Ibn Khaldoun dans les premières sociologies allemandes
In the course of recent debates, Ibn Khaldun has been (re-)claimed not as a precursor, but as one of the “founding fathers” of sociology. This entails the suspicion that Ibn Khaldun’s legacy, especially his Muqaddima as an important reference in the foundational phase of modern European sociology, h...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Éditions de la Sorbonne
2022-12-01
|
| Series: | Revue d’Histoire des Sciences Humaines |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://journals.openedition.org/rhsh/7412 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | In the course of recent debates, Ibn Khaldun has been (re-)claimed not as a precursor, but as one of the “founding fathers” of sociology. This entails the suspicion that Ibn Khaldun’s legacy, especially his Muqaddima as an important reference in the foundational phase of modern European sociology, has been sidelined in the construction of the sociological canon and thus remains an unacknowledged source today. This paper presents a historical case of South-North reception of sociological theory. A systematic assessment of the reception of Ibn Khaldun in early German-language sociology reveals that while his acknowledgment was quantitatively rather low, it was indeed qualitatively interesting. In particular, two important early sociologists, Ludwig Gumplowicz and Franz Oppenheimer, mobilized references to his Muqadimma in the context of their “sociological theory of the state.” They discovered the fundamental theoretical convergence between their approach and the early Arab scholar. Against the ahistorical philosophical idea of the state and the non-historical juridical idea of the state, both authors defended the sociological idea of the state. It is the conquest of one tribe over another with the aim of economic exploitation through political subjugation that gives rise to the state. Here, Ibn Khaldun appeared as a particularly reliable reference. His reception in the works of Gumplowicz and Oppenheimer also sheds a different light on the much-voiced refusal of imported social theory as being irrelevant. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1963-1022 |