Ibn Khaldūn and Social
Transformation Comparing Ibn Khaldūn and
Durkheim
He provides a realist account of politics and society.
He posits that there is a transformation from Bedouin
society to sedentary society. The Bedouins maintain
a Spartan lifestyle, and their subsistence requires
mutual dependence ‘on each other’ (Chase-Dunn and
Anderson, 2005: 2). They have more fortitude and
prudence: they observe ‘all sides of the road’ before
crossing (Ibn Khaldūn, 2015: 95). With his arguments about the ‘source of social
life’, Durkheim associates our ‘consciousness’ with
mechanical solidarity, in which there is a limited
division of labour. An extensive division of labour
occurs in sophisticated society, which has organic
solidarity (Merton, 1934: 319). While it is cogent
that Durkheim’s context —namely, the Post-
Industrial Revolution—is different, I postulate that
a comparative study will enable us to go beyond
the canon, and to understand sociology in terms of
it being culturally relative, as well as it potentially
having some universalistic concepts. Ibn Khaldūn and
Durkheim are separated by roughly five centuries.
Still both present two stages of society: simple and
sophisticated society. Therefore, I strongly advocate
comparative sociology modules in Universities’ syllabi.
However, this is being challenged by our Eurocentric
scientific paradigm.
According to Ibn Khaldūn, given that humans can
be overpowered by their aggressive nature (Chase-
Dunn and Anderson, 2005: 2), a restraining figure is
required (Ibn Khaldūn, 2015: 97). This is established
with Asabiyah (group feeling). Following the creation
of Asabiyah, ‘by its very nature’ the group will ‘seek
superiority’ over opposing tribes. This new group will
eventually have the valour to challenge the dynasty
that rules in the city. The Bedouin tribe will attack
during the dynasty’s senility, whose Asabiyah would
have had already diminished, and ‘no defender’ will
arise to protect their realm (Ibn Khaldūn, 2015: 108).
This account of social change is a cyclical theory,
because nomadic life recurrently precedes ‘cities and
sedentary people’ (Ibn Khaldūn, 2015: 93).
While this could be an antiquated account of
politics—as it is merely pertinent to medieval Bedouin
societies—there are some valuable lessons that one
can extract from his thought. I am influenced by
Horton’s (2010: 5) hermeneutic advice that we can
take away concepts from past writings and utilise
them to comprehend debates for which the texts
were not written. Otherwise, it would be futile
to study past texts. From Ibn Khaldūn’s thesis, it
is cogent that civilisation recurrently experiences
Bedouin and sedentary society. To compare Ibn
Khaldūn and Durkheim, it is effective to extract the
argument that there are two stages of society. I will
now compare Ibn Khaldūn’s two stages of society
with Durkheim’s mechanical and organic solidarity.
Paradigms and Dogmatism
Kuhn (1962) posits that our philosophising is
dogmatic: we operate in a specific paradigm, which
is determined by our academic context, and I
would add, socio-political norms and biases. If one
argues that countries that the West had colonised
and plundered had produced sophisticated social
sciences before the Europeans had arrived, this opens
debates in the colonial studies departments. The
Gulbenkion Report, 1995, was an attempt to prolong
western hegemony by dictating the epistemologies
of the social sciences (Mignolo, 2014: 584). Current
academia silences alternative canons. Thus, I agree
with Bartley that Universities are not ‘a free market of
ideas’; instead, our institutions—some of which were
established before and during European colonialism—
tend to maintain ‘tradition in their activities’, signifying
that ‘reigning “paradigms” dominate the intellectual
IL A S # 2
111