Sociological founders and precursors: The theories of religion of Emile Durkheim, Fustel De Coulanges and IBN Khaldûn

SOCIOLOGICAL FOUNDERS ANDPRECURSORS: THE THEORIES OFRELIGION OF EMILE DURKHEIM,FUSTEL DE COULANGES ANDIBN KHALDUN.

Bryan S . TurnerLecturer in Sociology, University of Aberdeen

The consolidation of sociology as a scientific enterprise depends oncontinuous, cumulative theorizing . For this reason, sociologists haveinsisted on close attention to the `founding fathers' of sociological thought .It has been argued that an awareness of the history of the disciplineprovides criteria for assessing contemporary achievements in theory.'In addition, the `founding fathers' are a source of insight and inspirationfor present theorizing, on the one hand, and a set of safeguards againstdetrimental developments and one-sided perspectives, on the other .However, there are two immediate problems which emerge from thisconcentration on founding traditions . The weak theoretical developmentof sociology coupled with this historical awareness means that there isconfusion over what counts as the history of sociological thought andwhat constitutes sociological theory . Granted that the sociological pastis important for present consolidation, there is the problem of choosingwhich past is significant .

Contemporary criteria for selecting the sociologically significant past,and hence our `founding fathers', have been profoundly influenced bythe research of Robert A . Nisbet . In an argument first developed in 1952,Nisbet attempted to show that sociology emerged from the nineteenthcentury reaction against industrialism and the French Revolution whichhad created a European problem of social order . 2 The major ideologicalroots of sociology lay in conservativism for it was from this tradition thatsociology acquired a language capable of analysing the social problemsof an industrial society. Thus, ideas of status, cohesion, norm and ritualwere essentially conservative ideas, but it is the centrality of the concept`the sacred' which both distinguishes sociology from other social sciencesand pinpoints its conservative roots. However, what Nisbet called'Durkheim's momentous contrast between the sacred and the profane'was more than a conceptual distinction,

it is rather the utilization of the religio-sacred as a perspective for theunderstanding of ostensibly non-religious phenomena such as authority,status, community and personality. 3

32

SOCIOLOGICAL FOUNDERS AND PRECURSORS 33

The conservative view that religion is necessary for the very existenceof society and that religion is more than belief, but a set of rituals thatbind society together, was basic to Durkheim's sociology. The socialdislocations of secularization and industrialization were the context inwhich sociologists came to view the sacred as the key to social order .

There are many grounds on which Nisbet's thesis in The SociologicalTradition has been criticized . 4 These objections may be summarized bypointing out that Nisbet's emphasis on the French origins of sociologywas too narrow and that his framework of sociology and conservativism,too rigid . Interestingly, in focusing on the French background of sociology,Nisbet was merely reiterating a view held by Durkheim :

sociology could have been born and developed only where the twoconditions which follow existed in combination : First, traditionalismhad to have lost its domain . . . . Second, a veritable faith in the powerof reason to dare to undertake the translation of the most complexand unstable of realities into definite terms was necessary. Francesatisfies this double condition . 5

Nisbet, who extended this essentially patriotic view of French origins,simply ignored many other crucial sociological traditions . Thus, he hadnothing to say about Vilfredo Pareto, W . I. Thomas, American empirical-ism or German idealism. The perspective on the problem of order wastoo rigid . As Alan Dawe has argued, while the problem of order

has undoubtedly been central to much of sociology, it has not been theonly central problem; from which it follows that the conservativereaction was not the only source of inspiration for the development ofsociological thought."

The alternative focus, the problem of control, is derivable from theEnlightenment tradition which was centred on the issue ofhow human beings could regain control over essentially man-madeinstitutions and historical situations . 7

Of course, the `two sociologies' have entirely different evaluations ofreligion as a necessary bond and as an irrational fetter ."

My objection to Nisbet and to many of his critics is that their perspectiveis still too narrow . There are problems about having any tradition andspecial difficulties of this tradition in particular . Having any traditionencourages a taken-for-granted attitude towards the founders of sociology,resulting in an honorific list which cannot be altered. We tend to forgetthat the received list is conditioned by factors which have nothing to dowith the sociological worth of individual founders . A number of `historicalaccidents' have played a large part in determining our ignorance ofimportant sociologists. What is far more damaging about having traditionsis that we come to rely too frequently on others to read our founders forus. The problem of having the sociological tradition is that it is difficultto rectify the stature of certain founders even when their theories are

34

SOCIOLOGICAL FOUNDERS AND PRECURSORS

false and it is almost impossible to introduce new founders even when theirtheories are more credible. If an awareness of the development of sociologyis important for present theorizing, then our tradition must be catholicand our appraisal of tradition, continuously critical .

There are many layers of argument which follow from this introductorycomment. The immediate aim of this article is to examine the relatedbut distinctive theories of religion of Emile Durkheim, Fustel de Coulangesand Ibn Khaldun . While all three sociologists wrote within the contextof social dislocation and increasing secularism, their common under-standing of the integrative functions of religion lead to entirely differentperspectives and types of analysis . There are a number of theoretical`by-products' of this examination of the development of sociology .Durkheim's standing in contemporary sociological theory and his statureas an innovative founder need re-evaluation . While the line betweenhistory and sociological theory is hard to draw, it does not follow that noattempt ought to be made to establish such a demarcation . The develop-ment of sociology involves an account of sociology over time ; sociologicaltheories are logically related sets of statements about the connectionsbetween phenomena. The goals of theory are explanation and prediction .Theories developed by the founders of sociology can remain withinsociological theory only in so far as they have stood up to multiple tests .A useful procedure for assessing the stature of Durkheim as a founder isto compare his theory of `the sacred' with that of Fustel de Coulanges .It will be argued that Fustel was far more than a precursor of Durkheim ;contrary to Nisbet's view, their treatment of `the sacred' was very different .Finally, the sociology of religion which is contained in Ibn Khaldun'sMuqaddimah and the impact of Ibn Khaldun on European and Americansociology will be examined . Not only do these three sociologists illustratethe way in which the common assumption about the integrative functionsof religion can lead to different styles of analysis but also Fustel and IbnKhaldun serve as valuable founding fathers in that they check an uncriticalacceptance of the Durkheimian perspective .

