National Library

National Library Bibliothèque nationale 1*1 of Canada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie SeMces sewices bibliographiques 395 WeUington Street 395, rue Wellington OttawaON KIA ON4 Ottawa ON KIA ON4 Canada Canada Ywrme vom drérrmce Our nle Narre r$Ylmc% The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Lhrary of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distn'bute or sell reproduire, prêter, distdmer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la fome de microfiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique. The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in tbis thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis mr substantial eacts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or othemise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. iii Table of Contents Abstract . Table of Contents. iii Acknowledgements Chapter 1. Introduction Chapter II. Kat1 Mannheimts Sociology of Knowledge Chapter III. The Interwar Reception (A) The Contours of Interwar American Sociolow 33 (B) Critics and Suooorters 1929-1940 (1) Scheltinq (2) Grünwald (3) Speier (4) Wirth (5) Mills (C) Comments on the Interwar Period 90 Chapter IV. The Postrar Period 1945-1960 (1) Kecskemeti (2) Merton Chapter V. Comments and Camparisons in the Mannheim Debate Bibliography 143 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, 1 would like to thank Dr. Gregory Blue for his generous assistance and guidance in the preparation of this thesis. Our many conversations and his helpful criticisms were invaluable in guiding me through a cornplex and diversified subject that often seemed dauntingly broad. Secondly, 1 would like to thank my other committee members Dr. Paul Wood and Dr. M. Campbell for their many helpful comments. I also wish to acknowledge the University of Victoria for its support in the preparation of this thesis. Chapter 1. Introduction In this thesis I will be examining the response of sociologists in American to Karl Mannheim's program for a sociology of knowledge. The debate about Mannheim's program will be traced historically and examined through the works of several of the debatefs participants. As a necessary part of this examination 1 will. be investigating Mannheim's sociology of knowledge, first through a brief introductory summary of his views, then through a presentation and assessrnent of the views of American participants in the debate. It should be noted that this was an important debate in early American sociology, and limitations of space prevent a full examination of al1 the commentators who took part. Nor will it be possible to examine al1 aspects of the debate or its continuation after 1960.' Mannheim's theory, first propounded in the 19201s, postulated that knowledge was socially connected and socially constructed. He asserted that knowledge was a l Volker Meja and Nico Stehr identify the Streit um die Wissenssoziolosie, (the sociology of knowledge dispute), as one of the major disputes of the interwar period in German sociology. They identify more than thirty major papers that were published in direct response to Mannheim's work in Volker Meja and Nico Stehr, Knowledse and Politics (London: Routledge, 1990), p. i, 3. Also see Volker Meja and Nico Stehr eds. Der Streit um die Wissenssoziolosie (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1982). Lee Congdon asserted that the "Mannheim debate was a major event in the history of modern social thoughtf'in Lee Congdon, Exile and Social Thouqht: Hunqarian Intellectuals in Germanv and Austria 1919-1933 (Princeton: Princeton U. Press, 1991), p. 296. social, historical artifact tied to existential factors and partici;larized by different social/historical groups. The American debate that these assertions stimulated was part of a longer and larger debate which can be traced back in Western intellectual history to insights such as Francis Bacon's notion of "idol~."~This notion traced intellectual errors to human nature (idols of the tribe), individual biases (idols of the cave), social influences (idols of the market-place) and false philosophies (idols of the theatre). The immediate antecedents of Mannheim's sociology on the American scene were Marxism, with its outlook of critical debunking and its philosophy of history, and Durkheimian sociology with its interest in the relationship between the form of social organization and categories of thought.' In America Mannheim's thesis followed half a century of similar theoretical movements in Pragmatism, social behaviourism and in~trumentalism.~These American ' Francis Bacon, Novum Orqanum, Book I (1620) p. 39-44. Kurt H. Wolff, "The Sociology of Knowledge and Sociological Theory" Svm~osiumon Sociolo~icalTheorv, ed. Llewellyn Gross. (New York: Row, Peterson and Co., 1959) p. 568. In this article Wolff examined and defended Mannheim's approach to a sociology of knowledge. Wolff noted that although Durkheim was very influential in America his work had little influence on either Max Scheler or Mannheim. Kurt H, Wolff, "The Sociology of Knowledge and Sociological Theory" p. 569. Wolff also criticized American sociology for its preoccupation with "rather ahistorical forma1 'structural' relations" and noted that Mannheim's sociology of knowledge with its historical realisrn might assist in the formation of a historical theory of society. 