مرکز منطقه ای اطلاع رسانی علوم و فناوریپژوهش سیاست نظری2008-57962038202623A Reading of the Relationship between Philosophical and Political Dynamism in the Thought of Darius Shayeganخوانش نسبت ديناميسم فلسفی و سیاسی در آرای «داريوش شايگان»128faبهراماخوان کاظمیاستاد تمام، گروه علوم سیاسی، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه شیراز، ایران 0000-0003-3869-0257 فرزانه الساداتکمیلیدانشجوی دکتری اندیشه سیاسی، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه شیراز، ایران 000000026555565120231211A Reading of the Relationship between Philosophical and Political Dynamism in the Thought of Darius Shayegan   Bahram Akhavan Kazemi<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">*</a> Farzaneh Sadat Komeili<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">**</a>   The correspondence or lack of correspondence between philosophical and political paradigms within the epistemic constellation of thinkers is a profound issue that motivated the authors to examine this question in the thought of Darius Shayegan. Shayegan’s intellectual life is structured into three distinct periods, each of which—and its corresponding philosophical and political implications—has been analytically explored. Within this three-stage dynamism, Shayegan first, through works such as Asia versus the West, Mental Idols and Eternal Memory, and Corbin: The Horizons of Spiritual Thought, introduces the notion of the “in-between human” and articulates his concern regarding the encounter between East and West, emphasizing the decline of spirituality. He maintains that Shi‘ism constitutes the most fundamental identity-forming factor; therefore, the clergy are regarded as the most suitable agents for guiding political life. In the second phase, as reflected in What Is a Religious Revolution?, The Broken Gaze, and Under the Skies of the World, Shayegan expresses his concern over the fusion of ideology and religion through the figure of the “ideological human,”and identifies the“differentiating human” as a means of escaping cultural schizophrenia. During this period, Shayegan’s anti-Marxist and anti-revolutionary orientations become clearly evident. In the third phase, articulated in New Enchantment, The Merging of Horizons, and Five Climates of Presence, Shayegan, by acknowledging the exigencies of the age of globalization, introduces the “playful subject” as a subject capable of transcending boundaries. He also presents democracy as the best available political model, insofar as it provides the conditions necessary for dialogue and tolerance.   Keywords: Darius Shayegan; philosophical and political dynamism; the in-between human; the ideological human; the playful subject.   Introduction In intellectual–political studies, later thinkers, in comparison with earlier ones, often offer more accurate interpretations of contemporary developments, owing to their direct engagement with and lived experience of present-day exigencies. Among such late modern thinkers who possessed both a remarkable command of the treasury of human knowledge and a keen understanding of contemporaneity was the late Darius Shayegan.Darius Shayegan was a thinker with a free spirit who could not tolerate confinement within fixed and rigid frameworks, nor the abandonment of intellectual exploration. As he states in Under the Skies of the World: “I do not like to confine or bind myself within any domain whatsoever. I have always wished to pass from one boundary to another, for I constantly fear paths that are already trodden and worn. Any doctrine or teaching, insofar as it constitutes a closed system, suffocates me.” In this article, the method of data collection is documentary research. The data-gathering instruments in the documentary method include all printed sources such as books, encyclopedias, journals, newspapers, weeklies, periodicals, dictionaries, printed interviews, academic journals, conference proceedings, indexed texts available in databases and on the internet, and any identifiable and citable source containing material related to Darius Shayegan.In order to explicate the trajectory of his thought, his views are structured into three distinct periods. The events of each period, the thinkers who inspired him, as well as the intellectual dimensions and political considerations characterizing each phase, will be examined and analyzed. Through this approach, the philosophical dynamism embedded in Shayegan’s thought will be elucidated.   