1-Page Summary

In The Sociological Imagination, professor and sociologist C. Wright Mills explains what kind of social science—that is, science that studies human society and its institutions—contributes to a free and open society. He argues that to protect freedom, social scientists must develop a “sociological imagination”: the ability to understand the relationship between a society and the individuals living in it. Additionally, Mills critiques other contemporary approaches to social science and how they fail to protect—and in some cases, actively threaten—free society.

(Shortform note: Throughout his book, Mills argues for a return to the ideals of “classic” social science typical of pioneering sociologists like Max Weber. Weber viewed sociology as the attempt to understand the values behind social interaction—in other words, trying to explain why people behave in certain ways. To achieve this goal, Weber wrote broad and extensive analyses of western societies. Extensive analysis allowed him to grasp the many factors involved in social decision making, while focusing on one society meant he could still study specific historical or empirical examples. Throughout the guide, keep in mind this “classic” approach to sociology and how Mills encourages social scientists to re-adopt it.)

In our guide, we’ll explore Mills’s argument in three parts:

  1. The main goal of social science
  2. How a sociological imagination achieves this goal
  3. How other contemporary sociological approaches fail to achieve this goal

Part 1: The Main Goal of Social Science

Mills argues that the main goal of social science must be the preservation of freedom. In Part 1 of our guide, we’ll explain Mills’s definition of freedom as well as the contemporary trends he says threaten the possibility of a free society.

Defining Freedom

Mills defines freedom as the ability to understand, debate over, and decide between choices—particularly in a social and political context. Freedom, explains Mills, is the main mechanism for making social and political decisions. All three components of his definition contribute to decision making:

  1. Freedom allows people to understand problems and the choices they have to address them.
  2. Freedom allows people to debate over choices of how to respond to problems.
  3. Freedom allows people to decide on a specific response.

(Shortform note: While many other social scientists try to use their work to benefit a free and open society, they often differ in how they try to achieve this goal. Often, social scientists suggest that their work should inform the policymaking of governments or other major social institutions. However, Mills rejects this approach and instead argues that social science should directly inform members of society—who then can decide for themselves how to improve their society. He believes influencing policymakers isn’t enough to preserve a free society, because their institutions have become fundamentally anti-freedom (an argument he explains in his earlier work, The Power Elite).)

The Main Threat to Freedom

In contemporary Western society, Mills argues, the main threat to freedom is complexity. In other words, societies and their institutions have become so complex that people don’t understand what they are, how they work, or why they matter. For example: Not only does nobody know all the federal laws in the United States, nobody knows how many federal laws there are in the United States.

This complexity threatens freedom because it prevents members of society from understanding what’s happening in their society and how it affects them. Lack of understanding leads people to political apathy or the feeling that they can’t effect social change—under these circumstances, nobody will prevent small groups of elites from taking political power at the expense of the rest of society.

(Shortform note: To Mills, the link between powerful elites and political apathy is intentional and informs many of his concerns in The Sociological Imagination. In The Power Elite, Mills suggests that there is a growing centralization of political and economic power in the United States. He claims that this deprives the average American of a political voice—as the group of elites making major decisions becomes smaller and smaller, it becomes harder for regular people to politically mobilize or even understand their country’s politics. Therefore, to Mills, a country run by a few powerful elites isn’t a consequence of political apathy—it’s the cause of political apathy.)

Part 2: The Importance of Sociological Imagination

After explaining why social scientists must preserve freedom, Mills then discusses how their work can do so. He argues that to preserve freedom, social scientists use “sociological imagination” (recall: this is the ability to connect a society’s history to the personal lives of the people in it). This often means connecting personal problems in the lives of individuals to social problems that affect entire societies.

For example: A personal problem is that Joe’s marriage is falling apart. A social problem is that half of US marriages end in divorce. Sociological imagination helps a social scientist connect these two examples: They might look at Joe’s personal problems and see if many other American couples have the same challenges. Or, they might study the social problem of power dynamics in American marriages in a way that helps explain Joe’s collapsing marriage.

Part 2 of our guide explains why a sociological imagination preserves freedom and how social scientists can adopt a sociological imagination in their work.

Shortform Commentary: Is Sociological Imagination Paradoxical?

One scholar argues that Mills’s conception of sociological imagination and his demand for political action is paradoxical. They suggest that it leads to a “self-reference” paradox, the most famous of which is, “This sentence is false”: It’s false, therefore it’s true, therefore it’s false, and so on. Mills’s critics suggest that his paradox consists of two main premises:

  1. Individuals are created by the society they live in.
  2. Individuals must participate politically to change their society.

