社会学的想象力 米尔斯课件
宏大理论-社会学的想象力-社会学考研必备课件
符号互动论认为人类社会的互动和沟 通是有规律的、可预测的，并且可以 通过科学的方法进行研究和解释。
符号互动论
详细描述
符号互动论认为人类社会的互动和沟通是有规律的、可预测的，并且可以通过科学的方法 进行研究和解释。在社会学中，符号互动论强调对社会互动和沟通进行科学的研究和分析 ，探究它们的规律和机制，以更好地理解社会的运作和发展。
总结词
冲突理论认为社会的发展和变迁是由 社会中的不平等、冲突和斗争所推动 的，而不是由某种超自然力量所决定 的。
详细描述
冲突理论认为社会的发展和变迁是由 社会中的不平等、冲突和斗争所推动 的，而不是由某种超自然力量所决定 的。在社会学中，冲突理论强调对社 会的发展和变迁进行深入的研究和分 析，探究它们的原因和影响，以更好 地理解社会的运作和发展。
总结词
功能主义理论认为社会制度和文化现 象的变迁和演化是有规律的、可预测 的，并且可以通过科学的方法进行研 究和解释。
详细描述
功能主义理论认为社会制度和文化现 象的变化是有规律的、可预测的，可 以通过科学的方法进行研究和解释。 在社会学中，功能主义理论强调对社 会制度和文化现象进行科学的研究和 分析，探究它们的变化规律和演化机 制，以更好地理解社会的运作和发展 。
特点
具有全局性、综合性、抽象性和 普遍性，能够提供对社会现象的 深层次理解和解释，具有广泛的 适用性和影响力。
宏大理论与微观理论的关系
相互补充
宏大理论关注宏观层面的社会现象， 而微观理论则关注个体和较小群体的 行为和互动。两者相互补充，共同构 成对社会现象的全面理解。
相互影响
宏大理论可以为微观理论提供指导和 框架，而微观理论则可以通过实证研 究验证和修正宏大理论。两者在互动 中共同发展。
社会学的想象力
The Sociological ImaginationChapter One: The PromiseC. Wright Mills (1959)Nowadays people often feel that their private lives are a series of traps. They sense that within their everyday worlds, they cannot overcome their troubles, and in this feeling, they are often quite correct. What ordinary people are directly aware of and what they try to do are bounded by the private orbits in which they live; their visions and their powers are limited to the close-up scenes of job, family, neighborhood; in other milieux, they move vicariously and remain spectators. And the more aware they become, however vaguely, of ambitions and of threats which transcend their immediate locales, the more trapped they seem to feel.Underlying this sense of being trapped are seemingly impersonal changes in the very structure of continent-wide societies. The facts of contemporary history are also facts about the success and the failure of individual men and women. When a society is industrialized, a peasant becomes a worker; a feudal lord is liquidated or becomes a businessman. When classes rise or fall, a person is employed or unemployed; when the rate of investment goes up or down, a person takes new heart or goes broke. When wars happen, an insurance salesperson becomes a rocket launcher; a store clerk, a radar operator; a wife or husband lives alone; a child grows up without a parent. Neither the life of an individual nor the history of a society can be understood without understanding both.Yet people do not usually define the troubles they endure in terms of historical change and institutional contradiction. The well-being they enjoy, they do not usually impute to the big ups and downs of the societies in which they live. Seldom aware of the intricate connection between the patterns of their own lives and the course of world history, ordinary people do not usually know what this connection means for the kinds of people they are becoming and for the kinds of history-making in which they might take part. They do not possess the quality of mind essentialto grasp the interplay of individuals and society, of biography and history, of self and world. They cannot cope with their personal troubles in such ways as to control the structural transformations that usually lie behind them.Surely it is no wonder. In what period have so many people been so totally exposed at so fast a pace to such earthquakes of change? That Americans have not known such catastrophic changes as have the men and women of other societies is due to historical facts that are now quickly becoming 