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 ISSN:1) 2005 - 4238 IJAST 913 Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC 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). ISSN:1) 2005 - 4238 IJAST 914 Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC 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.