Karl Mannheim | |
|---|---|
| Born | Károly Manheim (1893-03-27)27 March 1893 |
| Died | 9 January 1947(1947-01-09) (aged 53) London, England |
| Alma mater | |
| Known for | |
| Spouse | Julia Mannheim-Láng (née Júlia Károlyné) |
| Scientific career | |
| Doctoral students | Franz Neumann |
| Part ofa series on |
| Conservatism in Hungary |
|---|
 |
Organisations |
Karl Mannheim (bornKároly Manheim, 27 March 1893 – 9 January 1947) was a Hungariansociologist and a key figure inclassical sociology as well as one of the founders of thesociology of knowledge. Mannheim is best known for his bookIdeology and Utopia (1929/1936), in which he distinguishes between partial and totalideologies, the latter representing comprehensive worldviews distinctive to particular social groups, and also between ideologies that provide support for existing social arrangements, andutopias, which look to the future and propose a transformation of society.[1]
Karl Mannheim was born 27 March 1893 inBudapest, to a Hungarian father, a textile merchant, and German mother, both ofJewish descent.[2] His early education was in that city, he studiedphilosophy andliterature at theUniversity of Budapest, though he also went toBerlin (where he studied withGeorg Simmel) andParis to further his education, returning to Hungary around the start of theFirst World War. He obtained a PhD from the University of Budapest, and further qualifications from theUniversity of Heidelberg.
During the War he was involved in a number of influential intellectual circles: theGalileo Circle founded byKarl Polanyi in whichMichael Polanyi also participated, the Social Science Association organised byOscar Jászi, and theSonntagskreis or 'Sunday Circle' led byGyörgy Lukács.[3] In the brief period of theHungarian Soviet Republic, in 1919, Mannheim taught in the Pedagogical Institute of the University of Budapest thanks to the patronage of his friend and mentor Lukács,[4] whose political conversion tocommunism he did not share.[5] Both Mannheim and Lukács were forced into exile after the rise ofHorthy as Regent of Hungary. Mannheim chose exile inGermany and was there from 1920 to 1933.[6]
In 1921, he married psychologist Juliska Károlyné Lang, better known as Julia Lang.[5] Though she is often unacknowledged, Lang collaborated with Mannheim on many of his works, and along with a number of Mannheim's students, put together many of his works to be published posthumously.[6]
After an unsuccessful attempt to gain a sponsor to teach philosophy inHeidelberg, Mannheim began work in 1924 under the German sociologistAlfred Weber, the brother of well-known sociologistMax Weber, andEmil Lederer.[7] In 1926, Mannheim had hishabilitation accepted by the faculty of social sciences, thus satisfying the requirements to teach classes in sociology at Heidelberg. Mannheim was chosen over other competitors for the post, one of whom wasWalter Benjamin. From 1929 to 1933, he served as a professor of sociology and political economy at theGoethe University Frankfurt.[6][8]Norbert Elias andHans Gerth worked as his assistants from spring 1930 until spring 1933, with Elias as the senior partner.Greta Kuckhoff, who later became a prominent figure in the DDR, was his administrative assistant in Frankfurt, leaving early in 1933 to study at theLondon School of Economics (LSE) and prepare for Mannheim's emigration there.[9]
In 1933, Mannheim was ousted from his professorship under the terms of the anti-Semitic law to purge the civil service and was forced into exile.[10] After fleeing theNazi regime and settling in Britain, Mannheim became a lecturer insociology at theLondon School of Economics, under a program to assist academic exiles.[6]
In 1941,Sir Fred Clarke, Director of theInstitute of Education at theUniversity of London, invited him to teach sociology at the institute on a part-time basis in conjunction with his declining role at LSE under wartime conditions. In January 1946 he was appointed as the first sociology professor at the Institute of Education, a position he held until his death in London a year later. During his time in England, Mannheim played a prominent role in 'The Moot', a Christian discussion group of whichT.S. Eliot was also a member, concerned with the role of religion and culture in society, which was convened byJ. H. Oldham.[11] He also gained a position of influence through his editorship of the Routledge International Library of Sociology and Social Reconstruction (later the International Library of Sociology).
