Tribes and Cities: Towards an Islamic Sociology of Religion

Mainstream sociology of religion often presumes that its conceptual categories are universal and complete. They are, however, grounded in the Western intellectual tradition and arise from that tradition’s reflection on Euro-American history. This article outlines an alternate sociology of religion based on the writings of the 14th century Moslem historian Ibn Khaldûn – whose ideas arise from a very different world. His sociology is not grounded in individuals, nor does it focus only on religious beliefs and institutions. Instead it emphasizes the distinction between tribes and cities as forms of social organization, the importance of Al 'Assabiyya or "groupfeeling" in social life, and the special role of Islam in transforming that feeling. This locates religious individualism and institutionalism at distinct points in an historical cycle, throwing new light on debates about religious authority, popular religion, and secularization. It also highlights the connections between religion and ethnicity – helping us understand key late-20th century phenomena. Abstract: La sociologie des religions présume souvent que ses idées sont universelles et La sociologie des religions présume souvent que ses idées sont universelles et complètes. Mais, ils sont basées dans la tradition intellectuelle de le Ouest, et émanent des aperçus de cette tradition sur l'histoire euro-américaine. Cet article trace le contour d'une sociologie des religions alternative, à basé des écrits de le historien Musulman du 14é siècle Ibn Khaldûn. Ses idées émanent d'un monde très différente de le nôtre. Sa sociologie n'est pas basée dans l'individuel, J. Spickard “Tribes and Cities” Page ii ni fait il concentre seulement sur les croyances et les institutions religieuses. Au lieu, elle accentue la distinction entre les tribus et les villes comme espèces d'organisation sociale, l'importance d'Al 'Assabiyya ou "le sentiment du groupe" dans la vie sociale, et le rôle spécial d'Islam dans la transformation de ce sentiment. Celui-ci localise l'individualisme et l'institutionalisme religieuse chez pointes distinctes de le cycle historique, et éclaire les débats au sujets d'autorité religieuse, de la religion quotidiene, et de la secularisation. Cela met en valeur aussi les connexions entre la religion et l'ethnicité – aidon nous à comprendre des phénomènes majeurs de la fin du 20é siècle. J. Spickard “Tribes and Cities” Page 1 Western sociology of religion presents itself as a system of analytic categories, useful for understanding religious phenomena worldwide. In this, it is not mistaken. Concepts such as the dynamics of religious authority, secularization, and individual rational choice throw light on people’s religious behavior, regardless of time and place. Yet, such categories are not as universal as their proponents claim. First, the ideas just mentioned all have their origins in Euro-American thought, especially in its reflection on its own religious history. To the degree that Euro-American history reflects particular, not universal themes, these ideas may fail to grasp key elements of events happening elsewhere. (Advocates of the “market theory” of religious growth and decline make this point in saying that even if secularization theory aptly describes European religious dynamics, it does not depict American ones; see Warner 1993.) Second, various other traditions have their own sociological ideas about religion. These may better capture the dynamics of those traditions, and thus be better starting points for sociological analysis. Further, such “foreign” ideas may indeed better capture some aspects of Western religions – especially those not well explained by the reigning paradigms. I have elsewhere exposed the cultural bias of several key Western concepts, including the problems of authority, secularization, and rational choice mentioned above (Spickard 1998a; 1998b). I have also argued for the viability of a Confucian sociology of religion, based on the different image of the person contained in that philosophical tradition (1998b). In the present article, I propose a similar “Islamic sociology of religion,” based on the work of the 14th century Islamic historian Ibn Khaldûn.1 In putting forth this alternate sociology, I am not arguing that Western sociological concepts are invalid. I claim only that we need a larger conceptual toolbox if we are to understand religious events worldwide. Khaldûn’s ideas give us a new perspective from which to view several debates that have inflamed our subdiscipline. They also give us the intellectual tools with which to explore key aspects of religion that have heretofore received scant sociological treatment.