The Sociological Imagination In Relation To The Topic Of ‘The University’
Sociological Imagination, a concept developed by sociologist C. Wright Mills, outlines an alternate perspective on today’s society. Mills defines the term as; “the vivid awareness of the relationship between experience and the wider society. " In other terms; it enables people to distinguish between personal troubles and public issues. The article “Homophobia and heterosexism in a college of education” by C. M. Wickens reflects this concept as although university life is examined through personal events, these events and experiences create an accurate representation of the social forces and issues faced within university life as a whole. In this piece I will be discussing Wicken’s article, in contrast with Mill’s sociological imagination, identifying the key features of ‘sociological imagination’ embedded within university life and the homophobia exhibited by members of the South Western University community. Wickens, through accounts examines experiences, values and beliefs of various students; she conducts several interviews in order to recognise the ‘social meanings’ of students.
These minorities are a beneficial factor in understanding sociological imagination, as personal experiences become universal issue’s, Mills finds however, these individual experiences and worldview are products of historical context. Historically, in the education system, homophobia and heterosexism was prevalent as heteronormative views are reinforced to uphold social structures and attitudes that “grant privilege based on heterosexuality” primarily by teachers and administration. In regards to university, SWU obtains this conservative culture, being practiced predominantly by students and faculty members.
In an extract by a former SWU student he states “homophobia is not merely a majority sentiment on this campus, it is a way of life”. Using this extract we can clearly observe the historical roots of homophobia. A relevant example of this can be seen in the universities statement of non-discrimination, to which sexual orientation is not disclosed, therefore remaining a “steadfast in the institutionalized marginalization of gays”. This oppression conducted by the university administration can be considered a ‘social imagination’ as it is no longer personal but an issue of university life. Mills, in order to put his terms into real-life context, he uses an example in terms of unemployment, stating that “in a city of 100, 000, only one man is unemployed, that is a personal trouble. But when a city of 50 million employees, 15 million men are unemployed, that’s an issue. ”
The same example can be implemented for SWU, as stated above the issue of marginalization is experienced by many, to which it becomes a public issue. Lauren, a graduate student of SWU outlined many experiences of homophobia in the university, stating on one occasion a student opposed to watch a video about gay and lesbian families as ‘her salvation was jeopardized by having to watch that video’. These personal troubles expressed through qualitative research come to light and illustrate the need to look beyond personal views to see the larger social issue in larger society, which evidently is the extreme homophobia exhibited in SWU. Mills encouraged people to stop focusing on themselves but to look at the wider landscape of society, finding the basis of these problems are made up in society, yet in this case within the college itself. The dominant powers within the college are found in the faculty members, in 2002 an internal dispute occurred over the “passing of a college-specific non-discrimination statement, including sexual orientation” occurred, where “several tenured faculty members in positions of significant power wrote a letter opposing and denouncing the proposal. ”
The university’s attitudes highlights the issues inflicted on these students, moving from personal issue’s to one of which is engrained in the university and also society. As stated in the previous paragraphs, the interviews conducted by students and information gathered all help in developing sociological imagination, looking at the university rather than individual situations help understand the concept of ‘it’s not you, but the world around you’, although each participant experienced oppression and hate, it is not just a singular issue yet a collective, which overall aids in linking personal life to the society in which they live.
Sociological imagination is critical for individuals and societies to understand, without this, people cannot identify issues in society and are unable to determine if these issues are in need of remedy, as culture in SWU is so deeply rooted, not using this approach of analysis is a hindrance to the university as without knowledge, no one can address these conservative ‘norms’. However, in aid of remedying this issue, following Eric Rofes work, professors and students actively “sought to educate for social justice with regard to LGBTQ issues” in order to advocate reform, embracing sociological imagination.
In conclusion, we can see that Mill’s term of sociological imagination is rooted in the South Western University campus, being engrained within all aspects of life from faculty members to students, all of which either demonstrate or experience homophobia in alternate forms.
