Perhaps the oldest means by which mankind began organizing itself
into
functioning groupings was along familial lines. The tribe, probably
the
earliest recognizable society, arranged itself by ties of kinship.
Rules
were obeyed and tasks were fulfilled be cause of the common blood
that
each member of the tribe shared. Both authors address this oldest
of
societies and whether it has a place in a modern civil society.
Ibn
Khaldun enthusiastically views blood ties as an excellent means
along
which a civil society can be arranged. He mentions family ties
and
lineages at many points in his work, at one point employing the
Bedouins
of North Africa to describe the effect of blood ties on the
formation of
civil society. In chapter 2, Khaldun's eighth section asserts at
the
heading that "Group feeling results only from blood relationship
or
something corresponding to it," (p 98). People cooperate and help
each
other according to Khaldun because "One feels shame when one's
relatives
are treated unjustly or attacked," (98). Society is thus held
together
along family lines, or with some kind of substitute. "...a
client
relationship leads to close contact exactly, or approximatel y in the
same
way, as does common descent," (98). According to Khaldun,
non-familial
bonds that allow society to cooperate directly evolved from
emotions
associated with kinship. Civil society is therefore formed by
surrogate
blood ties; just as parents o f adoptive children can feel the
exact same
affection for their adopted children as they would towards a blood
child,
so members of society can "adopt" their fellow citizens and treat them
the
same as they would their own blood kindred. Putnam, on the other
hand,
takes an opposite position to Khaldun. In his comparison of Northern
and
Southern Italy, a striking feature that he points out is the
different
forms of associations that exist in the North and the South. In
the
languishing Sout h, many associations are based primarily along
blood
lines. Putnam presents the Mafia as an obvious example of this kind
of
family organization. Along with crime syndicates, government is
also
largely a family affair. Rather than, say, give a road contrac t to
the
lowest bidder, a Southern official could very possibly decide to award
it
to a relative. On the contrary, most organizations in the North
are
unlikely to be formed along family lines. Citizens are able to look
past
family bonds in their "associat iveness". Thus a citizen in the
North
would be willing to cooperate along the lines of Putnam's weak ties
with
almost anyone whereas his Southern counterpart would only be willing
to
bond along much, much narrower lines. Putnam describes the different
value
of family and non-family bonds thus: "'strong' interpersonal ties
(like
kinship and intimate friendship) are less important than 'weak ties'
(like
aquaintinceship and shared membership in secondary associations) in
sus
taining community cohesion and collective action," (p. 178).
The sphere of religion is another controversial issue for the two
authors'
definition of civil society. What role religion can play sets
Khaldun and
Putnam apart once again. For Khaldun, Islam was probably the most
powerful
unifying force in the society of his day. Just a few hundred
years
earlier, it was the cohesive power of the Prophet's religion that
allowed
the desert hordes to swarm off the Arabian Peninsula and conquer
a
large swath of the world. As Khaldun describes "the armies of the
Muslims at
al-Qadisiyah and at the Yarmuk numbered some 30,000 in each
case, while the
Persian troops at al-Qadisiyah numbered 120,000, and the
troops of
Heraclius...numbered 400,000. Ne ither of the two parties was
able to
withstand the Arabs, who routed them and seized what they
possessed," (p.
126). Khaldun describes Islam as a strong force holding
society together in
his own times as well, praising how "...when they
(citizen's hearts) are
turned toward the truth (i.e., Islam) and reject
the world and whatever is
false, and advance toward God, they b ecome one
in their outlook. Jealousy
disappears. Mutual cooperation and support
flourish. As a result, the extent
of the state widens...," (p. 126, ch. 3,
sect. 4). Khaldun feels that
religion strengthens society because
"religious colouring does away with
jealousy and envy" and because the
people's "outlook is one and their
objective one of common accord," (p.