Much like “This sentence is false,” these two premises create an endless loop:

image1.png

Critics argue that Mills doesn’t provide a way out of this paradox other than the possibility of an enlightened leader who somehow exists outside of their society—which is either wishful thinking or anti-freedom.

How Sociological Imagination Preserves Freedom

By adopting a sociological imagination in their work, Mills says social scientists can preserve the three necessary components of freedom we discussed in Part 1:

  1. Understanding: Connecting personal and social problems allows individuals to contextualize their lives within their society—this context provides an understanding of large social problems.
  2. Debating: Recognizing society’s impact on their personal lives also motivates people to debate over potential solutions to social problems.
  3. Deciding: Then, through social or political participation, they can decide how to try and solve social problems.

Using a sociological imagination, therefore, prevents political apathy by empowering and motivating people to participate in their social and political systems.

(Shortform note: Mills’s views on social science and freedom are similar to the Marxist conception of “false consciousness”: the majority of a society failing to recognize the true social and political circumstances they live in. Mills seems to suggest that social science provides “true” understanding of societal circumstances to those who are politically oblivious or apathetic—seemingly dispelling a false consciousness. However, Mills’s reasons for dismantling “false consciousness” are different from those of Marxists. While Marxists argue that revealing social “truth” serves a specific goal—ending class domination and hierarchy—Mills says that people should decide on their own what to do with these social “truths.”)

Using a Sociological Imagination

To use a sociological imagination, Mills argues that social scientists must develop their own methods and create their own work from beginning to end. A social scientist using sociological imagination not only connects other individuals’ lives to society—they must also connect their own lives to the society they live in. In other words, they must understand how their society informs the work they do. This means that social scientists can’t use the methods of others without question or create a partial work for someone else to finish. Instead, they must determine the methods that best connect personal and social problems and adopt them in their own work.

(Shortform note: Many critics note that Mills’s description of how to develop a sociological imagination is lacking and that it provides an ideal of what a social scientist should be without explaining how to achieve it. Some scholars argue that the answer of how to develop sociological imagination lies in the more personal and autobiographical nature of the book. They suggest that by explaining his own struggles and concerns with the social sciences, Mills shows how someone can develop sociological imagination: connecting their own life and beliefs to broader social concerns. From this perspective, developing sociological imagination requires internal reflection rather than a set of specific steps or guidelines.)

By developing original methods, a social scientist can improve their work in three ways:

  1. Recognizing personal bias
  2. Understanding others’ perspectives
  3. Maintaining a broad scope
Benefit #1: Recognizing Personal Bias

Developing original methods helps a social scientist notice cultural biases that might otherwise lead to assumptions or oversights. As discussed above, the process of developing original methods requires a social scientist to connect their own life experiences and beliefs to those of the society they live in. This way, they’ll recognize when a particular belief or idea isn’t based on facts, but rather, on their own biases. Recognizing bias is crucial for good social science—unchecked bias can completely distort a work’s perspective on the connection between social and personal problems.

For example: An anthropologist is from America, a country with a strong tradition of written history, laws, and stories. He studies a culture with an entirely oral tradition and assumes that because this culture doesn’t use writing, it’s less intellectually and culturally developed. He then concludes that this lack of development is responsible for the culture’s social problems. But by adopting a sociological imagination, the anthropologist would recognize that his society is biased toward writing and that this doesn’t make his society intellectually superior. He then could approach his work with a more objective view that helps him better understand the culture’s social problems.

(Shortform note: While Mills argues that social scientists must avoid personal bias as much as possible, others argue that social scientists cannot do this—and shouldn’t even try. Sociologist Howard Becker suggests there’s no such thing as an objective, bias-free work of social science. Bias informs a social scientist’s work at the most fundamental level: For example, asking, “Why do victims stay in abusive relationships?” can lead to a completely different work than, “How do abusers prevent their partners from leaving?” Becker argues that instead of trying to be bias-free, works of social science should try to prevent distortion and oversights by clearly and rationally explaining what side they’re on, why they’re on it, and the potential limitations of their perspective.)

Benefit #2: Understanding Other Perspectives

Creating unique methods with a sociological imagination allows a social scientist to gain a greater understanding of other people’s perspectives. Connecting social problems to personal problems requires a social scientist to interact with individuals and learn about their lives. Then, by using specific social and historical examples, the social scientist can figure out not just what an individual believes but also why they believe it. This helps a social scientist understand other perspectives—understanding that they can use to improve their work.

