The Blind Men And The Elephant

Sociological imagination is the way in which individuals realize the connection between their own experience of reality and the experiences of society as a whole. This realization allows people to make sense of the world around them. When one applies sociological imagination, they are stripping their own personal experiences from their thoughts to analyze the social world around them. It allows one to understand different perspectives of the world without the narrow lens of personal experience and bias. This is extremely important in modern society. For instance, in politics, it is very important to hold back personal beliefs when it comes to law-making. A politician who refrains from applying her own moral beliefs to her political agenda in attempt to create a better society is practicing the use of sociological imagination. She removes her own personal views of the world in order to see society’s views as a whole, and acts accordingly. In other words, sociological imagination is “taking the role of the other” to gain a wider understanding of a perspective other than one’s own.

Sociological imagination is a concept that was defined in 1959 by American sociologist C. Wright Mills. He described it as an awareness of the relationship between a person’s behavior and experience and the wider culture that shaped the person’s choice and perceptions. It helps us relate our own experiences to others. Sociological imagination can help us understand the difference between personal troubles and public issues by determining if it is a problem in someone’s own history or if it is an issue in the society or culture’s history.

According to C. Wright Mills (1959), sociological imagination is the ability to appreciate a different (wider) perspective of the self in relation to others and to society than the narrow perspective of the self that comes most naturally to the individual. Today, sociological imagination is a concept that is considered central to the study of sociology and other disciplines such as social psychology because the ability to shift from a personal perspective to a more objective perspective is crucial to understanding other people and to understanding the norms, values, and expectations of other societies that may differ substantially from the society of the researcher or student.

Firstly, C. Wright Mills’ concept of sociological imagination is “stimulated by a willingness to view the social worlds from the perspective of others”

Human beings have full control over their identities after they have received knowledge and have become shaped from external stimuli. These stimuli include the teaching process of humans which comes through tradition, schooling, and the actions of other humans and the influence of the organisms around them. Andrew Solomon, through “Son,” was able to use his experience of growing up and labeling himself as a gay dyslexic to show how his environment and knowledge had shaped his identity and how it was viewed by others with different identities. In “An Elephant Crackup,” Charles Siebert was able to explain how the other organisms or humans are able to form new identities for elephants over time by shaping them a new environment and having the elephants process it. In “Mind’s Eye,” Oliver Sacks had different case studies of blindness from different people and was able to show how each one experienced their blindness help shape and express their individual identities. The stimuli that becomes processed by a person in the situations, accounts, and studies of these works assist in the role of explaining the formulation of an identity.

“The Elephant in the Village of the Blind” shows us that in life, we frequently attempt to comprehend the world around us by the way we see it. Nevertheless, our understanding is limited by our experiences, knowledge, beliefs, moral systems, education, opinions, influence of others, etc. In this sense, we are metaphorically “blind”, as are the villagers. For this reason, some people in the story saw the animal as “a fringed rope” (line 13) and others as “a cool, smooth stuff” (line 14), which is clear juxtaposition. Moreover, when we are not familiar with something we are trying to define it, before fully understanding it. The clear moral of this parable is that we rarely see the things as they are, we see the things as we are.

Foremost, it is important to understand the term ‘sociological imagination’. The sociological imagination was a term first introduced by sociologist C.Wright Mills in his 1959 book; “The sociological imagination”. Mills introduces the sociological imagination by initially drawing a distinction between ‘Milieu’ and structure. Mills illustrates milieu as the visible, accessible and ‘emotionally coloured’ world an individual resides within, they are habitants of this ‘world’ only as their vision of the world is limited via the personal immediacy of the community they participate in. He defined this imagination as “…the vivid awareness of the relationship between experience and the wider society” (Mills, 1959).

In the short story, The Elephant in the Village of the Blind, there are a group of blind villagers that come across a conflict amongst themselves. The villagers are being introduced to an elephant for the first time in their lives. In curiosity, they all feel different parts of the elephant, observing the different textures and body parts. As they discuss their different views and experiences from touching the elephant their personal ideas created conflicts. As they disagree, it creates an interesting representation of human interaction. In this story, the conflicts that arise between the villagers represent the small bubble of human observation and subjectivity, and how much of human interaction is about competing to be correct in our beliefs because ego and self worth drive how we interact with each other.

According to C. Wright Mills, the sociological imagination is when an individual views his society as the potential cause for his daily successes and failures. Individuals often tend to view their personal issues as social problems and try to connect their individual experiences with the workings of society. Mills believes that this is the way for individuals to gain an understanding of their personal dilemmas. The sociological imagination helps people connect their own problems with public problems and their history. In order for an individual to figure out the causes of their problems, they first have to be able to understand the causes of the problems in the society in which they are living in. The sociological imagination tries to

George Orwell’s 1930 short story “Shooting an Elephant,” demonstrates the total dangers of the unlimited authority a state has and the astounding presentment of “future dystopia”. In the story, Orwell finds himself to be in an intricate situation that involves an elephant. Not only does the fate of the elephant’s life lie in Orwell’s hands, he has an audience of people behind him cheering him on, making his decision much more difficult to make. Due to the vast crowd surrounding his thoughts, Orwell kills the elephant in the end, not wanting to disappoint the people of Burma. Orwell captures the hearts of readers by revealing the struggles he has while dealing with the burden of his own beliefs and morals.

The concept of “sociological imagination” is one that can be explained many different ways. A simple way to think of the sociological imagination is to see it as a way a person thinks, where they know that what they do from day to day in their private lives (like the choices they make), are sometimes influenced by the larger environment in which they live (Mills 1959, 1). What C.W. Mills meant by this concept is that it is the ability to “understand the larger historical scene in terms of its meaning for the inner life and the external career of a variety of individuals” (1959, 3). In other words, the concept of sociological imagination is the ability to realize that the choices people make and their personal environments are often

Sociological imagination is merely the connection between a person and the society. Every person is connected to and influenced by society to a different extent. Some people are completely absorbed in society and feel obligated to keep up with the trends, or else they feel like an outlier. On the other hand, some people do not keep up with the trends of society because they could care less about others opinions. Sociological imagination can be used to show the relationship between both those types of people and the society, and it can be used to explain how people view society from their point of view. When people look at societies from an outsider’s point of view, “rather than only from the perspective of personal experiences and cultural biases” (Schaefer 4), they are able to notice the things that shape and mold their character. The outsider perspective also provides them with a better understanding of themselves by understanding the relationship between them and society.

The Sociological Imagination is not just a title of a book, it is a complicated, multi-faceted, sociological concept. In the book, Mills argues that personal troubles and public issues can be linked

The sociological imagination is the “quality of mind” (Mills, 1959: 4) that enables individuals to look outside their private sphere of consciousness and identify the structures and institutions in society that influence or cause their personal experiences. In this way, by looking at the bigger picture, they can understand their place in society and explain their circumstance in terms of societal influence.

Sociological Imagination is a significant concept identified by C. Wright Mills, who defined it as the, “…capacity to range from the most impersonal and remote transformations to the most intimate features of the human self-and to see the most intimate features of the human self-and to see the relationship between the two” (Steckley 2017, 9). It enables us to view social issues such as racism and poverty through a broader lens, by considering the individual’s circumstances before naming the causes.