The First Phase of Shayegan’s Thought (1960s–1970s) In the first phase of his intellectual development, Shayegan’s principal intellectual references include Nietzsche, Heidegger, Jaspers, Tillich, Guénon, Ortega y Gasset, and Jung. His strong inclination toward mystical and spiritual discussions even led to his interest in Jung and the latter’s school of psychology. Shayegan studied with Allameh Tabataba’i, benefited from the teachings of Rafi‘i Qazvini and Mehdi Elahi Qomsha’i, and established close intellectual and personal relations with Seyyed Jalal Ashtiani and Seyyed Hossein Nasr. He also regularly attended the sessions of Allameh Tabataba’i and Henry Corbin.Shi‘i thought and Islamic mysticism constituted the most important foundations shaping Shayegan’s intellectual outlook during this period. Asia versus the West, centered on the dualism between East and West, became Shayegan’s most significant work in the first phase of his thought. This was perhaps due to the prevailing anti-Western atmosphere within society, which welcomed any work written even in critique of the West. Consequently, the West was evaluated as an aggressive civilization that endangered our heritage and therefore had to be avoided rather than embraced.Shayegan elaborates on the notion of the interregnum as the historical destiny of ancient civilizations in their encounter with modernity. He argues that a double illusion, itself born of two assumptions, manifests in the two negative forms of Westoxication and self-alienation, thereby giving rise to the period of interregnum. Shayegan initially conceptualizes his central concern in terms of the decline of spirituality. Since nihilism is a global process that has also penetrated the East, it has led to the decline of Eastern spirituality as well.Shayegan’s initial solution to the crisis of spirituality is resistance to modernity and its essence, namely nihilism. Our task in this condition is to safeguard identity, primordial memory, and inherited tradition against the onslaught of Western thought; to preserve the core of identity, the entrusted burden, and complete fidelity to it—in other words, to preserve Asia in the face of the West.   The Second Phase of Shayegan’s Thought (1980s) Following the victory of the Islamic Revolution, Shayegan came to realize that ideology is the illegitimate offspring of the Enlightenment, and that the new form of despotism does not arise from religion, tradition, culture, or even the shari‘a, but rather from the ideologicalization of tradition—an essentially modern and profoundly contemporary phenomenon. While acknowledging the flexibility and adaptability of cultures and civilizations, he rejected the view that the West was in decline and should therefore be abandoned. Instead, he arrived at the conviction that “today, the problems of the West are no longer confined to the West; they have become planetary problems. They are our problems as well. The value of our age lies precisely in the fact that crises can only be resolved through the convergence of efforts from all sides.”Shayegan’s understanding of modernity takes the form of critical thought, which, while recognizing the achievements and advantages of this fundamental transformation, does not overlook its shortcomings. “Cultural schizophrenia” and “withdrawal into the shell of the self,” two terms coined by Shayegan, refer to the condition of inhabiting two ontological realms simultaneously and being unable to distinguish between them. Especially in an age of plurality and cultural hybridity, in which new ideas constantly overflow, the preservation of a coherent sense of existence becomes increasingly difficult. From Shayegan’s perspective, the problem of non-Western societies lies in conceptual confusion and cultural schizophrenia, whereas the problem of Western societies is the crisis of spirituality.Shayegan characterizes the human of this second phase as the “ideological human,” one who unconsciously merges two contradictory epistemic paradigms. He refers to this unconscious act of fusion as unconscious Westoxication. In Shayegan’s view, “these two terms (revolution and Islam) have no ontological kinship with one another. Each moves within a different galaxy. Their points of reference and the axes around which they revolve possess distinct colors and qualities. Revolution is a human, historical, Western, and negative idea and experience, whereas Islam and the Abrahamic tradition are grounded in submission to the One God, derived from revelation and prophecy, and regard the human being as shaped by an eternal will and a pre-creation plan, bearing the vicegerency and the entrusted burden.”   