EMILE D URKHEIMIt is entirely unnecessary to restate Durkheim's theory of religion ;

instead contemporary criticism of his definition of religion, his explanationof religion and his perspective will be examined . 9 An important featureof Durkheim's definition of religion was that, since Theravada Buddhismdoes not possess beliefs in spiritual beings, existing definitions were tooexclusive. E. B. Tylor's minimum definition of religion as belief in SpiritualBeings was, in particular, singled out for criticism . Whereas the belief inspirits is not universal, all societies, Durkheim argued, distinguish betweenthe sacred and profane. Recent research has shown that Durkheim'sdefinition was based both on a factual error and on mistaken assumptionsabout comparative analysis . Melford Spiro has argued that, althoughTheravada Buddhism does not entail belief in a creator god, it does containbeliefs in superhuman spirits .' 0 The position can be taken that Theravada


35

Buddhism is indifferent to questions about the nature and existence ofGod or spiritual beings, since they too are controlled by Dharma, butit would be strange to look only at the philosophical tradition of themonks without examining how Theravada Buddhism operates at villagelevel. There is, as it were, no shortage of gods in popular Buddhism .Even if Durkheim's argument were true in the case of Buddhism,Durkheim failed to distinguish between universality and cross-culturalapplicability . The absence of `religion' in one society does not render thedefinition useless any more than the absence of mass media in one ormore countries makes comparative studies of mass media impossible .Melford Spiro, along with many other sociologists and anthropologists,has advocated a form of Tylorian definition as cross-culturally applicableand not counter-intuitive ."

Apart from these theoretical considerations, Durkheim's dichotomybetween sacred and profane has not proved particularly successful inempirical research . J. Goody observed that the operational criteria of thesacred-'things set apart and forbidden'-are too vague and that, in theabsence of adequate criteria, one might legitimately choose any dichotomy,such as `good' and `bad', `high' and `low', `black' and `white' . 12 In asimilar vein, Evans Pritchard, on the basis of his own research, cameto the conclusion that

My test of this sort of formulation is a simple one : whether it can bebroken down into problems which permit testing by observation infield research, or can at least aid in the classification of observed facts .I have never found that the dichotomy of sacred and profane was ofmuch use for either purpose .13

The identification of `religious' phenomena is only the first step insociological enquiry and it is, therefore, necessary to look at recentcriticism of the explanatory potential of Durkheim's theory. An explana-tion of `religious' beliefs requires an account of the causes for their origin,acceptance and persistence ." It will be noted that Durkheim's theory ismainly concerned with the persistence of religious beliefs, not with howand why religious beliefs are accepted . Beliefs about the sacred aresocial facts characterized by externality and constraint . Durkheim explicitlyrejected any socio-psychological variables in the explanation of religion .The search for origins was rejected on the assumption that there wasinadequate and insufficient evidence on which scientific research couldbe based. Instead, Durkheim attempted to discover the èver-presentcauses upon which the most essential forms of religious thought andpractice depend' . 15 These èssential forms' can be adequately observedonly in primitive societies and from these observations Durkheim madegeneralizations about the fundamental nature of religion in all societies .Religion persisted because it satisfied a basic functional requirement ofhuman society, namely integration.

It will be possible here to deal with only the salient objections toDurkheim's explanation . Although the origins of religion in general

36


cannot be a scientific question, the origins of particular religions can be .' 6W. G. Runciman has put the same point in a different manner :

it may well be enough to be able to show, by sufficiently thoroughcross-cultural comparisons, the circumstances under which someone orother will sooner or later be bound to elaborate or codify a system ofbeliefs of a fairly precisely specified kind . There are a great manybeliefs and practices whose coincidences in widely separated culturesare . . . too close and too numerous to be accidental . 17

While cross-cultural analysis of òrigins' in the above terms is possible,Durkheim's generalization from Australian totemism to èver-presentcauses' in all societies was simply too sweeping . We know now, of course,that Australian totemism is not, in any case, the most primitive form of`religion' . Even if Durkheim's assumptions about the primitiveness ofAustralian totemism were correct, the attempt to pare back the com-plexity of religion in differentiated societies by examining primitivesociety in order to explain religion in both types is a singularly circuitousexercise .

