Download Download

International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology Vol. 29, No. 4s, (2020), pp. 913-924

The Sociology of Knowledge as a Means of Studying Knowledge Production: A Review of Asian and Western Scholars

Azizan Bin Had1 and Starry Garijih2 1Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Labuan International Campus

Abstract This paper analyses the Sociology of Knowledge (SoK) proposed by Karl Mannheim (1893-1947) and other scholars to provide a modified theory to the study of knowledge production and the product. It is hoped that the study of SoK theory could lead to the formation of a theory that could objectively explain why a person, organization acted the way they are and how they obtain knowledge. The paper also seeks to discuss the importance of major SoK terminology and conception such as the concept of ideology, utopia, objective and subjective reality, and power/knowledge. Beside Mannheim, the SoK theory was also assumed and expanded by other scholars such as Peter Berger in his work The Social Construction of Reality (Berger & Luckmann 1991). Another scholar who had a corresponding vision as Mannheim is Michel Foucault in his work Archeology of Knowledge (1972), The Order of Things (1994) and Discipline and Punishment: The Birth of the Prison (1977). The gradual interest in the theory of SoK in recent years can be identified in the works of Goldman (1994) who asserted how relevance Mannheim’s work to the social thought of modern times since it provides a detailed explanation of the causes, problems, and solutions to the theory of knowledge. Furthermore, Mannheim’s theory also offers a comprehensive explanation of how external factors define an individual’s thought (Drucker, 1972; Heeren, 1971; Tanner, 2009; Pels, 1997). The farsightedness of Mannheim’s theory goes beyond the years of his time and is still applicable today. The work of Peter Berger focusing on how reality affects a person’s thought and Michel Foucault, who explains the origin of knowledge has mostly shifted scholarly attention towards the importance of SoK and the study of epistemology of knowledge and its relation to reality. Asian scholars were also obligated to Mannheim as they have applied his theory to explain the past and current events that are linked to the socio-historical situation of Southeast Asia. The late Prof. Syed Hussein Alatas, for example, used Mannheim’s theory to write his magnum opus entitled Myth of the Lazy Native: A Study of the Image of the Malays, Filipinos and Javanese from the 16th to the 20th Century and its Function in the Ideology of Colonial Capitalism (1977b) which reveals colonial ideologies (a term used by Mannheim to refer to false knowledge or lies) in developing Southeast Asian nations.

Keywords: Sociology of Knowledge, Theory, Karl Mannheim, Peter Berger, Foucault, Hussein Alatas.

Introduction To better understand the idea of SoK, this paper looks into the idea of Karl Mannheim, who is the founder of SoK and the person who introduced the idea into the modern world. In his SoK theory, Mannheim uses and modifies earlier theories used by Karl Marx and Max Weber, to create a new subfield which emphasizes on ideology and the role of intellectuals. Even though Mannheim is not the first person who used the idea of SoK, his work is more understandable because it is written in English, as well as less philosophical than earlier SoK scholars such as Max Scheler (Berger & Luckmann, 1967). Additionally, it was Mannheim’s persistence that helped this subfield to establish itself and be considered as an important area of study (Ritzer, 2005). Mannheim wrote the original Ideology and Utopia at the time of intellectual

International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology Vol. 29, No. 4s, (2020), pp. 913-924 turmoil which later brought down the Weimar Republic.1 Critically looking at the situation in Germany at the time, Mannheim sets two ultimate goals for the ‘SoK’. Firstly, as a theory which seeks to analyze the relationship between knowledge and existence, the conditions and context in which the ideas were formed, and, secondly, as historical-sociological research, which seeks to trace the forms which this relationship has taken in the intellectual development of mankind (Mannheim, 1954). Mannheim argues that the idea came about to explain the social ties between the theories and modes of thinking. It aims at finding a workable criterion for determining thought and action. “It hopes to develop a theory, appropriate to the contemporary situation, concerning the significance of the non-theoretical conditioning factors in knowledge” (Goldman, 1994).

Sociology of Knowledge: A Background

Mannheim’s definition of ideology is the result of his research and observation of Karl Marx’s theory of ideology. In fact, he credited Marx with creating a so-called ‘forerunner’ to his ‘SoK’ (Ritzer, 2005). Marx’s basic ideas can be seen in Mannheim’s work where Marx explains “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness” (Marx, 2000). The idea was further explained by Frederick Engels, who explained that what is proposed by Marx leads to “highly revolutionary consequences, not only in the theoretical sphere but also in the practical sphere” (Engels, 2000). Marx and Engels were both referring to the same situation where a person is somewhat connected to his social structure to determine his existence which later was expanded by Mannheim in his book. Although Mannheim credited Marx with reintroducing the concept, he explicitly tried to differentiate what he means by ideology as compared to Marx’s (Mannheim, 1954) (Marx & Engels, 1994). Marx used the word ‘ideology’ to explain the way his opponents think and relate it to their socio-historical setting (Karl Marx, 2000).2 In other words, Marx used his theory of ideology as a way to knock down his opponents. In addition, the distinctions between Mannheim and Marx lie in the contrasting attitude toward the material they sought to analyzes and their considerably divergent motives and aims. Mannheim, seeking to elaborate ‘SoK’, attempted to transcend what Marx used to define his ideology such as status, class, sub-cultural and cultural confines, and identifications, to forge an analytical tool for the objective investigation of ideologies while Marx, elaborated methodological tools that were intimately associated with a particularistic ideological position; and he employed these tools in exploring the general process of historical change (Bash, 1964).