The Third Phase of Shayegan’s Thought (1990s–2000s) In the third phase, Shayegan, earlier than most Iranian thinkers, turns his attention to the “Other,” which he regards as the foundation and cornerstone of the future world. For Shayegan, dialogue constitutes the sole path toward realizing such a world. In New Enchantment, he comes to terms with the condition of cultural schizophrenia and, in embracing pluralism, expresses hope that spirituality can be preserved within modernity—a spirituality that no longer necessarily belongs to Iran, Islam, or the East. “Cultural mosaic” is the term Darius Shayegan employs to describe the cultural condition of societies in the contemporary world. The concept of the cultural mosaic refers to the expansion of communications, interactions, and cultural exchanges in light of the growth and spread of technological and communicative tools. According to Shayegan, modernity addresses only the legal, political, and economic frameworks of human life, while the inner dimensions of existence remain beyond its reach. He thus considers Eastern mysticism as a potential solution to the problems of the modern world. Modernity has neglected vast areas of our existential domain, and the spirituality entrusted within religions is capable of filling this void. Shayegan states that there is nothing surprising about his belief in democracy; he supports democracy because he knows of no alternative to it. Moreover, as someone who embraces multiplicity of thought, he values diverse opinions and their plurality. “A single party,” he remarks, “resembles a single political soul, which, no matter how elevated or noble, fills me with fear and trembling. I harbor a natural aversion to any reductive or simplifying tendency.”   Conclusion In conclusion, and by way of synthesis, it should be stated that by presenting a threefold formulation of the intellectual dynamism of Darius Shayegan, this article situates him, in the first phase, as a thinker inspired by figures such as Nietzsche, Heidegger, Jung, Henry Corbin, Allameh Tabataba’i, and Seyyed Hossein Nasr—an influence that strengthened his inclination toward mysticism and his critical stance toward modernity. One of Shayegan’s most fundamental intellectual concerns during this period is the decline of spirituality in the West and its critical examination. The “in-between human” is Shayegan’s own term for a subject situated in a condition that is neither purely Eastern nor purely Western, yet simultaneously both Eastern and Western. Politically, Shayegan in this phase maintains that the ever-flowing spring of Shi‘ism has historically served as the principal source of Iranian identity and that today as well, the guardians of this spring—namely the clergy—are entrusted with the administration of the political sphere. The views of this intellectual phase are most clearly articulated in the works Asia versus the West, Mental Idols and Eternal Memory, and Corbin: The Horizons of Spiritual Thought. In the second phase of Shayegan’s intellectual life, his central concern shifts from the East–West dichotomy to the tradition–modernity dichotomy. In this reorientation, he distances himself from figures such as Jalal Al-e Ahmad and Ali Shariati, while maintaining a clear separation from Marxist and revolutionary thought. The most significant event shaping this second phase is the Islamic Revolution. Shayegan subjects this event to profound questioning in the book What Is a Religious Revolution?, arguing that revolution and religion are incommensurable concepts whose coexistence is practically impossible, and identifying ideologization as the principal pathology of their forced conjunction. The duality of the ideological human and the differentiating human is emphasized by Shayegan to underscore the dangers of ideology and its diffusion within the social realm. Subsequently, The Broken Gaze and Under the Skies of the World further complete the contours of this second intellectual phase by introducing concepts such as cultural schizophrenia and conceptual confusion to explain the prevailing condition. The third and final phase of Shayegan’s intellectual trajectory is shaped by postmodern influences. Through works such as New Enchantment, The Merging of Horizons, and Five Climates of Presence, Shayegan seeks to highlight the exigencies of the age of globalization and the dissolution of boundaries in thought, art, and technology. In such a world, the playful subject emerges—a subject constantly engaged in boundary-crossing experiences and more exposed than ever to encounters with the 'Other'. In this period, Shayegan explicitly affirms the effectiveness of democracy and, despite its shortcomings, regards it as the best available model, insofar as it offers greater possibilities for dialogue and tolerance on a global scale than any alternative.   