Abstract
In the present paper I sketch three genres of sociology of knowledge and trace their roots to Marx and Marxist literature while reconstructing two causal and one hermeneutic strand in this context. While so doing the main focus is set on György Lukács and György Márkus and their interpretation of Marx’s contribution to sociologically minded theories of knowledge. As a conclusion I point out that Marx-inspired sociologies of knowledge are more sensitive to the relation of larger-scale social and historical processes than to the actual practices of knowledge production, and that recent developments in science studies tend to integrate larger- and smaller-scale sociological sensitivities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
I introduce Lukács’s pre-Marxist sociology of knowledge in Demeter (2012).
For a discussion see Bukharin (1925, 204f).
For a discussion see e.g. Rigby (1998, 43ff).
See also Marx (1955).
Productive forces can be aptly understood as ‘inus conditions’ of intellectual production as John Mackie (1965, 245) defines them. Accordingly, a cause “insufficient but a necessary part of a condition which is itself unnecessary but sufficient for the result”. This kind of causal talk is widespread in sociologies of knowledge that do not focus on productive forces, but other social factors such as traditions, customs, and socialization. A good example is the recent monumental study by David Bloor concerned with the early twentieth-century development of aerodynamics, which “explains the preconditions of success and failure” (Bloor 2011, 420).
It has been recently republished as Hessen (2009).
Although the Preface is largely ignored by the interpreters of Newton, Guicciardini (2009, 293–299) offers an illuminating discussion of this aspect.
For a good summary of Hessen’s theses see Freudenthal and McLaughlin (2009).
See translation in Lukács (1968a, 2).
An excellent example of integration is Bloor (2011). For theoretical conclusions see especially chapter 10.
References
Bloor, D. (2011). The enigma of the aerofoil: Rival theories in aerodynamics, 1909–1930. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bukharin, N. (1925). Historical materialism: A system of sociology. New York: International Publishers.
Cohen, G. A. (1978). Karl Marx’s Theory of History. Oxford: Clarendon.
Demeter, T. (2012). Weltanschauung as a priori: sociology of knowledge from a ‘romantic’ stance. Studies in East European Thought, 64, 39–52.
Freudenthal, G., & McLaughlin, P. (2009). Classical Marxist Historiography of Science: The Hessen-Grossmann Thesis. In G. Freudenthal & P. McLaughlin (Eds.), The social and economic roots of the scientific revolution: Texts by Boris Hessen and Henryk Grossmann. Dordrecht: Springer.
Guicciardini, N. (2009). Isaac Newton on mathematical certainty and method. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hessen, B. (2009). The social and economic roots of Newton’s Principia. In G. Freudenthal & P. McLaughlin (Eds.), The social and economic roots of the scientific revolution: Texts by Boris Hessen and Henryk Grossmann. Dordrecht: Springer.
Hume, D. (1741a). Of the First Principles of Government. In Essays Moral, Political, and Literary. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, rev. ed., 1987.
Hume, D. (1741b). Whether the British Government inclines more to Absolute Monarchy, or to a Republic. In Essays Moral, Political, and Literary. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, rev. ed., 1987.
Lawrence, C. (1979). The nervous system and society in the Scottish enlightenment. In B. Barnes & S. Shapin (Eds.), Natural order: historical studies of scientific culture. London: Routledge.
Little, D. (1991). Varieties of social explanation: An introduction to the philosophy of social science. Boulder: Westview.
Lukács, G. (1968a). History and class consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press.
Lukács, G. (1968b). Geschichte und Klassenbewusstsein. Darmstadt, Neuwied: Luchterhand.
Lynch, W. T. (1994). Ideology and the sociology of scientific knowledge. Social Studies of Science, 24, 197–227.
Mackie, J. L. (1965). Causes and conditions. American Philosophical Quarterly, 2, 245–265.
Mannheim, K. (1968). Ideology and utopia. London: Routldege & Kegan Paul.
Mannheim, K. (1982). Structures of thinking. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Márkus, G. (1995). On ideology-critique—Critically. Thesis Eleven, 43, 66–99.
Marx, K. (1955). The poverty of philosophy. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1998). The German ideology. New York: Prometheus Books.
Nemeth, E. (2008). Logical empiricism and the history and sociology of science. In Alan Richardson & Thomas Uebel (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to logical empiricism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rigby, S. H. (1998). Marx and history. Manchester: Manchester Uuniversity Press.
Shapin, S. (1981). Of Gods and Kings: Natural philosophy and politics in the Leibniz-Clark disputes. Isis, 72, 187–215.
Weber, M. (1930). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London: Allen and Unwin.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Demeter, T. Three genres of sociology of knowledge and their Marxist origins. Stud East Eur Thought 67, 1–11 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-015-9225-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-015-9225-6