SOCIOLOGY OF KNOWLEDGE

by LEWIS A. COSER
International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences
Edited by David L. Sills. The Macmillan Co & The Free Press !" #$%& 'ol. ( pp. )*&+),)
The sociolo-y of .no/led-e may be broadly defined as that branch of sociolo-y /hich
st0dies the relation bet/een tho0-ht and society. It is concerned /ith the social or e1istential
conditions of .no/led-e. Scholars in this field far from bein- restricted to the sociolo-ical
analysis of the co-nitive sphere as the term /o0ld seem to imply have concerned themselves
/ith practically the entire ran-e of intellect0al prod0cts + philosophies and ideolo-ies
political doctrines and theolo-ical tho0-ht. In all these areas the sociolo-y of .no/led-e
attempts to relate the ideas it st0dies to the sociohistorical settin-s in /hich they are prod0ced
and received.
2ssertions as to ho/ social str0ct0res are f0nctionally related to cate-ories of tho0-ht and to
specific sets of ideas have a lon- history. 2t the be -innin- of the seventeenth cent0ry Francis
3acon o0tlined the -eneral territory /hen he /rote abo0t
impressions of nature, which are imposed upon the mind by the sex, by the age, by the region, by
health and sickness, by beauty and deformity, and the like, which are inherent and not extern; and
again, those which are caused by extern fortune; as sovereignty nobility, obscure birth, riches, want,
magistracy, privateness, prosperity, adversity, constant fortune, variable fortune, rising per saltum.
per gradus, and the like. 45#%678 #$7& p. #(69
This is indeed the field that later systematic sociolo-y of .no/led-e claimed as its province.
2 variety of E0ropean thin.ers of the seventeenth ei-hteenth and early nineteenth cent0ries
may be considered amon- the prec0rsors of the sociolo-y of .no/led-e. Several of the
philosophes of the Enli-htenment 4Condorcet in partic0lar9 in:0ired abo0t the social
preconditions of different types of .no/led-e and 20-0ste Comte;s famo0s <la/ of three
sta-es<; assertin- the intimate relationship bet/een types of social str0ct0res and types of
.no/led-e mi-ht /ell be considered a contrib0tion to the sociolo-y of .no/led-e. It
nevertheless remains tr0e that systematic development of the sociolo-y of .no/led-e as an
a0tonomo0s enterprise rather than as a by+prod0ct of other types of in:0iry received its main
impet0s from t/o trends in nineteenth+cent0ry E0ropean sociolo-ical tho0-ht= the Mar1ian
tradition in >ermany and the D0r.heimian tradition in France. 2ltho0-h neither these t/o
mainstreams + nor their trib0taries + are by any means identical in their f0ndamental
#
ass0mptions they are the startin- point of most theori?in- in the field.
Marx and the German tradition
In his attempt to dissociate himself from the panlo-ical system of his former master @e-el
as /ell as from the <critical philosophy< of his former <yo0n- @e-elian< friends Aarl Mar1
0ndertoo. in some of his earlier /ritin-s to establish a connection bet/een philosophies and
the concrete social str0ct0res in /hich they emer-ed. <It has not occ0rred to any of these
philosophers< /rote Mar1 in The German Ideology, <to in:0ire into the connection of
>erman philosophy /ith >erman reality the relation of their criticism to their o/n material
s0rro0ndin-s< 4Mar1 & En-els 5#&)7+#&)%8 #$,$ p. %9. This pro-rammatic orientation once
established Mar1 proceeded to analy?e the /ays in /hich systems of ideas appeared to
depend on the social positions + partic0larly the class positions + of their proponents.
In his str0--le a-ainst the dominant ideas of his time Mar1 /as led to a resol0te
relativi?ation of these ideas. The eternal verities of dominant tho0-ht appeared 0pon
analysis to be b0t the direct or indirect e1pression of the class interests of their e1ponents.
Mar1 attempted to e1plain ideas sytematically in terms of their f0nctions and to relate the the
tho0-ht of individ0als to their social roles and class positions= <The mode of prod0ction in
material life determines the -eneral character of the social political and spirit0al processes of
life. it is not the conscio0sness of men that determines their e1istence b0t on the contrary
their social e1istence determines their conscio0sness< 45#&7$8 #$#, PP ##+#*9. Bhile Mar1
/as mainly concerned /ith 0ncoverin- the relationships bet/een bo0r-eois ideas and
bo0r-eois interests and life styles he nevertheless e1plicitly stated that the same relation also
held tr0e /ith re-ard to the emer-ence of ne/ dissident and revol0tionary ideas. 2ccordin- to
the Communist anifesto,
!hat else does the history of ideas prove, than that Intellectual production changes its character in
proportion as material production is changed" The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas
of its ruling klass. !hen people speak of ideas that revolutioni#e society, they do but express the fact
that within the old society the elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution of the
old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old conditions of existence. $arx % &ngels
'()(. p. *' in '*+) paperback edition,
In their /ritin-s of a later period Mar1 and En-els /ere to :0alify their some/hat s/eepin-
initial statements /hich had most often been made in a polemical conte1t. They /ere th0s led
to -rant a certain de-ree of intrinsic a0tonomy to the development of le-al political reli-io0s
literary and artistic ideas. They no/ stressed that mathematics and the nat0ral sciences /ere
e1empt from the direct infl0ence of the social and economic infrastr0ct0re. Moreover they
*
no/ -ranted that the intellect0al s0perstr0ct0re of a society /as not simply a reflection of the
infrastr0ct0re b0t rather co0ld in t0rn react 0pon it.
