Historicism and coordinate origin: who defines the problem, and from which coordinates does Arab history become a case of historical belatedness?
This examination distinguishes the Intellectual Modeling Methodology (MANHAJ) as a tool for examining intellectual systems from Abdallah Laroui’s project, in which historicism and historical belatedness occupy a central place. The purpose is not to rank the two projects, but to examine the structure that determines where the problem is located, which standard is used to judge it, and in what direction the inquiry moves.
Laroui’s project has been associated, from its early works, with historicism and with questions of modernity and historical belatedness. His critique of contemporary Arab ideology and his use of historical analysis in approaching social and political questions are central elements of this orientation. His work The Crisis of the Arab Intellectuals, for example, addresses the tension between tradition and historicism and places the concept of history at the center of his reading of modern Arab thought.
MANHAJ therefore raises the prior question: Who determined that Arab history contains a problem requiring treatment? Who determined that the tool used to examine that problem is the appropriate one? And what reference made it possible to define the problem in that form in the first place? Before examining the conclusions reached by an inquiry, MANHAJ examines the coordinate origin that defines the object of inquiry, the tool through which it is examined, and the standard by which its results are assessed.
The examination does not begin by asking whether the diagnosis is correct, but by asking what reference made a particular subject a problem in the first place. Once Arab history and historical belatedness become the focus of cognitive activity, MANHAJ asks: what coordinate origin assigns the problem this position?
Calling a historical condition “belated” presupposes a standard of comparison and a direction of movement. MANHAJ therefore does not stop at the concept of belatedness; it examines the coordinates that give it meaning: what is the reference, what is the trajectory, and what conception of progress makes an earlier or later historical time evaluable?
If Arab history is made the object of examination and critique, the next methodological question is whether modern Western history and the system that produced the standard of modernity are subjected to the same examination. MANHAJ does not decide the answer in advance; it makes the symmetry of the direction of inquiry itself an object of examination.
The question of history carries particular weight in Laroui’s project. Studies of his work emphasize his connection with historicism and his attempt to understand social and political problems within their historical conditions. His early work is also associated with diagnosing what he calls historical or cultural belatedness in the context of his critique of Arab thought.
The methodological issue comes before accepting or rejecting the use of history: Who decided that Arab history contains a problem requiring treatment? By what tool was the existence of this problem established? What makes that tool valid for judging it? If inquiry begins from a prior diagnosis that there is a problem in Arab history, MANHAJ returns the examination to the point of departure: where did this diagnosis come from, and where did the validity of the tool and standard used to establish it come from?
The examination then moves to the direction of inquiry: if Arab history has been identified as the site of the problem, was modern Western history, together with the system in which the standard of modernity was formed, subjected to the same question? If not, what coordinates account for the difference in the object and direction of examination?
These four axes do not reduce Laroui’s project; they identify the questions MANHAJ adds when examining the position and coordinates of the cognitive act.
His project starts from questions of history, modernity, and belatedness, and treats understanding the Arab present as inseparable from its historical trajectory. In his early work, historicism becomes a central instrument for understanding the condition and problems of Arab thought.
It moves the question one level backward: why was this particular history selected as the site of the problem? What coordinate origin made that designation possible? The selection of the problem itself becomes part of the object of examination.
In his project, historical or cultural belatedness is linked to the condition of Arab culture and its relation to modernity. History functions as an instrument for explaining differences between distinct historical situations.
It examines the coordinate of belatedness itself: what reference point makes a time “late”? What is the direction of movement? What rule permits the comparison? The meaning is not extracted from the word “belatedness” alone, but from its coordinate within the domain.
His project does not stop at describing a temporal difference. It moves toward a critique of tradition and certain modes of thought, and toward modernization, rationalization, and the assimilation of the conditions of the modern age. Here, the content of the historical structure becomes part of the problem.
Before judging that content, it asks: where did the standard by which this content is judged come from? Is the standard derived from within the field being examined, or from another field? Was the coordinate origin that produced the evaluative standard itself examined?
His project is tied to modernity and historical method, and it discusses the relation of Arab thought to the European experience and modern historical transformations. The relation to the West remains part of the problem addressed, rather than a simple position of acceptance or rejection.
It asks not only what Laroui says about the West, but whether the cognitive act moves symmetrically in both directions. Does modern Western history, and the system that produced the standard of modernity, become an object of examination from the same coordinate origin? If the direction differs, what accounts for that difference?
The examination of Laroui shows a shift from history as an object to the coordinates that determine how history becomes an object of problematization and judgment. Laroui makes historicism and historical method central tools for understanding the Arab present and links belatedness to historical context and to the transformations that distinguish the modern age.
MANHAJ adds a foundational question: once Arab history becomes the problem, where did the definition of the problem itself come from? Once belatedness becomes a standard, where did the coordinate of belatedness come from? Once a particular historical content becomes an object of supersession, where did the standard of judgment come from?
The question then advances to the direction of inquiry: is the source from which the standard of modernity or progress is derived subjected to the same examination as Arab history? Symmetry or asymmetry in examination, and the coordinate origin from which it is organized, are themselves examinable elements of the cognitive act.
At this point the analysis may reveal, if the evidence establishes it, coordinate dependence: the cognitive act may be moving within a field whose coordinate origin, standard, and direction were defined beforehand, without making those determinants themselves objects of foundational examination. The conclusion would then be derived from the structure of the project as revealed by the analysis.
The question therefore becomes: Who determined that Arab history is the site of the problem? Who determined the tool that reveals this problem? Where did the standard of belatedness come from, and on what basis did that standard become valid for judgment? And did the same examination extend to the coordinate origin that produced these coordinates? Answering these questions determines the outcome of the examination, including whether the cognitive act has established coordinate independence or remains in motion within coordinates that precede it.