Mannheim's life, one of intellectual and geographical migration, falls into three main phases: Hungarian (to 1919), German (1919–1933), British (1933–1947). He sought variously to synthesize elements derived from Germanhistoricism,Marxism,phenomenology,sociology, and Anglo-Americanpragmatism. Among his sources of inspiration wereGyörgy Lukács,Oszkár Jászi,Georg Simmel,Martin Heidegger,Edmund Husserl,Karl Marx,Alfred andMax Weber,Max Scheler, andWilhelm Dilthey.
Mannheim died in London on January 9, 1947, at the age of 53 due to a congenitally weak heart.[6] Shortly before his death, he was invited to be director ofUNESCO, an offer he was unfortunately not able to accept.[12] He was cremated atGolders Green Crematorium and his ashes were placed in the columbarium there in an urn, and later mixed with those of his wife. He was originally placed oppositeSigmund Freud as a planned pairing, but Freud was later relocated.
Mannheim was a precocious scholar and an accepted member of several influential intellectual circles in Budapest. In the autumn of 1915, he was the youngest founding member[13] of theSonntagskreis (Sunday Circle) alongsideBéla Balázs, Lajos Fülep, and György Lukács, where a wide range of literary and philosophical topics were discussed.[14] Some discussion focused on the enthusiasms of German diagnosticians of cultural crisis, but also the novels ofFyodor Dostoyevsky and the writings ofSøren Kierkegaard and theGerman mystics. He also participated in the Social Science Association, which was founded by Oszkár Jászi in 1919 and was interested above all in French and English sociological writings. Mannheim's Hungarian writings, notably his doctoral dissertation "Structural Analysis of Epistemology",[5] anticipate his lifelong search for "synthesis" between these currents.
According to sociologist Brian Longhurst, the Sonntagskreis "rejected any 'positivist' or 'mechanist' understanding of society and was dissatisfied with the existing political arrangements in Hungary. The way forward was seen to be through the spiritual renewal entailed in a revolution in culture".[5] The group members were discontented with the political and intellectual composition of Hungary, but "they rejected amaterialist Marxist critique of this society. Hungary was to be changed by a spiritual renewal led by those who had reached a significant level of cultural awareness".[5] Yet they did not exclude Marxist themes and Mannheim's work was influenced by Lukács's later turn to Marxism; for example, he credits Marx as a key source of the sociology of knowledge.[15]
In this second phase, Mannheim turned from philosophy to sociology, to inquire into the roots of culture. In the early part of his stay in Germany, Mannheim published his doctoral dissertation "Structural Epistemology of Knowledge", which discusses his theory of the structure ofepistemology, the "relations between the knower, the known and the to be known…for Mannheim based on psychology, logic and ontology".[5] Sociologist Brian Longhurst explains that his work onepistemology represents the height of his early "idealist" phase, and transition tohermeneutic "issues of interpretation within culture".[5]
In this essay, Mannheim introduces "thehermeneutic problem of the relationship between the whole and the parts". He considers the differences between art, the natural sciences, and philosophy "with respect to truth claims", stating that science always tries to disprove one theory, where art never does this and can coexist in more than one worldview; philosophy falls in between the two extremes. Mannheim posits the "danger of relativism", in which the historical process yields cultural products: "if thought to be relative to a historical period, it may be unavailable to a historical period".[5]
Mannheim's ambitious attempt to promote a comprehensive sociological analysis of the structures of knowledge was treated with suspicion by some members of theFrankfurt School, based in the Institute for Marxism directed byMax Horkheimer.[16] They saw the rising popularity of the sociology of knowledge as neutralization and betrayal of Marxism. Arguments between Mannheim and Horkheimer played out in faculty forums, like the Kant Gesellschaft and Paul Tillich's Christian Socialist discussion group.