Bhile the ori-inal Mar1ian thesis reinterpreted in this fashion became a considerably more
fle1ible instr0ment it also lost some of its distinctive :0alities. Interpreted ri-idly it tended to
lend itself to 0se as a rather cr0de tool for deb0n.in- all adverse tho0-htC interpreted fle1ibly
it became diffic0lt to distin-0ish from non+Mar1ian attempts at the f0nctional analysis of
tho0-ht. 2lso as Merton has pointed o0t 45#$)$8 #$7( p. )($9 /hen the Mar1ian thesis is
stated in so fle1ible a manner it becomes impossible to invalidate it at all since any set of
data may be so interpreted as to fit it.
Despite these diffic0lties Mar1ian modes of analysis in this field as in so many others
e1erted a po/erf0l + if often s0bterranean + infl0ence on s0bse:0ent >erman social tho0-ht.
MaDor portions of the /or. of Ma1 Beber can be seen as attempts on the part of this -reatest
of all >erman sociolo-ists to come to terms /ith the Mar1ian inheritance and partic0larly
/ith the Mar1ian assertion of the essentially epiphenomenal character of .no/led-e and
ideas. The t/in herita-e of Mar1 and of !iet?sche 4partic0larly the latter;s <deb0n.in-< attac.
on Christianity as a slave philosophy of ressentimen-laden lo/er+stat0s -ro0ps9 loomed very
lar-e in the mental climate of pre+Borld Bar I >ermany. 30t it remained for t/o >erman
scholars Ma1 Scheler and Aarl Mannheim to develop a corp0s of theory that represents the
first systematic elaboration of the sociolo-y of .no/led-e as a ne/ scientific discipline. Even
tho0-h it follo/ed 0pon the /or. of Ma1 Scheler. Aarl Mannheim;s contrib0tion /ill be dealt
/ith first since it is more directly tied to the main themes of Mar1ian tho0-ht.
Mannheim and ni!er"a# re#ati!i"m. Mannheim 0ndertoo. to -enerali?e the Mar1ian
interpretation so as to divest it of polemical elementsC th0s he attempted to transform into a
-eneral tool of analysis /hat for Mar1 had been primarily a means of attac. a-ainst
adversaries. Mannheim /ished to create a tool that co0ld be 0sed as effectively for the
analysis of Mar1ism as for any other system of tho0-ht. Bhile in the Mar1ian form0lations
attention /as called to the f0nction of ideolo-y in the defense of class privile-es and to the
distortions and falsifications of ideas that flo/ed from the privile-ed class position of
bo0r-eois thin.ers Mar1;s o/n ideas /ere held by Mar1ists to be tr0e and 0nbiased by virt0e
of their bein- an e1pression of classes that had no privile-ed interests to defend. 2ccordin- to
Mar1 the defenders of the status .uo /ere inevitably -iven to false conscio0sness /hile their
critics bein- affiliated /ith the emer-in- /or.in- class /ere e1empt from s0ch distortin-
infl0ences and hence had access to <tr0e conscio0sness< + that is to nondistorted historical
tr0th. Mannheim;s orientation in contradistinction allo/ed for the probability that all ideas
,
even <tr0ths< /ere related to and hence infl0enced by the social and historical sit0ation from
/hich they emer-ed. The very fact that each thin.er is affiliated /ith partic0lar -ro0ps in
society + that he occ0pies a certain stat0s and enacts certain social roles + colors his
intellect0al o0tloo.. Men <do not confront the obDects of the /orld from the abstract levels of
a contemplatin- mind as s0ch nor do they do so e1cl0sively as solitary bein-s. En the
contrary they act /ith and a-ainst one another in diversely or-ani?ed -ro0ps and /hile doin-
so they thin. /ith and a-ainst one another< 4Mannheim 5#$*$+#$,#8 #$7) p. ,9.
Mannheim /as th0s led to define the sociolo-y of .no/led-e as a theory of the social or
e1istential conditionin- of tho0-ht. To him all .no/led-e and all ideas altho0-h to different
de-rees are <bo0nd to a location< /ithin the social str0ct0re and the historical process. 2t
partic0lar times a partic0lar -ro0p can have f0ller access to the 0nderstandin- of a social
phenomenon than other -ro0ps b0t no -ro0p can have total access to it. 42t times
tho0-h Mannheim e1pressed the hope that <detached intellect0als< mi-ht in o0r a-e achieve a
<0nified<perspective< free of e1istential determination. 9 The tas. of the ne/ discipline /as to
ascertain the empirical correlation bet/een intellect0al standpoints and str0ct0ral and
historical positions. From its inception Mannheim;s thesis enco0ntered a -reat deal of
criticism especially on the -ro0nds that it led to 0niversal relativism. It has been said that the
notion of relativism or relation+ism + the term that Mannheim preferred + <is self+
contradictory for it m0st pres0ppose its o/n absol0teness. The sociolo-y of .no/led-e ...
m0st ass0me its o/n validity if it is to have any meanin-F 4Dahl.e #$)6 p. &(9. If it is
ass0med that all tho0-ht is e1istentially determined and hence all tr0th b0t relative
Mannheim;s o/n tho0-ht cannot claim privile-ed e1emption.
