Cultural Programming with Impact VII: From Bint Kassem to Ibn Khaldun: Remembering What We Already Knew

For much of my research journey, I found myself searching through contemporary theories. I never doubted the importance of cultural engagement; I had always sensed its significance at a deeper level in my being. In the previous articles, I argued that the impulse to create, connect, tell stories, and participate in culture is not simply a preference but part of our human nature, what we call in Arabic Al Fitra, our innate nature.

What I was searching for was evidence. I wanted to understand how different disciplines explained what many of us instinctively know. Over the course of my PhD journey, I spent years focused on the work of scholars across psychology, human development, resilience studies, sociology, and cultural theory, searching for answers to a question that had long accompanied me both personally and professionally.

Psychology pointed me towards belonging, identity, and self-expression, all of which have been identified as fundamental human needs associated with wellbeing and psychological functioning (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Human development theories highlighted flourishing, meaning, and wellbeing as central dimensions of a life well lived (Seligman, 2011; Nussbaum, 2011). Resilience research demonstrated the importance of social support, adaptability, collective efficacy, and meaning-making in helping individuals and communities navigate adversity and emerge stronger from it (Zautra, Hall & Murray, 2010; Zautra & Reich, 2012). Increasingly, even evolutionary perspectives suggested that culture may have played a role not only in human flourishing, but in humanity's survival itself, enabling cooperation, knowledge transmission, social cohesion, and collective adaptation across generations (Boyd & Richerson, 1985; Henrich, 2016).

For years, I explored these ideas through contemporary scholarship. Yet yesterday, during a session of موعد نقاش, the cultural discussion series by Anasy Media founded by Her Highness Sheikha Alyazia bint Nahyan Al Nahyan, something unexpected happened. As part of the conversation on influential Arab thinkers, participants were invited to draw a card, each bearing the name of a historical figure. The card I picked carried the name of Ibn Khaldun.

Until that moment, I had never studied his work in any depth. I knew, of course, who Ibn Khaldun was. Like many of us, I was aware of Al-Muqaddimah and his reputation as one of the great thinkers of the Arab world. Yet my familiarity was largely surface-level. I had never taken the time to engage deeply with his ideas, nor could I have imagined that a scholar writing nearly seven centuries ago would speak so directly to questions I had spent years exploring through contemporary research.

As I began reading about his ideas later last night, I experienced a surprising sense of familiarity. Here was a scholar writing nearly seven centuries ago, describing concepts that echoed many of the themes I had spent years exploring through modern theories of resilience, belonging, community, and human flourishing. It felt less like discovering a new idea and more like encountering an older language and perspective for something I had been studying all along.

The more I reflected on this unexpected encounter, the more I found myself returning to a question that had accompanied much of my research journey: had humanity understood this long before we developed the theories to explain it?

Several centuries before the emergence of modern psychology, resilience theory, sociology, or even the concept of social capital, Ibn Khaldun was attempting to understand what enables societies to survive, flourish, and endure through periods of change and adversity. His answer was neither wealth, political power, nor military strength alone. Rather, he pointed to what he described as Asabiyyah (العصبية): the social bonds that connect people to one another and create a sense of collective identity, mutual support, solidarity, and shared purpose.

At this point, I must pause for a moment to acknowledge that the term Asabiyyah can be uncomfortable to contemporary readers. In modern discourse, it is often associated with tribalism, exclusion, or forms of blind loyalty that place group interests above justice and the common good. Indeed, in many contexts today, the word carries largely negative connotations.

And honestly my initial reaction was not entirely different. Yet as I began reading more deeply into Ibn Khaldun's work, I realised that what he meant by Asabiyyah was considerably more profound and far-reaching than the way the term is often understood today.

For Ibn Khaldun, Asabiyyah was not primarily an ideology, a political doctrine, or a call for exclusion. Rather, it described the social cohesion that enables groups of people to cooperate, support one another, pursue shared goals, and act collectively (Ibn Khaldun, 1967). It was the force that transformed a collection of individuals into a functioning community. In his analysis, societies rise when social bonds are strong and decline when those bonds weaken and collective purpose begins to erode (Ibn Khaldun, 1967; Alatas, 2014).

