Talk:Sociological imagination

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 11 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Madisonf01, Lorenzdb.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2020 and 30 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NorvinCharles.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

2005-6

What about giving examples of broad social imagination as original solutions to different problems! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.228.144.53 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 23 July 2005

In response to this... perhaps it could be inferred that to those members of disadvantaged groups (including but not limited to woman, the poor, mentally ill (or those diagnosed with mental illness I should say)) the solidarity of knowing that their disagreeable/disadvantaged situation is the result of an inequitable social construct and is not due to any flaw of their own would offer some relief to the individuals in that group, and may even create a basis for social consciousness or even activism required to improve the social structures that oppress them. I'm not sure if that would qualify as an 'original' solution, but it could be a solution nonetheless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.50.113 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 1 July 2006

It's all psychobabble to me, however, I still continue to fix Wikipedia entries and articles whenever I can. I hate people. --Cyberman 00:17, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Actually I think it's sociobabble... not that it makes a difference... it just sounds cool ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.50.113 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 1 July 2006

The correct reference code is {{ref|footnote name}} within the article, and {{note|footnote name}} before the entry it's supposed to refer to. Sarge Baldy 00:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

well if you want to further develop on it, you can. I'm done here. *vanishes* --Cyberman 01:00, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

It seems like the last paragraph in this article is very opinionated and doesn't present C. Wright Mills' concept objectively. I see it a couple times throughout as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.210.226.2 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 23 February 2006

Note: the preceding comment refers to this version of the article. Apparently the paragraph in questions has since been removed. Melchoir (talk) 07:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Redirect from social imagination

This article is currently being redirected from the search term "social imagination" and there is a big difference between Mills' definition of the "sociological imagination" as defined in his text and the "social imagination" as defined by Cornelius Castoriadis, Jacques Lacan, Charles Taylor, Paul Riceour and others. See entry at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_imaginary

What gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.40.55 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 30 July 2009

The sociological imagination, concept coined by Mills, but employed in countless sociology textbooks and the imaginary which you mention are two totally different concepts. It would likely be helpful to have a statement that makes that difference clear. --Htw3 (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge from sociological perspective

In November 2009, the article Sociological perspective was merged into Sociological imagination with these two edits:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sociological_imagination&diff=prev&oldid=324308910
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sociological_perspective&diff=prev&oldid=324309095

The contents of Talk:Sociological perspective are preserved below. Melchoir (talk) 07:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is a very good definition of a sociological perspective. Generally the term is used to describe that fact that sociology contains a huge number of different prespectives or theoretical frameworks such as marxism, functionalism, postmodernism etc. It is a bit rough to say that a sociological perspective is one unified perspective that looks at anything in one particular way.

I agree. There isn't even one dominant sociological perspective (some sociologists claims to the contrary) I'm noting problem. That Rubington quote is awful. - RedHouse18

I'm pasting the old content below: User:RedHouse18

---

Sociological perspective is the most general paradigm (a point of view, a distinct way of thinking) specific to the field of sociology. Sociological perspective focuses not on individuals but their group, or society, and attempts to explain human social structures, including cultural and governmental institutions and forms of activity and interpersonal relations using social facts or social forces.

Rubington (2002) defines sociological perspective as "a [sociological] way of looking at things. [...] It includes a basic orienting idea from which one's conceptualization and analysis follow, and it reflects a particular set of ideas and assumptions regarding the nature of people and society". It means that the sociologists are not limited to common sense knowledge, they try to investigate what lies beyond the commonly accepted reality and understand some of the rules that govern human behaviour in the society.

Social scientists usually follow one or more of the several specific sociological paradigms.

References

• Introduction to sociological perspective for students by Phil Bartle last retrieved on 17th December, 2005
• The Sociological Perspective at Sociology Central last retrieved on 17th December, 2005
• Earl Rubington, Martin S. Weinberg, 'The Study of Social Problems : Seven Perspectives', Oxford University Press, 2002, ISBN 0-19-514219-5

---

Making a bit of a change here. While Marx definately brought conflict theory to the forefront and is the father of the school of thought, I don't think the majority of sociologists think of it soley being his perspective. Kackisback 02:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

A single, common sociological perspective

I don't agree, i think that although the terms 'sociological perspective' and 'sociolgoical paradigm' are sometimes used interchangeably, that doens't mean that the other use of 'sociological perspective' in void. Perhaps the quote by Rubington is not a great quote, but the second part of the paragraph certainly sums up what is meant by a 'sociological perspective': It means that the sociologists are not limited to common sense knowledge, they try to investigate what lies beyond the commonly accepted reality and understand some of the rules that govern human behaviour in the society.

It is possible to have a single sociological perspective, when you compare it to another type of perspective, ie. a common sense perspective. Certainly, all general text books on sociology, and introduction to sociology courses that i have come across talk about a sociological perspective, a common way that sociology has of approahcing any phenomena that involves seeks real explanations and not just relying on common sense views of things. I think it is important to have that somewhere in this article. JenLouise 04:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The stuff on this page is simply repeated from the sociological paradigm page, so it is useless. I am going to try and rewrite this page, so bear with me over the next few days. JenLouise 05:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This page does not justify itself. Wikipedia is already confused by all these similar and informal articles (social theory; sociological theory; social relations; sociological paradigm, etc etc), most of which only do a poor version of the same job as subfields of sociology and outline of sociology. I propose this page be deleted entirely, and any decent nuggets moved to another page. --Tomsega (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have moved some of the content from this article to sociological imagination and inserted a redirect. There are numerous books entitled 'sociological perspectives' etc etc, but that does not mean it is a valid sociological term distinct from either C. Wright Mills theory or 'sociological theories'/'sociological paradigms'... in general. Even if it is, a subsection may be added to sociological imagination, as this is all causing too much unnecessary confusion.

