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”: Structure

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

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