The sociologist of knowledge in the positivism dispute

Iaan Reynolds
{"title":"The sociologist of knowledge in the positivism dispute","authors":"Iaan Reynolds","doi":"10.1080/1600910X.2021.1991420","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper studies the conflict between critical rationalism and critical theory in Karl Popper and Theodor Adorno’s 1961 debate by analyzing their shared rejection of Karl Mannheim’s sociology of knowledge. Despite the divergences in their respective projects of critical social research, Popper and Adorno agree that Mannheim’s sociology of knowledge is uncritical. By investigating their respective assessments of this research programme I reveal a deeper similarity between critical rationalism and critical theory. Though both agree on the importance of critique, they are less concerned with the development of critical consciousness as a focus of this project. In this way, Mannheim’s sociology of knowledge, particularly in its formative stages, revolves around a set of problems relatively inaccessible to critical rationalism and critical theory, since it is centrally concerned with identifying and cultivating the possibility of critique in society. In closing, I gesture to the importance of political education in Mannheim’s early work, suggesting that a return to these experimental texts will yield resources for political thought today.","PeriodicalId":42670,"journal":{"name":"Distinktion-Journal of Social Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Distinktion-Journal of Social Theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1600910X.2021.1991420","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT This paper studies the conflict between critical rationalism and critical theory in Karl Popper and Theodor Adorno’s 1961 debate by analyzing their shared rejection of Karl Mannheim’s sociology of knowledge. Despite the divergences in their respective projects of critical social research, Popper and Adorno agree that Mannheim’s sociology of knowledge is uncritical. By investigating their respective assessments of this research programme I reveal a deeper similarity between critical rationalism and critical theory. Though both agree on the importance of critique, they are less concerned with the development of critical consciousness as a focus of this project. In this way, Mannheim’s sociology of knowledge, particularly in its formative stages, revolves around a set of problems relatively inaccessible to critical rationalism and critical theory, since it is centrally concerned with identifying and cultivating the possibility of critique in society. In closing, I gesture to the importance of political education in Mannheim’s early work, suggesting that a return to these experimental texts will yield resources for political thought today.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
社会学家对实证主义知识的争论
本文通过分析波普尔与阿多诺对曼海姆知识社会学的共同否定,研究了波普尔与阿多诺1961年辩论中批判理性主义与批判理论的冲突。尽管波普尔和阿多诺在各自的批判社会研究项目上存在分歧,但他们都认为曼海姆的知识社会学是不批判的。通过调查他们各自对这一研究计划的评价,我揭示了批判理性主义和批判理论之间更深层次的相似性。虽然两人都认同批判的重要性,但他们不太关心批判意识的发展作为这个项目的焦点。通过这种方式,曼海姆的知识社会学,特别是在其形成阶段,围绕着一系列批判理性主义和批判理论相对难以触及的问题,因为它主要关注于识别和培养社会批判的可能性。最后,我指出了政治教育在曼海姆早期作品中的重要性,并建议回归这些实验性文本将为今天的政治思想提供资源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
期刊最新文献
Special issue: the elements of theorizing The end (and persistence) of subjectivity: Lukács with Adorno, Adorno with Lukács Totality and incoherence: for a shared project of novel theory and black studies Thinking hegemony otherwise – an educational critique of Mouffe’s agonism (Re)search results: search engines and the logic of efficiency in scholarship
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1