In his chapter “The Promise”, taken from his book entitled The Sociological Imagination, C. Wright Mills states that the distinction between personal troubles and societal issues “is an essential tool of the sociological imagination and a feature of all classic work in social science” (Ferguson 5, 2008). He further defines personal troubles as complications generated and dealt with by the individual. The person’s complications are generated based upon the experiences, situations, and relationships derived directly from his/her personal social sphere.
Mills contrasts this with his definition and explanation of social issues. These issues occur when a collective, societal problem is raised. Because they can result from indirect consequences of the past, direct effects of the present, and proactive solutions to the future, a broader scope of origins must be considered when analyzing social issues.
While I understand the distinction between troubles and issues, I’m not sure I grasp how to use the sociological imagination in a real and effective manner. On a side note I tried to do some further research on Youtube and found this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWuiU47vTiA&feature=related …perhaps not the best explanation, but I found his sperm analogy, although completely misleading, amusing to say the least. Can I look at society from outside the box while taking history and wars, events and trends, cause and effect into account? Yes. This can change my opinions and assumptions, make me re-evaluate my own morals and ethics, and help me better analyze my own place and role in relation to society. What, I’m afraid, it cannot change, for me at least, is the choice. Mills discusses how solutions to personal troubles “lie within the scope of his immediate milieu-the social setting that is directly open to his personal experience and to some extent his willful activity” (Ferguson 5, 2008). The “to some extent” part is where I start to become skeptical. In my opinion, people’s actions are solely based on their choice even if they are shaped by external forces. In this light, I would say that a person’s immediate milieu is comprised of, to ALL extent, his willful activity. I understand life is unfair. Did the 14 year old girl choose to get raped? No. Do homosexuals choose to be attracted to members of the same sex? Debatable, but in my opinion, no. Do people choose to be poor, get cancer, or fail? NO! But in every instance, the individual can make a resultant choice…right?
This leads me to Mill’s discussion of social issues and their corresponding solutions. I agree that these issues are not caused by one, single individual. I agree that these issues are generated from a variety of actions made in the past, present, and toward the future. I agree that these issues are best solved through collective action. However, after reading Mill’s explanation and subsequently Edin and Kefalas’ Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood before Marriage, I get the impression that collective issues somehow condone the individual’s choice, whether it is right or wrong. Then again, I realize that what is right for some people may be wrong for others. This could very well be a misunderstanding on my part, but I, personally, am having trouble with the idea of blaming an individual’s actions on society’s problems. But maybe it’s not a blame game, maybe it’s not about what /who is right or wrong.
Then I think about what I wouldn’t do to ensure my family’s safety, or what I wouldn’t do to stay alive. I would do anything. Does a collective experience such as this shift society’s definition of what is right and what is wrong? Survival itself drives the most remarkable biological and sociological changes. What is socially accepted now and what was socially accepted fifty years ago are worlds apart. If I kill to save my little sister, is it still murder? If I am unwillingly driven into absolute poverty and chose to steal to save my family from hunger, am I the criminal or is society? Moreover, if collective issues require collective solutions, yet a truly collective decision can never be made because we are all different, how is change instigated? Should it be lead by those who are better educated, less ignorant, and more accepting?
These are just some of the questions that came to mind when I was going through last week’s readings. I sincerely want to get rid of my biases in order to see correctly through the scope of the sociological imagination, but how realistic is this goal? Can any of us fully rid ourselves of biases? How do morals and values change in response to social issues and collective actions? How do we use quantitative data to explain social trends and behaviors? How do we all see the world through open eyes and new perspectives while at the same time maintaining what makes us individuals and unique? These are just some of the questions I can’t wait to explore throughout the remainder of this course!
No comments:
Post a Comment