Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Human Affairs

Postdisciplinary Humanities & Social Sciences Quarterly

Editor-in-Chief: Višnovský, Emil

Ed. by Bianchi, Gabriel / Petrjanosova, Magda / Rebrova, Alena

4 Issues per year


CiteScore 2016: 0.33

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.172
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.415

Online
ISSN
1337-401X
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 26, Issue 2

Issues

Karl Mannheim on democratic interaction: Revisiting mass society theory

Ryusaku Yamada
Published Online: 2016-04-06 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/humaff-2016-0011

Abstract

This essay re-considers Karl Mannheim’s notion of democratic behaviour in the context of mass society. Although the term ‘mass society’ seems archaic, it is still the precondition of democracy today. Mannheim conceptualized mass society as irrational, disintegrating Great Society and presented the remedy of Planning for Freedom to counter the crisis of mass democracy. In his remedy Mannheim advocated social education that fosters citizens’ democratic interaction, and the keywords of his education were ‘integrative behaviour’ and ‘creative tolerance’. The similar orientation of his remedy can be found in much more contemporary critiques of deliberative democracy. Iris Marion Young’s ‘communicative democracy’ was a version of her democratic interaction in a complex, large-scale mass society. Young’s notion of ‘reasonableness’ has substantial affinity with Mannheim’s integrative behaviour, both of which require the democratic attitude of hearing the other side and the readiness to self-transform. Mass society theory has relevance for contemporary democratic theory.

Key words: Karl Mannheim; mass society; democratic interaction; deliberative democracy; Iris Marion Young

An earlier version of this essay was presented at the Political Studies Association of the UK 65th Annual International Conference in Sheffield on April 1st 2015. This work was supported by the Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) Number 15K03297. I am grateful to Valentina Jakubina, David Kettler, Hartmut Lenz, Jana Plichtova and Robert Sinclair for their helpful comments on the draft of this essay. I would like to thank Editage for English language editing

References

  • Albini, J. L. (1970). Crisis or reconstruction: Mannheim’s alternatives for the Western democracies. Sociological Focus, 3(3), 63-71.Google Scholar

  • Bogardus, E. S. (1951). Democratic planning according to Mannheim. Sociology and Social Research, 36, 110-115.Google Scholar

  • Borch, C. (2012). The politics of crowds: An alternative history of sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Frazer, E. (2006). Iris Marion Young and political education. In M. Sardoč (Ed.), Citizenship, inclusion and democracy: A symposium on Iris Marion Young (pp. 37-53). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Giner, S. (1976). Mass society. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Kettler, D., & Meja, V. (1995). Karl Mannheim and the crisis of liberalism: The secret of these new times. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar

  • Kornhauser, W. (1959). The politics of mass society. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar

  • Loader, C. (1985). The intellectual development of Karl Mannheim: Culture, politics, and planning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Mannheim, K. (1936 [1929]). Ideology and utopia: An introduction to the sociology of knowledge. London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

  • Mannheim, K. (1940). Man and society in an age of reconstruction: Studies in modern social structure. London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

  • Mannheim, K. (1943). Diagnosis of our time: Wartime essays of a sociologist. London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

  • Mannheim, K. (1951). Freedom, power and democratic planning. (Ed. by H. H. Gerth and E. K. Bramstedt). London, England: Routlage & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

  • Mannheim, K. (2001 [1932]). The contemporary tasks of sociology: Cultivation and the curriculum. In D. Kettler and C. Loader (Eds.), Sociology as political education (pp. 145-168). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar

  • Wallas, G. (1914). The great society: A psychological analysis. London, England: Macmillan.Google Scholar

  • Woldring, H. E. S. (1986). Karl Mannheim: The development of his thought. Assen/Maastricht, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar

  • Yamada, R. (2006). Democracy and mass society: A Japanese debate. Tokyo, Japan: Gakujutsu Shuppankai.Google Scholar

  • Young, I. M. (1989). Polity and group difference: A critique of the ideal of universal citizenship. Ethics, 99(2), 250-274.Google Scholar

  • Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

  • Young, I. M. (1993). Together in difference: Transforming the logic of group political conflict. In J. Squires (Ed.), Principled positions: Postmodernism and the rediscovery of value (pp. 121-150). London, England: Lawrence & Wishart.Google Scholar

  • Young, I. M. (1996). Communication and the other: Beyond deliberative democracy. In S. Benhabib (Ed.), Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political (pp. 120-135). Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

  • Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Young, I. M. (2002). Difference as a resource for democratic communication. In D. Estlund (Ed.), Democracy (pp. 213-233). Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar

  • Young, I. M. (2004). Situated knowledge and democratic discussion. In J. Andersen and B. Siim (Eds.), The politics of inclusion and empowerment: Gender, class and citizenship (pp. 19-35). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2016-04-06

Published in Print: 2016-04-01


Citation Information: Human Affairs, Volume 26, Issue 2, Pages 93–103, ISSN (Online) 1337-401X, ISSN (Print) 1210-3055, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/humaff-2016-0011.

Export Citation

© Institute for Research in Social Communication, Slovak Academy of Sciences.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in