SOCIOLOGICAL FOUNDERS AND

PRECURSORS : THE THEORIES OF

RELIGION OF EMILE DURKHEIM,
FUSTEL DE COULANGES AND
IBN KHALDUN .
Bryan S . Turner
Lecturer in Sociology, University of Aberdeen

The consolidation of sociology as a scientific enterprise depends on

continuous, cumulative theorizing . For this reason, sociologists have
insisted on close attention to the `founding fathers' of sociological thought .
It has been argued that an awareness of the history of the discipline
provides criteria for assessing contemporary achievements in theory .'
In addition, the `founding fathers' are a source of insight and inspiration
for present theorizing, on the one hand, and a set of safeguards against
detrimental developments and one-sided perspectives, on the other .
However, there are two immediate problems which emerge from this
concentration on founding traditions . The weak theoretical development
of sociology coupled with this historical awareness means that there is
confusion over what counts as the history of sociological thought and
what constitutes sociological theory . Granted that the sociological past
is important for present consolidation, there is the problem of choosing
which past is significant .
Contemporary criteria for selecting the sociologically significant past,
and hence our `founding fathers', have been profoundly influenced by
the research of Robert A . Nisbet . In an argument first developed in 1952,
Nisbet attempted to show that sociology emerged from the nineteenth
century reaction against industrialism and the French Revolution which
had created a European problem of social order . 2 The major ideological
roots of sociology lay in conservativism for it was from this tradition that
sociology acquired a language capable of analysing the social problems
of an industrial society. Thus, ideas of status, cohesion, norm and ritual
were essentially conservative ideas, but it is the centrality of the concept
`the sacred' which both distinguishes sociology from other social sciences
and 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 the
understanding 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 existence
of society and that religion is more than belief, but a set of rituals that
bind society together, was basic to Durkheim's sociology . The social
dislocations of secularization and industrialization were the context in
which sociologists came to view the sacred as the key to social order .
There are many grounds on which Nisbet's thesis in The Sociological
Tradition has been criticized . 4 These objections may be summarized by
pointing out that Nisbet's emphasis on the French origins of sociology
was 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 two
conditions which follow existed in combination : First, traditionalism
had to have lost its domain . . . . Second, a veritable faith in the power
of reason to dare to undertake the translation of the most complex
and unstable of realities into definite terms was necessary . France
satisfies this double condition. 5
Nisbet, who extended this essentially patriotic view of French origins,
simply ignored many other crucial sociological traditions . Thus, he had
nothing to say about Vilfredo Pareto, W . I . Thomas, American empirical-
ism or German idealism. The perspective on the problem of order was
too rigid . As Alan Dawe has argued, while the problem of order
has undoubtedly been central to much of sociology, it has not been the
only central problem ; from which it follows that the conservative
reaction was not the only source of inspiration for the development of
sociological thought."
The alternative focus, the problem of control, is derivable from the
Enlightenment tradition which was centred on the issue of
how human beings could regain control over essentially man-made
institutions and historical situations . 7
Of course, the `two sociologies' have entirely different evaluations of
religion as a necessary bond and as an irrational fetter ."
My objection to Nisbet and to many of his critics is that their perspective
is still too narrow . There are problems about having any tradition and
special difficulties of this tradition in particular . Having any tradition
encourages a taken-for-granted attitude towards the founders of sociology,
resulting in an honorific list which cannot be altered . We tend to forget
that the received list is conditioned by factors which have nothing to do
with the sociological worth of individual founders . A number of `historical
accidents' have played a large part in determining our ignorance of
important sociologists . What is far more damaging about having traditions
is that we come to rely too frequently on others to read our founders for
us . The problem of having the sociological tradition is that it is difficult
to 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 their
theories are more credible. If an awareness of the development of sociology
is important for present theorizing, then our tradition must be catholic
and our appraisal of tradition, continuously critical .
There are many layers of argument which follow from this introductory
comment. The immediate aim of this article is to examine the related
but distinctive theories of religion of Emile Durkheim, Fustel de Coulanges
and Ibn Khaldun . While all three sociologists wrote within the context
of social dislocation and increasing secularism, their common under-
standing of the integrative functions of religion lead to entirely different
perspectives 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 stature
as an innovative founder need re-evaluation . While the line between
history and sociological theory is hard to draw, it does not follow that no
attempt ought to be made to establish such a demarcation . The develop-
ment of sociology involves an account of sociology over time ; sociological
theories are logically related sets of statements about the connections
between phenomena. The goals of theory are explanation and prediction .
Theories developed by the founders of sociology can remain within
sociological 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 is
to 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's
Muqaddimah and the impact of Ibn Khaldun on European and American
sociology will be examined . Not only do these three sociologists illustrate
the way in which the common assumption about the integrative functions
of religion can lead to different styles of analysis but also Fustel and Ibn
Khaldun serve as valuable founding fathers in that they check an uncritical
acceptance of the Durkheimian perspective .
EMILE D URKHEIM
It is entirely unnecessary to restate Durkheim's theory of religion ;
instead contemporary criticism of his definition of religion, his explanation
of religion and his perspective will be examined . 9 An important feature
of Durkheim's definition of religion was that, since Theravada Buddhism
does not possess beliefs in spiritual beings, existing definitions were too
exclusive. E. B. Tylor's minimum definition of religion as belief in Spiritual
Beings was, in particular, singled out for criticism . Whereas the belief in
spirits is not universal, all societies, Durkheim argued, distinguish between
the sacred and profane . Recent research has shown that Durkheim's
definition was based both on a factual error and on mistaken assumptions
about comparative analysis . Melford Spiro has argued that, although
Theravada Buddhism does not entail belief in a creator god, it does contain
beliefs in superhuman spirits .' 0 The position can be taken that Theravada