Refrencecs Ayoobi, Ehsan & Sadat, Fereshteh & Far, Etefagh & Amir, Dabiri & Mehr, and Jahaghi, Mohsen & Dabirimehr, Amir (2021) "The Place of Tradition and Modernity in the Works and Thought of Dariush Shayegan before the Islamic Revolution of Iran", International Journal of Political Science, Vol 11, No 1, 109-120. Barkhordari, Aref (2011) “The Essence of Political Philosophy in Iran during the Islamic Period”, Siasat, Volume 41, No. 4, Winter, pp. 1-19. (DOI: 10.22059 / jpq.2016.59021) Boroujerdi, Mehrzad (1999), Iranian Intellectuals and the West, translated by Jamshid Shirazi, Tehran, Farzan Dabbagh, Soroush (2011) The Melodious Song of Sorrow; Reflections on Contemporary Enlightenment, Tehran, Kavir Farastkhah, Maqsood (2019) “Five Versions of Dariush Shaygan in Five Decades”, Contemporary Wisdom, Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies, Year 10, Issue 1, pp. 173-192. (DOI: 10.30465 / cw.2019.4265) Farrokhi, Sophia and Jaseb Nikfar (2017) “The Problematics of Iranian Identity in the Thought of Dariush Shaygan”, Cultural Sociology, Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies, Bahman, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp. 85-111. (DOI: 10.30465 / gsc.2017.2764) Ghezelsofla, Mohammad Taqi and Sakineh Mash Sani (2010) “Cultural Iran in the Thoughts of Dariush Shaygan”, Political Science, Azar, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp. 7-34. (Available at: https: / / ensani.ir / fa / article / 260759) Hesam Ghazi, Rojan and Mohammad Nejad Iran (1401) “Finding the Roots of the Evolution of Dariush Shaygan’s Attitude to Modernity”, Siasat Quarterly, Volume 52, Issue 3, pp. 665-690. (DOI: 10.22059 / jpq.2022.333555.1007886) Khorramshahi, Baha'uddin (2018), Ganj Shaygan, Bukhara, No. 124, June - July, pp. 258-260 Pourhassan, Qasim (2019 A) Reflection on rereading Dariush Shaygan's narrative of Iranian poetry, Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies, December 2, 1401, available at: https: / / www.ihcs.ac.ir / fa / news / 18238 --------------------- (2019 B) Shaygan can be called a thinker of cultures; Three intellectual periods of Dariush Shaygan, 18 Aban 1400, available at:https: / / www.mehrnews.com / news / 4635483 Quchani, Mohammad (2018), One of the Few Liberal Intellectuals, Bukhara, No. 124, June - July, pp. 201-202 Ruhol Amin, Seyed Ehsan and Morteza Afshari (1400) “Comparison of the views of Jalal Al-Ahmad and Dariush Shaygan on contemporary Iranian art with an emphasis on the issue of identity”, Quarterly Journal of Perspective, No. 58, pp. 71-87. (DOI: 10.22051 / pgr.2021.33234.1090) Sadatinejad, Seyyed Mehdi and Nahid Ghamarian (2017) “Analyzing the Concept of Tradition from the Perspective of Iranian Thinkers: A Study of the Thoughts of Dariush Shaygan and Seyyed Hossein Nasr”, Siasat Quarterly, Volume 47, Issue 2, pp. 393-410. (DOI: 10.22059 / jpq.2017.63229) Shaygan, Dariush (2009) “Whether I like it or not, I am an Easterner,” interview with Dariush Shaygan, Mehrnameh monthly magazine, issue 2 (May), available at: https: / / www.hamooniran.ir / item / 4036  -------------------- (2014) Under the Skies of the World, 7th edition, Tehran, Farzan  -------------------- (2016) "The Iranian Quadrilateral Identity", interview with Dariush Shaygan, Etemad Newspaper, No. 3704 -------------------- (2017) Blending of Horizons, first edition, Tehran, Farzan  -------------------- (2018 A) Mental Idols and Eternal Memory, second edition, Tehran, Farzan  -------------------- (2018 B) New Enchantment: Forty-Piece Identity and Mobile Thinking, 10th edition, Tehran, Farzan  -------------------- (2019) Asia Against the West, fourth edition, Tehran, Farzan Tabashir, Mohammad and Abolfazl Shakouri (2018) “Reading Dariush Shaygan’s Works Based on the Concept of the Playful Subject”, Theoretical Politics Research, Fall and Winter, Volume 13, Issue 24, pp. 31-57. (DOI: 10.22070 / iipr.2018.3075.1278)     <a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">*</a>Corresponding Author: Full Pprofessor, Department of Political