There are, in addition, doubts as to whether Durkheim's theoryconstitutes an explanation of religion . The moral integration of societyis produced by the inculcation of common beliefs ; common rituals arethe means by which these common beliefs are periodically re-affirmed .Traditionally, religion has been the major institution which has achievedthis moral integration of society . In Durkheim's theory, therefore, sincereligion is the independent variable, religion explains moral integration.Durkheim's theory is an explanation of moral integration rather than anexplanation of religion . Durkheim's theory can, however, take anotherform. Religion is a necessary condition for the satisfaction of certainfunctional requirements of a society. It is the functional requirementswhich cause the existence of religion . One aspect of this argument, namelythat it rests on unsound and ambiguous assumptions about functionalìndispensability', was adequately contested by R. K. Merton . 18 MelfordSpiro has pointed to two other weaknesses within this functionalistargument

Technically, no mechanism is specified by which the need for solidarity. . . gives rise to, or `causes', religion . Methodologically, it cannotexplain the variability of religion . . . and, therefore, there is no wayby which it can be tested . 19

But, as W . G. Runciman has pointed out, Durkheim was attempting tojustify religion in order to explain it . To claim that all religions areequally `respectable' because they satisfy the indispensable functionalrequirement of social integration is not so much peculiar, it is no explana-tion at all .

Despite these problems of definition and explanation, Durkheim hasremained influential partly because he offers a particular perspective forsociological enquiry . Yet, the ability to provide perspectives is a weak


37

criterion of the worth of a sociological theory . Moreover, the styles ofanalysis which are distinctively Durkheimian have been frequentlyclassified as pernicious .S 0 The standard criticisms of Durkheimiansociology-that it is a-historical, non-comparative and static-still holddespite efforts to argue Durkheim out of his theoretical perspective anddespite many notable exceptions to standard criticism . 21 The core of thesedeficiencies lies in the problem already noted that the analysis of religionin primitive society is not an appropriate starting point for the explanationof religion in complex, differentiated societies . Unfortunately, the assump-tions of the seamless web quality of primitive society and the focus onintrasocial cohesion are too frequently taken into the analysis of modernsociety. 22

The conclusion which follows from this discussion is that since Durkheim'stheory of religion has not stood the test of empirical research or conceptualanalysis, his position in sociological theory is undermined . It remains toexamine Durkheim as a `founding father' . An examination of Fustel'stheory of `the sacred' suggests that Durkheim's place within the historyof sociology may also require re-evaluation .

NUMA DENIS FUSTEL de COULANGES (1830-1889)At present, Fustel receives a reference in histories of sociology as the

basis on which Durkheim developed the concept of `the sacred' . Therewere clearly many opportunities for Fustel to influence his student,Durkheim. In i88o, Fustel became director of the $cole Normale whereDurkheim had enrolled in 1879. At the time of Durkheim's enrolment,La Cite Antique had been in circulation for fifteen years . Concerning therelationship between the two men, Nisbet claimed that

From Fustel de Coulanges to his student, Durkheim, is but a shortstep. Durkheim's distinction between the sacred and the profane, andhis linking of the sacred to the social are but a broadening and system-atization of what Fustel had confined to the classical city-state .23

In fact, the notion of à short step' misconceives the relationship . Althoughthere is nothing in Durkheim's Elementary Forms of Religious Life whichwas not either implicitly or explicitly stated in Fustel's treatment ofreligion, there are lines of analysis in Fustel's study of the classical citywhich were not adopted by Durkheim . In particular, their perspectiveson the nature of `the sacred' were, in some ways, opposed .

La Cite Antique is in two sections : the first describes how the sacredfire of the family hearth held the institutions of the early classical citiesof Rome and Greece in a coherent whole and the second section tracesthe decline and transformation of this society . Classical society was heldtogether by common beliefs which gave rise to common rituals . Fustelsaw that beliefs about the dead ancestors gave rise to mutual obligationsbetween the living and the dead . The ancestors were dependent on theliving for resources and in return for these resources the living expectedto receive protection of the family. This domestic religion of the hearth

38


was basic to familial activities and structures. Marriage, descent, legitimacyand divorce were controlled by religious rites rather than by law, customor generation . A couple were considered married only after they hadperformed common rites before the sacred hearth ; they were divorcedwhen they ceased to worship the same ancestors . Since the dead requirednew descendants, celibacy was proscribed and sterility was a continualproblem .

The hearth gods were essentially particularistic and, as such, wereincapable of uniting larger forms of association . In order for families tounite in a phratry, a more superior god was required. Similarly, for severalphratries to form a tribe, higher gods were necessary . Fustel saw thatjust as there was a hierarchy of human association from family to tribeso there was a hierarchy of lesser and greater ancestral gods . Althoughthis extension of domestic religion seemed to operate successfully inuniting tribes, a new form of religion had to be established before citiescould come into existence . In Fustel's view, classical societies came tocontain two types of religion : the ancestral gods of families, phratriesand tribes and a religion of nature which united cities .

Fustel argued that nature religion emerged because changed socialconditions required a new form of sacred beliefs and because men,being awed by nature, came to conceive of nature in terms of super-natural agents. While Fustel followed the much discredited naturism ofMax Milller, he argued in addition that new social conditions requirednew religious beliefs . 24 Larger associations involved more general religiousbeliefs

Indeed, the ancestors, heroes, and manes were gods, who by their verynature could be adored only by a very small number of men, and whothus established a perpetual and impassable line of demarcation betweenfamilies . The religion of the gods of nature was more comprehensive . 25

The second section of La Cite Antique is concerned with the analysisof the decline of this social world and with the transformation of sacredbeliefs . The solid world of the old sacred order was destroyed, Fustelargued, by the change of ideas and by progressive democratization .Although the treatment of intellectual change was based on a crudeevolutionary perspective, the analysis of class struggle within the citieswas, by contrast, more convincing and more fully argued . Inequalitywas built into the ancient family . The family chief was from generation togeneration the first-born male : hence there emerged over time manyyounger, inferior family branches . In addition, there were the clientclasses who served the families but who could not claim descent from anancestral hero. Clients did, however, join in the worship of families towhom they were servants and they were, therefore, proper members ofsociety. Below the clients, the plebeian classes were outside societysince they could not practise a family religion . Since worship before ahearth entailed a sedentary form of life-sacred hearths could not bemoved without considerable danger to ancestors-worshippers were also


39

property holders . Plebs were without religion and hence without propertyand status .

