Muriam Haleh Davis, UCSC
Of the three books written by Fanon in his lifetime, L’An V de la révolution algérienne (Year V of the Algerian Revolution) is the most anchored in the realities of Algerian daily life.[1] In this work, Fanon set out to show how a “new society” had been born during the armed struggle against the French occupation. Fanon writes, “It is true that independence produces the spiritual and material conditions for the refashioning (reconversion) of man. But it is also the inner transformation (mutation), the renewal of social and family structure that impose, with the rigor of the law, the emergence of the Nation and the flourishing (l’épanouissement) of its sovereignty.”[2] When the legendary French editor François Maspero published a new version of this book in 1968, he did so under a different title – Sociologie d’une révolution (Sociology of a Revolution) – which was also the title for the first Arabic translation of this work in 1970.[3]
The discussion between Maspero and Fanon regarding the title is telling. Fanon sent a rough outline of the book to Maspero in 1959, proposing L’An V de la révolution algérienne as a title. The French publisher responded with concerns regarding the political risks of publishing such a work in France, asking: “Are you firmly decided on the title…?” He explained his reticence by the fact that “such a precise title would seem to be to be the quickest way to invite seizure” and proposed “Birth of a Nation” as a title.[4] While Fanon understood Maspero’s concerns, he claimed to prefer “Reality of a Nation,” which indeed captures the content of the book and it’s description of the “radical mutations” that had occurred in the “new Algeria” that the book described.[5] Yet Maspero’s subsequent framing of the book as a work of sociology invites a number of questions: How should we explain this new disciplinary designation for Fanon’s work? How did it reflect the ways in which Fanon’s work had influenced intellectual debates, particularly in North Africa? This piece describes how Fanon’s work shaped the discipline of sociology in Algeria and Tunisia over the course of the 1960s and 1970s. At the same time, however, as his identity as a psychiatrist from Martinique fit uneasily with the revolutionary aims of the Algerian state, which sought to promote an Arab and Islamic identity, especially after the 1965 coup.
The posthumous (and largely informal) integration of Fanon into Algerian and Tunisian sociology cannot be understood outside a specific political context, which included a continued dependency on French institutions and models. The articulation of sociology as an autonomous discipline in Algeria and Tunisia reflected the reorganization of the social scientific disciplines in France, where sociology earned legitimacy in the late 1950s as a field of inquiry that was distinct from the other social sciences such as anthropology, ethnography, or psychology. In North Africa, a French tradition of colonial sociology dated to the 19th century, causing the line among psychology, ethnography, and sociology to remain blurry well into the 1950s. For example, their national universities offered no specific degree in sociology until the late 1950s; though the University of Algiers offered a certificate (or major) in morale et sociologie, this was in the framework of the philosophy concentration. At the Faculty of the Humanities and Social Sciences, students could pick one of four optional specializations, which included sociology, social psychology, political economy or the demography and ethnology of North Africa, but this was a concentration that supplemented their basic coursework.[6] Moreover, in both Algeria and Tunisia the link between psychology and sociology was particularly close. The field of “social psychology” attracted a number of students that would go on to specialize in sociology, including Abdelmalek Sayad, the Algerian sociologist and colleague of Pierre Bourdieu, who was initially trained in psychology and philosophy. It was not until 1958 that sociology was introduced as a specialized field of study at the University of Algiers; a PhD in sociology was not offered until 1967.[7] Moreover, the University of Algiers was the only establishment to teach sociology until 1967, after which Oran and Constantine became competitors.
The creation of sociology as an autonomous discipline mirrored a similar process in the metropole and reflected the political and epistemological backdrop of decolonization. The colonial legacy of ethnology and anthropology began to attract the attention of social scientists on both sides of the Mediterranean in the 1960s and 1970s.[8] This was even more acute in Algeria where the Algiers School of psychiatry propagated a number of racist myths regarding the alleged passivity of North Africans, a body of knowledge to which Fanon was radically opposed.[9] The assertation of sociology as a separate discipline expressed a new confidence in the developmentalist state (on both sides of the Mediterranean) and posited a clean break with the disciplines of ethnology and psychoanalysis.
