Imagination vs. Convention
By Richard Birch
STAS 2127 Research Methods & Data Analysis
This work Copyright (C) 2005 Richard Birch
“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, p.5)
To understand human existence is to engage in a method of historical discourse. History requires that we as students of the social sciences embark on asking and analysing the appropriate questions that will direct us to understanding the intricate nature of what constructs social structure and the fabric of humanity within that structure. But structures are diverse. They are as diverse as the number of individual and aggregate histories and biographies that have ever existed and that do exist in the world. We as students of sociology must ask of the diversities and varieties of history in order to acquire sociological thought. That is what Mills is claiming to be the key to acquiring insight to the relationship between history and sociology. “We need the variety provided by history in order even to ask sociological questions properly, much less to answer them” (Mills, 1959, p. 147). This claim is grounded by the notion that where history, biography, and society converge is where one can find accurate understanding of people.
In Mills’ critique of grand theory, liberal practicality, and abstracted empiricism he claims that conventional sociology has tended to discard history for the sake of acquiring concepts of human nature and society. What has consequently occurred in conventional sociology is the creation of concepts and methods for the sake of themselves, not for the sake of understanding what it is to be engaged in the sociological imagination. To engage in this imagination is to value how social sciences can assist humanity above the practice of methods and theory.
To Mills, grand theory, and abstracted empiricism are traps dug by bureaucratic ideologies, of which “abstracted empiricism is the most suitable tool and grand theory the accompanying lack of theory” (Mills, 1959, p. 129). The consequence of the acquisition of social studies by bureaucracy is the desensitization of the social scientist to the problems of humanity. Theory now has taken the purpose of serving “ideological justification of authority” (Mills, 1959, pg. 117). The classic sociologist does not embark on utilizing theory and empiricism for legitimizing bureaucratic ideals and existence. The classic sociologist knows to shun this tendency of disregarding the human variety. To use concepts is for the intention of augmenting his or her “sensibilities, the precision of his [or her] references, the depth of his [or her] reasoning” (Mills, 1959, p. 120).
To think sociologically does not mean to necessarily personally detach oneself from the thinking process. It can be meaningful and useful to position oneself as a connected part of the conceptual relationships one is studying. To think sociologically is also to think about one’s own existence and the myriad of social and cultural historical events that may have led to one’s present place as an oppressed, an elite, a thinker, or anything else one may become over time. As Mills reminds us that “the most admirable thinkers within the scholarly community [we] have chosen to join do not split their work from their lives” (Mills, 1959, p. 195). To engage in sociological thought is to deepen the process by including one’s own existential value in the concept of what is being discovered. This helps in essence to relieve the tendency to reduce the process to systematically dissecting the milieux of all human behaviour and social structure to basic temporal functionality. By engaging one’s own perceptions and history into the fold one can create a discourse with his or her sociological imagination that can bring about real understanding of social structure.
The essence of this craft is to continually (1) utilize one’s life experiences in intellectual practices in order to increase one’s capacity for understanding his or her own milieu and to understand it’s temporal social structure, and (2) to continuously question what one has ascertained from analysing this relationship in order to examine and understand it. From the reflection of one’s inner life and existential interface with the social world, on can begin to examine and interpret one’s position in the variety of human existence. In other words, personal reflection provides a route for seeing the nature of one’s own history and the milieu of his or her social reality.
Through the questioning of the larger historical scene of one’s life, one may discover insight in how to design questions for the larger historical scene of a society. That is the starting point for acquiring the sociological imagination as described by the phrase in question. To examine history in order to attain understanding of the “inner life and the external career of a variety of individuals” (Mills, 1959, p. 5) is to cultivate the ability to formulate the right questions relevant to the study of society. Mills describes this as “the capacity to shift from one perspective to another, and in the process to build up an adequate view of a total society and of its components” (Mills, 1959, p. 211). This is how the sociological imagination is different from the sociological conventions that were criticized by Mills for being too engrossed in theoretical concepts instead of critical analysis of real social problems.
Where history, biography, and society converge is where one can find accurate understanding of people. To examine the historical social structure is to begin the process of understanding the nature of human social behaviour and the problems that eventually arise from this behaviour. For Mills this was essential for the social scientist. A social scientist must differentiate him or herself from “mere technician” (Mills, 1959, p. 211) in order to gain the knowledge required to solve social problems of the milieux. To engage in conventional sociological analysis, immersed in the limiting confines of grand theory, liberal practicality and the bureaucratic bias of abstracted empiricism is to deny the function of the social scientist. The fetishistic preoccupation of conventional theorists according to Mills fails to recognize the responsibility social scientists have to their craft that is to engage in the practice of realizing real solutions to social problems. It is their responsibility to either be engaged in this methodology, or do not engage at all.
Reference
Mills, C.W. (1959). The Sociological Imagination. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.