Fustel argued that classical society, like feudalism, was one in whichthe king had sacred authority without having real power . The chiefsand the patres were kings within their own domains and were reluctantto see any extension of kingly power . The struggle for the balance ofpower resulted everywhere in the abolition of royalty : the kings wererelegated to the status of head priest. The removal of royalty left thecities internally weak . The revolution brought about by the aristocracywas essentially conservative : the kings were expelled in order to preservethe old power of the family against political intrusion after the establish-ment of the larger political unit, the city . The basic dilemma which thearistocratic revolution attempted to solve was that the family was toostrong, the city too weak. In the long run, it was the authority of thesovereign chiefs of the gens which was diminished in favour of widercommunal power .

The family unit was undermined by the disappearance of primogenitureand by the freeing of the clients . In the struggle between families afterthe decline of royal authority, the patres were more and more dependenton their clients who provided family wealth by cultivating the soil andfamily power by bearing arms. The clients were thus in a strategicallystrong position for demanding an improvement in their lot . The eventualfreedom of the clients was yet one more step in the decline of the familyand family religion .

With the disappearance of primogeniture, the freeing of the clients,the lower status groups were no longer embedded in the gentes but livedapart. Thus, the old sacred society was transformed into a conflictualclass society :

There were thus two great bodies,two hostile societies, placed face to face . 26

While the aristocracy attempted to preserve a crumbling status quo,there were a number of important factors which enhanced the socialstanding of the plebs. Following the freeing of the clients and the intro-duction of money, new forms of wealth and prestige were developed .While plebs had no sacred status, they began to achieve a secular onebased on money . In military matters, status had been based on member-ship in the cavalry which was the preserve of the aristocracy . As armsand discipline were improved, the infantry were able to resist cavalrycharges and, as a result, the plebs were able to achieve considerablemilitary importance . As the plebeian status was improved, the lowerclasses required some legitimation of their position in society. Thisposition they achieved by adopting and creating new gods of their own,such as Quirinius, Plebeian Modesty, Diana and Hermae .

Eventually the old municipal system was destroyed and the finalrevolution was characterized by the intra-city struggle of democratictyrants and aristocracy, on the one hand, and by inter-city conflict, on

40


the other . These conflicts, Fustel argued, could be resolved only by theachievement of a new level of integration, by a religion capable of unitingcities . The collapse of the old system of domestic gods, independentfamilies, status hierarchy and municipal government created the needfor a universalist religion capable of uniting a diverse culture . In theview of Fustel, Christianity was both ideally suited to meet this situationand also contributed to the social processes which undermined the remainsof the old gods . Whereas the domestic religion made the defence of thecity and hatred of strangers a virtue, Christianity encouraged inter-citycollaboration

For this God there were no longer any strangers . The stranger nolonger profaned the temple, no longer tainted the sacrifice by hispresence . 2 ?Although Fustel's analysis of the ancient city contains all of the major

aspects of Durkheim's theory of the sacred, there are crucial differencesbetween them. Clearly both Fustel and Durkheim saw that religion was aset of beliefs and practices relative to sacred objects which unified andintegrated society . Both recognized the fundamental relationship betweenthe nature of belief and the social structure . In addition, they argued thatsacred objects were merely symbols of a deeper reality . For Fustel, thesacred hearth fire was

a pure fire, which can be produced only by the aid of certain rites andcan be kept up only with certain kinds of wood. It is a chaste fire ; theunion of sexes must be removed far from its presence . . . when theymade the great Vesta of this myth of the sacred fire, Vesta was thevirgin goddess. She represented in the world neither fecundity norpower; she was order, but not rigorous, abstract, mathematicalorder . . . . She was moral order . 28

Despite these similarities, Fustel's view of the sacred differs significantlyfrom that of Durkheim .The sacred in Durkheim's sociology is, like law and language, a

`social fact' : it is exterior to the individual and exercises constraintover him. By contrast, Fustel's view of the nature of the sacred is moreakin to the tradition of Feuerbach and Marx . Fustel argued that mencreate gods who then come to rule their human makers ; thus, religiousman of the classical cities was in a state of alienation . The following istypical of Fustel's perception of the paradoxical relationship betweencreative and alienative aspects of the sacred :

A belief is the work of our mind, but we are not on that account freeto modify it at will . It is our own creation, but we do not know it .It is human, and we believe it is a god . It is the effect of our power,and it is stronger than we are . It is in us ; it does not quit us : it speaksto us at every moment . If it tells us to obey, we obey . . . . Man may,indeed, subdue nature, but he is subdued by his own thoughts . 28


4 1

Durkheim was, of course, unwilling to allow any pyschological variablesin sociological explanation and, therefore, ruled out the possibility ofmen manipulating, changing or creating sacred beliefs . It has alreadybeen noted that the plebs attempted to legitimate their social status bycreating plebian gods . More generally, Fustel recognized the mutualrelationship between men and their gods :

In misfortune man betook himself to his sacred fire, and heapedreproaches upon it ; in good fortune he returned it thanks . 3 o

Because Durkheim's definition ruled out disrespect of the sacred, he canoffer no explanation of blasphemy or profanation . For Fustel, religioncreates social cohesion and satisfies the putative need of security.

