Tradition, Modernity, and Ideology

In the mid-1980s, Javad Tabatabai embarked on a colossal research project to study the history of political thought in Iran, distinct from a general history of Islamic political thought. His investigations led to the creation of a trilogy, including A Philosophical Introduction to the History of Political Thought in Iran (1988), Decline of Political Thought in Iran (1994), and Khaje Nizam al-Mulk (1996). Tabatabai’s primary goal was to explore the genealogy of the decline of political and critical thinking in contemporary Iran by closely studying medieval political thought. This endeavor culminated in the publication of Ibn Khaldun and the Social Sciences, in which Tabatabai expanded his analysis to the broader context of the Islamic world. Moreover, he gradually shifted from focusing on the decline (zavāl) of political thought to the broader concept of deterioration (enhetāt) of Iran and, more generally, of Islamic civilization.The book Ibn Khaldun and the Social Sciences thoroughly explores the feasibility of social sciences in Iran and Muslim countries, focusing on Ibn Khaldun’s Muqaddimah and its contemporary interpretations. Tabatabai develops the concept of the “condition of impossibility” of modern social sciences to illustrate the current state of knowledge in Muslim countries. In the twentieth century, scholars from both Western and Arab backgrounds hailed Ibn Khaldun as the pioneer of modern sociology, emphasizing his groundbreaking exploration of societal mechanisms such as change, stability, and decadence. Tabatabai disputes this claim, arguing that Ibn Khaldun could not have been the progenitor of modern sociology, owing to his inability to transcend traditional assumptions about human nature, human associations, and their study. Nevertheless, Tabatabai recognizes Ibn Khaldun’s unique significance in the medieval Islamic era as the only thinker to propose a theory of decadence and crisis in Islamic civilization, grounded in observed social dynamics rather than ideal or religious assumptions. The study of Ibn Khaldun and his science of ‘umrān (civilization, culture) remains crucial as he sought to establish a new social model that would surpass the Aristotelian-jurisprudential conception of human communities.Tabatabai argues that categorizing traditional thinkers as forerunners or originators of social sciences such as sociology, economics, and ethnography is based on misunderstandings or a lack of knowledge in two main areas: ignorance of the foundations of tradition and of the epistemological foundations of modernity, particularly the modern social sciences. He places the crisis of social sciences in contemporary Iran within the broader framework of the tradition/modernity encounter, or what he refers to as the quarrel between the ancients and the moderns, a term borrowed from European debates. According to Tabatabai, the current condition of impossibility stems from a failure to appreciate the necessity of such a quarrel for elucidating the relevance of traditional thought in the modern world. Without this quarrel, neither tradition nor modernity can be adequately addressed, and, consequently, we will be unable to harness their positive potential and advantages for elucidating the human condition in the present.Tabatabai’s concept of the condition of impossibility sharply differs from that of some Iranian thinkers who argue for the impossibility of traditional thinking. For instance, the Iranian philosopher Aramesh Doostdar argues that the Iranian/Islamic tradition is incapable of critical inquiry because of its deeply rooted religiosity. According to him, Iranian tradition has historically lacked conceptual thinking, resulting in the absence of a proper rational or scientific framework (Doostdar). In contrast, Tabatabai maintains that Iranian/Islamic tradition once thrived, showcasing its capability for philosophical, scientific, and political thought. Nevertheless, he acknowledges that tradition has significantly declined over time, characterized by a lack of exploration into civilizational challenges and a tendency to embrace superficial forms of Sufism and a simplistic interpretation of the sharia.However, Tabatabai rejects any idealized notion of tradition’s potential productivity that could lead to the development of indigenous (boomi) social sciences or humanities rooted in Islamic or Iranian elements. This is why a significant portion of Ibn Khaldun and the Social Sciences is dedicated to critically examining contemporary intellectuals who advocate for the development of “traditional” human sciences. He argues that the project of developing social sciences from tradition is bound to fail without addressing the quarrel between the ancients and the moderns, which would, in turn, depend on the critical examination of the philosophical foundations of traditional knowledge and the conditions of possibility of modern social sciences. Those who consider tradition only from a traditional perspective cannot fully grasp