In many ways, Ibn Khaldun's understanding of Asabiyyah resembles what contemporary scholars might describe as social cohesion, collective identity, social capital, or collective agency. It is less about who is excluded and more about what enables people to work together, trust one another, and maintain a sense of shared responsibility. While the concept emerged within the context of tribes and dynasties, its underlying logic extends far beyond them. At its heart lies a simple observation: human beings flourish when they are connected to one another through meaningful social bonds.

Viewed through this lens, Asabiyyah begins to look far less like a relic of medieval political thought and far more like an early articulation of ideas that continue to occupy contemporary research on resilience, community development, and social wellbeing. In the previous article, I argued that cultural engagement may be one of humanity's oldest mechanisms for connection; a means through which people create meaning, belonging, identity, and shared experience. Reading Ibn Khaldun, I began to wonder whether Asabiyyah describes the outcome of that process. If culture is one of the mechanisms through which human beings connect, then Asabiyyah may be the social cohesion that emerges from those connections. It is the invisible thread that transforms individual relationships into communities, and communities into societies capable of enduring, adapting, and flourishing across generations.

Contemporary resilience research reaches a remarkably similar conclusion. Resilience emerges not only from individual capacities but also from social cohesion, collective agency, shared meaning, and supportive relationships (Norris et al., 2008; Zautra & Reich, 2012). Communities endure not simply because individuals are strong, but because people are connected.

This was a finding I encountered not only in the literature, but also within my own research. Through the use of non-formal education techniques and creative engagement, I observed how cultural participation created opportunities for young women living in vulnerable circumstances across cities in Egypt to connect with one another, build trust, share experiences, and develop supportive relationships. While the activities themselves focused on creative expression and skill development, their impact extended far beyond the learning of new crafts. Participants strengthened the social bonds that connected them to one another and to a wider sense of community (Kassem & Kosmala, 2024).

Reading Ibn Khaldun's work through this lens, I could not help but wonder whether Asabiyyah represented an early articulation of the same social forces that contemporary scholars now recognise as fundamental to resilience and collective wellbeing.

This realization has led me to reconsider, once again, the role of cultural programming itself. Perhaps cultural programmes are not valuable solely because they entertain, educate, inspire, or preserve heritage. Their deeper value may lie in their capacity to create and strengthen the social bonds that enable communities to function, adapt, and flourish. Every performance experienced collectively, every story shared, every song sung together, and every traditional craft transmitted from one generation to the next contributes to the development of social connection, collective identity, and a sense of belonging that extends beyond the individual (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Putnam, 2000).

In this sense, culture becomes far more than artistic expression. It becomes a form of social infrastructure. This takes me back to one of the central ideas explored in my earlier articles on cultural programming: the importance of the space that exists between the audience and the experience itself. It is within that space that meaning is negotiated, relationships are formed, identities are affirmed, and communities are strengthened.

When cultural programmers create opportunities for participation, they are not only delivering events or presenting artistic content. They are creating conditions through which people can connect with one another, develop trust, construct shared meaning, and cultivate a sense of collective belonging. In doing so, they help generate the forms of social cohesion, collective agency, and community resilience that researchers increasingly recognise as essential to human wellbeing and societal flourishing (Norris et al., 2008; Zautra & Reich, 2012).

Viewed through this lens, cultural programming becomes more than a cultural service. It becomes a practice of nurturing the very connections that Ibn Khaldun described through Asabiyyah and that contemporary resilience research continues to identify as fundamental to strong and resilient communities.

This perspective has also transformed how I think about cultural heritage, particularly intangible cultural heritage. Traditional songs, stories, rituals, crafts, and communal practices are often discussed as treasures from the past that require safeguarding and preservation. Yet their significance may extend far beyond preservation alone. These practices continue to serve the same fundamental human function they have always served: they bring people together, create shared meaning, strengthen collective identity, and reinforce social bonds across generations (UNESCO, 2003; Smith, 2006).