This brief examination of Fustel de Coulanges is sufficient to show howmuch Durkheim borrowed from his teacher's analysis of `the sacred'and also how much of Fustel's view of `the sacred' was not incorporatedinto the Durkheimian sociological perspective . 31 Given this dependentrelationship, it is important to consider why Durkheim's theory gainedrapid acceptance in France, while Fustel de Coulanges has remained incomparative obscurity. While the answer to this specific problem cannotbe attempted, in a recent article Terry N. Clark has advanced anexplanation of why Durkheimian sociologists rather than the socialstatisticians, the followers of Le Play and Rene Worms, were successful . 32Until after World War I, there were only three French chairs of sociologyand this would have been a powerful constraint on the expansion ofsociology, but by defining sociology in very broad terms, Durkheim wasable to draw on a large pool of talent from law, history, religion, politicsand other disciplines . Expansion was also facilitated by a period ofFrench economic prosperity between I 87o and 1914 . Furthermore, asocial science training came to be considered highly fashionable so thatthere was a sympathetic student audience for sociology . In contrast tothe 'Le Playists' and followers of Worms, Durkheim and the Durkheimianswere more acceptable in university circles because of their unquestionableacademic pedigree, patriotic sentiments and their commitment to a full-time academic career. Once Durkheim had been accepted, he was able toguarantee the continuing impact of his style of sociology by controllingthe Annie sociologique and by becoming an adviser to the publishing house,Felix Alcan .

At this stage, it is worth re-stating some conclusions which followfrom our examination of Durkheim and Fustel de Coulanges . Whileboth sociologists emphasized the significance of the integrative functionsof religion, there were important differences between their theories .Both theories can be set in the context of the dislocation of French society,but Nisbet was wrong in implicitly assuming that the recognition of thereligio-sacred as a perspective by Fustel and Durkheim implied that theyreacted in the same way to their social context . Fustel cannot be easilylumped under a conservative reaction : on the contrary, he was awarethat the sacred is a symptom of alienation . Although the differences

42 SOCIOLOGICAL FOUNDERS AND PRECURSORS

were important, the extent of Durkheim's debt to Fustel has not beenadequately examined in existing studies of sociological development .

IBN KHALD UN (r332-r¢o6)While Nisbet argued that sociology emerged as a reaction to seculariza-

tion and social dislocation in France, other sociologists have claimed thatsociology arose in any climate where these two aspects of social changewere present . 33 Thus, radical social change drives men to think system-atically about the roots of social order while secularization enables themto conceive of society as a `natural' system : deus ex machina can no longerbe called upon to explain phenomena . The result has been that religionbecame the object of systematic enquiry and was treated as the majorelement of social order . Given these premises, Ibn Khaldun's sociologicaltheories provide an instructive study .

Born in Tunis, Ibn Khaldun spent most of his adult life against thebackground of considerable social and political upheaval in northwestAfrica. Like his ancestors, Ibn Khaldun found that his fortunes weregeared to the political dominance of the Hafsid dynasty . The BlackDeath which hit Tunis between 1348-1349 and the conquest of Tunisstarted Ibn Khaldun's peripatetic intellectual and political career .During the course of his search for a stable social position betweenGranada, Fez, Tunis, Biskra and Egypt, Ibn Khaldun gained a wideknowledge of the kingdoms of northern Africa which was useful for hishistorical research, but which also made him a useful political adviser .From the sociologist's point of view, the main interest lies not so muchin Ibn Khaldun's personal career, but in the background of Islamicdislocation and change . Howard Becker and Harry Barnes observed that

Expansion (of the Moslem empire) brought disorganization of thesacred society; change was steadily in the direction of secularization .The upshot was that a Moslem social thinker came into possession ofabundant experience of the ways in which civilizations are trans-formed . . . . 34

The essentially secularist view of history developed by Ibn Khaldunhas been frequently commented on . Franz Rosenthal noted that, althoughIbn Khaldun recognized the possibility of supernatural influences onhuman activities,

he thought of it as out of the ordinary and not as a necessity in thehistorical drama, the processes of which may go on unfolding withoutever being disturbed by it . 35

Ibn Khaldun's theory of society was put forward in The Muqaddimah(which contained the Ìntroduction' and book one of his history, Kitdbal- 'Ibar) . The core aspect of his theory involved the explanation ofhuman co-operation and conflict . Because men are incapable of complete


43

self-subsistence as individuals, they need to specialize and to exchangegoods and services

differences of condition among people are the result of the differentways in which they make their living . Social organization enablesthem to co-operate toward that end and to start with the simple necessi-ties of life, before they get to conveniences and luxuries. 3B

The two fundamental environments of human society in which socialorganization takes place were `desert, desert life' and `town, sedentaryenvironment'. Thus Bedouins, who were historically prior to towncivilization, were not generally capable of settled, cultivated life becauseof their dependence on camel herding . What was especially characteristicof desert existence was strong `group feeling' . The harshness of desertlife was only tolerable when the Bedouins possessed strong group loyalties .By contrast, sedentary peoples lacked `group feeling' and relied on fortifica-tions, law and specialized armed groups for social control and defence .The weakness of `group feeling' among town dwellers meant that theylacked constraint :

Eventually they lose all sense of restraint . Many of them are foundto use improper language in their gatherings as well as in the presenceof their superiors and womenfolk . 37

