The term “sociological imagination” is a term coined by C. Wright Mills in 1959. Regarded as an, “…introductory concept to explain the nature of sociology and its relevance in daily life”, it is also considered as the capacity to see things socially, how they interact, and influence each other. Importantly, Mills reminds us, “…that things in society may lead to a certain outcome”, having the duel consideration that present and historical realities are composed of a profound confluence of factors and influences. Likewise, this is relevant to both the anticipation and guidance of future outcomes. Similar to Krasner’s regime theory, Mills points out the important for “…understanding what causes led to that outcome; (not limited to), social norms, what people want to gain (motives), social context” and the total convergence of interests.
Although more generalized, social imagination is also conceptually similar to the idiom of “co-production” proposed by Sheila Jasanoff. According to Jasanoff, co-production, “…calls attention to the social dimensions of cognitive commitments and understandings, while at the same time underscoring the epistemic and material correlates of social formations.” Like social imagination, co-production does not claim predictive powers, “…a way of interpreting and accounting for complex phenomena”. Uniquely, co-production, “…offers new ways of thinking about power, highlighting the often invisible role of knowledges, expertise, technical practices and material objects in shaping; sustaining, subverting or transforming relations of authority.” Incidentally, has anyone seen the large poster, located just outside the CSPO office, the bowling-pin juggling robot with the message, something like, “Subvert, Transform…”? Sound familiar?
Mills also stresses the essence of objectivity and versatility of thought, in order to appreciate the pedigree of a particular development or outcomes. He wrote, “You must pull yourself away from the situation and think from an alternative point of view… [having] …the 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.”
Clark Miller is noted for saying, “Politics is a competition for the social imagination”. (Feb 14, 2011) Often, this competition manifests as a struggle for public goods with actors competing to influence science policy. Too often, when choosing scientific investment portfolios and research strategies, rather than an effective management of scares resources there is, “a struggle for influence and funding among various political actors”, each competing to maximize their share of the public goods. (Sarewitz, 2007)
Rather than a focus on real-world priorities or forming a cooperative effort to produce an R&D investment portfolio organized around specific objectives to contribute to public well-being, entrenched interests are merely fighting in what resembles a zero sum game to acquire resources for themselves at the expense of the public and other competing interests. This is characterized as “the vulgarities of politics” (Sarewitz, 2007), both ineffectual and counterproductive, yet in an apathetic sense this is considered “normal”; what Thomas Kuhn referred to as “normal science”; science policy that reinforces the status quo.
Weather theories or idioms, these concepts remind us to appreciate the complexities of where we are going and where we’ve been, presumably in a way that we can achieve intellectual operability on the important factors that lead to sound decision making. With the limited scope of this short blog I will propose a comment on the validity and usefulness of mentioned theories and idioms, and allow Emanuel Castells to have the last word. He writes, “Theories and ideologies must always be rectified and adjusted according to experience, never as schemata to be reproduced. Societies are, and will always be, shaped by social actors, mobilized around interests, ideas and values, in an open, conflictive process.” (Castells, 1997, p.43)
Ref:
Castells, M (1997). End of Millennium: The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, Inc.
Coats & Passmore (2008). Public Value: The Next Steps in Public Service Reform. London
C.W Mills, first chapter “Sociological Imagination”
Sarewitz (2007). Does Science Policy Matter? Issues in Science and Technology
Sheila Jasanoff 2004). States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order: Routledge
I wanted to discuses to words that you used in you piece (but did not focus on): Prediction and Science as a Zero-Sum Game.
ReplyDeletePredication is mention in regards to sociological imagination and co-production ad how neither focus or proved prediction. However, this is true if you are stuck in the positive perspective's definition of prediction. At the end, you mention how these "remind us to appreciate the complexities of where we are going and where we’ve been, presumably in a way that we can achieve intellectual operability on the important factors that lead to sound decision making." Isn't this a type of prediction? Yes, it doesn't tell us what will happened (is this possible in most social science), but it tells us what can happen if certain things happen.
You mention that it is entrenched interests that lead to a zero-game competition for resource. In essence though, is it a combination of interests and the patent structure that creates this competition. There is only one patent for a discovery (even loopholes are problematic as it will require more reassures and time). Zero-Sum competition is imbedded in the infrastructure of science.