Ibn Khaldūn and Contemporary Sociology

This review is focused on a central question: why should a social thinker like Ibn Khaldu¯ n be excluded from the serious study of the history of sociology, sociological theory or historical sociology? A quick review of contemporary histories of social thought and social theory will reveal that very little attention is given to non-western precursors of sociology or non-western social thinkers who were contemporaneous with the European founders of the discipline. Nineteenth- and early 20th-century western sociologists, on the other hand, were more aware of the role of non-western thought in the development of western sociology as a discipline. This interest will be found to have waned in the last century. Nineteenth-century European founders of sociology such as Marx, Weber and Durkheim had such an impact on the development of sociology and the other social sciences that many theories and models derived from their works were applied to areas outside Europe, that is, to the non-western world. The same attitude was not applied to non-western social thinkers. Without suggesting that European or western ideas have no relevance to non-European realities, this article suggests that multicultural sources of sociological thought and theory should be considered. Ibn Khaldu¯ n died 600 years ago, but his ideas have endured. Nevertheless, there is a way in which he has been appropriated, resulting in his somewhat marginal status in contemporary sociology. This review provides an overview of Ibn Khaldu¯ n’s work and thought, discusses reasons for his marginality, and suggests ways to bring Ibn Khaldu¯ n into the mainstream.


Introduction
This review is focused on a central question: why should a social thinker like Ibn Khaldū n be excluded from the serious study of the history of sociology, sociological theory or historical sociology? A quick review of contemporary histories of social thought and social theory will reveal that very little attention is given to non-western precursors of sociology or non-western social thinkers who were contemporaneous with the European founders of the discipline. Nineteenth-and early 20th-century western sociologists, on the other hand, were more aware of the role of non-western thought in the development of western sociology as a discipline. This interest will be found to have waned in the last century.
Nineteenth-century European founders of sociology such as Marx, Weber and Durkheim had such an impact on the development of sociology and the other social sciences that many theories and models derived from their works were applied to areas outside Europe, that is, to the nonwestern world. The same attitude was not applied to non-western social thinkers. Without suggesting that European or western ideas have no relevance to non-European realities, this article suggests that multicultural sources of sociological thought and theory should be considered. Ibn Khaldū n died 600 years ago, but his ideas have endured. Nevertheless, there is a way in which he has been appropriated, resulting in his somewhat marginal status in contemporary sociology. This review provides an overview of Ibn Khaldū n's work and thought, discusses 'Ali 'Abd al-Wāh . id Wāfī, also of that generation, did a comparative study of Ibn Khaldū n and Auguste Comte (Wāfī, 1951) and wrote a well-known piece on Ibn Khaldū n as the founder of sociology (Wāfī, 1962). Syed Hussein Alatas from Malaysia also referred to Ibn Khaldū n as having established the principles of modern sociology (S. H. Alatas, 1954: 2). It is interesting to note that the famed Egyptian novelist and social thinker Taha Hussein, who himself wrote a doctoral dissertation on Ibn Khaldū n, regarded claims that Ibn Khaldū n was a sociologist as an exaggeration (Hussein, 1918: 75).

