Sociology in Libyan Universities: From Methodological Stagnation to Active Engagement

This image was conceptually designed and generated using Artificial Intelligence (AI).

How decades of political authoritarianism and academic complacency turned a critical science into a tool for rote memorization, and why we desperately need a Sociology of the Desert.

The discipline of sociology within Libyan universities operates under the systemic hegemony of a single paradigm. This is manifested in the pervasive dominance of quantitative methodology across numerous Master’s and Doctoral studies, where the questionnaire endures as the most ubiquitously deployed instrument.

This phenomenon is not merely confined to research tools; it extends to the very nature of disciplinary formation and curricular content. Despite the multiplicity of departments and their varying nomenclatures, their core theoretical premises and course offerings converge to a significant degree.

While some researchers might misinterpret these characteristics as a sign of program uniformity, a deeper diagnosis highlights an incremental need for diversification and specialization tailored to the geographical context and local specificities.

The Missing Sociology of the Desert

Within this framework, Sebha University prominently underscores the imperative of teaching the Sociology of the Desert and deconstructing the patterns of social relations in the southern regions (Fezzan). These patterns differ structurally from coastal urban centers like Tripoli and Benghazi.

Consequently, it becomes imperative to restructure the curricula to incorporate a core program of mandatory courses that constitute the heart of the discipline, alongside elective or specialized courses directly intertwined with the university’s immediate environment and its specific educational and research needs.

How can a sociology explain a society where religion constitutes the primary catalyst for individual behavior, while politics operates as a direct instrument of hegemony?

Decades of Intellectual Impotence

Most importantly, when dissecting the trajectory of Libyan sociology — established in the mid-1950s — it becomes imperative to scrutinize its actual impact on social and human life in Libya. It would be unjust to absolutely judge the presence or absence of this impact without deconstructing its historical evolution over nearly seventy years.

Nevertheless, the efficacy of this discipline remains intrinsically linked to its temporal alignment with the country’s major historical transformations:

• The Oil Boom: Were there any predictive studies addressing the social impact of oil discovery at its inception, rather than decades later?
• The Regime Shifts: Did we possess studies that monitored the political transition from the monarchy to the republic concurrent with the event itself?
• The 2011 Uprising: Did the academic institution respond by producing sociology intertwined with the 2011 uprising as it unfolded?

The absence of contemporary, real-time studies engaged with reality during these moments of grand historical labor places Libyan sociology beneath the guillotine of critique. It stands accused of being a complacent science that retreats into comfort zones, preferring withdrawal over intellectual confrontation and active engagement with lived reality.

Under the Guillotine of Authoritarianism

Decades of such ongoing complacency were not merely transient choices; rather, they institutionalized deeply entrenched academic norms in teaching and research. This has culminated in a state of cumulative docility and conformity, embodying a traditionalist logic of: This is what we found our forefathers practicing. Consequently, any attempt to break free from this academic cocoon is interpreted as a total departure from sociology itself.

Here, I am reminded of a testimony by a university professor who, when asked how he maintained his academic position despite his opposition to the previous political regime and his classification in its discourse as a reactionary, offered a shocking response: he had deliberately avoided both religion and politics in his sociological theses.

This is precisely where the flaw lies, and we must draw the reader’s attention to it: how can a sociology explain a society where religion constitutes the primary catalyst for individual behavior, while politics operates as a direct instrument of hegemony directing that behavior?

This exclusionary methodology in thought and practice has confined minds within rigid molds, alienating them from keeping pace with any genuine transformations. Consequently, sociology in our universities has devolved into mere texts and verses to be memorized by rote, devoid of contemplation or critique.

In a related context, I recall a personal encounter with a colleague when I urged him that we fulfill our actual role in reviewing the trajectory of this discipline. I handed him a small note outlining issues that required critical review and development; however, he merely scribbled a reply on the back of the same note, stating: Everything is fine, we as educators are performing our duties to the fullest, and consequently, we lacked nothing.

Breaking the Academic Cocoon

This stance lucidly demonstrates that we continue to approach sociology merely through the logic of instructors and rote indoctrination, rather than that of adventurous researchers who engage with society’s issues and problems, deconstruct its phenomena, and test its interpretations.

This reductionism was neither a normal nor a spontaneous trajectory. Instead, it was the reflection of a programmed authoritarian project that primarily targeted disciplines that build minds and possess the tools for sociological diagnosis and analysis.

The practices of evading religion, neutralizing politics, and retreating into the confines of rote education were central components of that project. Furthermore, the arrests and executions carried out by the previous regime within the university campus aimed to frame the social sciences — most notably sociology — forcing them into the shadows and distancing them from any genuine engagement with reality and its major transformations.

Reading this crisis-ridden trajectory compels us to acknowledge that the desired transformation is by no means an easy endeavor. The incident of the university professor who fled his lecture the moment he heard the head of state was on his way to visit the classrooms perfectly epitomizes the state of total impotence and incapacity for confrontation that has plagued this discipline and its research.

A Manifesto for Engaged Sociology

Although some might downplay these behaviors, fondly depicting them as tactical heroism or merely a strategic withdrawal into the safety of rote pedagogy, the mirror of true confrontation slaps us with a harsh realization: these were nothing but manifestations of intellectual impotence and fracture.

Based on this diagnosis, we argue that we are today in dire need of launching a genuine project of confrontation, and instigating a radical reconciliation between researchers in Libyan sociology, their cognitive tools, and their epistemic theories. What is demanded is the reclamation of this epistemic field’s active role toward society, and a transition from the position of a bystander lurking in safe shadows to a posture of active cognitive engagement with reality.

This transformation demands a substantial span of time; it imperatively necessitates the emergence of adventurous researchers who possess the courage to storm the square of complacency, moving from the obscurity of shadows to the hotter lines of engagement with lived reality.

In this context, we need sociologists who are closer in their dynamism to field journalists — monitoring live events and transformations as they unfold — rather than retreating into the regurgitation of obsolete texts and theories, or relying on previous studies that are no longer capable of explaining the intense labors of the contemporary Libyan reality.

Author’s Note: This essay was originally written in Arabic and translated into English using Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools, with the aim of fostering cross-cultural dialogue and global epistemic exchange.