Furthermore, it can be argued that Mannheim’s aim is formulating a social-scientific method, without any trace of Marx’s ideology, for the analysis of perspectives as they relate to socio-historical processes; while Marx uses the term ideology as a technique to discover and also to “effect alignment with, the direction of future historical development” (Bash, 1964). Mannheim also criticized Marx’s method on the grounds that his conception of ideology does not go far enough. He called Marx's conception of ideology ‘the particular conception of ideology’ and considers it primarily a critical approach to the problem of the social nature of thought (Vulpe, 1993). Mannheim stated that he speaks of Marx’s conception of ideology as ‘particular’ because “it always refers only to specific assertions which may be regarded as concealments, falsifications, or lies without attacking the integrity of the total mental structures of the asserting subject” (Mannheim, 1954). Mannheim goes beyond this particular type of

1 Ideology and Utopia was first published in 1929, about four years before the dissolution of the Weimar Republic in Germany after the First World War. 2 According to Marx, humans formed in their brains what he called ‘phantoms’ which are also necessarily, sublimates of their material life-process, which is empirically verifiable and bound to material premises. He argues that “morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the semblance of independence. They have no history, no development; but men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with this their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking” (Marx 2000).

International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology Vol. 29, No. 4s, (2020), pp. 913-924 ideology to the one he calls the ‘total’ concept of ideology or ‘perspectivism’, where he believes that the study of such a style of thinking is the object of his ‘SoK’ (Mannheim, 1954).

According to Mannheim, the particular conception of ideology implied when a person is being skeptics of the ideas forwarded by his opponent whether it is an individual, groups or organization. From this point of view, we are looking at the person’s idea merely as a disguise or falsification of his true nature of interest. Mannheim called this a ‘distortion’ rather than simply lies and it can gradually become clear when it is contrasted with the total conception of ideology (Mannheim, 1954). The total conception of ideology for Mannheim is somewhat different in its scope where it deals with the ideology of a certain time in history or a historical-social group and it is concerned with the characteristics and composition of the total structure of the mind of the people or group in this certain time frame (Mannheim, 1954). Mannheim gives common and distinct elements in the two concepts, mainly because neither of the two concepts relies on what is said by the opponent to understand his real meanings and intention, therefore, to analyze it, we have to look into the social conditions, the life situation and character rather than the face value of the person or group who said it (Mannheim, 1954).

As explained above, Mannheim’s conception of the ‘SoK’ accentuates the importance of understanding the relationship between ideas and social conditions which happens in the development of human thought. In its most general form, the ‘SoK’ is the analysis of the sources and meanings of forms of knowledge in relation to the experience, institutions, traditions, practices, and positions of social groups and the individuals within those groups (Mannheim, 1954). In its most developed form, ‘SoK’ is an approach to knowledge production and its product, mediated by a unique philosophical detachment and a pointed understanding of social dynamics (Goldman, 1994). Furthermore, Mannheim holds that not only does the individual speak the language of his group, but he also thinks in the way his own group thinks. He has at his disposal only certain words and their standardized meanings (Mannheim, 1954). These to a large extent, govern his avenues of approach to the surrounding world. Individuals come to perceive the world and its objects in the way the group to which they belong (Phillips, 1974). Mannheim disagrees with the point that individuals form their own view of the world based solely on experiences because, to him, knowledge is a cooperative process in a group where everyone shares their experiences in facing everyday problems (Mannheim, 1954). The farsightedness of his thought lies in his application of modern theory where Mannheim used the same approach as was used by recent scholars such as Thomas Kuhn in his Structure of Scientific Revolutions where Kuhn used the term ‘paradigm’.

In addition to the total conception of ideology another important concept which is also important is the position that Mannheim calls ‘utopia’. According to Mannheim, the concept of ‘utopia’ existed when oppressed groups who are only interested in destructing or changing conditions in a society that they only see the negative elements in society. They were unable to correctly diagnose conditions in society because they are not interested in the current situation or the reality at hand but rather to change it. Furthermore, Mannheim argues that the utopian mentality unconsciously looks at the future and direct their attention toward it. It hides the reality and turns its back on everything that tends to ‘shake its belief or paralyze’ their desire for change (Mannheim, 1954).

In addition to Mannheim’s work, there are also similar theories that are useful and can be integrated into the theory. The works of Peter Berger and Michel Foucault are arguably useful in providing a more detailed explanation of Mannheim’s theory of ideology and utopia. Berger’s idea of objective and subjective reality provides us with the background needed to explain how knowledge comes to light. It is mainly used to support the scholars’ vision of utopia. In addition, Foucault’s power/knowledge relation is useful in explaining the conception of ideology of the ruling class. Therefore, the three main theories (from Mannheim, Berger, and Foucault) can be used to form a modified theory of knowledge which is essential in studying the problems of knowledge production. In his book The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge, Peter Berger

