The Other Capital

by Dr. Souaiaia

Ibn Khaldun and the Enduring Power of Jaah as Social Capital

This essay revisits Ibn Khaldun’s 14th-century concept of jaah—a form of social capital rooted in prestige, reputation, and moral authority—as a powerful counterpoint to conventional understandings of capital as purely financial. Drawing on his Muqaddima, the essay argues that jaah constitutes a resilient, intergenerational, and often more enduring form of power than material wealth, as it cannot be seized by the state, purchased with money, or easily eroded by time. By highlighting the asymmetrical relationship between financial resources and social influence, the article underscores Ibn Khaldun’s enduring relevance to contemporary debates on power, legitimacy, and the multifaceted nature of capital.

When the term capital is invoked in contemporary discourse, it is most commonly associated with financial assets—money, gold, real estate, or even digital currencies such as Bitcoin. In this conventional understanding, capital functions as the engine of markets, the foundation of empires, and the medium through which influence is purchased and exercised. Yet such a narrow conception obscures a more expansive and historically grounded understanding of capital as a multifaceted form of power. Indeed, capital, in its broadest theoretical sense, encompasses not only economic resources but also the social, cultural, and symbolic assets that enable individuals and groups to exert influence, secure loyalty, and shape collective outcomes.

Centuries before the advent of modern sociology or economic theory, the 14th-century North African historian, philosopher, and statesman, Ibn Khaldun, articulated a sophisticated understanding of non-material capital in his seminal work, al-Muqaddima. One of the themes that were present in his analysis of social structures was the concept of jaah—a form of social capital often captured by words like prestige, reputation, clout, and moral authority, underscoring its complex meaning and functions throughout time and across cultures. Unlike financial capital, which is quantifiable and transactional, jaah operates through intangible yet deeply consequential mechanisms: it commands respect, inspires loyalty, and grants access to networks and opportunities that cannot be acquired through monetary exchange alone. For Ibn Khaldun, jaah represented a distinct and often superior form of power—one that transcended the volatility of material wealth and endured through generations.

A critical distinction Ibn Khaldun drew lies in the vulnerability of material capital versus the resilience of jaah. Financial assets, however substantial, remain subject to external contingencies: markets collapse, political regimes shift, and wars disrupt economies. A merchant’s fortune may be confiscated by the state; an inheritance may be squandered within a generation. Material capital, by its very nature, is perishable. Jaah, by contrast, is remarkably resistant to such vicissitudes. Attempts by political authorities to suppress or discredit individuals endowed with jaah often prove counterproductive. Rather than diminishing their standing, such opposition can amplify their moral authority and reinforce their social legitimacy. In this paradoxical dynamic, jaah not only withstands pressure but may even be strengthened by it—a phenomenon that underscores its non-material, relational character.

Moreover, jaah possesses a generational durability that financial capital frequently lacks. While monetary wealth may dissipate through mismanagement, taxation, or economic downturns, the social capital embodied in jaah can be transmitted across generations through lineage, name, and collective memory. Children may not inherit their parents’ bank accounts, but they often inherit their social standing, networks of influence, and reputational capital. This intergenerational transmission constitutes a quiet yet potent form of legacy. A once-prosperous merchant who dies in debt leaves behind little more than liabilities; a person with jaah, however, bequeaths a reservoir of trust, respect, and communal recognition that continues to confer advantage long after their death.

Perhaps most significantly, Ibn Khaldun observed an asymmetrical relationship between material wealth and jaah: while money cannot purchase genuine social prestige, jaah attracts material resources. Ibn Khaldun noted that wealthy individuals and skilled craftsmen would freely give and perform work for a person with jaah, just to be connected with him. Consequently,  as a result of freely given gifts, labor, and resources, individuals endowed with jaah do not necessarily seek wealth, yet they find it drawn to them. Affluent patrons may offer financial support, favors, or alliances in hopes of associating with someone of high moral or social standing, thereby enhancing their own legitimacy. This dynamic reveals a subtle but powerful logic of social exchange: proximity to persons with jaah functions as a form of symbolic capital that elevates the status of those connected to it. Conversely, the wealthy who lack jaah—those whose influence is derived solely from their bank balances—rarely succeed in converting their financial resources into authentic respect or enduring loyalty. Money may open doors, but only jaah ensures that one is welcomed once inside.

In an era dominated by metrics of GDP, stock valuations, and net worth, Ibn Khaldun’s insights offer a timely corrective to the reductive equation of power with wealth. His concept of jaah anticipates later sociological formulations of social capital, notably those advanced by Pierre Bourdieu and James Coleman, who similarly emphasized the role of networks, trust, and reputation in shaping social outcomes. Yet Ibn Khaldun’s contribution is distinctive in its historical depth, ethical dimension, and recognition of the moral foundations of influence. For him, jaah was not merely a strategic asset but a reflection of character, wisdom, and service to the community, in very modern terms and in the language of the youth of the 21st century, it is clout.

Viewed through a systems thinking framework, jaah exemplifies a form of power that is not intrinsic to the individual but emerges from the dynamic interplay of multiple social, cultural, and historical subsystems. Rather than residing solely within a person—as wealth or formal office might appear to do—jaah is co-constituted by the community, institutions, collective memory, and normative frameworks that recognize and validate an individual’s standing. This aligns with a core principle in systems thinking: that real, enduring power is external to the agent and arises from the relational structures in which that agent is embedded. In other words, jaah is not “possessed” in the way one possesses gold or a title; it is conferred, sustained, and amplified by a network of social feedback loops—trust, deference, shared values, and historical narratives—that operate beyond the control of any single actor.

This systemic externality renders jaah both more stable and more legitimate than forms of power derived from coercion or accumulation. Because it depends on the ongoing recognition of others, jaah cannot be unilaterally asserted or revoked by state decree or economic maneuvering. Attempts to suppress it often trigger reinforcing feedback within the social system—solidarity, mythmaking, or moral outrage—that further entrenches the individual’s standing. Thus, jaah functions not as a static attribute but as a dynamic equilibrium within a complex adaptive system, where legitimacy is continuously negotiated and reproduced through everyday interactions, institutional practices, and cultural memory. Its resilience lies precisely in its distributed nature: it lives not in the bank vault or the throne room, but in the collective consciousness of the community—a testament to the idea that the most durable forms of power are those granted, not taken.

Ultimately, Ibn Khaldun’s framework compels us to reconsider the nature of power in human societies. It is not always the wealthiest who wield the greatest influence and it is not most authoritarian who commands power; rather those whose presence shapes norms, inspires action, and commands voluntary allegiance. In this light, jaah emerges not as a relic of medieval thought but as a vital conceptual tool for understanding the enduring role of non-material capital in contemporary social, political, and economic life. To recognize jaah is to acknowledge that the most formidable forms of power are often those that cannot be counted—but are nonetheless deeply felt.