Bio: (1893-1947) Hungarian-German-British sociologist and philosopher. Karl Mannheim studied at the universities of Budapest, Freiburg, Berlin, Paris, and Heidelberg. His doctoral thesis, which was done at the University of Budapest, was later published as a book entitled Structures of Thinking (1980, in German 1922). After the end of the First World War, Mannheim moved from Hungary to Germany where he taught at the University of Heidelberg and Goethe University in Frankfurt. Due to the coming to power of the Nazis in Germany, he moved again in 1933, this time to Great Britain. In Britain, he taught at the London School of Economics and the University of London.

                                  Sociology of Knowledge

Mannheim's intellectual work was influenced by many sociologists and philosophers: Lukács, Heinrich Rickert, Max Weber, Alfred Weber, Karl Marx, and Georg Simmel. At the beginning of the 1920s, his studies and interests shifted from philosophy to sociology, and above all, to the sociology of knowledge. This is the topic he studies in the article "The Problem of the Sociology of Knowledge" (1925) and the book Ideology and Utopia (1936, in German 1929). Mannheim defined the sociology of knowledge as the study of “the relationship between human thought and the conditions of existence in general.” The two main theses of Mannheim's sociology of knowledge are: 1) the validity of the practical application of knowledge is relative to its capacity to provide legitimacy to social order; 2) the social conditionality of knowledge (knowledge that standard methodological criteria assess as valid) can be examined by examining whether the practical application of that knowledge reproduces and/or creates the standards themselves, through which (standards) the validity of that knowledge is assessed.

Mannheim considered Marx to be the forerunner of the sociology of knowledge. In his approach to the sociology of knowledge, Mannheim advocates an extrinsic perspective, that is, the perspective of an impartial sociologist. He emphasized the importance of empirical research on the sociology of knowledge because the activities of individual actors represent a link between the empirical social world and knowledge. In addition, he emphasized the importance of historical research in discovering how social conditions create knowledge, but also how knowledge and ideas condition social change. His approach was not positivist but based on phenomenology and historicism. Phenomenology questions the applicability of formal logic and, instead, seeks to understand intrinsically how individuals experience the world and how that image affects their social experience. Historicism emphasizes the view that different ways of knowing are characteristic of the historical circumstances in which they arose.

Mannheim believed that there was a big difference between relativism and relationalism. While relativism views all knowledge as relative, and therefore there are no universal ways to assess the validity of knowledge, on the other hand, relationalism believes that all phenomena are interconnected and that there is a possibility of assessing the validity of knowledge in relation to a particular social situation and historical moment. Mannheim was an advocate of relationalism, because this approach gives the possibility of reaching the truth, while at the same time accepting the particularity of such knowledge concerning the context in which it arises. Relationalism enables the sociology of knowledge to create knowledge that can be used in a normative or non-normative way. He believes that the inadequacy of a normative order stems from an attempt to apply norms that were once applicable, but do not apply to changed historical circumstances.

One of the key concepts of Mannheim's sociology of knowledge is "worldview" (Weltanschauung), a term that denotes the set of all ideas that exist in a historical period or in a social group. The worldview is in a constant process of creation and change. The ideas that make up the worldview represent a system whose parts are reciprocally interconnected, and thus, the worldview represents more than the simple sum of its constituent parts. Each idea within the worldview can be analyzed separately to better understand the whole. Mannheim singles out three ways in which one can approach the meaning that exists within the worldview of society: 1) objective meaning - intrinsic meaning that is explored objectively, without entering into one's motives; 2) expressive meaning - extrinsic or symbolic meaning, which pays attention to the motives of the actors; and 3) documentary meaning - is the product of the interpretation of external observers. Documentary meaning is the best basis for an analysis focused on understanding how an individual idea fits into a broader worldview.

                                   Ideology and Utopia

Mannheim's approach to ideology stems from his sociology of knowledge. Meinheim's sociology of cognition is largely based on a critique of Marx's view of ideology and other patterns of the social superstructure. Marx believed that the real (material) social conditions of existence shape the social superstructure. Ideology, as part of a social superstructure, represents a conscious attempt by the ruling class to create a false image of reality, to protect its own power and interests. On the other hand, Mannheim believed that certain social groups create distorted images of reality without the conscious intention to establish hegemonic control, instead, such images are a product of the living conditions of that group, and therefore reflect their image of the world and protect their interests. The sources of such ideologies can be different, from economic to generational, racial, gender, etc. Ideology, in his opinion, is a type of worldview that uses the past to create a distorted image of the present.

