Ibn Khaldun and P.R Sarkar on Social Cycle

Social changes described in terms of social cycles are perhaps among the earliest social theories in sociology. Unlike other theoretical views that express social change as some kind of progression in a unique direction, social cycle theories argue that stages of society and history are generally repeating themselves in cycles. P.R Sarkar’s The Human Society, Part II places an emphasis on human spiritual development. Sarkar’s model constructs four classes, collective ideas, paradigms; the masses, the warriors, the intellectuals, and the merchants. Historically, each of these social paradigms deteriorated into harmful exploitative phases that resulted in a social paradigm shift. Ibn Khaldun’s Muqaddimah, argues that each ‘dynasty’ has within itself the seeds of its own downfall. The rise begins with an emphasis on unity and social cohesion. As this social solidarity declines, another idea of social cohesion begins; thus, civilizations rise and fall in this cycle.

Both Khaldun and Sarkar search for the historical patterns; the basic laws of social cycles. For Khaldun the cornerstone concept is the group feeling, the unity, the melding of social consciousness. The asabiya, or the social solidarity begins when people decide to unite in their group feelings. It is what binds people into effective groups. This idea is similar to the Rousseau’s Social Contract, where everyone will be free if they all forfeit the same amount of rights and impose the same duties on all. The group, as a united force chooses the laws under which they live. The strengthened asabiya gives rise to a civilization. And as it is weakened due to loss of the group feeling, it paves the way for downfall.[1]

The pattern of history for Khaldun begins with a primitive society that collectively decides to do away with individual tribal group feelings and exercise a stronger group feeling. Asabiya is strongest in the nomadic phase of any civilization and then it decreases as the civilization advances. This cycle of primitive to advance civilization to primitive is the fundamental concept of Khaldun’s theory of social change. According to Khaldun, for any civilization, there comes a point where the members are merely concerned with prosperity, gain, and a life of abundance. They are satisfied to lead an easy, restful life. As a result, “the toughness of the desert life is lost.” Group feeling and courage weaken.[2] As generations proceed, the group feeling is altogether destroyed. They thus “invite their own destruction. The greater their luxury, and the easier the life they enjoy, the closer they are to extinction.”[3] Unity is gained again with the rise of a new group who then goes through the same cycle.

Sarkar’s theory is largely similar to Khaldun’s in the fundamental concept of primitive society giving rise to civilization. Sarkar’s model, however, differs in matters of structure. He constructs four classes, or varn’as: workers, warriors, intellectuals, and merchants. These aren’t merely simple social classes, they are rather complex because each class is a way of knowing the world, as a paradigm, or an epoch. This model, he writes, applies more toward social analysis than for the understanding of individual psychology.[4] The theory holds that, at any given time, society will be dominated by the psychology and administration of a particular varn’a.[5] Each varn’a transforms the society and its predominant values.

The first group (the masses) displays characters of the undeveloped human mind dominated by the material and social environment and by basic instincts. This group evolves into the second group (the warriors) where the key is unity and discipline. The warrior mind seeks to establish domination or control over matter through physical valor. We then move on to the third group (the intellectual class) who seek to influence the external or social environment by virtue of their mental faculties and developing religious, scientific and cultural achievements. The fourth group (merchants) excels in handling and accumulation of resources. Sarkar argues that this group currently dominates modern history, which crystallizes with the Industrial Revolution.[6] Subsequently, a new social will follow.

Both Sarkar and Khaldun embrace a social cycle that begins with the primitive or natural environment, which ascends into an advancement, and then goes back to a primitive stage (primitive-advance-primitive). While Khaldun has a scaled approach to the stages of asabiya, Sarkar has a class system approach to the rise and fall of civilization. In an overarching manner, Sarkar focuses on the development of the mind and spirituality. He has more of a Hegelian concept of ideas that lead to social change. For Khaldun, on the other hand, it is the material dependencies and satisfactions that lead to change in asabiya. Both seem to have similar contentions toward the perils of materialism.

References

Ibn Khaldun, The Muqaddimah

P.R Sarkar, The Human Society Part II

[1] Ibn Khaldun — Muqaddimah

[2] ibid.

[3] ibid.

[4] Sarkar — The Human Society Part II ­– Section 1: Social Psychology and Theory of History.

[5] Ibid.

[6] ibid.