The Challenge of a Global Sociological

Imagination
Marco Caselli

How to cite
Caselli, M. (2022). The Challenge of a Global Sociological Imagination. [Italian Sociological
Review, 12 (1), 1-18]
Retrieved from [http://dx.doi.org/10.13136/isr.v12i1.516]

[DOI: 10.13136/isr.v12i1.516]

1. Author information
Marco Caselli
Dipartimento di Sociologia, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore –
Milano, Italy

2. Author e-mail address

Marco Caselli
E-mail: marco.caselli@unicatt.it

3. Article accepted for publication

Date: October 2021

Additional information about

Italian Sociological Review
can be found at:

About ISR-Editorial Board-Manuscript submission

The Challenge of a Global Sociological Imagination¹
Marco Caselli*

Corresponding author:
Marco Caselli
E-mail: marco.caselli@unicatt.it

Abstract

Many sociologists suggested that – due to globalization processes – we must go

beyond methodological nationalism in studying societies. But how is this possible? We
still miss a convincing answer. In order to find it, we need a “global sociological
imagination”. C.W. Mills wrote that sociological imagination is “the vivid awareness of
the relationship between experience and the wider society”. Starting from this, global
sociological imagination should be the vivid awareness of the relationships between
personal experience, local dynamics, multi-local dynamics, global dynamics and
processes. Going further, sociology studies (social) facts but, contrary to popular belief,
facts don’t speak for themselves. So, we need sociological imagination, and now global
sociological imagination, in order to understand these facts. We also know that
sociology is looking for good answers but, before this, sociology needs good questions.
So, we need global sociological imagination also to find good questions about our global
society.

Keywords: globalization, sociological imagination, Charles Wright-Mills.

1. Introduction

A survey conducted by the International Sociological Association on its

members in 1997 identified The Sociological Imagination by Charles Wright Mills,

¹ The title of this article refers to the MidTerm Conference of the European Sociological
Association RN15 “Global, Transnational and Cosmopolitan Sociology” held in
Helsinki on 19-20 April 2018. I am, therefore, particularly grateful to Peter Holley, Chair
of the Local Organising Committee.
* Dipartimento di Sociologia, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore – Milano, Italy.
 Italian Sociological Review, 2022, 12, 1, pp. 1 – 18

first published in 1959, as the second most influential book of the 20th century
among sociologists, ranking after Economy and Society by Max Weber1.
Reflections on and, especially, indications for sociological work present in
The Sociological Imagination have not lost their extraordinary importance sixty
years after the study’s publication. However, this in no way means that Charles
Wright Mills’ work has been safe from sometime rather scathing criticisms.
Some of these emerged soon after the publication of The Sociological Imagination,
focusing on the idea that the text itself contradicted the very principles it was
proposing (Aptheker, 1960; Cuzzort, 1969). But a great deal more have
appeared since the 1980s, adding to the criticisms that had already emerged
earlier, which emphasised that Charles Wright Mills’ work was strongly rooted
in categories that belong to a bygone era - categories which presuppose a largely
static view of society that are no longer suitable for helping us to comprehend
a society undergoing continuous and radical change such as seen in today’s
world (Schulenberg, 2003). One truly exemplary instance of these is the parable
of Irving L. Horowitz, who in the mid-1960s referred to Charles Wright Mills
as “the greatest sociologist the United States has ever produced” (Appelrouth,
Edles, 2008: 409), before then criticising his work some twenty years later as
being, in his opinion, disconnected from the objective reality of the facts
(Horowitz, 1983). Norman K. Denzin, in particular, goes so far as to assert that
Charles Wright Mills “fails to follow his own sociological imagination” and even
that The Sociological Imagination is “a hypocritical text with dubious ethics” (1990:
4)2.
As such, despite the fact that Charles Wright Mills’ work was by no means
free of criticism, this article takes the position, as already mentioned above, that
much of the guidance for sociological work contained in The Sociological
Imagination is highly topical even today, and this fully qualifies the book as a
classic of our discipline. Particularly one of these indications invites the
sociologist to contextualise his/her reflections and analyses from a historical
standpoint (Mills, 1959: 143-164). Placing high value on this indication, the
objective of this article is to update Charles Wright Mills’ reflection, particularly
the idea of sociological imagination, in the light of the contextual changes that
have surfaced and been established in recent decades, changes that we can
mainly trace to globalization processes.
Given this premise, the article is organised as specified below. We shall first
briefly consider the concept of sociological imagination, as outlined by Charles
Wright Mills in 1959. The main elements that differentiate the current social

1 See https://www.isa-sociology.org/en/about-isa/history-of-isa/books-of-the-xx-
century
2 For a critical review of Charles Wright Mills’ intellectual legacy, see Frauley (2021).

2
 Marco Caselli
The Challenge of a Global Sociological Imagination

context, compared to the one in which Charles Wright Mills’ work was
published, will then be defined. We shall also identify the main challenges to be
faced to build what this article calls Global Sociological Imagination, and outline
certain distinguishing traits. Finally, the conclusions will underscore the fact
that, beyond the changes in the sociologist’s social working context, some of
the pillars of sociological work that have been lucidly identified by Charles
Wright Mills remain basically unchanged (and unchangeable).
Overall, this article is more a memo of things to be done to reach the
definition of global sociological imagination, rather than a clear and complete
description of what it can or must be.

