By: Mahdi
When it is easy to comprehend an argument, we consider it weak. And when it is hard to understand, we consider it wise. I wonder WHY.
In medieval periods, we can find many thinkers and (pseudo)philosophers who used divine revelations and religious doctrines as an object to make their works look more attractive and to
generate influence among people. But some exceptions are there.
Today, people consider those days the golden periods of Tunisia when Ibn Khaldun was born. Yes, we are talking about Walī al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad ibn Abī Bakr Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan Ibn Khaldūn also known as Ibn Khaldun. It is hard to say how this great scholar achieved such great authority in numerous fields of research. By tracing some of his life events which were written by him in his autobiography (Al-taʿrīf bi Ibn Khaldūn), we can find how he traveled to many places and how philosophical writings influenced him. Some consider him a historian, others the father of Sociology and founder of demographical studies. But wait! As we are missing something. O yes, he is also known as one of the greatest philosophers and economists of his age.
The genius of Ibn Khaldun has often been acknowledged by the west. In Arnold J. Toynbee’s words, Ibn Khaldun’s Muqaddimah is “a philosophy of history, which is undoubtedly the greatest work of its kind that has ever yet been created by any mind at any time or place”.
Khaldun’s sociological interest developed when he left his position as a diplomat and went to join Al-Abili, who was going to Fez. There are many audacious events been described by Khaldun, how he shaped a comparative study on people living in different cultures and places. The most remarkable event written by him was when he was imprisoned for 22 months in Fez.
He started writing his first major book, Muqaddimah or Prolegomena (“Introduction”), in 1377 in the castle of Ibn Salama, Algeria. His age at that time was about 43. It took him three years to finally complete his masterpiece.
Khaldun’s fame continues because of some of his groundbreaking ideas on historical studies and society. Asabiyyah, or “social cohesion”, was his most significant contribution, which he developed in his book Muqaddimah. Before defining Asabiyyah, we should first look at how Khaldun created a landmark work that influenced the recent as well as philosophy before the enlightenment.
By reading some pages of his books, we can find how Khaldun describes the power of reason and argument. In the opening chapter of his book Muqaddimah, he reflects on Aristotle’s Politics while creating his own science of Sociology. Khaldun often uses the word “The Philosopher” (Aristotle) in his writings, and that’s how we can find his interest in peripatetic philosophy. Arguing how his study of this particular field (Sociology) differs from politics and rhetoric, he further explains that these three disciplines carry some common concepts. But they are all different. This way, he also influenced many modern thinkers by describing how a new field of study came into existence.
For let us now focus on his theories, mainly the theory of Asabiyyah.
In modern times we refer to social cohesion when we talk about Asabiyyah. Some Greek philosophers before him had explained how, in society, this “group feeling” works. Khaldun describes this idea to such extent that even today, we consider his book a classic for studying how social interactions and solidarity work and why it is essential in society.
According to his theory, a society works and can be judged on how and why people consider themselves a part of society. Khaldun considers Aristotle’s statement that “Man is by nature political and on this ground tries to explain how groups of people struggle to get their wants in society. The other reference he provides in his writings for, by nature, people want society to live is from his religious teachings.
For this, we can see Muqaddimah (English translation, p 10-11)
“He gave everything its natural characteristics, and then guided it”. Civilization. This means that human beings have to dwell in common and settle together in cities and hamlets for the comfort of and for the satisfaction of human needs…Or it may be sedentary civilization as found in cities, villages, towns and small communities that serve the purpose of protection and fortification by means of walls."
Let us say for if there are two groups of people prevailing in a society. The stronger among them will dominate and try to suppress the other one by imposing the beliefs and traditions that are important for them to the rest of the population. We can also understand it by majority and minority.