Michel Foucault highlights how ethnology was based on culturalist models and invited comparisons between Europe and “peoples without histories.” Psychoanalysis, on the other hand, privileged the unconscious as a locus of action and therefore was also based on an alterity or extreme limit that made knowledge about man possible.[10] In this regard, rather than offer a “general concept of man,” ethnology and psychoanalysis were “counter-sciences,” for Foucault.[11] During decolonization, however, sociology raised in prominence, precisely because it offered the promise of being an empirical human science “where the laboring, producing, and consuming individual offers himself a representation of the society in which this activity occurs, of the groups and individual among which it is divided, of the imperatives, sanctions, rites, festivals, and beliefs by which it is upheld or regulated.”[12] In this regards, charting the invention of a “sociological Fanon” in the 1960s and 1970s also speaks to how decolonization restructured the epistemological tools available to make sense of social change, as well as their institutionalization by the state.
These disciplinary shifts, and their ramifications for the organization of the social sciences, could not be ignored by those who taught at the University of Algiers. Increasingly, thinkers of different stripes hung their hat on the universalizing pretenses of sociology as a social science that could resist the epistemic violence of colonization. Take for example, Émile Sicard, one of the major references for sociology in Algeria after independence. In 1964, he wrote that social psychology was based on “what had been one of the major preoccupations in the recent past: ethnosociology.”[13] In a move that reflected the discomfort with ethnology, he subsequently argued that the second term played a greater role than the first. Sicard was not the only figure to imply that previous ethnographic studies of culture had overlooked broader social transformations or to appeal to the new authority enjoyed by the social sciences after World War II. Sicard’s role in Algerian sociology undoubtedly merits further attention, but his attempt to distance himself from ethnology (despite his purported sympathies for the Pétain) sheds light on the reorganization of disciplinary knowledge in the wake of decolonization.[14] The reconstitution of the human sciences – including the revolutionary promise of sociology – shaped a number of readings of Fanon in North Africa after independence.
As has been widely noted, Fanon’s psychiatric practice was fundamental to the social models that he proposed in both L’An V de la révolution algérienne and Les Damnés de la terre. If Maspero sought to inscribe L’An V in the sociological discipline this is precisely because many of its central concerns resonated with the work being done in the 1960s: the question of women’s role in society, an analysis of family structures, and a close study of how communications technology and medicine had been transformed by the revolution. As Fanon wrote about the radio, “We have witnessed a fundamental transformation in the means of perception, of the very world of perception.”[15]
George Steinmetz has argued that Fanon’s encounter with sociology has been overlooked because “the entire formation of French sociology of colonialism was repressed from collective disciplinary memory after the 1960s.”[16] Yet seen from Algeria, this explanation overlooks endogenous political developments as well as the ways that sociology – largely dominated by the work of Pierre Bourdieu – was marked by internal tensions and remained a statist project. Fanon’s writings were included in the Algerian sociology curriculum (or at least the reading list I was able to find for 1966-1967 academic year). Moreover, as the chart below shows, Fanon’s influence on Tunisian sociologists often occurred on the margins of the profession rather than in the officially sanctioned structures that prioritized training sociologists who could insure national development.
Indeed, one can imagine that the strong Bourdieusian tradition served to sideline Fanon’s work in Algeria. Bourdieu’s liberal sensibilities – which deplored the violence of colonialism while simultaneously remaining suspect of the FLN’s version of Algerian nationalism, was at odds with Fanon’s avowedly radical position that Bourdieu found to be “false and dangerous.”[17] Bourdieu played a key role in the establishment of sociology as a discipline in Algeria, continuing to train Algerian students until the early 1970s. Yet his position, both in the academy and politically, was starkly different from Fanon, despite many overlaps in their centers of interest. Fanon studied the revolutionary creation of new subjectivities and the transformation of “traditional” social and psychological structures. Bourdieu, on the other hand, focused on French colonialism (rather than the revolution) in understanding how modernity had transformed Algerian society. It is also impossible to overstate the difference of their structural positions to the war itself: as a number of polemics have mentioned, Bourdieu’s own (French) military service was the backdrop for his sociological observations in Algeria, while Fanon stayed in North Africa voluntarily in order to support the FLN.[18]
