Formulation of the Claim

The field of thought narrows when knowledge is subjected to dogmatic frames of reference that impose their limits on what can be thought.

Explanation

Arkoun holds that dogmatic frames of reference do not merely regulate belief; they also limit the very breadth of inquiry, making thought revolve within a closed sphere. Free questioning then does not advance; rather, what has become established as axiomatic is repeated, and thought remains confined within a narrow circle.

It follows that what is produced in the way of discourse and meaning tends toward repetition and regurgitation rather than examination and renewal. The dogmatic reference, in this context, is not understood as one opinion among others, but as an authority that regulates the mental field and limits the possibilities of moving beyond it.

Its Place in the Book’s Argument

This atom falls within Arkoun’s critique of the structures of closure in religious thought, where closure is connected not only to contents but also to the frameworks that determine in advance what may and may not be thought. It supports his broader thesis concerning the need to open the field to a critique of frames of reference and to a questioning of the mechanisms of reception and repetition.

Limits of the Claim

This atom should not be made to bear more than it says: it describes the effect of dogmatic frames of reference in narrowing thought, and it does not offer here a detailed analysis of all the causes of this narrowing or of its historical consequences.

Brief Evidence Passage

“In advanced European societies, you can say anything about religion: absolute freedom. But it is very narrow and surrounded by barbed wire when it comes to Arab and Islamic societies. Practically speaking, you cannot say anything meaningful about religion in Islamic societies. You can only repeat, like parrots, those traditional propositions and absolutist certainties inherited for hundreds of years. We observe that everything classified in the category of the unthinkable accumulates over time so as to constitute the unthought for a particular period or era, a particular culture, a particular religion, or a particular philosophy. In this sense, we say that the field of the unthought or the unthinkable is very broad and vast.”