Mannheim did indeed lay himself open to s0ch attac.s especially in his earlier /ritin-sC
ho/ever it seems that he did not mean to imply that <e1istential determination<
$/einsverbundenheif, is a .ind of total determination that leaves no room for an e1amination
of ideas in other terms. @e e1plicitly stated that in the social sciences as else/here <the
0ltimate criterion of tr0th or falsity is to be fo0nd in the investi-ation of the obDect and the
sociolo-y of .no/led-e is no s0bstit0te for this< 45#$*$+#$,#8 #$7) p. )9. !o matter /hat
the imprecisions and methodolo-ical shortcomin-s of Mannheim;s theoretical statements are
D0d-ed to be he left a n0mber of concrete st0dies on s0ch topics as <Conservative Tho0-ht<
45#$**+#$)68 #$7, pp. ((+#%)9 and <Competition as a C0lt0ral Phenomenon< 45#$*,+
#$*$8 #$7* pp. #$#+**$9 /hich have been reco-ni?ed as important contrib0tions even by
those /ho have been critical of Mannheim;s theoretical apparat0s.
S$he#er%" &rea# 'a$tor".& Mar1 laid primary stress on economic and class factors in the
)
determination of ideasC Mannheim e1panded this conception to incl0de other -ro0pin-s s0ch
as -enerations stat0s -ro0ps and occ0pational -ro0ps. Ma1 Scheler /ent still f0rther in
/idenin- the ran-e of factors that infl0ence tho0-ht forms. 2ccordin- to Scheler there is no
constant independent variable that determines the emer-ence of ideasC b0t rather in the co0rse
of history there occ0rs a se:0ence of <real factors< that condition tho0-ht. In nonliteraic
-ro0ps blood and .inship ties constit0te the independent variableC later political factorsC and
finally in the modern /orld economic factors are to be considered as the independent
variables to /hich tho0-ht str0ct0res have to be related.
Scheler reDected /hat he considered the <nat0ralism< and relativism of previo0s theori?in- in
the field and asserted that there e1ists an atemporal absol0te order of val0es and ideas + that is
a realm of eternal essences /hich is totally distinct from historical and social reality. 2t
different moments in historical time and in different c0lt0ral systems different <real factorsG
predominate. These real factors <open and close in determinate /ays and determinate order
the sl0ice -ates of the stream of tho0-ht< so that different aspects of the eternal realm of
essences can be -rasped at partic0lar points in time and in partic0lar c0lt0ral systems 4#$*%9.
Th0s Scheler tho0-ht that he had s0cceeded in reconcilin- socioc0lt0ral relativity /ith the
Platonic notion of an eternal realm of 0nchan-in- essences.
Scheler;s theory of eternal essences is metaphysical and hence not s0sceptible to scientific
validation. @o/ever his proposal to /iden the ran-e of e1istential factors that may be seen as
the so0rce of partic0lar systems of ideas is testable and potentially fr0itf0l for research.
Scheler;s o/n st0dies provide important e1amples of the fr0itf0lness of this type of in:0iry=
for e1ample his st0dies on the interrelations bet/een the hierarchical medieval /orld of
comm0nal estates and the medieval con+ception of the /orld as a hierarchy c0lminatin- to
>od bet/een the content of Plato;s theory of ideal and the formal or-ani?ation of the Platonic
2cademy and bet/een the rise of mechanistic models of tho0-ht and the rise of bo0r-eois
>esellschaft types of society. 4For a different vie/ of Schele? see Han0lf #$,&.9
Fren$h $ontribtion"
Emile D0r.heim;s contrib0tions to the sociolo-y of .no/led-e form only a relatively small
part his total /or.. 2ltho0-h some of his statements this area are mi1ed /ith epistemolo-ical
spec0lations that most e1perts /o0ld consider rather d0bio0s he nevertheless did some of the
most vital pioneerin- /or. in the field. In his attempt to establish the social ori-in and
f0nctions of morals val0es and reli-ion and in e1plainin- these as different forms of
<collective representations< D0r.heim /as led to consider a similar social e1planation of the
basic forms of lo-ical classification and of the f0ndamental cate-ories of tho0-ht themselves.
7
D0r.heim attempted to acco0nt= for the ori-ins of spatial temporal and other classifications
amon- nonliterate peoples and concl0ded that these classifcations closely appro1imated the
social or-ani?ation of these peoples 4D0r.heim & Ma0ss #$6,9. the first <classes< he
s0--ested /ere classes of men and the classification of obDects in the /orld of nat0re /as
b0t an e1tension of the social classifcation already established. 2ll animals and nat0ral obDects
/ere classified as belon-in- to this or that clan phratry or residential or .inship -ro0p. 3e
f0rther ar-0ed that altho0-h scientific classifications have no/ lar-ely become divorced from
their social ori-ins the very manner in /hich /e classify thin-s as <belon-in- to the same
family< still reveals the ori-inally social ori-ins of classificatory tho0-ht.
In his last maDor boo. The &lementary Forms of the 0eligious 1ife 4#$#*9 D0r.heim
ret0rned to these earlier ideas and attempted a sociolo-ical e1planation of all f0ndamental
cate-ories of h0man tho0-ht especially the concepts of time and space. These he claimed
are not only transmitted If society they are social creations. Society is decisive in the -enesis
of lo-ical tho0-ht by formin- the concepts of /hich that tho0-ht is made. The social
or-ani?ation of the primitive comm0nity is the model for the primitive;s spatial or-ani?ation
of I3S s0rro0ndin- /orld. Similarly temporal divisions too days /ee.s months and years
correspond to periodical rec0rrences of rites leasts and ceremonies= <2 calendar e1presses
the rhythm of the collective activities /hile at the same time its f0nction is to ass0re their
re-0larity< 45#$#*8 #$7) p. #69.
