In the Muqaddimah,
Ibn Khaldun (b. 1332 - d. 1406) notes:
The power of one individual
human being cannot withstand the power of any one dumb beast, especially the
power of predatory animals. Man is generally unable to defend himself against
them by himself. Nor is his unaided power sufficient to make use of the
existing instruments of defense, because there are so many of them and they
require so many crafts and things. It is absolutely necessary for man to
have the co-operation of his fellow men. As long as there is no such
co-operation, he cannot obtain any food or nourishment, and life cannot
materialize for him, because God fashioned him so that he must have food if he
is to live. Nor lacking weapons, can he defend himself. Thus, he
falls prey to animals and dies much before his time. Under such
circumstances, the human species would vanish. When, however, mutual
co-operation exists, man obtains food for his nourishment and weapons for his
defense. God's wise plan that mankind should subsist and the human
species be preserved will be fulfilled.
Consequently, social
organization is necessary to the human species. Without it, the existence
of human beings would be incomplete. God's desire to settle the world
with human beings and to leave them His representatives on earth would not
materialize. This is the meaning of civilization, the object of science
under discussion.
Rather than espousing a
neo-Darwinist view which presupposes the survival of the human species relates
to the transmission of genetic material, Ibn Khaldun argues that human beings
are only capable of surviving in difficult environments through collective
co-operation. Hypothetically, an
individual might be able to survive alone, just as an individual might be born
sterile.[1] Human co-operation depends upon the capacity
of human communication, through both language and gesture.
Francisco Gil-White of the University of Pennsylvania
defines the concept of ethnie as having three basic features:
1.)
A belief in membership
by descent.
2.)
The perception of
a unique and homogenous culture (often associated with a territory).
3.)
Category-based
normative endogamy (restrictions on marriage outside of the group).
If
we combine Ibn Khaldun’s observation that the survival of the human species
depends upon collective co-operation, and we note that the most ancient form of
human societies, hunter gatherer tribes,
we can see that these tribes typically met the definition of ethnie.
Members of the tribe believed in their descent from a common ancestor.
Members of the tribe shared a language, a set of stories (relating to their
origin and development), a set of customs and rituals, a territory, and
restrictions on marriage outside of the group. Further, if we seek to
affirm an evolutionary view of human history, the implication of Ibn Khaldun’s
view is that the unit of natural selection is ethnie and not the individual or
the gene.
Ibn
Khaldun goes on to describe the Beduin tribes of the desert:
The restraining influences
among the Beduin tribes comes from their shaykhs and leaders. It results
from the great respect and veneration they generally enjoy among the
people. The hamlets of the Beduins are defended against outside enemies by
a tribal militia composed of noble youths of the tribe who are known for their
courage. Their defense and protection are successful only if they are a
closely knit group of common descent. This strengthens their stamina and
makes them feared, since everyone's affection for his family and his group is
more important (than anything else). Compassion and affection for one's
blood relations and relatives exist in human nature as something God put into
the hearts of men. It makes for mutual support and aid, and increases the
fear felt by the enemy.
Those who have no one of
their own lineage (to care for) rarely feel affection for their fellows.
If danger is in the air on the day of battle, such a man slinks away and seeks
to save himself, because he is afraid of being left without support. Such
people, therefore, cannot live in the desert, because they would fall prey to
any nation that might want to swallow them up.
The Beduin are organized
in a natural hierarchy. In the group,
certain figures occupy leadership roles, and their authority is rightly
acknowledged by all. The Beduin do not
sit down and derive their principles of social order through rational
deliberation, the nomos of the Beduin emerges spontaneously. Further, in this context, any spoken or written
constitution would operate as a description rather than a norm or rule for
decision-making. What creates the order
is not an assent to certain discursive propositions which are “self-evident” or
true a priori, the order is completely arbitrary. What holds the order together is mutual
assent and mutual purpose and need. The
order is revealed, not abstracted.
Although
the order is arbitrary and based on agreement, the order is not completely
unbounded. Presumably it reflects the
differences within the various personalities composing the whole. In addition, an ethnie, in so much as it is
successful, develops culturally in adaptive response to environmental
conditions. Because ethnie is
principally about maintaining shared conventions of language and customs, and
perceptions of inter-group belonging, it is fundamentally a function of
geography, not hereditary. It is possible for an ethnie to adopt a child
into the group from other genetic stock, and it is possible for genetic mixing
due to warfare or inter-marriage. What
preserves the ethnie is principally cultural transmission of language and
customs, not a common gene pool.
There is
a developing body of literature looking at cultural differences on the basis of
geography and modes of food production, for example, wheat farming versus rice
farming. There are studies on the cultural differences between cultures
descending from herders versus farmers. This understanding accords with
Ibn Khaldun and the ancient Greek understanding that cultural differences
between peoples are a reflection of geographical differences, not genetic
inheritance.
[1]
It is interesting to note the
frequency with which feral children are found living in packs of social
animals.
No comments:
Post a Comment