SOCIOLOGICAL FOUNDERS AND PRECURSORS 35

Buddhism is indifferent to questions about the nature and existence of
God or spiritual beings, since they too are controlled by Dharma, but
it would be strange to look only at the philosophical tradition of the
monks without examining how Theravada Buddhism operates at village
level . 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-cultural
applicability . The absence of `religion' in one society does not render the
definition useless any more than the absence of mass media in one or
more 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 applicable
and not counter-intuitive ."
Apart from these theoretical considerations, Durkheim's dichotomy
between sacred and profane has not proved particularly successful in
empirical research . J. Goody observed that the operational criteria of the
sacred-'things set apart and forbidden'-are too vague and that, in the
absence of adequate criteria, one might legitimately choose any dichotomy,
such as `good' and `bad', `high' and `low', `black' and `white' . 12 In a
similar vein, Evans Pritchard, on the basis of his own research, came
to the conclusion that
My test of this sort of formulation is a simple one : whether it can be
broken down into problems which permit testing by observation in
field research, or can at least aid in the classification of observed facts .
I have never found that the dichotomy of sacred and profane was of
much use for either purpose . 13

The identification of `religious' phenomena is only the first step in

sociological enquiry and it is, therefore, necessary to look at recent
criticism 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 is
mainly concerned with the persistence of religious beliefs, not with how
and why religious beliefs are accepted . Beliefs about the sacred are
social facts characterized by externality and constraint . Durkheim explicitly
rejected any socio-psychological variables in the explanation of religion .
The search for origins was rejected on the assumption that there was
inadequate and insufficient evidence on which scientific research could
be based . Instead, Durkheim attempted to discover the `ever-present
causes upon which the most essential forms of religious thought and
practice depend' . 15 These `essential forms' can be adequately observed
only in primitive societies and from these observations Durkheim made
generalizations about the fundamental nature of religion in all societies .
Religion persisted because it satisfied a basic functional requirement of
human society, namely integration .
It will be possible here to deal with only the salient objections to
Durkheim's explanation . Although the origins of religion in general