2. Sociological imagination

This section will briefly discuss the idea of sociological imagination as

defined by Charles Wright Mills, without lingering too long on the topic since
the concept is widely known, and is presented in most textbooks of sociology
and history of sociological thought3.
The starting point of every analysis of reality is individual experience,
precisely the biography, starting from that of the sociologist him/herself.
However, the biography of each individual does not develop abstractly but
rather within a specific society, and each specific society, in turn, owes its
existence to the life of the individuals that populate it. Hence, “neither the life
of an individual nor the history of a society can be understood without
understanding both” (Mills, 1959: 3), and again, “the life of an individual cannot
be adequately understood without references to the institutions within which
his biography is enacted” (Mills, 1959: 161). The societies are, in turn, situated
in a place of historical becoming that shapes them. This means that there are
no societies in an abstract sense but only societies that belong to a certain
historical context and which cannot, therefore, be understood without analysing
their context. Hence, biography, society and history are the key coordinates of
the analysis carried out by social scientists that focuses on fully and adequately
understanding reality (Mills, 1959: 143).
Sociological imagination is then what allows the social scientist to respond
to the need to formulate a synthesis of these three elements – biography, society
and history. Citing Charles Wright Mills (1959: 6-7), “the sociological
imagination enables us to grasp history and biography and the relations between
the two within society [...]. It is the capacity to range from the most impersonal

3A variety of texts provides a more in-depth look at the life and work of Charles Wright
Mills, though Italian readers in particular are recommended to consult the recent
volume by Giachetti (2021).

3
 Italian Sociological Review, 2022, 12, 1, pp. 1 – 18

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 he has his quality and his being”.
Charles Wright Mills (1959: 31-32) thus summarises the contents of his
book: “What are the social sciences all about? They ought to be about man and
society and sometimes they are. They are attempts to help us understand
biography and history, and the connections of the two in a variety of social
structures”.
But the reality the social scientist plans on studying and understanding with
sociological imagination is extraordinarily complex, and part of this complexity
lies in the fact that it can be observed from several standpoints. A further task
for sociological imagination is help us identify the most appropriate
“viewpoints” in order to achieve an adequate understanding of the social
framework and of the multiple interrelations that characterise it (Mills, 1959:
133).
Sociological imagination distinguishes the social scientist’s view of reality
from that of the common person. It allows us to move beyond events and
personal problems to identify sociologically important questions. It helps to
trace a particular personal experience, such as, for instance, losing a job, to a
more general problem – the occupational crisis – which is, in turn, historically
determined. It also enables us to question the common sense explanations and
stereotypes habitually adopted by people to give their experiences some
meaning (Manza et al., 2016). In this regard, Charles Wright Mills (1959: 11-22)
shows, in his work, the role of sociology in identifying and highlighting the main
problems affecting contemporary society, thereby indicating the direction in
which science – both social sciences and other scientific disciplines – and
politics should direct their efforts. Sociological imagination, however, does not
only relate to one specific discipline, i.e. sociology, but is the necessary
prerequisite for bringing about an overall improvement in the quality of life of
both individuals and society. It is also a tool for building history and, today, for
guiding globalization processes, to which reference will be made in the
following paragraphs.

3. What has changed

Under certain significant aspects, the current social context is unlike the
one in which Charles Wright Mills’ book was published and, as mentioned in
the introduction, we can briefly say that such differences can be traced mainly
to the emergence and establishment of globalization processes. However, these

4
 Marco Caselli
The Challenge of a Global Sociological Imagination

processes were already present, at least in essence, in 1959. Indeed, in The

Sociological Imagination Charles Wright Mills (1959: 165-166) expresses his
awareness of an epoch-making change: “We are at the ending of what is called
The Modern Age. Just as Antiquity was followed by several centuries of Oriental
ascendancy, which Westerners provincially call The Dark Ages, so now The
Modern Age is being succeeded by a post-modern period. Perhaps we may call
it: The Fourth Epoch”.
However, Charles Wright Mills does not discuss the most radical
consequences of this transformation. Particularly, his attitude is entirely
“modern” when he declares (1959: 135) the substantial superimposition of the
concept of society and of nation state: “In our period, social structures are
usually organized under a political state. In terms of power, and in many other
interesting terms as well, the most inclusive unit of social structures is the
nation-state. [...] Within the nation-state, the political and military, cultural and
economic means of decision and power are now organized; all the institutions
and specific milieux in which most men live their public and private lives are
now organized into one or the other of the nation-states”4. Moreover, this
vision is still widely accepted, if we consider that Diana Kendall, who was one
of the first to claim the importance of a Global Sociological Imagination, says in the
same book that “a society is a large social grouping that shares the same
geographical territory and is subject to the same political authority and
dominant cultural expectation, such as the United States, Mexico, or Nigeria”
(Kendall, 2008: 4), or if we consider the fact that the major part of our social
indicators – even those relative to globalization processes – refer to the nation
state or to its territorial and administrative articulations (Scholte, 2005: 86-87).
Conversely, it is a common opinion among many authors that the most
qualifying traits of globalization processes and of the related epoch-making
change are the scaled down or, at least, transformed role of the nation state
(Sklair, 1999; Sassen, 2007a; Martell, 2007: 177; Cicchelli, 2019: 31-33; Michalet,
2007; Eisenstadt, 2003). Beck (2000b), in particular, says that this
transformation process marks the transition from the first to the second
modernity. Broadly speaking, the discussion on the role of the nation state is
closely related to at least a partial deterritorialisation of important aspects of
social life (Scholte, 2000: 48-49; Giaccardi, Magatti, 2003; Sassen, 2000), and to
the so-called disembedding process (Giddens, 1990). Precisely, there is always

