Part 1 of this series introduced the concept of mindfulness, the growth of the mindfulness industry, and the benefits the industry promises. But can mindfulness fulfill its promise when a focus on individual wellness does nothing to directly address social causes of the problems people face? Can mindfulness alone work when there are significant problems and inequities having to do with access to health care, living wages, healthy food, and affordable housing? 

Sociology asks us to think critically about individualized solutions to social problems.

Psychological vs. Sociological Imagination: A Critique of the Mindfulness Solution

In a 2020 article published in the Sociology of Health and Illness, Daniel Nehring and Ashley Frawley compare what they call the “psychological imagination” with C. Wright Mills’ “sociological imagination.” The psychological imagination locates the root of social problems in “individual biology, mentality, and behavior.” The sociological imagination instead locates the root of social problems in the structure of society. Mills argued that when personal problems are widespread in society, we need to look outside of individuals for the source of those problems. 

In The Sociological Imagination, Mills used unemployment as an example. When only one person in a city of 100,000 is unemployed, he said, the problem is probably due to individual shortcomings or specific circumstances. However, he continued, when 15 million people out of 50 million people in a nation are unemployed, we are looking at a public issue originating in a broader crisis in economic or political institutions.

Application: High Rates of Anxiety

The American Psychiatric Association’s 2025 mental health survey shows that anxiety in the United States is a widespread problem: 67% of Americans are anxious about current events across the world, 62% about the safety of themselves or their family, 61% about paying their bills, 59% about their health, and the list goes on. 

When we use a psychological imagination, we aim to solve problems like this at the individual level. Mindfulness training is one way to accomplish this goal. Mindfulness training can help people to cope with the anxiety they feel in their everyday lives and possibly feel less anxious as a result. The problem is that the sources of their anxiety remain the same. Current events remain stressful, the world still feels dangerous, bills still need to be paid, and health remains a concern – which means that anxiety is likely to remain a problem even if coping mechanisms improve.

Further, if people believe that they should be able to solve their anxiety through meditation or any other individualized solution, they may blame themselves for the anxiety that almost certainly remains. They may put more pressure upon themselves to try harder, which can paradoxically increase anxiety while also adding a sense of failure or futility. 

A sociological perspective asks us to analyze the social causes of anxiety in order to reduce rates of anxiety in society. From this perspective, the high rates of anxiety found in the American Psychological Association’s survey indicate a social problem that requires social solutions that target the economy, the health care system, community functioning, and the like. Without social change, we can expect continued high rates of anxiety even as some people become better at coping with problems.

Instead of solely working to improve ourselves, a sociological perspective argues that we would be more successful working together to improve our social, political, and economic systems. But this can be a tough sell in the individualized culture in United States today, especially because our problems can seem so overwhelming as to be unsolvable.

Why Do We Psychologize Social Problems?

In the article we’ve been discussing, Nehring and Frawley argue “the psychological imagination appears to take root where alternative explanations to social problems are exhausted.” This seems especially true when people feel powerless to effect change in conditions that seem so fully outside of their control. The average American feels the anxiety of economic, political, and social problems but is unlikely to feel that they have the energy, time, or power to do anything about them – especially when they are busy dealing with their own stress. They may even see the efforts of others as pointless.

When we are overwhelmed and feel powerless, it makes sense to look for coping strategies instead of strategies for social change. We might even think that spreading mindfulness will help lead to the change we need. But to truly address public issues, we must turn our attention to society itself – something we will do in Part 3 of this series.

Paradoxes of Mindfulness: Another Critique of the Mindfulness Solution

Taking a different approach, a 2022 ethnographic study found that the industry’s promises are not only insufficient to produce individual and social change, but that its promises are also inconsistent and contradictory. 

Based on 121 hours of participant observation in mindfulness courses in Germany, six interviews with mindfulness teachers, and a review of the relevant literature, Elgen Sauerborn, Nina Sökefeld, and Sighard Neckel present four primary paradoxes in the mindfulness industry:

1. Optimization vs. Aimlessness: Mindfulness programs encourage participants to use mindfulness as a way to reach mental optimization just as a gym workout is a way to reach physical optimization. At the same time, mindfulness is presented as an end in itself rather than a means to an end. From this perspective, there is no goal except to simply be mindful, non-judgmentally watching thoughts and feelings arise before letting them go. Can mindfulness be both non-judgmental observation and a means to a perfected mental state at the same time?
2. Standardized Solutions for a Range of Individual Problems: People come to mindfulness for many reasons, including chronic pain, relationship problems, issues with self-esteem, a lack of productivity, and so on. Can there really be a single standard solution for so many problems?
3. Neuroscientific Foundation vs. Anti-Cognitive Knowledge of the Body: Mindfulness training focuses on a deeply subjective experience of the body and the mind. If we feel like it is working, then scientific proof isn’t needed. Yet mindfulness training programs also present scientific findings as proof that mindfulness does work. If we don’t feel it working, then the problem is us rather than the program. It is impossible to effectively criticize a program that can use whichever kind of proof suits it at the moment. 
4. Glorification of authenticity and manipulation of emotions: The mindfulness programs that the researchers studied emphasized uncovering an authentic self that exists within us. To do this, practitioners learn to allow thoughts and emotions to arise without judging or identifying with them. At the same time, they learn that they can become more emotionally competent by more effectively managing their emotions. Can someone non-judgmentally discover the thoughts and feelings of an authentic self while also learning to manage their emotions? 

Because the promises are contradictory, it can seem like mindfulness can be the solution to almost any personal problem. Depending on what someone is looking for, they can find a mindfulness program promising that very thing. But like Nehring and Fawley, these authors ultimately agree that mindfulness is not a genuine or sustainable solution to either personal or social problems. Mindfulness by itself is also a simplistic and temporary fix to complex problems.

Flipping the Script: Sociological Mindfulness

In Part 3 of this series, we discuss the need for a mindfulness of how society works – and the possibility of a ‘both-and’ solution that combines a mindfulness of society with a mindfulness of self.