Major Substantive Contributions
What is not often known among non-specialists is that Ibn Khaldū n's Muqaddimah, completed in 1378, serves as an introduction to his larger empirical work on the history of the Arabs and Berbers, the Kitāb al-'Ibar.
In the foreword to the Muqaddimah, Ibn Khaldū n gives us the rationale for this work. The discipline of history, if it is to be understood as mere information about dynasties and political events of the past, merely scratches the surface. This surface (z . āhir) aspect of history is to be distinguished from the inner meaning (bāt . in) of history, which 'involves speculation and an attempt to get at the truth, subtle explanation of the causes and origins of existing things, and deep knowledge of the how and why of events' (Ibn Khaldū n, 1378: 1 [1967). 3 The Kitāb al-'Ibar in Ibn Khaldū n's terms, therefore, covers the surface phenomenon of history in that it details the history of the Arab and Berber dynasties of the Arab East (al-Mashriq) and Arab West (al-Maghrib). The inner meaning of history, on the other hand, is dealt with in the Muqaddimah, the prolegomena and the first book of Ibn Khaldū n's voluminous Kitāb al-'Ibar.
Ibn Khaldū n wrote the Muqaddimah in order to clarify the method that would enable the scholar to ascertain true events from false narratives. He considered that existing historical works were fraught with errors and unfounded assumptions. The Muqaddimah was conceived by Ibn Khaldū n to be an integral part of the larger Kitāb al-'Ibar, which comprises three books. The Muqaddimah is the First Book of the Kitāb al-'Ibar and deals with the merit of the new science of human society and its methods. Books Two and Three deal with the history and dynasties of the Arabs, Israelites, Persians, Greeks, Byzantines, Turks and Berbers (Ibn Khaldū n, 1378: 6 [1967). Dealing with the subject-matter of Books Two and Three, however, is dependent on, as El-Azmeh (1979: 17) put it, a master science, that Ibn Khaldū n calls the science of human society. The effort to establish what was probable and possible among the events of history required an independent science that 'has its own peculiar object -that International Sociology Review of Books Vol. 21 No. 6 is, human civilization and social organization' (Ibn Khaldū n, 1378: 38 [1967). It was this effort, i.e. to distinguish between the more popular narrative history on the one hand, and history as a science that investigated the origins and development of society on the other, that resulted in his discovery of the science of human society, or what we may call sociology.
Ibn Khaldū n was very conscious of the uniqueness of his science of human society, noting that it did not belong to existing disciplines such as rhetoric or politics, although it shared some similarities with them (Ibn Khaldū n, 1378: 38 [1967). 4 The substantive interest of Ibn Khaldū n, in both the Muqaddimah and the Kitāb al-'Ibar, lies in the explanation of the formation and decline of Maghribian and Arab states. The bulk of the Muqaddimah is devoted to elaborating a theory of state formation and decline. This is presented in the course of three major sections ( fas . l), i.e. Sections Two to Four.
Section Two deals with the nature of nomadic society, the superiority of tribal social solidarity ('as . abiyyah) or group feeling, the role of kinship and blood ties in group feeling, and the natural inclination of nomadic society to attaining royal authority (mulk), establishing a dynasty. Section Three focuses on the development and decay of royal authority, the role of religion in this, the various groups and forces that figure in dynastic decline, and the mode of origin and disintegration of dynasties. Section Four highlights a number of aspects of the nature of sedentary civilization.
In these sections, Ibn Khaldū n theorizes the differences in social organization between nomadic (al-'umrān al-badawī) and sedentary societies (al-'umrān al-had . arī). Fundamental to his theory is the concept of 'as . abiyyah, or group feeling. Only a society with a strong 'as . abiyyah could establish domination over one with a weak 'as . abiyyah (Ibn Khaldū n, 1378: 139, 154 [1967). In this context, 'as . abiyyah refers to the feeling of solidarity among the members of a group that is derived from the knowledge that they share a common descent. As noted by El-Azmeh, 'as . abiyyah is 'that which makes a group a power group' (El-Azmeh, 1979: 19). Because of superior 'as . abiyyah among the Bedouin they could defeat sedentary people in urban areas and establish their own dynasties. The final manifestation of 'as . abiyyah was the dynasty or aldawlah (El-Azmeh, 1979: 19). Having achieved this, the Bedouin became set in the urban ways of life and experienced great diminution in their 'as . abiyyah. 5 With this went their military strength and they became vulnerable to attack and conquest by tribal groups from the outside. The cycle of rise and decline was estimated by Ibn Khaldū n to take approximately four generations (Ibn Khaldū n, 1378: 170 [1967).

