When analyzing and perceiving their actions, people might refer to their individual experiences or motivations or tie their behavior to the larger social context. According to Mills, to obtain a rational and complete perspective of one’s experiences as a member of society, people should combine the application of biographical and historical (individual and societal) factors in their decisions. The combined consideration of the factors in one’s life with the larger historical context is called sociological imagination. In particular,
Mills claimed that people are “seldom aware of the intricate connection between the patterns of their own lives and the course of world history.” In such a manner, the lack of such perspectives demonstrates the absence of sociological imagination. Indeed, “ordinary people do not usually know what this connection means for the kinds of people they are becoming and for the kinds of history-making in which they might take part.” Thus, behaving in a manner that omits the implications of the actions for society might be considered a manifestation of the absence of sociological imagination.
In the context of the coronavirus-related restrictions for contact, such an action is viewed as an outrageous breaking of rules, which implies legal procedures. However, what is more important from a sociological point of view is the validation of such an action. The woman claimed that it was her protest against coronavirus. In such a manner, she exhibited her own position and her personal belief about the need to protect her health from the virus. However, she failed to integrate a larger social and historical perspective with the facts on mortality and morbidity rates on a global scale, which might have motivated her to act differently.