`Group feeling' or asabiyya was composed of three elements : bloodrelationship, religion and such factors as companionship, prolongedacquaintance and proximity . Ibn Khaldun distinguished between paganasabiyya or àcquired religion' which undermines manliness and civiliza-tion and true Islamic `group feeling' which constrains animal passions .The intensity of true asabiyya determines group cohesion, the superiorityof one group over another, the basis of authority and leadership . Withouta religiously supported social solidarity, social organization would beimpossible ; without religion,

individual aspirations rarely coincide . But when there is religionthrough prophecy or sainthood, then they have some restraininginfluence in themselves . . . . It is, then, easy for them to subordinatethemselves and to unite (as a social organization) . This is achieved bythe common religion they now have . 38

It is one of the noteworthy features of his view of `group feeling', thatIbn Khaldun regarded social cohesion as a necessary basis of socialexpansion. Societies with strong cohesion tend to take over and dominateinternally divided societies :

Once a group has established superiority over the people who share(in that particular group feeling), it will, by its very nature, seeksuperiority over people of other group feelings unrelated to thefirst . 39

44


Ibn Khaldun saw that Islam was the major factor in the expansion ofArab societies. True asabiyya

is something desirable and useful in connection with the holy warand with propaganda for Islam . 4 o

The role of `group feeling' in the expansion and contraction of empiresis also reflected at the micro-level in the relations between rural andsedentary groups .

Powerful Bedouin groups were drawn to the cities as sources of plunderand as milieux in which they could achieve a new enhanced status .Apart from their superior physical strength, expertise in warfare andsuperior determination, the Bedouins possessed tighter social solidaritythan sedentary people . Bedouins were able to defeat urban populacesand set up their own urban dynasties . However, in exchanging theirnomadic for sedentary forms of life, their `group feeling' and militaryprowess were gradually undermined . The Bedouins adopted the luxuriesof the city and acquired its `vices' . In turn, within the space of fourgenerations, according to Ibn Khaldun, the city Bedouins were replacedby powerful in-coming nomads .

While the occupants of powerful positions were periodically replaced,the structure of Islamic society remained unchanged . The town dominatedthe countryside despite the fact that the town leadership was frequentlyreplaced by rural personnel :

(the Bedouins) need the cities for their necessities of life, the urbanpopulation needs (the Bedouins) for conveniences and luxuries . Thus,(the Bedouins) need the cities for the necessities of life by the verynature of their (mode of) existence . As long as they live in the desertand have not obtained royal authority and control of the cities, theyneed the inhabitants (of the latter) . 41

The urban garrisons controlled the rural areas because they held amonopoly of economic resources ; the nomads could challenge this urbaneconomic position because they possessed superior socio-religious cohesion .The irony of the situation was that `group feeling', the basis of Arabexpansion, was incompatible with town life . As Ernest Gellner hasexpressed it,

the organization and ethos of the towns makes them inimical to socialcohesion and hence military prowess . One might say that there is atragic antithesis between civilization and society : social cohesion andthe life of the cities are incompatible . 42Although it is impossible to do justice to the richness and diversity of

Ibn Khaldun's thought, within this present discussion, this account of themain elements of his view of society and religion will be adequate forcomparison with Durkheim's theory . 43The fact that both Durkheim and Ibn Khaldun thought that religion

acted as a constraint on individualism and deviance is immediately


obvious. In particular, Durkheim's analysis of religious integration inprimitive society and anomie in differentiated societies was parallel toIbn Khaldun's view of the incompatibility between urban social structureand moral cohesion . Thus, the Durkheimian dichotomy of mechanicaland organic solidarity was a theoretical model bearing close similaritieswith the 'desert'-'sedentary' distinction . Apart from these theoreticalproximities, their common methodological assumptions are striking .

Ibn Khaldun worked on the assumption that social phenomena obeylaws and that social laws cannot be influenced by individuals . Laws arediscovered by observing and collecting facts. The methodologicalpositivism implicit in both Durkheim and Ibn Khaldun is indicated bythe fact that in both theories population is a key independent variable .The centrality of population increase in Durkheim's The Division ofLabour in Society has been frequently noted . 44 Similarly, Ibn Khaldunequated `civilization' (Umran) with population increase. In the lastanalysis, the distinction between desert and sedentary environmentsrested not on styles of life but on population density .

The major difference between these two positivistic theories of religionis that Durkheim's sociological analysis was one-dimensional . His focuswas on functional unity, on the integration of society as a whole . Thus,the interrelationships between societies and between groups were under-emphasized . 45 In short, the analysis of undifferentiated societies and thefocus on the `problem of order' has led to over-concentration on one formof integration, namely intra-group cohesion. Consequently, Durkheimiansociology has little interest in the role of religion in legitimating andgenerating social conflict . By contrast, Ibn Khaldun saw clearly that therewas a high probability that intra-group cohesion was a condition of inter-group conflict in differentiated societies . Indeed, it was the conflict aspectsof Ibn Khaldun's theory of 'group-feeling' which formed his maininfluence on later sociology .