These D0r.heimian notions have been challen-ed fre:0ently. It has been pointed o0t for
e1ample that D0r.heim sli-hted the importance of the rhythm of nat0ral phenomena by his
overemphasis on social rhythms 4Soro.in #$*& p. )((9. More f0ndamentally Cla0de Levi+
Stra0ss has ar-0ed that society <cannot e1ist /itho0t symbolism instead of sho/in- ho/ the
appearance of tho0-ht ma.es social life alto-ether possible and necessary D0r.heim tries the
reverse i.e. to ma.e symbolism -ro/ o0t of society. . . . Sociolo-y cannot e1plain the -enesis
of symbolic tho0-ht b0t has D0st to ta.e it for -ranted in man< 4#$)7 p. 7#&9.
D0r.heim failed to establish the social ori-ins of all cate-ories of tho0-ht b0t it is
important to reco-ni?e his pioneerin- contrib0tion to the st0dy of the correlations bet/een
specific systems of tho0-ht and systems of social or-ani?ation. It is this part of D0r.heim;s
contrib0tion rather than some of the more debatable epistemolo-ical propositions fo0nd in
his /or. that has infl0enced later developments in the sociolo-y of .no/led-e. Th0s the
eminent Sinolo-ist Marcel >ranet 4#$,)9 0sed D0r.heimian leads /hen he related the
conceptions of time and space in ancient Chinese tho0-ht to s0ch social factors as the ancient
fe0dal or-ani?ation and the rhythmic alterations of concentrated and dispersed -ro0p
%
activities. Iane @arrison 4#$#*9 and Francis Cornford 4#$#*9 renovated classical st0dies by
tracin- >ree. reli-io0s notions and philosophical ideas to their ori-ins in tribal initiation
ceremonies and to the clan str0ct0re of the >ree. tribes. Finally. Ma0rice @alb/achs 4#$*79
attempted to establish ho/ even s0ch apparently private and intimate mental activities as
dreams and memories need for their or-ani?ation a stable reference in the -ro0p life in /hich
individ0als participate. 2/ee DJHA@EIMC >H2!ETC @2L3B2C@S.8
Ameri$an "o$io#o(y o' )no*#ed(e
The /or. of the maDor 2merican pra-matists + Pierce Iames and De/ey + abo0nds /ith
s0--estive leads for the sociolo-y of .no/led-e. To the e1tent that pra-matism stressed the
or-anic process by /hich every act of tho0-ht is lin.ed to h0man cond0ct and th0s reDected
the radical distinction bet/een thin.in- and actin- /hich had informed most classical
philosophy it prepared the -ro0nd for consideration of the more specifically sociolo-ical lin.s
bet/een social conditions and the tho0-ht processes. Insofar as the pra-matists stressed that
tho0-ht is in its very nat0re bo0nd to the social sit0ation in /hich it arises they set the sta-e
for efforts to in:0ire into the relations bet/een a thin.er and his a0dience. Insofar as they
reDected the traditional vie/ accordin- to /hich an obDect of tho0-ht /as to be sharply
distin-0ished from the thin.in- s0bDect and stressed the intimate transactions bet/een s0bDect
and obDect they prepared the -ro0nd for the specifically 2merican contrib0tions to the
sociolo-y of .no/led-e.
Pra-matic philosophy is not the only 2merican intellect0al trend to infl0ence the development
of the sociolo-y of .no/led-e. 2merican historical scholarship especially the /or. of
Charles 2. 3eard and 'ernon L. Parrin-ton appropriated for its o/n 0ses a n0mber of the
orientations of E0ropean sociolo-y of .no/led-e + especially of its Mar1ian variety + in
efforts to develop ne/ perspectives on 2merican politics and letters by selfconscio0sly
relatin- c0rrents of tho0-ht to economic interest and social condition. Many of these strains of
ideas had only an indirect impact on 2merican sociolo-y. In contrast t/o maDor 2merican
thin.ers Thorstein 'eblen and >eor-e @erbert Mead directly and e1plicitly infl0enced
2merican sociolo-y of .no/led-e.
'eblen;s emphasis on habits of tho0-ht as an o0tcome of habits of life and his stress on the
dependence of tho0-ht styles on comm0nity or-ani?ation are /ell .no/n. Perhaps less /ell
.no/n is 'eblenKs relatively systematic effort to relate styles of tho0-ht to the occ0pational
roles and positions of their proponents. <The scheme of tho0-ht or of .no/led-e< he /rote
;is in -ood part a reverberation of the schemes of life< 45#&$#+#$#,8 #$%#. p. #679C hence
those en-a-ed in pec0niary occ0pations are li.ely to develop tho0-ht styles that differ from
(
the styles of those en-a-ed in ind0strial occ0pations. Ma-ical as /ell as matter+of+fact /ays
of thin.in- find their proponents amon- -ro0ps of men differentially located in the social
str0ct0re and in the economic process. Moreover 'eblen;s sava-e polemics in his 3igher
1earning in 4merica 4#$#&9 sho0ld not be read as polemics alone. The /or. is also and
perhaps above all a seminal contrib0tion to the sociolo-ical st0dy of the or-ani?ation and
f0nctionin- of the 2merican 0niversity.