International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology Vol. 29, No. 4s, (2020), pp. 913-924 extended and revised Mannheim’s SoK theory. In addition, Berger & Luckmann (1991) argues that Mannheim’s conception of SoK is ‘far-reaching’ as compared to Max Scheler’s due to its confrontation with Marxism in Mannheim’s work. In addition, they believe that Mannheim’s work is less philosophical than Scheler’s and more exposed to an English-speaking audience. Berger also claims that the work is more radical than Scheler’s but still concerned with the term ‘ideology’. Peter Berger’s view of knowledge stresses the importance of ‘reality’ in contrast with the ‘ideals’ in the formulation of ‘SoK’. This proved to be a point of departure for ‘SoK’ as opposed to the ideas of Mannheim. Berger argues that the formation of concepts of reality, ‘whether they be scientific, philosophical or even mythological’, does not change what is ‘real’ for the members of society. He argues:

“Since this is so, the Sociology of Knowledge must first concern itself with what people "know" as "reality" in their everyday, non- or pre-theoretical lives. In other words, common sense "knowledge" rather than "ideas" must be the central focus for the SoK. It is precisely this "knowledge" that constitutes the fabric of meanings without which no society could exist. The Sociology of Knowledge, therefore, must concern itself with the social construction of reality.” (Berger & Luckmann 1991: 227).

Berger develops a more comprehensive idea of knowledge as coming from social reality. In his book The Social Construction of Reality, Berger states that knowledge comes from the interaction of individual and social structures, such as a society (Berger & Luckmann 1991). Therefore, the ‘SoK’ must analyze the process by which reality is socially constructed. In other words, Berger believes that ideas or weltanschauung (which has been used by Mannheim and Max Scheler) are not important compared to knowledge or everyday reality. Berger argues that the ‘SoK’ focuses too much on theoretical and scientific knowledge. He argues that theoretical knowledge is only a small portion of the conception of knowledge in a society and it is not important compared to “the sum total of what everybody knows’ about a social world, an assemblage of maxims, morals, proverbial nuggets of wisdom, values and beliefs, myths, and so forth” (Berger & Luckmann, 1991). He believes that only a limited number of people are interested in understanding theories of knowledge, as compared with other elements such as, customs, beliefs, institutions, social processes and so forth; elements which, of themselves, comprise a greater part of the knowledge base. Accordingly, Berger seeks to redefine the scope of ‘SoK’ to what people know about ‘reality’ as opposed to simple ideas or ideology.

Berger develops a sociological theory of what he calls ‘Society as objective reality and as subjective reality’ (1991). The notion of objective and subjective reality explains how a person tries to construct reality based on his understanding of the world and what happens in front of him. In other words, Berger tries to explain the process of reality in the real world and inside the mind of a person based on everyday events. In ‘objective reality’ a society is responsible for shaping a person’s knowledge through the process of socialization. The process of socialization happens in a social stock of knowledge which contains primary socialization, where ‘general knowledge’ is acquired, and secondary socialization, where ‘specific knowledge’ is acquired. His analysis of society as ‘subjective reality’ describes the process by which an individual's conception of reality is produced by his or her interaction with social structures. He writes about how new human concepts or inventions become a part of our reality through the process of ‘objectivity’. Often this reality is then no longer recognized as a human creation, through a process Berger calls ‘reification’.

Another theorist that is important to the paper is Michel Foucault, who is best known for his critical studies of social institutions, most notably psychiatry, medicine, the human sciences, and the prison system, as well as for his work on the history of human sexuality also explains how thought and language comes into existence in his book Archeology of Knowledge (1972). His writings on power, knowledge, and discourse have been widely discussed and taken up by others, including Edward Said and Asian scholars such as Syed Farid Alatas. Foucault's project is particularly influenced by Nietzsche, his "genealogy of knowledge" being a direct allusion to Nietzsche's "genealogy of morality" while he further

International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology Vol. 29, No. 4s, (2020), pp. 913-924 exclaimed that he is a Nietzschean (Macey, 1993). In a commemorative essay published on Foucault's death in 1984, Said commented on the hybrid and iconoclastic quality of Foucault's scholarship, “ironic, skeptical, savage in its radicalism, comic and amoral in its overturning of orthodoxies, idols, and myths” (Said, 1988). There is a resemblance in Foucault’s work when compared to the work of other SoK scholars such as Mannheim and Berger. However, each of the scholars’ works shows a unique form in terms of its presentation and focus on the subject. Mannheim’s work serves as a foundation to the ideas that came afterward as his work is basic in nature that explains his ideology beliefs and utopia as a result of his confrontation with Marxism. On the other hand, Foucault’s work uses the historical institution to prove his point on the differences of thinking between those who live in different ages, merely as a reflection of the true nature of society and people who live in it in current times. Contrastingly, Berger & Luckmann re-explain Mannheim’s work but focused more on how reality is constructed within a person.

Like Mannheim, Foucault’s theory of knowledge started with the basic question of epistemology, establishing what constitutes the cultural and historical preconditions of knowledge, and consequently, the epistemological foundations of culture. These included material and procedural conditions, more or less conscious rules for the development and use of knowledge, as well as those unconscious norms, predispositions, and “fundamental codes” that people of a certain culture share (Foucault, 1994). Detel in his book Foucault and Classical Antiquity (1998) claimed Foucault displayed a historical perspective on knowledge. He argues that Foucault’s main concern is to provide a historical description of how the fields of study and subjects of human science have taken shape, and how this process was interconnected with certain forms of power relationships. “It would seem that Foucault had some remarkable insights in mind, but also that his ideas were often terminologically unclear and unsystematic so that it often took a great deal of explicatory work to reconstruct them in a satisfactory form” (Detel, 1998:10).