Any random search for `founding fathers' who, despite developing asociological theory, had no direct or indirect influence on later sociologyis a valueless exercise : logically, a founder must found something . IbnKhaldun came to influence sociology in the i8gos when LudwigGumplowicz devoted a chapter to Ibn Khaldun in his SoziologischeEssays . 46 Ibn Khaldfin became important among the so-called `conflictschool', therefore, at the time when Durkheim and Weber were estab-lishing themselves as major sociologists . 47 Gumplowicz adopted IbnKhaldun's cyclical view of history and recognized Ibn Khaldun's signi-ficance as a founder of conflict sociology . Gumplowicz's model of externaland internal group conflict was formative in Gustav Ratzenhoffer'stheory of the conflict of interests . The ideas of the conflict school wereintroduced in America by A . W. Small and Lester F . Ward. Ward, whowas a close friend of Gumplowicz, declared, perhaps over enthusiastically,that the conflict interpretation of the origins of racial struggle was `themost important contribution thus far made to the science of sociology' . 48Apart from Ibn Khaldun's influence on conflict theories and on Social

46


Darwinism, the clearest exponent of his sociology in the early years ofthe twentieth century was Franz Oppenheimer, particularly in hisSystem der Soziologie . Ibn Khaldun's dichotomy between desert andsedentary environments was recognized by Oppenheimer as basic tohis theory of rural reform . While these sociologists introduced IbnKhaldfln to European and American sociologists, their one-sided con-centration on his treatment of conflict meant that the breadth of IbnKhaldun's sociological theories was little appreciated . 49

CONCLUSIONCertain aspects of the sociology of religion within the context of social

dislocation have been examined with special reference to Nisbet's thesisof the `conservative reaction' . The argument has been that firstly we canonly superficially maintain that all three sociologists were drawn to theanalysis of religion as a `solution' of moral disorder . Behind the conceptsof `the sacred' and asabjyya lie very dissimilar types of analysis. WhileDurkheim's theory was tied, despite his intentions, to the analysis ofintegration in undifferentiated societies, Fustel and Ibn Khaldfin werefar more concerned with the role of religion in differentiated societies .Fustel treated `the sacred' as an example of human alienation and IbnKhaldfin recognized the importance of group solidarity in inter-groupconflict . Secondly, it has been argued that Nisbet's framework for analys-ing the sociological tradition is simply too narrow .

The `by-products' of this examination of the history of sociology ofreligion have been the following : a critique of Durkheim, a study of`the sacred' in Fustel's history of the ancient city and an examinationof Ibn Khaldfln's somewhat neglected sociology of religion . There waslittle in Durkheim's theory of religion which was not already developedby Fustel, but Fustel's treatment of the nature of `the sacred' was alsoimportantly different. Recognition of Fustel and Ibn Khaldfin as bonafide founders of sociology could have the effect of safe-guarding againstthe weakness in Durkheimian sociology of uncritical intra-social analysisof the integrative functions of religion .

NOTES

1 . On the necessity of historical continuity in sociological theory, cf . Alvin Gouldner'sintroduction to E . Durkheim Socialism, Antioch Press, 1958 and also various con-tributions in T. Raison (ed .) The Founding Fathers of Social Science, Penguin Books, 1969 .

2. Robert A. Nisbet 'Conservativism and Sociology', American Journal of Sociology(September, 1952), pp. 167-175. The argument was later incorporated in TheSociological Tradition, New York : Basic Books, 1966 .

3 . Nisbet, 1966, ibid ., p . 221 .4. Cf. Gianfranco Poggi `The chronic trauma : the great transformation, Restoration

thought and the sociological tradition', British Journal of Sociology, vol. XIX, no . 1,1968, pp. 8g-g5; Morris Janowitz and Talcott Parsons `Review Symposium',American Sociological Review, vol. 32, no . 4, 1967, pp. 638-643-

5- E. Durkheim 'La sociologic', La science franyaise, vol . 1, trans . Jerome D . Folkmanin K. H. Wolff (ed.) Essays on Sociology and Philosophy, New York: Harper and Row,1964, P. 383 .


6. Alan Dawe `The two sociologies', British Journal of Sociology, vol . XXI, no . 2, 1970,p . 211 .

7 . ibid .8. Robert K. Merton made the important observation that Marxists and functionalists

share the same ànalytical framework' in the study of religion but differ significantlyin their evaluation of the consequences of religion . Cf. Robert K. Merton SocialTheory and Social Structure, Glencoe, Ill . : Free Press, 1957, PP- 42f

9. A review of other types of criticism is to be found in Imogen Seger Durkheim and hisCritics on the Sociology of Religion, Columbia University ; Monograph Series, 1957 .

1o . Melford Spiro `Religion : Problems of Definition and Explanation' in M. Banton(ed .) Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Religion, London : Tavistock Publications,1966, PP- 85-126 .

1 1 . This reappraisal of Tylor is discussed more fully in Bryan S . Turner `The Develop-ment of the Sociology of Religion-the emergence of an interactionist perspective'International Yearbook for the Sociology of Religion (forthcoming, 197 t) .

12 . Jack Goody `Religion and Ritual : the definitional problem', British Journal of Sociology,vol . 12, 1961, PP. 143-164 .

1,; . E . E . Evans-Pritchard Theories of Primitive Religion, Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1965,p. 65-

14. A detailed discussion of this problem has been given by W . G. Runciman `Thesociological explanation of "religious" beliefs', Archives Europlennes de sociologic vol . X,1969, pp . 149-191 .

15 . E. Durkheim The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (trans. J . Swain), New York :Collier Books, 1961, p . 20 .

16 . For example, the scientific study of the origins of Islam is perfectly legitimate .17. Runciman, op . cit ., p . 169 .18 . Merton, op. cit., pp . 32 -37 .1g . Spiro, op . cit., p. 119 .20 . `The spaceless and timeless generalizations' of some functionalists have been criticized

by Merton, op . cit . Cf. also Norman Birnbaum `Monarchs and Sociologists : AReply to Professor Shils and Mr . Young', Sociological Review, III-IV, 1955, PP . 5-23 ;Peter L . Berger, The Social Reality of Religion, London: Faber and Faber, 1969,Appendix 1 .

