Sociological imagination was developed by an American sociologist C. Wright Mills in the year 1959. The ideology describes the type of insight that is provided by the discipline of sociology. The term is often used in introductory sociology text books to explain the actual nature of sociology as a discipline and its relevance in the human daily life. Often, sociologists differ when it comes to their understanding of the sociological imagination understanding. However, despite their different interpretations, they all conclude that: “C. Wright Mills define sociological imagination as “the awareness of the relationship between personal experience and the wider society”. (De Maio, 2013) As such, sociological imagination is not expressed as a theory but an evaluative outlook of society which steers humans into thinking away from their usual day-to-day life and look at one’s life afresh. The approach involves an individual developing a rather deep understanding of how their actual biography due to a process of historical process and how that occurs within a larger social context (Doane, 2015).
Sociological imagination is often explained as the application of imaginative thought to the enquiring and answering of the underlying sociological questions. Thus, someone who uses sociological imagination thinks themselves away from the familial routines of daily life. Other sociologists have explained the evaluative outlook as the understanding that social outcomes are based on our actions. Some things in the society are believed to lead to certain specific outcomes. Thereby, the factors mentioned in the sociological imagination are things such as norms and motives (Doane, 2015). As a result, the social context may be the country and the time period, and how things we do affect the other people around us. These factors are examined for how they relate to some sort of outcome. Therefore, sociological imagination can be considered and expressed as quality of mind that understands and integrates the interplay between an individual and the society (Doane, 2015).
Things that shape such outcomes include social norms which are what people want gain from their respective actions because of their motives and the social context in which people live. The capacity to shift from one life perspective to another is sometimes used to define sociological imagination. As such, to possess sociological imagination, one must be able to pull away from a situation and think from a different and alternative point of view. As such, we are obligated to “think ourselves away from our daily routines and think at them afresh” (Hackstaff, 2015). However, to acquire knowledge, it is vital to break free from the immediacy of personal circumstances and as such put things in our life into a wider context, rather than just following routine (Hackstaff, 2015).
C. Wright Mills believed in the power possessed by sociological imagination and how it connects personal problems to public issues. This approach brings out an urge to define and understand the historical and sociological meaning of a single individual in the society, especially within their period (Hullum " Tischler, 2012). Also, to do this, one may apply sociological imagination to better understand and evaluate the larger historical scene in terms of its meaning and its meaning of one’s inner self and external career of various individuals. Sociological imagination can also be viewed as a discipline that attempts to offer the concepts and skills to expose and consequently respond to different forms of sociological injustice such as crime and other aspects such as sex, gender, tourism and sexualities (Hullum " Tischler, 2012).
Usually, majority of people conform to the various defined social norms, for instance following various trends. Deviance is a violation of norms and rules which have been determined by the society. Deviant people are individuals who behave in sharply different ways from customs. Sociologists have argued that it is normal to have deviance in the society. Deviance varies in three major levels; across time, across group and from group to group (Mills, 1961). Different people experience collective different levels of shifting values. Deviance varies between various cultures.
Crime is defined as the behavior which violates the stipulated shows and to which the government can apply negative sanctions. Crime is often found in every society just like deviance. Sociologists have pointed out that crime exists because the members of a certain society often find it difficult to agree on rules pertaining certain actions and behaviors. As such, no society can force total conformity to its laws. Since people are normative, they usually categories behaviors as either right or wrong. Criminals and deviance usually reassure the society of its values (Rose, 2016).
Is Australia an Egalitarian Society?
Egalitarianism is a school of thought which aims to prioritize on equality for all people living within a society. Such doctrines maintain that all people are equal in fundamental worth and social status. Legal egalitarianism offers an argument which states that liberalism provides a rigid framework for developing the appropriate public policy and as such providing the right conditions for people to achieve legal rights. Australian is an egalitarian society. This statement is supported by the fact that the nation offers different forms of equality among its citizens. The country social justice is based on lack of classes. Such a claim can be supported by analysis and evaluation of their cultural habits, economic behavior and social networks (Freiman, 2013).
Each individual is treated equally regardless of his or her wealth and status within the society. As such, the community practices gender equality, communism, respect of human rights and equality between men and women. Also, the poor in such a structure are treated with utmost dignity and any forms of discrimination are disallowed. Furthermore, employees have more empowerment in their places of work. A country such as Australia applies the social philosophy that aims to advocates for equality and removal of any inequalities between different classes of citizens. However, such a structure doesn’t mean that everyone in the society has equal property and wealth (Gilabert, 2015).
