On the concept of history between Marx and Ibn Khaldun

All quotations of Marx and Engels are quoted from their book The German Ideology, edited and with an introduction by C.J. Arthur (1970). Quotations of Ibn Khaldun are quoted from his book Kitab al-Ibar, the first volume which entitled Muqaddimah, translated by Franz Rosenthal on the following website: www.muslimphilosophy.com/ik/Muqaddimah/IntroMaterial/Introduction.htm.
Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) is an Arabic thinker and historian who was born in Tunisia. He wrote many books about history, philosophy, economy and social sciences. He is one of the most famous Arab thinkers of the Middle Ages. His Kitab al-Ibar (or the Book of Wisdoms) is fundamentally about history and sociology.
I first read Ibn Khaldun when I was 21 years old. I finished reading Marx, but while I was reading him I kept saying “oh, how these two guys share many similar philosophical thoughts. They never met each other, or speak to each other. Does this mean that the concept of history is Universal and Global? Two philosophers from different ages, different places and different cultures articulate many similar ideas? How amazing!! I know very well that Ibn Khaldun was not a theorist, but Mrax is. Ibn Khaldun is a philosopher who rarely theorize, on the contrary of Marx who created eternal theories of his own. In the following I will attempt to trace some similar philosophical points of views of both Marx and Ibn Khaldun. I have many ideas in my mind, I hope I can convey some of them in a coherent way.
Let us start with Marx’s concept about writing history, materialist method and the first human history:

the first premise of all human history is … the existence of living human individuals. Thus the first fact to be established is the physical organization of these individuals and their consequent relation to the rest of nature… The writing of history must always set out from these natural bases and their modification in the course of history through the action of man. (42)

Ibn Khaldun speaks about how a good historian should be, and what to tackle and trace while he is writing history:

the writing of history requires numerous sources and greatly varied knowledge. It also requires a good speculative mind and thoroughness. (Possession of these two qualities) leads the historian to the truth and keeps him from slips and errors. If he trusts historical information in its plain transmitted form and has no clear knowledge of the principles resulting from custom, the fundamental facts of politics, the nature of civilization, the human needs or the conditions governing human social organization, and if, furthermore, he does not evaluate remote or ancient material through comparison with near or contemporary material, he often cannot avoid stumbling and slipping and deviating from the highroad of truth.

It is really interesting to read how Ibn Khaldun develops a concept of the dichotomy of “town” versus “desert”, as well as the concept of a “generation” and the loss of power that occurs when desert warriors conquer a city. This idea is presented by Marx when discussing the class struggle, he asserts that when a struggling class came to power and mastery they abolish the first. (54) Marx also develops the dichotomy of “town” versus “country”, and how the labor division works in both places. Labor in country is acquainted with nature, so man is subservient to nature. In town the relationship is not between men only, there is a third party which is money. (67). Ibn Khaldun asserts that all value and profit comes from labor. This concept is also developed by Marx as he describes the economy as being composed of value adding processes, that is labor is added to techniques and crafts and the product is sold at a higher value.
Ibn Khaldun considers the history which only traces the deeds of kings and queens to be absurd, because the most important aspect of history is to trace all human activities and study the relationship between time, place and man. He criticizes this “history which refers to events that are peculiar to a particular age or race”, because he belives that history should trace all the activities of all humans. Marx has the same belief: “how absurd is the conception of history held hitherto, which neglects the real relationships and confines itself to high-sounding dramas of princes and states” (57).
Another concept of history which both Marx and Ibn Khaldun share is that history is the cumulative activities of different generations which change from one time to another. Ibn Khaldun asserts that writing history makes us know how

the condition of the world and of nations, their customs and sects, does not persist in the same form or in a constant manner. There are differences according to days and periods, and changes from one condition to another. This is the case with individuals, times, and cities, and, in the same manner, it happens in connection with regions and districts, periods and dynasties.

Marx puts many definitions of history. These definitions are linked with the materialistic needs of man, his activities to produce and the process of production itself. Marx defines history to be

The succession of the separate generations, each of which exploits the materials, the capital funds, the productive forces handed down to it by all preceding generations, and thus, on the one hand, continues the traditional activity in completely changed circumstances and, on the other modifies the old circumstances with a completely changed activity. (57)

Marx’s theory of the materialistic connection between men is also articulated by Ibn Khaldun but without using this term. Marx declares that all humans are connected to each other by what they had to produce.

It is quite obvious from the start that there exists a materialistic connection of men with one another, which is determined by their needs and their mood of production, … This connection is ever taking on new forms, and thus presents a “history” independently of the existence of any political or religious nonsense which in addition may hold men together. (50)

Ibn Khaldun writes about this relationship and how man needs his fellow not only to produce his needs, but also to help him in his defense against any danger:

the power of the individual human being is not sufficient for him to obtain (the food) he needs, and does not provide him with as much food as he requires to live. Even if we assume an absolute minimum of food-that is, food enough for one day, (a little) wheat, for instance-that amount of food could be obtained only after much preparation such as grinding, kneading, and baking. Each of these three operations requires utensils and tools that can be provided only with the help of several crafts, such as the crafts of the blacksmith, the carpenter, and the potter… It is beyond the power of one man alone to do all that, or (even) part of it, by himself. Thus, he cannot do without a combination of many powers from among his fellow beings, if he is to obtain food for himself and for them … Likewise, each individual needs the help of his fellow beings for his defense, as well.

