The Sociological Imagination Must Tie Individual Experience to Broader Historical Circumstances
This is an earlier draft of a portion of the now published chapter, Paul Prew. 2017. “Understanding Society: Sociology and the Sociological Imagination” in Introduction to Sociology: A Paul Prew Collaborative Custom eBook. Boise: Ashbury Publishing
Mills reserved the use of the sociological
imagination for those social scientists that go beyond individual and
psychological explanations and include historical context in their
analysis. If a sociologist is to claim that they adopt a “sociological
imagination,” they cannot attempt to use theories that focus on
individuals or small groups of people in their studies. They must tie
the individual experience to the broader historical circumstances
(milieux) in which they occur. Otherwise, according to Mills, the
analysis is not rooted in the sociological imagination. Mills (1959)
states,
The idea of social structure cannot be built up only from ideas or
facts about a specific series of individuals and their reactions to
their milieux. Attempts to explain social and historical events on the
basis of psychological theories about ‘the individual’ often rest upon
the assumption that society is nothing but a great scatter of
individuals and that, accordingly, if we know all about these ‘atoms’
we can in some way add up the information and thus know about society.
It is not a fruitful assumption. In fact, we cannot even know what is
the most elemental about ‘the individual’ by any psychological study of
him as a socially isolated creature. (163)
Role of Sociologist Is to Explain Personal Troubles as Social Issues
While the sociological imagination is used by social
science researchers, Mills also argued that it should inform public
issues and attempt to improve human existence through the understanding
of the world around us. Mills felt the social scientist should ensure
that the public is able to identify the origins of personal troubles in
the broader social issues. “It is the political task of the social
scientist ... continually to translate personal troubles into public
issues and public issues into the terms of their human meaning for a
variety of individuals” (Mills 1959:187). In this way, the sociological
imagination is very important for understanding contemporary events.
Typically, discussion of social issues in the media
rarely goes beyond an explanation rooted in personal troubles. If we
look a some recent events in the media, we can see this pattern. For
example, what do politicians and the media tend to use to explain mass
shootings? You may hear discussion of the mental state of the killer.
You may also hear about people who observed the killer’s behavior prior
to the events. “Shooter’s odd behavior did not go unnoticed,” “but his
manner was strange,” and “Page’s behavior became odder still” are
examples from an article (Romell 2012) in the Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel regarding the shooting at the Sikh temple in Oak Creek,
Wisconsin.
Focusing on the psychological motivations of the
killer is exactly the problem that Mills identified. While Mills was
emphatic about not relying on psychology to explain social events, he
was not the only social theorist to understand the importance of a
social analysis and the problem of relying on psychology to understand
social events. Emile Durkheim (1938:104) commented, “Consequently,
every time that a social phenomenon is directly explained by a
psychological phenomenon, we may be sure that the explanation is
false.” As sociologists, we must look for causes in the broader social
and historical context because psychology is limited in providing
explanations to the social problems we face. Thus, if we use a
sociological imagination, we cannot rely on the killer’s personal
psychology to explain his choice of targets. Unlike the media, we have
to look deeper for the underlying social context of the shooting. We
have to situate the event in the broader historical circumstances.
Explanation of Hate Crime
In the Oak Creek shooting, the killer may have
had some underlying psychological issue, but why would the killer
target people practicing the Sikh religion? If we focus on his obvious
psychological problems, we miss why these specific people were chosen
as targets. You have to ask yourself, why would the killer target this
group out of all of the possible causes for the social ills he feared?
The sociological imagination demands that we have to find something in
the broader social context that would lead him to target these specific
individuals. To truly understand the shooting, we have to place it in
the actions taken to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq after the
attacks of September 11 in the United States. The rush to promote war
inflamed prejudice not only against Muslims, but people who are thought
to be from the Middle East.
