Sociologists differ in their understanding of the concept, but the range suggests several

important commonalities.
C. Wright Mills defined sociological imagination as "the vivid awareness of the relationship
between personal experience and the wider society."[citation needed][1]
Sociological Imagination: The application of imaginative thought to the asking and
answering of sociological questions. Someone using the sociological imagination "thinks
himself away" from the familiar routines of daily life.[2]
Another way of describing sociological imagination is the understanding that social
outcomes are based on what we do. To expand on that definition, it is understanding that
some things in society may lead to a certain outcome. The factors mentioned in the
definition are things like norms and motives, the social context are like country and time
period and the social action is the stuff we do that affects other people. The things we do
are shaped by: the situation we are in, the values we have, and the way people around us
act. These things are examined to how they all relate to some sort of outcome. Sociological
imagination can also be considered as the capacity to see things socially, how they interact,
and influence each other.
Things that shape these outcomes include (but are not limited to): social norms, what
people want to gain out of something (their motives for doing something), and the social
context in which they live (ex.- country, time period, people with whom they associate).
Basically, as an aspect of sociological imagination, what people do is shaped by all these
things that result in some sort of outcome.
The sociological imagination is the ability to see things socially and how they interact and
influence each other. To have a sociological imagination, a person must be able to pull
away from the situation and think from an alternative point of view. It requires to "think
ourselves away from our daily routines and look at them anew". To acquire knowledge, it is
important to break free from the immediacy of personal circumstances and put things into a
wider context, rather than following a routine. The actions of people are much more
important than the acts themselves.
Sociological imagination is the capacity to shift from one perspective to another.
Mills believed in the power of the sociological imagination to connect "personal troubles to
public issues."
There is an urge to know the historical and sociological meaning of the singular individual in
society, particularly in the period in which he has his quality and his being. To do this one

may use the sociological imagination to better understand the larger historical scene in
terms of its meaning for the inner self and external career of a variety of individuals. [3]
Another perspective is that Mills chose sociology because he felt it was a discipline that
...could offer the concepts and skills to expose and respond to social injustice.[4] He
eventually became disappointed with his profession of sociology because he felt it was
abandoning its responsibilities, which he criticized in his classic The Sociological
Imagination. In some introductory sociology classes, the sociological imagination is brought
up, along with Mills and how he characterized the sociological imagination as a critical
quality of mind that would help men and women "to use information and to develop reason
in order to achieve lucid summations of what is going on in the world and of what may be
happening within themselves."[5]

Sociological perspective[edit]
A related term, the sociological perspective, was thought of by Peter L. Berger. He stated
that the sociological perspective was seeing "the general in the particular" and that it helped
sociologists realize general patterns in the behaviour of specific individuals.[6] One can think
of sociological perspective as our own personal choice and how the society plays a role in
shaping our individual lives.[6]

Uses of sociological imagination in films[edit]

The advantages of using popular films to enhance students' comprehension of sociological
topics is widely recognized. Those who teach courses in social problems report using films
to teach about war, to aid students in adopting a global perspective and to confront issues
of race relations. There are benefits of using film as part of a multimedia approach to
teaching courses in popular culture. It also provides students of medical sociology with case
studies for hands-on observational experiences. It acknowledges the value of films as
historical documentation of changes in cultural ideas, materials, and institutions.
Feature films are used in introductory sociology courses to demonstrate the current
relevance of sociological thinking and to show how the sociological imagination helps us
make sense of our social world. The underlying assumption is that the sociological
imagination is best developed and exercised in the introductory class by linking new
materials in the context of conflict theory and functionalism.

The Sociological Imagination is a book by American sociologist C. Wright Mills, first published
by Oxford University Press in 1959 and still in print.
Mills felt that the central task for sociology and sociologists was to find (and articulate) the
connections between the particular social environments of individuals (also known as "milieu")
and the wider social and historical forces in which they are enmeshed. This approach
challenges a structural functionalist approach to sociology, as it opens new positions for the
individual to inhabit with regard to the larger social structure. Individual function that reproduces
larger social structure is only one of many possible roles, and is not necessarily the most
important. Mills also wrote of the danger of malaise [clarification needed], which he saw as inextricably
embedded in the creation and maintenance of modern societies. This led him to question
whether individuals exist in modern societies in the sense that "individual" is commonly
understood (Mills, 1959, 7-12).
In writing The Sociological Imagination, Mills was trying to reconcile two varying, abstract
conceptions of social realitythe "individual" and "society"and thereby challenged the
dominant sociological discourse to define some of its most basic terms and be forthright about
the premises behind its definitions. He began the project of reconciliation and challenge with
critiques of "grand theory" and "abstracted empiricism," outlining and criticizing their use in the
current sociology of the day.
In 1998 the International Sociological Association listed this work as the second most important
sociological book of the 20th century.[1]
Contents
[hide]