its relevance, as they cannot ask the necessary questions about the modern world and its demands. However, Tabatabai argues that the main obstacle lies not with traditionalism but with nativism as the remaking of tradition as an indigenous science within the paradigm of modern politics (Boroujerdi). In the case of social sciences in Iran, he refers to this event as the rise of “sociological ideologies.”Tabatabai employs the term ideology in a negative light. He argues that the contributions of Iranian intellectuals should be viewed as ideological undertakings, representing components of the power struggle. The concept of the “ideologization of tradition” was introduced by Daryush Shayegan, a prominent Iranian philosopher, to denote the situation in which traditional values and doctrines are reinterpreted, distorted, or exploited to serve the interests of a particular ideology or political agenda (Shayegan). Expanding on Shayegan’s analysis, Tabatabai suggests that Iranian intellectual history is primarily based on traditional elements that have undergone the process of ideologization. This phenomenon indicates that tradition has come to an end. Nevertheless, the conclusion of a tradition does not signify a loss of its inherent power. As Tabatabai quotes Hannah Arendt, the power of tradition “becomes more tyrannical as the tradition loses its living force and as the memory of its beginning recedes, it may even reveal its full coercive force only after its end has come” (42). Therefore, he argues that the sclerosis of tradition and its ideologization are two sides of the same coin. Although Iranian tradition has reached its end, it continues to bear coercive force through its ideologized forms.The central focus of Tabatabai’s criticism of nativist sociology is his insistence on the need to examine the origins of modern social sciences. Tabatabai appears to draw inspiration from Henry Corbin, a significant influence on many key figures in Iranian nativism (Bostani). It is worth noting that, as a translator of Henry Corbin’s works into Persian, Tabatabai offers a non-nativist interpretation of Corbin’s philosophy. Corbin was critical of Western thought, contending that modernity has its deep roots in medieval European theology and philosophy, which were later secularized in German idealism, particularly in the work of G. W. F. Hegel, and eventually paved the way for sociology as well as various ideologies of the twentieth century. According to Corbin, Western sociology has its roots in Christian theology, which resurfaced in a secularized form. In his book Iranian Philosophy and Comparative Philosophy, translated into Persian by Tabatabai, Corbin argued that, in the modern world, theology has been supplanted by sociology; philosophy, once the handmaiden of theology, now serves sociology (Corbin). While Tabatabai, unlike Corbin, does not take a hostile stance toward modern sociology, he confirms that it stems from Western metaphysical, theological, and philosophical foundations that are foreign to non-Westerners. In his chapter titled “The Theological Foundations of Ibn Khaldun’s Social Thought,” Tabatabai asserts that the methodological framework of any secular sciences, particularly during their formative stages, is inherently rooted in theology. Consequently, he concludes that the development of Iranian sociology requires a profound reflection on the traditional Islamic theological heritage, an idea that has been overlooked by “sociological ideologies,” including that of modernists who view tradition as antithetical to rationality.Nativist sociology, Tabatabai argues, suffers from another substantial issue: a lack of understanding of the methodology of modern social sciences and their foundations. Modern sociology emerged after an “epistemological rupture,” establishing a distinction between the subject and the object. As a result, the human subject became the focal point of social sciences, and society, or “the social,” emerged as a separate epistemological category. Tabatabai contends that this rupture was brought about by German idealism, particularly Hegel’s philosophy. Therefore, he believes that any effort to establish the social sciences in any context would be successful only by acknowledging Hegel and his contribution to shaping the logic of the modern world and to the epistemological breakthroughs of German idealism. Tabatabai suggests that nativist sociology, as demonstrated in the works of Ehsan Naraqi and Ali Shariati, has attempted to blend a naive interpretation of tradition with a superficial grasp of Western ideologies, all without acknowledging this crucial shift.Overall, Tabatabai’s book offers a meticulous examination of ideologies that romanticize the notion of being rooted in tradition in a contemporary context. It also raises crucial questions about fundamental concepts, such as ideology, identity, and epistemic foundation. These features make the book a valuable resource for scholars and practitioners in the social sciences and humanities worldwide.