Based on Bourdieu’s conceptualization of social class, which states that citizens accumulate and possess economic, sociocultural and various forms of capital. The intrinsic distribution of the forms of capital shows at any moment, constraints on the human abilities to get ahead in the social structure while still upholding other people’s position at the top (Lippert-Rasmussen, 2012). As such, based on the distribution of economic, cultural and social capital structure of the Australian society, various distinct almost equal classes can be determined. Subsequent exploration of these classes based on exploration of how other demographics and socioeconomic characteristics are therefore distributed within the classes. Member of the established social class usually have the lowest household incomes. Also, they possess the lowest rates of social and cultural capital. Members of the established middle-class usually earn close to the average household’s income and thus possess close to average social-cultural capital. Additionally, they come from middle class families (Lippert-Rasmussen, 2012). Therefore, their parents’ occupational prestige was almost close to the mean. A step which they follow.
By contrast, the other members of the mobile middle class originate from middle-class families. However, they possess above average education qualification. Consequently, they report higher household income and property. Moreover, they have an elevated social capital the other two previous classes. Similarly, members of the emerging affluent class have applied the benefits of education to household income (Huseby, 2015). The youngest of the 5 classes have elevated levels of cultural and social capital. Also, both parents have previously had prestigious occupations.
Despite these different classes, Australia has been known to uphold most of the virtues of an egalitarian society. Additionally, the language that is spoken by the Australians tends to be more formal. As such, there is usage of similar language regardless of the nature of the individuals involved in a conversation. Everyone uses the same language when speaking to the elderly, friends and even their boss. Moreover, English is the national language of Australia (Branson, 2014). However, certain words have emerged and can only be regarded as uniquely Australian. Such phrases and slangs are used by everyone equally and not only restricted to various societal classes.
Educational aspects can also be used to support the existence of egalitarianism within the Australian society. In most countries, a teacher only stands in front of the class room to deliver knowledge to the classroom. However, Australian teachers with the exception of some institutions, tends to focus more on group work and discussions. Consequently, classes tend to be more student centered. This factor means to ensure that students benefit more from each other rather than just depending on teachers. Teachers don’t appear to be school “masters” but helpers (→, 2018).
Payment of bills when acquaintances or friends meet in Australia applies the egalitarian principles. As shown in most other countries, if people meet in a social setting, a man offers to pay for the woman or one of the friend volunteers to pay. However, in Australia, the bill is split among the parties. It has been said that accepting generosity evokes a feeling of shame within the society. As such, when poor people pay their bills, it acts as a sign that they are not inferior to the rich (→, 2018).
Therefore, Australia can be regarded as an egalitarian society due the societal structures, systems and the social life of the Australian people. However, despite the persistence of the structures, the future of egalitarianism in the country is not certain. This factor is due to the change that has been brought by immigration and other sociocultural factors in the country (Branson, 2014).
References
Branson, J. (2014). Sociology and the Sociology of Education in Australia. The Australian And New Zealand Journal Of Sociology, 16(2), 8-15. doi: 10.1177/144078338001600204
De Maio, F. (2013). Regression Analysis and the Sociological Imagination. Teaching Statistics, 36(2), 52-57. doi: 10.1111/test.12019
Doane, R. (2015). Ralph Ellison's Sociological Imagination. The Sociological Quarterly, 45(1), 161-184. doi: 10.1111/j.1533-8525.2004.tb02402.x
Freiman, C. (2013). Analogical Arguments for Egalitarianism. Ratio, 27(2), 222-237. doi: 10.1111/rati.12026
Gilabert, P. (2015). Global Moral Egalitarianism and Global Distributive Egalitarianism. Ethics " International Affairs, 29(03), 269-276. doi: 10.1017/s0892679415000222
Hackstaff, K. (2015). Family Genealogy: A Sociological Imagination Reveals Intersectional Relations. Sociology Compass, 4(8), 658-672. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2010.00307.x
Hullum, J., " Tischler, H. (2012). Introduction to Sociology. Teaching Sociology, 20(3), 260. doi: 10.2307/1319071
Huseby, R. (2015). Can Luck Egalitarianism Justify the Fact that Some are Worse Off than Others?. Journal Of Applied Philosophy, 33(3), 259-269. doi: 10.1111/japp.12122
Lippert-Rasmussen, K. (2012). Democratic Egalitarianism versus Luck Egalitarianism. Philosophical Topics, 40(1), 117-134. doi: 10.5840/philtopics20124018
Mills, C. (1961). The sociological imagination. New York: Grove Press.
rarr V. (2018). Egalitarianism - Destroyer of Nations. Retrieved from http://www.confederatecolonel.com/2011/06/egalitarianism-destroyer-of-nations/
Rose, A. (2016). Varieties of Sociological Imagination. American Sociological Review, 34(5), 623. doi: 10.2307/2092299
References
Thompson, J. (2014). Murder in the First Degree. Callaloo, (1), 44.
Friedland, S., Carpenter, C., Chavis, K., " Arcabascio, C. (2016). Criminal law: A context and practice casebook (pp. 168 - 181).