21 . For a discussion of the essentially historical nature of Durkheim's sociology cf.Robert N . Bellah 'Durkheim and History', American Sociological Review, XXI V, 1959,PP. 447-461 . One major 'notable exception' is of course Guy E . Swanson The Birthof the Gods, University of Michigan : Ann Arbor, 1964-

22. Some of the problems of intra-social analysis have been clarified in Alvin W .Gouldner 'Reciprocity and Autonomy in Functional Analysis' in L . Gross (ed .),Symposium on Sociological Theory, New York: Harper and Row, 1959, pp . 241 -27o-

23. Nisbet, 1966, op. Cit ., p . 243 .24 . In The Ancient City (trans. Willard Small), New York : Anchor Books, while Fustel

did not entirely take the simplistic position that a narrative is an explanation, he wasvague in spelling out the nature of his key variables and their relationships . In somepassages of his study, religion seems to be an independent variable, while in othersections religion seems to be a reflection of the social structure . His most consistentattitude was summed up in the following : 'We cannot, indeed, say that religiousprogress brought social progress; but what is certain is, that they were both producedat the same time, and in remarkable accord' (p . 131) . Fustel seemed to treat 'material'and 'moral' needs as the causes of both religious and social progress . The ancientfamily system was transformed into a municipal system because the family was 'toonarrow for material needs, since this family hardly sufficed for all the chances of life ;too narrow for the moral needs of our nature . . .' (p . 117) . The relationship betweenreligion and social structure was left ambiguous .

25 . ibid ., p . 125 .26 . ibid ., p . 269 .27 . ibid ., P . 392 .

48


28. ibid ., PP . 31 -32 .29 . ibid ., p . 132 .30 . ibid ., p . 27 .31 . It is interesting to note that, while Durkheim dedicated his dissertation to Fustel,

he did not find it necessary to acknowledge his debt to Fustel in The Elementary Formsof Religious Life . This may be explained by the fact that the norm of detailed referencesis a modern development .

32. Terry N . Clark 'Emile Durkheim and the Institutionalization of Sociology in theFrench University System', Archives Europiennes de Sociologic, IX, 1968, pp. 37- 71-

33- Cf., in particular, Howard Becker and Harry Elmer Barnes, Social Thought fromLore to Science, New York: Dover Publications, 196 x .

34 . ibid ., p . 226 .35. Ibn Khaldun The Muqaddimah ; An Introduction to History (trans . Franz Rosenthal),

London : - Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1958, vol . t, p. lxxiii. The secularism of IbnKhaldtin's perspective has been called into question by H . A . R . Gibb `The IslamicBackground of Ibn Khaldtin's Political Theory', Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies,vol. VII, pt. 1, 1933, PP- 23- 3 1 -

36. ibid ; p 249-37 . ibid ., p. 254-38- ibid ., p . 305-39- ibid . ; p . 285-40- ibid ., p . lxxix .41 . ibid ., p . 309-42. Ernest Gellner À pendulum swing theory of Islam', Annales de Sociologic, 1968,

PP- 5-14 reprinted in R. Robertson (ed.) Sociology of Religion, Penguin Books, 1969,p. 1 32-

43. Further analysis of Ibn Khaldun is to be found in the following : Harry ElmerMarnes `Sociology before Comte', American Journal of Sociology, vol. XXIII, no .2,1917, pp. 197-198; Kheirallah Bosch 'Ibn Khaldun on Evolution', The IslamicReview, vol . XXXVIII, no . 5 1950 ; Siti Al-Husari, 'La sociologic d'Ibn Khaldun',Actes du XV Congrds International de Sociologic, 1952; Eugene A . Myers Arabic Thoughtand the Western World, New York : Frederick Ungar 1964, PP- 54-65 ; Charles IssawiAn Arab Philosophy of History, London : John Murray, 1950.

44. Cf., for example, Talcott Parsons The Structure of Social Action, Glencoe, Ill . : FreePress, I94g.

45 . Although this Durkheimian perspective was partly corrected in Professional Ethicsand Civic Morals, the intra-social analysis of single social systems was predominant .

46. A complete translation of the Muqaddimah first appeared in an Occidental languagebetween 1862 and 1868 with De Slane's three volume Prolegomines historiques d'IbnKhaldoun .

47 . On the `conflict school', cf. Becker and Barnes, op . cit., vol . 2, pp . 713-728 ; HarryElmer Barnes An Introduction to the History of Sociology, Chicago : University of ChicagoPress, 148 ; Irving L . Horowitz Ìntroduction' to Ludwig Gumplowicz Outlines ofSociology ; P. Sorokin Contemporary Sociological Theories, New York and London :Harper, 5923 . On the impact of the `conflict school' on American sociology, cf.Richard Hofstadter Social Darwinism in American Thought, Boston: Beacon Press, 1965-

48. Lester F . Ward Pure Sociology, New York and London : Macmillan, 1903, p . 204-49. For examples of some contemporary applications of Ibn Khaldun in sociological

theorizing, cf. Ernest Gellner Saints of the Atlas, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson,1969 and M. Mulkay and B . S. Turner 'Over-production of Personnel and Innova-tion in Three Social Settings', Sociology, (forthcoming, 1971) .

Documents

Sociological founders and precursors: The theories of religion of Emile Durkheim, Fustel De Coulanges and IBN Khaldûn