Karl Popper Versus Karl Mannheim on Sociology and Democratic Governance.

Abstract

There is a variety of conceptions of the public role that sociology ought to play. Perhaps the most common one presents it as serving a critical or oppositional function, not least in relation to governments and their policies. Yet this has by no means always been the dominant conception of sociology's role. In his well-known typology, Michael Burawoy recognised 'professional' and 'policy' versions of the discipline, alongside 'critical' and 'public' ones. However, even this does not capture the full range of variation in view about sociology's public role. There can be divergencies within each of Burawoy's categories. And it is worth taking account of these in order to gain a clear sense of all the possibilities. In this spirit, what is offered here is an examination of contrasting approaches that would fall under Burawoy's heading of policy sociology. These come from two key figures who had considerable influence on twentieth-century social and political thought-Karl Mannheim and Karl Popper. While they both believed that the function of social science is to serve government policymaking, and both were committed to democracy, they took very different views about sociology's relationship to governance. Indeed, Popper sharply criticised Mannheim's position, condemning it as totalitarian. The issues these authors addressed remain of considerable significance today, and this paper explores what can be learnt from their differences in perspective, as well as from what they shared.