In Tunisia, however, Fanon seems to have had a clearer impact on the discipline of sociology. This can be explained, in part, by the fact that at the end of his life Fanon taught classes on “psychopathologie sociale” in Tunis for students who were in the social psychology program from 1959-1961. According to Lila Ben Salem, a Tunisian student of Fanon’s at this time, he was widely admired and offered eclectic references – spanning from his older work on structural racism in Europe to an analysis of colonial violence.[19] For Stambouli, a first-year student in sociology when he attended Fanon’s classes, exposure to Fanon’s thought was an “unsurpassable introduction to our future specialization.”[20] In a remarkable work on Tunisian sociology after independence, Tahar Labib documents how even while Fanon was not necessarily part of the official curriculum, his works (along with that of Althusser) was often referenced by Tunisian students in sociology in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
Fig. 1 – A diagram showing Fanon’s marginal yet present status in the discipline of sociology in Tunisia from 1978-1982. This is based on interviews with 12 former sociology students conducted by Tahar Labib. It shows that the “heart” of the discipline included Samir Amin, Marx, Ibn Khaldun, Max Weber, and Abdallah Laroui. Fanon, along with Louis Althusser, appears in the circle that indicates intellectuals who cited by sociology students, but not necessarily found in the official academic program.[21]
While Fanon’s work shaped the thinking of many Tunisian sociology in the 1960s, his work was often relegated to the margins of the academy, especially in Algeria. This was not only due to the Bourdieu’s legacy, as discussed above, but also because of the Algerian regime’s fraught relationship with his work. On the one hand, many of Fanon’s writings presaged the revolutionary program brandished by Houari Boumediene: the heroic role of the peasantry, the adoption of developmental narratives in the service of decolonization, and the need to create a national culture. Yet paradoxically, as sociology earned the official approbation of the state, Fanon’s star seemed to wane. Under Boumediene, the Algerian government faced the double challenge of constructing a modern, developmentalist state and reinforcing (often by authoritarian means) an Arabo-Islamic identity as the benchmark for Algerian nationalism. If Fanon’s work could be fruitfully used for the former goal, it fit less neatly into the second.
A number of testimonies attest to the fact that after a brief moment when Fanon was regularly fêted in official circles during the rule of Ahmed Ben Bella (1962-1965), he was all but forgotten under Boumediene (1965-1978). The Algerian psychologist Idriss Terranti wrote of the “silencing” of Fanon, recounting: “As the large majority of Algerian kids, at no moment in my education had I heard, in any media or place, of Frantz Fanon. I knew the Frantz Fanon Boulevard that was two kilometers from my house at the Frantz Fanon school that was next to mine, without knowing the person for whom they were named.”[22]
This is not to imply that the Algerian (or Tunisian) state ignored the importance of higher education in providing the human resources needed to run a nation-state. In Algeria, the 1971 reform of higher education placed the social sciences at the center of revolutionary aspirations.[23] Mourad Benachenhou, who played a central role in the organization of sociology in Algeria in the 1970s, wrote: “In a country like ours, it is necessary to train a corps (cadre) that is competent in technical matters, steeped in the Algerian personality, and conscious of national realities while also being engaged in the process of socialist development.”[24] In Tunisia as well, Ahmed Ben Salah, the Secretary of Education and an architect of Tunisian socialism, introduced major reforms to the university system in 1969. These changes ensured that the university in general, and the social sciences in particular, would serve the Desturian experiment before his exist from politics that same year.[25] In both countries, the trajectory of higher education prioritized sociology, a central tool for state development, at the expense of anthropology and ethnology.[26]
There is no clearer example of the marginalization of ethnology than the International Congress of Sociology held in Algiers in 1974, At the opening speech for this event, which brought together over 500 sociologists from 70 countries, the Algerian Minister of Higher Education, Mohammed Seddik Benyahia, proclaimed that sociology was a “privileged weapon in the liberation of people in the Third World.” At this same conference, he condemned ethnology for “having participated in the colonial system.”[27] The official theme of the conference was “The Development of the Third World and Sociological Research,” which seemed to be a clin d’oeil to Fanon’s work. Questions of agrarian reform, neo-colonial dependence, and the role of women were among the principle themes debated by the conference. Yet, Fanon’s name was all but absent from the program. According to the massive two-volume proceedings of the conference, well over 1,000 pages in total, the only paper that engaged meaningfully with Fanon’s work was given by a John O’Neil, an Irish Catholic who taught at York University in Canada.[28] His intervention was dedicated to the role of language in decolonization and focused on the articulation of a national culture through education in the works of the Brazilian Paulo Freire alongside Fanon. The absence of Fanon’s work in the program is all the more striking in that just a few years earlier, in 1971, Phillipe Lucas, who taught at the University of Algiers, wrote a book entitled Sociologie de Frantz Fanon: Contribution à une anthropologie de libération, that was published in Algeria.
