عصبیت بهمثابه گفتمان: بازاندیشی در نظریۀ «ابنخلدون» از منظر تحلیل گفتمان «فوکو»
محورهای موضوعی : پژوهش سیاست نظری
1 - استادیار گروه علوم سیاسی، دانشکده علوم انسانی، واحد رشت، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، رشت، ایران
کلید واژه: عصبیت, ابنخلدون, تحلیل گفتمان, میشل فوکو و قدرت.,
چکیده مقاله :
نظریه عصبیت ابن خلدون و تحلیل گفتمان فوکو، دو دیدگاه متفاوت به پویاییهای اجتماعی ارائه میدهد. مسئله این پژوهش، امکان بازخوانی عصبیت بهمثابه گفتمان تاریخی برای تنظیم هویت و قدرت در جوامع پیشامدرن است. هدف، تطبیق این دو نظریه در سه محور قدرت، تحول اجتماعی و سوژهسازی با روش تحلیل نظری و تطبیقی است. یافتهها نشان میدهد که عصبیت مانند گفتمان فوکویی، از طریق روایتها و آیینها، انسجام و سلطه را بازتولید میکند، اما بر عوامل مادی متمرکز است؛ برخلاف تأکید فوکو که بر سازههای زبانی مبتنی است. این تطبیق، عصبیت را به یک سازه گفتمانی ارتقا داده، ابزاری برای تحلیل قدرت در تاریخ و امروز ارائه میدهد. نتایج، درک نظریه ابنخلدون را غنیتر کرده، چارچوبی برای تحلیل میانرشتهای ارائه میدهد. پیشنهاد میشود این تطبیق در بسترهای تجربی، مانند جنبشهای قومی نیز آزمایش شود.
Asabiyyah as Discourse: Reconsidering Ibn Khaldun’s
Theory through Foucault’s Discourse Analysis
Matin Anjomrooz*
Ibn Khaldun’s theory of ‘‘asabiyyah’ and Foucault’s discourse analysis offer two distinct perspectives on social dynamics. The central question of this study is the possibility of reinterpreting asabiyyah as a historical discourse for the regulation of identity and power in pre-modern societies. The study aims to align these two theoretical frameworks along three axes: power, social transformation, and subject formation, using a theoretical and comparative analytical approach. The findings indicate that, like Foucauldian discourse, asabiyyah reproduces cohesion and authority through narratives and rituals, but it primarily emphasizes material factors, unlike Foucault’s focus on language-based constructs. This alignment elevates asabiyyah into a discursive construct, providing a tool for analyzing power both historically and in contemporary contexts. The results enrich the theoretical understanding of Ibn Khaldun and offer a framework for interdisciplinary analysis. It is suggested that this comparative approach be tested in empirical contexts, such as ethnic movements.
Keywords: asabiyyah, Ibn Khaldun, discourse analysis, Michel Foucault, power.
Introduction
The concept of asabiyyah in Ibn Khaldun’s thought represents one of the most fundamental socio-political notions within the Islamic intellectual tradition. He considers asabiyyah the driving force behind historical and social transformations, asserting that no civilization can arise without strong asabiyyah, and no state can endure without it. From his perspective, asabiyyah is both a material and emotional bond that connects members of a tribe or group, uniting them against adversaries and facilitating the domination over rivals and the formation of governance. This force reaches its peak in nomadic societies but gradually weakens with urbanization and prosperity, ultimately being replaced by a new form of social cohesion.
Within this framework, Ibn Khaldun explains the cyclical rise and fall of civilizations such as the Umayyads, Abbasids, Almoravids, and Ottomans, establishing himself as a pioneer of historical sociology. However, a notable limitation is that asabiyyah has predominantly been analyzed as a material and empirical phenomenon, with limited attention to its discursive and meaning-making dimensions.
In contrast, in modern political philosophy, Michel Foucault locates power not in blood ties but within networks of discourse. According to him, it is discourse that produces knowledge, identity, and relations of domination. This theoretical tension frames the central research question of this study: Can asabiyyah be analyzed not merely as a material force but as a discourse that reproduced collective identity and power relations in pre-modern societies?
This question is significant in two respects: first, it demonstrates how classical concepts can be reinterpreted in light of modern theoretical frameworks; and second, it opens a space for interdisciplinary dialogue between historical sociology, political philosophy, and discourse analysis.