By analyzing the social and cultural forces that both shapes thought and set limits on what it is possible to imagine Foucault addresses the question of how knowledge arises (1972). He explains about culture, in which one attempts to understand the thoughts, norms, or ‘codes’ of a person or a specific time period, by asking, ‘What makes it possible to think certain thoughts and not others’ (Housser, 1980)? Here, Foucault (1972) tries to show the differences that separate his work from that of the traditional history of science and the history of ideas. Foucault used the term ‘archeology’ to explain how thought comes out at different times with different constraints. Foucault’s idea is that every mode of thinking involves implicit rules (maybe not capable of being formulated by those following them) that materially restrict the range of thought. He believes that if we can uncover these rules, we will be able to see how an apparently arbitrary constraint actually makes total sense in the framework defined by those rules. 3 Foucault’s conceptualization of history is not hermeneutics; that is, it does not try to interpret what we hear and read in order to recover its deeper meaning. It deals with texts but treats them not as documents but, in the manner of an archeologist, like monuments. Foucault believes that our own thinking is also guided by the same principles.

Further, as Devereux Kennedy (1979) suggests, Foucault has distanced himself from the traditional perspectives of the ‘SoK’, where epistemological conditions are more or less synonymous with social and economic determinants (Kennedy, 1979). While social or economic factors may prove decisive in terms of where one stands in a particular dispute, the conditions that enable controversy to exist are not to be found within that group itself. Foucault stated:

3 Archaeologists of knowledge, in other words, do not ask what Descartes’ Meditations mean (that is, what ideas Descartes was trying to express in them). Rather, they use what Descartes – and many other writers, famous or not, of the same period – wrote as clues to the general structure of the system in which they thought and wrote. See Gutting (2005).

International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology Vol. 29, No. 4s, (2020), pp. 913-924

“Though membership of a social group can always explain why such and such a person chose one system of thought rather than another, the conditions enabling that system to be thought never resides in the existence of the group” (Foucault 1994:199-200).

Foucault suggests that we search for clues in the social processes (experiences in life) by which we construct knowledge, and the cultural and historical contexts within which knowledge is formed. In doing so, he attributes greater importance to social rather than material or technological conditions. Perhaps, for Foucault, the mind does not permeate the social context; but knowledge, its preconditions, and certainly its repercussions do (Housser, 1980). As we shall see in the later discussion of 'power/knowledge', Foucault sees knowledge as a creation of social interaction, and of communicative practices. Knowledge cannot be divorced from the larger cultural experience, or from the dynamic network of social traditions and personal relationships. Looking at Foucault’s idea, it is clear that Foucault and other SoK scholars are talking about the same thing, the relation between knowledge and social condition which creates knowledge, but compared to Mannheim (who are more interested in origin of ideas) and Berger and Luckmann (who are more interested in the social construction of reality), Foucault is more interested in the socio-historical context where ideas are created.

The same idea was also used by non-Western scholars to investigate the social situation of people from Southeast Asia. Syed Hussein Alatas is one of the foremost scholars who wrote about knowledge and society in Southeast Asia.4 In his writing, Hussein Alatas basically used Mannheim’s approach to knowledge in determining a person’s thoughts. This is clear in his idea of an autonomous social science in Asian countries and the use of SoK in studying the people of Southeast Asia. Hussein Alatas wrote mainly on the themes of intellectuals and education, colonialism and feudalism, and corruption. Hussein Alatas also claims that Karl Mannheim was one of the most important thinkers of our time and those who need to understand the problems faced by man and society, or of thought and human activity must also consider the work of Mannheim especially his contribution to human thinking. According to Hussein Alatas, among the contributions of Karl Mannheim is bringing to a higher and advanced stage what has come to be known as Wissenssoziologie or the Sociology of Knowledge (SH Alatas, 1955). In his book, The Myth of the Lazy Native: A Study of the Image of the Malays, Filipinos and Javanese from the 16th to the 20th Century and its Function in the Ideology of Colonial Capitalism, Hussein Alatas (1977b) personally admitted that his concept of ideology relies heavily on Mannheim’s concept of ideology.

Many scholars believe that Hussein Alatas’ work (1977b) represents a correct, up to date documentation of a historical situation. Hussein Alatas used ‘SoK’ to trace the roots of Western colonial’s idea in calling the local natives lazy or indolent. According to Edward Said (1993), Hussein Alatas’s book is exceptionally original in its own way. He compares it to Ranajit Guha’s book A Rule of Property for Bengal: An Essay on the Idea of Permanent Settlement, published in 1963, which also documents how European colonialism created the lazy native, who performed a crucial function in the calculations and advocacies of what Hussein Alatas calls colonial capitalism.

