one of the possible ways of life, not the
only, not the ‘natural’ way of life.” (Bauman 1990, quoted in Giddens
1997).
As a personal addition and final thought to this study of the sociological
imagination, this quote (above) taken from Bauman will be compared to
the modern day, well known film ‘the matrix’. The film surrounds the
idea that the life we lead as individuals is just an illusion created to blind
people from what is real. Noone ever questions this pretend reality
because it is so familiar, normal and therefore accepted.
The true reality of these humans is that they are in actual fact just
‘human batteries’, all contributing unknowingly to the so called ‘machine
world’ of the future , which feeds off their human energy to sustain their
existence.
This of course in an extremely dramatic, science fiction based, made up
concept quite different from the ideas put forward by sociologists like
Durkheim and Marx. But by reading the above quote, and watching the
film, there can be seen an underlying common theme. That the life we are
given and expected to accept is not the only of life.That it is appropriate to
question ‘why are we here?’ and ‘what is our purpose?’ It is the latter part
of Bauman’s quote which illustrates this the most. “Suddenly the daily way
of life must come under scrutiny…”
It is this idea that this hamster wheel way of life is not the only way, and
not the natural way.The main character of the film ‘Neo’ questions the
meaning of his entire existence quoting “I don’t like the idea that I’m not
in control of my life’ and eventually becomes literally detached from the
illusion which is the so called ‘world’ in which they live. Although this may
be seen as a far fetched connection, it would be interesting to see if the
producers of this film meant it as a reference to the sociological idea of
norms and deviance.
It can be concluded that the sociological imagination is essentially a
sociological state of mind. It is a method which sociologists use to deal with
the analysis of information. “The quality of mind essential to grasp the
interplay of man and society, of biography and history, of self and worth”
(Mills. 1959)