He also introduces the difference between “particular ideologies” and “total ideologies”. Particular ideologies represent the values ​​and interests of particular groups and were created to present a distorted picture of reality; while large socio-historical groups have total ideologies and they were not created to present a distorted picture of reality. Marx dealt only with particular ideologies, while Mannheim mostly studied total ideologies. Mannheim distinguishes ideologies from utopias since utopias create a picture of reality by imagining an idealized picture of the future. However, the distinction between ideology and utopia is often blurred, because the success or failure of groups representing certain utopias affects whether they will be transformed into ideologies. Utopias encourage action and social change, so if a group representing a utopia comes to power, then its system of ideas ceases to be a utopia and becomes an ideology. The task of the sociology of cognition is to determine whether a system of ideas, be it ideology or utopia, contains a distorted picture of reality and to examine the causes that led to the creation of such a distorted picture. The main source of ideologies is the mutual struggle between different ideas and groups that represent them.

Mannheim expressed fear that in the modern world, both ideologies and utopias are losing their strength, however, he had high hopes for the autonomous intelligentsia, as a group that has the potential to generate new ideologies. In modern society, the intelligentsia has become separated from its own class position, so it forms an autonomous group whose views of the world are constantly changing. This allows it to join and support different ideologies and political parties. Mannheim believed that the intelligentsia has the ability and mandate to understand the true condition of society and to interpret it for the rest of society; and that it has a special role in finding the right solutions, under which it will revolutionize society.

In Weber's footsteps, Mannheim continued to study rationality, so he introduced the difference between “substantial rationality” and “functional rationality”. Substantial rationality is more phenomenological and it represents an understanding of the interdependence of factors in a particular situation, so this kind of rationality is a source of creativity and originality. Substantial irrationality represents the absence of substantive rationality and is characterized by impulsive and emotional responses to a specific situation. Functional rationality is more empirical and it enables people to achieve, a pre-set goal, in an efficient way. Functional irrationality encompasses any action that prevents the practical achievement of a goal.

The ideology of conservatism was also the subject of Mannheim's thorough study. He believed that conservatism arose as a reaction to the Enlightenment's efforts to introduce rationalization into society. Conservatives, contrary to the ideals of the age of reason, sought to preserve the religious view of the world. Conservatives not only wanted to preserve customs and values ​​as they were before, as traditionalists aspired to, but they also actively sought to shape those old customs and values ​​to be more receptive to modern generations. As an example, he cites the attempt of romanticism in Germany to present feudal institutions in a new and positive light.

                             Critique of Liberal Democracy

While working in Britain, Mannheim began to study the crisis of liberal democracy and concluded that it was necessary to introduce planning in democratic societies. In addition, he began to study the sociology of education. During that period, the books Man and Society in the Age of Reconstruction (1940, in German 1935), Diagnosis of our Time (1943), and Freedom, Power and Democratic Planning (1951) were written. Mannheim saw "democratic planning" as an alternative to free-market capitalism, on the one hand, and fascism and totalitarianism, on the other. Such "control of control" was supposed to prevent the coming to power of fascist regimes in democratic societies. The key role in democratic planning was to be played by the education system, which would prepare citizens to become active defenders of democracy.

The education system would achieve this by educating young people about the importance of accepting and respecting other people's worldviews, and by promoting the protection of fundamental human rights. Sociology would play the most important role in such education because it would help ordinary people to understand how complex social institutions function. Democracy, in his view, should promote the ontological equality of all individuals, support the autonomy of individuals, but also instill in them a sense of social responsibility and establish adequate methods for elite selection. On the other hand, as a threat to democracy, he saw mass popular movements, which, in periods when democracy is separated from rationality, can lead to a crowd mentality and undemocratic consequences.

Main works

Die Strukturanalyse der Erkenntnistheorie (1922);

Ideologie und Utopie (1929);

Die Gegenwartsaufgaben der Soziologie (1932);

Mensch und Gesellschaft im Zeitalter des Umbaus (1935);

Diagnosis of our Time (1943);

Freedom, Power and Democratic Planning (1951);

Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge (1952);

Essays on the Sociology of  Culture (1956);

Wissenssoziologie: Auswahl aus dem Werk (1964);

Strukturen des Denkens (1980);

Konservatismus: Ein Beitrag zur Soziologie des Wissens (1984);

Collected Works of Karl Mannheim, 9. Vol. (2014);

An Introduction to the Sociology of Education (2021).

Works translated into English:

Ideology and Utopia (1936, in German 1929);

Structures Of Thinking (2013, in German 1980);

Man & Society in the Age Reconstruction (2013, in German 1935);

Conservatism (2007, in German 1984).