Читать книгу Classical Sociological Theory - Sinisa Malesevic - Страница 42

One of Ibn Khaldun’s central concepts is asabiya, meaning a strong group feeling, often associated with unity, group consciousness, social cohesion and intense solidarity. Although it is frequently rooted in kinship or tribal lineage, it is not reduced to ‘blood relations’. On the contrary, for Ibn Khaldun asabiya refers to a ‘capacity for collective will-formation and commitment to sustained action’, which is not necessarily linked with one’s family ties but can also include a sense of attachment that resembles blood relations (Arnason and Stauth, 2004: 34; Ibn Khaldun, 2005: 264). As Gellner (1981: 27) emphasises, ‘“blood” is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition of cohesion; it is merely a way of talking about it’. This is explicitly stated in The Muqaddimah: ‘The affection everyone has for his clients and allies results from the feeling of shame that comes to a person when one of his neighbours, relatives, or a blood relation is in any way humiliated’ (Ibn Khaldun, 2005: 273). Asabiya is expressed as the intense, mutual interdependence, affection and willingness to help one’s comrades. It involves a close-knit group solidarity, unity and determination to sacrifice for one’s tribe, clan or a circle of friends and neighbours. As such it generates particular group dynamics often articulated as a superior organisational might: ‘Group feeling produces the ability to defend oneself, to protect oneself and to press one’s claims. Whoever loses his group feeling is too weak to do any one of these things’ (p. 289). Moreover, strong asabiya, often created and reinforced in war and military struggle, is the principal source of political power and authority.

As Ibn Khaldun makes clear in one of his most quoted sentences, ‘Leadership exists only through superiority and superiority only through group feeling.’ In other words, social cohesion generated on the battlefields and in the harsh living conditions of North African deserts fosters a unique form of solidarity, which is an essential prerequisite for political power. Ibn Khaldun identifies the strength of asabiya as a crucial reason why the various imperial armies had difficulty in conquering Maghreb lands. In contrast to the Spain and Egypt of his times, which provided little resistance as ‘they are now free of tribes and group feelings’ (p. 334), the Maghrebian Berber tribes who possess a high degree of asabiya were able to repel the imperial powers. Asabiya provided a mechanism for social cohesion, and hence military prowess, that no conqueror could easily destroy.

In this context, intense group feelings also tended to overpower other sources of identification, including religion. Although nearly all of the fourteenth-century North African tribes were pious Muslims, when directly confronted to choose between their tribal solidarity and the Islamic universalism of umma, the tendency was to opt for the former over the latter. Whereas the cities were the cradle of this civilising universalism, the countryside, was the beacon of diversity and civil virtue.

For Ibn Khaldun the tribal warrior vs. urban dweller dichotomy is at the heart of historical change. The urban centres generate economic growth, prosperity, civilisational refinement, religious and cultural development, but none of these advancements would be possible without the political stability and military protection provided by the tribal warrior groupings. Furthermore, unlike the tribal countryside, which is characterised by a defence-intensive egalitarianism of frugal and uncertain living, urban life is more comfortable but also deeply stratified and hierarchical. Paradoxically, the origins of this social stratification are to be found in the previous conquests of tribal warriors.

It is no coincidence that the cities were regularly established, conquered and ruled by dynasties of militarised tribes and clans. The rulers establish their legitimacy through lineage with the particular tribes, and maintain their power through their tribal links and group solidarities. In other words, asabiya is not only a form of group cohesion but also a means of political power exercised by the tribal chiefs. Relying on this social device of group unity, the rulers impose their power in the cities. Nevertheless, as social hierarchies develop and grow in the urban environment, they undermine the egalitarian principles that underpin tribal social cohesion. It is a strong asabiya that allows the warrior tribes to acquire military might and it is this same cohesive quality that fosters political domination. However, as social solidarity is built in the harsh conditions of the countryside, once the tribal warriors settled permanently in the cities, the building blocks of social cohesion gradually erode. As the ruling groups embrace a life of luxury, stability, certainty and abundance their moral principles tend to change. Once the rulers lose their tribal ties and become highly corrupt, their political and ideological power is destabilised, leading to internal dissent and ultimately providing conditions for those new tribal invaders who are eager to establish their own dynasty.