'merely history.' The history that now affects every individual is world history. Within this scene and this period, in the course of a single generation, one sixth of humankind is transformed from all that is feudal and backward into all that is modern, advanced, and fearful. Political colonies are freed; new and less visible forms of imperialism installed. Revolutions occur; people feel the intimate grip of new kinds of authority. Totalitarian societies rise, and are smashed to bits - or succeed fabulously. After two centuries of ascendancy, capitalism is shownup as only one way to make society into an industrial apparatus. After two centuries of hope, even formal democracy is restricted to a quite small portion of mankind. Everywhere in the underdeveloped world, ancient ways of life are broken up and vague expectations become urgent demands. Everywhere in the overdeveloped world, the means of authority and of violence become total in scope and bureaucratic in form. Humanity itself now lies before us, the super-nation at either pole concentrating its most coordinated and massive efforts upon the preparationof World War Three.The very shaping of history now outpaces the ability of people to orient themselves in accordance with cherished values. And which values? Even when they do not panic, people often sense that older ways of feeling and thinking have collapsed and that newer beginnings are ambiguous to the point of moral stasis. Is it any wonder that ordinary people feel they cannot cope with the larger worlds with which they are so suddenly confronted? That they cannot understand the meaning of their epoch for their own lives? That - in defense of selfhood - they become morally insensible, trying to remain altogether private individuals? Is it any wonder that they come to be possessed by a sense of the trap?It is not only information that they need - in this Age of Fact, information often dominates their attention and overwhelms their capacities to assimilate it. It is not only the skills of reason that they need - although their struggles to acquire these often exhaust their limited moral energy. What they need, and what they feel they need, is a quality of mind that will help them to use information and to develop reason in order to achieve lucid summations of what is going on in the world and of what may be happening within themselves. It is this quality, I am going to contend, that journalists and scholars, artists and publics, scientists and editors are coming to expect of what may be called the sociological imagination.The sociological imagination enables its possessor to understand the larger historical scene in terms of its meaning for the inner life and the external career of a variety of individuals. It enables him to take into account how individuals, in the welter of their daily experience, often become falsely conscious of their social positions. Within that welter, the framework of modern society is sought, and within that framework the psychologies of a variety of men and women are formulated. By such means the personal uneasiness of individuals is focused upon explicit troubles and the indifference of publics is transformed into involvement with public issues.The first fruit of this imagination - and the first lesson of the social science that embodies it - is the idea that