Despite the fact that sociology was becoming one disciplinary prism for situating Fanon’s work among sociologists themselves, the 1974 Conference – with its heavy dose of state control – could not make room Fanon in the top-down project of constructing a revolutionary social-scientific discipline. This seems to conform Gellner’s impression – writing in 1981 – that “Fanon (was) for export only.” Indeed, in the 1970s many of the engagements with Fanon’s work by Algerian scholars close to political power were openly critical, if not hostile. Fanon’s oeuvre was critiqued by Marxists who were unhappy with the unscientific nature of Fanon’s socialism, on the one hand, and those close to the more Islamic-leaning AUMA (Association of Algerian Muslim Ulema), on the other.
These tendencies are exemplified by the works of Abdelkader Djeghloul and Mohammed Al-Milli, both of whom wrote about Fanon in the early 1970s. Al-Milli’s commentary was first published in the Arabic journal al-Thaqafa, which was published under the auspices of the Ministry of Information and Culture. This institution, crucially, was headed by Ahmed Taleb Ibrahimi, an Algerian intellectual and revolutionary who had opposed Ben Bella’s internationalist form of socialism and suffered imprisonment and torture as a result. Al-Milli had worked with Fanon at the FLN journal, El-Moudjahid, during the war, and ran two articles in March and May of 1971. In the first piece, “Fanon and Western Thought,” Al-Milli expressed frustration at the notion that Algerian was the “theorist” of the Algerian revolution and stressed the French framework that underpinned his theories of colonization, citing the influence of Hegel, Marx, Freud, Sartre, and Merleau-Ponty on Fanon’s oeuvre. For Al-Milli, Fanon’s claim that the Algerian nation could be a “clean break” from Algeria’s past was rooted in his position as a foreigner. “We find that if Fanon had been Muslim or permeated by Arab Culture, then maybe his position on the past would have been different,” he argued.[29] His conclusion was not only polemical, but it also fundamentally called into question the ways that Fanon was being “exported” in the 1970s. He asserted that “the central influence was that of the Algerian revolution on Fanon, and not the inverse.” Al-Milli’s remarks foreshadowed future polemics regarding the “Algerianness” of Fanon, but also expressed a genuine appreciation for his political commitments during the Revolution.
Fanon’s Marxist critics, of which there were many, took take a different tack. The Algerian sociologist Abdelkader Djeghloul consecrated his dissertation, defended in France at Paris V University, to the discursive structure of Fanon’s Third Worldism. While his almost 500 page dissertation makes a number of critiques, his notion that Fanon’s phenomenological approach and fetishization of the peasantry failed to understand the revolutionary nature of the working class echoed a number of other Communist critiques of Fanon after independence. Even if some would claim that L’An V was a work of sociology, this was impossible for Djeghloul, who asserted that “[n]owhere can we find in this text a study of the social structures of colonization nor a concrete analysis of the revolutionary processes and their effects on social structures.”[30] Ultimately, according to Djeghloul’s dissertation, Fanon recycled the petite bourgeois ideology of the FLN and essentialized a difference between Europe and the Third world that ignored the internal divisions – namely the divisions between capitalist and socialist interests – that structured both geographical blocks.
Arguments from Djeghloul’s dissertation were republished in the late 1970s in a number of Algerian publications, including a 1978 text that was likely assigned to students at the University of Oran.[31] Here, Djeghloul credits the Algerian revolution with catalyzing a break in Fanon’s thought, and insists that Fanon’s activities with the ALN (National Liberation Army) at the outbreak of the war resembled the support provided by progressive French individuals who also sided with the Algerian nationalists. For Djelghloul, it was only after Fanon’s passing in 1961 that the “Fanon myth” was constituted at the international level.