36 SOCIOLOGICAL FOUNDERS AND PRECURSORS

cannot be a scientific question, the origins of particular religions can be .' 6

W. G. Runciman has put the same point in a different manner :
it may well be enough to be able to show, by sufficiently thorough
cross-cultural comparisons, the circumstances under which someone or
other will sooner or later be bound to elaborate or codify a system of
beliefs of a fairly precisely specified kind . There are a great many
beliefs and practices whose coincidences in widely separated cultures
are . . . too close and too numerous to be accidental . 17
While cross-cultural analysis of `origins' in the above terms is possible,
Durkheim's generalization from Australian totemism to `ever-present
causes' 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 of
Australian totemism were correct, the attempt to pare back the com-
plexity of religion in differentiated societies by examining primitive
society in order to explain religion in both types is a singularly circuitous
exercise .
There are, in addition, doubts as to whether Durkheim's theory
constitutes an explanation of religion . The moral integration of society
is produced by the inculcation of common beliefs ; common rituals are
the means by which these common beliefs are periodically re-affirmed .
Traditionally, religion has been the major institution which has achieved
this moral integration of society . In Durkheim's theory, therefore, since
religion is the independent variable, religion explains moral integration.
Durkheim's theory is an explanation of moral integration rather than an
explanation of religion . Durkheim's theory can, however, take another
form . Religion is a necessary condition for the satisfaction of certain
functional requirements of a society . It is the functional requirements
which cause the existence of religion . One aspect of this argument, namely
that it rests on unsound and ambiguous assumptions about functional
`indispensability', was adequately contested by R . K . Merton . 18 Melford
Spiro has pointed to two other weaknesses within this functionalist
argument
Technically, no mechanism is specified by which the need for solidarity
. . . gives rise to, or `causes', religion . Methodologically, it cannot
explain the variability of religion . . . and, therefore, there is no way
by which it can be tested .19
But, as W . G. Runciman has pointed out, Durkheim was attempting to
justify religion in order to explain it . To claim that all religions are
equally `respectable' because they satisfy the indispensable functional
requirement of social integration is not so much peculiar, it is no explana-
tion at all .
Despite these problems of definition and explanation, Durkheim has
remained influential partly because he offers a particular perspective for
sociological enquiry . Yet, the ability to provide perspectives is a weak


SOCIOLOGICAL FOUNDERS AND PRECURSORS 37

criterion of the worth of a sociological theory . Moreover, the styles of
analysis which are distinctively Durkheimian have been frequently
classified as pernicious .S 0 The standard criticisms of Durkheimian
sociology-that it is a-historical, non-comparative and static-still hold
despite efforts to argue Durkheim out of his theoretical perspective and
despite many notable exceptions to standard criticism . 21 The core of these
deficiencies lies in the problem already noted that the analysis of religion
in primitive society is not an appropriate starting point for the explanation
of religion in complex, differentiated societies . Unfortunately, the assump-
tions of the seamless web quality of primitive society and the focus on
intrasocial cohesion are too frequently taken into the analysis of modern
society. 22
The conclusion which follows from this discussion is that since Durkheim's
theory of religion has not stood the test of empirical research or conceptual
analysis, his position in sociological theory is undermined . It remains to
examine Durkheim as a `founding father' . An examination of Fustel's
theory of `the sacred' suggests that Durkheim's place within the history
of 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' . There
were clearly many opportunities for Fustel to influence his student,
Durkheim . In i88o, Fustel became director of the $cole Normale where
Durkheim had enrolled in 1879 . At the time of Durkheim's enrolment,
La Cite Antique had been in circulation for fifteen years . Concerning the
relationship between the two men, Nisbet claimed that
From Fustel de Coulanges to his student, Durkheim, is but a short
step . Durkheim's distinction between the sacred and the profane, and
his 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 `a short step' misconceives the relationship . Although

there is nothing in Durkheim's Elementary Forms of Religious Life which
was not either implicitly or explicitly stated in Fustel's treatment of
religion, there are lines of analysis in Fustel's study of the classical city
which were not adopted by Durkheim . In particular, their perspectives
on the nature of `the sacred' were, in some ways, opposed .
La Cite Antique is in two sections : the first describes how the sacred
fire of the family hearth held the institutions of the early classical cities
of Rome and Greece in a coherent whole and the second section traces
the decline and transformation of this society . Classical society was held
together by common beliefs which gave rise to common rituals . Fustel
saw that beliefs about the dead ancestors gave rise to mutual obligations
between the living and the dead . The ancestors were dependent on the
living for resources and in return for these resources the living expected
to receive protection of the family . This domestic religion of the hearth


