{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03698150924537731, 'fraction_numerical': 0.031984007996002, 'mean_word_length': 5.037707390648567, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Selected Correspondence (1911 to 1946) of Karl Mannheim, Scientist, Philosopher, and Sociologist

This second edition of Karl Mannheim’s selected correspondence comprises 277 letters, an appendix of letters from the early years of exile (1921–1924), and an extensive set of notes by editor Éva Gábor. Mannheim (1893–1947) left his native Hungary in 1919 and moved first to Heidelberg (1920–1930), then to Frankfurt/M. (1930–1933), and finally to London (1933–1947). The 11 early letters from the Budapest period (1911–1919) and about half of the 24 Hungarian letters from Heidelberg were translated for this edition. Unfortunately, 31 German letters from Frankfurt and Heidelberg were not translated. They largely reflect the difficulties of emigration and the search for an appropriate job. The correspondence is unevenly distributed among the four segments, with only 62 letters from the first three periods (14 years), but 216 from the London period (also 14 years). One could reconstruct an intellectual biography from correspondence by tracing the intersection of a person’s life course with that of significant others. Apart from content, one could analyze frequency, length, duration, and continuity of exchanges. For example, there are eight letters addressed to Georg Lukacs between 1911 and 1916, all written from Budapest and in Hungarian. The first six address Lukacs as “Dear Sir” and are deferential, as from a young student to a famous professor. Then, in 1916, two letters to Lukacs are addressed to “My Dear Friend.” Mannheim seeks to explain his avoidance of Lukacs’ nod to collaborate. In a revealing note, Gábor writes: “Lukacs invited Mannheim to go to Heidelberg for the summer of 1916 so that they could work together on Lukacs’ book. Mannheim, however, did not accept the invitation, as a result of which their relationship turned sour, although Mannheim did not cease to respect Lukacs” (pp. 386–87). Thirty years later, in 1946, Mannheim, then a well-known professor at the University of London, wrote to Lukacs (“My dear Lukacs”) and offered to publish “one or two of your books” in the series that he was editing (International Library of Sociology and Social Reconstruction). Lukacs responded with a letter in German (“Lieber Mannheim”) accepting the offer. The letter made clear that the two met briefly in Frankfurt in the 1920s shortly before Lukacs went to the Soviet Union, and Lukacs included some personal news. Mannheim responded briefly (“Dear Lukacs”). Both made an effort to sound personal, but the chill is palpable. Mannheim closed his reply thus: “My wife and I were very pleased to have your personal news, and I add nothing personal to this letter because I do not wish to delay its arrival unduly.” Another fascinating set of exchanges is revealed in some 50 letters to and from Louis Wirth in Chicago. It begins with a few initial “feelers” between to two sociologists and eventually develops into Wirth and Shils’ translation of Mannheim’s major work of 1929, Ideology and Utopia. This translation contributed greatly to Mannheim’s visibility and acceptance in American sociological circles. In the process, Mannheim corresponded with other émigré academics like Siegfried Kracauer, Hans Gerth, Eduard Heimann, Otto Neurath, and Norbert Elias. The relationship with Edward Shils seems to have been rather oblique. Some 25 references to Shils appear in Mannheim’s correspondence with others. For example, in a letter to Wirth (1936), Mannheim says he wrote to Shils about the possibility of an American edition of another of Mannheim’s books, but that Shils had not answered (p. 172). There is only one letter directly addressed to Shils (1941) in which Mannheim responds to criticisms Shils had published in an article, a surprise copy of which he had sent to Mannheim. By contrast, the correspondence with Michael Polanyi (18 letters) reveals the growth of a personal friendship despite intellectual disagreements, but there are no references to Michael