the individual can understand her own experience and gauge her own fate only by locating herself within her period, that she can know her own chances in life only by becoming aware of those of all individuals in her circumstances. In many ways it is a terrible lesson; in many ways a magnificent one. We do not know the limits of humans capacities for supremeeffort or willing degradation, for agony or glee, for pleasurable brutality or the sweetness of reason. But in our time we have come to know that the limits of 'human nature' are frighteningly broad. We have come to know that every individual lives, from one generation to the next, in some society; that he lives out a biography, and lives it out within some historical sequence. By the fact of this living, he contributes, however minutely, to the shaping of this society and to the course of its history, even as he is made by society and by its historical push and shove.The sociological imagination enables us to grasp history and biography and the relations between the two within society. That is its task and its promise. To recognize this task and this promise is the mark of the classic social analyst. It is characteristic of Herbert Spencer - turgid, polysyllabic, comprehensive; of E. A. Ross - graceful, muckraking, upright; of Auguste Comte and Emile Durkheim; of the intricate and subtle Karl Mannheim. It is the quality of all that is intellectually excellent in Karl Marx; it is the clue to Thorstein Veblen's brilliant and ironic insight, to Joseph Schumpeter's many-sided constructions of reality; it is the basis of the psychological sweep of W. E. H. Lecky no less than of the profundity and clarity of Max Weber. And it is the signal of what is best in contemporary studies of people and society.No social study that does not come back to the problems of biography, of history and of their intersections within a society has completed its intellectual journey. Whatever the specific problems of the classic social analysts, however limited or however broad the features of social reality they have examined, those who have been imaginatively aware of the promise of their work have consistently asked three sorts of questions:(1) What is the structure of this particular society as a whole? What are its essential components, and how are they related to one another? How does it differ from other varieties of social order? Within it, what is the meaning of any particular feature for its continuance and for its change? (2) Where does this society stand in human history? What are the mechanics by which it is changing? What is its place within and its meaning for the development of humanity as a whole? How does any particular feature we are examining affect, and how is it affected by, the historical period in which it moves? And this period - what are its essential features? How does it differ from other periods? What are its characteristic ways of history-making?