Relevance to Contemporary Sociology
Several western scholars in the 19th century recognized Ibn Khaldū n as a founder of sociology (von Kremer, 1879;Flint, 1893: 158ff.;Gumplowicz, 1928: 90-114;Maunier, 1913;Oppenheimer, 1922-35, Vol. II: 173ff.;Vol. IV, 251ff.;Ortega y Gasset, 1976-8). Becker and Barnes, in their Social Thought from Lore to Science, first published in 1938, devote many pages to a discussion of the ideas of Ibn Khaldū n, recognizing that he was the first to apply modern-type ideas in historical sociology (Becker and Barnes, 1961: Vol. I: 266-79). Baali cites Sorokin, Gumplowicz, Barnes and Becker as being among those who recognize the Arabic contribution to the field of sociology (Baali, 1986: 17).
Ibn Khaldū n has been compared with many western scholars who lived after him but who were said to have originated similar ideas. Let us consider the parallels between Ibn Khaldū n and Auguste Comte (1798-1857), the founding father of sociology, as discussed by Baali (1986: 29-32 The obvious question that arises and that was raised by Baali is, was Comte familiar with the writings of Ibn Khaldū n? Some assumptions as to how Comte may have come to know of the works of Ibn Khaldū n are that Comte would have come across the French translations; 6 that he would have heard of Ibn Khaldū n through his Egyptian students; and that he had read Montesquieu, who had read Ibn Khaldū n in the original Arabic. But there is only speculation that Comte was indirectly influenced by Ibn Khaldū n. The possibility of the influence of Ibn Khaldū n on Marx and Engels has been discussed elsewhere. 7 Some assumptions as to how Engels may have come to know of the works of Ibn Khaldū n are that he, like Comte, had come across French translations; he would have heard of Ibn Khaldū n through Marx, as Marx did cite de Slane's translation in some reading notes he made on Algeria in the early 1880s (Hopkins, 1990: 12); and Engels describes cyclical change in his reading of European history prior to the medieval period quite similar to that of Ibn Khaldū n. As Hopkins notes, Engels may have been attracted to Ibn Khaldū n because of what Engels might have seen as a materialistic approach in the Muqaddimah (Hopkins, 1990: 12). For example, Ibn Khaldū n states that 'differences of condition among people are the result of the different ways in which they make their living' (Ibn Khaldū n, 1378: 120 [1967).
International Sociology Review of Books Vol. 21 No. 6 The point here is to suggest that thinkers living several centuries later than a different civilization may know and appreciate the works of their predecessors. This is rarely done in the field of sociology. Among the few exceptions are Becker and Barnes, who not only reserved a section in their work for Ibn Khaldū n (Becker and Barnes, 1961: 266-79), but also discussed the influence of his ideas on Europeans, that is, an instance of the intercivilizational encounter in sociology. They suggest that Ibn Khaldū n's direct influence on sociology probably began in 1899, the year that Gumplowicz published his Soziologische Essays, which included a chapter on Ibn Khaldū n. They also note the influence of Ibn Khaldū n on the conflict theory of Oppenheimer, who draws upon Ibn Khaldū n for his work on agrarian reform (Becker and Barnes, 1961: 267). More importantly, Becker and Barnes were able to recognize the 'modern' aspects of Ibn Khaldū n's work without interpreting him out of context. They were perfectly aware of the fact that Ibn Khaldū n wrote in a time and place quite unlike that of 19th-century Europe. At the same time, they were able to understand those aspects of Ibn Khaldū n's work that were timeless and universal. Although Ibn Khaldū n developed theoretical tools and concepts that are valuable for the positive (as opposed to the normative) study of history, most students of Ibn Khaldū n have not been interested in building upon his ideas, combining them with concepts derived from modern sociology and applying theoretical frameworks derived from his thought to historical and empirical realities. There have been few works that have gone beyond the mere comparison of ideas and concepts in Ibn Khaldū n with those of modern western scholars towards the theoretical integration of his theory into a framework that employs some of the tools of modern social science (for exceptions see Cheddadi, 1980;Gellner, 1981;Lacoste, 1984;Carré, 1988;S. F. Alatas, 1993).