According to information provided by Goal Auzeen
Saedi (2012), attacks on people “perceived to be Arab” increased over
1,600 percent after 9/11. The data for the claim was gathered here: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2000/00sec2.pdf
(Federal Bureau of Investigation 2001) http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2001/01sec2.pdf
(Federal Bureau of Investigation 2002) http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr-publications#Crime
(Federal Bureau of Investigation n.d.).
Sikhs do not practice Islam, and are not
predominantly from the Middle East, but ignorance of religious
difference and the germination of anti-Middle Eastern sentiment in the
United States has led to statistically identifiable patterns of attacks
on Sikhs and others perceived to be Arab. The killer’s choice of
victims could not be understood by an examination of his psychology
alone, but must be understood in the broader historical context of war
in the Middle East and a lack of education regarding religious
difference in the United States. If the United States was not at war
with Iraq and Afghanistan, the killer may have targeted a different
group, but let us take this a bit further. What if the U.S.’ society
was different in terms of how it views guns and gun violence?
To examine this question, we can look at another
racially motivated crime. What about our society would make a
relatively large man fear a black teenager, Trayvon Martin, with a bag
of candy in his pocket? Why would the killer feel emboldened to stalk,
confront, and kill this youth instead of retreating, as instructed by
the police, and leaving any potential issue to the proper authorities
(CNN Library 2014; Weinstein and Mother Jones News Team 2012)? To
understand the Trayvon Martin case, you have to understand the
intersection of the killer’s personal history, gun violence as a
solution to problems, and racial disparity in the United States.
To understand the Trayvon Martin case and those
similar, we need to use our sociological imagination to make the links
between the killer’s personal biography and the broader social
circumstances that led to the shooting. If we look at the background of
the killer and his personal history, we can see that he was a “victim
of a minor criminal assault” (Roig-Franzia, Jackman and Fears 2012)
when he was a teenager. He later took it upon himself to be the
guardian of his neighborhood by calling the police frequently for a
variety of reasons, including open garages and suspicious people. At
this point in his life, the killer’s personal history makes him a nosey
neighbor, but what prompted him to elevate his behavior to become the
neighborhood vigilante?
Understanding the Small-Scale and the Large-Scale
To answer this question, we have to understand that
the sociological imagination is also the capacity to move from the
small-scale (individual level experiences) to the large-scale (society
and its institutions) and understand the connections between them. The
sociological imagination also allows us to put ourselves in other
people’s shoes by understanding the broader social context in which
they are situated. People’s personal biographies are part of a larger
picture. The sociological imagination demands that we understand people
may have “agency” to make choices in their life, but their ability to
determine their circumstances is largely constrained by the broader
social context in which they are a part (Mills 1959:7).
So, what broader social context provided the
background for the killer’s actions? While there are a number of issues
to consider, let’s begin with government doctrines and legal codes. In
the United States, after the attacks of September 11, the George W.
Bush administration developed what has come to be termed the “Bush
Doctrine.” According to the Bush Doctrine, “the United States must be
ready to wage preventive wars” (Jervis 2003:369) to prevent threats
from other nations from harming U.S. citizens. In other words, if the
United States perceives that another nation poses a threat to the
safety of the United States, it must act because the consequences of
not acting would be more undesirable (Jervis 2003:374). Although
preventive war violates the U.N. Charter according to Secretary-General
Kofi Annan, the Bush Doctrine was used to justify the war in Iraq (UN
News Centre 2004). In effect, the idea behind the Bush doctrine is that
an emerging threat must be confronted with force immediately before the
threat grows more dangerous (Jervis 2003:373).
In the United States, foreign policy is not the only
aspect of society where this attitude is expressed. The Bush doctrine
of preventive war is mirrored by “stand your ground” legislation in
many states that allow citizens to shoot people who are perceived to
pose a threat. Stand your ground legislation explicitly argues that
people do not have a “duty to retreat” when they face a danger from
other person(s) (Florida Legislature 2013).
"A person who is not engaged in an
unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or
she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand
his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if
he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death
or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the
commission of a forcible felony."