38 SOCIOLOGICAL FOUNDERS AND PRECURSORS

was basic to familial activities and structures. Marriage, descent, legitimacy

and divorce were controlled by religious rites rather than by law, custom
or generation . A couple were considered married only after they had
performed common rites before the sacred hearth ; they were divorced
when they ceased to worship the same ancestors . Since the dead required
new descendants, celibacy was proscribed and sterility was a continual
problem .
The hearth gods were essentially particularistic and, as such, were
incapable of uniting larger forms of association . In order for families to
unite in a phratry, a more superior god was required. Similarly, for several
phratries to form a tribe, higher gods were necessary . Fustel saw that
just as there was a hierarchy of human association from family to tribe
so there was a hierarchy of lesser and greater ancestral gods . Although
this extension of domestic religion seemed to operate successfully in
uniting tribes, a new form of religion had to be established before cities
could come into existence . In Fustel's view, classical societies came to
contain two types of religion : the ancestral gods of families, phratries
and tribes and a religion of nature which united cities .
Fustel argued that nature religion emerged because changed social
conditions 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 of
Max Milller, he argued in addition that new social conditions required
new religious beliefs . 24 Larger associations involved more general religious
beliefs
Indeed, the ancestors, heroes, and manes were gods, who by their very
nature could be adored only by a very small number of men, and who
thus established a perpetual and impassable line of demarcation between
families . The religion of the gods of nature was more comprehensive . 25
The second section of La Cite Antique is concerned with the analysis
of the decline of this social world and with the transformation of sacred
beliefs . The solid world of the old sacred order was destroyed, Fustel
argued, by the change of ideas and by progressive democratization .
Although the treatment of intellectual change was based on a crude
evolutionary perspective, the analysis of class struggle within the cities
was, by contrast, more convincing and more fully argued . Inequality
was built into the ancient family . The family chief was from generation to
generation the first-born male : hence there emerged over time many
younger, inferior family branches . In addition, there were the client
classes who served the families but who could not claim descent from an
ancestral hero . Clients did, however, join in the worship of families to
whom they were servants and they were, therefore, proper members of
society . Below the clients, the plebeian classes were outside society
since they could not practise a family religion . Since worship before a
hearth entailed a sedentary form of life-sacred hearths could not be
moved without considerable danger to ancestors-worshippers were also


SOCIOLOGICAL FOUNDERS AND PRECURSORS 39

property holders . Plebs were without religion and hence without property
and status .
Fustel argued that classical society, like feudalism, was one in which
the king had sacred authority without having real power . The chiefs
and the patres were kings within their own domains and were reluctant
to see any extension of kingly power . The struggle for the balance of
power resulted everywhere in the abolition of royalty : the kings were
relegated to the status of head priest . The removal of royalty left the
cities internally weak . The revolution brought about by the aristocracy
was essentially conservative : the kings were expelled in order to preserve
the old power of the family against political intrusion after the establish-
ment of the larger political unit, the city . The basic dilemma which the
aristocratic revolution attempted to solve was that the family was too
strong, the city too weak. In the long run, it was the authority of the
sovereign chiefs of the gens which was diminished in favour of wider
communal power .
The family unit was undermined by the disappearance of primogeniture
and by the freeing of the clients . In the struggle between families after
the decline of royal authority, the patres were more and more dependent
on their clients who provided family wealth by cultivating the soil and
family power by bearing arms . The clients were thus in a strategically
strong position for demanding an improvement in their lot . The eventual
freedom of the clients was yet one more step in the decline of the family
and family religion .
With the disappearance of primogeniture, the freeing of the clients,
the lower status groups were no longer embedded in the gentes but lived
apart . Thus, the old sacred society was transformed into a conflictual
class 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 social
standing 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 one
based on money . In military matters, status had been based on member-
ship in the cavalry which was the preserve of the aristocracy . As arms
and discipline were improved, the infantry were able to resist cavalry
charges and, as a result, the plebs were able to achieve considerable
military importance . As the plebeian status was improved, the lower
classes required some legitimation of their position in society . This
position 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 final
revolution was characterized by the intra-city struggle of democratic
tyrants and aristocracy, on the one hand, and by inter-city conflict, on