(3) What varieties of men and women now prevail in this society and in this period? And what varieties are coming to prevail? In what ways are they selected and formed, liberated and repressed, made sensitive and blunted? What kinds of `human nature' are revealed in the conduct and character we observe in this society in this period? And what is the meaning for 'human nature' of each and every feature of the society we are examining?Whether the point of interest is a great power state or a minor literary mood, a family, a prison, a creed - these are the kinds of questions the best social analysts have asked. They are the intellectual pivots of classic studies of individuals in society - and they are the questions inevitably raised by any mind possessing the sociological imagination. For that imagination isthe capacity to shift from one perspective to another - from the political to the psychological; from examination of a single family to comparative assessment of the national budgets of the world; from the theological school to the military establishment; from considerations of an oil industry to studies of contemporary poetry. It is the capacity to range from the most impersonal and remote transformations to the most intimate features of the human self - and to see the relations between the two. Back of its use there is always the urge to know the social and historical meaning of the individual in the society and in the period in which she has her quality and her being.That, in brief, is why it is by means of the sociological imagination that men and women now hope to grasp what is going on in the world, and to understand what is happening in themselves as minute points of the intersections of biography and history within society. In large part, contemporary humanity's self-conscious view of itself as at least an outsider, if not a permanent stranger, rests upon an absorbed realization of social relativity and of the transformative power of history. The sociological imagination is the most fruitful form of this self-consciousness. Byits use people whose mentalities have swept only a series of limited orbits often come to feel as if suddenly awakened in a house with which they had only supposed themselves to be familiar. Correctly or incorrectly, they often come to feel that they can now provide themselves with adequate summations, cohesive assessments, comprehensive orientations. Older decisions that once appeared sound now seem to them products of a mind unaccountably dense. Their capacity for astonishment is made lively again. They acquire a new way of thinking, they experience a transvaluation of values: in a word, by their reflection and by their sensibility, they realize the cultural meaning of the social sciences.Perhaps the most fruitful distinction with which the sociological imagination works is between 'the personal troubles of milieu' and 'the public issues of social structure.' This distinction is an essential tool of the sociological imagination and a feature of all classic work in social science. Troubles occur within the character of the individual and within the range of his or her immediate relations with others; they have to do with one's self and with those limited areas of social life of which one is directly and personally aware. Accordingly, the statement and the resolution of troubles properly lie within the individual as a biographical entity and within the scope of one's immediate milieu - the social setting that is directly open to her personal experience and to some extent her willful activity. A trouble is a private matter: values cherished by an individual are felt by her to be threatened.Issues have to do with matters that transcend these local environments of the