Finally >eor-e @erbert Mead;s social behaviorism /ith its insistence that mind itself is a
social prod0ct and is of social ori-in provided the social psycholo-ical basis for some of the
assertions of previo0s theorists. For Mead comm0nication /as central to an 0nderstandin- of
the nat0re of mind= <Mind arises thro0-h comm0nication by a conversation of -est0res in a
social process or conte1t of e1perience< 4#$,) p. 769. Even /hen certain epistemolo-ical
positions of Mead are not accepted it /o0ld seem very diffic0lt to deny his claim that if
determinants of tho0-ht other than society itself e1ist they can str0ct0re mind only
thro0-h the intermediary of the social relations in /hich it is necessarily enmeshed. 2/ee
ME2D.8
Contem+orary trend". 2s the sociolo-y of .no/led-e has been incorporated into -eneral
sociolo-ical theory both in 2merica and in E0rope it has often mer-ed /ith other areas of
research and is fre:0ently no lon-er e1plicitly referred to as sociolo-y of .no/led-e. Its
diff0sion thro0-h partial incorporation has tended to ma.e it lose some of its distinctive
characteristics. Th0s the /or.s of Hobert A. Merton 4#$)$9 and 3ernard 3arber 4#$7*9 in the
sociolo-y of science the /or.s of E. C. @0-hes 4#$7&9 T. @. Marshall 45#$,)+#$)$8 #$76
chapter )9 Theodore Caplo/ 4#$7)9 Es/ald @all 4#$)&9 Talcott Parsons 4#$,&+#$7,9 and
others in the sociolo-y of the professions and occ0pations and + even more -enerally + m0ch
of the research concerned /ith social roles may be related to and in part derived from the
orientations of the sociolo-y of .no/led-e. Many practitioners of /hat is in fact sociolo-y of
.no/led-e may at times be rather s0rprised /hen it is pointed o0t that li.e Monsie0r
Io0rdain they have been <tal.in- prose< all alon-.
>iven this /ide variety of research in /hich at least certain leads of the sociolo-y of
.no/led-e have been 0tili?ed it is diffic0lt to delineate the distinctive characteristics of
contemporary or near contemporary developments in the sociolo-y of .no/led-e in the
Jnited States. "et one characteristic seems salient. Bhile in the E0ropean tradition attention
tended to be centered 0pon the prod0ction of ideas /ith the a1iomatic ass0mption that
different strata of society prod0ce different types of ideas modern 2merican research is
more concerned /ith the cons0mption of ideas and the /ays in /hich different strata of
&
society 0se standardi?ed tho0-ht prod0cts. To some e1tent as Merton has pointed o0t 45#$)$8
#$7( pp. ))6 ff.9 the sociolo-y of p0blic opinion and mass comm0nication has pre+empted
the place of the sociolo-y of .no/led-e in the contemporary Jnited States.
!evertheless recent 2merican contrib0tions have by no means been limited to this field.
There has been a si-nificant attempt at stoc.ta.in- and at disc0ssin- methodolo-ical
:0estions left 0nresolved by the E0ropean tradition. Merton;s /ritin-s in this area represent
the most sophisticated codification of the problems faced by the sociolo-y of .no/led-e.
2mon- other notable contrib0tions to the methodolo-y and theoretical clarification of the
sociolo-y of .no/led-e are those of the philosopher 2rth0r Child and the sociolo-ists
@ans Speier 4#$,&9 >erald De>re 4#$),9 A0rt @. Bolff 4#$7$9 Berner Star.
4#$7&9 and C. Bri-ht Mills 4#$%,9.
2mon- s0bstantive 2merican contrib0tions the /or. of Pitirim 2. Soro.in is of special note
4#$,(+#$)#C #$),9. 3lendin- an earlier E0ropean tradition of lar-e+scale spec0lation /ith
2merican statistical research techni:0es Soro.in developed a characteristically idealistic
theory of the sociolo-y of .no/led-e. HeDectin- the prevalent concept0ali?ations that
consider social classes or other social and economic -ro0ps as the independent variable in the
f0nctional relations bet/een tho0-ht and society. Soro.in considers variant <c0lt0ral
mentalities< or c0lt0ral premises as the .ey variables. @e attempts to sho/ that the periodic
dominance of three maDor c0lt0ral tendencies + the ideational the idealistic and the sensate
mentality + can acco0nt for the fl0ct0ations of types of .no/led-e that have mar.ed history.
2ltho0-h his ar-0ment often seems to involve a .ind of circ0lar reasonin- and altho0-h the<
ne-lect of the e1istential roots of tho0-ht can hardly be D0stified in vie/ of the promisin-
res0lts already achieved by Soro.in;s predecessors the many contrib0tions by Soro.in and
some of his st0dents + in for e1ample the sociolo-y of science or the el0cidation of the
notion of social time + remain note/orthy.
Florian Lnaniec.i;s ne-lected b0t important st0dy The /ocial 0ole of the an of 5nowledge
4#$)69 represents li.e Soro.in;s /or. a fr0itf0l blendin- of the E0ropean tradition /ith
2merican contrib0tions. Lnaniec.i introd0ces the notion of the <social circle< that is the
a0dience or p0blic to /hich a thin.er addresses himself. @e th0s lin.s the sociolo-y of
.no/led-e /ith research on p0blics and a0diences that /as pioneered by the Chica-o school
of sociolo-y; 4for e1ample see Par. #$6)9. Lnaniec.i sho/s that thin.ers + at least in
differentiated societies + are not li.ely to address their total society b0t rather only selected
se-ments or p0blics. The thin.er is related to a social circle= and this circle e1pects him to live
0p to certain of its demands in e1chan-e for /hich it -rants him reco-nition and s0pport.