4 In his article ‘Syed Hussein Alatas: Wise Muslim Rationalist. Culturally Grounded Cosmopolitan’, Clive Kessler (2008) honored Alatas as an exemplar of rationalism and a pioneer of the project of ‘cultural enlightenment’ in modern Southeast Asia, a champion of “the party of humanity” based upon the universal human attribute of reason. Most scholars lauded Alatas work, The Myth of the Lazy Natives: A Study of the Image of the Malays, Filipinos and Javanese from the 16th to the 20th Century and its Function in the Ideology of Colonial Capitalism and his critique of Weber’s work on Southeast Asian religion, in Modernization and Social Change (1972), which was hailed by Victor King (1994) as, “an informed, subtle and historically grounded set of critiques of the issues and explores aspects of Weber's sociology of religion.” Others like Deborah Johnson (2009), believed that Alatas’ observation on the need for a ‘functional intellectual group’ due to prevailing mental colonization were ‘the best-known commentary’.

International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology Vol. 29, No. 4s, (2020), pp. 913-924

To justify his views on how colonialists used the connotation ‘lazy’ or ‘indolence’ to consolidate their position, Hussein Alatas defines ideology as “a system of beliefs characterized by the following traits: (a) it seeks to justify a particular political, social and economic order, (b) in this attempt, it distorts that part of the social reality likely to contradict its main presuppositions” (SH Alatas, 1977:1). The two traits show how Hussein Alatas was influenced by Marx and Mannheim in his idea of ideology. In an article written in 2005, Farid Alatas explains his father’s positive assessment and approach to Marx to his overall early experience in Indonesia and during his study at the University of Amsterdam, Netherland.5 Hussein Alatas also had written an article citing how socialism can be found in Islam (1977c). To elaborate his view on ideology, Hussein Alatas used Mannheim’s idea on ‘total ideologies’ and ‘particular ideologies’ as well as ‘ideologies of the ruling class’ (colonial powers) and ‘ideologies of the subjugated class’ (local people of Southeast Asia) which shaped his analysis of the situation in Southeast Asia during the colonial period. Hussein Alatas argues that the colonialist view on the two ideologies existed by citing examples of how the colonialist treated the local people of Southeast Asia. Hussein Alatas also believed that colonial capitalism was the new ‘point of view’ posited by Mannheim (1954) in his book Ideology and Utopia, which put the value of local indigenous people at the bottom of the list of community values, below the immigrant and European community.6 This, accordingly, was the reason British colonial rule employed immigrants from China for labor to increase the wealth of Malaya. They also viewed the Malay as “unprofitable and unsatisfactory members of the community” even though the Malays worked as administrators, in the police force, and as food producers. Furthermore, they totally undermined the role of Malays in Malaya and played down their contributions in developing the country during British rule (S Hussein Alatas, 1977b). In fact, it was the European intervention, in Southeast Asia, through their control of the seas, in order to monopolize trade, which resulted in the elimination of the local trading class in Southeast Asia especially in the 17th century.7 Chinese merchants, however, were unaffected by these moves as they were considered vital to the trade with China.

Even though many scholars regarded Hussein Alatas’ work (1977b) as original in describing the conditions of the native and colonialists in the 19th century, there are some scholars who regarded the book’s historical facts as inaccurate. Carey regarded the overall impression of Hussein Alatas’ work as a ‘slapdash one’ (Carey, 1982). He stated that the intriguing and provocative paper had been undermined by insufficient attention to detail and a tendency toward over-hasty generalizations. He stated this in accordance with Hussein Alatas’ assertion that by the end of the eighteenth-century Dutch power was in a position to dominate the entire archipelago, which is a grave distortion of the real facts. He argued:

“At that time, Dutch power was in fact at its lowest ebb and it was not until the end of the Java War (1825-1830) that it began to have a preponderant influence again in the region, and then only in Java and parts of Eastern Indonesia. He also tends to exaggerate the speed and comprehensiveness of the European destruction of the indigenous trading communities. Even as late as 1810, to take one example, the entire Franco-Dutch army in Java was still being equipped and accoutered entirely by local artisans. On another level, it seems strange now, that Dr. Alatas did not seek to test his arguments about the comparative

5 The brothers Hussein Alatas and Naquib al-Attas were born in Bogor, Indonesia where they traced their lineage to famous scholars and ʿulamā’s. They also had relations with the Johore royal family where their grandmother Ruqayah Hanum, a Turkish aristocrat was married to Sultan Abu Bakar (1895) of Johore’s brother, Ungku Abdul Majid. Ruqayah’s sister, Khadijah was married to the Sultan himself (Wan Mohd Nor 1998: 1-2). 6 Karl Mannheim (1954) stated that “in the development of a new point of view, one party plays the pioneering role, while other parties, in order to cope with the advantage of their adversary in the competitive struggle, must of necessity themselves make use of this point of view” (Mannheim 1954: 67). 7 With regard to the ‘European’ notion, I wish to stress that not all Europeans had the mindset of a colonialist (colonial practitioner or colonial agent). Many Europeans were drawn to the stage as participants. Stoler (1989) has written an article about European communities in Southeast Asia and the impact of colonial rule on the ‘other’ with regard to colonial middle class and workers (Stoler 1989: 152).

International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology Vol. 29, No. 4s, (2020), pp. 913-924 effects of colonial capitalism and ideology against the experience of Thailand, which remained, at least in a formal sense, independent from European domination throughout this period” (Carey 1982: 921).

Even though Hussein Alatas might be wrong in his general assessment of colonial powers especially in Java at the time, it can be argued that Hussein Alatas had successfully finished his mission to uncover the real reason behind colonialism in Southeast Asia, especially in Malaya using a SoK theory.