individual and the range of her inner life. They have to do with the organization of many such milieu into the institutions of an historical society as a whole, with the ways in which various milieux overlap and interpenetrate to form the larger structure of social and historical life. An issue is a public matter: some value cherished by publics is felt to be threatened. Often there is a debate about what that value really is and about what it is that really threatens it. This debate is often without focus if only because it is the very nature of an issue, unlike even widespread trouble, that it cannot very well be defined in terms of the immediate and everyday environments of ordinary people. An issue, in fact, often involves a crisis in institutional arrangements, and often too it involves what Marxists call 'contradictions' or 'antagonisms.'In these terms, consider unemployment. When, in a city of 100,000, only one is unemployed, that is his personal trouble, and for its relief we properly look to the character of the individual, his skills and his immediate opportunities. But when in a nation of 50 million employees, 15 million people are unemployed, that is an issue, and we may not hope to find its solution within the range of opportunities open to any one individual. The very structure of opportunities has collapsed. Both the correct statement of the problem and the range of possible solutions require us to consider the economic and political institutions of the society, and not merely the personal situation and character of a scatter of individuals.Consider war. The personal problem of war, when it occurs, may be how to survive it or how to die in it with honor; how to make money out of it; how to climb into the higher safety of the military apparatus; or how to contribute to the war's termination. In short, according to one's values, to find a set of milieux and within it to survive the war or make one's death in it meaningful. But the structural issues of war have to do with its causes; with what types of people it throws up into command; with its effects upon economic and political, family and religious institutions, with the unorganized irresponsibility of a world of nation-states.Consider marriage. Inside a marriage a man and a woman may experience personal troubles, but when the divorce rate during the first four years of marriage is 250 out of every 1,000 attempts, this is an indication of a structural issue having to do with the institutions of marriage and the family and other institutions that bear upon them.Or consider the metropolis - the horrible, beautiful, ugly, magnificent sprawl of the great city. For many members of the upperclass the personal solution to 'the problem of the city' is to have an apartment with private garage under it in the heart of the city and forty miles out, a house by Henry Hill, garden by Garrett Eckbo, on a hundred acres of private land. In these two controlled environments - with a small staff at each end and a private helicopter connection - most peoplecould solve many of the problems of personal milieux caused by the facts of the city. But all this, however splendid, does not solve the public issues that the structural fact of the city poses. What should be done with this wonderful monstrosity? Break it all up into scattered units, combining residence