4 It is precisely its specifically modern perspective, however, that has made Charles
Wright Mills work appear to be inadequate in the eyes of many authors at the same time
as the emergence of a postmodern approach to the study of social reality. Paradoxically,
this holds true despite the fact that Charles Wright Mills himself was actually one of the
scholars who introduced the concept of postmodernity (Denzin, 1990: 2, 13).

5
 Italian Sociological Review, 2022, 12, 1, pp. 1 – 18

a higher number of social processes “that are indifferent to national

boundaries” (Beck, 2000a: 80), just as there are forms of belonging and of
identity – for instance, professional – that do not depend on any type of national
affiliation (Sen, 2002: 63). But especially the fact that certain themes and
processes either partly or entirely escape the control and intervention capacity
of the individual states is widely accepted. We can, for instance, consider
pollution, global warming and prevention of economic crises, problems that, as
such, require global solutions and interventions (Kennedy, 2010: 5). However,
we should also acknowledge that some authors take a sceptical position about
the true scale and scope of globalization processes (Holton, 2005: 6-11; Martell,
2007: 173-176). Specifically, such authors highlight how the nation state still
retains its central role, unchanged, as a driving force and pillar of economic and
political life, and an undeniable landmark for cultural and personal identification
processes (Caselli, Gilardoni, 2018: 5). In any case, even rejecting the most
sceptical positions, it is well to recognise that the downscaling of the nation
state does not mean that it has become unimportant today, quite the reverse.
Indeed, the state continues to play an important role even in the field of
globalization processes, thus contributing to shape them. For instance, it is still
the state that, to a very large extent, provides the infrastructures – particularly
for transport and communication – that enable transnational flows, which
constitute one of the most typical features of globalization (Axford, 2007: 322-
323). We must also add that states are still, to date, key actors in the economic
and social frameworks (Ray, 2007: 75), besides being crucial landmarks in the
daily life of the inhabitants of the world.
Hence, the downsizing, or at least the transformation, of the role of the
nation state and the vanishing of the substantial superimposition of nation state
and society is probably the factor that most differentiates the current context
from the period during which The Sociological Imagination was written. But there
are other factors too that we shall mention below with no claim of being
exhaustive. Moreover, some of them are closely related – whether as cause or
effect, it is hard to say – to the nation state being questioned as the fulcrum of
social life.
The first of these factors is that the presence of common risks on a global
scale – starting from the risk of a nuclear holocaust – has united all mankind in
what Anthony McGrew (2007: 22) calls “a single, global community of fate – a
Schicksalsgemeinschaft”. Actually, this is not an entirely new situation. Indeed, The
Sociological Imagination already presents the concrete threat of a Third World War
(Mills, 1959: 4), a theme that was discussed by the author himself in the book
published the previous year (Mills, 1958). However, Charles Wright Mills does
not seem to fully perceive the globalizing consequences of this situation, also
because – at the time – the key actors of the process that was unfolding were,

6
 Marco Caselli
The Challenge of a Global Sociological Imagination

however, two nation states, precisely the United States and the Soviet Union.
Today the picture is, instead, decidedly more complex, first of all due to the
multiplication of actors involved and their variety – consider the possibility that
nuclear weapons or, anyhow, weapons with a wide destructive potential, fall
into the hands of terrorist groups. However, we should also emphasise the
emergence of new global risks, such as those linked to climate change and the
environmental sustainability of our lifestyle. Humanity started to become aware
of these risks at least from the early 1970s, with the United Nations Conference
on the Environment in Stockholm (June 1972) and the publication at almost
the same time of the book “The Limits to Growth” (Meadows et al., 1972). It
is precisely these risks associated with the natural environment and its finite
nature that demonstrate, inexorably, how the world, although divided by
profound political, economic and cultural differences and counter-positions, is
the only physical place that is shared by all humanity. In this respect, we can
notice the growing awareness, on the part of social scientists and of at least
some sectors of public opinion, of these risks and of their unifying power on a
global scale (Beck, 1992: 36), with the subsequent development of a global
consciousness, which constitutes what Roland Robertson (1992: 9) defined the
subjective dimension of globalization. A manifestation of this global consciousness
was seen in the youth movements against climate change, which recently gained
widespread global resonance before being overshadowed by another world
emergency, namely the spread of the Covid-19 virus (Holley, 2020). If, as
referred to earlier, sociological imagination allows us to identify the main issues
towards which to direct the efforts of theory and scientific research, as well as
political commitment, the fact that in modern times such problems assume a
global connotation calls for the development of an equally global sociological
imagination.
A second factor is then given by the emergence of transnationalism,
particularly but not limited to the field of migratory phenomena. The term
transnationalism signifies “the process by which immigrants build social fields
that link together their country of origin and their country of settlement” (Glick
Schiller, Basch, Blanc-Szanton 1992: 1). At least for some, migration is not a
moment of a clear break anymore, an irrevocable transition – at least for a
certain period of time – from one society to another (Ambrosini, 2007: 43). In
fact, the development of means of communication and of transport has enabled
an increasing number of migrants to, we could say, simultaneously live in two
different territorial contexts, to concurrently belong to two different societies
(Itzigsohn, Saucedo, 2002). Despite physically living in and carrying out various
activities in the country of destination, they can at the same time continue to
feel they belong to their native country, care for friends and relations, participate
in social activities, and manage economic activities (Caselli, 2012). The presence

