Yannis Ktenas

The Hungarian sociologist Karl Mannheim conceived the critique of ideology as a process of “unmasking” which reveals the close relationship between every thought and a given socio-historical condition: ideas reflect certain “social situations” among different classes and social strata. Originally, this critical tool enabled us to demonstrate “the unconscious interests” of our political opponents. However, since all thought turns out to be linked to the vital interests of a given position in society, the concept of ideology is generalized; one can use it to analyze “not just the adversary’s point of view but all points of view, including his own.” For Mannheim, this process of “reciprocal unmasking,” however liberating, can end up undermining faith in thought as such; it leads to a generalized suspicion of everyone in relation to everything. Contemporary critiques of ideology appear even more diffuse in order to encompass a diverse range of fields: climate, private life, consumption, food, or even sports. Along with the emancipatory potential of such discussions comes an ever-growing suspicion: everything appears ideological, and the polarized debates on social media and elsewhere testify to a crisis of public trust in scientific discourse and institutions. Against this background, Mannheim’s legacy is becoming more relevant than ever, allowing us to reflect upon our own personal social situation.  

Yannis Ktenas’s research program uses the Weberian concept of “value polytheism” to examine the ethico-political debates around the Coronavirus pandemic. Various and indeed incompatible forms of rationality can be shaped starting from different value premises, a hypothesis that can be verified through the study of public stances towards the pandemic. However, this does not mean that every value-oriented approach is equally plausible. A consistent use of our faculty of judgement is required in order to orient ourselves in the landscape of polytheism.