3 movements, with their orientation towards practical and amelioristic ends, dealt with the central problem of the relationship between society and intellectual life. Mannheim's importance to American sociology can also be related to what Lewis Coser called the "unsatisfactory state" of American sociology in the 1930's especially in regard to its tendency towards "simple minded empiricism".' The time periods covered by this thesis will be the period of 1929-1940 and the post-war period of 1945-60. The first period selected is the period when Mannheim made his major presentation of his sociology of knowledge, first in the Germa Ideoloqie und Utopie (1929) and then in a revised English version entitled Ideolow and Uto~ia(1936). The war years were then skipped over because European theoretical sociological work almost ceased and American sociology was largely diverted to war-related activities. The second period exarnined, loosely corresponding to the rise of American post-war hegpmony and American dominance in western sociology, saw a reassessment of Mannheim's work. The continuing debate about Mannheim is important to sociology because Mannheim's thesis (if accepted) would extend the discipline to form a general science and because its epistemological implications would affect the Lewis A, Coser, "Merton's Uses of the European Sociological Tradition," The Idea of Social Structure: Papers in Honor of Robert K. Merton ed. Lewis A. Coser (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovish, 1975), p. 87. methodology of so~iology.~It is noteworthy that German emigré writers were prominent participants in this American debate, and their influence underlines the European influences in American sociology during the interwar years. In this regard we can note that Talcott Parsons and R. K. Merton, two of America's most prominent sociologists, founded their careers on the introduction of European writers to America. The sociology of knowledge debate in America can reasonably be said to have started with the publication of the English translation of Mannheim's book in 1936.? At this time Mannheim- proposa1 of a sociology of knowledge was met with interest and controversy. The central issue of contention was the dispute over how the validity of knowledge should be determined. (Whether it could be determined was also an issue.) This controversy, played out in sociology and to a lesser extent in the discipline of history, dealt with some of the same issues raised in the more recent debate on postmodernism. The debate examined here was important because it called into question the general directions of American sociologyls development, Benjamin Walter, IlThe Sociology of Knowledge and the Problem of ObjectivitytlSociolosical Theorv: Inauires and Paradims, ed. Llewellyn Gross, p.335. Walters commented ''Of treatises on the sociology of knowledge there is no end. The catalogued list of scholarly books, articles, and monographs is already immense and the conclusion is not yet in sight." ' Kurt K. Wolff, Tryincr Socioloav (New York: John Wiley & sons, 1974) p. 611. because it raised the issue of the relationship between politics and sociology, and most importantly because it waç a response to the intellectual problems of a new and in some ways radical theory of knowledge. In this thesis 1 will be examining a selection of authors who addressed major issues in the debate. These authors were selected because they focused on the theoretical problems raised by Mannheim's thesis and because they where important figures who interacted in an ongoing debate. Alexander von Schelting, Ernst Grünwald, and Hans Speier were selected because they were contemporaries of Mannheim who raised important criticisms of his work. Louis Wirth and C. W. Mills were selected because they were contemporary supporters of Mannheim and answered some of the criticisms raised against him. Karl Kecskemeti was a post- war supporter of Mannheim who attempted to place him in the sociological canon. R. K. Merton also attempted to place Mannheim in the canon after the war although in a more critical manner. We cm also note that Merton went on to found the sociology of science an area related to the sociology of kno~ledge.~ Due to limitations of space and the focus of this thesis, the selection has been limited to theoretical sociologists. This restricted selection should not be taken Charles Lemert, Sociolow After the Crisis (Boulder: Westview Press, 1995) p.76. 6 as a exhaustive profile of the debate, which involved other sociologists as well as participants from many other disciplines.

Load more