to sages who are exceptional but very rare, the gentleman is a more concrete ethical exemplar. For Confucius the gentleman is defined by his moral excellence, self-discipline and a genuine concern for the welfare of others. In this sense the gentleman is a morally superior person who can command and receive obedience on the grounds of his own morality and ability to help others: ‘the nature of the gentleman is like the wind and the nature of the small people is like the grass; when the wind blows over the grass it always bends’ (Confucius, 1979: 12, 19).
In this way the literati provide an indispensable service to both the state and civil society: their teachings help hold the behaviour of rulers in (moral) check while aiding the autonomy and continuous ethical development of the civil society groupings. Confucius distinguishes between the office-holding literati, whose role is to make sure that the state is governed according to high ethical principles, and the ‘backwoods literati’; that is, sages without an office who act as social leaders for specific local communities (Cho, 1996: 113). Nevertheless, the gentlemen are not born as such; instead anyone has the potential to become a gentleman. In Confucian teachings the educational processes that mould individuals into gentlemen are envisaged as open to all regardless of their origin. Hence one’s ability to guide others rests exclusively on one’s capacity and willingness to learn and to achieve self-cultivation and self-control.
The rulers too require self-discipline and humility and are more likely to be trusted and followed if leading virtuous lives. The stability of social and political orders depends on the willingness of all citizens (including the rulers) to obey the ‘rites’ (li) and to act morally. As Confucius (1979: 87) emphasises:
If the people be led by laws, and uniformity sought to be given them by punishments, they will try to avoid the punishment, but have no sense of shame. If they be led by virtue, and uniformity sought to be given them by the rules of propriety, they will have the sense of the shame, and moreover will become good.
Thus, in contrast to Legalism, which highlights the coercive pressure of the laws, Confucianism stresses the emotional and moral sense of responsibility: once duty is internalised, shame is a much more powerful deterrent of vice than the state’s threat of violence. Confucian social philosophy perceives social order through the prism of well-established hierarchies where every individual and social strata fulfil their requisite role to the best of their ability.
For Confucius self-discipline ultimately leads to benevolence. In his own words: ‘To discipline self to fulfil the rites is benevolence. The day when self-discipline fulfils the rites, all under heaven would be with benevolence. Indeed, the practices of benevolence originate from self and not from others!’ (Confucius, 12: 1). Confucian social philosophy prioritises refined and morally superior judgement over knowledge and skill even when that knowledge involves the advanced command of existing rules. Confucius’s ideas give clear primacy to organisational form and group morality over knowledge and individual freedom.
Ibn Khaldun as the First Proto-sociologist
Much premodern social and political thought obsessed over normative questions such as: What constitutes a good life? How can group morals be maintained? Or how can a social harmony be achieved? The tendency was also to provide moralistic, usually religiously inspired, answers to such questions. In sharp contrast to these perspectives, Ibn Khaldun focuses on the causal relations between different social processes. Instead of advocating a particular course of action, Ibn Khaldun is one of the first social thinkers who aims to explain how the social world works. Although his studies contain extensive passages that resemble religious sermons or glorify mysticism and anti-rationalism, his main contributions are uniquely couched in the language of what we would today call social science. Drawing on wide historical, geographical and philosophical knowledge, Ibn Khaldun articulated the first proto-sociological theories of state formation, power, solidarity and urban and rural dynamics. Moreover, The Muqaddimah is often described as the first sustained work of historical science (Lacoste, 1984: 160; Schmidt, 1967).
At the heart of Ibn Khaldun’s project is the ambition to explain long-term social change. In this context, he explores the macro historical processes that impact state development, violent conflicts, urban life, civilisations, religious beliefs, social stratification and power configurations. At the same time he also tackles the micro interactional social world as he assesses the patterns of group solidarity, the role family and kinship play in nomadic and sedentary groups, personality transformations, and the dynamics of sociability.
The Rise and Fall of Civilisations
In The Muqaddimah the author presents us with a cyclical philosophy of history that analyses the development of civilisation through the prism of a dialectical relationship between the city and the countryside, both of which are indispensable for long-term social advancement.1 In this view civilisations gradually rise through the interdependence of two principal and distinct ways of life: (1) sedentary populations able to develop the new skills, ideas, knowledge and economic environment necessary for social development; and (2) nomadic tribes capable of providing the coercive might, solidarity and moral fibre required for the establishment, protection and long-term stability of a particular civilisation.
More specifically, he argues that nomadic warriors are the only group capable of founding or conquering the new states. The social sources of their military might stem from their unique lifestyle: a generally frugal and disciplined existence, sturdy and functional military organisation, and intense bonds of kinship and solidarity. The rigours of nomadic life, perpetual involvement in the violent conflicts, loyalty to their chieftains and tight group attachments enable tribes not only to establish states, but also to maintain the stability of state rule. While the tribal cohesion generates military power and security, city life remains crucial for economic productivity, day-to-day governance, and social and cultural development. Although the nomadic warriors are good at conquering lands, protecting and policing towns, they are quite feeble at generating ‘luxury goods, clothing, sophisticated cuisine, refined pleasures, relatively sumptuous houses, and social accomplishment’ (Lacoste, 1984: 96). Hence a prosperous and stable civilisation entails a symbiotic relationship between the two principal social strata – tribal warriors and urban dwellers.
Nevertheless, as civilisations advance, they also sow seeds of their own demise. As Ibn Khaldun (2005: 296) emphasises: ‘The goal of civilization is sedentary culture and luxury. When civilization reaches that goal, it turns towards corruption and starts being senile, as happens in the natural life of living beings.’ Since the state’s stability is grounded in asceticism, moral purity, tribal solidarity and loyalty, once the tribal warriors settle in towns their frugality and social cohesion evaporate and they slowly, but surely, become corrupted by the luxuries of sedentary life. Hence all civilisations undergo cyclical transformations with periodic growth, expansion and inevitable decline.
For Ibn Khaldun the rise and fall of civilisations is determined by the complex social relationships rooted in the changing political dynamics. In his view the durable social order entails not only coercion, but also a substantial degree of group solidarity. Life outside the state is dependent on the social cohesion of lineage, kinship and deep friendships. The nomadic tribes living in inhospitable environments where there is a chronic shortage of food and water and constant dangers of raiders, carnivorous animals and natural disasters would not be able to survive without strong group attachments. In his own words: ‘Those who have no one of their own lineage feel affection for their fellows. If danger is in the air … such a man slinks away… Such people, therefore, cannot live in the desert’ (Ibn Khaldun, 2005: 98).
Group Feeling
One of Ibn Khaldun’s central concepts is asabiya, meaning a strong group feeling, often associated with unity, group consciousness, social cohesion