7
 Italian Sociological Review, 2022, 12, 1, pp. 1 – 18

of people who are simultaneously rooted in two different societies also enforces
the need to rethink the very concept of society, which cannot be considered,
anymore, as an exclusive setting one belongs to.
The third factor is the growing importance of the so-called virtual reality
and, particularly, of virtual communities, phenomena that can be interpreted as
the extreme consequence of the above-mentioned processes of de-
territorialisation and disembedding. All the above further enhances the
complexity of themes, such as, defining society, belonging and identity. Indeed,
the same subject can possess different identities, status and roles, depending on
whether the actual or virtual world is considered (Sele et al., 2018; Pietersen et
al., 2018).
The fourth and last factor we shall discuss – but, as mentioned, there are
probably many more – is on a different conceptual level than before and is not
directly attributable as much to the expansion of globalization processes as to
the technological development as such. This factor can be identified in the
advent of “Big Data”5, that is, something that, unlike the elements mentioned
above, invests directly in the purposes, identity and function of social sciences
(Agnoli 2016; Sabetta, 2018). If, for instance, the sample survey has long been
the main methodological tool at the sociologist’s disposal (Goldthorpe, 2000,
Halsey, 2004, Savage, Burrows, 2007), “in the current situation, where data on
whole populations are routinely gathered as a by-product of institutional
transactions, the sample survey seems a very poor instrument” (Savage,
Burrows, 2007: 891). The advent of Big Data is mentioned here, as it constitutes
a potential obstacle to the development of any form of sociological imagination.
Consequently, it is a challenge that has many implications and risks, but also
opportunities, for sociology, which we will address in the following pages.

4. The traits of global sociological imagination

Compared to the above-described changes, there surfaces the need to

review the contents of sociological imagination (Solis-Gadea, 2005). In this
regard, we also find the voices of those who claim “the need to re-engage the
sociological imagination” (Fraser, Hagedorn, 2018: 43) or, more explicitly “the

5 If, as mentioned, the advent of Big Data is connected more with technological
development than with globalization processes, it still cannot be considered as
completely unconnected with the expansion of globalization per se. Big Data effectively
constitute a tool that has been made possible by the complexification of the
relationships and social processes arising from globalization, and which constitute a
central pillar and, in turn, are used in the attempt to manage this very complexity or at
least to operate within it.

8
 Marco Caselli
The Challenge of a Global Sociological Imagination

importance of a Global Sociological Imagination” (Kendall, 2008: 8). However,

the traits this global sociological imagination should acquire are anything but
clear at present, although there has been no shortage of proposals in this vein.
These include, for example, David Harvey’s (2005) one to include geographical
and spatial coordinates amongst the fundamental dimensions of the sociological
imagination. As anticipated in the introduction, this section does not claim an
exhaustive definition of what global sociological imagination can or must be;
instead, it outlines some of the traits, issues and challenges to be faced to
achieve the construction and, especially, the application of global sociological
imagination.
However, before proceeding in this direction, we must consider a
preliminary issue. If sociological imagination, as defined by Charles Wright
Mills, met the need to synthesise the complexity of reality and of
interconnections present therein, global sociological imagination must consider
a social context and interconnections that are more complex and articulated
than they were sixty years ago. We should then ask ourselves if we still deem
this synthesis necessary, and if we consider the effort required to achieve it
appropriate or if, instead, the extreme complexity of contemporary reality leads
us to consider this objective too ambitious and outside our reach and, therefore,
to surrender. In this regard, the author’s opinion is that, without denying the
difficulties of the task, it is, anyhow, worth attempting to, at least, take some
steps towards building the tools required to face this complexity. This is what
we shall attempt to do in the rest of this article.
If, as mentioned above, when outlining sociological imagination, Charles
Wright Mills identified three basic points in biography, society and history,
Fraser and Hagedorn (2018: 56) propose the idea of global sociological
imagination by suggesting the addition, to the above three points, of a fourth
landmark, the global one. We can doubtless agree with this statement by
observing that one of the typical traits of contemporaneity is the interrelation
between global dynamics and individual lives (Axford, 2013). However, we
must ask ourselves what this addition entails in practice.
In the first place, considering the vanishing of the perfect superimposition
of society and nation state, we must seriously consider the need, mentioned by
many, to look beyond what has been miscellaneously labelled as methodological
nationalism (Beck, 2004), embedded statism (Sassen, 2000) and methodological
territorialism (Scholte, 2000), aware that this entails rethinking not only the
method but also the sociological theory (Fraser, Hagedorn, 2018; Wimmer,
Glick Schiller, 2002). But what lies beyond methodological nationalism? Once
again, we cannot provide a complete answer in this article. However, we can say
that this “looking beyond” especially entails asking the question of what is the
most adequate unit of analysis to study social phenomena (Martens et al., 2015:

9
 Italian Sociological Review, 2022, 12, 1, pp. 1 – 18

223-225). To date, the units of analysis preferred by social research have

doubtless been the nation state and its territorial and administrative
articulations. This especially occurred because the data and administrative
information sociologists and other social scientists need to conduct their
analyses and to extract their samples are available at these levels. After all,
statistics, as indicated by the etymology of the term, was conceived as a
functional tool for state administration (Parra Saiani, 2009: 9-10). Furthermore,
we must not neglect the fact that, since public administrations rank among the
main funders of social research activities at least at an academic level, it seems
natural for the research funded to concern the reference territories of these
administrations. But what are the possible alternative units of analysis? There
are many answers, which include both territorial and deterritorialised
frameworks. With no claim at being exhaustive, besides cities and regions that,
anyhow, constitute the territorial articulations of states, we can specifically
mention the person, global network hubs, virtual or actual communities (for
example, on a cultural, political or professional basis), diasporas, economic
districts (that could also be cross-border), processes, up to the world in its
entirety (Caselli, 2013; Taylor, 2004). What we must underscore is that the
choice of a particular unit of analysis, in the current context, does not rule out
others. In fact, a characteristic of globalization processes, along with their
multidimensional feature, is doubtless also their multi-scalar nature (Sassen,
2007b), which justifies the reference – even simultaneous – to differentiated
units of analysis. In this regard, we must mention that Beck (2004) underscores
the need to follow a rationale of “both... and” rather than of “either... or” when
studying a society permeated by globalization processes. However, accepting
the multi-scalar nature of contemporary social processes does not only mean
conducting research and studies that, from time to time, focus on different
territorial planes. It also and especially means perceiving the relationships
present between these different territorial planes. In this sense, it may also be
useful, although not exhaustive, to consider, the concept of glocalization,
viewed as the synthesis of the interrelation between local dimension and global
dimension (Robertson, 1992; Roudometof, 2016; Caselli, Gilardoni, 2018: 16-
18), whose emergence is perhaps a good example of what it means, in practice,
to exercise global sociological imagination.
Based on the features highlighted so far, the study of climate change and
the actions necessary to combat it could be identified as an example of an area
of study for which the application of a global sociological imagination would
seem indispensable. Climate change, i.e. one of the emerging elements which,
as noted above, differentiate the current social context from that of Charles
Wright Mills’ work, is an issue that cannot be tackled individually by a single
nation state or, consequently, be comprehensively studied using the state as a

10
 Marco Caselli
The Challenge of a Global Sociological Imagination

unit of analysis. Climate change is effectively an issue that is on a higher scale

than that of the state. But, at the same time, the state itself is an essential player
in any policy that seeks to tackle the issue, since the state is the main player that
issues and ensures compliance with laws, including those necessary to combat
climate change. However, below state level, the involvement of local players
and individual citizens is also necessary to ensure that laws are translated into
the required behaviour to support and substantiate, if not stimulate or even
anticipate, any climate change policy that might be designed. Citizens, in turn,
may develop forms of activism that arise at various geographical levels,
including beyond national borders. Speaking about climate change and the
actions necessary to tackle it requires the simultaneous and coordinated analysis
of processes undertaken at state level, but also, at the same time, above and
below this level; these processes must be kept together precisely via the use of
a global sociological imagination.
Global sociological imagination should then face the theme of
ethnocentrism and pose the problem of overcoming it, both theoretically and
methodologically (Ryen, Gobo, 2011). Giampietro Gobo discussed the issue in
depth, first underscoring how most of our methodological knowledge, to which
we are inclined to attribute an objective and universal value, was actually
invented by Western academic culture, and then colonised other regions of the
world. However, in a situation in which contacts, relations, interdependences
and superimpositions between different societies are now continuous, and in
which, following migratory flows, Western countries themselves are not
culturally homogeneous anymore, “it is not still sustainable to continue to use
monocultural research methods to inquire into multicultural or non-Western
societies” (Gobo, 2011: 428). The course to be followed could then be a
“glocalistic methodology which takes into account the characteristics of local
cultures” (Gobo, 2011: 428). The task of global sociological imagination is then
to translate this general indication into practice, since the current reflection
“gives a lot of space to epistemological assumptions, but not very much to
technical proposals” (Gobo, 2011: 433). From a theoretical and methodological
standpoint, a contribution to overcome ethnocentrism could be given by the
cosmopolitan approach, since one of the founding traits of cosmopolitanism is
that individuals are “able to go beyond their own culture, local allegiances and
national affiliations” (Cicchelli, 2019: 3). This cosmopolitan approach could,
first of all, take the form of a greater focus by Western sociologists on the
scientific production of sociologists from the Southern hemisphere, which is
often poorly represented or completely absent from the bibliographies of
volumes and articles or academic teachings: a global sociologist could not, in
any event, consider only a part of the world’s sociological production. However,

11
 Italian Sociological Review, 2022, 12, 1, pp. 1 – 18

in this regard, we must not neglect the fact that, paradoxically, cosmopolitanism
itself has long been Eurocentric (Delanty, 2006: 27).
If then sociological imagination also consists in the capacity to find
adequate “viewpoints” on reality and to ask the most appropriate questions to
understand it, an additional sector in which global sociological imagination
should be applied is assuredly mutual relations and superimpositions, both
social and biographical, between material reality and virtual reality. In this case,
the questions to be asked concern how the real world is modified by virtual
reality (Elliker, 2019) but also if, how and to what extent the real world
maintains the capacity to place bonds and shape the virtual world. They also
concern how the virtual experiences of individuals influence their conduct and
identity in the real world, and the reverse.