Power and Knowledge

With regard to the relationship between knowledge and power, Foucault argues that knowledge can be gained from power, where power produces knowledge and is forever connected to it. The power/knowledge theory also states that knowledge is always a form of power. Foucault presents his theory in a metaphorical manner, where he correlates the prison system in France with modern society. He argues:

“We should admit rather that power produces knowledge (and not simply by encouraging it because it serves power or by applying it because it is useful); that power and knowledge directly imply one another; that there is no power relation without the correlative constitution of a field of knowledge, nor any knowledge that does not presuppose and constitute at the same time power relations” (Foucault 1977: 27).

According to Detel (1998), one of Foucault’s central ambitions is to produce an analysis of power which promises to reveal interesting relationships between power and knowledge. The examination of these relationships is what distinguishes his analysis from most other influential modern approaches. Detel argues that Foucault did not explicitly base his analysis of power on those elements of this tradition of theories of power that had already been developed when he wrote The History of Sexuality. It is remarkable, however, that he shares some of its most important insights, as well as several from subsequent theories of power. Quite clearly for Foucault, the concept of power was essentially individualistic and nominal, and he regarded it primarily as a relationship between concrete individuals. Formally, it is asymmetrical, and can be reflexive; while of semantic importance is the fact that Foucault did not see repression as a conceptual consequence of power relations.

In his book Discipline and Punishment, Foucault (1997) argues that knowledge not only assumes the authority of ‘the truth’ but has the power to make itself true by linking to power. He believes that “all knowledge, once applied in the real world, has effects, and in that sense at least, ‘becomes true’’’. Knowledge entails constraint, regulation and the disciplining of practice, and there is no power relation without the correlative constitution of a field of knowledge, nor any knowledge that does not presuppose and constitute at the same time, power relationships. For him, power exists everywhere and comes from everywhere, and was a key concept because it acts as a type of relationship between people; a complex form of strategy, with the ability to secretly shape another's behavior. However, Foucault did not see the effects of power as negatives that exclude, repress, censor, mask, and conceal, but rather, as producing reality: “it produces domains of objects and rituals of truth” (1997: 194). The importance for him always lies in the effect that power has on entire networks, practices, the world around us, and how our behavior can be affected, rather than the power itself.

Conclusion The main argument of this paper is that it is essential to look at Mannheim’s and other scholars like Berger, Foucault and Syed Hussein Alatas to form a modified theory on SoK. It is hoped that the approach explained here could path the way towards a more concise theory on knowledge production by other scholars. However, the SoK theory also has its limitations in studying knowledge production and knowledge creation. One of the limits of using the theory is that people acquire knowledge in different

International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology Vol. 29, No. 4s, (2020), pp. 913-924 ways. It is hard to determine how knowledge is acquired and thoughts are constructed given the complexity of the nature of knowledge. The usage of SoK only focuses on the ideas and biographies of scholars based on written records while the reality is human development is far more complex than once imagined. There are numerous factors, ranging from genetics to life experience, shape each individual's optimal way of thinking. This means that although two or more people may end up making the same choice on a mathematics test, the factors involved in making that choice could be radically different from one person to the next.

References

[1] Goldman, Harvey, Nov 1994. ‘From Social Theory to Sociology of Knowledge and Back: Karl Mannheim and the Sociology of Intellectual Knowledge Production’ in Sociological Theory, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 266-278. [2] Abaza, Mona, 2002. Debates on Islam and Knowledge in Malaysia and Egypt, London: RoutledgeCurzon. [3] al-Attas, Syed Muhammad Naquib, 1980. The Concept of Education in Islam: A Framework for A Philosophy of Education, Kuala Lumpur: Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia (ABIM). [4] Al-Attas, Syed Muhammad Naquib, 1993. Islam and Secularism, Kuala Lumpur: International Institute of Islamic Thought and Civilization (ISTAC). [5] Alatas, Syed Farid, 2006. Alternative Discourses in Asian Social Science; Responses to Eurocentrism, India: Sage Publications. [6] Alatas, Syed Hussein, 1977a. Intellectuals in Developing Societies, London: Frank Cass. [7] Alatas, Syed Hussein, 1977b Myth of the Lazy Native, London: Frank Cass. [8] Alatas, Syed Hussein, 1977c Islam and Socialism, Penang, Seruan Masa. [9] Berger, Peter and Luckmann, Thomas, 1991. The Social Construction of Reality, England: Penguin Books Ltd. [10] Buroway, Michael, 2010. Facing an Unequal World: Challenges for a Global Sociology, Taiwan: Institute of Sociology, Academia Sinica. [11] Craig, William Lane, 2000. The Kalam Cosmological Argument. United States: Wipf & Stock Publishers. [12] Detel, Wolfgang 1998. Foucault and Classical Antiquity, UK: Cambridge University Press. [13] Foucault, Michel, 1977. Discipline and Punishment: The Birth of the Prison, New York: Vintage Books. [14] Foucault, Michel, 1994. The Order of Things, New York: Vintage Books. [15] Foucault, Michel, 1972. Archeology of Knowledge, London: Tavistock Publ. Ltd. [16] Groff, Peter S., 2007. Islamic Philosophy A-Z, London: Edinburgh University Press. [17] Gutting, Gary, 2005. Foucault: A Very Short Introduction, New York: Oxford University Press, New York. [18] Kettler, David, 1967. Marxismus and Kultur, Luchterhand: Neuwied und Berlin. [19] Kuhn, Thomas, 1996. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, London: University of Chicago Press. [20] Leaman, Oliver (ed), 2006. The Qurʾān: An Encyclopedia, London and New York: Routledge. [21] Mannheim, Karl, 1952. Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge, London: Oxford University Press. [22] Mannheim, Karl, 1954. Ideology and Utopia: An Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Limited.