126). For Khaldun, large scale
religiousness among citiz ens is an
indicator of group feeling. Far from
being incompatible with civil
society, religion does much to indicate the
health of group feeling and
civil society. Putnam, however, takes an opposite
tack. His uses as his
basis the difference in the strength of Catholic
organizations in the
North and the South of Italy. In the South, the Catholic
Church forms the
basis for much of the civic organizations. In the Nort h
however,
Catholicism did not play much of a role outside of its own realm. By
this
measure, Putnam determines that Catholicism, with its vertical ties
of
authority, must somehow be an inhibiting factor on the growth
and
existence of civil society. In this regard, he states that
"organized
religion...in Catholic Italy, is an alternative to the civic
community,
not a part of it," (p. 95). He then points out using statistics
that
"...all manifestations of religiosity and clericalism--attendance at
mass,
religious (as opposed to civil) marriages, rejection of
divorce,
expressions of religious identity in surveys--are negatively
correlated wi
th civic engagement. At the individual level, too, religious
sentiments
and civic engagement seem to be mutually incompatible," (p. 95).
He
concludes that "in today's Italy...the civic community is a
secular
community," (p. 95). Putnam thus strongly rejects religion as a
factor
that can aid civic society; organized religion is in fact
completely
inimical to civil society according to him. The philosophies of
Putnam and
Khaldun, with their differing notions of associativeness and
asabiyah, can
be broadly applied to define where any society stands civically
speaking.
Putnam could apply his concept of civil society to the Maghrib
and
Khaldun' s theory could be applied to Italy.
Putnam sees Southern Italy trailing Northern Italy because of its lack
of
associativeness; and, where the South has associations, they are based
on
non-civilizing factors such as family and religion. When evaluating
the
Maghrib (and the Middle East as a whole), Putnam would definitely
find
fault with the strong tribalistic and familial bonds that exist
throughout
the region. The Muslims fetish with lineages and descendants of
Mohammed
make for unstable politics. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and the other
nations are
constantly wracked by inter-tribal fighting. Putnam would condemn
these
family loyalties as the generator of instability and as hampering
civil
society. Additionally, Putnam would see a cause of the Middle East's
lack
of civil society in the prevalence of Islamist organizations. As we
have
seen, Putnam states that religion and the public life must operate in
two
separate spheres. Any commingling of the tw o realms will inhibit
civil
society. Putnam would therefore not recognize any of the
many
organizations associated with Islam as fostering the growth of
civil
society in any way. In defense of his thesis, Putnam might employ
the
example of Turkey, probably the most advanced Muslim nation in terms
of
civil society. Despite serious problems with Kurds, Turkey is the
only
Islamic nation that has a realistic chance of joining the Euro pean
Union
in the near future. Putnam would no doubt credit the strong
secularist
traditions instilled by modern Turkey's founder, Attaturk. Also,
Turkey's
relative lack of tribalism would also be viewed as a definite plus
for
civil society. In order to lead the Middle East out of its current
funk,
Putnam would prescribe associativeness beyond family and Islam as
the
cure. Only when the people of the middle east develop social capital
by
bonding in sports clubs, red cross groups, veterans gro ups and the
like
will civil society grow.
Khaldun (were he living) could in turn have much to say to Putnam, and
his
conceptualization of civil society could be applied to Italy, as well.
In
order to confront Putnam's assertion that religion inhibits civil
society,
Khaldun could cite Toqueville, who describes the essential role
that
Puritanism played in the formation of the United States. According
to
Toqueville, religion played a key role in developing and preserving
civil
society in the United States. Khaldun could thus show that religion and
c
ivil society are not both mutually exclusive.
Khaldun could also respond to the role of family in civil society
in
Italy. What Putnam describes as the suspicion in Southern Italy,
the
unwillingness to unite in civic organizations beyond the family,
Khaldun
could explain as a lack of asabiyah. Souther n Italians just have
not
extended their familial bonds onto non-family members in the South,
thus
creating group solidarity. Instead of condemning family, Khaldun
might
speculate that the non-familial bonds in the North are just one
step
further along the evolutionary trail of bonds. Northerners have
just
gotten to the point where family ties have been extended to
non-family
members, thus creating a greater level of asabiyah. By this logic,
the
South cannot do without family bonds, because it is they that
will
evolve into non-family bonds.
While Khaldun and Putnam often disagree on the nature of civil
society,
they have both left behind great works that go along way to help
explain
just what civil society is, and how it relates to nations today.