40 SOCIOLOGICAL FOUNDERS AND PRECURSORS

the other . These conflicts, Fustel argued, could be resolved only by the
achievement of a new level of integration, by a religion capable of uniting
cities . The collapse of the old system of domestic gods, independent
families, status hierarchy and municipal government created the need
for a universalist religion capable of uniting a diverse culture . In the
view of Fustel, Christianity was both ideally suited to meet this situation
and also contributed to the social processes which undermined the remains
of the old gods . Whereas the domestic religion made the defence of the
city and hatred of strangers a virtue, Christianity encouraged inter-city
collaboration
For this God there were no longer any strangers . The stranger no
longer profaned the temple, no longer tainted the sacrifice by his
presence . 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 differences
between them. Clearly both Fustel and Durkheim saw that religion was a
set of beliefs and practices relative to sacred objects which unified and
integrated society . Both recognized the fundamental relationship between
the nature of belief and the social structure . In addition, they argued that
sacred objects were merely symbols of a deeper reality . For Fustel, the
sacred hearth fire was
a pure fire, which can be produced only by the aid of certain rites and
can be kept up only with certain kinds of wood . It is a chaste fire ; the
union of sexes must be removed far from its presence . . . when they
made the great Vesta of this myth of the sacred fire, Vesta was the
virgin goddess . She represented in the world neither fecundity nor
power ; she was order, but not rigorous, abstract, mathematical
order . . . . She was moral order . 28
Despite these similarities, Fustel's view of the sacred differs significantly
from 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 constraint
over him . By contrast, Fustel's view of the nature of the sacred is more
akin to the tradition of Feuerbach and Marx . Fustel argued that men
create gods who then come to rule their human makers ; thus, religious
man of the classical cities was in a state of alienation . The following is
typical of Fustel's perception of the paradoxical relationship between
creative and alienative aspects of the sacred :
A belief is the work of our mind, but we are not on that account free
to 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 speaks
to 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


SOCIOLOGICAL FOUNDERS AND PRECURSORS 41

Durkheim was, of course, unwilling to allow any pyschological variables
in sociological explanation and, therefore, ruled out the possibility of
men manipulating, changing or creating sacred beliefs . It has already
been noted that the plebs attempted to legitimate their social status by
creating plebian gods . More generally, Fustel recognized the mutual
relationship between men and their gods :
In misfortune man betook himself to his sacred fire, and heaped
reproaches upon it ; in good fortune he returned it thanks . 3o
Because Durkheim's definition ruled out disrespect of the sacred, he can
offer no explanation of blasphemy or profanation . For Fustel, religion
creates social cohesion and satisfies the putative need of security.
This brief examination of Fustel de Coulanges is sufficient to show how
much Durkheim borrowed from his teacher's analysis of `the sacred'
and also how much of Fustel's view of `the sacred' was not incorporated
into the Durkheimian sociological perspective . 31 Given this dependent
relationship, it is important to consider why Durkheim's theory gained
rapid acceptance in France, while Fustel de Coulanges has remained in
comparative obscurity. While the answer to this specific problem cannot
be attempted, in a recent article Terry N. Clark has advanced an
explanation of why Durkheimian sociologists rather than the social
statisticians, the followers of Le Play and Rene Worms, were successful . 32
Until after World War I, there were only three French chairs of sociology
and this would have been a powerful constraint on the expansion of
sociology, but by defining sociology in very broad terms, Durkheim was
able to draw on a large pool of talent from law, history, religion, politics
and other disciplines . Expansion was also facilitated by a period of
French economic prosperity between I 87o and 1914 . Furthermore, a
social science training came to be considered highly fashionable so that
there was a sympathetic student audience for sociology . In contrast to
the 'Le Playists' and followers of Worms, Durkheim and the Durkheimians
were more acceptable in university circles because of their unquestionable
academic pedigree, patriotic sentiments and their commitment to a full-
time academic career. Once Durkheim had been accepted, he was able to
guarantee the continuing impact of his style of sociology by controlling
the Annie sociologique and by becoming an adviser to the publishing house,
Felix Alcan .
At this stage, it is worth re-stating some conclusions which follow
from our examination of Durkheim and Fustel de Coulanges . While
both sociologists emphasized the significance of the integrative functions
of 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 the
religio-sacred as a perspective by Fustel and Durkheim implied that they
reacted in the same way to their social context . Fustel cannot be easily
lumped under a conservative reaction : on the contrary, he was aware
that 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 been
adequately 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 that
sociology arose in any climate where these two aspects of social change
were present . 33 Thus, radical social change drives men to think system-
atically about the roots of social order while secularization enables them
to conceive of society as a `natural' system : deus ex machina can no longer
be called upon to explain phenomena . The result has been that religion
became the object of systematic enquiry and was treated as the major
element of social order . Given these premises, Ibn Khaldun's sociological
theories provide an instructive study .
Born in Tunis, Ibn Khaldun spent most of his adult life against the
background of considerable social and political upheaval in northwest
Africa. Like his ancestors, Ibn Khaldun found that his fortunes were
geared to the political dominance of the Hafsid dynasty . The Black
Death which hit Tunis between 1348-1349 and the conquest of Tunis
started Ibn Khaldun's peripatetic intellectual and political career .
During the course of his search for a stable social position between
Granada, Fez, Tunis, Biskra and Egypt, Ibn Khaldun gained a wide
knowledge of the kingdoms of northern Africa which was useful for his
historical research, but which also made him a useful political adviser .
From the sociologist's point of view, the main interest lies not so much
in Ibn Khaldun's personal career, but in the background of Islamic
dislocation and change . Howard Becker and Harry Barnes observed that

