مرکز منطقه ای اطلاع رسانی علوم و فناوری پژوهش سیاست نظری 2008-5796 20 38 2026 2 3 Conceptual History of “Cultural Iran [Īrān-e arhangī]”: From the Imaginary of a Natural Iran to the Imaginary of Iranshahr تاریخ مفهومی ایران فرهنگی: از انگارة ایران طبیعی به انگارة ایرانشهری 57 90 fa سید احمدرضا آزمون دانشگاه تربیت مدرس سید علیرضا حسینی بهشتی دانشگاه تربیت مدرس 2024 12 1 Conceptual History of “Cultural Iran [Īrān-e arhangī]”: From the Imaginary of a Natural Iran to the Imaginary of Iranshahr   Seyyed Ahmad Reza Azmoon<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">*</a> Seyyed Alireza Hosseini Beheshti<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">**</a>   Engaging with the question of what Iran is entails confronting a historical and complex totality. This complexity manifests itself, at the level of representation and language, through a wide range of metaphors, concepts, and propositions that span a polarity from absolute rupture to continuous continuity. With regard to Iran, we are not confronted with a single nationalism, but rather with nationalisms. Diverse forms of nationalism have been identified over recent decades, both within Iran and beyond it, and have at times been subjected to mutual critique. Among these, the various nationalisms articulated in Iran in the forms of romantic, antiquarian, modernist, racial, centralist, Shi‘a-centered, Persian-language–centered, deterritorialized, and Iranshahri nationalism may, in a qualified sense, be situated within a broader category. A distinct subset of these nationalisms is constituted by those who believe in the historical continuity of Iran grounded in culture. These nationalisms, while acknowledging political ruptures in Iranian history, rely on the continuity of Iran as a vast cultural unit. This does not imply homogeneity or unanimity among the diverse groups within this category. Rather, the range of concepts, metaphors, and propositions produced in the works of these continuity-oriented thinkers, despite their convergence and mutual reinforcement, also reveals significant distinctions. Accordingly, the central research question of this study is how what continuity-oriented thinkers refer to as “cultural Iran” became possible and took shape, and how, through a notable synthesis, it came to constitute the core elements of Iranshahri nationalism in the thought of Seyyed Javad Tabataba’i. In the course of this research, it is first demonstrated, in a critical manner, that culture above Iranian history, or “cultural Iran,” as a key concept, has been formed on the basis of multiple discourses. These discourses draw upon diverse sources, ranging from literary and philosophical traditions to modern perspectives on history and society. Consequently, cultural Iran is not merely a cultural–historical concept, but the product of complex intellectual and linguistic interactions. A careful analysis of these interactions contributes to a clearer understanding of the historical trajectory through which this concept emerged. In the thought of continuity-oriented scholars, the concept of “cultural Iran” has, in particular, been transformed into a cultural construct that emphasizes Iran’s cultural continuity. In this sense, cultural Iran is not a clear, explicit, or unambiguous concept; rather, it is one characterized by multiple significations, varied designations, and diverse intuitions, made possible through the interconnection of elements, representations, and individual—and at times collective—perceptions. For this reason, despite the extensive literature produced on the basis of this concept, which continues to expand, ambiguities, latent layers, and unresolved theoretical dimensions—both obscure and illuminating—persist in explaining the implications