$
Men of .no/led-e anticipate the demands of their p0blicC and they tend to form self+ima-es
select data and sei?e 0pon problems in terms of their act0al or anticipated a0diences. Men of
.no/led-e may th0s be classified in re-ard to their social roles and their p0blics. @ence it
becomes possible to 0nderstand the emer-ence of s0ch special roles as that of sa-e
technolo-ist and scholar in terms of the differentiated p0blics to /hich they address
themselves. 2/ee I!TELLECTJ2LS.8
It is impossible to disc0ss or even en0merate /ithin the confines of this article the recent
2merican st0dies /hich either directly or indirectly contrib0te to the f0rther development of
the sociolo-y of .no/led-e. This state of affairs may itself be an indicator of the contin0ed
stren-th of this research orientation. 2 fe/ references /ill have to s0ffice.
Hesearch in the field of social role the sociolo-y of science the professions and
occ0pations and the sociolo-y of comm0nications and p0blic opinion has already been
mentioned. In other areas can be listed the st0dies e1plorin- the relations bet/een minority
stat0s and ori-inality of intellect0al perspective to /hich 'eblen 4#$#$9 made si-nificant
contrib0tions and of /hich the recent /or. by Melvin Seeman 4#$7%9 seems an e1cellent
e1ampleC the st0dies in the history of sociolo-ical or philosophical theories in /hich
concept0ali?ations derived from the sociolo-y of .no/led-e have been 0tili?ed + for e1ample
the /or.s of C. Bri-ht Mills on pra-matism 4#$%)9C the st0dies that relate tho0-ht styles of
2merican academic men to the str0ct0re and f0nctionin- of the 2merican academy + s0ch as
Lo-an Bilson;s 4cademic an 4#$)*9 La?arsfeld and Thielens; 4cademic ind 4#$7&9 an
analysis of social scientists; reactions to the threats posed by the McCarthy era and Caplo/
and Mc>ee;s 4cademic arketplace 4#$7&9C -eneral st0dies of the settin-s and conte1ts in
/hich intellect0als play their pec0liar roles s0ch as Le/is Coser;s en of Ideas 4#$%79C and
Frit? Machl0p;s lar-e+scale st0dy The 6roduction and 7istribution of 5nowledge in the
8nited /tates 4#$%*9. More detailed st0dies + s0ch as Peter 3er-er;s recent attempt to acco0nt
for the pop0larity of psychoanalysis in 2merica 4#$%79 and Iohn 3ennett;s st0dy of diver-ent
interpretations of the same c0lt0re by different social scientists in terms of their diver-ent
bac.-ro0nds and social perspectives 4#$)%9Mhave also been very m0ch in evidence in recent
years.
The sociolo-y of .no/led-e /as mar.ed in its early history by a tendency to set 0p
-randiose hypothetical schemes. These contrib0ted a n0mber of e1tremely s0--estive leads.
Hecently its practitioners have tended to /ithdra/ from s0ch ambitio0s 0nderta.in-s and to
restrict themselves to some/hat more mana-eable investi-ations. 2ltho0-h this tendency has
been an antidote to earlier types of premat0re -enerali?ations it also carries /ith it the dan-er
#6
of triviali?ation. Perhaps the sociolo-y of .no/led-e of the f0t0re /ill ret0rn to the more
darin- concerns of its fo0nders th0s b0ildin- 0pon the acc0m0lation of caref0l and detailed
investi-ations by precedin- -enerations of researchers.
27irectly related are the entries M2HNIST SECIELE>"C SECI2L STHJCTJHE article on SECI2L
STHJCTJH2L 2!2L"SIS. 9ther relevant material may be found in LITEH2TJHE article on T@E
SECIELE>" EF LITEH2TJHEC SCIE!CEC and in the biographies of 32CE!C DEBE"C DJHA@EIMC
@2L3B2CIISC I2MESC M2!!@EIMC M2HNC PEIHCEC SC@ELEHC SEHEAI!C 'E3LE!C BE3EH M2NC
L!2!IECAI.8
,I,LIOGRA-.Y
For extensive bibliographies on the sociology of knowledge, see Merton #$)$C Mannheim
#$*$+#$,#C Ma:0et #$)$C and Bolff #$7$.
32CE! FH2!CIS 4#%679 #$7& The 4dvancement of 1earning. Edited /ith an introd0ction by >.
B. Aitchin. London= DentC !e/ "or.= D0tton.
32H3EH 3EH!2HD #$7* /cience and the /ocial 9rder. >lencoe ###.= Free Press.
3E!!ETT IE@! B. 4#$)%9 #$7% The Interpretation of P0eblo C0lt0re= 2 O0estion of 'al0es.
Pa-es *6,+*#% in Do0-las >. @arin- 4editor9 6ersonal Character and Cultural ilieu: 4
Collection of 0eadings. ,d ed. rev. Syrac0se Jniv. Press + First p0blished in 'ol0me * of the
/outhwestern ;ournal of 4nthropology.
3EH>EH PETEH L. #$%7 To/ard a Sociolo-ical Jnderstandin- of Psychoanalysis. /ocial
0esearch ,*=*%+)#.
