Abstracted Empiricism: The Benefits and Flaws

This article is an excerpt from the Shortform book guide to "The Sociological Imagination" by C. Wright Mills. Shortform has the world's best summaries and analyses of books you should be reading.

Like this article? Sign up for a free trial here .

Is abstracted empiricism a constructive approach to social science? What are its flaws?

In The Sociological Imagination, C. Wright Mills contends that not all ways of doing social science are equal. He believes that his way (sociological imagination) is the only one that serves the main purpose of social science—preserving freedom. He offers a critique of other approaches, especially abstracted empiricism, asserting that they fail to protect a free and open society in the way sociological imagination does.

Keep reading for Mills’s evaluation of abstracted empiricism.

Abstracted Empiricism

Mills acknowledges that the negative impact of grand theory is relatively low compared to the main target of his criticism: an approach he calls “abstracted empiricism.” This approach doesn’t attempt to place social science work in the context of people’s lives or major social problems—Mills explains that this is what makes it “abstracted.” Instead, it focuses entirely on “empirical evidence”: data and observations gained primarily through methods like surveys, opinion polls, and interviews.

(Shortform note: For an example of the methodology and theory behind abstracted empiricism, we can look to one of the social scientists Mills criticizes: sociologist Paul Lazarsfeld. Lazarsfeld conducted some of the first-ever market research, and refined the use of focus groups in empirical studies. He also wrote Mathematical Thinking in the Social Sciences, a guide for using statistics in social science, and several famous studies based heavily on empirical data. Lazarsfeld suggested that the work of sociologists was primarily based on developing new methods of research, and that they could act as a bridge between theoretical social philosophy and data-based research.)

Abstract empiricists believe that social science based entirely on empirical evidence has two main benefits: provability and practicality.

Benefit #1: Provability

Using empirical evidence, an abstract empiricist can systematically observe, test, and measure a specific hypothesis. They believe that this high burden of proof ensures that they base their arguments on real, observable reality instead of theories or speculations.

Example: An abstract empiricist surveys Joe and other people like him about happiness in their marriages. Then, if they claim that Americans are or are not happy in their marriages, they have concrete data to back up this claim.

(Shortform note: Most scholars agree that the desire for provability in social science comes from modernism: a 20th-century philosophical movement that argued that reason, science, and technology could “progress” and improve society. From a modernist perspective, a more rational work of social science would be more beneficial to society—while more theoretical and abstract work would distract from or even slow down social progress.)

Benefit #2: Practicality

Abstract empiricists argue that social science based entirely on empirical evidence is practical: It maintains a reasonable scope. They claim that any attempt to make a broad claim about society fails to recognize the enormous number of factors involved in large-scale societal problems. By using only empirical evidence, abstract empiricists focus on specific questions that they actually can answer. Abstract empiricists note that, while individual works of social science can’t determine larger social truths, accruing enough data over time will eventually allow social scientists to combine this data and definitively prove some larger social reality.

Example: An abstract empiricist doesn’t ask, “Why do half of all American marriages end in divorce?” because answering that question requires the impossible task of accounting for every factor involved in American divorces. Instead, they might ask, “Which demographics in a particular region have the highest divorce rates?” Then they would interview Joe and others like him to get data that answers this question. In theory, data on who gets divorced could later help social scientists determine why people get divorced.

(Shortform note: While Mills talks about practicality as the ability to answer a question, many social scientists suggest that for large-scale problems, it’s often hard to know what question to ask. For problems that involve many factors, there isn’t a clear place where a social scientist should start their research. Abstracted empiricism limits its scope to avoid this issue—other social scientists suggest that asking the right question is often a matter of challenging deep-seated existing assumptions or studying specific unexplained events. Example: An economist might examine the 2008 financial crisis—and then notice the major problem that existing statistical models can’t predict similar financial meltdowns.)

Flaws of Abstracted Empiricism

Mills explains that the flaws of abstracted empiricism are the two main assumptions built into the approach: the definitions of “provability” and “practicality.” He argues that these definitions are narrow and flawed to the point where abstracted empiricism can’t create social science that preserves freedom—and sometimes creates social science that harms freedom.

In this section, we’ll explore the following:

The flaws in the definition of “provability”
The flaws in the definition of “practicality”
How abstracted empiricism threatens freedom

The Flaws of “Provability”

Mills explains that abstracted empiricism uses a definition of “provability” that doesn’t properly apply to the social sciences. Abstracted empiricism attempts to use the scientific method to “prove” a claim, measuring and observing to study a hypothesis to determine if it’s correct or incorrect. But the social sciences don’t just deal with correct and incorrect—they also study competing values and beliefs. In such a circumstance, there is no simple “correct” or “incorrect,” therefore, the scientific method doesn’t actually “prove” anything.

Example: An abstract empiricist studies happiness in American marriages. During this survey, they ask Joe, “Are you happy in your marriage?” and Joe answers, “Yes.” However, there are competing values behind Joe’s answer—on a personal level, Joe is deeply unsatisfied with his marriage. But, his society teaches him that he should get married at a young age and commit to this marriage. A survey misses the context of these conflicting values—personal satisfaction and societal obligation—and therefore fails to grasp whether or not Joe is actually happy in his marriage.

Provability and the History of Economics

Some scholars suggest that bias towards quantifiable, “provable” social science explains why economics is the social science with the most social and political clout. They explain that economists began to rely heavily on mathematics as a way to mimic the natural sciences—an approach that made people view their discipline as the most “provable” (and therefore most useful) social science.

However, the pursuit of provability led to flaws in their work. For example, economists assumed for decades that people generally made rational economic decisions. This way, they believed their rational methods could also predict human behavior—people will generally act in their rational economic self-interest. However, psychological research eventually proved that people often make irrational economic decisions—exposing a major flaw in economics that resulted from the pursuit of provability.

What Versus Why

Mills explains that reliance on the scientific method means that abstracted empiricism can find out what is true but not why it’s true. “Why” requires a broader understanding of personal and historical circumstances, and is therefore beyond the scientific method—and beyond abstracted empiricism.

Abstracted Empiricism: The Benefits and Flaws