of this widely used and largely presupposed concept. This construct reaches its fullest articulation in the works of Seyyed Javad Tabataba’i, where it is presented as one of the principal pillars of the Iranshahri theory. Drawing upon Iran’s philosophical, historical, and political heritage, Tabataba’i seeks to introduce the idea of “cultural Iran” as a framework for the reconstruction of national identity. Methodologically, this article employs the analytical tools of conceptual history and historical contextualism in order to highlight and analyze the metaphors, concepts, and propositions produced within the diverse intellectual currents of this group, to demonstrate their points of convergence and divergence, and ultimately to arrive at a clear depiction of the historical formation of the concept of “cultural Iran.”   Keywords: Iranshahri; cultural Iran; contextualism; conceptual history; Seyyed Javad Tabataba’i.   Introduction and Statement of the Argument The present study addresses the question of the possibility of “cultural Iran” not through a normative judgment on the truth or falsity of claims of continuity, but by reconstructing the field in historical–conceptual terms. It demonstrates how “cultural Iran” emerged through the co-presence of heterogeneous layers of language, metaphor, historiographical propositions, and shifts in key vocabularies. In this sense, the point of departure of the article is not “Iran” as a self-evident reality, but rather “conceptions of Iran” as linguistic formations: moments in which Iran is assumed as natural or self-evident, and moments in which Iran is redefined within a conceptual–historical apparatus. The title of the article (“From the Concept of Natural Iran to the Concept of Iranshahr”) directly marks this transition: a transition from the naturalization of continuity (as if cultural Iran were something above history, requiring no conceptualization and accessible only through intuition) toward a philosophical–historical formulation of continuity in the theory of “Iranshahr,” where continuity becomes a conceptual problem requiring a system of concepts and a philosophy-of-history narrative.   Methodology The methodology of the article is based on the combination of two analytical tools: conceptual history, understood as the tracing of temporal sediments, shifts in meaning, and changes in the fields of application of concepts over long durations; and historical contextualism, understood as situating propositions within networks of polemics, intentions, and discursive positions of authors. Accordingly, the article traces concepts such as “Iran,” “Iranian-ness,” “the national,” “patriotism,” “the Iranian spirit,” “Iranian Islam,” “renaissance/revival,” “empire,” and ultimately “Iranshahr” along the trajectories of their semantic transformations. At the same time, it shows in what historical contexts, with what polemical intentions, and in response to which controversies each of these concepts and metaphors was deployed. Within this framework, metaphor is not merely a literary device, but one of the key instruments for the transition from experience to concept: a site where continuity-oriented discourse, in order to stabilize a form of transhistorical persistence, resorts to metaphors such as “granite,” “the cypress,” “the phoenix,” or “spirit,” thereby representing continuity simultaneously as natural, enigmatic, and enduring.   