Sociological Imagination as one of steps to success
There exists a significant link between personal situation and forces of society and history. For one to effectively associated with sociological imagination, one can suit his/her own mentality in ways that best achieves a familiarization of oneself with the everyday life routines. This essay, therefore, provides an overview on the existing relationship between sociological imagination and how this impacts towards an individual’s ability to achieve success.
Sociological imagination in Achievement of success
A person’s life could be to huge extent affected by the occurring incidents surrounding an individual. Someone can take an intensive overview on their own issues such as social problems and connect these to their experiences within in the environments and connect this with their personal experiences (Strangleman, 2017). Sociological imagination plays an important role towards enabling individuals to differentiate between public issues and personal plights. Seemingly, most of the incidents that people usually find themselves bound within tend to have specific social roots and are usually shared by several other individuals. Thus, they have an impact towards the society and impacts towards the issues occurring within.
For one to achieve strong self-awareness, he/she ought to understand the key areas that he/she thrive best as well as those that are associated with too much stress. An effective leader/manager should constantly evaluate his/her work performance to enhance an understanding one’s own weaknesses and strengths. Such aspects that can be looked upon when conducting a self-evaluation include monitoring of reactions made by colleagues in the workplace and the flexibility in working with and managing others (Strangleman, 2017). A strongly self-aware person should, therefore, strive to strengthen the strengths and positively work on the weaknesses. To some extent, one may be involved in negative behaviors or actions that could appear inappropriate to others. The likelihood of willingly accepting feedback is only possible when a person listens without defending themselves (Ehrenreich, 2014). This does not only increase the feedback between the two parties involved, but also creates a trust bond that will cultivate a lucrative work environment.
When a leader/manager understands his limits, they are able to control their emotions as this provides them with a personal ability to control “shock”. For this reason, they are able to stay balanced and composed especially when exposed to a crisis or pressure (Ehrenreich, 2014). The utilization of a self-image is key to enhancing a leader’s ability to depend on others without being susceptible to their strengths. When people pretend to know everything and fail to admit mistakes, they are most likely to bring about adverse consequences not only to themselves but the entire organization. Conversely, when individuals open space for personal development and readily accepts missteps, they turn their challenging to development opportunities and give consent to others to be cooperative without distress.
Conclusively, it is important for an individual to understand how surrounding problems have been linked towards sociological causes. This cultivates an understanding of his or her biography and its relationships to the historical context and structure of the society. Hopefully, this will enhance the ability to empower own self towards personal urge to unleash into prevailing issues in the achievement of success.
Ehrenreich, J. H. (2014). The altruistic imagination: A history of social work and social policy in the United States. Cornell University Press.
Strangleman, T. (2017). Deindustrialisation and the historical sociological imagination: making sense of work and industrial change. Sociology, 51(2), 466-482.
The sociological theories of crime
Most sociologists define deviance as a behavior of violating the rules and norms set in any organization. Furthermore, deviance is more than simple conformity as it departs expressively from the social expectations. The sociological definition of deviance emphasis mostly on the public context and not on the person’s action. Moreover, sociologists categorize deviance into two groups which are formal and informal. Formal deviance is defined as a behavior that breaks the laws and rules set in a certain organization (Akers, 2017). Formal deviance involves the action of breaking the amended laws and rules in any organization. Informal deviance is defined as a behavior that involves the violation of the customary norms. Informal deviance is not included in the law but is judged deviant by individuals who maintain the norms of a society. For instance, body piercing and drawing of tattoos which are common behaviors among young individuals can be classified as part of the informal deviance (Akers, 2017).
Some sociological theories are used to explain more about crime and deviance; these theories include; functionalist theory, Marxist theory, labeling theory and the subcultural theory. The subcultural theories used to explain crime and deviance were both established in the late 1950s by both Albert Cohen, Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin (Akers, 2017). They concluded that most individuals react to the external forces that drive them hence determining the way they behave. Social factors and causes usually determine their actions and behaviors. According to the subcultural theories, criminals react more differently from the non-criminals. Various subcultural theorists attempted to research the main causes of these differences and identified different malfunctions in the social disorders (Akers, 2017).
These breakdowns are solved by the use of different types of public engineering, for instance; social reforms, social welfare and the education system. According to the subcultural theorists’ crimes are defined as social facts, and therefore, they must have some social causes. Subcultural theorists find criminals to be social actors who are influenced by social causes and not abnormal individuals (Akers, 2017). Furthermore, they concluded that most criminals are usually men, teenagers, working class and those living in the urban center. Durkheim referred this to be a social condition where whenever the guiding norms are not followed the individual is left without any social constraint (Akers, 2017).
Crime and deviance are said to be a product of no balance to the goals set in the community and the opportunity structures to be achieved in the community. Hard work and any effort put by any individual in the society should be awarded with both status and material wealth. Some social class like the working-class men find hard work to be a problem hence they tend to involve themselves in crimes for their survival (Akers, 2017). For the working class young males, they get inspired by the images they see in the media, and hence they get high inspirations, which they are not able to achieve as they tend to engage themselves in crime. The opportunity structures are said not to be in place of them as they socialize with their pals and relatives who leave them unprepared for school, which is essentially the middle-level environment (Akers, 2017).
For the labeling theories, theorists emphasis on the point of viewing deviance from the deviant individual. They claim that whenever an individual is referred to as a deviant and is said to have deviant behaviors, they have to conquer with the way they have been labeled and have to be committed (Downes, Rock and McLaughlin, 2016). Howard S. Becker, who was an interaction theorist, explained that social groups usually create deviance by coming up with rules that constitute deviance, and the application of the rules to specific individuals and finally labeling them as outsiders. Becker further explained that, after the individuals have been labeled as deviant, they then move down the path of being in the deviant career where it becomes difficult to shake off the deviant label (Downes et al. 2016).
Kai T. Erikson, a theorist, highlights the way social reaction is of effect to the deviant as an individual. He claims that deviance is not a property intrinsic in particular forms of action, he says it is a property conferred upon the forms by specific audiences who witness them both directly and indirectly. However, he suggests that deviance is crucial to the stability of the community rather than being responsible for its breakdown (Downes et al. 2016). Moreover, he claimed that the individual deviant acts as a marker of knowing the difference between good and evil, and between the right and the wrong. One of the major criticisms of the labeling theory is that the theory is deterministic and that it treats the involved individuals as if they were no more than the passive organisms involved. This led to a specific behavior through the act of label being given to it and hence following the behavior patterns that conquer with behavior (Downes et al. 2016).
It is important to point out that the idea of the sociological imagination should not be used as an excuse for an individual not to try harder to achieve success in life. Some people would misuse this idea as a way of running away from personal responsibility.