Many of us often do not consider ourselves to be social theorists, especially not in our everyday lives. This is where we are wrong according to Lemert, Mills, and Allan. What these three authors, but in particular Mills and Lemert, essentially argue is that every time an individual questions something about their surroundings or their situation, they are using their sociological imagination (Mills). For example, a woman may question why, upon applying for a job at a respected corporation, she did not get the position she applied for, but instead, a less qualified man got that position. Among other possible reasons why the man may have been chosen to fill that position, such as level of education or level of experience, the woman may reason that sexism played a part in her not being chosen to fill that position. In the moment, the woman may feel that this is just a personal trouble, and that she will just have to continue her job search elsewhere. Upon taking a second look however, she would realize that sexism is a societal/ public issue that other women have experienced as well, and was one of the many issues that motivated the women’s movement. Once this woman engages this thought and hypothesizes about why she may not have been hired, she is using social theory (Allan). Though social theory can be more complicated and complex than this example, this example shows how simple and common it can be, and helps to show how an average, ‘everyday’ person is a social theorist often without even realizing it.
Steven Seidman’s first chapter of “Beyond the Closet: The Transformation of Gay and Lesbian Life” (2002) comes to mind because Seidman takes a close intersectional look at four individuals whom faced the decision of whether or not to come out of the closet, admitting, accepting, and announcing their sexual orientation to those close to them. This article in particular comes to mind because it shows how these four individuals had different social locations based on age, class, race, and gender. Seidman helps the reader understand why these different social locations either acted as total road blocks or just as speed bumps in each individual’s decision of whether to come out or not. Lenny was a gay man who chose not to come out simply because of the historical moment he grew up in. Being gay was simply not an identity one could outwardly embrace when he was a young man discovering his sexuality. Bill was also a gay man who worried that if he came out he would lose the emotional and especially the potential financial support of his family if he were to come out to them, as he was not always financially as secure as he would have liked to be. Robert was another gay man who had to deal with race as his speed bump. He felt homophobia from his own community, but racism from the white community. The last individual Seidman discusses is Renee, who was a lesbian. She had to deal with her gender identity as her speed bump and had to navigate how to be socially acceptable growing up, while also feeling comfortable and remaining true to herself. All of these individuals, except Lenny, eventually came out to at least one person in their life.
By examining Seidman’s piece, we can see that all four of these individuals, while deciding whether to come out or not, and when to do so, were realizing, if not their ‘first fruit’ (Mills 3), where their identities placed them in the patriarchal, hierarchical society that we live in. Though each of these individuals likely felt that their choice of whether or not to come out was a personal trouble that they were in control of, it was (and is) also a public issue that many people have dealt with (and deal with) (Mills 4)—homophobia, heterosexism, and heteronormativity. In reality, because of their different identities, each individual had to consider their social location and decide whether it was safe and/ or acceptable for them to come out, ultimately revealing that in reality society was in control of them. This is ultimately what Mills calls the sociological imagination: “To be aware of the idea of social structure and to use it with sensibility is to be capable of tracing such linkages among a great variety of milieux. To be able to do that is to possess the sociological imagination” (6).
Steven Seidman’s first chapter of “Beyond the Closet: The Transformation of Gay and Lesbian Life” (2002) comes to mind because Seidman takes a close intersectional look at four individuals whom faced the decision of whether or not to come out of the closet, admitting, accepting, and announcing their sexual orientation to those close to them. This article in particular comes to mind because it shows how these four individuals had different social locations based on age, class, race, and gender. Seidman helps the reader understand why these different social locations either acted as total road blocks or just as speed bumps in each individual’s decision of whether to come out or not. Lenny was a gay man who chose not to come out simply because of the historical moment he grew up in. Being gay was simply not an identity one could outwardly embrace when he was a young man discovering his sexuality. Bill was also a gay man who worried that if he came out he would lose the emotional and especially the potential financial support of his family if he were to come out to them, as he was not always financially as secure as he would have liked to be. Robert was another gay man who had to deal with race as his speed bump. He felt homophobia from his own community, but racism from the white community. The last individual Seidman discusses is Renee, who was a lesbian. She had to deal with her gender identity as her speed bump and had to navigate how to be socially acceptable growing up, while also feeling comfortable and remaining true to herself. All of these individuals, except Lenny, eventually came out to at least one person in their life.
By examining Seidman’s piece, we can see that all four of these individuals, while deciding whether to come out or not, and when to do so, were realizing, if not their ‘first fruit’ (Mills 3), where their identities placed them in the patriarchal, hierarchical society that we live in. Though each of these individuals likely felt that their choice of whether or not to come out was a personal trouble that they were in control of, it was (and is) also a public issue that many people have dealt with (and deal with) (Mills 4)—homophobia, heterosexism, and heteronormativity. In reality, because of their different identities, each individual had to consider their social location and decide whether it was safe and/ or acceptable for them to come out, ultimately revealing that in reality society was in control of them. This is ultimately what Mills calls the sociological imagination: “To be aware of the idea of social structure and to use it with sensibility is to be capable of tracing such linkages among a great variety of milieux. To be able to do that is to possess the sociological imagination” (6).