Dr. Taghi Azad Armaki is a professor of sociology at Tehran University. His MA dissertation defended at Tehran University is based on theoretical sociology. Considering an interdisciplinary approach, he addresses the theory of Ibn Khaldun in his Ph.D. dissertation at the University of Maryland. “The History of Social Thought in Islam, from the beginning to the Present”, “Social Changes of Iran”, and “The Social Thought of Muslim Scholars, from Khwaja Nizam to Motahhari”, besides numerous other books, articles, and interviews indicate to his persistent attempts to base his sociological studies on the science of history. To learn more about Dr. Azad you can visit here.
Prof. Azad, it’s a great pleasure for me to have an interview with you regarding social history, historical sociology, and their roles in having more profound findings in Iranian medieval history. Let’s start with this question, how we can define the science of social history to have common parts with sociology and history? In other words, what definition do you suggest about social history which would be understandable in both sciences of sociology and history?
We can say in simple words that social history is social history. History is about social affairs. When social life becomes important, it will change into history. Social affairs never happen suddenly or with any good reason, so they never vanish away. They happen and change through time. Hence, we need a kind of science that addresses the beginning of social issues and historical processes and transformations that these social issues have gone through during the time. This science is social history.
On the other hand, sociology explores social issues with respect to historical circumstances. Sociology rides on social history on his way. In the absence of social history, sociology has no field of research. Sociology as it’s led by western sociologists relies on social history to provide scientific explanation and interpretation. Max Weber, for example, bases his hypotheses on detailed studies of Europe and Asian histories; while the Iranian sociologists refer to vague assumptions and fantasies for lack of knowledge or for political reasons.
To find out the relations between history and social history, we ought to have a specified definition of history. If we define history just as social history, then we neglect a large portion of historical works.
Political history, Cultural history, the history of nations, and ethnics are various branches of history. Therefore, it is better that we consider social history not equal to the whole science of history but as its critical branch.
Human and social sciences in Iran can illustrate the lives of Iranians as long as they are led particularly by social history, cultural history, social history, and political history. Without having these branches of science as their background, human and social sciences are forced to refer to social statistics which results in positivism and quantity-oriented studies.
Considering the fact that sociologists explore the holistic causes of social circumstances, how can they coordinate their works with the historian’s which are based on details?
Sociologists can figure out social phenomena as long as they have enough statistical documents and reliable evidence. In case we have more detailed information, we will have a deeper general understanding. Historians provide documents for sociologists to work on. Without having these documents, we cannot do much research; we can just draw plans and discuss the buildings. A building can be built when there are lands, a plan, materials, and also the will to construct a building. To analyze social issues, we require different factors to help the research process.
I don’t believe that the only duty of historians is to provide documents of past events. Of course, it is one of their duties but is important enough to connect sociologists with those facts constituting the foundations of historical sociology.
Historical sociology addresses the conditions of society historically. For example, when a sociologist faces the question “What is the history of religion and religiosity and what transformations have they gone through?” he requires historical details about religious affairs and rituals. Without this information, he is not able to answer these kinds of questions. Most of the sociologists writing about the conditions of religiosity in Iran have no exact information and so they propose general unfounded hypotheses. They just repeat the assumptions and hypotheses proposed in other countries which are not in accordance with the Iranian world. If we argue more in this regard, we will recognize the impact of history and historical information narrated by historians on our understanding of Iran. Rarely do we know about the history of the Iranian families, we just say that the tribal system was the prevailing system and so the nuclear family is just a modern phenomenon for Iranian society; while, we have evidence of nuclear families in Iran history. Here we can recognize the role of history, historians, and historical data in the true understanding of Iran. So my hypothesis is that it is history that provides a sociologist with reliable statistical documents and evidence to construct the foundations of his studies. In the next steps, history and historians will have more significant roles in developing sociology which I don’t address for the time being.
What do you expect from the science of history as a sociologist?
I expect this science to have its definite role in the arena of human sciences. The arena of history is more than political circumstances or detailed significant points. History encompasses political, social, economical, and cultural issues. We mustn’t limit ourselves to narrating lives and proceedings of main agents, governments, and circumstances. There are many critical events that didn’t seem to be important in the past but now they are remarkable. The importance of an incident or information depends on its conditions. We need to know which affairs are important. We can discuss circumstances which we have enough knowledge about. If historians refer to some limited dimensions of social affairs, then we can’t have through analysis and evaluation of what’s going on around us. In short, the past is important through its documents and evidence; otherwise, we can recognize its gap and so the absence of its role.
How do you recognize the relationship between the circumstances of the medieval era and the conditions of contemporary Iran? Would you mind giving an example?
We can apply the science of history in different ways. The first one is to learn very much from the lessons of history. The second is to analyze the present situations. The third is to understand past governing rules influencing our present behavior. The third perspective, understanding the rules and policies governing the behavior and lifestyle of the modern era is to determine our policy.
Medieval time has its remarkable role in all viewpoints mentioned above. First of all, medieval means the era between ancient and modern times. This era has an undeniable role in our present conditions, since then Iran had more failures in battles. The Mongol invasion of Iran influenced social, cultural, and economic structures, political relations, and our viewpoints about political friends and enemies. The Mongol invasion faced us with unprecedented conditions.
You have paid attention to the Iranian medieval time in some of your works. Can you explain a little in this regard?
Iran went under fundamental changes in medieval times. The Iranian Muslim thinkers had certain characteristics particularly Ibn Khaldun and Khwaja Nasir al-Din Tusi. Besides considering the transition period, they proposed new arguments. Ibn Khaldun proposed the theory of social science and Khwaja Nasir al-Din Tusi suggested his theory about the institution of the family. These two scholars followed their thoughts regarding their time and place. Ibn Khaldun referred to the birth and death of civilizations, thus he proposed a new science. The Iranian medieval time is socially and culturally significant; it influenced the history of the Islamic world and even other countries.
How can we apply a social theory in medieval times?
We can apply social theory in medieval times as long as we regard social life in the arena of history. When we consider the contemporary conditions in continuance with the circumstances of the medieval era we will acquire macro theories about what’s going on in society. Proposing macro theories about the Iranian Islamic society is dependent on having a true understanding of Iranian medieval history.
You mentioned that nowadays you are going to do more research on social history. What concerns do you have in this regard?
We have to move from sociology to social history to figure out the social and cultural revolutions. Rarely do the Iranian social thinkers have a reliable understanding of past days of Iran and people’s affairs in family, religion, politics, daily life, and economics. Regarding social life I have one fundamental question, “How can we evaluate social evolutions when we don’t have enough knowledge about our pasts?” or “How can we propose a general theory about the Iranian society when we don’t know the details of its past and present. Unfortunately, some scholars propose social and cultural theories which are not founded in historical details. Instead of relying on the social history of Iran, they refer to western thinkers and society. To overcome this impasse, I believe that we must rely on our social history. Social history is a multidisciplinary field of study concerning sociology, history, economics, culture, and geography. In short, all scholars of social sciences are required to develop social history.
Thank you so much for your plausible responses.
Tr.by Maryam Kamali