Background, Trajectory, and Findings of the Argument The argumentative trajectory of the article is organized, in condensed form, in several steps. First, the field of the rupture/continuity debate in studies of Iranian identity is mapped, showing how the rupture-oriented pole understands “national identity” as a product of modernity, while the continuity-oriented pole, while acknowledging political ruptures, regards culture as the carrier of continuity. The article then demonstrates that “cultural Iran,” as a macro-concept, did not emerge from a single source or a unified tradition, but rather from the synergistic convergence of several currents: (1) orientalist traditions and the formulation of the “cultural nation” in contrast to the “political nation”; (2) the centrality of the Persian language and literature, with Shahnameh studies and the construction of the Shahnameh as a foundational text of national consciousness; (3) theorization of the “Iranian spirit/mind/art” and the attribution of overarching cultural qualities (such as tolerance, chivalry, forbearance, or the rigidity of the Iranian spirit) to a historical continuity; and (4) models of continuity articulated through notions such as the “triumph of the vanquished over the victor,” Iranian revivals, the institution of kingship, and theories of “Iranian Islam” that explain Iran through the amalgamation or indigenization of religious and political elements. In the next step, the article shows that despite converging on the same outcome (cultural continuity), each of these currents differs in terms of conceptual logic and implicit implications, and in some respects even becomes mutually incompatible. For example, in readings that describe Iranian patriotism as “natural,” continuity is understood as a kind of fixed essence or innate disposition; whereas in readings that link continuity to the “political nature of language” and “cultural resistance,” continuity is not an essence but a historical strategy under conditions of state absence or political defeat. Likewise, in theories of “Iranian Islam,” emphasis sometimes falls on the contribution of Iranians to Islam, and at other times on the influence of non-Iranian elements (for example, Christianity) on intellectual transformations within the Islamic world. This divergence itself indicates that “cultural Iran” is less a clear concept than a contested field of narratives. The focal point of the article is to show how this heterogeneous accumulation reaches a relatively coherent formulation in the thought of Seyyed Javad Tabataba’i. The central argument of this section is that Tabataba’i, as a theorist of “decline” and the “problem of Iran,” reorganizes the scattered elements of cultural Iran at a philosophical–historical level and stitches them together within the metaphor–concept of “Iranshahr.” In this framework, Iranshahr simultaneously represents unity in plurality, bears the historical continuity of Greater cultural Iran, and serves as a conceptual vessel linking nation, state, language, tradition, and textual heritage. In this way, the article shows that “cultural Iran” in Tabataba’i’s work is transformed from a descriptive claim into a theoretical project: a project that seeks, through intervention in the concepts of historiography and philosophy of history, to conceptualize Iran’s past as the necessary “material” for explaining decline and the possibility of reconstituting the national order. The findings of the article can be summarized in several concise conclusions. First, “cultural Iran” is not a natural given, but a conceptual–historical construct made possible through a network of metaphors, narratives, and semantic shifts; therefore, its analysis without attention to language and conceptual history inevitably leads to naturalization or hasty judgments. Second, cultural continuity-oriented thought, despite its seemingly homogeneous appearance, is theoretically fragmented: some versions rely on essence or spirit, others on language and literature, others on imperial political models, and still others on the synthesis of Iran and