One of the most important aspects about sociology is what a man named C. Wright Mills called the “sociological imagination”. “Neither the life of an individual nor the history of a society can...

One of the most important

aspects about sociology is what a man named C. Wright Mills called the

“sociological imagination”.

“Neither the life of an

individual nor the history of a society can be understood without understanding

both. Yet men do not usually define the troubles they endure in terms of

historical change and institutional contradiction. … 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. … The first fruit of this imagination–and the first lesson of

the social science that embodies it–is the idea that the individual can

understand his own experience and gauge his own fate only by locating himself within

this period, that he can know his own chances in life only by becoming aware of

those of all individuals in his circumstances. …We have come to know that

every individual lives, from one generation to the next, in some society; that

he lives out a biography, and that he lives it out within some historical

sequence (The Sociological Imagination, 1959:3-10).”

Okay, so what does that

mean? Well, it is really

the essence of sociology. Sociologists

see the world as made up a intricate webs of connections. Where everything impacts, or

potentially impacts everything else. It

is kind of like that movie (which I haven’t seen, but my students keep telling

me about) calledThe Butterfly

Effect.We don’t know when

something we do will impact another person, another institution, maybe the

whole world. It sounds

grandiose, but the point is, to sociologists, we are all, always, impacting the

world around us.

At the same time, we are

also being impacted by the world in which we live. I was just reading something about

Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie (okay, junk food reading!). There was a picture of the two of them

with her kids, one from Cambodia and the other from Ethiopia. If either one of the those kids had

not been adopted by her (them) their lives would be drastically different than

they are now. In 20 years,

how different will think and act than if they were raised in their countries of

origin?

While these may be drastic

examples, it is also true that whoever we are has been deeply shaped by the

society in which we have grown up. It

is interesting to think about ~ how would you be different if you had been born

200 years ago? What would

your life be like? As a man

or a woman, would you be treated differently? What is your ethnicity? Would that have made a

difference? Supposing you

grew up very, very rich, like Paris Hilton? How would your life we different

then?

These are questions that

looking at the world through the lens of the sociological imagination can help

us to understand.

Now, you may be thinking,

“Well, what difference does the sociological imagination make if all it helps

me to do is fantasize about what lifemighthave been like for me if I was rich or

born 200 years ago? I can

do that anyway!” But, the

real purpose of the sociological imagination, according to C. Wright Mills, is

that it helps us to become more empowered.

Mills believed that in the

modern world we were often very overwhelmed by the enormity of the social

structures in which we live. Mills

was writing in the 1950’s. He

was an American Sociologist and was seeing first hand how the changes that were

occurring and had occurred in the world were impacting people. The 1950’s often gets portrayed as a

time of happy homes and stable communities. But in fact, that wasn’t really the

case. The country was still

recovering from WWII and all the changes that had brought. The first nuclear weapon was detonated

in 1945. By the 50’s, kids

were getting practicing air raid drills my climbing under their desks, just in

case the Soviet Union dropped a bomb on us. (Exactly what protection a desk was

going to provide from an atomic bomb was not a question we were allowed to

ask.) The truth about Nazi

Germany was beginning become very clear and that was very scary. While the

Soviet Union was portrayed as the big baddy “over there”, 35% of people in the

US were of German descent. So

evil was potentially on our own doorsteps, and in our own blood. The witch hunts of the McCarthy were

going on. People who had

known people who were Communists in the 1950’s were losing their jobs, their

friends and their families. The

first civil rights action took place in 1954. In 1955, Rosa Parks refused to

give up her seat to a white man and the institution of segregation began to

crumble. Divorce was on the

rise. Women were entering colleges at a never before seen rate. The world was changing quickly.

Mills believed that the powerful

sources of social change were everywhere and that the average Joe and Jane felt

powerless and hopeless in the face of these changes. That may be even more true

today. We are engaged in a

war in Iraq that only 385 of the military continues to support. Yet no one seems real clear about how

to get out of there. Global

warming is scaring people a lot! The

average worker is working more hours per day since the 40’s and with commute

time, who sleeps. Yet what

be done about these issues? So

feelings of powerlessness continue today.

Mills did not have all the

answers to this either, but he did propose that it was important for people to

sort out the difference between personal troubles and social issues if they

were going to be successful in solving social problems.

One of Mills main ideas, is that

there is the difference between personal troubles and social issues. But before we talk about the

differences between personal troubles and social issues I want to explain what

they both have in common. Both

personal troubles and social issues result in some form of human

suffering. In both cases,

someone is experiencing some form of problem. However personal troubles and social

issues vary in three ways.

First they vary in terms

of the numbers involved. When

something is a personal trouble, only a few people are involved. When something is a social issue many

people are involved. Now the question you may be asking is at what point

does something move from being a personal trouble to a social issue? That’s a good question and there is no

exact answer. All that

sociologists can say is that when many social structures are involved human

suffering has moved from being a personal trouble to a social issue.

Second, personal troubles

and social issues vary according to their causes. The cause of a personal trouble lies

within the individual. The

cause of the social issue lies within the social structures.

Third, the solutions to

personal troubles and social issues are also different. If one wants to solve a personal

trouble one what has to change one’s own life. If, however, one wants to change a

social issue, then one has to change as a social structure. Changing social structures requires

group action. Therefore it

is always more difficult to resolve social issues than it is to resolve

personal troubles.

Here are some examples of

the difference between a personal trouble and a social issue. Let’s say that Boeing is currently in

a hiring phase. Let’s say

that Boeing is hiring a lot of machinists. Mary loses her job as a machinist at

Boeing. This may be an

example of a personal trouble because other machinists are not losing their

job. Perhaps Mary drinks on

the job. Perhaps Mary has a

bad temper and gets into fights with people at work. Perhaps Mary is a kleptomaniac and she

is stealing tools. In any

or all of these cases, the problem lies with Mary not in the social

structure. It merely wants

to change her situation she needs to deal with her personal problems. She may need to join alcoholics

anonymous. Or she may need

to get some therapy. In

either case the problem lies with Mary and can only be solved by Mary changing

her own life.

However, let’s say that

Mary is one of 10,000 machinists that are laid off at Boeing. And let’s say that Mary was an

excellent worker, very conscientious, got along well with others, never drank

on the job etc. etc.. In

this situation, the problem is not located in Mary. The problem is located in some social

structure. Perhaps the

source of the problem is the globalization of the economy. Perhaps Mary has lost her job because

Boeing a shipping more jobs overseas. Perhaps

the problem is that not enough people are buying airplanes. Perhaps Mary lost her job because

Boeing is losing contracts. In

any of these situations, the problem does not lie with Mary and even if Mary

changes her personal behavior it probably won’t mean that she keeps her

job. Changing her personal

behavior is not going to change the larger social structures that have led to

her unemployment. Therefore

marry is experiencing a social issue not simply a personal trouble.

Many times when we are

experiencing social issues we have to make changes in our personal behavior as

well. For example, Mary

probably needs to go back to school and get more education so that she can get

a different kind of job. Mary

will also have to be where of potential problems that are associated with the

unemployment. For example,

Mary may be more at risk for alcohol problems or family fights or

depression. The point I’m

trying to get at here is that social issues can also lead to personal

troubles. So the two are

often very intertwined.

I hope this helps you to

understand the difference between personal troubles and social issues. Please be sure to ask me any questions

that you may have about this reading when we are in class together.

DISCUSSION QUESTION

Take an issue, like employment

and analyze from the perspective of the sociological imagination. Describe when

it is s personal trouble and when a social issue. Show what needs to be done to

solve this problem when it is both personal and social.