International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology Vol. 29, No. 4s, (2020), pp. 913-924

[23] Marx, Karl, The German Ideology, in http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845- gi/index.htm [24] Ritzer, George (ed), 2005. Encyclopedia of Social Theory, Vol 1, London: Sage Publication. [25] Said, Edward, 1978. Orientalism, London: Penguin Books. [26] Said, Edward, 1993. Culture and Imperialism, London: Chatto and Windus. [27] Said, Edward, 1988, “Michel Foucault, 1926-1984,” in ed. Jonathan Arac, After Foucault: Humanistic Knowledge, Postmodern Challenges, New Brunswick: Rutgers UP. [28] Wolffe, Kurt H. (ed), 1971. From Karl Mannheim, London: Oxford University Press. [29] Alatas, Syed Farid Alatas, 1990. ‘Ibn Khaldun and the Ottoman modes of production,’ in Arab Historical Review for Ottoman Studies, no. 1-2. [30] Alatas, Syed Farid and Sinha, Vineeta, 2001.Teaching Classical Sociological Theory in Singapore: The Context of Eurocentrism, Teaching Sociology, Vol. 29, No. 3, Jul. [31] Alatas, Syed Farid, 2001. Alternative Discourses in Southeast Asia’ in Sari, No. 19. [32] Alatas, Syed Farid, 2002. ‘Eurocentrism and the role of the human sciences in the dialogue among civilizations’ in The European Legacy, 7(6). [33] Alatas, Syed Farid, 2005, ‘Alatas and Shariati on Socialism’ in Local and Global: Social Transformation in Southeast Asia, Brill, Leiden, Boston. [34] Alatas, Syed Hussein, 1954a, ‘Editorial Announcement’, in Progressive Islam, 1 (1). [35] Alatas, Syed Hussein, 1954b, ‘Religion and Science’ in Progressive Islam, 1 (1). [36] Alatas, Syed Hussein, 1954c, ‘The Islamic State’ in Progressive Islam, 1(3). [37] Alatas, Syed Hussein, 2000. ‘Intellectual Imperialism: Definition, Traits and Problems’ in Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science, Vol 28, No 1. [38] Alatas, Syed Hussein, 2007. ‘Perceptions of Muslim Revival’ in The Muslim World. Vol 97, July. [39] Alatas, Syed Hussein, 2006. ‘The Autonomous, the Universal and the Future of Sociology’ in Current Sociology, Vol 54, No. 1. [40] Bash, Harry H., 1964. ‘Determinism and Avoidability in Sociohistorical Analysis’ in Ethics, Vol. 74, No. 3, Apr. [41] Brittanica Encyclopedia of World Religions, Encyclopedia Brittanica Inc. [42] Burks, Richard V., 1949. ‘A Conception of Ideology for Historian’ in Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 10, No. 2, Apr. [43] Carey, Peter, 1982, ‘Short Notes’, in The English Historical Review, 97 (385), pp. 920-922. [44] Child, Arthur, 1947. ‘The Problem of Truth in the ‘Sociology of Knowledge’’ in Ethics, Vol 58, No 1, Oct. [45] Drucker, H.M., 1972. Marx’s Concept of Ideology, in Philosophy, Vol. 47, No. 180, Apr. [46] Goldman, Harvey, 1994. ‘From Social Theory to Sociology of Knowledge and Back: Karl Mannheim and the Sociology of Intellectual Knowledge Production’ in Sociological Theory, Vol. 12, No. 3, Nov. [47] Heeren, John, 1971. ‘Karl Mannheim and the Intellectual Elite’ in The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 22, No. 1, Mar. [48] Housser, Signe, 1980, Harold A. Innis and Michel Foucault: A Communications Perspective on Knowledge Construction, BA, Simon Fraseer University. [49] Johnson, Deborah, 2009. ‘The Malaysian Intellectual: A Brief Historical Overview of the Discourse’ in Sari Vol 27.

International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology Vol. 29, No. 4s, (2020), pp. 913-924