Algerian critics of Fanon were particularly vehement, but the notion that Fanon had erred in his analysis of the peasantry was also taken up by Tunisian sociologists such as Abdelkader Zghal, who contested Fanon’s understanding of the peasantry as a revolutionary force.[32] Zghlal’s approached stressed the long durée histories of revolt and the structures of Algerian society that dating to the tenth century. He contrasted the earlier peasant revolts, which relied on a series of traditional behaviors and organizations, from the more recent uprisings that consisted of an elite, which was divorced from peasant social structures, and sought to extract personal gain from anti-colonial struggle. Thus, while the peasantry could be considered an “explosive” force, but they did not have a revolutionary agenda that Zghlal identified among the Zapatistas. This critique had also been taken up by the Algerian historian, Mohammed Harbi, who also found that Fanon had overestimated the revolutionary force of the peasantry, and argued that his propensity to avoid a concrete class analysis suited Boumediene and the military organization (État Major Général de l’Armé des frontiers).[33] Yet despite Zghlal’s disagreements with Fanon, the tone of his piece was less polemical than the general tenor of Algerian debates.
The project of national liberation, so powerfully described by Fanon, continued after his untimely death in 1961 and confronted a new set of obstacles after independence. Despite decolonial readings of Fanon, which stress his epistemological break with Western modernity, is hard to know how Fanon would have responded to the twin projects of developmentalism and the “decontamination” of the social sciences. Undoubtedly, Fanon would have found himself on uncomfortable ground after the introduction of Arabization, and adoption of new “indigenous” paradigms for understanding society, notably the central role attributed to Ibn Khaldun.[34] Yet my goal here has not been to speculate about a post-independence Fanon, but simply to chart how Fanon’s thought circulated in different disciplinary and national contexts in the 1960s and 1970s in North Africa. This cursory analysis sheds light on how decolonization, and the concrete goals of nation-building and development, shaped not only North African readings of Fanon, but also the institutionalization of the social sciences in Algeria and Tunisia.
[1] Frantz Fanon, Sociologie d’une Révolution (Paris: Maspero, 1968).
[2] Fanon, 172. All translations are mine. Where they deviate from the existing English published translation I have kept the original French in parenthesis. The book is known as “A Dying Colonialism” in English, which obscures the clear link to the French revolution.
[3] Frantz Fanon, Sūsyūlūgiyyat Al-Thawra, trans. Dūqān Qurqūt, Dār al-Ṭalī’a (Beirut, 1970).
[4] Frantz Fanon, Alienation and Freedom, ed. Jean Khalfa and Robert J.C. Young, trans. Steven Corcoran (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2018), 678.
[5] Fanon, Sociologie d’une Révolution, 14–15.
[6]Kamel Chachoua, “La Sociologie en Algérie: L’histoire d’une discipline sans histoire,” in Les Sciences Sociales en Voyage. L’Afrique Du Nord et le Moyen Orient vus d’Europe, d’Amérique et de l’intérieur, ed. Eberhard Kienle, Karthala (Paris, 2010), 135–55.
[7] Humathèque, Fonds Bourdieu, 1 ARCH 20-1, “Recherches en cours et programme des recherches prévues,” 1969.
[8] Jacques Berque, “Sciences Sociales et Décolonisation,” Tiers-Monde 3, no. 9–10 (1962).
[9] Camille Robcis, “Frantz Fanon, Institutional Psychotherapy, and the Decolonization of Psychiatry,” Journal of the History of Ideas 81, no. 2 (2020): 303–25.
[10] Michel Foucault, The Order of Things: An Archeology of the Human Sciences (London and NewYork: Routledge, 1989 (1966)), 411.
[11] Foucault, 411.
[12] Foucault, 388.
[13] Émile Sicard, “La Recherche Sociologiques à l’Université d’Alger,” L’Anée Sociologique 15 (1964): 551.
[14] Aïssa Kadri, “Pierre Bourdieu, Le Temps de l’Algérie,” Tumultes 1, no. 58–59 (2022), 159.
[15] Fanon, Sociologie d’une Révolution, 81.
[16] George Steinmetz, “An Oblique Encounter with Frantz Fanon: Frantz Fanon’s Les Damnés de La Terre,” Soziopolis (blog), December 6, 2021.
[17] Pierre Bourdieu, Choses Dites (Paris: Éditions de Minuit, 1987), 17. For more on Bourdieu’s liberal positioning see Amin Perez, Combattre En Sociologues. Pierre Bourdieu et Abdelmalek Sayad Dans Une Guerre de Libération (Algérie, 1958-1964) (Marseille: Agone, 2022).
[18] See for example Aïssa Kadri, “Pierre Bourdieu, Le Temps de l’Algérie,” Tumultes 1, no. 58–59 (2022): 139–64.
