Garlan, Y (1976) War in the Ancient World. London: Chatto & Windus.
Gouldner, A. (1967) Enter Plato: Classical Greece and the Origins of Social Theory. New York: Basic Books.
Kelsen, H. (1937) The Philosophy of Aristotle and the Hellenic-Macedonian Policy. International Journal of Ethics, 48(1), pp. 1–64.
Klosko, G. (2012) History of Political Theory: An Introduction, Volume 1: Ancient and Medieval Political Theory, 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MacIntyre, A. (1988) Whose Justice? Which Rationality? Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
MacIntyre, A. (1998) A Short History of Ethics: A History of Moral Philosophy from the Homeric Age to the Twentieth Century, 2nd edition. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
McCarthy, G. E. (2003) Classical Horizons: The Origins of Sociology in Ancient Greece. New York: State University of New York Press.
Nisbet, R. (1976) Sociology as an Art Form. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Plato (1945) The Republic of Plato. F. M. Cornford, trans. London: Oxford University Press.
Pomeroy, S. B. (1995) Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves: Women in Classical Antiquity. New York: Schocken.
Popper, K. (2012 [1945]) The Open Society and Its Enemies. London: Routledge.
Rossides, D. W. (1998) Social Theory: Its Origins, History, and Contemporary Relevance. New York: General Hall.
Saunders, T. J. (1986) ‘The RAND Corporation in antiquity?’ Plato’s Academy and Greek Politics. In: J. H. Betts, J. T. Hooker, and J. R. Green (eds) Studies in Honour of T. B. L. Webster. Bristol: Bristol Class, pp. 200–10.
Ste. Croix, G. E. M. de (1981) The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World: From the Archaic Age to the Arab Conquests. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Strauss, L. (1978) The City and the Man. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Voegelin, E. (2000) Plato. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press.
Wittgenstein, L. (1968) Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.
Wood, E. M. and Wood, N. (1978) Class Ideology and Ancient Political Theory: Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle in Social Context. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
II Confucius and Ibn Khaldun
Introduction
There is no doubt that as an academic discipline sociology is a child of the Enlightenment and as such it develops and proliferates only in modernity. However, this does not mean that sociological thought emerges suddenly and out of nowhere. On the contrary, and as argued in the Introduction and Chapter 1 to this book, sociological thinking has deep roots in the ancient world. In many respects the latter-day intellectual movements such as the Renaissance, Rationalism and the Enlightenment, owe a great deal to the ancient social philosophers and scholars who provided elaborate conceptual frameworks aiming to understand and change the social world. While the traditional accounts have emphasised the role ancient Greek and Roman thinkers had in the development of social and political thought, less weight has been given to the non-European scholars. This chapter focuses on the two leading social thinkers that have made profound impacts on the development of social thought in Asia, the Middle East, North Africa and further afield. Although they lived in different time periods and in very different parts of the world, both Confucius and Ibn Khaldun have made significant marks on the rise of social thought worldwide. This chapter highlights their main contributions and historically traces the broader social contexts that shaped their intellectual development.
Life and Intellectual Context
Confucius (551–479 bce)
Since over the past centuries Confucius has become a subject of worship and myths it is difficult to differentiate between fact and fiction in the various accounts that describe his life and work. Some sources emphasise his aristocratic lineage (a descendant of the royal Chou dynasty), others insist that he was born in poverty. There is very little trustworthy information on his childhood. Nevertheless, according to most records Confucius (full name Kong Qiu) was born in 551 bce in Zou, the state of Lu (in today’s Shandon province, China). Despite having relatively privileged origins his father’s premature death confined the rest of the family to poverty. Confucius’s father was an officer in the Lu military, which meant that his family were neither aristocrats nor commoners but were part of the middle social stratum (shi).
In addition to losing his father at the age of 3, Confucius also lost his mother at the age of 23. Struggling to avoid utter poverty he worked as a cow herder, a shepherd and later as a keeper of granaries, the director of public pastures, a book-keeper and a clerk. He married his wife Qiguan at the age of 19 and they had two children: a son, Kong Li, and a daughter whose name, indicatively, has not been recorded. Although there is no reliable information on his education the traditional sources indicate that Confucius was a bright, hardworking and inquisitive student and that he studied ritual with the ‘fictional Daoist Master Lao Dan, music with Chang Hong, and the lute with Music-master Xiang’ (Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, 2010). Upon completion of his studies Confucius became gradually known for his teachings and was apparently followed by a group of disciples. The records indicate his gradual rise in the state administration: in 501 bce he was appointed to the relatively minor position of the town governor and through time rose to the much more influential and prestigious position of Minister of Crime. After the failed attempt to reform decentralised state power and establish a more legitimate system of aristocratic rule, Confucius created many powerful enemies and as a result was forced into self-imposed exile from Lu. From then on, he and his disciples, undertook a long and torturous series of journeys around the kingdoms of northeast and central China, spending most time in the states of Wei, Chen, Cai and Song. Although Confucius’s reputation remained high and he was occasionally welcomed to the courts of these small states, his philosophical principles were largely ignored. Near the end of his life at the age of 68, as the political situation in Lu changed, Confucius returned home. His last few years were spent in teaching the Five Classics set of texts to his remaining 70 or so faithful disciples.
Although Confucianism today is a well-established, and in some parts of Asia dominant, philosophical, and some would argue religious, tradition of thought, for much of Chinese history Confucian ideas were countered by several other philosophical traditions. Among these the most influential were Legalism, Mohism and Daoism. During the Spring and Autumn period (770–480 bce) and the Warring States period (479–221 bce) these four intellectual traditions were competing for supremacy. Although initially Mohism and Confucianism were more prominent with the unification of China under the Qin dynasty (in 221 bce), Legalism was adopted as the official doctrine of the state with Confucianism, Mohism and Daoism being largely suppressed. Nevertheless, once the Han dynasty gained power over the Qin dynasty (206 bce to ce 220), Confucianism replaced Legalism as the dominant belief system of the Chinese state and, with a few exceptions, Confucian principles remained an official state philosophy until the communist takeover in 1948.
This centuries-long symbiosis between Confucianism and the Chinese state often conceals the complexities and doctrinal conflicts that have shaped the early history of China. The Spring and Autumn period and the Warring state period were highly turbulent, violent and socially dynamic times that stimulated intellectual creativity and ultimately produced highly distinct and competing schools of thought. Even though three out of these four philosophical traditions shared some key principles such as piousness towards rulers, the glorification of Tian (the ‘mandate of heaven’) and respect for the hierarchical order, they developed very different understandings of social and political life. Legalism, most forcefully articulated by Han Fei and Shang Yang, is a utilitarian philosophy that emphasises stringent obedience to the legal system. In this