lOMoAR cPSD| 39651208
The relationship between the micro and the macro remains one of the key problems
confronting sociology. The German sociologist Georg Simmel pointed out that
macro-level processes are in fact nothing more than the sum of all the unique
interactions between specific individuals at any one time (1908), yet they have
properties of their own which would be missed if sociologists only focused on the
interactions of specific individuals. Émile Durkheim’s classic study of suicide
(1897) is a case in point. While suicide is one of the most personal, individual, and
intimate acts imaginable, Durkheim demonstrated that rates of suicide differed
between religious communities—Protestants, Catholics, and Jews—in a way that
could not be explained by the individual factors involved in each specific case. The
different rates of suicide had to be explained by macro-level variables associated
with the different religious beliefs and practices of the faith communities. We will
return to this example in more detail later. On the other hand, macro-level
phenomena like class structures, institutional organizations, legal systems, gender
stereotypes, and urban ways of life provide the shared context for everyday life but
do not explain its nuances and micro-variations very well. Macro-level structures
constrain the daily interactions of the intimate circles in which we move, but they
are also filtered through localized perceptions and “lived” in a myriad of inventive
and unpredictable ways.
The Sociological Imagination
Although the scale of sociological studies and the methods of carrying them out are
different, the sociologists involved in them all have something in common. Each of
them looks at society using what pioneer sociologist C. Wright Mills called the
sociological imagination, sometimes also referred to as the “sociological lens” or
“sociological perspective.” In a sense, this was Mills’ way of addressing the
dilemmas of the macro/micro divide in sociology. Mills defined sociological
imagination as how individuals understand their own and others’ pasts in relation to
history and social structure (1959). It is the capacity to see an individual’s private
troubles in the context of the broader social processes that structure them. This
enables the sociologist to examine what Mills called “personal troubles of milieu”
as “public issues of social structure,” and vice versa.
Mills reasoned those private troubles like being overweight, being unemployed,
having marital difficulties, or feeling purposeless or depressed can be purely
personal in nature. It is possible for them to be addressed and understood in terms of
personal, psychological, or moral attributes, either one’s own or those of the people
in one’s immediate milieu. In an individualistic society like our own, this is in fact
the most likely way that people will regard the issues they confront: “I have an
addictive personality;” “I can’t get a break in the job market;” “My husband is
unsupportive;” etc. However, if private troubles are widely shared with others, they
The relationship between the micro and the macro remains one of the key problems
confronting sociology. The German sociologist Georg Simmel pointed out that
macro-level processes are in fact nothing more than the sum of all the unique
interactions between specific individuals at any one time (1908), yet they have
properties of their own which would be missed if sociologists only focused on the
interactions of specific individuals. Émile Durkheim’s classic study of suicide
(1897) is a case in point. While suicide is one of the most personal, individual, and
intimate acts imaginable, Durkheim demonstrated that rates of suicide differed
between religious communities—Protestants, Catholics, and Jews—in a way that
could not be explained by the individual factors involved in each specific case. The
different rates of suicide had to be explained by macro-level variables associated
with the different religious beliefs and practices of the faith communities. We will
return to this example in more detail later. On the other hand, macro-level
phenomena like class structures, institutional organizations, legal systems, gender
stereotypes, and urban ways of life provide the shared context for everyday life but
do not explain its nuances and micro-variations very well. Macro-level structures
constrain the daily interactions of the intimate circles in which we move, but they
are also filtered through localized perceptions and “lived” in a myriad of inventive
and unpredictable ways.
The Sociological Imagination
Although the scale of sociological studies and the methods of carrying them out are
different, the sociologists involved in them all have something in common. Each of
them looks at society using what pioneer sociologist C. Wright Mills called the
sociological imagination, sometimes also referred to as the “sociological lens” or
“sociological perspective.” In a sense, this was Mills’ way of addressing the
dilemmas of the macro/micro divide in sociology. Mills defined sociological
imagination as how individuals understand their own and others’ pasts in relation to
history and social structure (1959). It is the capacity to see an individual’s private
troubles in the context of the broader social processes that structure them. This
enables the sociologist to examine what Mills called “personal troubles of milieu”
as “public issues of social structure,” and vice versa.
Mills reasoned those private troubles like being overweight, being unemployed,
having marital difficulties, or feeling purposeless or depressed can be purely
personal in nature. It is possible for them to be addressed and understood in terms of
personal, psychological, or moral attributes, either one’s own or those of the people
in one’s immediate milieu. In an individualistic society like our own, this is in fact
the most likely way that people will regard the issues they confront: “I have an
addictive personality;” “I can’t get a break in the job market;” “My husband is
unsupportive;” etc. However, if private troubles are widely shared with others, they