Now according to Khaldun’s comparative research, a group of people in this society will dominate over the rest because there is a force acting upon them which can be termed as “group feeling” or solidarity (For Khaldun, it is not precisely solidarity that he wants to explain. His definition is a bit similar but different in some aspects). And over time, the dominating idea will get weaker, and the other group of people who were suppressed by the dominating group will take over by promoting their ideas and wants. And this will continue in society until the people of that society consider themselves part of that society. Khaldun took this discussion further by explaining how this will happen. According to him, a society when starts developing is forced to focus on basic needs like food, shelter, and security. But gradually, it develops arts, culture, and tradition. The force Asabiyyah is higher in the beginning and weakest in the end. When skill starts to develop, people will try to consume the best they can get in that society, and with this, the one who is week in his labor and arts get unemployed. And after some time, the dominating group struggles to sustain itself and is overthrown by the other group.
He also explains how natural disasters destroy the culture and why it again starts to develop. From all the directions, Khaldun tries to explain his theories and ideas. His arguments were highly praised by modern thinkers and philosophers. But there is a problem as we can find a big gap between his philosophy and the contemporary world. If anyone attempts to explain modern society based on his ideas, then to say it will work is a bit contradictory. And for this, we have to drive his theory making it more reverent for the present world. So, let us begin by explaining a new approach to his works and ideas.
Karl Marx and other of his contemporaries had introduced an idea of a classless society. According to them, tribal societies were classless because everyone worked and was equally poor.
And because of surplus and ignoring autarky, the class came into existence. Now it is a bit paradoxical how and why Marx is considering a Primitive society classless.
If we eliminate the things like culture, race, religion, bourgeoisie, then according to Marx, we can achieve a society that will be classless. There are also other elements affecting it, but these are the major. Khaldun explains it is in the nature of society to form classes between people. And from here, the things get more deluded.
We have to go deep into history to find a case to help us understand the previous argument. Orwell, in his book Homage to Catalonia, also tries to explain how in the early revolutionary days of the Spanish Civil War, one can experience the taste of socialism. We also have to find why Orwell finds at the beginning of that revolution a socialist taste and how Khaldun’s theory explains everything.
In ancient Egypt, when the river Nile floods and people got confused about which part of the land belongs to them, they took help from the priests of the temples to tell them and resolve the struggles between the people. At that time, the priests and other senior religious authorities were the only people known to be educated, and by their mathematical and geometrical approach, they distribute the lands for the people to prevent any further disputes. So basically, there was a class of educated and illiterate in those days besides religion, cast, or any other element. The learned possessed power over the uneducated, and that’s why kings and the court’s men also supported the temple’s patriarchs. Now let’s go deeper. We all know that in primitive societies, there were people who taught religion and superstition. And the community also considers its authority. Even between the peoples, there exists a class based on people who know the skill of hunting and who do not know this art.
Nonetheless, we have examined how classes will form and why they will sustain. Today we see classes between people based on religion, money, cast, or other similar things. Eliminating these elements will open new spheres, and it can happen that between educated and uneducated, between healthy and ill, between young and old, the classes appear. And if Orwell thinks that what he saw in those days of revolution can be considered of a socialist taste, then we must know, there, the struggle is because of economic instability which was leading the people to depression. We have to remember this point as it will help us understand our new theory that we will explain further.
Khaldun did not criticize this system of having different classes in a community. Instead, he explains how significant it is in society. For the development of arts and culture, it is essential to have this element. He elucidates why it is in the nature of society to be unjust as, for him, society exercises a force on people that is itself unjust. We can criticize him on this as for let’s suppose if a person wants to harm another person. Then it is necessary to exercise power on that individual to protect the other individual.
How Modern Society Works: A New Theory
It is hard to consider Khaldun’s theory that it can explain our modern society. But we can create a more reasonable and rational version of his theory. So, let’s see how far we can go in creating a new approach and what things we should introduce in Khaldun’s theory of Asabiyyah.
The Marxists explain the concept of alienation when they talk about the proletariats and the bourgeois.
We can understand it by the following example:
If a worker works in a factory, and let us suppose he had produced five beautiful pots. Now he has to give it to the factory’s owner and in return will earn some money. The factory owner will sell his pots at higher prices, and that’s how the process goes. Now for that worker, he will feel alienated with his own produced pots as the company will only give him his salary. The pleasure of selling the pots is lost, and the worker will feel suppressed in such conditions.