Obstacles to the Development of Khaldunian Sociology
At least one reason why Khaldunian sociology remains undeveloped has to do with the fact that there has been little emphasis on the empirical application of his theoretical framework to historical and contemporary data. The bulk of work on Ibn Khaldū n is theoretical and meta-theoretical.

Theory
As far as the area of theory is concerned, the works in existence are far too numerous to list here. Many of these works fall within two categories. One category consists of works that attempt to reconcile Ibn Khaldū n with modern sociology. As noted by Ah . mad Zāyid, many Arab sociologists were committed to comparisons between Ibn Khaldū n and the modern founders of sociology in order to prove that it was the former who Alatas Ibn Khaldūn and Contemporary Sociology founded the discipline (Zāyid, 1996: 14). Ibn Khaldū n has been compared to Machiavelli (Al-'Arawī [Laroui], 1979;Laroui, 1987), Comte (Wāfī, 1951;Baali, 1986;Faghirzadeh, 1982;Khayrī, 1991), Marx (Baali and Price, 1982) and Durkheim (Faghirzadeh, 1982;'Izzat, 1952;Khayrī, 1991). There are many studies of specific issues and concepts relating directly to Ibn Khaldū n's oeuvre that cannot be listed here. These studies cover topics such as state formation, 'as . abiyyah, the city, sedentary and nomadic societies, production relations and so on. A glance at some bibliographies devoted to Ibn Khaldū n will provide a good idea of the topical and linguistic range of such works (Al-Hayāt al-Thaqāfiyyah, 1980;Tixier-Wieczorkiewicz, 1999-2000.

Meta-Theory
Analytical studies on the epistemological and methodological foundations of Ibn Khaldū n's work are not as numerous as those on theory discussed in the previous subsection. Nevertheless, there are several important works that have been published during the last 50 years. A very important work in this respect is Muhsin Mahdi's Ibn Khaldū n's Philosophy of History. Mahdi discusses Ibn Khaldū n's dialectical study of Muslim historiography in order to reveal its weaknesses and justify a new science of society that has its own methods of demonstration based on the logic of Aristotle (Mahdi, 1957). Mahdi is critiqued by Al-Wardī who suggested that Ibn Khaldū n actually opposed the methods of the logicians and was instead influenced by Al-Ghazālī and Ibn Taymiyya (Al-Wardī, 1962, cited in Rabī', 1967. Rabī', in his doctoral dissertation of 1967, provides a useful review of four trends in the study of Ibn Khaldū n's method. One trend is the exaggeration of Ibn Khaldū n's alleged secular thinking, suggesting that Ibn Khaldū n downplayed or denied the necessity of prophecy for culture. The second trend, represented by the renowned Orientalist, H. A. R. Gibb, underestimates the originality of Ibn Khaldū n's method, suggesting that he did not do much more than adopt the methods of the Muslim jurists and social philosophers who preceded him. The third and fourth trends are represented by Mahdi and Al-Wardī respectively (Rabī', 1967: 24-6). In addition to these debates, there are numerous works on other aspects of Ibn Khaldū n's methodology and epistemology (e.g. Badawī, 1962;'Afīfī, 1962;Al-Sā'ātī, 1962;T . āhā, 1979;Al-Jābirī, 1979;Badawī, 1979;Al-T . ālbī, 1980;Al-Marzū qī, 1982).
What is needed for the development of Khaldunian sociology, however, are serious efforts to apply his theoretical framework to empirical situations, historical or contemporary. For this to happen, there have to be more critical assessments of existing applications. Furthermore, this must take place within an overall context of the promotion of Ibn Khaldū n in teaching and research.
International Sociology Review of Books Vol. 21 No. 6 Building Neo-Khaldunian Theory Very few works have attempted to integrate Ibn Khaldū n's theory of state formation with the theories and concepts of modern sociology (Ortega y Gasset, 1976-8;Laroui, 1980;Cheddadi, 1980;Gellner, 1981;Michaud, 1981;Lacoste, 1984;Carré, 1988;S. F. Alatas, 1993). An example of such integration is the explanation of the rise and decline of the premodern Safavid dynasty of Iran in terms of Khaldū n's theory of state formation.
According to such a historical political economy of Safavid Iran, the dynamic of historical change in Ibn Khaldū n's theory is applied to the Marxist concept of the mode of production. Safavid state formation is then explained in terms of the relationship between coexisting modes of production. Marxist and Weberian concepts may be integrated into a Khaldunian framework of historical change and utilized to explain the decline in 'as . abiyyah (group feeling) and the rise of mulk and khilāfah authority (S. F. Alatas, 1993).

