In chapter 03 of The Sociological Imagination, C. Wright Mills pivots from the grand theory critiques, epitomized by Talcott Parsons, to focus instead on “abstracted empiricism,” a mid-twentieth century trend in sociology that heavily relies on quantitative methods to gather data and statistical analysis. While this approach has its merits, Mills points out that it often leads to superficial studies that neglect social and historical contexts. Central to his critique is Paul Lazarsfeld, a notable mid-twentieth-century Austrian-American sociologist who is famous for creating an administrative apparatus around sociological research, most notably in Columbia University’s Bureau of Applied Social Research, which he founded. Lazarsfeld’s work, Mills contends, often puts methodological technique above the exploration of complex social issues. Mills instead advocates for a more balanced approach in sociology, one that combines careful empirical analysis with an in-depth understanding of social and historical contexts.
While Mills divides his chapter into numerous sections, it is better to organize this summary and analysis in terms of larger areas of his critique. The biggest of these critiques is what he sees as the methodological limitations and narrow research scope of abstracted empiricism. It is important to note that Mills differentiates methods and methodology. He defines methods as “procedures used by men trying to understand or explain something,” while methodology is defined as a “study of methods…offer[ing] theories about what men are doing when they are at work at their studies” (57). These methodologies, Mills notes, are largely relegated to surveys and statistical analysis, which lead to research topics that are chosen not for their sociological relevance, but instead their methodological suitability, or in other words, how much gathered data can be quantified and statistically analyzed. This is highlighted in the central objects of study, which tend to revolve around “public opinion” and “voting behavior.” This method-centric approach, while producing statistically robust results, often lacks depth and fails to engage with the broader, more intricate social and historical contexts of the phenomena under study.
Mills critiques this approach for often overlooking the nuanced meanings and societal implications of key concepts, an issue he relates to the need for clarity in the syntactic and semantic dimensions of sociological terms. He observes that this methodological orientation results in research that is superficial and disconnected from the significant sociological connections, as it overlooks the larger relationships and structures that shape society. Consequently, these studies offer a limited perspective on social phenomena, producing findings that do not fully capture the nuanced and dynamic nature of society. Mills advocates for a more integrated approach in sociological research, calling for a balance between empirical rigor and a comprehensive exploration of social phenomena, taking into account their full historical and societal complexity.
Mills’s second major critique of abstracted empiricism focuses on what he terms the “philosophy of science” and its consequent bureaucratization within the field. He observes that under abstracted empiricism, the structure of sociological research increasingly resembles a bureaucratic system that is marked by detailed division of labor. This transformation, according to Mills, changes the role of researchers, positioning them more as specialized components within a larger organizational mechanism rather than independent, creative thinkers. This leads to a hierarchy within the research community, ranging from highly skilled and experienced scholars to those with less experience and expertise. Mills argues that the less experienced researchers within this structure are frequently tasked with critical aspects of the research process, such as conducting literature reviews and data collection. However, the effective execution of these integral tasks are often hampered by the researcher’s limited expertise and the constraints of time.
Additionally, Mills critiques the “philosophy of science” adopted by the abstract empiricists, which seeks to replicate the methods used in natural sciences, particularly the scientific method. This emulation, Mills points out, often leads to a preference for methodological rigor at the expense of the depth and substance of these studies. Mills contrasts this approach with the views of Nobel-laurates physicists like Polykarp Kusch and Percy Bridgman, who advocate for a more diverse and creative approach to scientific inquiry, moving beyond a strict adherence to established methods. This comparison serves to highlight Mills’s argument that both the bureaucratization of research and a restrictive philosophy of science curtail the breadth and potential impact of sociological studies. He calls for a reassessment of these fundamental aspects, advocating for an approach to sociological research that is more holistic and exploratory, thereby enabling a richer and more comprehensive understanding of social phenomena.
Mills’s third critique addresses what he calls “psychologism” as a central focus in abstracted empiricism. He defines psychologism as an analytical approach that primarily focuses on individual psychological traits and responses to explain broader social phenomena. This perspective, according to Mills, often neglects or even dismisses the significance of wider historical and societal structures, thereby simplifying the complexity of social dynamics to just a collection of individual behaviors. Mills observes that this reductive view is evident in research that relies heavily on data gathered from individual-level sources like surveys and interviews. Such a research approach, he argues, narrows the scope of study, failing to encompass the larger social context which is crucial for a thorough understanding of societal issues. As a result, while these studies may provide a wealth of data on individual behavior, they often offer an incomplete or skewed representation of the intricate interplay of societal forces and structures. Mills contends that this focus on psychologism, symptomatic of the wider tendencies in abstracted empiricism, places too much emphasis on methodological accuracy at the expense of exploring the depth and substance of social phenomena, leading to a body of sociological work that does not fully capture the complexities and realities of societal structures.
All of these critiques can be encapsulated in the example of the mid-twentieth century Austrian-American sociologist, Paul Lazarsfeld. In Mills’s analysis, Lazarsfeld envisions sociology primarily as a vehicle for methodological specialty, positioning it at the forefront of social sciences. He uses the metaphor of “pathfinder” when describing sociology as it is meant to pioneer empirical investigations into new areas of human affairs by acting as a bridge between social philosophy and empirical research. However, as Mills notes, Lazarsfeld’s project is replete with issues as noted above.
Mills highlights numerous issues with Lazarsfeld’s project. The biggest one is that this project proposes that it is sociology’s task to convert philosophy into the science of abstracted empiricism, which calls for a shift from historical institutional analysis to the contemporary behaviors of individuals engaging in repetitive behaviors, which are then analyzed statistically. Such an approach revels in the shallow analysis of statistical inquiry and promotes all of the worst elements of psychologism. Its results are disconnected both from each other, as well as a more comprehensive understanding of social reality.
Like “grand theory” before it, the third chapter of Mills’s The Sociological Imagination offers a scathing critique of the mid-twentieth-century sociological trend of abstracted empiricism. Through his analysis of the field of work, particularly that of Paul Lazarsfeld, Mills highlights methodological limitations, the growing bureaucratization of research, and the narrow ‘Philosophy of Science’ that prioritizes methodology over substantive content. He critiques the tendency of abstracted empiricism to reduce complex social phenomena to psychological variables, a perspective he terms ‘psychologism,’ leading to research that neglects broader historical and societal structures. Mills argues that while statistics are useful, their overemphasis, coupled with a fixation on methodological and epistemological issues, diverts sociology from its traditional goals of understanding substantive, real-world problems. This chapter, therefore, serves not only as a critique of a prevalent sociological trend but also as Mills’s call for a more integrated, contextually rich approach in sociological research, bridging empirical rigor with a profound understanding of social dynamics and historical contexts.
The Online Sociologist 