C2PLEB T@EEDEHE #$7) The /ociology of Bor.. Minneapolis= Jniv. of Minnesota Press.
C2PLEB T@EEDEHEC and Mc>EE HEECE I. #$7& The 4cademic arketplace. !e/ "or.= 3asic
3ooIcs. + 2 paperbac. edition /as p0blished in #$%# by Biley.
CEH!FEHD. FH2!CIS M. #$#* <rom 0eligion to 6hilosophy: 4 /tudy in the 9rigins of !estern
/peculations. !e/ "or.= Lon-mans. + 2 paperbac. edition /as p0blished in #$7( by @arper.
CESEH. LEBIS 2. #$%7 en of Ideas: 4 /ociologist=s >iew. !e/ "or.= Free Press.
D2@LAE @. ETTE #$)6 The Sociolo-y of Ano/led-e. Pa-es %)+&$ in @arry E. 3arnes @o/ard
3ec.er and Frances 3. 3ec.er 4editors9 Contemporary /ocial Theory. !e/ "or.= 2ppieton
Dt>HE. >EH2LD L. #$), /ociety and Ideoiogit: 4n In.uiry Into the /ociology of 5nowledge.
!e/ "or.= Col0mbia Jniv. Press.
DJHA@EIM EMILE $#$#*9 #$7) The &lementary <orms of the 0eligious 1ife. London= 2llen &
Jn/inC !e/ "or.= Macmillan. + First p0blished as 1es formes elementaires de la vie
religieuse, le systeme totemi.ue en 4ustralie. 2 paperbac. edition /as p0blished in #$%# by
##
Collier.
DJHA@EIM EMILE= and M2JSS M2HCEL 4#$6,9 #$%, 6rimitive Classification. Translated and
edited by Hodney !eedham. Jniv. of Chica-o Press. + First p0blished as <De :0el:0es formes
primitives de classification< in 1=annee sociologi.ue.
>H2!ET M2HCEL 4#$,)9 #$76 1e pensee chinoise. Paris= Michel.
@2L3B2C@S M2JHICE #$*7 1es cadres sociaux de la memoire. Paris= 2lcan.
@2LL ESB2LD #$)& Sta-es of a Medical Career. 4merican ;ournal of /ociology 7,=,*(+,,%.
@2HHISE! I2!E ELLE! 4#$#*9 #$*( Themis.+ 4 /tudy of the /ocial 9rigins of Greek 0eligion.
*d ed. rev. Cambrid-e Jniv. Press.
@J>@ES E'EHETT C. #$7& Men and Their !ork. >lencoe ###.= Free Press.
L2L2HSFELD P2JL F.C and T@IELE!S B2>!EH IH. #$7& The 4cademic ind: /ocial /cientists in
a Time of Crisis. 2 report of the 30rea0 of 2pplied Social Hesearch Col0mbia Jniversity.
>lencoe III.= Free Press.
LE'I+STH2JSS CL2JDE #$)7 French Sociolo-y. Pa-es 76,+7,( in >eor-es >0rvitch and Bilbert
E. Moore 4editors9 Twentieth Century /ociology. !e/ "or. Philosophical Library.
M2C@LJP FHITL #$%* The 6roduction and Distrib0tion of 5nowledge in the 8nited /tates.
Princeton Jniv. Press.
M2!!@EIM A2HL 4#$**+#$)69#$7, &ssays on /ociology and /ocial 6sychology. Edited by Pa0l
Aecs.emeti London= Ho0tled-e. + See especially pa-es ((+#%) in

<Conservative Tho0-ht.
M2!!@EIM A2HL 4#$*,+#$*$9 #$7* &ssays on the Sociology of 5nowledge. Edited by Pa0l
Aecs.emeti. !e/ "or.= E1ford Jniv. Press. +P See especially pa-es #$#+**$ on <Competition
as a C0lt0ral Phenomenon<
M2!!@EIM A2HL 4#$*$+#$,#9 #$7) Ideology and

8topia: 4n Introduction to the /ociology of
5nowledge. !e/ "or.= @arco0rtC London= Ho0tled-e. + First p0blished in >erman. 2
paperbac. edition /as p0blished in #$77 by @arco0rt.
M2OJET I2COJES I. 4#$)$9 #$7# The Sociolo-y
E
f 5nowledge, Its /tructure and Its 0elation to
the 6hilosophy of 5nowledge: 4 Critical 4nalysis of the /ystems of 5arl annheim and
6itirim 4. /orokin. Translated by Iohn F. Loc.e. 3oston= 3eacon. + First p0blished in French.
M2HS@2LL T. @. 4#$,)+#$)$9 #$76 Citi?enship and SocraL Class, and 9ther &ssays.
Cambrid-e Jniv. Press.
M2HN. A2HL 4#&7$9 #$#, 4 Contribution to the Criti.ue of 6olitical &conomy. Chica-o= Aerr. +
First p0blished as ?ur 5ritik der politischen 9konomie.
M2HN. A2HLC and E!>ELS FHIEDHIC@ 4#&)7+#&)%9 #$,$ The German Ideology. Parts # and ,.
Bith an introd0ction by H. Pascal. !e/ "or.= International P0blishers. M Britten in #&)7+
#*
#&)% the f0ll te1t /as first p0blished in #$,* as Die deutsche Ideologic and rep0blished by
Diet? 'erla- in #$7,.
