This final post explores Mills’ chapter on The Uses of History. It first looks at Mills’ definition of history, before explaining why sociologists need history to contextualise events and protect society’s collective memory. It then expands on the truth/trust theme from the previous post, before summarising the elements of a ‘Sociological Imagination’.

Mills on History

Mills’ insights on history are relevant in the Post Truth era, “where the very nature of facts are more contested than ever” (Salgado 2018, p.321). History according to Mills, represents the everchanging and malleable memory of mankind, made of the facts collected and interpreted by historians (Mills,  pp.143-144). Prophetically, Mills stated history is constantly at risk of being distorted in an Orwellian manner, to suit malicious agendas (Mills, p.145). To keep our memory safe, Mills urged sociologist and historians to work together, to write the “present as history” and capture the multiple experiences of the actors who create the historical and social (Mills, p.145).

Historical Variety and Memory

To write the present as history, Mills stated researchers should identify the “historical variety” of phenomena, by examining them in different contexts to avoid “flat description” (Mills, p.147). Mills referred to the propensity of some researchers to imply an Issue or Trouble is homogenous across different societies. Instead, Mills urged us to compare and contrast phenomena, to identify the essential conditions that enable them exist across societies (Mills, p.147). This prevents Post-Truth actors manipulating our memory to undermine narratives. For example, detractors of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement claim it is a recent American phenomenon, that has no place in British society. However, BLM started as an American movement in 2013 in response to police brutality, building on deep mistrust of legal institutions caused by unique historical experiences. Ongoing protests challenge American institutional symbols that act as sources of unity for certain milieux, such as the narrative of Christian nationalism, or the police as a morally just institution (Perry, et al, 2018, p.140). The British BLM movement shares a similar but contextually different experience of police brutality, whilst criticising the nation’s historical amnesia on empire and its role in slavery (Nasar, 2020). This is why the toppling of statues in both countries share the same objective (challenging norms, values and symbols that are viewed as racially oppressive), but have vastly different socio-historical contexts (Borysovych & Karpova, 2020). By employing a ‘Sociological Imagination’ it is possible to understand how events interrelate, but identify their essential conditions.

The Essential Condition of the Post-Truth era

Mills’ second insight pulls together the findings from past posts, to show how an awareness of history allows researchers to tie together issues of biography and structure (Mills, p.148). This is vital in the Post-Truth era, as understanding how and why individuals construct meaning is essential for building trust across milieux, and creating more inclusive institutions.

As discussed in previous posts, peoples’ conception of their social environment has historically been limited by their milieux, technologies and the institutions and structures that dominate their lives. The essential condition that makes the Post-Truth era unique, is the unprecedented amount of information provided by current digital technologies, that empowers individuals to feel informed (Dalgren, 2017, p.23). In response to so much conflicting information, the individual become the arbiter of truth guided by emotions, rather than “educated elites”, experts or traditional spokespeople (Peters, 2019, p.362). This is because the endless flow of information creates an “epistemic cacophony”, where basic social realities are constantly refuted or unrecognised (Dalgren, p.25). As such, attempts to produce counterarguments often fail, as they do not match an individuals’ or milieuxs’ perspective, even if that perspective is premised on false information (Mills, p.162).

Creating Trust

From reading Mills through the Post-Truth lens, building trust is central to countering the Post-Truth epistemic crisis. To do this, Mills asks us to remember that the subjective emotional perspectives of individuals are valid, born out of historical experiences, yet often rationalised through misguided attempts to understand the social world (Mills, p.158). To employ a ‘Sociological Imagination’ requires researchers to consider, rather than dismiss as many of these perspectives as possible (Mills, p.214). Quite often, researchers will find themselves “thinking against something”, but shifting from one perspective to another allows researchers to build up an adequate view of society and its components (Mill, pp.211-214). This requires researchers to understand individual troubles in terms of public issues, and as the problems of history-making (Mill, p.226). This subsequently allows the researcher to relate public issues to personal troubles, creating narratives that resonate and build trust across milieux (Mills, p.226).

References

Borysovych, O. V., Chaiuk, T. A., & Karpova, K. S. (2020) Black Lives Matter: Race Discourse and the Semiotics of History Reconstruction, Journal of History Culture and Art Research, 9(3), 325-340. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.7596/taksad.v9i3.2768

Dahlgren, P. (2018) Media, Knowledge and Trust: The Deepening EpistemicCrisis of Democracy,  Javnost – The Public, 25:1-2, 20-27, DOI: 10.1080/13183222.2018.1418819

Michael A. Peters (2019) Anti-intellectualism is a virus, Educational Philosophyand Theory, 51:4, 357-363, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2018.1462946

Nasar, S (2020) Remembering Edward Colston: histories of slavery, memory, and black globality, Women’s History Review, 29:7, 1218-1225, DOI: 10.1080/09612025.2020.1812815

Perry, S. L., Whitehead, A. L. and Davis, J. T. (2019) ‘God’s Country in Black and Blue: How Christian Nationalism Shapes Americans’ Views about Police (Mis)treatment of Blacks’, Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 5(1), pp. 130–146. doi: 10.1177/2332649218790983.