For example: A sociologist studies crime with the assumption that people become criminals because of events in their personal lives—as a result, she judges criminals harshly. But by adopting a sociological imagination, she’s able to recognize that many people commit crimes because they grow up in cycles of violence or lack other opportunities—major social issues that inform these personal choices and circumstances. This helps her understand why individuals commit crimes, which she then can explain in her work.

(Shortform note: For an example of how some sociologists connect their work to personal perspectives, you can look to the “narrative sociology” movement. This approach attempts to create sociological work as a fictional or non-fictional story. Narrative sociologists argue that a detached style of analysis is less effective at communicating the experiences or circumstances of individuals, while a narrative approach can simultaneously tell more personal stories and use them to find broader social truths. For example: Social anthropologist Philippe Bourgois’s work In Search of Respect uses anecdotes about Bourgois’s friendships with drug dealers and their lives to support the book’s broader observations on crime, poverty, and inequality.)

Benefit #3: Maintaining a Broad Scope

Developing unique methods with a sociological imagination also ensures that a social scientist’s work maintains a proper scope. Since sociological imagination focuses on society-wide problems, it ensures that a social scientist will study problems that affect lots of people. This is important because work that only applies to a few individuals isn’t effective at preserving free society. Mills’s definition of freedom requires people to understand large-scale social problems—so if a work of social science doesn’t illuminate anything about these problems, it doesn’t help preserve freedom.

For example: In 2008, an economist was studying why his brother’s pizza shop went out of business. The research was so specific that it only helped the economist’s brother contextualize his personal problems. But by adopting a sociological imagination, the economist instead studied the effect of the 2008 financial crisis on the restaurant industry as a whole. As a result, he helped many more people understand the connection between their personal problems and larger social problems—and did a better job preserving freedom.

(Shortform note: While Mills argues that social science should preserve freedom by applying broadly to as many people as possible, others argue that social science contributes more to a free society when it applies specifically to oppressed peoples. These “liberation” sociologists like Alvin Gouldner (The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology) argue that to truly work toward a free society, social scientists must create works that expose the oppression of minority groups and “liberate” the oppressed—and any other social science passively participates in this oppression.)

Part 3: The Flaws of Grand Theory

Now that we understand how sociological imagination preserves freedom, we can explore Mills’s critiques of other sociological approaches. He explains contemporary trends in social science and why they fail to preserve freedom. In Parts 3 and 4 of our guide, we’ll look at the two main approaches that he critiques: grand theory and abstracted empiricism.

(Shortform note: To fully understand Mills’s criticisms, it’s important to understand the personal context behind The Sociological Imagination. The book acts as Mills’s personal reflection on his career and his condemnation of academic sociology before leaving the field entirely. Perhaps due to this, many of Mills’s criticisms are personal—in a break from academic norms, he refers to several of his colleagues by name. This suggests that the following arguments aren’t just discussions of academic methods, but reflect a deeper concern and dissatisfaction with social science as a whole.)

We’ll start by discussing grand theory: a social science approach that attempts to define universal truths about the nature of society. We’ll define the main ideas and methods behind this approach as well as Mills’s arguments on why it's flawed.

Defining Grand Theory

Instead of studying contemporary or historical examples to learn about one society, grand theorists attempt to create rules and systems that explain the nature of all societies and their histories. Grand theorists would argue that, when created correctly, these systems can explain any society or historical event.

To create these rules and systems, grand theorists create concepts: abstract ideas that explain certain truths about societies. Then, they try to refine and perfect the concepts’ definitions so they apply to all societies.

For example: Philosopher and sociologist Karl Marx famously defines all historical events as class struggles in The Communist Manifesto.

(Shortform note: Mills mainly frames his discussion of grand theory by talking about sociologist Talcott Parsons, who was famous for his influential, complex, and jargon-heavy work. However, many scholars of Parsons strongly disagree with Mills’s interpretation of his work. Mills mainly identifies Parson’s The Social System as a work of grand theory—but defenders of Parsons note that this book doesn’t suggest an approach entirely based in theoretical concepts. Instead, it provides theories and concepts as tools that sociologists can use to make their own work clearer and more precise. As a result, critics of Mills argue that his discussion of grand theory is seriously flawed since it’s based on misinterpretations.)

Flaws of Grand Theory

Mills argues that grand theory fails to preserve freedom—the main goal of social science. He outlines two main flaws that cause this failure: irrelevance and inaccessibility.