5. Risks connected with the advent of Big Data

A specific task of global sociological imagination should also be to

counteract some of the possible deviations generated by the advent of the so-
called Big Data, a theme already mentioned in the previous pages, making it
possible to re(state) the role of the sociologist and his/her superiority,
compared to data analysis techniques.
The risk that the massive use of Big Data in studying social phenomena
will lead to the atrophying of sociological imagination, and with it, the
substantial irrelevance of sociologists, is not by any means remote. In the
presence of a “data deluge”, the role of the empiric sociologist is indeed widely
scaled down. We do not need to collect data in the actual contexts anymore
because a specific reality can be processed in its entire extension (Anderson,
2008). However, specific techniques are necessary to manage Big Data that risk
weakening the sociologist, whose role becomes secondary, compared to the
algorithm required to manage an impressive amount of data (Agnoli, 2016,
Gillespie, 2014, Burrell, 2016). The emphasis on the technical competence
required to manage data however also questions the role of the sociologist as
the subject who is entrusted the task of interpreting data and, particularly, of
perceiving the meaning of the phenomena and of the realities studied; a task for
which, once again, sociological imagination seems to be essential. The advent
of Big Data, then, threatens not only the work of the empirical sociologist, but
also the theoretical considerations of sociology, which are essential for directing
research and interpreting its results (Merton, 1968: 139). As reported by Savage
and Burrows (2007: 891)

12
 Marco Caselli
The Challenge of a Global Sociological Imagination

To give a simple example of the merits of routine transactional data over

survey data, Amazon.com does not need to market its books by predicting,
on the basis of inference from sample surveys, the social position of someone
who buys any given book and then offering them other books to buy which
they know on the basis of inference similar people also tend to buy. They
have a much more powerful tool. They know exactly what other books are
bought by people making any particular purchase, and hence they can
immediately offer such books directly to other consumers when they make
the same purchase. Hence the (irritating, though often tellingly useful)
screens offering ‘Other people who have bought x have also bought y’ that
confront the Amazon customer.

In practice, the risk is that causation becomes unimportant, compared to

mere correlation: “Big data helps answer what, not why, and often that’s good
enough” (Cukier, Mayer-Schoenberger 2013). But this “good enough” can
apply to the Top Management of Amazon or of any other company and to
many other social actors, but it cannot apply to the sociologist who is, instead,
called to perceive the causes and the deep meaning of the phenomena observed.
Indeed, a specific task of the sociologist and of sociological imagination is, as
mentioned above, to make a synthesis of biography, society and history; and the
task of global sociological imagination is to exploit, for this purpose, the
opportunities and risks associated with the existence of Big Data (Housley et
al., 2014). This task can neither be performed by an algorithm nor by subjects
who only possess technical competences. Citing Charles Wright Mills’ words
(1959: 211) once again, it is sociological imagination “that sets off the social
scientist from the mere technician”. If sociologists do not, therefore, cultivate
sociological imagination and, particularly today, a global sociological
imagination, they risk making themselves irrelevant, destined to be undermined
by Big Data technicians.

6. Conclusion: something has changed, and something has remained

the same

A lot has changed since 1959: the social context we live and work in has
changed; the techniques and tools we have at our disposal to study reality have
changed; the tasks and challenges of the sociologist have changed, at least partly.
We discussed this in the previous pages. Instead, these conclusions, once again
without any claim at being exhaustive, will underscore some elements that have
remained practically unchanged since the age of Charles Wright Mills.
Firstly, the need for the sociologist to centre his/her work on both
theoretical and methodological rigour is still topical today, and so is the need,

