Editing Karl Mannheim (section)

== Sociological work ==

=== Hungarian phase (1919) ===
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<ref>Lemert, Charles. "Social Theory: The Multicultural and Classic Readings." Wesleyan University.</ref> of the [[Sonntagskreis]] (Sunday Circle) alongside [[Béla Balázs]], Lajos Fülep,  and György Lukács, where a wide range of literary and philosophical topics were discussed.<ref name=gluck>Mary Gluck (1985) [https://books.google.com/books?id=TUdmFkDoIGUC&pg=PA15 ''Georg Lukács and His Generation, 1900-1918'']. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. pp. 14–16</ref> Some discussion focused on the enthusiasms of German diagnosticians of cultural crisis, but also the novels of [[Fyodor Dostoyevsky]] and the writings [[Søren Kierkegaard]] and of the [[German mystic]]s.  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,"<ref name="Longhurst"/> anticipate his lifelong search for "synthesis" between these currents.

According to the sociologist 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".<ref name="Longhurst"/> The group members were discontented with the political and intellectual composition of Hungary, but "they rejected a [[Materialism|materialist]] 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".<ref name="Longhurst"/>  Yet they did not exclude Marxist themes and Mannheim's work was influenced by Lukács' later turn to Marxism, for example he credits Marx as a key source of the sociology of knowledge.<ref name="Ryan">Ryan, Michael. "Karl Mannheim", ''Encyclopedia of Social Theory'', pp. 469.</ref>

=== German phase (1919–1933) ===
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 of [[epistemology]], the "relations between the knower, the known and the to be known…for Mannheim based on psychology, logic and ontology".<ref name="Longhurst"/> Sociologist Brian Longhurst explains that his work on [[epistemology]] represents the height of his early "idealist" phase, and transition to [[hermeneutic]] "issues of interpretation within culture".<ref name="Longhurst"/>

In this essay, Mannheim introduces "the [[hermeneutic]] 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"<ref name="Longhurst"/>

Mannheim's ambitious attempt to promote a comprehensive sociological analysis of the structures of knowledge was treated with suspicion by some members of the [[Frankfurt School]], based in the Institute for Marxism directed by [[Max Horkheimer]].<ref>Wiggershaus, R. (1994) ''The Frankfurt School'', Cambridge, Polity, pp50-1</ref> 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, [[Theodor W. Adorno|Adorno]] and Horkheimer looms large in retrospect, Mannheim's most active contemporary competitors were in fact other academic sociologists, notably the proto-fascist [[Leipzig]] professor, [[Hans Freyer]], and the proponent of formal sociology and leading figure in the profession at the time, [[Leopold von Wiese]].<ref>See Loader, C. and Kettler, D. (2002) ''Karl Mannheim's Sociology as Political Education'', New Brunswick NJ, Transaction Books.</ref>

==== Theory of the sociology and of knowledge, sociology of culture ====

Mannheim's theory on the sociology of knowledge is based on some of the epistemological discoveries of [[Immanuel Kant]].  Sociology of knowledge is known as a section of the greater field known as the [[sociology of culture]]. The idea of sociology of culture is defined as the relationship between culture and society.<ref name="Remmling">Remmling, Gunter W. "Karl Mannheim: Revision of an Intellectual Portrait." Social Forces, Vol. 40, No. 1 (Oct., 1961), pp. 23-30.</ref>

There are two main branches of sociology of culture: a moderate branch and a radical branch. The moderate branch is represented by [[Max 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.<ref name="Remmling" /> Though Mannheim was far from being a Marxist, sociology of knowledge was largely based on Marx's theories regarding classes.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Sociological Theory|last=Ritzer|first=George|publisher=McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.|year=2008|location=New York|pages=213–214}}</ref>

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."<ref name="Remmling" /> Mannheim affirmed the sociology of knowledge as an "extrinsic interpretation and sets apart from the immanent interpretation of thought products."<ref name="Remmling" /> 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.<ref name="Remmling" />

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.<ref name="Remmling" /> 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."<ref name="Remmling" />

In 1920, a series of his essays were published in Germany under the name ''Essays 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.<ref name=":02" /> 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."<ref name=":02" />

==== ''Ideology and Utopia'' (1929) ====
{{Excerpt|Ideology and Utopia|hat=no}}

==== Mannheim and [[Macrosociology|macro-sociology]] ====

Mannheim's work was written mostly through a macrosociological lens. While writing ''Ideology and Utopia'' Mannheim's fundamental questions were "why does man behave differently in the framework of different social group and class structures."<ref name=":02"/> In answering this question, his intellectual contribution to sociology was focused more on social problems than sociological problems.<ref name=":02" /> 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."<ref name=":02" /> 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.

=== British phase (1933–1947) ===
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 was ''Man 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.<ref name="Longhurst"/>

In ''Diagnosis 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".<ref name="Longhurst"/> 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.