[19] Lilia Ben Salem, “‘Propos Sur La Sociologie En Tunisie’ Entretien Avec Sylvie Mazzella,” Genèse 2, no. 75 (2009): 125–42.
[20] Frej Stambouli, “‘When I Was a Student of Fanon’: An Interview with Frej Stambouli,” Review of African Political Economy, June 2, 2021, available online at: https://roape.net/2021/06/02/when-i-was-a-student-of-fanon-an-interview-with-frej-stambouli/?fbclid=IwAR0cwEZj_iSRnw866OlRp2X4asgV5ZHeTEwvksN1IRhDeDzAjy6KfoZ55Eo. Accessed 6 December 2023.
[21] Tāhir Labīb, “ʿIlm al-Ijtimāʿ fi Tūnis : At-Tadrīs Naṣṣan wa Rūḥan” in Naḥu ʿIlm al-Ijtimāʿ al-ʿArabī (Beirut: Markaz Dirāsāt al-Wiḥdat Al-‘Arabiyya, 1986), p. 328.
[22] Idriss Terranti, “Un Espoir Contrarié, Un Destin à Réaliser. Que Reste-t-Il de Fanon En Algérie ?” Politique Africaine 3, no. 143 (2016): 154.
[23] Muḥammad Bashīr, Madkhal li-Dirāsa ʿIlm al-Ijtimāʿ fi al-Jazāʾir ma bayn 1972-1982, Diwān al-Maṭbūʿāt al-Jāmiʿyya (Algiers, 2004).
[24] Mourad Benachenhou, Vers l’université Algérienne: Réflexions sur une stratégie universitaire, Office des publicaitons universitaires (Algiers, 1980).
[25] François Siino, Science et pouvoir dans la Tunisie contemporaine, Science et pouvoir dans la Tunisie contemporaine, Hommes et sociétés (Aix-en-Provence: Institut de recherches et d’études sur les mondes arabes et musulmans, 2013), 507.
[26] Imed Melliti and Dorra Mahfoud Draoui, “Les Sciences Sociales En Tunisie: Histoire et Enjeux Actuels,” Sociologies Pratiques 3 (2014): 271–80. Melliti and Draoui highlight the role of the CERES (Centre d’Études et de Recherches Économiques et Sociales) in providing expertise for development initiatives. A decree of Semptember 1973 nevertheless afforded the milieu of higher education a relative autonomy from the state.
[27] Mohamed Seddik Benyahia, “Allocation d’ouverture,” in XXIVè Congrès International de Sociologie, Tome 1 (Algiers: Office des Publications Universitaires, 1974), 32–41.
[28] John O’Neil, “Language and Decolonization,” in XXIVè Congrès International de Sociologie, Tome 2, Office des Publications Universitaires, (Algiers, 1974), 1209–21.
[29] Muḥammad Al-Millī, “Fānūn wa al-Fikr al-Gharbī,” Al-Thaqāfa 1 (March 1971): 17.
[30] Abdelkader Djeghloul, “Frantz Fanon: L’ambiguité d’une idéologie tiers-mondiste” (Paris, Université de Paris V, 1971), 339.
[31] Abdelkader Djeghloul, “Introduction à Une Lecture de Frantz Fanon, ” Les Cahiers de la Recherche 1 (1978) : 72-82.
[32] Abdelkader Zghal, “La Participation de La Paysannerie Maghrébine à La Construction Nationale,” La Revue Tunisienne Des Sciences Sociales 22 (1970): 160.
[33] Mohammed Harbi, “Marxistes et Fanonistes au Miroir de l’Histoire,” in Frantz Fanon : Une Pensée Toujours en Acte (Paris : L’Association de Culture Berbère, 2009) : 47-50. Harbi makes a similar point in his postface to the 2002 editions of Les Damnés de la Terre published by La Decouverte.
[34] For some examples of these discussions see Murād Zaʿīmī and Faḍīl Dalīū, ʿIlm Al-Ijtimāʿ min al-Taghrīb ilā al-Taʾṣīl (Constantine: Dār al-Maʿrifa, 1998). Abd Allāh Sharīṭ (Cheriet), Al-Fikr al-Akhlāqī ʿanda Ibn Khaldūn (Algiers: al-Sharikah al-Waṭanīyah lil-Nashr wa-al-Tawzīʻ, 1975).