Irrelevance

By focusing entirely on abstract concepts rather than specific historical or societal examples, a grand theory approach is irrelevant to the lives of individuals. Mills argues that any concept that attempts to be universal cannot apply in any practical way to individuals. For example, a grand theorist creates a work explaining how marriage contributes to the structure and order of human civilization. Joe reads this work, but it doesn’t help him understand or address his marital problems—it’s so abstract that it’s completely disconnected from his personal experiences. Grand theory’s lack of relevance means that it fails to preserve freedom in that it can’t help individuals understand their personal problems or the major problems in their society.

(Shortform note: When Mills discusses irrelevance, he talks about works of grand theory on their own. This means he doesn’t consider how grand theories influence other works of social science—works that are relevant to the lives of individuals. Notable works of grand theory often inspire scholars and intellectuals to use or adapt their theories in a more pragmatic way. For example, while many criticize Jacques Derrida’s deconstruction theory as irrelevant or useless, feminist philosopher Judith Butler adopted deconstruction to create influential and relevant works on gender and sexuality like Gender Trouble or Bodies That Matter. This suggests that the relevance of a grand theory isn’t limited to the impact of the work itself.)

Inaccessibility

A grand theory approach to social science defines concepts in such a detailed and academic way that it creates inaccessible work. Mills argues that this obsession with concepts leads to dense, complicated, and jargon-heavy works of social science that don’t make sense to all but the most dedicated academics. Unsurprisingly, inaccessible works fail to help individuals understand the relationship between their lives and their society—and therefore fail to preserve freedom.

For example: Algerian-French philosopher Jacques Derrida created a method of analysis called “deconstructionism” that examines the hierarchical relations between binary oppositions resulting from logocentrism and focuses mainly on the margins and supplements of a text rather than its center.

Defenses of Jargon

Defenders of complex and inaccessible academic work argue that specifically defined concepts allow a work to express more nuance and clarity. Normal, accessible language relies on a preexisting shared understanding—for example, people who just saw Gone With the Wind all generally understand the plot, so normal language works to discuss it. But new, technical, or specific ideas don’t have a shared preexisting understanding, so normal language can’t effectively express them. For example, discussing a Freudian interpretation of Gone With the Wind without using any Freudian concepts inevitably leads to ambiguity, confusion, and extensive explanations. In that instance, while concepts make the conversation inaccessible to those unfamiliar with Freud, they also allow people to clearly communicate more complex ideas.

Part 4: The Flaws of Abstracted Empiricism

Mills acknowledges that the negative impact of grand theory is relatively low compared to the main target of his criticism: an approach he calls “abstracted empiricism.” This approach doesn’t attempt to place social science work in the context of people’s lives or major social problems—Mills explains that this is what makes it “abstracted.” Instead, it focuses entirely on “empirical evidence”: data and observations gained primarily through methods like surveys, opinion polls, and interviews.

(Shortform note: For an example of the methodology and theory behind abstracted empiricism, we can look to one of the social scientists Mills criticizes: sociologist Paul Lazarsfeld. Lazarsfeld conducted some of the first-ever market research, and refined the use of focus groups in empirical studies. He also wrote Mathematical Thinking in the Social Sciences, a guide for using statistics in social science, and several famous studies based heavily on empirical data. Lazarsfeld suggested that the work of sociologists was primarily based on developing new methods of research, and that they could act as a bridge between theoretical social philosophy and data-based research.)

Abstract empiricists believe that social science based entirely on empirical evidence has two main benefits: provability and practicality.

Benefit #1: Provability

Using empirical evidence, an abstract empiricist can systematically observe, test, and measure a specific hypothesis. They believe that this high burden of proof ensures that they base their arguments on real, observable reality instead of theories or speculations.

For example: An abstract empiricist surveys Joe and other people like him about happiness in their marriages. Then, if they claim that Americans are or are not happy in their marriages, they have concrete data to back up this claim.

(Shortform note: Most scholars agree that the desire for provability in social science comes from modernism: a 20th-century philosophical movement that argued that reason, science, and technology could “progress” and improve society. From a modernist perspective, a more rational work of social science would be more beneficial to society—while more theoretical and abstract work would distract from or even slow down social progress.)

Benefit #2: Practicality

Abstract empiricists argue that social science based entirely on empirical evidence is practical: It maintains a reasonable scope. They claim that any attempt to make a broad claim about society fails to recognize the enormous number of factors involved in large-scale societal problems. By using only empirical evidence, abstract empiricists focus on specific questions that they actually can answer. Abstract empiricists note that while individual works of social science can’t determine larger social truths, accruing enough data over time will eventually allow social scientists to combine this data and definitively prove some larger social reality.

