Any views expressed within media held on this service are those of the contributors, should not be taken as approved or endorsed by the University, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University in respect of any particular issue.

The Sociological Imagination in the “Post-Truth era”: What Can it Teach us?

C Wright Mills’ The Sociological Imagination, continues to influence those wanting to understand social life. Mills defined the ‘Sociological Imagination’ as the “quality of mind…to achieve lucid summations of what is going on in the world”, but requires a person to understand the biases “happening within themselves” (Mills 2000 p.5). However, the current Post-Truth era is one where “the epistemic nature of facts has become frailer and more contested”, making it harder to understand current events and ourselves (Salgado 2018 p.321). This is the first entry in a series of four posts that examine the Post-Truth era, by exploring and applying concepts from The Sociological Imagination. This post begins by providing a definition of Post-Truth, before examining Mills’ core ideas in Chapter 1 The Promise in relation to Post-Truth scholarship. Subsequent posts build on these ideas and analyse the Post-Truth era through the lenses of biography, social structure and history.

A Definition of Post Truth

Cosentio unified interdisciplinary perspectives to define the main elements of the Post-Truth era. From the social sciences, Post-Truth is the “systemic circulation of intentionally or unintentionally misleading or false information via the internet, by and among an increasingly polarized and emotional public opinion” (Cosentio, 2020 p.3). From the science and technology disciplines, Post-Truth is the use of “cognitive-behavioural science, big data analysis and micro-targeting”, to disseminate information (Cosentio, p.3). Despite Mills writing in the 1950s, the three core concepts of The Promise resonate with the arguments of Post-Truth scholars.

Declining Belief in Science and Information

There are two arguments to Mills’ reasoning on declining popular trust in science and information. First, Mills stated science and expertise are increasingly viewed as “dubious philosophy”, out of touch with the realities of average people (Mills, 2000, p.16). This is evidenced in the Post-Truth era, by people refuting the claims of scientists and experts with appeals to emotion over evidence (Lewandowsky et al., 2017 p.354). Recent examples include the 5G controversy, rise in vaccine hesitancy and growing disbelief in climate change, despite multiple campaigns by experts to change public opinion.

This ties into the second aspect of Mills’ argument on information. He stated people want “…a big picture, in which they can believe and understand themselves” but that picture must adhere to their values, ways of feeling and emotions (Mills p.17). In a digital Post-Truth context, people have access to unprecedented amounts of information. However, the software we use to find information increasingly constitutes our reality, rather than mediating it (Beer, 2009, p.987). This makes it easy for individuals to find evidence that validates their perspectives, whilst filtering out alternative narratives. When trying to construct a lucid summation, we must reflexively examine how the technologies we use might limit or shape our perspectives. This is examined in the next post, which looks at biography.

Private Troubles and Public Issues

Mills identified that Troubles occur when individuals feel threatened, whether by circumstances such as unemployment, or having their values and norms challenged (Mills, p.8) Issues relate to many groups of individuals in various milieux. As such, the debate over a threatened public value as an Issue (national identity for example) often lacks focus, as each individual processes the Issue within their own context (Mills, p.8). This is significant, as the malign phenomena that characterise Post-Truth such as fake news are able to span this personal–public divide, by manipulating perception and adding emotion to information. For those with a ‘Sociological Imagination’, focusing on the relationship between Trouble and Issue is essential. Understanding this relationship enables observers to see the subjective processes of knowledge creation within individuals, larger groups and themselves. This will be explored in the third post examining structures.

Elitism and Knowledge Production

Mills intended a ‘Sociological Imagination’ to be emancipatory, but it is framed as a tool of importance for scholars, journalists, scientists etc, rather than the general population. As such, he reinforces a problem highlighted earlier; educated elites claim to have a privileged perspective of the world. This leads to tension, when someone’s worldview is written-off as misinformed by the “intellectual elite” (Merkley 2020 p.25). The epistemic implications of this intellectual problem have shaken modern democracies to their core (Cosentino 2020 p.3). Additionally, the rise of the interpretivist perspective reinforces the importance of an individual’s ability to construct their reality through language and interaction. How does this balance against a researcher’s ability to interpret or understand a person’s perspective, when that perspective is premised on false information? This is the focus of the final post examining history.

Concluding Thoughts for Future Posts

The Sociological Imagination remains a useful starting point for anyone trying to understand what is happening around them. As researchers, it is important to consider how our preferred information sources shape and potentially limit our world view. It is also necessary to understand the relationship between our Troubles and wider Issues, when seeing how we approach a problem. Finally, Post-Truth partially emerged as a response to dissatisfaction with existing information practices; researchers must consider if they are contributing to the problem (Merkley, p.24).

 

Next week: The Sociological Imagination in the “Post-Truth era”: Biography

References

Cosentino, Gabriele, (2020) Social Media and the Post-Truth World Order: The Global Dynamics. Switzerland: Palgrave MacMillan.  

Lewandowsky, S. Ullrich. K.H.E. and Cook, J. (2017) ‘Beyond Misinformation: Understanding and Coping with the “Post-Truth” Era’, Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6 (4), pp.353-369. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008.

Merkley, E. (2020) ‘Anti-Intellectualism, Populism and Motivated Resistance to Expert Consensus’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 84 (1), pp.24-28. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfz053.

Salgado, S. (2018). ‘Online media impact on politics: Views on post-truth politics and post post modernism’, International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics,14, pp.317-331. doi: https://doi.org/10.1386/macp.14.3.317_1.

Wright Mills, C, (2000), The Sociological Imagination. 14th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

css.php

Report this page

To report inappropriate content on this page, please use the form below. Upon receiving your report, we will be in touch as per the Take Down Policy of the service.

Please note that personal data collected through this form is used and stored for the purposes of processing this report and communication with you.

If you are unable to report a concern about content via this form please contact the Service Owner.

Please enter an email address you wish to be contacted on. Please describe the unacceptable content in sufficient detail to allow us to locate it, and why you consider it to be unacceptable.
By submitting this report, you accept that it is accurate and that fraudulent or nuisance complaints may result in action by the University.

  Cancel