Science, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, Shiraz University, Iran. <a href="mailto:kazemi@shirazu.ac.ir">kazemi@shirazu.ac.ir</a> <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3869-0257&ved=2ahUKEwiJurPRkLqSAxVJhv0HHfjTM9kQFnoECBwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3L3032-WNhOlq_5ixr9SP6">0000-0003-3869-0257</a> <a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">**</a>Ph.D. Student of political thought, Department of Political Science, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, Shiraz University, Iran. <a href="mailto:farzaneh.komeiliii@gmail.com">farzaneh.komeiliii@gmail.com</a> 0000-0002-6555-5651همخوانی یا عدم &zwnj;همخوانی نگره&zwnj;های فلسفی و سیاسی در منظومۀ معرفتی متفکران، موضوع عمیقی است که نویسندگان را نسبت به تحلیل این مهم در آرای «داریوش شایگان» راغب ساخت. حیات اندیشه&zwnj;ای شایگان در سه دوره صورت&zwnj;بندی و ما&zwnj;به&zwnj;ازاهای فلسفی و سیاسی هر یک، واکاوی شده&zwnj; است. در این دینامیسم سهمرحله&zwnj;ای، شایگان نخست با نوشتن کتاب&zwnj;های «آسیا در برابر غرب»، «بت&zwnj;های ذهنی و خاطره ازلی» و «کوربن، آفاق تفکر معنوی» و معرفی انسان بینابین، دغدغه خویش درباره مواجهۀ غرب و شرق را با تأکید بر هبوط معنویت مطرح نموده، باور دارد که تشیع، بنیادی&zwnj;ترین عامل هویت&zwnj;بخش است. از اینرو روحانیت، مناسب&zwnj;ترین افراد برای هدایت زندگی سیاسی هستند. شایگان دوم در کتاب&zwnj;های «انقلاب مذهبی چیست؟»، «نگاه شکسته» و «زیر آسمان&zwnj;های جهان»، نگرانی بابت امتزاج ایدئولوژی&zwnj; و مذهب را در قالب انسان ایدئولوگ، بیان نموده، راه فرار از اسکیزوفرنی فرهنگی را «انسان تفکیک&zwnj;گر» معرفی می&zwnj;کند. در این دوره، رویه&zwnj;های ضد مارکسیستی و ضد انقلابی شایگان، خود را آشکار می&zwnj;سازد. شایگان سوم در «افسون&zwnj;زدگی جدید»، «آمیزش افق&zwnj;ها» و «پنج اقلیم حضور» با به &zwnj;رسمیت شناختن اقتضائات عصر جهانی شدن، سوژۀ بازیگوش را به&zwnj; عنوان سوژه&zwnj;ای که امکان درگذشتن از مرزها را دارد و دموکراسی را به سبب تأمین امکان گفت&zwnj;وگو و مدارا، بهترین نسخه موجود در عرصه سیاسی معرفی می&zwnj;نماید.

http://political.ihss.ac.ir/fa/Article/Download/45044

مرکز منطقه ای اطلاع رسانی علوم و فناوریپژوهش سیاست نظری2008-57962038202623Monavar al-Fekr and the duality of “law” and “consciousness”منورالفکری و دوگانۀ «قانون» و «آگاهی»2955faعطاءالهکریم زادهدانش آموخته دکتری اندیشه‌های سیاسی، دانشکده علوم انسانی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، ایران0009-0004-9777-4244عباس منوچهریاستاد گروه علوم سياسي، دانشکده علوم انسانی، دانشگاه تربيت مدرس، ایران 0009-0009-4908-6013سهرابیزدانی دانشیار بازنشسته گروه تاریخ، دانشکده علوم انسانی، دانشگاه خوارزمی، ایران0009-0003-0829-68032024810Monavar al-Fekr and the duality of “law” and “consciousness”   Ata’ollah Karimzadeh<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">*</a> Abbas Manoochehri<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">**</a> SohrabYazdani<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3">***</a>   The engagement of Iranian intellectuals in the late Qajar era with the concept of “progress” led to the emergence of the idea of “progress” as a central concern for Iran. In other words, the idea of “progress” was understood as a comprehensive framework within which the crises and issues of Iran’s political and social structures during the Qajar period could be addressed. This article argues that, regarding the idea of “progress” in Iran, two distinct intellectual currents can be identified: “rule-of-law orientation” and “consciousness-orientation.” The first current views Iran’s progress as achievable through liberation from decline and social malaise via the establishment of law and governance under the rule of law. The second current, by contrast, conceives of progress as attainable through the creation of public and social consciousness among Iranians.Despite their differences, neither current was able to formulate fundamental questions or corresponding solutions independently of what they had borrowed from the European conception of “progress,” due to internal intellectual contradictions and a lack of historical contextualization. As a result, both faced various forms of “impasse in thought and action.” The research methodology of this article is based on content analysis and library research, employing Gadamer’s “fusion of horizons” as the interpretive framework.   Keywords: intellectual history, progress, law, Consciousness, Impasse.   