Horkheimer's Institute at the time was best known for the empirical work it encouraged, and several of Mannheim's doctoral students used its resources. While the conflict between Mannheim,Adorno and Horkheimer looms large in retrospect, Mannheim's most active contemporary competitors were in fact other academic sociologists, notably the proto-fascistLeipzig professorHans Freyer, and the proponent of formal sociology and leading figure in the profession at the time,Leopold von Wiese.[17]
Mannheim's theory on the sociology of knowledge is based on some of the epistemological discoveries ofImmanuel Kant. Sociology of knowledge is known as a section of the greater field known as thesociology of culture. Sociology of culture is defined as study of the relationship between culture and society.[18]
There are two main branches of sociology of culture: a moderate branch and a radical branch. The moderate branch is represented byMax Scheler, who believed that social conditions do not affect the content of knowledge. The radical branch, on the contrary, highlighted that society is determined by all aspects of culture. When it came to the sociology of knowledge, Mannheim believed that it established a dependence of knowledge on social reality.[18] Though Mannheim was far from being a Marxist, sociology of knowledge was largely based on Marx's theories regarding classes.[19]
Mannheim's central question of the sociology of knowledge, which tried to understand the relationship between society and knowledge, demonstrated his endeavors to solve the issue of "historical nature and unity of mind and life."[18] Mannheim affirmed the sociology of knowledge as an "extrinsic interpretation and sets apart from the immanent interpretation of thought products."[18] The immanent interpretation is based on one's understanding of intellectual content, which is limited to theoretical content of knowledge and the extrinsic interpretation is based on the capability to understand manifestations.[18]
Knowing the difference between these two types of interpretations helped Mannheim create a place for the sociology of knowledge in the scientific system, thus leaving the sociology of knowledge to stand opposite of the traditional human sciences and to interpret knowledge through an exploration of social reality.[18] Mannheim claimed that the sociology of knowledge has to be understood as the visionary expression of "historical experience which has social reality at its vital center."[18]
In 1920, a series of his essays were published in Germany under the nameEssays in Sociology of Knowledge. These essays focused on the search for the meaning behind social reality, the notion of "truth" and the role of the empirical intellectual in search for these truths.[12] Another collection of his essays,Essays in Sociology of Culture, was posthumously published in 1956. It basically served to merge his concern with social reality and democracy. According to Mannheim, ideology was linked to a notion of reality, meanwhile culture focuses more so on the mind of the individual and how it perceives that reality, both, however, "still concerned with the role of the intelligentsia."[12]
Mannheim's work was written mostly through amacrosociological lens. While writingIdeology and Utopia Mannheim's fundamental questions were "why does man behave differently in the framework of different social group and class structures".[12] In answering this question, his intellectual contribution to sociology was focused more on social problems than on sociological problems.[12] The consolidation of his work focused on topics such as "social stability, social groups and the psychic differentials corresponding to social status or class cleavages".[12] To Mannheim the public was essential and fundamental to a democratic society. Therefore, assuring that not one ideology dictate all of the public is vital for the preservation of democracy.
In his British phase Mannheim attempted a comprehensive analysis of the structure of modern society by way of democratic social planning and education. Mannheim's first major work published during this period wasMan and Society in an Age of Reconstruction 1935, in which he argues for a shift from the liberal order of laissez-faire capitalism, "founded on the unregulated trade cycle, unextended democracy, free competition and ideas of competitive individualism" to planned democracy.[5]
InDiagnosis of Our Time, Mannheim expands on this argument and expresses concern for the transition from liberal order to planned democracy, according to Longhurst, arguing "...the embryonic planned democratic society can develop along democratic or dictatorial routes...as expressed in the totalitarian societies of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union".[5] His work was admired more by educators, social workers, and religious thinkers than it was by the small community of British sociologists. His books on planning nevertheless played an important part in the political debates of the immediate post-war years, both in the United States and in several European countries.
Mannheim's sociological theorizing has been the subject of numerous book-length studies, evidence of an international interest in his principal themes. Mannheim was not the author of any work he himself considered a finished book, but rather of some fifty major essays and treatises, most later published in book form. In Spain his theories were followed byArtur Juncosa Carbonell.
Quotations related toKarl Mannheim at Wikiquote