Expansion (of the Moslem empire) brought disorganization of the

sacred society; change was steadily in the direction of secularization .
The upshot was that a Moslem social thinker came into possession of
abundant experience of the ways in which civilizations are trans-
formed . . . . 34
The essentially secularist view of history developed by Ibn Khaldun
has been frequently commented on . Franz Rosenthal noted that, although
Ibn Khaldun recognized the possibility of supernatural influences on
human activities,
he thought of it as out of the ordinary and not as a necessity in the
historical drama, the processes of which may go on unfolding without
ever being disturbed by it . 35

Ibn Khaldun's theory of society was put forward in The Muqaddimah

(which contained the `Introduction' and book one of his history, Kitdb
al- 'Ibar) . The core aspect of his theory involved the explanation of
human co-operation and conflict . Because men are incapable of complete


SOCIOLOGICAL FOUNDERS AND PRECURSORS 43

self-subsistence as individuals, they need to specialize and to exchange
goods and services
differences of condition among people are the result of the different
ways in which they make their living . Social organization enables
them 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 social
organization takes place were `desert, desert life' and `town, sedentary
environment' . Thus Bedouins, who were historically prior to town
civilization, were not generally capable of settled, cultivated life because
of their dependence on camel herding . What was especially characteristic
of desert existence was strong `group feeling' . The harshness of desert
life 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 they
lacked constraint :
Eventually they lose all sense of restraint . Many of them are found
to use improper language in their gatherings as well as in the presence
of their superiors and womenfolk . 37
`Group feeling' or asabiyya was composed of three elements : blood
relationship, religion and such factors as companionship, prolonged
acquaintance and proximity . Ibn Khaldun distinguished between pagan
asabiyya or `acquired 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 superiority
of one group over another, the basis of authority and leadership . Without
a religiously supported social solidarity, social organization would be
impossible ; without religion,
individual aspirations rarely coincide . But when there is religion
through prophecy or sainthood, then they have some restraining
influence in themselves. . . . It is, then, easy for them to subordinate
themselves and to unite (as a social organization) . This is achieved by
the common religion they now have . 38
It is one of the noteworthy features of his view of `group feeling', that
Ibn Khaldun regarded social cohesion as a necessary basis of social
expansion. Societies with strong cohesion tend to take over and dominate
internally divided societies :
Once a group has established superiority over the people who share
(in that particular group feeling), it will, by its very nature, seek
superiority over people of other group feelings unrelated to the
first . 39