Maybe that's why communities throughout history have invested so heavily in collective cultural practices. Not because culture was viewed as a luxury or a leisure activity, but because it was understood, whether consciously or instinctively, as essential to social cohesion, continuity, and survival; part of the human nature. Long before the emergence of resilience theory, people gathered around stories, songs, rituals, celebrations, and shared traditions because these practices helped them make sense of the world and of one another.

And here, I find myself returning to the question posed in the previous article: how did we ever come to believe that culture was not important?

For Ibn Khaldun, the strength of a society depended on its ability to maintain the bonds that connected its people. Seven centuries later, contemporary research continues to demonstrate that resilience emerges not only from individual capabilities but also from social cohesion, collective agency, shared identity, and supportive relationships (Norris et al., 2008; Zautra & Reich, 2012). The language has changed, but the message feels remarkably familiar.

Is culture then one of humanity's oldest mechanisms for generating what Ibn Khaldun described as Asabiyyah? Is it true that every cultural gathering, every shared story, every communal celebration, and every act of creative expression contributes to the invisible network of relationships that enables communities to endure, adapt, and flourish?

If this is true, then the role of the cultural programmer extends far beyond preserving heritage or increasing participation rates. Our work is not simply about audiences, attendance, or artistic outputs. It is about creating the conditions through which people connect with one another, build trust, discover shared meaning, and strengthen the social fabric upon which resilient communities depend.

After years spent reading contemporary scholarship on resilience, wellbeing, belonging, and human flourishing, I unexpectedly found myself in conversation with a scholar from the fourteenth century. What struck me was not how different our worlds were, but how similar the questions remained.

From Bint Kassem to Ibn Khaldun, across centuries of inquiry, I am left with a simple yet profound realization: some of humanity's most important discoveries are not discoveries at all. They are acts of remembering.

Remembering that human beings are wired for connection.

Remembering that communities are sustained by the bonds between their people. And remembering that culture is not an optional addition to human life, but one of humanity's oldest and most enduring mechanisms for creating meaning, belonging, resilience, and connection.

Acknowledgment

This reflection was inspired by a session of موعد نقاش, the cultural discussion series by Anasy Media founded by Her Highness Sheikha Alyazia bint Nahyan Al Nahyan. I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in a conversation that unexpectedly led me to discover new connections between my own research and the work of Ibn Khaldun.

References:

Alatas, S. F. (2014). Applying Ibn Khaldun: The recovery of a lost tradition in sociology. Routledge.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1985). Culture and the evolutionary process. University of Chicago Press.

Henrich, J. (2016). The secret of our success: How culture is driving human evolution, domesticating our species, and making us smarter. Princeton University Press.

Ibn Khaldun. (1967). The Muqaddimah: An introduction to history (F. Rosenthal, Trans.). Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1377)

Kassem, R., & Kosmala, K. (2025). Feminist e-activism in the age of pandemic and beyond: Virtual crafts with women in care shelters in Alexandria, Egypt. Journal of Gender Studies, 34(3), 360–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2024.2441396

Norris, F. H., Stevens, S. P., Pfefferbaum, B., Wyche, K. F., & Pfefferbaum, R. L. (2008). Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(1–2), 127–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9156-6

Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Harvard University Press.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. Free Press.

Smith, L. (2006). Uses of heritage. Routledge.

UNESCO. (2003). Convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://ich.unesco.org/en/convention

Zautra, A. J., Hall, J. S., & Murray, K. E. (2010). Resilience: A new definition of health for people and communities. In J. W. Reich, A. J. Zautra, & J. S. Hall (Eds.), Handbook of adult resilience (pp. 3–29). Guilford Press.

Zautra, A. J., & Reich, J. W. (2012). Resilience: The meanings, methods, and measures of a fundamental character of human adaptation. In J. W. Reich, A. J. Zautra, & J. S. Hall (Eds.), Handbook of adult resilience (pp. 3–34). Guilford Press.