Thus, instead of leaving the situation, people
have a right to “stand their ground” to protect themselves from a
perceived threat. Stand your ground legislation is an extension of
people’s right to self-defense. Instead of using comparable force to
defend yourself as in self-defense, you are able to proactively put an
end to a perceived, impending confrontation through lethal force. Like
the Bush doctrine, “stand your ground” allows violence to be used prior
to being the victim of an attack by another party. Both of these legal
positions reinforce an attitude among the public that they will have a
right to use violence to put an end to a suspected confrontation,
whether the threat is real or imagined. Although the legislation is
relatively new, there appears to be real consequences for “stand your
ground” legislation. Research suggests that homicides (murders)
increase in states that enact “stand your ground” laws (Cheng and
Hoekstra 2013:849).
Returning to our original question, why would the
killer stalk, confront, and kill Trayvon Martin? Although the killer
did not claim “stand your ground” in court, he disregarded police
instructions to stop following Trayvon. He was acting, not under
expectations associated with self-defense laws where you must leave if
given the opportunity, but more consistently with the stand your ground
legislation that does not require a person to retreat. If we use our
sociological imagination and look at the broader context, we can see
how the situation may have unfolded differently in a completely
separate society. If we consider a society where there were no “stand
your ground” laws and people frowned upon the use of violence to
resolve perceived threats, the killer would likely have not pursued his
victim and initiated a confrontation. Given “stand your ground” and the
Bush doctrine, the killer grew up in a social context in the United
States that is sympathetic to the use of deadly force instead of other
methods of resolving perceived conflict.
Although the social context of “stand your ground”
helps explain why the killer initiated the deadly confrontation, it
does not explain why he perceived a teenage boy with candy and tea in
his pockets as a lethal threat. This is where the issue of the
Trayvon’s race comes into play. Had Trayvon Martin been a white male
wearing a suit jacket and a tie, carrying a bag of Skittles and a
bottle of tea, there is little chance that the killer would have
noticed him, let alone followed him. The killer’s suspicions were
raised, not by any objective threat that Trayvon posed, but by racial
stereotyping of a black youth wearing a “hoodie” in a predominantly
white neighborhood (Thakore 2014:3-4). Thus, the legacy of racial
discrimination and prejudicial stereotyping led the killer to identify,
incorrectly, Trayvon as a threat. Otherwise, the killer would not have
followed Trayvon.
The killer’s personal biography (small-scale) of
being attacked early in his life and then becoming a self-appointed
neighborhood watchman put him in the area looking for suspicious
behavior. Racial stereotyping provided the impetus to define Trayvon as
a threat worthy of stalking. Stand your ground legislation
(large-scale) provided the legal context that emboldened the killer to
follow Trayvon, against police instructions, confront Trayvon, and
ultimately kill him. A clearer understanding of the killing develops
when we see intersection of the biography of the killer (small-scale)
and the social context (large-scale) of racial disparity and legal
legitimation for lethal force when someone perceives a potential threat.
So, we have, in the United States, social attitudes
within society that have become solidified in state law and federal
foreign policy that sanction the use of deadly force when someone
perceives a threat. Because these attitudes are not only shared by
members of the U.S. society but also codified into law, some people
within the United States act based on these attitudes. It is important
to note that the “Bush Doctrine,” “stand your ground” laws, racial
attitudes, and other social factors do not influence everyone equally,
or in the same way. This is why it is so very important to follow the
sociological imagination’s prerequisite to understand the relationship
between individual biography and the social circumstances. Tragedies
like the Sikh temple shooting and the slaying of Trayvon Martin are the
result of the mixture of personal biography and the broader social
context.
