Introduction.
There are different ways in which people can analyze the social experiences which they go through. Ways is which one can describe his or her sociological experience can be very different, however, the only importance is that they can reveal what one can experience in his or her living set up. Social life is part of historical information, nonetheless, social life is part of history; someone cannot be able to analyze his or her life without referring back to history, they are part and parcel of one’s life.
Such form of diversity is experienced between two social analysts, Mills C. Wright and Scott Joan. In her work, the promise, Mills tried to explore some of the pertinent issues in people’s social life and give and in-depth analysis on the same (Mills, 1959). On the same note, a once prominent writer, Joan Scott tried to explore gender as a valuable and more useful tool in historical analysis. In her work, she majored more on feminism and the role played by women in historical analysis. In her works, Joan Scott feels that women are doing very little than expected in making historical analysis a successful venture.
Discussion.
Mills Wright in his work tries to highlight pertinent issues in men’s life. His work greatly deals with how men approach life and in so he makes an observation that men normally believe and in that case feel that their lives is always made of a series of traps. According to Mills, men are always curious with their lives as they believe that would get into the perceived traps anytime. Men feel that they cannot be able to overcome their life troubles. Mills believe that this is actually true and that men’s behavior and the way they carry out their lives conforms to this observation (Mills, 1959). However, Joan Scott on her side majorly deals with women, to her she feels that women are no doing what it takes in historical analysis. Scott, (1986), believes that feminist historians are more passive, and seem to be very comfortable with just mere descriptions instead of tangible theories. She further discredits descriptions by saying that they need carefully understanding and synthesis. It’s actually true that one cannot just understand a description straight away, they need to take their time to understand the continuities and discontinuities between social actors. She also noted that actors have diverse social experiences which can make description more difficult to analyze their lives.
On his submission, Mills Wright documented that it can be very difficult to understand one’s life or the history of a particular community without a clear understanding of both. According to Mills (1959), a person is part of a society in which they live; their social life is directly dictated by the social set up. He believes that people are what the community dictates them to be. He further narrates that for one to give a clear and vivid description of one’s social life, he or she must be able to understand his or her living set up.
On her side, Joan Scott does not explore the role of a community on a person’s social life. She majorly dwells on women and the role they play in social history. In her work, she urges historians to start thinking on how they can understand the role played by sexes in historical pasts. Her view is quite contrary to that of Mills Wright, she thinks that gender has more to do with the historical past as opposed to Mill’s opinion that states that society has more to do with someone’s social. These two opinions still remain a topic of discussion.
On people’s understanding of social life, Mill proposed that people need to have quality mind for them to use the information and make good reasoning. Mills believe that for someone to connect between what is actually taking place in their environment and what is actually taking place in their lives, all they need is quality mind. Mill termed it as sociological imagination. Its actually true that some form of intelligence is needed for one to connect what is taking place in their lives as compared to the whole world; the world has its own way of shaping up and individual’s life.
Mills opinions are contrary to Joan Scott’s. Joan Scott does not believe that the mind has a role to play connect an environment to one’s life. She instead suggest that people need to either scrutinize the methods they use while analyzing social life (Scott, 1986). She further urges historians to clarify their assumptions and explanations on the way they think change occurs.
Conclusion.
The works of the two great historians are paramount as they give out certain features that help understand human social life. Though varied at times, their opinions usually converge at some point, this makes it quite clear that social life is just but a matter of careful and in-depth understanding. Both the writers acknowledge that social life needs an extra effort to understand.
References
Mills, C. W. (1959). “The Promise” in The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.
Scott, J. (1986). “Gender as a Useful Category of Historical Analysis.” American Historical Review 1053-1075.
