Welcome to the SOC100 Summer 2013 Blog!
Before writing a post or comment, be sure to review the Blog Writing Tips and Grading Scheme at https://sites.google.com/a/umich.edu/soc100/assignments-grades/bloggrading
Thursday, June 27, 2013
[Example Post for July 1] "You Didn't Build That": Using Mills' Sociological Imagination in Contemporary America
Mills develops a concept that he refers to as the "sociological imagination" in the chapter titled "The Promise" assigned for today. He asserts that knowledge of two key elements is necessary for one to exercise one's sociological imagination: one's personal biography, and the history in which one finds oneself. It is at the intersection of these two abstract concepts that "the individual can understand his own experience and gauge his own fate" (p. 3). In other words, understanding (and predicting) a given person's life chances (e.g., how likely they are to go to college, how likely they are to experience upward social mobility, how likely they are to get divorced or have children, how likely they are be homeless or live in a mansion, etc.) requires not only understanding their personal, idiosyncratic choices and habits, but also the "historical" reality of their life, such as what time period and place on earth they were born into.
For this blog post I'd like to focus on the second element: history. The idea that pre-existing conditions of social life play a huge role in a person's individual chances in life is really compelling to me. I think that, perhaps particularly in the United States, we tend to err on the side of imagining a person's actions (whether they result in success or failure) as a product of their own individual merit: either they worked hard enough for something and got it, or they didn't work hard enough and didn't get it; either they had enough resolve to fight through the obstacles in their life and overcome them, or they didn't have enough resolve and failed to overcome them; etc.
I think that Mills is trying to focus our attention on something else: Even if a person has lots of resolve and works very hard, their "historical" circumstances may prevent them from succeeding in life; likewise, if a person of little resolve and poor work ethic is born into advantageous circumstances, she or he will still likely be successful in life.
This concept reminded me of a quotation from one of Obama's speeches during the recent 2012 presidential campaign that turned into a big talking point in the media. Here's the video:
Conservatives in the media interpreted Obama's saying "you didn't build that" as an attack on people's work ethic, discrediting Americans for working hard to build the national infrastructure as well as their own private assets. Liberals in the media interpreted the statement as a rightful illuminating of some Americans' failure to see that their success in life is at least partially a product of the resources they enjoy as a result of being born in the US. He cites the examples of good teachers, roads, bridges, and the internet as part of the "structural conditions" (as Karen Sternheimer, in another assigned reading for today, put it) of contemporary America.
In this way, Obama is emphasizing the "historical conditions" (as Mills would term it) of Americans' lives, while dissenting conservatives are emphasizing the individual "biographical actions" many successful Americans have made. Mills would argue that, in order to have a full sociological understanding of a given person's chances in life, we need to balance these two perspectives.
While reading this blog post, I began to think further in depth about the relationship between history and biography. It made me realize that the time period in which I was born will have an effect on who I become in the future. The opportunities I have to succeed differ greatly from those fifty years ago, mainly due to the increases in technology. I found myself agreeing with the post that our history is often overlooked and people tend to focus on the biography. There is not a single factor that determines what the person will accomplish. In “The Promise,” Mills explains that an individual’s life is not made up of only biography or history, but rather a combination. This reminded me of the concept of nature vs. nurture. Nature vs. nurture describes the relationship between something someone is born with and the experiences they encounter. These characteristics and experiences work together to shape their surroundings, just like the interaction between biography and history. These concepts can be seen through the culture of the Nacirema. A person may have a similar biography but the daily rituals they participate in cause the differences in societies. This coincides with the thoughts in this blog post that people are overlooking history. It is evident that history and biography work together towards shaping societies.
In agreement with Drew’s post, Mills explains in “The Promise” that “[t]here are external factors that constrain the choices that individuals make, which are outside their control” (Sociological Imagination 1). This confirms that human beings are not isolated in nature. For instance, if an individual tries to distance himself from the society he was born into, he is still affected by other individuals who belonged to that society in the present and past, and thus may never be truly a result of his own experiences. Similarly, I can identify with the Nature vs. Nurture example that Sarah mentions in her comment and would only add that not only present experiences affect individuals but also those of their parents or even of total strangers who existed before. This is mentioned by Mills who explains that “[b]y the fact we are living we contribute to society however minutely, and then to history” (Sociological Imagination). Additionally, I find Karen Sternheimer’s post-Baby Boom experience interesting as she traces her experiences to that time period. It would be interesting to look at a female in a different county or state and see if their post-Baby Boomers period also resulted in unique individualized attention in class. It would perhaps disclose how specific her experience was, and perhaps reveal many other factors (even those unknown to her) contributed to her own experience.