Introduction The encounter of Iranians with Western civilization during the Qajar era, particularly in the Nasserian period, gave rise to a dual negative and positive orientation. From the negative perspective, attention was directed toward identifying the causes of Iran’s backwardness and decline, while from the positive perspective, the demand for progress and reform emerged among reformists and officials operating within the state. This process gradually led, in the intellectual sphere, to the appearance of Iranian “intellectuals.” As a result of Iran’s encounter with modernity, a form of “de-historicization” took shape, whereby contemporary Iran was perceived as backward and the West as “advanced,” producing a condition of historical “non-simultaneity.” Consequently, Iranian intellectualism severed its connection with ancient tradition and was unable to clearly determine its “point of standing” in relation to that tradition. Nevertheless, Qajar-era Iranian intellectuals cannot be subsumed under a single, unified idea. This article maintains that because the various intellectual approaches of the Qajar period were shaped by Eurocentrism, they were unable to pose fundamental questions that could yield contextually appropriate answers.   Research Background Based on the literature reviewed in this article, two categories of works can be identified. According to researchers such as Seyyed Javad Tabataba’i, Mashallah Ajoudani, and Hasan Ghazi Moradi, the questions and responses of Iranian intellectuals were largely Eurocentric from the outset, and they often linked their thoughts, sometimes inconsistently, to pre-Islamic or Islamic Iran. This, in turn, led them to encounter different forms of “impasse” in both thought and action. In contrast, scholars such as Hossein Abadian and Davoud Firouhi argue that the Iranian intellectuals sought to establish a connection between tradition and modernity, though they were not necessarily successful, because fundamental questioning of tradition was lacking. Endless debates arose, which were characterized by a “continuity in rupture.”   Research Approach and Methodology The research method employed in this article is based on document study and the exegesis and interpretation of the texts of the thinkers under discussion. Using the approach of “intellectual history” and the method of Gadamer’s “fusion of horizons,” the understanding of Iranian intellectuals during the Nasserian era regarding the concepts of “law” and “consciousness” will be analyzed in relation to the idea of “progress.” While “history of thought” studies ideas and works over time, “intellectual history” elucidates the conceptual characteristics of a particular historical period. That is, the “spirit of the age” becomes significant within a specific place and time. Moreover, in the method of “fusion of horizons,” understanding the ideas and thoughts of a historical period other than the researcher’s own context can be achieved by posing questions or applying concepts that have defined meaning within the researcher’s horizon to interpret the ideas in another horizon, that of a different historical period. Gadamer’s “fusion of horizons” holds that new perspectives can emerge from the interaction of horizons, surpassing fixed and static viewpoints.   Research Findings The idea of “progress” as the Intellectual basis of Monavar al-Fekri The encounter of Iranians with the West, like other Eastern and Muslim nations, gave rise to thinkers who faced the question of how to respond to Western civilization in both religious and non-religious domains. What occupied the Iranian intellectuals was the issue of Western civilizational, scientific, and technological progress; that is, while they regarded the West as progressive and civilized, Iran was perceived to be in a state of “decline.” Although these intellectuals sought progress and advancement, different pathways, whether individual or collective, are evident in their writings. Overall, the main framework of Qajar-era Iranian enlightenment thought can be examined through two dimensions: “law” and “consciousness.”   