• TOP >
  • NEWS >
  • 英国政治学会「The Political Studies Association(PSA)」で、本学国際教養学部の山田竜作教授が研究発表しました


英国政治学会「The Political Studies Association(PSA)」で、本学国際教養学部の山田竜作教授が研究発表しました



4月15日(月)から17日(水)にわたって、英国ノッティンガムにて開催された英国政治学会「The Political Studies Association(PSA)」で、本学国際教養学部の山田竜作教授が研究発表しました。

山田教授は、16日に行われた「21世紀における政治・国際関係の理論化」のパネルに登壇し、「Mannheim, Hayek, Popper and "Planned Thinking" in a Changing World(変貌する世界における「計画的思考」をめぐる、マンハイム、ハイエク、ポパー)」のテーマで発表しました。本発表では、カール・マンハイムが1930~40年代に問題とした崩壊しつつある大衆社会を「変貌する世界」と位置づけ、その再建のために「自由のための計画」を提唱した彼がまず「計画的思考」の考察から議論を開始したことを指摘。「計画」は必然的に中央集権的な独裁に陥る、と断定したフリードリヒ・ハイエクとカール・ポパーによるマンハイム批判を検討し、彼らが考える「計画」とマンハイムの提唱するそれとは異なるものであり、両者の批判は誤解に基づいており必ずしも妥当ではないとの解釈を示しました。


This paper reconsiders Karl Mannheim's conception of "planned thinking" that he pursued for grasping a changing world. After his exile from Nazi Germany to England, Mannheim attempted to develop his idea of "planning for freedom" as the third way, neither laissez-faire liberalism nor totalitarian dictatorship, towards the reconstruction of disintegrating mass society. One reason why his arguments in his English time were not sufficiently understood would be because he used misleading term "planning". Friedrich A. Hayek and Karl R. Popper rejected "planning" as collectivism/socialism that brings about totalitarianism. We need to examine whether Hayek and Popper's criticism of "planning" was relevant to Mannheim's thought because the two theorists seemed not to attempt to closely understand Mannheimian conception of "planning" and "planned thinking".
This paper examines three points of criticism of "planning" by Hayek and Popper. (1) Hayek and Popper stressed that "planning" would inevitably be totalitarianism controlled by a centralized government. On the contrary, Mannheim regarded the totalitarian dictatorship as the consequence of the disintegration of society that accompanied laissez-faire drift. He believed that the cause of totalitarianism was immanent in liberalism. Mannheim's "planning for freedom" was based on his thought that uniform planning would not work for social reintegration because modern mass society is so complex. (2) Hayek insisted that "planning" requires a perfect ethical code that ranks various values. For him, it is impossible to have such a code that can decide what to be done for the whole society. While Mannheim never rejected the diversity of values, he argued that the lack of the shared norm makes democracy inefficient and brings about fascist view that "a bad decision is better than no decision". For Mannheim, the cause of dictatorship was conflicts and disruption that were caused by the lack of the shared norm and values. (3) Popper criticized Mannheim's "planning" as an example of historicism and holism, and he determined that Mannheim believed he found out the true ends of society by saying "transition from laissez-faire to a planned society". However, what Mannheim argued was not about a universal law but what Popper called "trend", and Mannheim's introduction of "principia media" instead of general principle made his "planning" similar to Popper's piecemeal engineering.
This paper then considers Mannheim's idea of "planned thinking". His discussions about "planning" began from the consideration of "planned thinking" that would be required for diagnosis of the world in accordance with its change. Mannheim's usage of "planning" was unique: he distinguished "planning" from "establishing" (creating a social order from scratch according to a blueprint) and "administrating" (controlling an established social order by the state). What Mannheim called "planning" was neither abstract nor static but rather the one that attempts to grasp the dynamic reality of changing mass society. Mannheim in England was keen about social education for producing people who are aware of total situation of society towards its reconstruction, while Hayek and Popper believed that education in planning must be indoctrination and stereotyping. Mannheimian social awareness strongly connected with "planned thinking" and such thinking was to be acquired not only by planner but also by common people who lived in a changing world. This paper attempts to reveal what is his "planned thinking" and to re-evaluate his insights about it in the context of social world today.