Critical Assessment of Applications of Ibn Khaldūn
If there is little in the area of building neo-Khaldunian theory, there is even less by way of the critical assessment of attempts to apply a Khaldunian model to the study of periods and regions other than Ibn Khaldū n's own. Gellner, for example, advanced a theory of Muslim reform based on a fusion of the ideas of Ibn Khaldū n and David Hume. This has not been taken up and engaged with by others. The same is true of the works of Ortega y Gasset, Lacoste and others.

Regular Panels or Papers on Ibn Khaldūn at Mainstream Conferences in Sociology
In the past, there have been several major conferences organized in the Arab world on Ibn Khaldū n. The more prominent ones include the Ibn Khaldū n Symposium in Cairo in 1962 (National Centre for Social and Criminological Research, 1962), the Colloque Internationale sur Ibn Khaldoun in Algiers in 1978(Centre National d'Etudes Historiques, 1978 and the Ibn Khaldū n Seminar in Rabat in 1979 (Faculty of Letters and Human Sciences, 1979). There has been far less attention to Ibn Khaldū n at national or international scholarly meetings in the West or in other areas outside the Arab world.

Teaching Ibn Khaldūn in Mainstream Sociology Courses or Sociological Theory Textbooks
While a comprehensive study of Arabic as well as western-language sociology textbooks on space devoted to Ibn Khaldū n has yet to be attempted, it has been noted by Zāyid, for the case of Egypt, the leading nation in the Arab world for sociology, that Ibn Khaldū n was rarely mentioned in Alatas Ibn Khaldūn and Contemporary Sociology textbooks published after the 1960s, the heritage appeal having been lost (Zāyid, 1996: 16).

Ibn Khaldūn in the Sociology Curriculum
In the vast majority of sociological theory textbooks or works on the history of social theory, the subject-object dichotomy is a pervasive theme. Europeans are the knowing subjects, i.e. the social theorists and social thinkers. To the extent that non-Europeans figure in these accounts, they are objects of the observations and analyses of the European theorists, appearing as Marx's Indians and Algerians or Weber's Turks, Chinese and Jews and not as sources of sociological concepts and ideas. In one historical account, 'early social theories' in the so-called 'simpler' or non-literate societies, as well as ancient Egypt, ancient Babylon, the Greek city-states, Japan and China, were covered under the category of religious theories (Fletcher, 1971: Ch. 2). This discussion is obviously founded on the old scientific-mythic dichotomy that is supposed to separate the West from the East. The fact that there was what would be considered as positive, scientific thought that approximated what would have been regarded as sociology in the West in parts of the Muslim world, India, Japan and China from the 14th century onwards was not discussed, even though the relevant works have been known to the Europeans since the 19th century. In works on the history of social thought that chart the development of sociological theory, the focus is on European thinkers at the expense of thematizing intercivilizational encounters that possibly influenced social theory in Europe. For instance, Maus's A Short History of Sociology does not refer to any non-European in his chapter on the antecedents of sociology (Maus, 1962: Ch. 1).
Most textbooks on classical social theory aim to introduce European classical theorists such as Marx, Weber, Simmel and Durkheim but are not true to the definition of 'classical' that they claim to adopt. The logical implication of the definition of 'classic' is the serious consideration of non-European thinkers who were contemporaneous with those Europeans of the 19th and early 20th century that are covered in theory textbooks.
The absence of non-European thinkers in theory textbooks results in their absence in theory courses as well. The Resource Book for Teaching Sociological Theory published by the American Sociological Association is very revealing in this respect. It contains a number of course descriptions for sociological theory. The range of classical theorists whose works are taught are Montesquieu, Vico, Comte, Spencer, Marx, Weber, Durkheim, Simmel, Tönnies, Sombart, Mannheim, Pareto, Sumner, Ward, Small, Wollstonecraft and several others. No non-European thinkers are included and women thinkers are by no means well represented (Moodey, 1989).
International Sociology Review of Books Vol. 21 No. 6 Although Ibn Khaldū n may appear to be an exception to the rule because many Europeans had 'discovered' and discussed his works since the 19th century, a quick review of these discussions would reveal that he is mainly of historical interest. 8