The “Law-Oriented” Current According to Malek al-Molk Khan, “law” provides the means to overcome the humiliation and suffering that characterized Iran at the time. He advocated a “regulatory system,” whose outcome would be “rule of law,” situating the Shah within a context of “constitutional despotism.” It can be argued that Malek al-Molk Khan’s “regulated state” did not aim to limit the king’s power, but rather sought to ensure that all institutions were legally subordinate to the monarch in order to enable progress. Moreover, while the government establishes laws, the subjects do not gain rights per se; rather, equality is realized in the obligation to obey. Malek sought to integrate certain Shari‘a rulings under the cover of governmental laws, which, alongside existing civil laws, would serve as a model for Iranian governance. Mostashar al-Dawla similarly considered the establishment of new laws as the path to progress and the means to avoid dangers for Iran. The creation of “law” was viewed as indispensable, both to institute positive rights and to ensure equality before the law, with government agents held accountable to the public. In this way, both “state and nation” are obliged to comply with the instituted law, which he described as “one word,” a principle with precedent in Islam. The cornerstone of Mostashar al-Dawla’s idea is that establishing law and rights as a prior condition, while legalizing the system of power and monarchy and determining its authority, could also recognize the rights of Iranian subjects based on Shari‘a. The integration of Shari‘a-based pre-existing rights with Western-adopted positive rights would accomplish this objective.   The “Consciousness-Oriented” Intellectual Current Akhundzadeh argued that kings, rulers, and all inhabitants of Iran were largely unaware of science, law, and politics, and that there was little inclination toward learning. Therefore, these elements had to be acquired from Europe to reform politics and monarchy in Iran. According to Akhundzadeh, the king of Iran was ignorant and unaware of the spirit of the age, and the court environment constituted his world. He also criticized the people of Iran, arguing that if the subjects were aware of “freedom and human rights,” they could free themselves from despotism. Thus, Akhundzadeh viewed the possibility of liberation from despotism and fanaticism as achievable through engagement with knowledge, which in turn required progress.Another pro–“consciousness” thinker, Mirza Agha Khan Kermani, argued that contemporary European progress was founded on “ideas of freedom and equality of rights,” whereas the inhabitants of Iran had experienced reverse progress, regression, and decline. Coercion, oppression, and domination had served as the model for all Iranian rulers. In effect, the history of Iran was a “history of kings” or “history from above,” in which the people (the subjects) were not only ignored but lacked objective existence. Mirza Agha Khan also held princes, governors, scholars, and the clergy responsible for the perpetuation of this situation. Like Akhundzadeh, he argued that “the foundation of civilization and progress for any nation lies in the advancement of knowledge,” which in turn generates “consciousness.”   Conclusion Although all thinkers of the Qajar era adhered to the idea of “progress” until the establishment of the Constitutional Revolution, the rupture–continuity of ancient traditions and their connection with modernity were not adequately traced, and their imported ideas ultimately led to a form of “equivalence” with ancient and Islamic thought. The Iranian intellectuals, since they mostly focused on the technical aspects of Western progress and civilization and were largely unaware of its political, social, and intellectual history, paid little attention to, or were unaware of, the historically grounded political, social, and intellectual realities of Iran.The “law-oriented” intellectual current emphasized “law” within a monarchical system, exemplifying a form of “constitutional despotism.” Consequently, their ideas did not produce an epistemological transformation in Iran’s intellectual system or in its political and social history.The “consciousness-oriented” current, although politically and socially revolutionary in orientation, faced internal contradictions that made the creation of coherent, actionable ideas impossible. Even when they spoke of public awareness, tyranny, oppression, and religious rigidity, they lacked self-contained, contextually rooted questioning, instead primarily referencing European civilizational developments.   Refrences Abadian, H. (2013) The crisis of consciousness and the formation of intellectualism in Iran (2nd ed.). Tehran: Kavir. Adamiyat, F. (1961) The idea of freedom and the prelude to the constitutional movement. Tehran: Sokhan. Adamiyat, F. (1972) The idea of progress and the rule of law: The Sepahsalar era. Tehran: Kharazmi. Ajodani, M. (2007) Iranian constitutionalism (8th ed.). Tehran: Akhtaran. Akhundzadeh, M. F.-A. (1978). The new alphabet and Letters (H. Mohammadzadeh, Ed.). Tabriz: Ehya. Akhundzadeh, M. F.