1 Grand theory
o 1.1 Social order
o 1.2 Role of social theory
2 Abstracted empiricism
3 The human variety
4 Reaction to The Sociological Imagination
o 4.1 The political nature of Mills's work
5 The Personality of C. Wright Mills
6 Legacy of Mills
7 References
8 External links
9 See also

Grand theory[edit]

In chapter two of his work, Mills (1959) seems to be criticizing Parsonian Sociology. In this he
directly addresses The Social System, written by Talcott Parsons.
In The Social System, Parsons describes the nature of the structure of society and the creation
and maintenance of a culture through the socialization of individuals. Mills criticizes this
tendency in sociology on several grounds. He argues for a more heterogeneous form of society
in that he challenges the extent to which a single uniformity of society is indeed possible (Mills,
1959, 26-30).

Social order[edit]
Mills (1959) criticizes the Parsonian formulation of social order, particularly the idea that social
order can indeed be seen as a whole. He writes that every individual cannot simply be fully
integrated into society and internalize all its cultural forms. Furthermore, such domination may
be seen as a further extension of power and social stratification.
Brewer (2004) sees such a work as The Sociological Imagination as an extension of Mills's
other works on power and social stratification, i.e. The Power Elite andWhite Collar. According
to Mills, what grand theorists call value orientation could in actuality be a form of domination and
thereby may simply be a form of legitimation (Mills, 1959, 33-36).

Role of social theory[edit]

He further criticizes Parsonian Sociology on its ability to theorize as a form of pure abstraction
that society can be understood irrespective of its historical and contextual nature without
observation.
He argues that society and its cultural symbols cannot be seen as self-determining and cannot
be derived without reference to individuals and their consciousness. All power according to
Parsons is based on a system of beliefs enforced by society, writes Mills. In this he criticizes
Parsons for his view in terms of historical and social change and diversity (Mills, 1959, 40-46).
He thereby criticizes the means by which a social order can be derived without observation
(Mills, 1959, 46-48).

Abstracted empiricism[edit]
In his third chapter, Mills (1959) can be seen to criticize the empirical methods of social
research which he saw as evident at the time in the conception of data and the handling of
methodological tools.
This can be seen as a reaction to the plethora of social research being developed from about
the time of the Second World War. This can thereby be seen as much a criticism by Brewer that

Mills may have been critical of the research being conducted and sponsored by the American
government(Brewer,2004).
As such Mills (1959) criticizes the methodological inhibition which he saw as characteristic of
what he called abstract empiricism. In this he can be seen criticizing the work of Paul F.
Lazarsfeld who conceives of Sociology not as a discipline but as a methodological tool (Mills,
1959, 55-59).
He argues that the problem of such social research is that there may be a tendency towards
psychologism, which explains human behavior on the individual level without reference to the
social context. This, he argues, may lead to the separation of research from theory. He then
writes of the construction of milieu in relation to social research and how both theory and
research are related (Mills, 1959, 65-68).

The human variety[edit]

In chapter seven of his work, Mills (1959) sets out what is thought to be his vision of Sociology.
He writes of the need to integrate the social, biographical, and historical versions of reality in
which individuals construct their social milieus with reference to the wider society (Mills, 1959,
132-134).
He argues that the nature of society is continuous with historical reality. In doing so, Mills writes
of the importance of the empirical adequacy of theoretical frameworks. He also writes of the
notion of a unified social sciences. This he believes is not a conscious effort but is a result of the
historical problem-based discourses out of which the disciplines developed, in which the
divisions between the disciplines become increasingly fluid (Mills, 1959, 136-140). Thus Mills
(1959) sets out what he believed to be a problem-based approach to his conception of social
sciences (140-142).