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. 14^th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nov 29, 2020

This post examines Mills’ concepts of structure, institution and milieux though the Post-Truth lens. The first section examines Mills’ definitions of structures, institutions and milieux. The second contextualises the individual under structures and institutions. The final paragraph demonstrates the fallacy of debunking truth with truth.

Structure, Institution and Milieux

Structures, institutions and milieux, are terms used by sociologists to describe relationships at different societal levels. To understand these terms, it is easiest to examine milieux and structure first before institutions.

Milieux, are the contexts in which individuals live, for example family, work, leisure, identity groups etc (Mills, p.158). Milieux may overlap or be isolated, mutually supportive or antagonistic. Yet, biography (the individual’s experience of the social) cannot be understood through milieux alone. As stated in previous posts, an individual’s awareness of reality is often limited to their milieux. Instead, sociologists must place individuals, their milieux and Troubles, in the context of wider Issues and frameworks, such as structures and institutions (Mills, p.162).

Structure is a notoriously elusive concept. Structures are best understood by examining their effects on the institutions and milieux that comprise them. For Mills structures, (such as economy, politics etc) are the scaffolding that support and define the elements of a society (Mills, p.10). Multiple structural elements overlap, and have different levels of influence in different societies. When structures function or change in a society, they influence milieux through institutions (ibid).

Institutions are a set of stable identifiable relationships, expectations and roles, that are graded in authority (Mills, p.30). In a corporation for example, roles are defined and the demands of some members take priority over others. According to Mills’, institutions justify their existence and actions by the use of symbols, which represent a collection of values and norms, for example “corporate image” (Mills, p.37). We can examine the “cherished values” of a society, by looking at the symbols institutions use to justify their actions (Mills, p.38). These symbols are socially relevant if they justify or oppose existing societal arrangements (Mills, p.36). Their psychological relevance lies in the fact they become the basis for the individual to adhere or oppose existing societal arrangements (Mills, pp.36-37). Often, several symbols compete against each other, but differences can be accommodated within institutions. When people feel this is not possible at a large enough scale, society experiences an institutional crisis (Mills, p.9).

Post Truth and Structures

The core element of our definition of Post Truth, is the exploitation of an emotionally polarised public by dubious information (Cosentio 2020, p.3). This polarisation is a result of massive structural changes, which challenge established “cherished values”, symbols and ways of life (Mills, p.10). Individuals try to rationalise these changes, but the institutions that operate information technologies reinforce biases, either by design or accident (Beer, 2009, p.987). During periods of change, existing institutions can’t accommodate polarised perspectives with current symbols. Instead, new institutions use symbols that appeal to their audiences’ partisan feelings, which reflect reality more accurately (Knight & Tsoukas, 2019, p.185). This highlights the paradox of Post-Truth: “it appeals to consensus and truth as a way of undermining consensus and truth” (Bufacchi, 2020, p.13).

Solutions

Post-Truth is perceived as unique because actors are utilising new technologies to communicate their messages, but  is not a new phenomenon (McManus, 2020, p.9). To deal with “truth” in this era, we must employ our ‘Sociological Imagination’. First, we must see how institutions manufacture consent, by examining the symbols that appeal to specific milieux (Mills, p.38). This indicates what truth and trust mean for that milieux, as these symbols are used to rationalise experiences of structural change. Instead of making counter-claims of truth, discourse analysts state we should generate “more trust” rather “than better facts” (Cosentio, 2020, p.4). By counterarguing with truth claims, we force a version of reality that does not resonate with a milieux, causing them further entrenching in their reality (Merkley, 2020). Instead, it is a political, institutional and cultural task to create symbols that can bridge gaps between milieux (Mills, p.187). However, this is highly challenging and will be explored further in next week’s post.

References

Beer, David. “Power through the Algorithm? Participatory Web Cultures and the Technological Unconscious.” New Media & Society ,11(6), pp.985–1002. doi: 10.1177/1461444809336551.

Bufacchi, Vittorio. “Truth, Lies and Tweets: A Consensus Theory of Post-Truth.” Philosophy   & Social Criticism, Philosophy and Social Criticism, 46(1), pp.1-15. doi:10.1177/0191453719896382.

