The Sociological Imagination By C. Wright Mills

C. Wright Mills utilised the expression “The Sociological Imagination” in his 1959 publication of the same name, to define several unique aspects of the sociological science that he deemed to be of immense importance. Since then, his theory of the Sociological Imagination has become a staple facet to many undergraduate sociology courses, as well as a foundation towards a basic sociological understanding. Unsurprisingly, over the 56 years since Mills introduced his theory, a number of academics and individuals have interpreted the concept. Of these, a range in quality, accuracy, depth and complexity can be noted, however a general strand of consistency exists among them, which will be discussed.
C. Wright Mills theory can be broken down into three main components: biography, history, and social structure, which collate to form “The
Sociological Imagination”. Mills stressed that for one to undergo a successful sociological analysis, all previous bias or personal objective must be dropped. In doing so, personal biography and history must be taken into account before any assumptions can be made towards a situation. To quote C. Wright Mills himself, an individual “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” (1959, p.11). Understanding this core relationship between history and biography allows one to detach from the perception that problems are a result of “personal troubles of the milieu” (1959, p. 12), and can be in fact linked to wider societal structural issues. Once these concepts were grasped, and implemented into sociological research or analysis, then, Mills believed one would possess the “Sociological Imagination”, and be able to perceive the world holistically and with clarity.
One of the many interpretations of ‘The Sociological Imagination’ available includes the YouTube clip “A Successful Sociologist Makes the Familiar Strange”. The central focus within this clip is breaking down what are considered to be societal norms, and challenging the perception of what is right and wrong through a sociological lens. While the clip offers valid exemplars as to how “what seems natural, but in fact isn’t” (Conley, 2012) makes up a large part of social structures, it offers little insight into C.W. Mills’ theory of the Sociological Imagination. A brief introduction touches on how a founding concept of sociology is the “intersection of history and biography” (Conley, 2012), a central aspect to the Sociological Imagination, but remains generally vague and uninformative. The clip proves to be effective in introducing the idea as to what sociologists may look at when being critical, but fails to dig deeper and provide viewers with any information as to why we perceive things the way we do, or how these perceptions can be challenged.
Furthermore, a second example of the broad range in interpretations of the Sociological Imagination can be found in the YouTube clip “Sociological Imagination”. The clip bases itself around “what sociology isn’t” (Cortese, 2013), before branching into C. W. Mills idea of bridging personal troubles to structural issues within society A significant portion of the clip dedicates itself to establishing means by which to collect sociological research, stressing that it is “not common sense”, rather, a “controlled experiment” (Cortese, 2013), which, although touched upon by Mills, is not a central aspect to the Sociological Imagination theory. However, the clip then twists to focus upon Mills and his ideas regarding personal troubles being explained by broader public issues, or establishing a “vivid awareness of the relationship between experience and the wider society” (Mills, 1959, p.10). The importance of history, and its constant relevance to society when reviewing behaviour and interaction, is also discussed briefly, creating a more clear emphasis upon Mills’ theory within the clip. While staying reasonably brief, the clip manages to convey Mills’ general ideas in a clear and concise manner, making it an ideal introductory segment to sociology.
A final example of interpretations of C.
Wright Mills’ theory is YouTube clip “C. Wright Mills – The Sociological Imagination”, whereby, as with the two previous clips, the concept of relating personal problems to societal issues is examined in depth. The narrator uses an example of students struggling to make ends meet on a monthly basis, and details that students perceive this to be a result of individual circumstance, as opposed to a much wider social issue (high rent, price increases in groceries, and so forth). Furthermore, the clip continues on to discuss the importance of implementing the Sociological Imagination into research, stressing that it “allows us to grasp the relationship between personal biography and how you fit into the bigger picture, history and society” (Marshall, 2012). In doing so, all three core aspects to the Sociological Imagination theory are examined, using relatively complex language within the slides, however simplified with relevant examples and narration, in a bid to instruct persons as to how to view the world form an outsiders perspective and the “sociological reality of everyday life” (Marshall,
2012).
Whilst all three clips offer unique interpretations of C. Wright Mills’ Sociological Imagination theory, each clip presents obvious strengths and weaknesses in their analysis. Clip one (“A Successful Sociologist Makes The Familiar Strange”) proves to be a poor representation of the Sociological Imagination, and appears to target a younger age bracket, due to its cartoon interpretations, basic language, and lack of general depth. Its relevance to Mills’ theory is low, thus I deem it to be of poor quality when being judged as an academic standard of rendition. Clip Two, “Sociological Imagination”, has a slightly more detailed approach to its analysis, offering brief segments whereby each facet of the Sociological Imagination is touched upon in a concise manner. The clip lacks some relevant information, but provides a far more accurate analysis of Mills’ work than the clip previously discussed. Finally, the third YouTube clip “C. Wright Mills – The Sociological Imagination” offers the most in depth response to Mills’ theory, providing relevant examples to support his claims, and narrating at an academic standard. This allows for a greater understanding of Mills’ work to be rendered from the clip, whilst simultaneously remaining relatively brief and to the point.
Thus, I deem YouTube clip “C. Wright Mills –The Sociological Imagination” to be the greatest reflection of the theory introduced by Mills in 1959. Its depth and academic form convey Mills’ ideas in a manner that is both accessible and slightly challenging, in that it encourages wider thinking from the viewer. As time progresses, there will be a continuous stream of interpretations of the Sociological Imagination – it will remain ever important for society to grasp the importance of its application.