For example: An abstract empiricist doesn’t ask, “Why do half of all American marriages end in divorce?” because answering that question requires the impossible task of accounting for every factor involved in American divorces. Instead, they might ask, “Which demographics in a particular region have the highest divorce rates?” Then they would interview Joe and others like him to get data that answers this question. In theory, data on who gets divorced could later help social scientists determine why people get divorced.

(Shortform note: While Mills talks about practicality as the ability to answer a question, many social scientists suggest that for large-scale problems, it’s often hard to know what question to ask. For problems that involve many factors, there isn’t a clear place where a social scientist should start their research. Abstracted empiricism limits its scope to avoid this issue—other social scientists suggest that asking the right question is often a matter of challenging deep-seated existing assumptions or studying specific unexplained events. For example: An economist might examine the 2008 financial crisis—and then notice the major problem that existing statistical models can’t predict similar financial meltdowns.)

Flaws of Abstracted Empiricism

Mills explains that the flaws of abstracted empiricism are the two main assumptions built into the approach: the definitions of “provability” and “practicality.” He argues that these definitions are narrow and flawed to the point where abstracted empiricism can’t create social science that preserves freedom—and sometimes creates social science that harms freedom.

In this section, we’ll explore the following:

  1. The flaws in the definition of “provability”
  2. The flaws in the definition of “practicality”
  3. How abstracted empiricism threatens freedom

The Flaws of “Provability”

Mills explains that abstracted empiricism uses a definition of “provability” that doesn’t properly apply to the social sciences. Abstracted empiricism attempts to use the scientific method to “prove” a claim, measuring and observing to study a hypothesis to determine if it’s correct or incorrect. But the social sciences don’t just deal with correct and incorrect—they also study competing values and beliefs. In such a circumstance, there is no simple “correct” or “incorrect,” therefore, the scientific method doesn’t actually “prove” anything.

For example: An abstract empiricist studies happiness in American marriages. During this survey, they ask Joe, “Are you happy in your marriage?” and Joe answers, “Yes.” However, there are competing values behind Joe’s answer—on a personal level, Joe is deeply unsatisfied with his marriage. But, his society teaches him that he should get married at a young age and commit to this marriage. A survey misses the context of these conflicting values—personal satisfaction and societal obligation—and therefore fails to grasp whether or not Joe is actually happy in his marriage.

Provability and the History of Economics

Some scholars suggest that bias towards quantifiable, “provable” social science explains why economics is the social science with the most social and political clout. They explain that economists began to rely heavily on mathematics as a way to mimic the natural sciences—an approach that made people view their discipline as the most “provable” (and therefore most useful) social science.

However, the pursuit of provability led to flaws in their work. For example: Economists assumed for decades that people generally made rational economic decisions. This way, they believed their rational methods could also predict human behavior—people will generally act in their rational economic self-interest. However, psychological research eventually proved that people often make irrational economic decisions—exposing a major flaw in economics that resulted from the pursuit of provability.

What Versus Why

Mills explains that reliance on the scientific method means that abstracted empiricism can find out what is true but not why it’s true. “Why” requires a broader understanding of personal and historical circumstances, and is therefore beyond the scientific method—and beyond abstracted empiricism.

For example: An abstract empiricist needs to understand Joe’s life experiences to grasp why he is personally unsatisfied in his marriage. They also need to understand the history of America to grasp why Joe might feel socially obligated to stay in his marriage. Data and observations alone can’t explain either of these—because of this, the abstract empiricist can’t understand why Joe says he’s happy in his marriage on a survey.

The Process of Asking “Why”

You might be wondering what it means on a practical level to ask “why” in a work of social science. Some scholars define this as the practice of developing theory, and outline three main steps for doing so:

1) Find an interesting occurrence: During observations of empirical evidence and real-world examples, look for some kind of pattern, peculiarity, or occurrence that you can’t easily explain. For instance, a political theorist might examine different existing governments and notice that states with larger legislatures have fewer wars.

2) Consult existing scholarship: Then, search existing academic works for other views and perspectives on the same occurrence. If there are none, consult works on similar topics. For instance, the political theorist reads an article suggesting states with larger legislatures have fewer wars because the people hold greater accountability over their individual representatives.

