I've actually returned.

I have so far not done so well with my new dedication to be a regular blogger. Often I have ideas that smack into my head suddenly. These fill me with excitement and optimism, "yes! I'll write about that in my blog, that will be great". However when it comes done to the nuts and bolts I consistently feel that I do not have enough real substance to my musings. Recently I have been attempting to read through 'The Sociological Imagination' with little success, I don't seem to get much time or am too tired to do so with full attention. The final chapter, or more accurately what I have actually read; the first few pages of the final chapter, details a recommendation that an ardent social scientist should keep a file. This file should include a journal of your fleeting thoughts which may not survive to any substance, any personal experiences of the days along with any observations you have made, which may well have a significance for any studies. This journal is to aid reflective thought, which is an important skill for the social scientist, it also has another purpose in ensuring that the fledgling analyst is writing at least once a week in order to stay in practise. Blogging very much resembles this activity in some form especially with its openness for others to see, coinciding with Mills' assertion that ideas need to be bounced around with others to vocalise aloud and hear alternative thoughts. Blogging regularly however does come across as a lighter exercise to what Mills describes; which is bordering on obsessive documenting of the random firings of the mind and perceived events in case they become significant. On top of these endeavours the social scientist must frequently reorder the file to keep these thoughts dynamic and preserved from simply being forgotten.

This brings me to a thought I had during my studies, Sociology is a very diverse subject with analysts taking vastly different approaches. These diverse concerns vary from looking to provide grand theories of societal nature or very localised and specific social trends, arguably the latter is subdivided between the provision of raw qualitative or rich quantitative data. What does strike out to me is that Sociology -if not a worth while endeavour and as some (a lot of) people tell me- is essentially the history of today. The work produced by Sociologists is the documenting of the social history of today. I imagine the recording and analysing of the details of everyday life will provide much archived data for future scholars to utilise to develop (hopefully) accurate details of how people in the modern, digital or information age went about their daily lives. The archaeologists of the future, maybe the postmodern (sorry) the post postmodern age or whatever it it is called will have a wealth of data in journals, newspapers and books; also equally important blogs and social networking sites as the artifacts in which to paint a picture of life in modernity. It appears that a typical behaviour of people today is very alike what Mills recommends avid students of Sociology to do; surely this is reflexive modernity.

With regards to Mills, if I'm wrong please don't hesitate to let me know. Also please forgive this post if it appears clumsy or short sighted.