Islam. “Cultural Iran” takes shape precisely at the level of the co-presence of these versions. Third, Tabataba’i’s theory should be understood as the moment of “cohesion” and “philosophization” of this dispersion: by transforming cultural continuity into a philosophy-of-history problem and centering it on Iranshahr, he enables disparate elements to be presented within a single explanatory grand narrative, even though this process necessarily involves selection, omission, and redefinition of certain layers. Fourth, the transition from “natural Iran” to “Iranshahr” ultimately signifies a shift from dispersed intuitions to a conceptual apparatus, one in which cultural Iran is no longer merely a “glorious memory” or a “sense of continuity,” but is articulated through concepts such as tradition, text, unity in plurality, and a history of decline.   Conclusion The overall conclusion of the article is that a historical understanding of “cultural Iran” requires viewing this concept not as a self-evident referent, but as a conceptual field of contestation: a field in which orientalist, nationalist, literary, religious, and philosophical narratives converge, compete, and ultimately achieve a degree of coherence in contemporary theoretical projects, most notably in Iranshahri theory. From this perspective, the present study, by foregrounding the conceptual genealogy of “cultural Iran” and demonstrating the linguistic mechanisms of its production, provides the conditions for a more precise and less ambiguous dialogue on cultural continuity-oriented thought, its limits, and its relationship to the modern problem of nation and state.   Refrences Adamiyat, Fereydun (1970) Andi&scaron;ehā-ye Mirzā Fathʿali-ye Akhundzādeh. Tehran: ķārazmi. [In Persian] Christensen, Arthur (2010) “Ferdausi et l'épopée nationale de la Perse”, In Millennium of Firdowsi, by Mohammad Amin Riahi, Publications of the Iranian Society for the Promotion of Persian Language and Literature. Gobineau, Arthur de. [n.d.]. Les religions et les philosophies dans l'Asie centrale (trans. into Persian). [In Persian] Gobineau, Arthur, comte de (1859) Trois ans en Asie (de 1855 à 1858), Paris, L. Hachette et cie Koselleck, Reinhart (2002) The Practice of Conceptual History, translated by Tod Samuel Presner and others, Standford: Satndford University Press. doi:10.1515/9781503619104 ------------------------ (2004) Future Past, translated by Keith Tribe, New York: Columbia University Press. Marashi, A. (2008), Nationalizing Iran: Culture, power, and the state, 1870-1940. University of Washington Press.doi:10.1080/S0021086200050088 ------------- (2015) “Bombay Books: Ebrahim Pouredavoud and Parsis ,” Iran Nameh, 30:3, 86-96. Matin-Asgari, A. (2012) “The Academic Debate on Iranian Identity”, In: Amanat, A., Vejdani, F, (eds) Iran Facing Others, Palgrave Macmillan, New York. doi:10.1080/00210862.2012.758513 Margoliouth, D.S. (1937) “Introductory note to: The Renaissance of Islam”, by Adam Mez, The Jubilee Printing and Publishing House. &Scaron;irāzi, Asghar. 1396. Irāniyat, Melliyat, Jāmeʿat. Tehran: Jahān-e Ketāb. [In Persian] Tabatabāʾi, Javad (2018) Taʿammoli darbāreh-ye Irān: Dibāčeʾi bar Nazariye-ye Enheṭāt-e Irān. Tehran: Minu-ye Kherad. [In Persian] Tavakoli-Tarāghi, Mohammad. 