M2HN A2HL= and E!>LLS. FHIEDHIC@ 4#&)&9 #$%, The Communist anifesto. !e/ "or.=
H0ssell. + 2 paperbac. edition /as p0blished in #$%) by Bashin-ton S:0are Press.
ME2D >EEH>E @. #$,) ind, /elf and /ociety <rom the /tandpoint of a /ocial @ehaviorist.
Edited by Charles B. Morris. Jniv. of Chica-o Press. + P0blished posth0mo0sly
MEHTE! HE3EHT A. 4#$)$9 #$7( /ocial Theory and /ocial /tructure. Hev. & enl. ed. >lencoe
III.= Free Press. + See especially Part , on ;The Sociolo-y of Ano/led-e< and Part ) on <The
Sociolo-y of Science.<
MILLS. C. BHI>@T #$%, 6ower, 6olitics and 6eople: The Collected &ssays of C. !right ills.
Edited and introd0ced by Irvin- Lo0is @oro/it?. !e/ "or.= E1ford Jniv. Press. + See
especially pa-es. )*,+),& on <Lan-0a-e Lo-ic and C0lt0re< pa-es ),$+)7* on <Sit0ated
2ctions and 'ocab0laries of Motive< and pa-es )7,+)7% on <Methodolo-ical Conse:0ences
of the Sociolo-y of Ano/led-e.<
MILLS C. BHI>@T #$%) Sociolo-y and 6ragmatism: The 3igher 1earning in 4merica. Edited
/ith an introd0ction by Irvin- Lo0is @oro/it?. !e/ "or.= Paine+Bhitman. + 2 revision of
Mills;s 0np0blished doctoral dissertation.
P2HA. HE3EHT E. #$6) Masse und 6ublikum: &ine methodologische und so#iologische
8ntersuchung. 3ern= Lac. & >r0na0.
P2HSE!S T2LCETT 4#$,&+#$7,9 #$%, Essays in /ociological Theory. Hev. ed. >lencoe
III.= Free Press. H2!JLF S'E!D 4#$,&9 #$%) MoraI Indi-nation and iddle Class
6sychology: 4 /ociological /tudy. !e/ "or.= Schoc.en. + The appendi1 contains a /ell+
doc0mented attac. on Scheler;s theory of resentment.
SC@ELEH M2N 4#$*%9 #$%6 Die !issensformen und die Gesellschaft. *d ed. rev. 3ern= Franc.e.
SEEM2! MEL'I! #$7% Intellect0al Perspective and 2dD0stment to Minority >ro0p Stat0s. /ocial
6roblems ,=#)*+#7,.
SEHEAI! PITIHIM 2. #$*& Contemporary /ociological Theories. !e/ "or.= @arper. ++Q 2
paperbac. edition /as p0blished in #$%) by @arper as Contemporary /ociological Theories
Through the <irst Auarter of the Twentieth Century.
SEHEAI! PITIHIM 2. 4#$,(+#$)#9 #$%* /ocial and Cultural 7ynamics. ) vols. En-le/ood
Cliffs. !.I.= 3ed+minster Press. + 'ol0me #= <luctuation of <orms of 4rt. 'ol0me *=
<luctuation of /ystems of Truth, &thics, and 1aw. 'ol0me ,= <luctuation of /ocial 0e-
lationships, !ar, and 0evolution. 'ol0me )= 3asic 6roblems, 6rinciples, and ethods.
SEHEAI! PITIHIM 2. 4#$),9 #$%) /ociocultural Causality, /pace, Time: 4 /tudy of 0eferential
#,
6rinciples of /ociology and /ocial /cience. !e/ "or.= H0ssell.
SPEIEH @2!S 4#$,&9 #$7* The Social Determination of Ideas. Pa-es $7+### in @ans Speier.
/ocial Erder and the 0isks of !ar: 6apers in 6olitical /ociology. !e/ "or.= Ste/art.
ST2HA BEH!EH #$7& The /ociology of 5nowledge: 4n &ssay in 4id of a 7eeper 8nderstanding
of the 3istory of Ideas. London= Ho0tled-eC >lencoe. III.= Free Press.
'E3LE! T@EHSTEI! 4#&$#+#$#,9 #$%# The 6lace of /cience in odern Civilisation, and 9ther
&ssays. !e/ "or.= H0ssell.
'E3LE! T@EHSTEI! 4#$#&9#$7( The 3igher 1earning in 4merica: 4 emorandum on the
Conduct of 8niversities by @usiness en. !e/ "or.= Sa-amore.
'E3LE! T@EHSTEI! 4#$#$9 #$)& The Intellect0al Preeminence of Ie/s in Modern E0rope.
Pa-es )%(+)($ in Thorstein 'eblen The 6ortable >tblen. Edited /ith an introd0ction by Ma1
Lerner. !e/ "or.= 'i.in-.
BILSE! LE>2! 4#$)*9 #$%) The 4cademic an: 4 /tudy in the /ociology of a 6rofession. !e/
"or.= Ecta-on.
BELFF AJHT @. #$7$ The Sociolo-y of Ano/led-e and Sociolo-ical Theory. Pa-es 7%(+%6* in
Lle/ellyn >ross 4editor9 /ymposium on /ociological Theory !e/ "or.= @arper.
L!2!IECAI FLEHI2! #$)6 The /ocial 0ole of the an of 5nowledge. !e/ "or.= Col0mbia
Jniv. Press.
#)