The Sociological Imagination is a 1959 book by American sociologist C. Wright Mills published by Oxford University Press. In it, he develops the idea of sociological imagination, the means by which the relation between self and society can be understood.
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. The 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 (apathy), 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 tried to reconcile two varying, abstract conceptions of social reality, the "individual" and the "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 the work as the second most important sociological book of the 20th century.
Background
Mills drafted the book during 12-month Fulbright visit to University of Copenhagen over the period 1956-1957.
Grand theory
In chapter two, Mills 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
Mills 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 The Sociological Imagination as an extension of Mills's other works on power and social stratification, i.e. The Power Elite and White 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
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
In the third chapter Mills criticizes 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 World War II. 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.
As such Mills criticizes the methodological inhibition which he saw as characteristic of what he called abstracted 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).