STAS 2127 Research Methods & Data Analysis
This work Copyright (C) 2005 Richard Birch
“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, p.5)
To understand human existence is to engage in a method of historical discourse. History requires that we as students of the social sciences embark on asking and analysing the appropriate questions that will direct us to understanding the intricate nature of what constructs social structure and the fabric of humanity within that structure. But structures are diverse. They are as diverse as the number of individual and aggregate histories and biographies that have ever existed and that do exist in the world. We as students of sociology must ask of the diversities and varieties of history in order to acquire sociological thought. That is what Mills is claiming to be the key to acquiring insight to the relationship between history and sociology. “We need the variety provided by history in order even to ask sociological questions properly, much less to answer them” (Mills, 1959, p. 147). This claim is grounded by the notion that where history, biography, and society converge is where one can find accurate understanding of people.
In Mills’ critique of grand theory, liberal practicality, and abstracted empiricism he claims that conventional sociology has tended to discard history for the sake of acquiring concepts of human nature and society. What has consequently occurred in conventional sociology is the creation of concepts and methods for the sake of themselves, not for the sake of understanding what it is to be engaged in the sociological imagination. To engage in this imagination is to value how social sciences can assist humanity above the practice of methods and theory.
To Mills, grand theory, and abstracted empiricism are traps dug by bureaucratic ideologies, of which “abstracted empiricism is the most suitable tool and grand theory the accompanying lack of theory” (Mills, 1959, p. 129). The consequence of the acquisition of social studies by bureaucracy is the desensitization of the social scientist to the problems of humanity. Theory now has taken the purpose of serving “ideological justification of authority” (Mills, 1959, pg. 117). The classic sociologist does not embark on utilizing theory and empiricism for legitimizing bureaucratic ideals and existence. The classic sociologist knows to shun this tendency of disregarding the human variety. To use concepts is for the intention of augmenting his or her “sensibilities, the precision of his [or her] references, the depth of his [or her] reasoning” (Mills, 1959, p. 120).
To think sociologically does not mean to necessarily personally detach oneself from the thinking process. It can be meaningful and useful to position oneself as a connected part of the conceptual relationships one is studying. To think sociologically is also to think about one’s own existence and the myriad of social and cultural historical events that may have led to one’s present place as an oppressed, an elite, a thinker, or anything else one may become over time. As Mills reminds us that “the most admirable thinkers within the scholarly community [we] have chosen to join do not split their work from their lives” (Mills, 1959, p. 195). To engage in sociological thought is to deepen the process by including one’s own existential value in the concept of what is being discovered. This helps in essence to relieve the tendency to reduce the process to systematically dissecting the milieux of all human behaviour and social structure to basic temporal functionality. By engaging one’s own perceptions and history into the fold one can create a discourse with his or her sociological imagination that can bring about real understanding of social structure.
The essence of this craft is to continually (1) utilize one’s life experiences in intellectual practices in order to increase one’s capacity for understanding his or her own milieu and to understand it’s temporal social structure, and (2) to continuously question what one has ascertained from analysing this relationship in order to examine and understand it. From the reflection of one’s inner life and existential interface with the social world, on can begin to examine and interpret one’s position in the variety of human existence. In other words, personal reflection provides a route for seeing the nature of one’s own history and the milieu of his or her social reality.
Through the questioning of the larger historical scene of one’s life, one may discover insight in how to design questions for the larger historical scene of a society. That is the starting point for acquiring the sociological imagination as described by the phrase in question. To examine history in order to attain understanding of the “inner life and the external career of a variety of individuals” (Mills, 1959, p. 5) is to cultivate the ability to formulate the right questions relevant to the study of society. Mills describes this as “the capacity to shift from one perspective to another, and in the process to build up an adequate view of a total society and of its components” (Mills, 1959, p. 211). This is how the sociological imagination is different from the sociological conventions that were criticized by Mills for being too engrossed in theoretical concepts instead of critical analysis of real social problems.
Where history, biography, and society converge is where one can find accurate understanding of people. To examine the historical social structure is to begin the process of understanding the nature of human social behaviour and the problems that eventually arise from this behaviour. For Mills this was essential for the social scientist. A social scientist must differentiate him or herself from “mere technician” (Mills, 1959, p. 211) in order to gain the knowledge required to solve social problems of the milieux. To engage in conventional sociological analysis, immersed in the limiting confines of grand theory, liberal practicality and the bureaucratic bias of abstracted empiricism is to deny the function of the social scientist. The fetishistic preoccupation of conventional theorists according to Mills fails to recognize the responsibility social scientists have to their craft that is to engage in the practice of realizing real solutions to social problems. It is their responsibility to either be engaged in this methodology, or do not engage at all.
Reference
Mills, C.W. (1959). The Sociological Imagination. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.
posted by energetika at 4:57 PM
0 comments
