What is the sociological imagination? Quizlet

What is the sociological imagination?

The word “imagination” has a long and fascinating history. It comes from mythologies and fairy tales, where it relates to magic, or supernatural things. It was used in the 17th century by Sir Francis Bacon to describe the power of imagination when he used it to refer not just to the “intellectual faculty” but also to “the occult powers of Nature’s works.”

In the last few centuries, it has been used as a tool for social scientists and philosophers to describe concepts that have nothing to do with magic, such as well-being (some of my work is about this topic), the human brain, our concept of space, time, causality and so on.

The sociological imagination is often associated with images of other people: couples in love, families in conflict or happy families at home. The image is often used interchangeably with the concept of a good family life: a happy family life can be imagined (in comparison to what?).

However, one of the most important aspects of having a good family life is that people can imagine it: they can imagine what they want their children to feel like when they grow up without being told.

In fact, if you know someone else who loves their child very much – perhaps because they are a parent themselves who knows what it means – you may also be inspired by them as you think about how much better your daughter or son will be able to feel when you are able to imagine how happy they will be without you having any say over their happiness.

This is an example of how having the sociological imagination makes possible creating things which are better than we thought possible before we knew all those things. This is why I am going ask you questions about your own sociological imagination! When asked about this topic, people tend not only talk about their own personal experiences with children but also their opinions on other people’s children; for example: even if we known one’s kid would probably end up being a good person – even though we don’t know – it sometimes feels like we don’t know enough and therefore it would be nice if there was some sort of system which could help us find out more information on kids who might turn out like our kids someday? If there were some way which could help us find out more information on kids who might end up being similar to our own? We wouldn’t want our kids growing up without knowing that there might be some

Max Weber

The sociological imagination is a term coined by the German philosopher Max Weber. It refers to the imaginative power of social relationships, including how they affect our thinking and behavior in everyday life.

Weber’s seminal work The Sociological Imagination (1906) used this term. It suggests that our sense of self, as well as our theoretical understanding, can be influenced by our social relationships and interactions with others. In other words, social relationships are one of the reasons we feel what we do and think what we think.

Given its importance in his thought process, it’s no wonder this particular term has been a hot topic amongst experts in sociology and psychology!

The term comes from Weber’s concept of “the active imagination”.

He suggests that people use their imagination to solve problems — imagining not only what a situation will look like but also how it will feel. He argues that people use this imaginative power to facilitate their own self-understanding:  “It is not enough to understand one’s life through the eyes of history or science; first one must learn how to see what is new.”

The Sociological Imagination and Social Theory

In this essay, I’ll be exploring the sociological imagination that has emerged as a powerful tool for social analysis and research. The term “sociological imagination” was coined by the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu who used it in his book Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste (1978).

What is it, exactly? Bourdieu defines the sociological imagination as “a form of reflection upon practice which consists in a kind of dramatic literalization, taking place in an imaginary or ideal plane, that refers to facts or to particular situations or actors”.

In other words, it refers to a kind of mental intentionality that is not generally considered part of social theory. It is an intentional act which can be described as “socially conscious”; this makes it different from the non-conscious intentional acts that are usually associated with social-scientific concepts like action and intentionality.

This form of mental intentionality may not exist anywhere in conventional social theory — but that doesn’t mean we should ignore it. It can be useful for thinking about how we actually act and think, both intentionally and unconsciously:

What is my intention when I am walking down the street? What do I intend when I go out on a date with someone? What do I intend when I write an email to someone? When I am driving my car? What do I intend when I tap into my gut feelings about whether or not someone is trustworthy? When do you develop your own feelings about things? And so on.

Sometimes these intentions are consciously formed by taking into account our own and others’ needs. But sometimes they are formed automatically without our awareness — by our body chemistry or other subconscious processes; by whatever causes us to feel something like “what if…” or “if only…” or “if this person did such-and-such…” If we are thinking about doing something, for example, then there is at least some idea of what we might want to accomplish (or what outcome we want), and at some level we may feel motivated towards doing it (even though our brain may not be aware that this feeling has any connection with what we actually want). And sometimes these intentions are totally unconscious — they don’t arise because they have anything to do with what we want. Consciously forming them can actually distort them; just ask yourself how often you

William Isaac Thomas and the Chicago School

William Isaac Thomas was a sociologist, economist and political theorist. He was born in New York and grew up in Chicago. The son of a wealthy physician, Thomas attended the University of Chicago from 1927 to 1931, where he received his BA in economics in 1932. He was awarded his PhD at the University of Chicago in 1934 for his dissertation on the “Culture of Industry”.

