I had a brief telephone conversation with a friend today and, spontaneously, I came to the conclusion that ibn Khaldun’s work demonstrated a sophisticated awareness of the lack of sexual relation, or, moreover, of sexuation. Moreover, ibn Khaldun (~1300) — always ahead of his time — was able to demonstrate the structural logic of sexuation within the social bond.
I want to plot some reference points here only:
(ibn Khaldun)`asabiyyahh = the social bond
(Lacan) Discourse = the social bond
(ibn Khaldun) strong asabiyahh = sedentary population (moral order); center of social bond
(Lacan) masculine sexuation = phallus; symbolic castration
(ibn Khaldun)weak asabiyahh = nomadic population; periphery of social bond
(Lacan) feminine sexuation =
(ibn Khaldun) distance separates sedentary population from periphery population
(Lacan) the real / lack of sexual relation between feminine and masculine positions
For ibn Khaldun the sedentary phallic position falls always into moral decline. Lacan called this “knavery,” because there is no hold on truth. The periphery population, more hysterical in structure, is on the side of truth – however foolish.
I don’t have time right now to develop this because of other work, so I’m just plotting some reference points here.