Peace out. ;) --Tomsega (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Definition?

I just read the article and still don't know what "sociological imagination" is. I never really see a definition, the article begins by stating important questions related to sociological imagination, without even saying what it is first. I found a definition here: http://roanoke.edu/Documents/Glossary%20%20%2007.doc. Does anyone know if this is a correct definition? If it isn't, could someone please define it themselves? Thank you 128.61.122.97 (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I started to address the lack of definition. I would define it slightly differently, but I am looking for additional sources to see what they have. I have a big stack of introductory sociology texts and will try to improve upon the current version based on those. --Htw3 (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The sociological imagination can be defined in many ways. You can have the text book definition, but that would not be so helpful in understanding the concept. The sociological imagination has to do with relating. Being aware of what people do, and WHY they do it. Basically, the interconnections between people (who are often not aware of it) on a daily basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by As146509 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

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 (Giddens).

"Sociology is not just a routine process of acquiring knowledge; it requires breaking free from the immediacy of personal circumstances and putting things in a wider context" (Giddens).

Sociological Imagination is the whole idea of putting yourself in someone else's shoes.

Giddens, Anthony. "Sociological Imagination." Introduction to Sociology . 1996. Karl Bakeman. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc, 1996. Print.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.247.123.40 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 5 March 2010

The sociological imagination is the ability to see things socially and how they interact and influence each other. It is the process that explains social outcomes. In order for this to work, you must be able to pull yourself away from the situation and look at it from the outside perspective. Some main things to think about are things that lead to an outcome, thinking from an alternative point of view, and being able to see the causes of social outcomes that come from social context (norms, motives) social actors (country, time period, people you are with) social action (things that affect others) leads to social outcome. The main focus is to understand that social outcomes are shaped by social context, actors, and social actions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dm400609 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 3 March 2010

Major edit of page needed

The current draft of this article refers primarily to Mills' book and the concept in light of that book. However, the concept refers to an approach to thinking about social processes that precedes Mills, and is much more general. This article likely needs some clarification on that, and should properly be focused on defining and explaining the concept of sociological imagination as it is used in the field of sociology, and with a subsection directly addressing Mills' book. I will look for some additional resources including text books and discussion of the concept in the scholarly literature. --Htw3 (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for structural changes to article

I think the article should be structured more like a normal Wikipedia article, starting with a brief introduction to the concept, and then with more details divided substantively below. Some of the major sections could include:

• meanings of the concept as elaborated by different sociologists
• a section on the meanings as conveyed in Mills' book
• uses of the concept in the teaching of sociology,
  • uses of sociological imagination in textbooks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.235.39.82 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 26 February 2010
    • students could find different textbooks and say what they say —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.235.39.82 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 26 February 2010
  • with special attention to use in introductory sociology courses and texts
• a discussion of the concept as it applies to the generation of sociological research
• a discussion of the concept as it can be used by individuals to think about the role of larger social processes in their own lives.
• citations page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.247.123.40 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 5 March 2010

Any thoughts on these sections? Others that are needed? --Htw3 (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

'The sociological imagination' has come under heavy critique from post-colonial thought, and that's definitely worth talking about. That's ultimately the reason I came to this page on this unseasonably warm evening in London: see what sort of summary wikipedia gave to the critiques made by Spivak, Said, Bhambra, and on and on and on... I don't mean this as a decidedly anti-west sentiment; Mills was talking about specific form of sociology (empirically driven) at a specific time (1950-60s) in a specific place (the United States). Otherwise I think your proposed structure is a great start that it should happen ASAP because frankly this page is a currently a worthless pile of shit. I'll check back periodically and see what develops.... Regress (talk)

Plagiarism on this page

What should be done if part of this article is plagiarized from another source, verbatim, without attribution? The sentence "Our underlying philosophy 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." was tagged with a "Who?" on the "Our" rather than obviously tipping that this was pulled from another source. A simple Google search shows that this sentence comes from Tipton and Tiemann's (1993) article "Using the Feature Film to Facilitate Sociological Thinking" from the journal Teaching Sociology. If you actually get the article, this sentence is from the first page. Basically, what should be done in this situation? I'm asking primarily for this article and because I keep seeing this same problem: some Wikipedia editor plagiarizing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.94.99 (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• • EDIT** I just noticed that this article is listed under further reading but this does not negate the fact that at least part of this article is plagiarized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.94.99 (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

sociological imagination

Crux of the argument == individual matters are always social issues — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 07:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you are trying to say, but Mills does make a distinction between public and private issues. Mills was trying to give a name to that social awareness which can see how daily life is structured by larger social forces not within our individual sphere of influence. 108.51.192.7 (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Lack of clarity in definition

There's some clarity lacking in the definition as it is right now. This section here is quite unclear, and repeats itself in the second paragraph quoted:

"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 may be the country and time period, and social action is the things we do that affect 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 for how they all relate to some sort of outcome. Sociological imagination can be considered as a quality of mind that understands the interplay of the individual and society.

Things that shape these outcomes include (but are not limited to): social norms, what people want to gain from their actions (their motives), and the social context in which they live (ex. country, time period, people with whom they associate).″

172.218.199.10 (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Sociology

Use of sociological imagination 223.239.27.253 (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP23 - Sect 201 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2023 and 5 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KristinaAllen (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by KristinaAllen (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)