| |
Response and Reflection
Mannheim, K. Ideology and Utopia (Part V only). The classic on the sociology of knowledge.
The focus of this chapter in Mannheim's book, as I understand it, is describing a branch of sociology know as the sociology of knowledge
that seeks to understand the relationships between knowledge and
existence, and thought and action. Mannheim describes a void in
in scientific explanations of relativism, and asserts that this void
will continue to exist while science does not adequately address the
factors that determine thought. He then continues to discuss the
larger divisions and characteristics of the sociology of knowledge.
Mannheim's discussion then focuses on the social determination of
knowledge. My understanding is that he is trying to make the point that
the nature of knowing must account for social and historical
influences. He criticizes traditional a priori
approaches by describing, what I interpret, as the inherent value-laden
characteristics of research and knowledge. His compelling
argument here is that social and historical factors influence our
theory and our approach to testing those theories. I believe he
is discussing the coupling of schools of thought and their related
theories in attempting to describe the a similar phenomena with
different perspectives. He speaks to how our thought process
influences what we observe, how we interpret it, and makes the
convincing argument that it is largely influenced by social context.
Mannheim then discusses the relational aspects of the sociology of
knowledge. He uses a great example to illustrate the point.
He illustrates the thought of a young peasant boy speaking to the
political, social, and philosophical opinions of his family to be
"rustic". Mannheim describes at this point, the peasant boy is no
longer a homogeneous participant, but rather the young peasant boy is
subscribing to a way of interpreting the world which was greatly
influenced by the relative social structures. Finally, he turns
to the notion of truth in relation to an asserter and his/her
assertions, and how the social institution could or could not influence
the validity of the asserter and the assertions.
Mannheim then provides a lengthy amount of discourse on the inherent
relationship between knowledge and its epistemological underpinnings.
He points out the model of developing knowledge up to this point
in time (1968, I guess), was largely based on the natural or exact
sciences (scientific model of inquiry). He then discusses how the
epistemological basis for the acceptable knowledge development
constrains the type of knowledge (data, principles, etc) that can be
developed. He discusses how social sciences are inherently
different from the natural or exact sciencces, and thus, the genesis of
knowledge development is also different.
He ends the dialog by describing where and how the sociology of
knowledge can be weilded as research in the historical and sociological
realm of the academy. I am not sure I understand this historical
underpinnings of this literature and perspective, but I feel
comfortable saying that since 1968, this perspective has certainly made
its way into the mainstream and for many of the reasons outlined
by Mannheim. |