1395. Tajaddod-e Bumi va Bāz-andi&scaron;i-ye Tāriķ. Pardis-e Dāne&scaron;. [In Persian] Vaziri, Mostafa (2013) Iran as Imagined Nation, Gorgias Press, 2013. doi: 10.31826/9781463235567         <a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">* </a>Corresponding Author: Ph.D. in Political Thought, Faculty of Humanities, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran. <a href="mailto:Ahmadreza.azmoon90@gmail.com">Ahmadreza.azmoon90@gmail.com</a> https://orcid.org/0009-0007-5174-3671 <a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">** </a>Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Faculty of Humanities, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran. <a href="mailto:a.hosseinibeheshti@modares.ac.ir">a.hosseinibeheshti@modares.ac.ir</a> <a href="https://orcid.org/0009-0007-5174-3671">https://orcid.org/0009-0007-5174-3671</a> مواجهه با چیستی ایران، مواجهه با کلیتی تاریخی و پیچیده است. این پیچیدگی در حیطة بازنمایی و زبان، خود را در قامت انواع استعاره&zwnj;ها و مفاهیم و گزاره&zwnj;هایی نشان می&zwnj;دهد که قطبیتی از گسستِ مطلق تا تداومی پیوسته را نمایندگی می&zwnj;کنند. تا جایی که به ایران برمی&zwnj;گردد، ما نه با ناسیونالیسم، که با ناسیونالیسم&zwnj;ها مواجهایم. اشکال متنوعی از ناسیونالیسم&zwnj;ها در طول تحقیقات دهه&zwnj;های اخیر، در ایران و خارج آن معرفی شده و گه&zwnj;گاه به نقد هم سپرده شده است. در این میان اما آنچه در ایران در هیئت انواعی از ناسیونالیسم رومانتیک، باستان&zwnj;گرا، تجددگرا، نژادگرا، مرکزگرا، شیعه&zwnj;گرا، زبان &zwnj;فارسی&zwnj;گرا، «بی&zwnj;جاساز» و ایرانشهری صورت&zwnj;بندی شده است، به اعتباری در چنین دستهای جای می&zwnj;گیرد. دسته&zwnj;ای مشخص از این ناسیونالیسم&zwnj;ها را باورمندان به تداوم ایران در تاریخ به اتکای فرهنگ شکل می&zwnj;دهند. این ناسیونالیسم&zwnj;ها با اذعان به گسست&zwnj;های ایران از منظر سیاسی، به تداوم ایران در مقامِ یک واحد بزرگ فرهنگی اتکا دارند. این البته به&zwnj; معنای یک&zwnj;دستی و هم&zwnj;رأیی گروههای متنوع این دسته نیست و گسترة مفاهیم و استعاره&zwnj;ها و گزاره&zwnj;های تولیدشده در آثار این تداوم&zwnj;باوران در عینِ هم&zwnj;گرایی و هم&zwnj;افزایی، نشان از تمایزهای چشمگیری دارد. از این&zwnj;رو پرسش پژوهش حاضر این است که آنچه تداوم&zwnj;باوران از آن با مفهوم «ایران فرهنگی» یاد می&zwnj;کنند، چگونه ممکن شده و تکوین یافته است و در برآیندی قابل&zwnj; تأمل به مواد اصلی برسازندة ناسیونالیسم «ایرانشهری» نزد سید جواد طباطبایی رسیده است. در طول این پژوهش، ابتدا و به شکلی انتقادی مشخص می&zwnj;شود که فرهنگِ بر فرازِ تاریخ ایران یا «ایران فرهنگی» به &zwnj;عنوان مفهومی کلیدی، بر مبنای گفتمان&zwnj;های متنوعی شکل گرفته است. این گفتمان&zwnj;ها از منابع مختلفی تغذیه شده&zwnj;اند؛ از سنت&zwnj;های ادبی و فلسفی گرفته تا دیدگاه&zwnj;های نوین در باب تاریخ و جامعه. از این&zwnj;رو ایران فرهنگی نه&zwnj;تنها یک مفهوم فرهنگی- تاریخی، بلکه محصول تعاملات پیچیدة فکری و زبانی است. تحلیل دقیق این تعاملات به روشن&zwnj;تر شدن مسیر تاریخی شکل&zwnj;گیری این مفهوم کمک می&zwnj;کند. در واقع مفهوم «ایران فرهنگی» در نزد تداوم&zwnj;باوران به &zwnj;طور خاص به یک سازة فرهنگی تبدیل شده است که بر پیوستگی فرهنگی ایران تأکید دارد. در این معنا، ایران فرهنگی نه یک مفهوم روشن، صریح و خالی از ابهام، که در حقیقت مفهومی است با دلالت&zwnj;های کثیر، نام&zwnj;های متفاوت و شهودهای گوناگون که از مجرای به &zwnj;هم &zwnj;پیوستن عناصر، انگاره&zwnj;ها و دریافت&zwnj;های فردی و گاه جمعی امکان&zwnj;پذیر شده است. بدین &zwnj;اعتبار و به&zwnj;رغم ادبیات گسترده&zwnj;ای که به اتکای این مفهوم تولیده شده و هر دم بیش از پیش نیز تولید می&zwnj;شود، کماکان ابهام&zwnj;ها، لایه&zwnj;های ناپیدا و سویه&zwnj;های تاریک &zwnj;و&zwnj; روشنی از حیث نظری در توضیح چندوچون دلالت&zwnj;های این مفهوم پربسامد و تاحد زیادی مفروض&zwnj;انگاشته وجود دارد. این سازه در آثار سید جواد طباطبایی به اوج خود رسیده و به &zwnj;عنوان یکی از ارکان اصلی نظریة ایرانشهری مطرح شده است. طباطبایی با بهره&zwnj;گیری از میراث فلسفی، تاریخی و سیاسی ایران، تلاش کرده است تا ایدة «ایران فرهنگی» را به &zwnj;عنوان بستری برای بازآفرینی هویت ملی معرفی کند. در این مقاله، از منظر روشی، از ابزار تحلیلی تاریخ مفهوم&zwnj;ها و بافت&zwnj;گرایی تاریخی استفاده شده است تا استعاره&zwnj;ها و مفاهیم و گزاره&zwnj;های تولیدشده در جریان&zwnj;های فکری متنوعِ این گروه برجسته و تحلیل شود و هم&zwnj;گرایی&zwnj;ها و واگرایی&zwnj;هایش نشان داده شود تا در پایان، تصویری روشن از تاریخ تکوین مفهوم «ایران فرهنگی» به &zwnj;دست آید.

http://political.ihss.ac.ir/fa/Article/Download/48736