These were some examples of the points of similarity between Marx and Ibn Khaldun. Finally, we should assert that writing history is a human activity which has no race, gender nor place.

Elaine Showalter "Gynocritics"

Showalter’s Feminist Critique and Gynocriticism

Reading Showalter’s essay “Feminist Criticism in the Wilderness” for the second time was really very useful and enjoyable for me. It enabled me to understand the core ideas of this essay more comprehensively. Not only this essay, but also Showalter’s preceding essay “Toward a Feminist Poetics” (1979). I like Showalter, she is my favorite American feminist critic. I enjoy her writings about theory and pedagogy. Most of times I found her writings clear, persuasive, informative and creative. While I was rereading the essay, I started to recall many thoughts about Showalter’s gynocriticism. I said what about developing these thoughts into a reading response, and I hope this will work.
First, let start with defining Showalter’s gynocriticism: it’s a term adapted by Showalter for the first time in her essay “Toward a Feminist poetics”. This term stands for the study of female literary texts by female critics. It’s the study of the themes, language, styles, historical backgrounds, and structures of literature by women. Gynocriticism has two important aims: the first, is to construct a female framework for the analysis of women’s literature, the second, is to develop new models which depend on the study of the female experience, rather than to apply male models, texts and theories. According to Showalter, the departure point of gynocriticism is feminists’ freedom from the impact of male literary history.
But before defining gynocrtiticism Showalter divides feminist criticism into two distinct types: feminist critique and gynocriticism. She defines feminist critique as this sort of literary criticism which is concerned with women as readers and consumers of male literature. The main aim of this criticism is to depict how women were presented in male-produced literature. From here, we can safely say that feminist critique and the Image of Women criticism are the same. But this sort of criticism does not satisfy Showalter’s hopes and ambitions about feminist criticism, simply because she believes that feminist criticism should move towards the establishment of an especially female tradition of writing . Feminists should stop searching for how women were depicted in male-produced literature because by doing this feminists are just knowing how men want women to be, not how women want themselves to be. Showlater is calling for a female autonomy which depicts women’s own experiences and feelings. After proving that women have a literature of their own, to recall Showalter’s sentence, through the process of rediscovering lost or neglected texts written by women, it became a must for feminists to start constructing a female-oriented literary criticism. So that, and as a natural result, comes Showalter’s call for applying the second type of feminist criticism which is gynocriticism. It’s the criticism which is concerned with woman as a writer and producer of literary texts. Showalter calls for applying gynocriticism because she believes that it stands in contrast to the feminist critique’s loyalty and celebration of male texts. She emphasizes gynocriticism as a more useful approach to feminist criticism than feminist critique.
Let us move to what some other feminist critics think about gynocriticism. Some of them consider practicing gynocriticism to be more influential not only because it concentrates on female-produced literature, but also because it heirs them avoid the problem of tension between their interpretative approach and the question of aesthetics. When dealing with a male writer feminists face a problem of resolving the tension of the ethics of his literary text. In fact, this tension between the aesthetic and moral or political dimensions of texts has been a central problem to the practitioners of the school of Image of Women criticism. Let us take Josephine Donovan as an example. When discussing Faulkner’s Light in August, Donovan states that she appreciates the formal elements of this text. She asserts that the work is really magnificent, but she can not bear the huge rank of misogynism and racism in this text. This made it impossible for her, as a feminist, to accept the ethics of this text. From Donovan’s view we came to know that any literary work written by males which carries any sort of misogynism or racism should not be treated by feminists; simply because if they did this would be an undeclared approval of these themes which are against feminism.
But the existence of problems should not prevent us from declaring the importance of Images of Women criticism. Its major importance reveals itself when reading Kate Millett’s Sexual Politics, Mary Ellmann’s Thinking about Women, among others. Those feminists tried seriously to deconstruct androcentrism, and made both women and men think of literature in different terms through establishing a feminist interpretation for the first time. This interpretation became the basis for feminist criticism.
I agree with Showalter that gynocriticism is more influential than feminist critique, but I do not agree that the second is less important than the first. Because the importance of both gynocriticism and feminist critique, or the Image of Woman critique, relates much to the stage where each activity should be used and applied. For example, the initial stage of feminist criticism needs a sort of deconstructing any kind of misogyny against women in literary work by men. Once feminists deconstructed it, they need to move on to a new stage, a stage which becomes a must especially after the rediscovery of many women writings.
Through reading Showalter’s two complementary essays: “Toward a Feminist Poetics” (1979), and “Feminist Criticism in the Wilderness” (1981), it’s important to know that practicing gynocriticism, through celebrating women writings, does not mean to abandon men’s forever, or to stop reading men’s writings. We know, very well, how feminists fought to include women writings into the literary canon. But is the process of including enough? Or do feminists need to analyze these texts, exactly as they did with men’s writings. And this is simply what Showalter calls for.