13
 Italian Sociological Review, 2022, 12, 1, pp. 1 – 18

underscored by Mills, for clear presentation, a feature that sociological texts

often lack: “such lack of ready intelligibility, I believe, usually has little or
nothing to do with the complexity of subject matter, and nothing at all with
profundity of thought. It has to do almost entirely with certain confusions of
the academic writer about his own status” (Mills, 1959; 218) and, allow me to
add, about his/her own ideas.
Moreover, the need for the sociologist to focus on studying socially
important phenomena – to identify which s/he has to resort to sociological
imagination – and, subsequently, the fact that the investigation method and
techniques are exploited to pursue this scope has not changed. Conversely,
there is the risk that sociologists will not apply their sociological imagination to
identify important subjects for their research and analysis but only choose from
the range of topics considered mainstream at any one time to make it easier to
obtain funding and advance their career more rapidly. In doing so, however,
sociologists abnegate one of the very tasks of intellectuals, that of not following
the fashions of the day but rather to indicate directions and highlight issues that
many do not yet see, even if this might not bring rewards in terms of academic
success in the immediate future. Similarly, Charles Wright Mills feared the risk
that methodological convenience would direct the choice of subjects for study,
thus excluding more important social issues from analysis (Mills, 1959: 72-73).
Today the risk is that social sciences will only study issues for which Big Data
are available and not develop innovative techniques for studying important
social issues for which Big Data does not exist. One of the tasks of sociological
imagination is still, more generally, to identify the method and techniques that
are most suitable to study and understand important social phenomena, to
prevent the sociologist from seeking the most suitable themes to be studied
with the method and techniques at his/her disposal.
Moreover, the three values, explicitly stated by Charles Wright Mills (1959:
178-179), on which social sciences must be based have not changed: “The first
of these is simply the value of truth, of fact. [...] The truth of our findings, the
accuracy of our investigations – when they are seen in their social setting – may
or may not be relevant to human affairs. Whether they are, and how they are, is
in itself the second value, which in brief, is the value of the role of reason in
human affairs. Along with that goes a third value – human freedom, in all the
ambiguity of its meaning”.
Finally, there remains the fact, as underscored in the previous section, that
sociological imagination is the qualifying trait of the sociologist, distinguishing
him/her from the technician who, despite high standards of competence and
expertise, only applies procedures without reaching a deep understanding of the
reality studied.

14
 Marco Caselli
The Challenge of a Global Sociological Imagination

References

Agnoli, M.S. (2016), L’arte intellettuale al cospetto dei big data, Sociologia e ricerca
sociale, 109, 7-17.
Ambrosini, M. (2007), Prospettive transnazionali. Un nuovo modo di pensare
le migrazioni? Mondi Migranti, 2, 43-90.
Anderson, C. (2008), The end of theory: the data deluge makes the scientific
method obsolete, Wired, 06.23.
Appelrouth, S., Edles, L.D. (2008), Classical and Contemporary Sociological Theory.
Text and Readings, Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.
Aptheker, H. (1960), The World of C. Wright Mills, New York: Marzani &
Munsell.
Axford, B. (2007), Editorial, Globalizations, 4(3), 321-326.
Axford, B. (2013), Theories of Globalization, Cambridge: Polity.
Beck, U. (1992), Risk society. Towards a new modernity, London: Sage.
Beck, U. (2000a), The cosmopolitan perspective: sociology of the second age of
modernity, British Journal of Sociology, 51(1), 79-105.
Beck, U. (2000b), What is globalization? Cambridge: Polity.
Beck, U. (2004), Der kosmopolitische blick order: krieg ist frieden, Frankfurt am Main:
Suhrkamp Verlag.
Burrell, J. (2016), How the machine ‘thinks’: understanding opacity in machine
learning algorithms, Big Data & Society, January-June, 1-12.
Caselli, M. (2012), Transnationalism and co-development. Peruvian associations
in Lombardy, Migration and Development, 1(2), 295-311.
Caselli, M. (2013), Nation states, cities, and people: alternative ways to measure
globalization, Sage Open, 3(4), 1-8.
Caselli, M., Gilardoni, G. (2018), Introduction: globalization between theories
and daily life experiences, in M. Caselli & G. Gilardoni (eds), Globalization,
supranational dynamics and local experiences, Cham: Palgrave.
Cicchelli, V. (2019), Plural and shared. Sociology of a cosmopolitan world, Leiden: Brill.
Cukier, K.N., Mayer-Schoenberger, V. (2013), The rise of big data. How it’s
changing the way we think about the world, Foreign Affairs, 92(3), 28-40.
Cuzzort, R.P. (1969), Humanity and Modern Sociological Thought, New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Delanty, G. (2006), The cosmopolitan imagination: critical cosmopolitanism
and social theory, The British Journal of Sociology, 57(1), 25-47.
Denzin, N.K. (1990), Presidential Address On The Sociological Imagination
Revisited, Sociological Quarterly, 31(1), 1-22.
Eisenstadt, S. (2003), Comparative civilizations and multiple modernities, Leiden-
Boston: Brill.