44 SOCIOLOGICAL FOUNDERS AND PRECURSORS

Ibn Khaldun saw that Islam was the major factor in the expansion of
Arab societies. True asabiyya
is something desirable and useful in connection with the holy war
and with propaganda for Islam . 4o
The role of `group feeling' in the expansion and contraction of empires
is also reflected at the micro-level in the relations between rural and
sedentary groups .
Powerful Bedouin groups were drawn to the cities as sources of plunder
and as milieux in which they could achieve a new enhanced status .
Apart from their superior physical strength, expertise in warfare and
superior determination, the Bedouins possessed tighter social solidarity
than sedentary people . Bedouins were able to defeat urban populaces
and set up their own urban dynasties . However, in exchanging their
nomadic for sedentary forms of life, their `group feeling' and military
prowess were gradually undermined . The Bedouins adopted the luxuries
of the city and acquired its `vices' . In turn, within the space of four
generations, according to Ibn Khaldun, the city Bedouins were replaced
by powerful in-coming nomads .
While the occupants of powerful positions were periodically replaced,
the structure of Islamic society remained unchanged . The town dominated
the countryside despite the fact that the town leadership was frequently
replaced by rural personnel :
(the Bedouins) need the cities for their necessities of life, the urban
population needs (the Bedouins) for conveniences and luxuries . Thus,
(the Bedouins) need the cities for the necessities of life by the very
nature of their (mode of) existence . As long as they live in the desert
and have not obtained royal authority and control of the cities, they
need the inhabitants (of the latter) . 41
The urban garrisons controlled the rural areas because they held a
monopoly of economic resources ; the nomads could challenge this urban
economic position because they possessed superior socio-religious cohesion .
The irony of the situation was that `group feeling', the basis of Arab
expansion, was incompatible with town life . As Ernest Gellner has
expressed it,
the organization and ethos of the towns makes them inimical to social
cohesion and hence military prowess . One might say that there is a
tragic antithesis between civilization and society : social cohesion and
the life of the cities are incompatible .42
Although it is impossible to do justice to the richness and diversity of
Ibn Khaldun's thought, within this present discussion, this account of the
main elements of his view of society and religion will be adequate for
comparison with Durkheim's theory . 43
The fact that both Durkheim and Ibn Khaldun thought that religion
acted as a constraint on individualism and deviance is immediately
SOCIOLOGICAL FOUNDERS AND PRECURSORS 45
obvious . In particular, Durkheim's analysis of religious integration in
primitive society and anomie in differentiated societies was parallel to
Ibn Khaldun's view of the incompatibility between urban social structure
and moral cohesion . Thus, the Durkheimian dichotomy of mechanical
and organic solidarity was a theoretical model bearing close similarities
with the 'desert'-'sedentary' distinction . Apart from these theoretical
proximities, their common methodological assumptions are striking .
Ibn Khaldun worked on the assumption that social phenomena obey
laws and that social laws cannot be influenced by individuals . Laws are
discovered by observing and collecting facts . The methodological
positivism implicit in both Durkheim and Ibn Khaldun is indicated by
the fact that in both theories population is a key independent variable .
The centrality of population increase in Durkheim's The Division of
Labour in Society has been frequently noted . 44 Similarly, Ibn Khaldun
equated `civilization' (Umran) with population increase. In the last
analysis, the distinction between desert and sedentary environments
rested not on styles of life but on population density .
The major difference between these two positivistic theories of religion
is that Durkheim's sociological analysis was one-dimensional . His focus
was 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 the
focus on the `problem of order' has led to over-concentration on one form
of integration, namely intra-group cohesion. Consequently, Durkheimian
sociology has little interest in the role of religion in legitimating and
generating social conflict . By contrast, Ibn Khaldun saw clearly that there
was a high probability that intra-group cohesion was a condition of inter-
group conflict in differentiated societies . Indeed, it was the conflict aspects
of Ibn Khaldun's theory of 'group-feeling' which formed his main
influence on later sociology .
Any random search for `founding fathers' who, despite developing a
sociological theory, had no direct or indirect influence on later sociology
is a valueless exercise : logically, a founder must found something . Ibn
Khaldun came to influence sociology in the i8gos when Ludwig
Gumplowicz devoted a chapter to Ibn Khaldun in his Soziologische
Essays . 46 Ibn Khaldfin became important among the so-called `conflict
school', therefore, at the time when Durkheim and Weber were estab-
lishing themselves as major sociologists .47 Gumplowicz adopted Ibn
Khaldun's cyclical view of history and recognized Ibn Khaldun's signi-
ficance as a founder of conflict sociology . Gumplowicz's model of external
and internal group conflict was formative in Gustav Ratzenhoffer's
theory of the conflict of interests . The ideas of the conflict school were
introduced in America by A . W . Small and Lester F . Ward . Ward, who
was a close friend of Gumplowicz, declared, perhaps over enthusiastically,
that the conflict interpretation of the origins of racial struggle was `the
most important contribution thus far made to the science of sociology' . 48
Apart from Ibn Khaldun's influence on conflict theories and on Social


46 SOCIOLOGICAL FOUNDERS AND PRECURSORS

Darwinism, the clearest exponent of his sociology in the early years of

the twentieth century was Franz Oppenheimer, particularly in his
System der Soziologie . Ibn Khaldun's dichotomy between desert and
sedentary environments was recognized by Oppenheimer as basic to
his theory of rural reform . While these sociologists introduced Ibn
Khaldfln to European and American sociologists, their one-sided con-
centration on his treatment of conflict meant that the breadth of Ibn
Khaldun's sociological theories was little appreciated . 49