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

Knight, Eric, and Haridimos Tsoukas. “When Fiction Trumps Truth: What ‘Post-Truth’ and ‘Alternative Facts’ Mean for Management Studies.” Organization Studies, (40)2, pp.183–97. doi:10.1177/0170840618814557.

McManus, Matthew, (2020), The Rise of Post-Modern Conservatism: Neoliberalism, Post-Modern Culture and Reactionary Politics, Ed. Edited by Hardwick, D. Switzerland: Palgrave MacMillian

Nov 16, 2020

This post examines Mills’ view of biography through the Post-Truth lens. The first section explores how biography, rationality and reason interrelate. The second section explores the relationship between rationality and technology. The final section examines using reason and a ‘Sociological Imagination’, as the potential antidote to excessive rationality.

Biography, Rationality & Reason

Writing in 1959, Mills stated the world was transitioning from the Modern era to a post-modern Fourth Epoch, which shares similarities with Cosentios definition of the Post-Truth era (Cosentio, 2020, p.3). Mills argued the structures and descriptors that defined relationships in the Enlightenment and Modern era such as capitalist, liberal or conservative, were inadequate in the Fourth Epoch (Mills, 2000, p.167). In the Fourth Epoch, exposure to the irrationality and contradictions of the world through digital means, challenges descriptors and other “cherished values”, such as freedom, nationalism etc (McManus, 2020, p.10). These challenges subsequently destabilise established identities at both the individual and group level. Feeling adrift, some people search for identity in simple narratives that resonate with them emotionally (Mills, p.17). However, most people do not exercise a ‘Sociological Imagination’ and critically examine narratives and their origin; Mills framed this as the struggle between rationality and reason.

 

Mills conceived of rationality as the individual operating in a society, efficiently and logically with the technologies available to them (Mills, p.168). Individual actions appear rational, as they enable the individual to operate harmoniously in their environment; for example, using Google maps to find addresses (Mills, p.171). Yet whilst acting rationally, most individuals do not or cannot question the ends they serve, by examining the technologies they use or the influence of organisations above them (Mills, pp.168-170). Individuals subsequently struggle to identify the forces that shape their world. This is particularly prevalent in the Post-Truth era, despite unprecedented access to information.

Rationality

Mills stated this situation creates three types of rational actor. First is the Cheerful Robot, who uncritically accepts values and descriptors given by the organisations that structure their daily lives (Mills, pp.174-176). Rather than view Cheerful Robots from a condescending position, Mills reminds us “all men do not naturally want to be free; that all men are not willing or not able…to exert themselves to acquire the reason that freedom requires” (ibid). We should instead use reason to consider the conditions that enable Cheerful Robots.

As a result of the destabilising effects of the Fourth Epoch/Post-Truth era, the second actor uses technology to find values and descriptors that resonate with them. However, the actor does not or cannot consider how those technologies influence them. This conceptualisation agrees with the Post-Truth perspective, that information technology constitutes our ontological and epistemological reality, instead of mediating it (Beer, 2009, p.987). It argues technologies’ economic models and content algorithms, provide information that appeals to users’ interests and biases (Vaidhyanathan, 2018). This channels users into cognitive and cultural silos, rather than exposing them to multiple perspectives (Salgado, 2018). This channelling denies users the opportunity to formulate alternative perspectives, by engaging in meaningful dialogue. The result is a collection of rational individualists without reason. (Mills, pp.173-174).

Reason

The solution is to operate as the third actor, by employing rationality with reason. Reason for Mills, meant consciously resisting the influences that pushed the second actor to become excessively individualistic, and prevented them considering alternative perspectives (Mills, pp.171-174). Whilst using technology to explore values and descriptors, researchers should consider how their tools shape their information feeds, and actively explore alternative or contrary perspectives. In other words, when examining social phenomena, we should seek to understand as many perspectives as possible, whilst acknowledging the limits of our knowledge (Mills, pp.171-174). Additionally, Mills stated that having too much reason without rationality is also harmful, and researchers should not retreat into a state of Luddism (Mills, p.175). Instead, researchers should reflexively consider how the tools they use impact them, and apply the same level of consciousness to the subject of their studies.

 

Bibliography

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

Echeverría, M. & Mani, E. (2020). ‘Effects of Traditional and Social Media on Political Trust’, Communication & Society, 33 (2), pp.119-135. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15581/003.33.2.119-135

McManus, Matthew, (2020), The Rise of Post-Modern Conservatism: Neoliberalism, Post-Modern Culture and Reactionary Politics, Ed. Edited by Hardwick, D. Switzerland: Palgrave MacMillian

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.

Vaidhyanathan, S. (2018). Anti-Social media: How Facebook Disconnects us and Undermines Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

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

Nov 9, 2020