Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Final The Sicialogical Imagination
Final The Sicialogical Imagination
C. Wright Mills
The Promise
Grand Theory
Abstracted empiricism
Types of practicality
The bureaucratic Ethos
Philosophy of Science
The Human Variety
Uses of History
On Reason and Freedom
On Politics
Grand theory is a term invented by the American sociologist C. Wright Mills in The Sociological
Imagination to refer to the form of highly abstract theorizing in which the formal organization
and arrangement of concepts takes priority over understanding the social world. In his view,
grand theory was more or less separated from the concrete concerns of everyday life and its
variety in time and space.
The main target of Mills was Talcott Parsons, also an American sociologist and the architect
of structural functionalism, against whom he insisted that there is no grand theory in the sense of
one universal scheme to understand the unity of social structures, according to Gregory.[2] In
Parsons view "grand theory" integrated not only sociological concepts, but also psychological,
economic, political, and religious or philosophical components. He tried to integrate all the social
sciences within an overarching theoretical framework.[2]
By the 1980s the grand theory was reformulated and included theories such as; critical
theory, structuralism, structural Marxism, and Structuration Theory, all influenced human
geography. Barnes and Gregory confirmed this and noticed in addition; No matter the
phenomenon investigated, it could always be slotted into a wider theoretical scheme. Nothing
would be left out; everything would be explained.
: Chapter3.
abstracted empiricism A term coined by C. Wright Mills in The Sociological Imagination (1959)
and used to refer to the work of those sociologists who equate empiricism with science and make
a fetish of quantitative research techniques. Whilst Mills accepts that there is a place for
numerical data and statistical analysis in sociological reasoning, he insists that they are not
sufficient for sociological analysis. Indeed, in the absence of the theoretical categories and
comparative historical analyses that give such data their sociological meaning, he also insists that
no conception of social structure is possible. This is because of the psychologism that he regards
as intrinsic to all methodologies that restrict what is allowable as legitimate data to those which
are produced by sociologists themselves by means of surveys and the like. A fascinating
historical account of the origins of abstracted empiricism will be found in R.
Bannister , Sociology and Scientism: The American Quest for Objectivity, 18801949 (1987)
occur; and within that range the sociological imagination has its chance to make a difference in
the quality of human life in our time. (Mills 1959: 226)
In summary I guess he's saying when for example the issues about the current oil problem ..are
only about:
a) how to control the oil flow.
b) any one person's loss of employment as a fisherman then both ' illiberal practicality of the
bureaucratic ethos or the liberal practicality of the moral scatter' is insufficient
We have instead to understand how the historical processes ( of privileging the social system
which enables capitalists like BP to be so incompetent) occurs
scientist engage for whom the products of research could never be separated from the realm of
direct intellectual action. As this study will attempt to demonstrate, Mills was both a postMarxian and a post-Weberian who sought to illuminate the dark corners of empirical social
experience by the use of a powerful analytical conception of elitism. Despite this approach, Mills
retained a profound faith in his radical view of democracy which he, as a social theorist, hoped to
protect and refine. Mills admired what he called the "classic tradition" of social science. In that
tradition the questions asked are generally of a wide scope, concern total societies and the studies
are "soaked in history," but what makes them most valuable is the "fact that their intellectual
problems are relevant to the public issues of their times."! Mills thought that Marx and Weber
had done the best work in classical theory and considered Veblen the best social scientist
produced in America." Mills regarded his own work as a contemporary extension of classical
theory. That he remained within the broad rationalist tradition of European political theory is
evident from his announced purpose which was to "lay bare the structure.
The mid-levels of power, which are really of little consequence in society as a whole, can be filled by
ordinary people, like mayors and city council members. They have marginal local power, but are not part
of what former President Dwight D. Eisenhower dubbed the "Military-Industrial Complex."
In Mills were alive today, he'd say that one can only understand the situation of the banking failure, the
collapse of the auto industry, and the rapidly rising unemployment by examining the historical
underpinings that brought us to this crossroad.
Of the three sectors of institutional power, Mills claims, the corporate sector is the most powerful. But the
power elite cannot be understood as a mere reflection of economic elites; rather it is the alliance of
economic, political, and military power.
The masses are economically dependent, they are economically and politically exploited. Because they
are disorganized, the masses are far removed from the classic democratic public in which voluntary
organizations hold the key to power.
Mills saw the American Congress and American political parties as a reflection of this middle-level of
power. Although Congress and political parties debate and decide some minor issues, the power elite
ensures that no serious challenge to its authority and control is tolerated in the political arena.
To date, Mills fears, these leaders are acting (or failing to act) with irresponsibility, thus leading us to
disaster. But this does not mean that it always must be so. The great structural change that has enlarged
the means and extent of power and concentrated it in so few hands now makes it imperative to hold these
men responsible for the course of events.
By 1958, Mills seemed much more concerned with the rise of militarism among the elites than with the
hypothesis that many elites were military men. According to Mills, the rise of the military state serves the
interests of the elite of industrial societies. For the politician the projection of military power serves as a
cover for their lack of vision and innovative leadership.
For corporate elites the preparations for war and the projection of military power underwrites their
research and development as well as provides a guarantee of stable profits through corporate subsidies.