CONCLUSION
Certain aspects of the sociology of religion within the context of social
dislocation have been examined with special reference to Nisbet's thesis
of the `conservative reaction' . The argument has been that firstly we can
only superficially maintain that all three sociologists were drawn to the
analysis of religion as a `solution' of moral disorder . Behind the concepts
of `the sacred' and asabjyya lie very dissimilar types of analysis. While
Durkheim's theory was tied, despite his intentions, to the analysis of
integration in undifferentiated societies, Fustel and Ibn Khaldfin were
far more concerned with the role of religion in differentiated societies .
Fustel treated `the sacred' as an example of human alienation and Ibn
Khaldfin recognized the importance of group solidarity in inter-group
conflict . 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 of
religion have been the following : a critique of Durkheim, a study of
`the sacred' in Fustel's history of the ancient city and an examination
of Ibn Khaldfln's somewhat neglected sociology of religion . There was
little in Durkheim's theory of religion which was not already developed
by Fustel, but Fustel's treatment of the nature of `the sacred' was also
importantly different. Recognition of Fustel and Ibn Khaldfin as bona
fide founders of sociology could have the effect of safe-guarding against
the weakness in Durkheimian sociology of uncritical intra-social analysis
of the integrative functions of religion .

NOTES

1 . On the necessity of historical continuity in sociological theory, cf . Alvin Gouldner's

introduction 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 The
Sociological 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 . Folkman
in K. H. Wolff (ed.) Essays on Sociology and Philosophy, New York : Harper and Row,
1964, P. 383 .
SOCIOLOGICAL FOUNDERS AND PRECURSORS 47
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 `analytical framework' in the study of religion but differ significantly
in their evaluation of the consequences of religion . Cf. Robert K . Merton Social
Theory 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 his
Critics on the Sociology of Religion, Columbia University ; Monograph Series, 1 957 .
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 `The
sociological 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 : A
Reply 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 Birth
of 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 was
vague in spelling out the nature of his key variables and their relationships . In some
passages of his study, religion seems to be an independent variable, while in other
sections religion seems to be a reflection of the social structure . His most consistent
attitude was summed up in the following : 'We cannot, indeed, say that religious
progress brought social progress ; but what is certain is, that they were both produced
at 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 ancient
family system was transformed into a municipal system because the family was 'too
narrow 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 between
religion and social structure was left ambiguous .
25 . ibid ., p . 125 .
26 . ibid ., p . 269 .
27 . ibid ., P . 392 .


48 SOCIOLOGICAL FOUNDERS AND PRECURSORS

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 Forms
of Religious Life . This may be explained by the fact that the norm of detailed references
is a modern development .
32 . Terry N . Clark 'Emile Durkheim and the Institutionalization of Sociology in the
French University System', Archives Europiennes de Sociologic, IX, 1968, pp. 37- 71-
33- Cf., in particular, Howard Becker and Harry Elmer Barnes, Social Thought from
Lore 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 Ibn
Khaldtin's perspective has been called into question by H . A . R . Gibb `The Islamic
Background 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 `A 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 Elmer
Marnes `Sociology before Comte', American Journal of Sociology, vol. XXIII, no .2,
1917, pp . 197-198 ; Kheirallah Bosch 'Ibn Khaldun on Evolution', The Islamic
Review, 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 Thought
and the Western World, New York : Frederick Ungar 1964, PP- 54-65 ; Charles Issawi
An Arab Philosophy of History, London : John Murray, 1950.
44 . Cf., for example, Talcott Parsons The Structure of Social Action, Glencoe, Ill . : Free
Press, I94g.
45 . Although this Durkheimian perspective was partly corrected in Professional Ethics
and Civic Morals, the intra-social analysis of single social systems was predominant .
46. A complete translation of the Muqaddimah first appeared in an Occidental language
between 1862 and 1868 with De Slane's three volume Prolegomines historiques d'Ibn
Khaldoun .
47 . On the `conflict school', cf. Becker and Barnes, op . cit., vol . 2, pp . 713-728 ; Harry
Elmer Barnes An Introduction to the History of Sociology, Chicago : University of Chicago
Press, 148 ; Irving L . Horowitz `Introduction' to Ludwig Gumplowicz Outlines of
Sociology ; 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) .