[50] Kadarkay, Arpad, 1994. The Demonic Self: Max Weber and Lukacs in Hungarian Studies, Budapest, Vol 9, No 1-2. [51] Kennedy, Devereux, 1979, ‘Michel Foucault: The Archeology and Sociology of Knowledge’ in Theory and Society, Vol 8, pp. 269-290 [52] Kessler, Clive S., 1972. ‘Islam, Society and Political Behaviour: Some Comparative Implications of the Malay Case’, in The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 23, No. 1, Mar. [53] Kessler, Clive, 2008. ‘Syed Hussein Alatas: ‘Wise Muslim Rationalist. Culturally Grounded Cosmopolitan’ in Akademika, No 73. [54] Kettler, David, 1967. ‘Sociology of Knowledge and Moral Philosophy: The Place of Traditional Problems in the Formation of Mannheim’s Thought’ in Political Science Quarterly, Vol LXXXI, No 3. [55] Kettler, David, 1967. ‘Sociology of Knowledge and Moral Philosophy: The Place of Traditional Problems in the Formation of Mannheim's Thought’ in Political Science Quarterly, Vol 82, No 3. [56] Khondker, Habibul Haque, 2006. ‘Sociology of Corruption and ‘Corruption of Sociology’: Evaluating the Contributions of Syed Hussein Alatas’, in Current Sociology , Vol 54, No. 25. [57] King, Victor T., 1994. ‘The Sociology of Southeast Asia: A Critical Review of Some Concepts and Issues’ in Bijdragen tot de Taal- Land- en Volkenkunde, vol. 150. [58] Lynch, William T., 1994. ‘Ideology and the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge’ in Social Studies of Science, Vol. 24, No. 2. [59] Macey, David, 1993, The Lives of Michel Foucault. London: Hutchinson [60] Mannheim, Karl, 1954. Ideology and Utopia: An Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge, Routledge & Kegan Paul Limited, London. [61] Michel, Roberto, 1949. ‘Intellectuals’ in Encylopedia of Social Sciences, Macmillan, London. [62] Miike, Yoshitaka, 2010. ‘An Anatomy of Eurocentrism in Communication Scholarship: The Role of Asiacentricity in De-Westernizing Theory and Research’ in China Media Research, Vol 6, No 1. [63] Pels, Dick, 1997, Property and Power in Social Theory, London: Routledge. [64] Phillips, Derek L., 1974. ‘Epistemology and the ‘Sociology of Knowledge’: The contributions of Mannheim, Mills, and Merton’ in Theory and Society, Vol 1. [65] Remmling, Gunter W., 1961. ‘Karl Mannheim: Revision of an Intellectual Portrait’ in Social Forces, Vol. 40, No. 1, Oct. [66] Ritzer, George (ed), 2005. Encyclopedia of Social Theory, Vol 1, Sage Publication, London. [67] Roucek, Joseph S., 1994. ‘A History of the Concept of Ideology’ in Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol 5, No 4. [68] Said, Edward, 1988. "Michel Foucault, 1926-1984," in ed. Jonathan Arac, After Foucault: Humanistic Knowledge, Postmodern Challenges, New Brunswick: Rutgers UP, pg. 5. [69] Shah, Mohd Hazim, 2005. ‘Perceptions of the Orient by Occident’ in Springer-Verlag 2005. [70] Stoler, Ann Laura, 1989. ‘Rethinking Colonial Categories: European Communities and the Boundaries of Rule’ in Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 31, No. 1, Jan. [71] Tanner, Jeremy, 2009, ‘Karl Mannheim and Alois Riegl: From Art History To The Sociology Of Culture’ in Art History, Vol. 32, No.4, pp. 755-784. [72] Vulpe, Nicola, 1993. ‘Ideology, Epistemology and Work: A New Evaluation of Karl Mannheim;s Third Way’ in Contextos , Vol XI, No 21-22. [73] Weiler, Hans N., 2004. ‘Whose Knowledge Matters?’ in Higher Education Policy.

International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology Vol. 29, No. 4s, (2020), pp. 913-924

[74] Weiler, Hans N,, 2011, ‘Knowledge and Power: The New Politics of Higher Education’ in Journal of Educational Planning and Administration , July. [75] Whitty, Geoff, 1997. ‘Social Theory and Education Policy: The Legacy of Karl Mannheim’ in British Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol. 18, No. 2. [76] Ellis, Bob, 2002. ‘Karl Mannheim and Political Intelligentsia: An Alternative Reading’, refereed papers prepared and selected for presentation at the Annual Conference of The Australian Sociological Association (TASA) held in Auckland, New Zealand, 4-7 December. [77] Uslu, Ateş, 2006. ‘György Lukács and the Hungarian Soviet Republic (1919)’, paper presented at the Historical Materialism conference, Hungary, 8-10 December. [78] Ghaneirad, Mohammad Amin, 2009. ‘A Critical Review of the Iranian Attempts at the Development of Alternative Sociology’ paper presented at the Council of National Associations (CNA) Conference in Taipei, Taiwan, May. [79] Qureshi, M. I., Yusoff, R. M., Hishan, S. S., Alam, A. F., Zaman, K., & Rasli, A. M. (2019). Natural disasters and Malaysian economic growth: policy reforms for disasters management. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(15), 15496-15509. [80] Manokaran, K., Ramakrishnan, S., Hishan, S., & Soehod, K. (2018). The impact of corporate social responsibility on financial performance: Evidence from Insurance firms. Management Science Letters, 8(9), 913-932. [81] Hishan, S. S., Khan, A., Ahmad, J., Hassan, Z. B., Zaman, K., & Qureshi, M. I. (2019). Access to clean technologies, energy, finance, and food: environmental sustainability agenda and its implications on Sub-Saharan African countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(16), 16503-16518. [82] Keong, L., Ramakrishnan, S., & Hishan, S. (2018). Corporate social responsibility practice of Malaysian public listed government-linked companies: A dimensional analysis. Management Science Letters, 8(5), 417-426.