In his 1959 The Sociological Imagination, C. Wright Mills describes that imagination as a Aquality of the mind that helps people to use information and to develop reason in order to achieve lucid summations of what is going on in the world and of what may be happening within themselves" (Mills, 1961, p.5). He writes, "the sociological imagination enables its possessor to understand the larger historical scene in terms of its meaning for the inner life and the external career of a variety of individuals ... . It enables us to grasp history and biography and the relations between the two within society. That is its task and promise"(Mills 1959, pp. 5, 6).

In my view, a major obstacle to a national conversation on race, is the lack of sociological imagination. I argue, with regards to race, that this society has not yet developed the quality of the mind Mills speaks of, but, instead, possesses a split (disunited?) imagination (St.Jean & Feagin 1998, pp. 211-214). One side, which is trained to believe speculations of the past about people of color, takes these speculations for granted. The second side, aware of the past in the present because its continued experience, is, using the words of Mills, closer to "grasp[ing] history and biography and the relations between the two within society" (Mills 1961, p.6). Indeed, one study of collective memory (see Halbwachs, 1980) found that respondents, raised in the 1950s, had different memories of the past. Blacks saw race relations as problematic. Whites did not (Wilson, 1997). Breaking national silence on "race" requires reconciliation of these two sides into one sociological imagination.

In what follows, I use examples from the distant and recent past to illustrate the split imagination. I show ideas of the past merging into the present, shaping the present, and suggest a critical look at this past with acknowledgment of its role in the present will facilitate honest conversations about race.

In describing the split imagination, I propose national conversations on seemingly unrelated topics: immigration, in the absence of problems created by large waves of immigrants; American slavery or, better yet, the ideas of racist scholars that justified the institution, and still oppress the lives of many men and women. (By racist scholars, I mean those who, early on, established the existence of a natural ranking of groups on the basis of physical differences.)

While interesting, the discussions may be difficult to start or maintain, because they are neither pressing, nor current, nor meaningful to mainstream society. If, as one sociologist writes, we live in a society that dismisses the past (Bellah & al., 1985), an ideal (or mainstream) imagination is likely to leave out that past. The events are completed. They are outside of memory. Our society is composed of practical people. Practical people focus on the here and now.

Some, however, may hold a different vision, welcoming discussions that bring forth a past alive, a heritage that affects their present. So, for example, while a mainstream imagination fails to recognize the role of the racist past on immigration experiences and policies of the present, the other imagination does not. Likewise, while a mainstream imagination may not grasp the relevance of slavery, and early propaganda of racist scholars for the contemporary lives of men and women, the other imagination does. Such memories linger because of a continuing experience and identity (St.Jean & Feagin, 1998). This other imagination (closer to Mills' sociological than the first) welcomes or even encourages like conversations, because it is able to see the effects of such events on the here and now. Here are two sets of experiences that lead to two imaginations and visions.

The issue of persistence of the early discourse of racist scholars in the present is interesting. Understanding far reaching consequences of this discourse is, in my view, key to understanding the mainstream imagination. Successfully spread in the United States, this discourse, which promoted racist images, is part of a heritage that produced the mainstream imagination. Even the academic world served as instrument of that tradition, preserving it in a way that encouraged the myopic vision. As early as 1928, the historian Frederic Hertz exposed this role of academia. "It is a strange thing," Hertz writes, "that so many scholars have fallen victims to the demon contained in this idea of race. Indeed, in many politically backward lands it is precisely the academic circles which have become strongholds of race prejudice" (Hertz, 1928). Hertz' comment implies that academic circles shaped traditional racial thinking, or the ideal imagination (not sociological) that would discourage the encounters with the past. These strongholds of race prejudice likely discouraged challenges to the racist discourse, questions on what motivated these scholars, or reflections on the impact of their ideas. In 1933, historian Henri See also recognized the dangers posed by racist scholars and predicted their ideas would bring forth the worse, especially in people incapable of critical thinking. In sum, scholars of the past shaped knowledge, and generation after generation of traditional minds, the likely haves of the mainstream imagination.