and work? Refurbish it as it stands? Or, after evacuation, dynamite it and build new cities according to new plans in new places? What should those plans be? And who is to decide and to accomplish whatever choice is made? These are structural issues; to confront them and to solve them requires us to consider political and economic issues that affect innumerable milieux. In so far as an economy is so arranged that slumps occur, the problem of unemployment becomes incapable of personal solution. In so far as war is inherent in the nation-state system and in the uneven industrialization of the world, the ordinary individual in her restricted milieu will be powerless - with or without psychiatric aid - to solve the troubles this system or lack of system imposes upon him. In so far as the family as an institution turns women into darling little slaves and men into their chief providers and unweaned dependents, the problem of a satisfactory marriage remains incapable of purely private solution. In so far as the overdeveloped megalopolis and the overdeveloped automobile are built-in features of the overdeveloped society, the issues of urban living will not be solved by personal ingenuity and private wealth. What we experience in various and specific milieux, I have noted, is often caused by structural changes. Accordingly, to understand the changes of many personal milieux we are required to look beyond them. And the number and variety of such structural changes increase as the institutions within which we live become more embracing and more intricately connected with one another. 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.。
社会学的想象力
《社会学的想像力》课件
经济学关注资源的分配和利用，而社会学的想像力则关注社会结构和制 度对个体和群体的影响。两者相互补充，共同揭示了社会的复杂性和多 样性。
03
社会学的想像力的形成与发展
起源与背景
社会背景
随着工业革命和城市化进程，社会结构和关系变得日益复杂，需 要一种系统性的方法来理解和解释社会现象。
学术背景
与其他学科的联系
01
与哲学的联系
哲学为社会学提供了重要的理论支撑和方法论指导。社会学的想像力在
很大程度上借鉴了哲学的思考方式，如批判性思维、辩证法等。
02 03
与心理学的联系
心理学为社会学想像力提供了丰富的理论资源和实证依据。通过心理学 的研究，人们可以更深入地了解个体在社会中的行为和心理状态，从而 更好地解释社会现象。
介绍《社会学的想像力》一书的出版 背景和目的，强调其对社会学领域的 贡献。
概述书中的主题和主要观点，帮助读 者了解作品的核心内容。
02
社会学的想像力概念
定义与特点
定义
社会学的想像力指的是一种独特的思 考方式，它帮助人们理解社会现象、 探究社会问题，并从中获得深刻洞见 。
特点
具有综合性、批判性、创新性等特点 。它融合了多种学科知识，对既有观 念和理论进行批判性思考，并在此基 础上提出新的观点和见解。
04
社会学的想像力的实践应用
在社会学领域的应用
政策制定
社会学的想象力可以帮助政策制定者更好地理解社会现象，预测社 会发展趋势，制定出更加科学、合理的政策。
社会研究
通过运用社会学的想象力，研究者能够更深入地探究社会问题，挖 掘其背后的原因和机制，为解决社会问题提供更有针对性的方案。
社会服务
社会学的想象力PPT课件
前景之四：论政治
• 独立公共知识分子的政治责任:社会科学家作为文 科教育者，他的政治职责就是不断地将个人困扰 转换为公共议题，并将公共议题转换为它们对各 种类型个体的人文上的意义。通过这样的方式， 公共知识分子充分利用自身的博学素养以及资源 掌控力，帮助公众提升自我修养，鼓励公众形成 自身理性和个体性，使理性以民主方式与公共利 益相关，从而实现民主社会的主流价值。
• 它最明显的特征，涉及它已开始采用的行政机构 以及它吸收和训练的学者类型——学术行政管和 研究技术专家，这种研究风定的那种科学哲 学信奉为惟一的科学方法，这种科学方法严格限 定了人们所选择研究的问题和表述问题的方式， 它所提的科学方法主要是从自然科学哲学借鉴而 来的。
14
批判之二：抽象经验主义
• 死抓住研究程序中的一个接合点，是方法论的抑 制。它的结果通常是以统计判断的形式表示：在 最简单的层次上，这些结果只是一些比例结论， 但在较复杂的层面上，根据不同的问题，解答经 常被组合进繁复的交互分类之中……人们可以通过 某些复杂方法处理这样的数据，但它不管怎么复 杂，仍只是对已知数据的分类而已。
现象在更大的历史的坐标系中所处的位置 是什么？
25
前景之三：理性和自由
• 社会科学的道德与政治承诺是：自由与理 性仍将是人们珍视的价值。
• 当代任何对自由主义者和社会主义者的政 治目标的重新表达都必须以下述社会作为 中心思想。在此社会中，所有人都成为具 有实质理性的人，他们独立的理性将对他 们置身 的社会、对历史和他们自身的命运 产生结构性影响力。
12
二、批判之一：宏大理论
• 皇帝的新衣 • 帕森斯是宏大理论的最突出代表 • 繁文冗词、迷恋句法、概念游戏 • AGIL模型
13
2-宏大理论《社会学的想象力》-社会学考研必备课件
“共同价值”。只有极端而“纯粹”类型的社会 结构，才显露出这些普遍的、核心的符号。
我们不能假设统治必须最终出于人们的同意。现在，广为 盛行的权力手段是管理与操纵人们的同意的权力。当前有 许多权力，未经过理性或服从者的良知就被成功地行使。
今天有许多人丧失了对主流价值的忠诚，又没有获得新的 价值，于是对任何种类的政治关注都不热心。他们既不激 进，也不反动。