15
 Italian Sociological Review, 2022, 12, 1, pp. 1 – 18

Elliker, F. (2019), Innovare il metodo. Quale futuro per la ricerca sociale? Speech
to the “Convegno di fine mandato della Sezione di Metodologia della ricerca sociale AIS”,
Milan, January 17th-19th.
Fraser, A., Hagedorn, J.M. (2018), Gangs and a global sociological imagination,
Theoretical Criminology, 22(1), 42-62.
Frauley, J. (Ed) (2021), The Routledge International Handbook of C. Wright Mills
Studies, Abingdon: Routledge.
Giaccardi, C., Magatti, M. (2003), L’io globale. Dinamiche della socialità
contemporanea, Roma-Bari: Laterza.
Giachetti, D. (2021), Il sapere della libertà. Vita e opere di Charles Wright Mills, Roma:
Derive Approdi.
Giddens, A. (1990), The consequences of modernity, Cambridge: Polity.
Gillespie, T. (2014), The relevance of algorithms, in T. Gillespie, P. Boczkowski,
K. Foot, Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality and Society,
Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Glick Schiller, N., Basch, L., Blanc-Szanton, C. (1992), Transnationalism: a new
analytic framework for understanding migration, New York: Annals of the
Academy of Science.
Gobo, G. (2011), Glocalizing methodology? The encounter between local
methodologies, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14(6), 417-
437.
Goldthorpe, J.H. (2000), On sociology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harvey, D. (2005), The Sociological and Geographical Imaginations,
International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 18(3/4), 211-55.
Halsey, A.H. (2004), A history of British sociology, Oxford: Clarendon.
Holley, P. (2020), Being Cosmopolitan and Anti-Cosmopolitan – The Covid-
19 Pandemic as a Cosmopolitan Moment, The European Sociologist, 45.
Holton, R.J. (2005), Making globalization, Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Horowitz, I.L. (1983), C. Wright Mills: An American Utopian, New York: The Free
Press.
Housley, W., Procter, R., Edwards, A., Burnap, P., Williams, M., Sloan, L., Rana,
O., Morgan, J., Voss, A., Greenhill, A. (2014), Big and broad social data and
the sociological imagination: a collaborative response, Big Data & Society,
July-December, 1-15.
Itzigsohn, J., Saucedo, S.G. (2002), Immigrant incorporation and socio-cultural
transnationalism, International Migration Review, 36, 766-798.
Kendall, D. (2008), Sociology in our times. Seventh edition, Belmont: Thomson.
Kennedy, P. (2010), Local lives and global transformation. Towards world society,
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Manza, J., Arum, R., Haney, L. (2016), The project sociology 2.0. Introducing the
sociological imagination, Boston: Pearson.

16
 Marco Caselli
The Challenge of a Global Sociological Imagination

Martell, L. (2007), The third wave in globalization theory, International Studies

Review, 9, 173-196.
Martens, P., Caselli, M., De Lombaerde, P., Figge, L., Scholte, J.A. (2015), New
directions in globalization indices, Globalizations, 12(2), 217-228.
McGrew, A. (2007), Organized violence in the making (and remaking) of
globalization, in D. Held, A. McGrew (eds), Globalization theory. Approaches
and controversies, Cambridge: Polity.
Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J., Behrens, III., W.W. (1972), The
limits to growth, New York: Universe Books.
Merton, R.K. (1968), Social Theory and Social Structure, New York: The Free Press.
Michalet, C.A. (2007), Mondialisation, la grande rupture, Paris: La Découverte.
Mills, C.W. (1958), The causes of World War Three, New York: Simon and Schuster.
Mills, C.W. (1959), The sociological imagination, New York: Oxford University
Press.
Parra Saiani, P. (2009), Gli indicatori sociali, Milano: FrancoAngeli.
Pietersen, A.J., Coetzee, J.K., Byczkowska-Owczarek, D., Elliker, F.,
Ackermann, L. (2018), Online gamers, lived experiences, and sense of
belonging: students at the University of the Free State, Bloemfontein,
Qualitative Sociology Review 14(4):122-137.
Ray, L. (2007), Globalization and everyday life, Abingdon: Routledge.
Robertson, R. (1992), Globalization: social theory and global culture, London: Sage.
Roudometof, V. (2016), Glocalization. A critical introduction, Abingdon: Routledge.
Ryen, A., Gobo, G. (2011), Managing the decline of globalized methodology,
International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14(6), 411-415.
Sabetta, L. (2018), Basta che funzioni? Note su big data e teoria sociologica,
Sociologia Italiana. AIS Journal of Sociology, 11, 187-194.
Sassen, S. (2000), New frontiers facing urban sociology at the Millennium,
British Journal of Sociology, 51(1), 143-159.
Sassen, S. (2007a), A sociology of globalization, New York: Norton.
Sassen, S. (2007b), The places and spaces of the global: an expanded analytic
terrain, in D. Held, A. McGrew (eds), Globalization Theory. Approaches and
Controversies, Cambridge: Polity.
Savage, M., Burrows, R. (2007), The coming crisis of empirical sociology,
Sociology, 41(5): 885-899.
Scholte, J.A. (2000), Globalization. A critical introduction, Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Scholte, J.A. (2005), Globalization. A critical introduction. Second edition, Basingstoke:
Palgrave.
Schulenberg, J.L. (2003), C. Wright Mills: Tracing the Sociological Imagination,
Sociological Imagination. 39(1): 47-65.
Sele, S.J., Coetzee, J.K., Elliker, F., Groenewald, C., Matebesi, S.Z. (2018),
Online social networking, interactions, and relations: students at the

17
 Italian Sociological Review, 2022, 12, 1, pp. 1 – 18

University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, Qualitative Sociology Review

14(4):100-120.
Sen, A. (2002), Globalizzazione e libertà, Milano: Mondadori.
Sklair, L. (1999), Competing conceptions of globalization, Journal of World-
Systems Research, 5(2), 143-163.
Solis-Gadea, H.R. (2005), The New Sociological Imagination: Facing the
Challenges of a New Millennium, International Journal of Politics, Culture, and
Society, 18(3/4), 113-122.
Taylor, P.J. (2004), World City Network. A global urban analysis, London:
Routledge.
Wimmer, A., Glick Schiller, N. (2002), Methodological nationalism and beyond:
nation-state building, migration and the social sciences, Global Networks, 2(4),
301-334.

18
 © 2022. This work is published under
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/(the “License”). Notwithstanding
the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance
with the terms of the License.