Conclusion
The question then arises as to what can be done to reverse this civilizational imbalance in the teaching and researching of sociological theory, such that a more universal social science is cultivated.
The advantage of being teachers in the universities as opposed to elementary and secondary institutions of learning is that we have more autonomy and control over course syllabi and are in a position to make radical changes even if these changes do not reflect official positions or state philosophies of education. In a course that I have been teaching with my colleague Vineeta Sinha for a number of years, titled 'Social Thought and Social Theory', 9 conscious efforts have been made to bring in nonwestern thinkers such as Ibn Khaldū n.
For example, we introduced alternative categories and concepts that we hold enrich and universalize sociology. There is a variety of points of view, in this case, of theoretical perspectives that have multicultural origins. Ibn Khaldū n's work, for example, contains concepts and theoretical explanations that emerge from his own period and cultural setting and suggest interesting ways in which they can be applied to the study of social phenomena both within and outside his own time and milieu. A variety of theoretical perspectives derived from the works of Marx and Weber have been applied to the study of non-western histories. Why should a theorist like Ibn Khaldū n be excluded?
The various changes we made to our course on classical sociological theory as described above are meant to get us to ask ourselves why some founders of sociology are not taught in textbooks and classrooms. It is not simply a question of setting the record straight, which is itself very important, but also one of opening ourselves up to other sources of knowledge.
bi Ibn Khaldū n wa Rih . latuhu Gharban wa Sharqan [Biography of Ibn Khaldū n and His Travels East and West] (Ibn Khaldū n, 1979). 2. For a study of this autobiography, see Merad (1956). 3. Page numbers in brackets refer to Franz Rosenthal's English translation from which this quotation is taken (see Ibn Khaldū n, 1967). 4. The new sciences discussed in the Muqaddimah fall under the following headings: (1) human society ('umrān) in general and its types, (2) the various groups that make up desert society, (3) dynasties and the types of authority, (4) sedentary society, (5) the modes of making a living and occupations, and (6) the classification of sciences and their acquisition (Ibn Khaldū n, 1378: 41 [1967). 5. For an interesting and early study of 'as . abiyyah from a social psychological point of view, see Ritter (1948). 6. It was probably in the 17th century that Ibn Khaldū n's name first appeared in Europe. A biography of Ibn Khaldū n was published in D'Herbelot's Bibliothèque Orientale in 1697 (D'Herbelot, 1697: II, 418). More than 100 years later, Silvestre de Sacy published translations of excerpts from Ibn Khaldū n's work into French (de Sacy, 1810). This was followed by a complete French translation of the Muqaddimah by de Sacy into French between 1862 and 1868; another French translation of that work was done by William MacGuckin de Slane (Baali, 1986: 32-3). 7. This connection was made first of all by Bousquet (1979), Gellner (1981) and later by Hopkins (1990). 8. Ritzer acknowledged Ibn Khaldū n as an example of a sociologist predating the western classical thinkers but he was not able to provide more than a brief biographical sketch of Ibn Khaldū n in his textbook (Ritzer, 2000: 8). 9. This is a compulsory final year module for sociology majors at the National University of Singapore that covers classical sociological theory. Our experience and findings were reported in the journal Teaching Sociology (Alatas and Sinha, 2001).