3) Craft an explanation: Combine multiple perspectives or try to explain potential gaps or flaws in the existing scholarship. For example, the political scientist suggests that states with large legislatures only have fewer wars if they also have high levels of political participation—otherwise, the people don’t hold their representatives accountable.

The Flaws of “Practicality”

Mills argues that abstracted empiricism uses a definition of practicality that’s biased toward circumstances specific to abstract empiricist research. This bias means that the abstract empiricist’s definition of practicality isn’t an objective standard for judging social science—it’s just a judgment of what’s better for them. Understanding why this is the case requires understanding how social scientists use abstract empiricism.

(Shortform note: While Mills mainly discusses the bias inherent in the modern definition of practicality, other critics of “practical” work cite the history of philosophy in their arguments. Specifically, they reference the fact that “practical” scientific methods originate from theory-heavy works. Philosophers like Aristotle and René Descartes both argued for empirical, rational methods in their work—arguments that influenced great scientists like Isaac Newton. This suggests that theory-heavy work is important for determining what practicality is and why and how it’s useful–something that Mills himself does here.)

Using Abstracted Empiricism

Mills claims that abstract empiricists actually define “practical” social science as the social science that is beneficial to a political, military, or economic institution. Abstracted empiricism requires much more funding compared to other social science due to its reliance on surveys, studies, and interviews. As a result, it’s mostly used by powerful political, military, or corporate institutions. Mills explains that the governments and corporations that hire abstract empiricists demand tangible results for the money they spend on social science—and that a demand for results informs abstracted empiricism’s definition of practicality.

(Shortform note: For an example of how institutions inform the definition of practicality, you can look to the rapidly expanding field of UX (user experience) research. A UX researcher works for a company and conducts surveys, interviews, and polls to determine how users experience that company’s products. Using this job as a reference, it’s easier to understand abstracted empiricism’s definition of practicality: A UX researcher doesn’t try to answer broader questions about their product or company and its place in society—answering those questions doesn't make the company more profitable. Instead, UX researchers just focus on specific empirical data their employer can use to improve products and increase profits.)

Abstracted Empiricism and Threats to Freedom

These flawed conceptions of provability and practicality contribute to Mills’s main criticism of abstracted empiricism: Not only does it fail to preserve freedom (his stated goal of social science), it actively threatens a free society. Let’s examine each part of this claim in detail.

Fails to Preserve Freedom

Abstracted empiricism fails to meet all three standards of Mill's definition of freedom:

1) Understand: Abstracted empiricism can’t help individuals understand the connection between their lives and major social problems. Its methods can’t answer why one impacts the other, and can’t take a wide enough scope to study larger social problems.

2) Debate: Abstracted empiricism doesn’t invite further debate on social problems—it can’t suggest why these problems occur, or why a potential solution might fix them.

3) Decide: People who don’t understand major social problems or how to debate them will tend toward political apathy rather than social or political action.

(Shortform note: While Mills argues that abstracted empiricism doesn’t inspire understanding, debate, and political action, others suggest that empirical studies can and do inform the decisions of policymakers. Proponents of empirical studies might suggest that this means their work preserves freedom: It helps policymakers understand social problems, debate potential solutions, and make a decision that they think will benefit society. On the other hand, Mills argues that this is merely social scientists working on behalf of governments, rather than on behalf of their people. The difference comes from how these social scientists see governments: Pro-empiricists see them as potential allies, while Mills sees them as potential threats.)

Actively Threatens Freedom

Mills argues that abstracted empiricism doesn’t just fail to preserve freedom—it actively threatens freedom by creating non-ideological and amoral social scientists that work on behalf of powerful political, military, and economic institutions. Abstracted empiricism doesn’t train social scientists to examine the impact that such institutions have on people’s lives. Doing so is beyond the scope of their methods—abstracted empiricism cannot ask why. This means that abstract empiricists won’t recognize if their research benefits an institution that is unethical or actively challenges freedom. They create social science that doesn’t take a moral or ideological stand in favor of a free society—to them, it’s just a job.

(Shortform note: While Mills suggests that amoral abstract empiricists could work directly for major institutions, mounting evidence shows that social scientists often worked for major institutions indirectly without even realizing it. The CIA and Pentagon created and shaped entire fields of research through funding—funding that often came from fronts. While some social scientists did (and do) work directly for the CIA or Pentagon, others unknowingly conducted research that benefitted these institutions. This suggests that major social institutions didn’t even need to “create” amoral social scientists like Mills suggests—they just needed to subtly direct existing researchers.)

Exercise: Practice Sociological Imagination

Consider your own society and life experience to practice using sociological imagination.