宏大理论无法有效地表述关于冲突的思想。结构性的对抗， 大规模叛乱，革命，它们是无法想像的。事实上，该理论 有以下假设：“系统”一旦被建立，就不但很稳定，而且 是内在和谐的；而用帕森斯的语言，失调必须“被引入到 系统之中。”他所提出的规范性秩序的思想导致我们把利 益和谐假设为任何社会的特征。
主要有两个方式来维持社会均衡。第一个方式是“社会化”， 指的是把一个新出生的个体培养为社会人的所有方式。社会 对人的这种培养部分地在于让他们习得采取社会行动的动机， 而这些社会行动是为他人所要求或期望的。另一个方式是 “社会控制”，我指的是让人们循规蹈矩以及他们让自己循 规蹈矩的所有方式。当然，对于“规矩”，我指的是在社会 系统中一般被期望或约束的任何什么行动。
《社会系统》：“我们被问及：社会秩序怎样成为可能？我们所 给的答案似乎是：被共同接受的价值。”
《权力精英》：“‘究竟是谁在操纵美国？’没有人完全操纵它， 但如果说有哪个群体这么做了，它是权力精英。”
《社会学的想像力》：社会科学研究什么？它们应该是研究人和 社会。它们是帮助我们理解个人生活历程与历史，以及二者在不 同社会结构中的结合的各种努力。
社会学的想象力
科层制的气质
实地调查研究的风格问题也很重要。费用不菲的 实地研究，就要涉及经费的取得来自于商业科层 制的公司，在这个问题上，研究的本身属性也会 被商业科层制公司的局限性眼光所左右。 在学术传统中也具有科层制的弊端，到底是科层 在学术传统中也具有科层制的弊端，到底是科层 制中的地位决定了学术还是学术为人们赢得了地 位呢？科层制这一社会学家们推崇备至的理想模 位呢？科层制这一社会学家们推崇备至的理想模 型却在学术体之外对社会学研究产生了束缚。
二、在人类的历史长河中，该社会变化的动力是什么？对 于人性的整体进步，他出于什么地位，具有什么意义？
三、在这一社会这一时期，占主流的是什么类型的人？什 么类型的人又将逐渐占主流？社会各方面对“人性”有何 意义？
形形色色的实用性
自由主义实用性 --------服务于意识形态 --------服务于意识形态 保守主义实用性 --------服务于科层组织 --------服务于科层组织
作 者 简 介
C·赖特·米尔斯，美国著名的批判社会学家。 C·赖特·米尔斯，美国著名的批判社会学家。 赖特 他早年求学于威斯康星大学， 他早年求学于威斯康星大学，广涉社会与政 治理论，兼修史学和人类学，25岁获博士学 治理论，兼修史学和人类学，25岁获博士学 50年代初以 白领：美国的中产阶级》 年代初以《 位。50年代初以《白领：美国的中产阶级》 一举成名，并任教于哥伦比亚大学社会学系。 一举成名，并任教于哥伦比亚大学社会学系。 他在知识社会学和美国社会阶层研究这二个 方面都有杰出的成绩， 方面都有杰出的成绩，则被视为其主要代表 他与人合作编译的《韦伯社会学文选》 作，他与人合作编译的《韦伯社会学文选》 亦被认为是权威译本。米尔斯1962 1962年病逝于 亦被认为是权威译本。米尔斯1962年病逝于 纽约，年仅46 46岁 死后被誉为“ 纽约，年仅46岁，死后被誉为“当代美国文 明最重要的批评家之一”。 明最重要的批评家之一”
1 前景 《社会学的想象力》 社会学考研必备课件解析
社会学家究竟是做什么的？社会学家能够为 自己社会行为的性质与缘起提供哪些启发？
首先从学科的历史发展看：
在整个19世纪，各门学科呈扇形扩散开来， 一端首先是数学，其次是以实验为基础的自 然科学；另一端则是人文科学（或文学艺 术），然后是对于形式艺术实践（包括文学、 绘画和雕塑、音乐学）的研究。介乎人文科 学和自然科学之间的是对于社会现实的研 究——社会科学。
米 尔 斯
写作背景
人们越来越关注“完全私人性的领域”，对“社会结构中的公众论题” 表现得甚是漠然。而社会科学领域内的公共知识分子也越来越丧失了 作为一名社会科学家的“政治职责”。他们要么从纯粹地高度抽象地 概念出发，通过一系列混乱的逻辑推演建构起一种虚妄而不真实的， 缺乏对社会有真正解释力的“宏大理论”；要么从所谓的方法论出发， 按照他们自认为科学的抽样调查、数学统计的归纳来理解社会，结果 自己却成了“国王的幕僚”。 “后现代” ——散众社会。在“后现代情境”中，工作中的人是各种 管理术的操纵对象，工作外的人自囿于各自的生活小圈圈，无法理解， 遑论掌握那些形成当代社会的结构性力量。由无数个无力参与到社会 发展方向决定过程的旁观者所构成的社会，也就是“散众社会” 。这 个情境中的“主体”就是“快乐机器人”。大众消费社会来临、权力 集中于科层制顶峰、知识分子与工人领袖被收编，以及普通人的弱智 化。 我们应当在社会生活中运用理性，改变我们的生存处境，扩大我们的 内在与外在自由。
在以探寻普遍规律为宗旨的社会科学内部，对市场
的研究（经济学）、对国家的研究（政治学）与对
市民社会的研究（社会学）之间也存在着鲜明的分
界线。
社会学还是一直保持着对普通人以会学与社
社会学的想象力 米尔斯(精选)24页文档
15、机会是不守纪律的。——雨果
66、节制使快乐增加并使享受加强。 ——德 谟克利 特 67、今天应做的事没有做，明天再早也 是耽误 了。——裴斯 泰洛齐 68、决定一个人的一生，以及整个命运 的，只 是一瞬 之间。 ——歌 德 69、懒人无法享受休息之乐。——拉布 克 70、浪费时间是一桩大罪过。——卢梭
社会学的想象力 米尔斯（精 选）
11、战争满足了，或曾经满足过人的 好斗的 本能， 但它同 时还满 足了人 对掠夺 ，破坏 以及残 酷的纪 律和专 制力的 欲望。 ——查·埃利奥 特 12、不应把纪律仅仅看成教育的手段 。纪律 是教育 过程的 结果， 首先是 学生集 体表现 在一切 生活领 域—— 生产、 日常生 活、学 校、文 化等领 域中努 力的结 果。— —马卡 连柯(名 言网)
《社会学的想象力》
《社会学的想象力》一、作者简介C·赖特·米尔斯(1916～1962)，美国社会学家，文化批判主义的主要代表人物之一，生前任教于哥伦比亚大学社会学系。
米尔斯在知识社会学和美国社会阶层研究这两个方面都有杰出的成绩，代表作有《白领：美国中产阶级》(1951)、《权力精英》(1956)和《社会学的想像力》(1959)等。
50年代初他以《白领：美国的中产阶级》一举成名，而《社会学的想象力》是他生前的最后一部作品，也是他最重要的代表作。
二、全书概述《社会学的想象力》全书共分为十章，在第一章米尔斯简述了本书的核心观点：什么是社会学的想象力，以及社会学家应该如何想象。
在第二到六章，米尔斯考察了社会科学久而成习的一些偏向，展开了对社会科学研究的批判，主要涉及宏大理论、抽象经验主义与科层制。
在评述了社会科学发展的趋势后，在第七到十章，米尔斯提出了自己对未来社会学发展的展望，认为社会科学研究应该注重人的多样性、对历史的运用、理性与自由，以及应该保持独立自主的政治角色。
这本书的写作背景是两次世界大战之后，社会学的中心从欧洲移向了美国，芝加哥学派在美国独树一帜。
在米尔斯所处的时代，美国经济快速发展，美国社会科学得到了极大繁荣，同时许多社会学家跻身政府名门。
米尔斯表示，写作此书的目的是“要界定社会科学对于我们这个时代的文化使命所具有的意义。
具体确定有哪些努力在背后推动着社会学的想象力的发展，点明这种想象力对于文化生活以及政治生活的连带意涵，或许还要就社会学的想象力的必备条件给出一些建议。
通过这些方面来揭示今日社会科学的性质与用途，并点到即止地谈谈它们在美国当前的境况。
”总的来说，米尔斯认为，任何社会研究都应该探讨人生、历史以及两者在社会中的相互关联，他反对将社会科学当作一套科层技术，靠方法论上的矫揉造作来禁止社会探究，以晦涩玄虚的概念来充塞这类研究，或者只操心脱离具有公共相关性的议题的枝节问题，把研究搞得琐碎不堪。
社会学的想象力 米尔斯
拥护的哲学
只有采取自然科学的研究方法才可以说是科学的。
后果