To appreciate the influence of past speculations on the academic present, or the contemporary relevance of early racist propaganda, one only has to be familiar with the experiences of black students at major universities, documented in The Agony of Education (Feagin, Vera & Imani, 1996). The experiences of black women faculty are also telling. Black Women in the Academy, an anthology, shows black women "marginalized, misnamed, maligned and made invisible in the academy"(Benjamin 1997, p.2). Indeed, the near absence of black women in that setting, and the absence of other faculty of color, are also consistent with a lived history. Black women often draw from that history to make sense of their present.

For the year 1992, the U.S. Department of Education estimates 3.2% full-time black female faculty in higher education at the Assistant Professor rank, 2.3% at Associate Professor, and 1.1% at Full Professor. Black males are respectively 2.9%, 2.9%, and 2.2%; white males 46.8%, 62.3% and 75.0%; white females 32.3%, 25.2% and 14.7%. Black men and women are behind white faculty. Native American females are respectively 0.2%, 0.1%, 0.1%; males, 0.2%, 0.3%, 0.2%; and Hispanic females, 1.2%, 0.8%, 0.4%, males, 2.1%, 1.5%, 1.5%. Native American and Hispanic faculty trail black faculty at all levels, while Asian females at 2.2%, 1.0%, 0.4%, and males 4.9%, 3.6%, 4.4%, rank between white and other faculty of color (U.S. Department of Education, 1996). Faculty of color trail whites at all levels. Women trail men in every group. It is also interesting to note that, for every category, the percentages stay almost the same, or are reduced as one moves from Associate to Full Professor, except for white males.

This absence of faculty of color from academic circles affects diversity, and suggests that universities remain the domain of white males(to a lesser extent, white females), and are still influenced by early ideas about natural inequality. This influence may be difficult to discard, because it is so old, so familiar, so cloaked in tradition, so imbued in memory, and so taken for granted by the mainstream imagination. This influence frustrates the quality of mind that can lead to the development of a sociological imagination.

Intermarriage offers yet another illustration of the gap separating these two imaginations. Discussions of black/white marriage as a racial issue may not be of interest to those who do not know the past, or see little connection between the early warnings of European and American scholars about dangers of racial mixing, the ban prohibiting intermarriage in the United States until 1967, the present rate of approximately 1% of all marriages, and mostly negative attitudes towards them.

In 1993 and 1994, I interviewed several black/white married couples about their racial experiences (St. Jean, 1993 & 1994). One black man commented:

I think it's [interracial marriage] a little more accepted than it was a while ago. We'll go places and we'll get treated differently. We'll go to a restaurant, people will give us horrible service. We know that it's our mixture. Because we'll watch them wait on other tables and they'll be nice, but they'll have an attitude towards us.

This respondent is guided by the larger context. He sees his situation in relation to a past which he shares with similar others. One black female respondent put it this way:

I think the biggest disadvantage is ... when people see a black woman and a white man, or a black man and a white woman together, they judge you automatically and say, "You're not supposed to be with that kind." They just automatically assume that whites should be with whites and blacks should be with blacks.

The couples also reported becoming increasingly aware racially, because of their interracial association. One black woman, never before concerned with issues of race, became aware of popular attitudes, only after her marriage to a white male:

In general, just before our meeting here [the respondent is referring to meeting her spouse in the western city], I thought that there weren't many differences in the races. I was always brought up like my father and mother were very fair, so I never saw a big deal with it. After coming here [western city] I saw that it is a big issue and one which the world will not accept.

Far from limited to the public sphere, these experiences extend to the private sphere. For example, a white female married to a black male recalls:

There was a time that my brother's friend--he was going out with a girl that I was in school with. And we were going to go to a party at her house and he was going to come pick me up at my house. And my mother absolutely refused it, even though this person had been in our house for years--then all of a sudden he's going to give me a ride without my brother being around--and my mom was like, "No way." And that's like--at that time I just didn't understand. I didn't realize that it was because he was black and I was white, you know, because he was always around. And it just didn't dawn on me at the time that was the reason she didn't want me to go.

In this case, one white parent takes steps to protect the racial purity of that family. The respondent's new racial awareness allows her to make sense of that incident.

