The Idea
The text argues that when kinship turns into factionalism, it narrows the space of the human person: the individual is no longer measured as a citizen or as an independent self, but as a member dependent on a lineage group. At that point, narrow loyalties come to override the individual’s rights, and the possibility of equal recognition among people within society is weakened. The issue here is not kinship itself, but its transformation into a criterion that prevents the person from being fully realized.
Concise Formulation
Kinship factionalism hinders the standing of the human person
Its Place in the Book’s Argument
This idea appears within a broader critique of the social forms that obstruct the emergence of a public sphere. It is not presented as an isolated moral problem, but as one of the causes of the weakness of civil society and the faltering of a state of rights and law. In this way, the critique of factionalism becomes part of the book’s argument about the conditions that prevent the formation of a modern space that protects the individual and grants them a clear standing.
Why It Matters
This idea helps show that Arkoun does not discuss religion apart from the social structure that surrounds it. The weakening of the human person because of factionalism reveals that the crisis of thought is not merely theoretical; it is also tied to relations of belonging and power within society. Without recognizing this, it is difficult to understand the difficulty of moving toward a broader citizenship.
Reading Questions
- How does the text distinguish kinship as a natural relation from factionalism as a social obstacle?
- What connection does the text establish between factionalism and the faltering of a state of rights and law?
Documentation Level
High: the claim appears in a clear location in the book’s material.