[Review] The Muqaddimah, an introduction of history by Ibn Khaldun

The Muqaddimah, an introduction of history by Ibn Khaldun

What is the main point(s) of the reading/theory?

In this article, the author explains that royal powers have cycles in which they rise and fall, and the whole cycle has several distinct stages. According to the author's explanation, at each stage, individuals and groups have certain desires and psychological states, and the kingship passes to the next stage according to the result. Also, as a rule, royal power naturally decays after a certain period and generation, and the next royal power retakes or takes over. In our history, these cycles occur repeatedly and form constant cycles.

The approximate life cycle of a dynasty can be defined as:

In the early stages, people form groups to protect each other from external enemies or dangers. As each group cooperates with each other, a subordinate relationship is naturally formed for each individual/group. The hierarchical order formed in this initial stage is formed for the purpose of maintaining order and increasing efficiency so that all group members can produce and defend effectively together. In other words, a cohesive organization is required to prevent division within a group from being attacked by other hostile groups or natural enemies and life-threatening.

In the next stage, as organizations repeat absorption/merger between other organizations, their size gradually increases. And leadership becomes stronger to maintain order in the growing organization. The more power the leader of an organization has, the more wealth he can accumulate. Now, external enemies cannot attack an already large organization, and the organization is at peace. Organizational leaders have both safety and great wealth. The seeds of doom are born at this point.

In the final stage, the leader (or group of leaders) of the organization becomes more obsessed with luxury and affluence. And in their minds, the strong desire to survive in a dangerous environment gradually disappears. As the years go by (or as generations change), a safe and prosperous environment becomes the new normal. The problems of survival and group feelings disappear from their memories. Now they have no ability to defend their organization on their own. Eventually, they are vanished by a new powerful force, and the new force becomes the leader.

The lifecycle of such organizations typically does not exceed three generations. When calculating arithmetic, assuming that a generation is 40 years, it takes about 120 years for a cycle to go through the rise and fall of a community. In the first generation, people build organizations with strong will in a barren environment. In the second generation, descendants inherit the security and abundance of their predecessors. And by the third generation, people completely lose the will to survive the first generation.

What is the evidence that the theory is valid?

The author explains that as generations pass, people gain stability from the crisis of survival, and their psychological state changes accordingly. It also explains that people's attitudes over generations cannot go back to the original idea. The theory argued in this article is to be proved by presenting the history of the rise and fall of the various dynasties of Persia in the past.

How does that point appear in historical, contemporary or potential future social changes?

There are too many examples in history where a community is born, rises, and declines according to one life cycle. A representative book that explains these historical facts is Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. This book describes Islam, the Habsburgs, and the recent rise and fall of the US/Europe/Soviet Union. There are also many examples of for-profit organizations rising and falling over time. For example, Sony, Japan's largest consumer electronics maker, is also declining over time. Moreover, large corporations like Sony accidentally built gigantic structures at the height of their power, and have been in decline ever since. I think the 'curse of a large corporation's new headquarters' is a very reasonable phenomenon.

What part of the reading/theory doesn't make sense or might even be wrong?

The author tried to explain the birth, growth, and decline of groups by focusing on internal factors. I also believe that in most cases the rise and fall of a group is determined by internal factors. If we consider the opposite case, there are still cases where the rise or fall of many groups is determined by external factors. In fact, Pompeii seems to be a typical example, where the entire city disappeared due to a sudden large-scale natural disaster (volcano). Conversely, South Korea suffered national bankruptcy in 1997 due to a series of cross-border foreign exchange crises that began in Thailand. However, many people believe that the crisis that occurred at that time became an opportunity to make the country stronger.

What does this reading/theory assume about people or society that distinguishes it from other theories?

The opposite of this theory could be the law of entropy. The author of this article asserts that the world has cycles, whereas the law of entropy asserts that the world is changing from ordered to disordered. However, I presume that there must be some kind of relationship between the two theories.