Classical Sociological Theory. Sinisa Malesevic
Читать онлайн книгу.
shape of the Chinese state for centuries.
For another thing, in much of East Asia, Confucianism gradually developed into something akin to a religious doctrine and as such it has deeply influenced the behaviour of ordinary individuals for many generations. Even though the Chinese communists were initially hostile to what they regarded as a profoundly conservative ideology, recent years have witnessed a major re-evaluation of Confucius in communist China. The consequence of this top-down revision within the Communist Party of China is much more space being given to Confucius’s teachings in the mass media, educational system, cultural diplomacy and even popular culture. The fact that Confucianism has a large and strong following throughout East Asia and continues to influence the behaviour of hundreds of millions of people would indicate that its contemporary relevance is enormous.
Sociology, Modernity and Eurocentrism
The critique of Eurocentrism reflects the need to go beyond established sociological perspectives in pursuit of a truly cosmopolitan sociology suited to contemporary globalised societies. That classical sociology was justified in assigning world historical significance to specific developments in European societies is not disputed. Instead, the critique of Eurocentrism problematises the generalisation of Western perspectives over other forms of knowing, with its implicit assumption of cultural superiority and exaggeration of difference. This is perhaps most pernicious in the postulates of modernisation theory, as it was developed in the 1950s. With the contemporary field of post-colonialism spearheading movements to ‘decolonise’ the literature and enable the voice of the subaltern to be heard, sociology may yet embrace non-European forebears.
However, while Confucian teachings have a substantial impact, as a form of state policy and society-wide cultural practice, these ideas had less impact on the development of social science in general and sociological analysis in particular. Although scholars have utilised Confucian concepts and principles to articulate a neo-Confucian sociological tradition (Seok-Choon et al., 2011; Cho, 1996); the deeply normative character of Confucius’s writings has prevented development of an original and vibrant sociological school of thought.
In contrast, Ibn Khaldun’s contributions have inspired generations of scholars to use and refine his original proto-sociological models and apply them to a variety of social contexts in the contemporary world. Hence scholars have made use of his theories of state formation to analyse the rise and fall of civilisations in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and further afield (Alatas, 1993, 2007, 2014; Arnason and Stauth, 2004; Ortega y Gasset, 2000 [1976]; Gellner, 1981). Furthermore, Ibn Khaldun’s concept of asabiya has retained much of its sociological relevance throughout the centuries and as such has been deployed to explain the dynamics of social cohesion in North Africa, the Ottoman Empire, Safavid Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia among others (Abir, 1987; Alatas, 1990, 2014; Gellner, 1969, 1981) as well as to analyse the transformation of micro-level solidarities through time (Al-Azmeh, 1997; Lacoste, 1984; Malešević, 2015). More recently scholars have applied Khaldunian arguments to specific contemporary contexts ranging from issues such as the political legitimacy in Morocco (Cory, 2008), the contrasting state development trajectories in Algeria and South Africa (Wylie, 2008) and the social sources of the political disintegration in post-Gaddafi Libya (Elkeddi, 2015). The recent political fragmentation of Libya is particularly instructive in the sense that a Khaldunian-type analysis can help us explain the speed and direction of this unprecedented state collapse. The regional experts have emphasised how Gaddafi-era Jamahiriya was a rentier state that fostered re-tribalisation as a mechanism to maintain a hold on power. Thus instead of establishing organisational channels for the political participation of Libyan citizens, Gaddafi replaced the existing organisational structures with direct ties to the tribal leaders (Tabib, 2014). Hence, the Libyan polity had a very feeble organisational core while local power remained in the hands of the tribal chefs. Consequently, the collapse of the Gaddafi regime was paralleled by state fragmentation along tribal lines, with the paramilitary units representing different tribal groupings, just as Ibn Khaldun would predict. Ibn Khaldun’s work has also been used to explore the social dynamics of the frontier experience within and outside the Islamic cultural sphere (Newby, 1983).
Criticisms
Both Confucius and Ibn Khaldun were scholars of a pre-modern world and as such their ideas reflected in part their own times. Judging from a safe historical distance one can easily dismiss their contributions as being patriarchal, staunchly elitist, overly moralist, or state-centric. However, this type of criticism would be ahistorical in a sense that it would apply contemporary moral yardsticks to the ancient past. A much more beneficial form of critique would be to assess how sociologically adequate are the concepts and ideas developed by Confucius and Ibn Khaldun. In other words, can we still deploy some of these ideas to understand the social world? In this light it seems that Ibn Khaldun has to offer more than Confucius. While Confucius provides some insightful analyses on the social origins of virtuous behaviour and on the role of self-discipline in the development of society-wide civility, much of his work is deeply prescriptive rather than analytical.
One could argue that Confucius makes a significant sociological contribution in a sense that he traces some specific social processes such as the moral capacities of social orders through time, or the way he identifies particular social types such as the sage or the gentlemen. However, as his focus is almost exclusively on moral guidance rather than on explanation, his contribution never reaches the level of a fully fledged sociological analysis. For example, when he explores the role of rituals in social life his focus is not on how ritualism contributes to social cohesion as such, but rather on what the performance of rituals does to one’s own moral cultivation. These issues are clearly addressed in his statements that emphasise continuous ethical self-development: ‘Ask yourself constantly, What is the right thing to do?’; ‘those who are firm, enduring, simple and unpretentious are the nearest to virtue’; Or ‘to practice five things under all circumstances constitutes perfect virtue: these five are gravity, generosity of soul, sincerity, earnestness, and kindness’. While these moral prescriptions have enduring moral value, they do not offer sociological tools to understand how the social world works.
Moreover, Confucius’s overemphasis on the role of individual responsibility and the lack of engagement with the social structure has generated a great deal of criticism. Hence South Korean scholar Kyong-il has been particularly critical of the Confucian notion of filial piety. This concept, which stands for the virtue of respect for one’s fathers, elders and ancestors, has been described as deeply conservative and hierarchical and in this sense poses an obstacle to social change (Sun Lim & Soriano, 2016; Riegel, 2013).
Although Ibn Khaldun provides a sociologically more robust conceptual apparatus, he too was not immune to critical assessments. There are three types of criticism levelled against his approach. Firstly, some scholars have focused on his epistemological and methodological contributions. Here the central issue is a deep tension between rationalism and mysticism that characterises his main work, The Muqaddimah, and is also present in his other publications. Ibn Khaldun’s rationalism is notable in his approach to the social development of cities, his analyses of state formation, dynastic rises and falls, and the broader civilisational changes as well as his studies of group solidarity. However, this rationalist approach that centres on causal relationships is often countered by regular bouts of mysticism that fill many pages of his work. For example, in The Muqaddimah he criticises the hagiographic and myth-making-oriented historical scholarship by emphasising the centrality of ‘the factual proofs and circumstantial evidence’ (2005: 23) while denouncing logic as a mechanism to understand the origins of social relations: ‘The philosophers say that happiness consists in coming to perceive existence as it is, by means of logical arguments. This is a fraudulent statement that must be rejected’ (2005: 402). Some scholars argue that Ibn Khaldun cannot resolve the inherent tension between faith and reason, while others criticise his nominalism, which does not allow for an explanation of the particular from the general (Alatas, 2014: 161; Brett, 1972).
Secondly, Ibn Khaldun’s cyclical theory of history has been challenged by much of post-Enlightenment social science that subscribes to more linear models of social change. The theories of social cycles in history have been popular over the centuries and have been recently revived with the development of new mathematical