Thus popular attitudes towards intermarriage affect the everyday lives of these couples and their families, shaping an imagination that is able to see the collective character of their experience, thus the past in the present. Yet, a mainstream imagination may not connect such issues to the larger society. These issues have not been the concern of even social scientists.

National conversations about these issues would have low priority, because they are neither visible nor tangible to a mainstream imagination. But a critical (or sociological) imagination would envision this role of the past in the present. Here, seemingly unrelated events like the treatment of black/white couples, of immigrants of color, of students and faculty of color at major universities, the old racist beliefs promoted in academic circles, old racial issues, new racial issues, including the current resistance to Affirmative action, are interconnected--the outcome of a past embedded in culture. In a critical imagination, these issues are neither old nor new, but have become new/old issues. They are something old in the new.

Take Affirmative Action, an issue that seems a national obsession. In a critical imagination that understands the role of the past in the present, Affirmative Action may be grouped with other forms of "social selections" (including immigration) one early scholar argued would not be good for society, because these selections disturb natural inequality (de Lapouge, 1896). A critical imagination sees often subtle connections between past and present, and the importance of conversations to make sense of this past, and disrupt its continuity.

"In light of the advanced communication technology why aren't Americans talking to each other?" is one of the questions posed by this panel. In response, I suggest that the key to engaging people into a conversation about race (whatever the term may mean in this case) is not advanced communication technology. Technology provides access to information. But as Mills put it: "It is not only information that they [people] need--in this Age of Fact, information often dominates their attention and overwhelms their capacities to assimilate it" (Mills 1959, p. 5).

Although Mills wrote in the late 1950s, this comment is still valid, and perhaps more so today since, in this information age, technology is more advanced. Indeed, the technology, itself, is overwhelming.

While technology can facilitate communication, it does not seem as important as sensitizing the mainstream imagination to the importance of the racist past, its continuity in the present and the collective memory of people of color. Breaking national silence on race requires developing this quality of the mind that Mills speaks of, Athis quality of the mind that helps people . . . to achieve lucid summations of what is going on in the world and of what may be happening within themselves"(Mills 1959, p.5), and others. This quality of the mind can help reconcile the two sides into one sociological imagination.

In closing, I propose:

1. research, bottom-up method, preferably focus groups, where people can speak openly about their specific racial experiences in various institutions and public places. These data should be made widely accessible to the public.

2. research focused on intermarriage and dating. This research is suggested because if, as some social scientists argue, these associations are indicative of equality, how people react to them can also inform about readiness to accept the goal of equality.

3. teaching methods that promote an open and active classroom. Honest class discussions, student research, student writing, and any other method that can facilitate the entry of one into the collective memory of the other.

Bellah, R., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W., Swidler, A., Tipton, S.(1985). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in american life. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Benjamin, L. (1997). Black women in the academy: Promises and perils. Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida.

de Lapouge, G. V. (1896). Selections sociales. Paris: Thorin & Fils. Feagin, J. R., Vera, H., Imani, N. (1996).The agony of education. New York, NY: Routledge.

Halbwachs, M. (1980). The collective memory. New York, NY:Harper Colophon. Hertz, F. (1928). Race and civilization. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Mills, C. W. (1961). The sociological imagination. New York NY: Grove Press. See, H. (1933). Philosophies racistes de l'histoire: Gobineau, Vacher de Lapouge, H.-S. Chamberlain. Grande Revue,10,639-658.

St.Jean, Y. (1993-1994). Intermarriage Study. Unpublished manuscript. University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

St.Jean, Y.,& Feagin, J.R. (1998). Double Burden: Black Women and Everyday Racism. New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

U.S. Department of Education. (1996). Full-time and part-time instructional faculty and staff in institutions of higher education, by type and control, academic rank, age, salary, race/ethnicity, and sex: Fall 1992. Digest of Education Statistics. Washington, D.C.

Wilson, J. (1997). Lost in the fifties: A study of collected memories. In A. Lieblich & R. Josselson (Eds.), The Narrative Study of Lives (pp.147-180). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.