Literature Review
Numerous studies have examined the concept of asabiyyah. Rosenthal (1958) regarded it as central to Ibn Khaldun’s theory of civilization and compared it to modern social cohesion. Shayegan (1996) interprets asabiyyah as a pre-modern force in tension with modern rationality. However, most of these analyses have overlooked the discursive dimension of asabiyyah.
In Western traditions, various theories of social cohesion have been proposed. Durkheim explains simple societies through the concept of “mechanical solidarity,” emphasizing kinship ties, while Weber analyzes charismatic authority based on emotional relationships. These perspectives share some similarities with Ibn Khaldun’s asabiyyah but lack his cyclical model. Marx, on the other hand, emphasizes productive relations in historical transformations, whereas asabiyyah primarily concerns tribal cohesion.
Discourse studies were fundamentally reshaped by Foucault, who demonstrated that discourses are not mere reflections of reality but mechanisms that produce truth and power. For example, nineteenth-century medical discourse redefined the “patient,” creating an identity subject to institutional surveillance.
The present research addresses a gap in systematically examining asabiyyah as a discourse. By filling this gap, it seeks to reinterpret asabiyyah not merely as a social force but as a discursive construct shaping identities and power relations in pre-modern societies.
Methodology
This study employs a qualitative, comparative approach to examine the concept of asabiyyah in Ibn Khaldun’s thought and Foucault’s discourse theory. Primary data are drawn from Ibn Khaldun’s Muqaddimah (relying on Rosenthal’s translation) and key works by Foucault, including The Archaeology of Knowledge, The Order of Things, and Discipline and Punish. Secondary sources include authoritative interpretations by Dreyfus and Rabinow.
The comparative method enables a systematic analysis of these two theories from different intellectual traditions, highlighting both convergences and divergences. It also allows for the reinterpretation of classical concepts in light of contemporary theory, enriching the theoretical discussion.
The analytical process proceeded in three main stages: first, the extraction and clarification of core concepts of asabiyyah and discourse; second, a comparison of the two theories across the axes of power, social transformation, and subject formation; and finally, the redefinition of asabiyyah as a type of discourse in pre-modern societies. Although the study is primarily theoretical and lacks extensive empirical data, this focus allows for a deeper engagement with conceptual and theoretical issues.
Findings and Analysis
In examining the concept of power, Ibn Khaldun considers asabiyyah fundamental to state formation. Tribes with strong asabiyyah, such as the Umayyads and Abbasids, were able to establish powerful states. This asabiyyah, combining emotional bonds and material interests, both strengthens group cohesion and legitimizes governance. In contrast, Foucault locates power not in individuals or institutions but in circulating discursive networks. Discourse simultaneously produces knowledge and reproduces power relations. This comparison suggests that asabiyyah can also function discursively: tribal poetry, ancestral myths, and loyalty rituals were all discourses that legitimized tribal governance.
Regarding social transformation, Ibn Khaldun attributes the decline of civilizations to weakening asabiyyah, which is strongest in nomadic societies but diminishes with urbanization and prosperity. Foucault examines social transformations from the perspective of discursive ruptures—for instance, the transition from religious to scientific discourse in Europe represents a shift in knowledge and power systems. Thus, the decline of tribal asabiyyah and its replacement with religious discourse in the Abbasid era can be analyzed both materially (Ibn Khaldun) and discursively (Foucault).
In terms of identity formation, Ibn Khaldun argues that individuals lack identity without tribal affiliation. Tribal rituals and narratives construct identities such as “warrior” or “tribe member.” Foucault similarly emphasizes the constructed nature of identity, showing how medical or legal discourses produce identities like “patient” or “criminal.” The key difference is that asabiyyah emphasizes collective subject formation, whereas Foucault focuses on individual subject formation in modern societies. Nevertheless, both perspectives highlight that identities are not inherent but constructed through dominant discourses.
Analytical and Interdisciplinary Expansion
Asabiyyah can also be compared with modern social theories. Putnam’s concept of social capital allows asabiyyah to be viewed as a form of tribal social capital grounded in trust and kinship networks. Gellner’s analysis of ethnicity demonstrates that just as asabiyyah shaped collective identity in pre-modern societies, modern educational and cultural discourses construct ethnic identities.
Laclau and Mouffe, emphasizing discourse in creating hegemony, interpret asabiyyah as a form of tribal hegemony that gives way to new discourses upon its decline. These perspectives indicate that asabiyyah is not merely a historical concept but an analytical model for understanding contemporary societies. Today, in the Middle East, ethnic and religious movements reproduce asabiyyah through modern discourses such as nationalism and Islamism, illustrating the ongoing discursive function of asabiyyah in contemporary politics.