Now let’s take an example of a car factory. A worker has to do one thing in the whole process of car manufacturing. For instance, if a person is fixing an engine, he cannot do the other works. And that’s how on a conveyor belt, the process goes on. Now a worker must specialize in his work. And that specialization of all the other workers will give the most refined product.
In this case, too, we can find the alienation of the worker from the final product. But is it not necessary? Then we have to choose between the worker and the product. In this situation, both things are essential, and that’s where we find ourselves in a dilemma. To solve this problem, we will focus on our new theory explaining how the art of contradicting self develops in an individual, and why it is essential to contradict ourselves.
When a shoemaker sells his products, he gets money in return. And that’s how he got satisfied as what happens to the product, he knows. But in the case of a factory worker, he is ignorant of where these products he is working on are going. And that’s why he feels alienated. By looking at the above two examples of a shoemaker and the factory worker, one will say for the first that he is satisfied and for the latter that he is not. But that is not what we see in this society. Even the shoemaker is not happy. Now let’s find out why.
A worker, if he starts working, for some days will enjoy the work. But after a time, there will be sickness or what Marx called alienation. And it will be the same for the shoemaker as he will feel satisfied doing his work for some time. But after a time, he will also start feeling disturbed. And so, we can find the problem that we have considered a problem is not a real one.
We find people doing work and, in the beginning, they feel satisfied. But after some time, the illness starts to generate. Now here we will not say that Asabiyyah is the cause behind it. So, what is the reason? Our new theory will explain it. Let’s see how.
If the work done by a person has no change in its nature, then it will definitely make that person sick. It is in the spirit of humans that, at times, we contradict ourselves. And this happens when we start learning or experiencing new things. Doing the same work over and over again gives the feeling of soundlessness in life. And from here, the whole story begins to change.
Now, as Khaldun has pointed out, the feeling of Asabiyyah decreases with time, and in the beginning, it is at the highest point and, in the end, at the lowest. Like this, the feeling of contradiction is at the bottom level when a person starts something and at the peak when he changes his mind to do something else. And that is how with time, a mature class will be born in society. And we can find a big problem with this mature class. The people of this class develop a feeling that they are now familiar with what they are doing. But in reality, the process in which they are working is impossible to be understood completely. And for this, we will give a brief explanation to clarify what it means to be a part of the mature class and why these people also feel alienated by the process they are already a part of.
Let’s take the same example of a shoemaker. Our theory explains that after some time, he will feel ill doing the same work. Now one can say that he can develop new designs that can help him and will motivate him. But the bigger problem for him is his experience. We know how fast the world changes its trends, and the shoemaker will find himself alienated when things start to change. And he will find himself in a dilemma. And that dilemma will be more dangerous for a bigger institution and less hazardous to the small ones. So basically, the worker will again move from the mature class to the immature class, and this shuffle, if practiced many times on him, will make him feel much alienated or, let us say, suppressed. Marx wrote in his Das Capital his most famous phrase that “They (people) do not know it, (work) but they are doing it. But in reality, they do know it, but what they do not know is, what they know is not the only thing there to be known.
People often criticize Ibn Khaldun’s theory of Asabiyyah. They give evidence that in revolutions, this Asabiyyah is nowhere to be found. But we must have to consider him the first man who dared to explain the term “society” philosophically and scientifically. He stood like a pillar and shows us how one can explain the social surroundings and how a community can be understood by this human mind. His influence in many fields remains to this day. We cannot imagine Hegel, Marx, Smith, Lock, or any other thinker without Khaldun. To see Ibn Khaldun as a historical and ancient man is to make him dysfunctional for today. Just like Greeks, he was a pioneer of many modern developing disciplines.
Mahdi is a student of Philosophy at Aligarh Muslim University and can be reached at mahdimohammad2002@gmail.com.