After reading Drew's post and Mill's "The Promise", I was beginning to understand the importance of history in the outcome of one's biography and the essential relationship that history and biography share. It is important for a person to understand where and what time period he or she comes from in order to be able to succeed and as Mill's explains, "neither the life of an individual nor the history of a society can be understood without understanding both" (Mills, 1). I thought the variation of images in "What We Own" and "Variation and Universality in Children's Play" were prime examples of a person's or people's biography based on their history.
I especially agreed with Drew's concept that "pre-existing conditions of social life play a huge role in a person's individual chances in life," because after learning from my personal experiences, I've come to live by the motto of "controlling the controllables." There are many factors that are placed in a person's life and in a society that are going to be there no matter what and how a person deals with those factors AND what that person has in his toolbox will determine her success or failure in life.
I thought the video of Obama's speech was interesting because it related back to Mill's point on page two that "the well-being [men] enjoy, they do not usually impute to the big ups and downs of the societies in which they live," which also relates to the comment that Sarah K. made about how history is often overlooked. I also agreed with Sarah K.'s idea that mankind is able to succeed due to technology, but I also believe that a person's success is due to more than that. People have access to "history" and are able to understand and learn from mistakes made from previous generations allowing development, change, and a more functional time period.
While reading this blog post, I began to think further in depth about the relationship between history and biography. It made me realize that the time period in which I was born will have an effect on who I become in the future. The opportunities I have to succeed differ greatly from those fifty years ago, mainly due to the increases in technology. I found myself agreeing with the post that our history is often overlooked and people tend to focus on the biography. There is not a single factor that determines what the person will accomplish. In “The Promise,” Mills explains that an individual’s life is not made up of only biography or history, but rather a combination.
ReplyDeleteThis reminded me of the concept of nature vs. nurture. Nature vs. nurture describes the relationship between something someone is born with and the experiences they encounter. These characteristics and experiences work together to shape their surroundings, just like the interaction between biography and history. These concepts can be seen through the culture of the Nacirema. A person may have a similar biography but the daily rituals they participate in cause the differences in societies. This coincides with the thoughts in this blog post that people are overlooking history. It is evident that history and biography work together towards shaping societies.
In agreement with Drew’s post, Mills explains in “The Promise” that “[t]here are external factors that constrain the choices that individuals make, which are outside their control” (Sociological Imagination 1). This confirms that human beings are not isolated in nature. For instance, if an individual tries to distance himself from the society he was born into, he is still affected by other individuals who belonged to that society in the present and past, and thus may never be truly a result of his own experiences.
DeleteSimilarly, I can identify with the Nature vs. Nurture example that Sarah mentions in her comment and would only add that not only present experiences affect individuals but also those of their parents or even of total strangers who existed before. This is mentioned by Mills who explains that “[b]y the fact we are living we contribute to society however minutely, and then to history” (Sociological Imagination).
Additionally, I find Karen Sternheimer’s post-Baby Boom experience interesting as she traces her experiences to that time period. It would be interesting to look at a female in a different county or state and see if their post-Baby Boomers period also resulted in unique individualized attention in class. It would perhaps disclose how specific her experience was, and perhaps reveal many other factors (even those unknown to her) contributed to her own experience.
After reading Drew's post and Mill's "The Promise", I was beginning to understand the importance of history in the outcome of one's biography and the essential relationship that history and biography share. It is important for a person to understand where and what time period he or she comes from in order to be able to succeed and as Mill's explains, "neither the life of an individual nor the history of a society can be understood without understanding both" (Mills, 1). I thought the variation of images in "What We Own" and "Variation and Universality in Children's Play" were prime examples of a person's or people's biography based on their history.
ReplyDeleteI especially agreed with Drew's concept that "pre-existing conditions of social life play a huge role in a person's individual chances in life," because after learning from my personal experiences, I've come to live by the motto of "controlling the controllables." There are many factors that are placed in a person's life and in a society that are going to be there no matter what and how a person deals with those factors AND what that person has in his toolbox will determine her success or failure in life.
I thought the video of Obama's speech was interesting because it related back to Mill's point on page two that "the well-being [men] enjoy, they do not usually impute to the big ups and downs of the societies in which they live," which also relates to the comment that Sarah K. made about how history is often overlooked. I also agreed with Sarah K.'s idea that mankind is able to succeed due to technology, but I also believe that a person's success is due to more than that. People have access to "history" and are able to understand and learn from mistakes made from previous generations allowing development, change, and a more functional time period.