Conclusion
By reinterpreting Ibn Khaldun’s asabiyyah as a discourse, this study demonstrates that it was not merely a social force but a meaning-making system that regulated cohesion, legitimacy, and identity. This approach yields three main contributions: first, it extends Ibn Khaldun’s theory beyond sociological description, linking it to contemporary discourse theory; second, it provides an interdisciplinary framework for analyzing contemporary socio-political movements; and third, it highlights the potential of classical concepts for reinterpretation in light of modern theory. Nevertheless, limitations such as theoretical focus, lack of empirical data, and methodological differences between the two intellectual traditions exist. Future research is recommended to proceed in three directions: empirical study of asabiyyah in contemporary ethnic movements, its integration with other discourse theories, and reinterpretation of other Ibn Khaldunian concepts (such as ‘‘umran) from this perspective. These avenues can further enrich the theoretical capacity of this analytical framework.
References
Ahmad, A. (2003) Islam, modernity, and the human sciences. Palgrave Macmillan.
Butler, J. (1997) The psychic life of power: Theories in subjection. Stanford University Press.
Dhaouadi, M. (1990) Ibn Khaldun: The founding father of eastern sociology. International Sociology, 5(3), 319–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/026858090005003007
Dreyfus, H. L., & Rabinow, P. (1983) Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
Fairclough, N. (1992) Discourse and social change. Polity Press.
Foucault, M. (1971) The order of discourse. In R. Young (Ed.), Untying the text: A post-structuralist reader (pp. 51–78). Routledge. (Original work published 1970)
Foucault, M. (1972) The archaeology of knowledge (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). Pantheon Books. (Original work published 1969)
Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Vintage Books. (Original work published 1975)
Gellner, E. (1981) Muslim society. Cambridge University Press.
Hodgson, G. S. (1974) The venture of Islam: Conscience and history in a world civilization (Vol. 1). University of Chicago Press.
Ibn Khaldun. (2005) The Muqaddimah: An introduction to history (F. Rosenthal, Trans.). Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1377).
Lacoste, Y. (1984) Ibn Khaldun: The birth of history and the past of the Third World. Verso.
Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (1985) Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics. Verso.
Mills, S. (2003) Michel Foucault. Routledge.
Rosenthal, F. (1958) Introduction. In Ibn Khaldun, The Muqaddimah: An introduction to history (Vol. 1, pp. xxvii–xxxii). Princeton University Press.
Shayegan, D. (1996) Cultural schizophrenia: Islamic societies confronting the West. Syracuse University Press.
van Dijk, T. A. (1998) Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. Sage.
* Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Faculty of Humanities, Rasht Branch, Islamic Azad University, Rasht, Iran.
Ahmad, A. (2003) Islam, modernity, and the human sciences. Palgrave Macmillan.
Butler, J. (1997) The psychic life of power: Theories in subjection. Stanford University Press.
Dhaouadi, M. (1990) Ibn Khaldun: The founding father of eastern sociology. International Sociology, 5(3), 319-335. https://doi.org/10.1177/026858090005003007.
Dreyfus, H. L., & Rabinow, P. (1983) Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
Fairclough, N. (1992) Discourse and social change. Polity Press.
Foucault, M. (1971) The order of discourse. In R. Young (Ed.), Untying the text: A post-structuralist reader, Routledge. (Original work published 1970), pp. 51-78.
--------------- (1972) The archaeology of knowledge (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). Pantheon Books. (Original work published 1969).
-------------- (1977) Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Vintage Books. (Original work published 1975).
Gellner, E. (1981) Muslim society. Cambridge University Press.
Hodgson, G. S. (1974) The venture of Islam: Conscience and history in a world civilization (Vol. 1). University of Chicago Press.
Ibn Khaldun. (2005) The Muqaddimah: An introduction to history (F. Rosenthal, Trans.). Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1377).
Lacoste, Y. (1984) Ibn Khaldun: The birth of history and the past of the Third World. Verso.
Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (1985) Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics. Verso.
Mills, S. (2003) Michel Foucault. Routledge.
Rosenthal, F. (1958) Introduction. In Ibn Khaldun, The Muqaddimah: An introduction to history (Vol. 1, pp. xxvii-xxxii). Princeton University Press.
Shayegan, D. (1996) Cultural schizophrenia: Islamic societies confronting the West. Syracuse University Press.
van Dijk, T. A. (1998) Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach, Sage Publications.