Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Sociological Imagination

    Uploaded by

    nhlanhlalekoa05
    4 views5 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    4 views5 pages

    Sociological Imagination

    Uploaded by

    nhlanhlalekoa05

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 5
    THECLEARING HOUSE 200, VOL.30,N0. 8-0, ged: ongndsosocoosess2016 1540 i Routledge Establishing Sociological Imagination before Blame in Historical Events Rina Bousalis Department of Teaching and Learning, Florida Atlantic University, Boea Raton, Florida, USA Ansteact Although finding fault with someone or something is part of human nature, blame is merely a per- ‘ception. Before assigning blame in the causation of historical events, students should be given the ‘9pportUnity to look past textbook generallzations and establish sociological imagination, ofthe abl- Sacologcl imagination seal studs mstor itor events ble ity to recognize history's connection to society and its people. By instituting sociological imagination, societal and cultural factors could be emphasized, various perspectives could be examined, and ernpa- thy could be evoked from the voices of people who lived during, or participated in, these historical happenings. Introduction Blame has power; allegations of fault are raised in his- torical events, the courtroom, and everyday situations. However, in much of history, no one seems to really admit to blame. As Walter Lippmann (1928) suggested, even countries that once took part in WWI believed that they were blameless for their involvement; their justification was that they tried to protect their country, deter war, or simply make the world a better place. Per- haps finding fault with someone or something is part of human nature. However, as Michael Walzer (2015) asserts, blame is merely a perspective, The language we use to talk about love and war is so rich with moral meaning that it could hardly have been developed except through centuries of argu- ment. Faithfulness, devotion, charity, shame, adultery, seduction, betrayal, aggression, self-defense, appease- ment, cruelty, ruthlessness, atrocity, massacre—all these words are judgements, and judging is as common a human activity as loving or fighting (3). {As social studies textbooks often consist of authors’ or publishers’ views that include mainstream content built upon decades of stale editions (Harvey 2009), itis sometimes difficult for students to gain a deep under- standing of the causation of historical events when faced with content that offers courtroom-style “he said, she said” explanations. Students are commonly taught that the causes of wars and other events were, or as current media continues to allude, still are derived from one or more of the three G's: God (to spread religion), gold (to increase wealth), and glory (to increase power). Although important, as well as convenient, particu- larly since educators often find themselves having to teach to the test in order to cover required informa- tion aligned with state standards, the three G paradigm fails to incorporate aspects of society and the experi- ences of people that lived during various periods of time, Further, history teachers often fall into the habit of employing prescribed reasoning and assumptions when explaining historical events and, often not real- izing it, inadvertently tend to focus more on “what was right and what was wrong” (Ryan 1986, 228). There- fore, in order for students to understand the under: lying factors of historical events and determine why they happened and what factors played a role in such events, students should be given the opportunity to look past textbook generalizations and establish soci- ological imagination. As defined by sociologist C. W. Mills (1959), sociological imagination is the ability to understand the relationship between history, biogra phy, and society. As Mills (2000) explains, although humans are conscious of what they do, they do not real ize that societal forces are what actually contribute to the difficulties they bear and as O'Flaherty (1992) adds, what ultimately play a role in how man behaves, While going through the motions of daily life and dealing with constant predicaments, men are not always aware that CONTACT Rina Bovsals(@ rbovsaletauedu © Flods Atlantic Uiversty, Collegeof ation, Deparment of Teaching an Learning 7 Glades Road, toca 00 lr rans Goup LC their problems are connected to societal or world prob- lems. Thus, by allowing students to develop sociolog- ical imagination, students will be able to move “from ‘one perspective to another—from the political to the psychological” (Mills 2000, 7), as well as from an indi vidual to a global examination when discussing histor- ical events. In order to establish sociological imagination and understand history, students must first recognize that “life is the laboratory” (Willis 2014, 3). Even before considering the political aspects of events or assigning blame based on assumptions, students’ focus should be directed more towards stories about people that expe- rienced life during these historical events. Moreover, as empathy is a major factor in developing sociolog- ical imagination, biographies could help foster com: passion, Empathy not only evokes thinking, but also feeling. By incorporating stories of various individuals, students will not only be able to distinguish similari- ties and differences in perspectives and societal dilem- ‘mas, but also take an event out of the place and time in which it transpired and interpret the event with a new set of eyes (Denzin 2002). Rather than settle for con- ventions, students will ask questions as they engage in a thorough examination of the people who lived during these historical happenings. However, for sociological imagination to occur, students will also need to develop “an open mind” (Denzin 1970, 6), or a mindset that allows them to distinguish between misconceptions and certainties (White 1966). Inthe teaching of war, for example, Geoffrey Blainey (1988) emphasizes that stu: dents are often taught from educational resources that are “entrenched [with] assumptions about why nations fight” that “put forward their own interpretation and ignore the others” and that “instinctively rejected or accepted [unabated generalizations] because they con- flict with or fit our ingrained notions of human behav- ior” (ix). Offering students scant accounts of war and less information about the people who lived it not only hinders the pursuit of deeper and more meaningful explanations, but most importantly, distorts the mem- ory of what took place in history. When discussing the Vietnam War, for instance, an American would inter- pret the Vietnam War quite differently than a Viet namese would: “he Vietnamese call what we in the ‘outside world call the Vietnam War the ‘American War" ‘War in my home and war in their home seem to be quite different” (Kwon 2008, 13-14). Perhaps Amer- icans titled the conflict as the Vietnam War because rwecteaRnenouse @ 9 they did not wish for it to happen and blamed the Viet- namese for causing it, Feasibly, the Vietnamese may call it the American War because they also did not wish for it and blamed the Americans for having caused it Since this blatantly expresses a difference of opinion, it is important to recognize who, as people, the Ameri- cans and the Vietnamese were, and what they experi- enced during that time ‘The Vietnam War primarily took place during the 1960s to mid-70s, an era when American youth grew up during the counterculture generation, or the “hip- pie” movement. American young adults believed in love, not wat, and when these fledgling young men were drafted in to the war, they did not know why they were there, nor did they want tobe there, To express this sen- timent, Tim O'Brien (1994), a soldier during the Viet ‘nam War, insists that instead of using explosives on the Vietnamese, the Americans “should've bombed these people with love” (2). As Private First Class Vietnam War soldier Reginald Edwards’ recollects, “I remem- ber most how hard it was to just shoot people ... I mean I just couldn't shoot no people” (Edwards 2006, 14). Not only were many American soldiers seemingly reluctant to fight, but as the war drafted a majority of lower to middle class young men, as Appy (2000) points out, “those who fought and died in Vietnam were over- whelmingly drawn from the bottom half of the Amer: boys who grew up in Dorch- ester [, Massachusetts] were four times more likely to die in Vietnam than those raised in the fancy suburbs" (12). In terms of who lost the Vietnam War, according to one American soldier’ contrasting view, by simply implying that America failure to win the war “was all the fault of the American people—that it was caused by a collapse of the national will” is nothing more than “a stab-in-the-back” (Summers 1995, 11) not only to America, but to those that endured the atrocities of the war. The Vietnamese, too, were experiencing ups and downs during these years. Vietnam became part of a ‘Marxist system which progressively went from being a

    You might also like