While there are unique aspects to every tragedy,
these incidents are part of broader patterns. For example, a man
targeted a Jewish community center and retirement home during shooting
rampage in 2014 (Ahmed, Fantz and Shoichet 2014). In 2013, a young
black woman was shot and killed attempting to get help after a car
accident (Isom 2013). Mills’ admonition to use the sociological
imagination demands that we confront the fiction that these are
“isolated incidents” and inexplicable tragedies. To understand the Sikh
temple shooting, Trayvon Martin’s murder and others like it, we have to
understand that the personal biographies of the killers may have made
them susceptible to violent action, but the social circumstances of
“stand your ground” attitudes and racial stereotyping played a role in
the manner of attack and the selection of targets. If we “blame
society” by singling out racism or violence as the sole cause of the
shootings, we miss the role of personal biography. If we only blame the
individual’s mental state, then we miss the role of social influences
in the tragedy. As Mills (1959:6) states, “No social study that does
not come back to the problems of biography, of history and of their
intersections within a society has completed its intellectual journey.”
To truly understand the issues of our day, we have to understand how
history intersects with biography. If you are able to develop a
sociological imagination, you will be better able to understand both
your own personal troubles and the broader social issues facing
contemporary society.
References
Ahmed, Saeed, Ashley Fantz, and Catherine E. Shoichet. 2014.
Jewish Center Shooter 'Knocked Family To Its Knees,' Relative Says.
Atlanta, GA: Cable News Network. http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/14/us/kansas-jewish-center-shooting/
Cheng, Cheng, and Mark Hoekstra. 2013. "Does Strengthening
Self-Defense Law Deter Crime or Escalate Violence?: Evidence from
Expansions to Castle Doctrine." Journal of Human Resources 48(3):821-53.
CNN Library. 2014. "Trayvon Martin Shooting Fast Facts." Atlanta,
GA: Cable News Network. http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/05/us/trayvon-martin-shooting-fast-facts/
Durkheim, Emile. 1938. The Rules of the Sociological Method. New
York: The Free Press.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2001. "Uniform Crime Reports:
Crime in the United States 2000." Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2000/00sec2.pdf
—. 2002. "Uniform Crime Reports: Crime in the United States
2001." Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2001/01sec2.pdf
—. n.d. "Uniform Crime Reports." Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Justice http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr-publications#Crime
Florida Legislature, The. 2013. "Justifiable Use of Force: Home
Protection; Use of Deadly Force; Presumption of Fear of Death or Great
Bodily Harm." in Title XLVI 776.013 (3), edited by State of
Florida. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html
Isom, Andrea. 2013. "Community Rallies, Demanding Justice for
19-year-old Renisha McBride." Southfield, MI: WJBK-TV | Fox 2 , Fox
Television Stations, Inc. http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/23912134/community-rallies-demanding-justice-for-19-year-old-renisha-mcbride
Jervis, Robert. 2003. "Understanding the Bush Doctrine."
Political Science Quarterly 118(3):365-88.
Mills, C. Wright. 1959. The Sociological Imagination. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Roig-Franzia, Manuel, Tom Jackman, and Darryl Fears. 2012. "Who
is George Zimmerman?" in The Washington Post. Washington DC: The
Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/who-is-george-zimmerman/2012/03/22/gIQAkXdbUS_story.html?hpid=z1
Romell, Rick. 2012. "Shooter's Odd Behavior Did Not Go
Unnoticed." in Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Milwaukee, WI: Journal
Sentinel Inc. http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/shooter-wade-page-was-army-vet-white-supremacist-856cn28-165123946.html
Saedi, Goal Auzeen. 2012. "Sikh Temple Shooting and the Trouble
With Looking Muslim: Post-9/11 Islamophobic sentiment touched many
groups, including Sikhs " in Psychology Today. New York: Sussex
Publishers, LLC.
Thakore, Bhoomi K. 2014. "Maintaining the Mechanisms of
Colorblind Racism in the Twenty-First Century." Humanity & Society
38(1):3-6.
UN News Centre. 2004. "Lessons of Iraq War Underscore Importance
of UN Charter - Annan." United Nations. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=11953&
Weinstein, Adam, and Mother Jones News Team. 2012. "The Trayvon
Martin Killing, Explained." San Francisco, CA: Mother Jones. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/what-happened-trayvon-martin-explained