Classical Sociological Theory. Sinisa Malesevic

Turchin & Hall 2003). Nevertheless, most pre-Enlightenment cyclical models do not make room for the theory of evolution and as such cannot account for a substantial degree of biological linearity that underpins more recent cyclical models of history.

      Thirdly, and sociologically most importantly, Ibn Khaldun’s theories of social change have been criticised as insufficient to explain the complexity of social relations outside of the Maghreb and the pre-modern Islamic world. For example, Gellner (1981: 88–9) argues that Khaldunian theoretical models are excellent but only applicable to a specific time and place: Ibn Khaldun ‘was the sociologist of Islam; notably of Islam as manifested in the arid zone, an environment which encourages tribalism by favouring nomadic or semi-nomadic pastorialism and which hinders centralising political tendencies’. In this context his theory of group solidarity is perceived to be valid for what Durkheim called ‘mechanical solidarity’ of small pre-modern groups but not adequate to account for the multifaceted nature of ‘organic solidarity’ that develops in the industrialised era. Some have also questioned the psychological postulates of Khaldunian arguments (Ritter, 1948). However other scholars have argued that although Ibn Khaldun could not envisage the emergence of modernity, his micro-sociology is still relevant and helps us understand micro-group dynamics in the modern world (Malešević, 2015; Alatas, 2014).

      Conclusion

      Together with most other social sciences, sociology has often been labelled as being deeply Eurocentric (Connell, 2007; Bhambra, 2007). In some respects this is true as the conventional sociological canon consists solely of European scholars (Marx, Durkheim, Weber or Simmel) and much of the sociological theorising over the past two centuries was produced by Europeans (or their descendants), for Europeans, and espousing a particular preoccupation with very European concerns. Moreover, sociological research has often benefited from the legacies of colonialism and imperialism and some non-European intellectual contributions have been deliberately ignored. However, as Hall (2001) and McLennan (2015) rightly argue, some of the post-colonial and de-colonial critiques also romanticise indigenous intellectual traditions and offer a rather static view of the contingent and contradictory historical processes. In this context one should not focus on recovering the non-European intellectual traditions just for the sake of some kind of quasi-equal representation or as a lazy form of political correctness. Instead sociological contributions should be analysed and judged on their intellectual merits. Both Ibn Khaldun and Confucius qualify easily on this account: while Confucius’s social philosophy has established a foundation for the analysis of complex social relations between the state and society and as such has influenced millions of individuals throughout Asia, Ibn Khaldun is the true pioneer of comparative historical sociology.

      Note

      1 This section draws in part on Malešević (2015).

      References

       Abir, M. (1987) The Consolidation of the Ruling Class and the New Elites in Saudi Arabia. Middle Eastern Studies, 23(2), pp. 150–71.

       Alatas, S. F. (1990) Ibn Khaldun and the Ottoman Modes of Production. Arab Historical Review for Ottoman Studies, 1–2, pp. 45–63.

       Alatas, S. F. (1993) A Khaldunian Perspective on the Dynamics of Asiatic Societies. Comparative Civilizations Review, 29, pp. 29–51.

       Alatas, S. F. (2007) The Historical Sociology of Muslim Societies: Khaldunian Applications. International Sociology, 22(3), pp. 267–88.

       Alatas, S. F. (2014) Applying Ibn Khaldun: The Recovery of a Lost Tradition in Sociology. New York: Routledge.

       Al-Azmeh, A. (1997) Muslim Kingship: Power and the Sacred in Muslim, Christian, and Pagan Polities. London: I. B. Tauris.

       Arnason, J. P. and Stauth, G. (2004) Civilization and State Formation in the Islamic Context: Re-Reading Ibn Khaldun. Thesis Eleven, 76(1), pp. 29–48.

       Brett, M. (1972) Ibn Khaldun and the Dynastic Approach to Local History: The Case of Biskra. Al-Qantara, 12, pp. 157–80.

       Bhambra, G. K. (2007) Rethinking Modernity: Postcolonialism and the Sociological Imagination. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

       Cho, H. (1996) The Confucian Tradition of Civil Society as a Rich Terrain for Sociological Discourse. In: S. Lee (ed.) Sociology in East Asia and its Struggle for Creativity. Seoul: ISA, pp. 54–68.

       Collins, R. (1998) The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

       Confucius (1979) The Analects. London: Penguin.

       Connell, R. (2007) Southern Social Theory: The Global Dynamics of Knowledge in Social Science. Cambridge: Polity.

       Cory, S. (2008) Breaking the Khaldunian cycle? The rise of sharifianism as the basis for political legitimacy in early modern Morocco. Journal of North African Studies, 13(3), pp. 377–94.

       Elkeddi, O. (2015) The fragility of the Libyan entity. Lybia Prospect. https://libyaprospect.com/2015/12/the-fragility-of-the-libyan-entity

       Gellner, E. (1969) Saints of the Atlas. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

       Gellner, E. (1981) Muslim Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

       Hall, J. A. (2001) Confessions of a Eurocentric. International Sociology, 16(3), pp. 488–97.

       Ibn Khaldun (2005 [1377]) The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

       Lacoste, Y. (1984) Ibn Khaldun: The Birth of History and the Past of the Third World. London: Verso.

       Sun Lim, S. and Soriano, C. (2016) Asian Perspectives on Digital Culture. London: Routledge.

       Malešević, S. (2015) Where Does Group Solidarity Come From? Gellner and Ibn Khaldun Revisited. Thesis Eleven, 128(1), pp. 85–99.

       McLennan, G. (2015) Is Secularism History? Thesis Eleven, 128(1), pp. 126–40.

       Mozi (2003) Mozi: Basic Writings. B. Watson, trans. Columbia, CO: Columbia University Press.

       Newby, G. D. (1983) Ibn Khaldun and Frederick Jackson Turner: Islam and the Frontier Experience. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 18(3–4), pp. 274–85.

       Ortega, Y. and Gasset, J. (1994 [1976]) The Revolt of the Masses. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

       Riegel, J. (2013) Confucius. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Summer edition. E. N. Zalta, ed. [online]. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/confucius/ (Accessed 20 June 2019).

       Ritter, H. (1948) Irrational Solidarity Groups: A Socio-Psychological Study in Connection with Ibn Khaldun. Oriens, 1(1), pp. 1–44.

       Schmidt, N. (1967) Ibn Khaldun: Historian, Sociologist and Philosopher. New York: AMS Press.

       Seok-Choon, L. Woo-Young, C. and Hye Suk, W. (2011) Confucian Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism in Korea: The Significance of Filial Piety. Journal of East Asian Studies, 11(2) (May–August), pp. 171–96.

       Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2010) https://plato.stanford.edu/ (Accessed 20 June 2019).

       Tabib, R. (2014) Stealing the Revolution: Violence and Predation in Libya. NOREF Report [online]. The Norwegian Peacebuilding Resource Centre. Available at: https://www.clingendael.org/publication/stealing-revolution-violence-and-predation-libya (Accessed 20 June 2019).

       Tinbor-Hui, V. (2005) War and State Formation in Ancient China and Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.