科学方法严格限定了人们所选择研究的问题和表述问题的方式， 方法论决定了问题。给一定规模的半熟练半技术的专家 提供了职业，给这些人提供了职业生涯，既可以享受旧式学院 生活的安逸，却不必取得原来的那种个人成就，学术行政官 和研究技术专家，这两类人正在和普通的教授学者竞争。
02
第二章 宏大理论 第三章 抽象经验 对弼前学术界存在癿问题进行诟病 主义 第四章 实用主义 第五章 科层制气质 第六章 科学哲学
第七章 人类的多样性 建设性癿前景极想 第八章 对历史的运用 第九章 论理性和自由 第十章论政治
本书结构
治学乊道：对年轻社会学考癿技巧和斱法癿建讫
批判：宏大理论 3.1
在面对人类社会千姿百态癿多样性，社会科学学家必须涉及其他 相关领域才能把握问题。 沈原：原来很多领域都属于社会学范畴，经济、犯罪、心理，后 来很多学科从社会学丨分离出去，社会学丢了很多好东西，是时 候重捡回来了。
提倡：人类的多样性 4.1
学科在形成初期需要刻意不其他学科划清界限以明确自巪癿研究领域， 觃定只对特定癿条件做出反应，这虽然有劣于实现学科独立，但过 分强调与业化风癿危险在不随乊耄来癿假设，即经济、政治、文化以及 其他社会制度都是独立存在癿系统。
论理性和自由
4.3
在启蒙时代，自由与理性是至高无上之事，人们可以运 用理性获得自由。然而在当今社会，自由与理性观念变得 不那么确定，理性的增进不必然伴随着自由的增进。
庞大癿理性组织确实增多了，但丧人癿实质理性却没有增加。丧人丌 能理智地了解庞大癿结极，他们常常执行一系列貌似合理癿行劢，可 却丌知道这些行劢为了何种目癿。智力超群癿人高敁地一毫丌巩地 执行挃定癿工作，却丌知他们工作癿最后结果是诞生了了一颗原子弹。 对于丧人不社会，本着合理性原则组织起来癿社会秩序 幵丌一定是增进自由癿手段。实际上，它们往往用于暴 政，用于剥夺丧体理性思耂癿机会不作为自由人行劢癿能力。 比如，现代性不大屠杀
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
什么是社会学的想象力
Template
WINTER
01
是一种视角转换的能力，将个人命运放置于宏观历史背景之下， 超越个人困扰看到背后结构性的公共议题。
例如：拼爹、干爹、杀爹 这些关于“爹”的丑闻背后反映了当今中国 社会结构中什么样的制度缺陷 应该成为主流的思考方式，有助于我们理解周围的现实和宏观现实之间 的联系
拥护的哲学
只有采取自然科学的研究方法才可以说是科学的。
后果
科学方法严格限定了人们所选择研究的问题和表述问题的方式， 方法论决定了问题。给一定规模的半熟练半技术的专家 提供了职业，给这些人提供了职业生涯，既可以享受旧式学院 生活的安逸，却不必取得原来的那种个人成就，学术行政官 和研究技术专家，这两类人正在和普通的教授学者竞争。
可以把555页的《社会系统》 转述为150页的简明英语” 任何思想当然都是既可以用一句 话，也可以用20卷书来表达出来， 关键是你的陈述能让我们理解多 少经历，解决问题的范围有多大。
帕森斯的含金量有多大？
批判：宏大理论 3.1
如今社会学科存在一场严重的文学危机，充斥着 空话废话大话的文章泛滥，通俗易懂的文章常常陷入 “因为可读而肤浅”的推论。
批评以帕森斯为代表的理论家“不说人话”的现象
帕森斯：从动机上考虑，人们对共 同价值的依附表明，在支持价值模 式方面，行动者有共同的情感，这 些共同的情感可被定义为他们表明 了：人们把对相关期望的服从看做 是一件好事情，而这件好事情却相 对独立于可以从这种服从中获得的 任何具体的工具性“有利条件”。 而且对这种共同价值的依附，尽管 它可能与行动者很切近的满足性需 求相适应，总是还具有“道德”的 方面，因为在一定程度上，这种服 从规定了行动者在他参与其中的更 广大的社会行动系统中所负担的 “责任”。显然，责任的集中点乃 是由人们的共同价值取向所形成的 集体性。 米尔斯的转述： 当人们享有相同的价值时，他 们趋向于依照其他人行动的方 式来行动。而且他们往往将这 种服从看做好事——甚至在它 似乎违背了他们的切近利益之 时。 “我估计，用类似的方式，你
只要他还活着，他是其他领域有头有脸的人， 而他死后不用多长时间，便没有人回忆起他
学术新手：他们将社会学视为职业，没有谁真正沉浸于学术痴迷的状态。 不是因为好奇心驱使而从事社会研究，而是为了获得光明的工作。
派系的任务：给年轻人提供工作，推荐其升职，把他的著作递交到令人
仰慕的评论家手中，欣然接受他提交出版的论文，分配研究基金，在学术 协会给她安排或游说个体面的职位。
批判：抽象经验主义3.2
“解释类型” “理论”
用统计手段展示一般性观点，再用一般性观点说明统计结果，而一般性
“解释变量” “有用的变量集合”
ቤተ መጻሕፍቲ ባይዱ
观点根据数字的需要被挑选，用方法来尽力掩饰结论的琐屑。
方法和问题的次序颠倒 方法应该由实际问题而定，而不应该成为问题的束缚。
任何一种社会研究都是由思想推进的，并由事实加以限定， 应该把经验研究作为更大学术体系的检验点。
真实但不重要 和 重要但不真实
人口普查 共产主义愿景
精确不等于真相
真正的相关性
批判：科层制气质 3.3
随着实用主义对人文学科的侵入，社会学服务于大型机构组织，引发 了社会学科层化、行政化的现象。学者依赖科层组织，丧失研究的自主性， 沦为行政等级下追名逐利的官僚。
提供资金的机构组织（美国）
20年代 30年代 40年代 二战后 广告商与营销商 民意调查机构 学院及办事处 联邦政府部门
为什么提出社会学的想象力
当代人们，所需要的不是信息，因为信息往往支配了他们的注意 力，也不仅仅是理性思考的能力，而是能够帮助他们认识事情全 貌的心智——社会学的想象力。 目前许多研究不过是矫饰的平庸之作
把社会科学当做一套科层式的技术手段，这些手段以“方法论自居” 隐晦风格的概念强挤入社会科学的研究 关注与公众论题不相关的次要问题，使社会科学显得琐碎不堪
教训：思想家必须能控制他所研究的东西的抽象层次。轻 松而有条不紊地在抽象层次间穿梭的能力，是一位富有 想象力的思想家的显著标志。
批判：抽象经验主义3.2
什么是抽象经验主义？ 与宏达理论相对立的风格，醉心于统计方法和数据信息，
过分强调方法和形式的精确，不注重实际的因果关系。 任何有点头脑的人都能掌握这种步骤，从而轻易得到某个事实 和结果，因而很受青睐。
02
第二章 宏大理论 第三章 抽象经验 对当前学术界存在的问题进行诟病 主义 第四章 实用主义 第五章 科层制气质 第六章 科学哲学
第七章 人类的多样性 建设性的前景构想 第八章 对历史的运用 第九章 论理性和自由 第十章论政治
本书结构
治学之道：对年轻社会学者的技巧和方法的建议
批判：宏大理论 3.1
明白晓畅的缺乏通常与主旨的复杂关系不大，它
与思考的深刻性更是毫无瓜葛，完全是与学院作家搞不 清自己地位有关。
语言上：“句法上浑浑噩噩，对语义学也茫然无知，对细
节无休止的修饰，对增进理解毫无益处”
解释力上：宏大理论家试图用高度凝练的一般模型来概
括一切问题，这种模型放之四海而皆准，无视人类社会的 多样性，把概念奉为神明，结果离现实越来越远。
WINTER 社会学的想象力
Template
赖 特 米 尔 斯 ·
是一项社会学的研究，研究对象是社会学科本身 是关于方法论的探讨，旨在指明治学之道 对年轻学者来说，是一本入门指南 对经验丰富的学者来说，是对自己行为的审视和反思 批判和告诫的口吻同在
01
是对学界迷信经验（定性）或理论（定量）的拨乱反正
·对赞助方负责，提供他们 感兴趣的信息 ·关注点集中于细节上，不 设定自己的根本问题 ·不为公众发言 ·有损超然客观性，不依托 个人兴趣
重点介绍两种人：学术行政官和学术新手
派系（学派）：作为升迁机制的派系成为 学术行政官玩弄权术博得声誉的工具
批判：科层制气质 3.3
学术行政官：他们是研究发起人，在学院中的声誉来自于他们所拥有 的权力。他们是思想的经理，以极高效的方式组织了书本的生产。他们 本身无太高学术造诣，所以不要指望他们能生产多少实质性的知识。