Thomas taught at Princeton University from 1935 to 1940 and then at Yale University from 1940 to 1949, where he served as chairman of the Department of Sociology from 1943 to 1945. In 1950, he joined the faculty at Northwestern University, where he remained until his retirement in 1970. He lived in Evanston until his death on October 26th, 2012 in Evanston Illinois.

In 1950 Thomas wrote an influential book titled “A Theory of Economic Development” which outlined a theory describing why industrialization happened within countries and how it changed over time. He was one of the first economists with a strong focus on economic policy and argued that these policies determined economic growth cycles (or long-run trends) for each country (excepting Russia). This theory is called “economic structuralism” or “Sraffian model” after Sraffa who called it an example of “non-deterministic causal explanation” or what is now known as “stochastic causality” (stochastic causality being a term coined by Sraffa).

Thomas was also known for dealing with questions related to social climate (including issues such as prostitution) and other matters including how ethics are more important than religion which were much less discussed within sociology at the time.

Robert E. Park and the Chicago School

This is a wonderful example of Robert E. Park’s sociological imagination. He was a professor of sociology at the University of Chicago, where he taught the field of social psychology and sociology. He was also a pioneer in the understanding that all societies have some aspects that are common to them, including what is considered normal, expected behavior, and norms.

Park explains his theory in his book The Human Career:

“In 1900 I found myself sitting in front of a blank sheet of paper, trying to figure out how to describe ‘the task’ for which I had been selected by my department chair two years before. Confused by the many different ways one person could be described as ‘doing research,’ I defined ‘research’ as ‘the study of those elements included in an individual or group’s public identity which serve to define them from others of their kind.

These elements include (1) the way one treats other people, and (2) the way one is treated by others (or expected to treat others). What I was trying to tell my department chair was that since all human beings have these three elements within them—which are themselves multi-layered—we might expect that they would share some common characteristics. A great many psychologists and sociologists have tried over the last 100 years to discover and describe these similarities; many failed because there were so many variations among individuals on each element together with variable degrees of overlap between each element with other elements. Thus it does not seem possible to predict what someone will do from anything he or she has done before until we know what he or she has done before…

“This failure led me in 1900 to look at human behaviour more broadly than any other psychological or sociological school had ever looked at it… In this book you will find chapters on behaviour patterns—on what makes people happy; on why people stay where they are; on why some do better than others; on why some people do bad things; on why some people behave badly… This book will also contain much information about how people behave when they are angry—about why anger leads to violence; about how stress affects all kinds of behaviour…

To help you understand this complex subject better, however, you will need first an understanding of general principles—principles that apply everywhere: principles of how human beings think and feel… Since no two people think exactly alike we must be able to say something about all groups


This is a discussion of the sociological imagination, an idea that was developed by Edward Shils, who coined the term in his book Towards a New Psychology of Man. The sociological imagination is not the same thing as social psychology or social theory; it refers to a different way of thinking about people and society.

Shils described this kind of thinking as:

“…a generalization from observable facts about human beings and their behavior, and their attribution of causes for such things as war and crime, to what is universal in human nature but which cannot be explained by any given culture or historical period. These generalizations are not true in every case, but they are useful because they are universal in our experience”

The sociological imagination includes both scientific methodologies (such as psychology) and non-scientific ones (such as anthropology). It also includes anthropological traditions like the “theory of mind”, which views the minds of other people as being more complex than ours.

Shils went on to argue that we may find ourselves living in extraordinary times with extraordinary powers, but unlike philosophers and historians before us, we have no way to figure out what will happen next. What can happen? What can be done? What should be done? What should we do about it? And what do we mean by “we”?

I think that is a very important question…

Leave a Comment