Reaction to The Sociological Imagination[edit]

Mills's work was widely read in its time and The Sociological Imagination is still one of the most
widely read tracts of sociology and a staple of undergraduate sociology courses. His work was
not well received at the time, which can be seen as a result of Mills's professional and personal
reputation (Brewer, 2004, 317).
This is somewhat appropriate given that the nature of Mills's work patterned around the
biography of individuals, their historical actions and the relation to the wider society in terms of
structure, in as much as Mills's own life has been seen by others as illustrative of his conception
of Sociology. He hoped to reconcile the issues of individuals with the problems facing society,

thereby framing individuals' problems in social, political, and historical reality (Brewer, 2004,
320).
Thus, he can be seen as a trying to create a three-dimensional view of society and, according to
Brewer (2004), attempted to break down the divide between the public and the private realms of
society, something characteristic of Sociology at the time. In this, he was viewing society as
simultaneously macroscopic and microscopic in nature whilst trying to merge both historical and
contemporary social realities (Brewer, 2004, 320-321).
His work was widely criticized due to what were perceived critical attacks on the discipline. This
can be seen in his writings where he criticizes both the methodological inhibition of what he
refers to as abstract empiricism (i.e. the work of Paul F. Lazarsfield) and what he refers to as
the fetishisation of concepts in the works of those such as Talcott Parsons. Mills criticized the
"grand theory" and the positivism of structural functionalism in Parsons' work (Brewer, 2004,
322-324).

The political nature of Mills's work[edit]

This exacerbated what were seen as professional disagreements which were then ongoing with
other professionals in the discipline. In particular his criticism of abstracted empiricism was seen
in conjunction to his criticisms of both state sponsored research and the political policies of the
Cold War American government (Brewer, 2004, 326-328).
As such, his work was not well received. Both in Britain and in America he came under criticism.
In Britain his work was criticized for the extent to which he was seen to attack empirical
Sociology which was then common in Britain at the time. In America, his criticism of structural
functionalism and of its accompanying critiques of power and stratification made him somewhat
subject to severe criticism (Brewer, 2004, 328-330).

The Personality of C. Wright Mills[edit]

The reception of C. Wright Mills can now be seen as somewhat illustrative of Mills's personality.
In his work, we can see the space of selfhood which Mills argued individuals connect
individuals with society as a whole. Thus, of personalized experiences being used to link public
discourses he can thereby be seen to mark a biographical turn in post-structuralist Sociology
(Brewer, 2005, 661-663).
His work can also be seen as reaction to cold war America and the radicalism and
disengagement with establishment sociology. It can also, however, be seen as return by those
such as Brewer to a tradition of social reformism as well as a response to the
professionalization of the discipline (Brewer, 2005, 663-665).

His conception of the specialization of the discipline can be seen in the works of Georg Simmel,
in his idea of social space and social configurations of space. Thus, Brewer (2005) seems to
see him returning the discipline to the configuration of biography and self in the configuration of
social space. This can also be seen in thesocial constructionism and the importance of space
and time in the work of Anthony Giddens. This is most reminiscent of the templates of the self
as seen as the understanding of the self in relation to social space as written by Erving
Goffman and his conception of frontstage and backstage. Thus the work of Mills can be seen
as an illustrative example in terms of his biography of the conception of social space and the
importance of narrative (Brewer, 2005, 665-667).
His life is therefore seen as having an impact on his construction of self. This can be seen as a
reflection therefore of his background and the importance he placed on independence, selfreliance, and individualism in the creation of autonomy and what others would refer to as the
[o]ccupational role of the loner. This outsider mentality, as referred to by Brewer (2005), can
be seen as form of personal survival whereby Mills could thereby distance himself from personal
and professional criticism. Thus, the Sociological Imagination is seen by many as a connection
between Mills life and work (Brewer, 2005, 668-671).

Legacy of Mills[edit]
The work of C. Wright Mills can be seen as extended in the work of Michael Burawoy and his
conception of Public sociology. In his speech to the American Sociological Association he
speaks of the importance of public discourse and the importance of Sociology as an agent of
historical change (Burawoy, 2005, 259-261).
This can also be seen in his work Ethnography Unbound, in which he refers to his Extended
case method of ethnography and relates C. Wright Mills work in his idea of theory construction
as the relation of the personal troubles of the milieu to the public issues of the social
structure (C. Wright Mills, in Burawoy, 1991, 6).