-A. (1985) Letters (M.-B. Momeni, Ed.). Tehran: Shabgir. Algar, H. (1990) Religion and state in Iran: The role of the ulama in the Qajar period (A. Seri, Trans.; 2nd ed.). Tehran: Toos. Amanat, A. (2021) Pivot of the universe: Nasir al-Din Shah Qajar and the Iranian monarchy, 1831–1896 (H. Kamshad, Trans.; 8th ed.). Tehran: Karnameh. Ashuri, D. (1997) We and modernity. Tehran: Serat Cultural Institute. Bayat, M. (1982) Mysticism and dissent: Socioreligious thought in Qajar Iran. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. <a href="https://doi.org/10.2307/1864689">https://doi.org/10.2307/1864689</a> Bleicher, J. (1980) Contemporary hermeneutics: Hermeneutics as method, philosophy, and critique. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315112558 Burns, R. M., & Pickard, H. R. (2021) The philosophy of the science of history (A. Manoochehri et al., Trans.). Tehran: SAMT. Doustdar, A. (1998) Dark gleams (2nd ed.). Paris: Khavaran. Fīraḥī, D. (2020) The concept of law in contemporary Iran: Pre-constitutional transformations. Tehran: Nashr-e Ney. Haeri, A.-H. (1988) The first encounters of Iranian thinkers with the two faces of Western bourgeois civilization. Tehran: Amir Kabir. Hashemi, A. (2019) Rival conceptions of freedom in modern Iran: An intellectual history of the Constitutional Revolution. London & New York: Routledge. <a href="https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429427121">https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429427121</a> Hughes, H. S. (2007) Consciousness and society (E. Fooladvand, Trans.; 4th ed.). Tehran: ElmivaFarhangi. Kermani, M. A. K. (1326 AH). The Alexandrian mirror: History of Iran (Vol. 1). Tehran. Kermani, M. A. K. (2000) Three epistles (B. Choubineh, Ed.). Essen, Germany: Nima. Kermani, M. A. K. (n.d.). One hundred sermons (M.-J. Mahjub, Ed.). N.p.: Sherkat-e Ketab. Malkom Khan, M. (2002) Treatises of MirzaMalkom Khan Nazem al-Dawla (H. Asil, Comp. & Intro.). Tehran: Nashr-e Ney. Malkom Khan, M. (2535 Imperial Calendar). The journal of Qanun (H. Nategh, Ed.). Tehran: Amir Kabir. Manoochehri, A. (2016) Beyond suffering and dream: A paradigmatic–indicative narrative of political thought (Book 1). Tehran: Research Institute of Islamic History. Mostashar al-Dawla, M. Y. (2018) One word (B. Momeni, Ed.). London: Nashr-e Mehri. Qazi-Moradi, H. (2020) Political modernization in the era of the Iranian Constitutional Revolution. Tehran: Akhtaran. Tabatabaei, J. (2013) Reflections on Iran: The theory of the rule of law in Iran; Theoretical foundations of constitutionalism (Vol. 2, Pt. 2). Tehran: Minavi-ye Kherad. Tabatabaei, J. (2016) Reflections on Iran: The theory of the rule of law in Iran (Vol. 2, Pt. 1: The Tabriz School and the foundations of modernism; 3rd ed.). Tehran: Minavi-ye Kherad. Tavakoli-Targhi, M. (2016) Indigenous modernity and rethinking history. Toronto: Iran-Nameh Book. Zia-Ebrahimi, R. (2018) The emergence of Iranian nationalism: Race and the politics of dislocation (H. Afshar, Trans.; 2nd ed.). Tehran: Markaz.       <a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">*</a>Corresponding author: Ph.D in Political Thought, Faculty of Humanities, Tarbiat Modares University, Iran. <a href="mailto:atakarimzadeh@yahoo.com">atakarimzadeh@yahoo.com</a> 0009-0004-9777-4244 <a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">**</a>Professor, Department of Political Science,Faculty of Humanities,Tarbiat Modares University, Iran. <a href="mailto:Amanoocheri@yahoo.com">Amanoocheri@yahoo.com</a> 0009-0009-4908-6013 <a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3">***</a>Retired Associate Professor of History, Faculty of Humanities, Kharazmi University, Iran. <a href="mailto:yazdanis1948@gmail.com">yazdanis1948@gmail.com</a> 0009-0003-0829-6803مواجهۀ منورالفکران ایرانی در اواخر عصر قاجار با مفهوم «ترقی» موجبِ مطرح شدن ایدۀ «ترقی» برای ایران شد. یعنی ایدۀ «ترقی»، موقفی جامع تلقی می&zwnj;شد که بحران&zwnj;ها و مسائل ساختار سیاسی، اجتماعی و... ایران عصر قاجاری درون آن حل می&zwnj;شد. بحث این مقاله این است که می&zwnj;توان در رابطه با ایدۀ «ترقی» در ایران، دو جریان فکری، یعنی «قانون&zwnj;محوری» و «آگاهی&zwnj;محوری» را از هم متمایز کرد. جریان نخست، نیل به «ترقی» ایران در رهایی از زوال و بیماری را از مسیر «قانون و حکومت قانون» می&zwnj;داند. برای جریان دوم نیز «ترقی» در ایجاد «آگاهی» عمومی و اجتماعی ایرانیان، امکان&zwnj;پذیر است. با وجود این هر دو جریان به دلیل تناقض&zwnj;های فکری و عدم تاریخ&zwnj;مندی نتوانستند منفک از آنچه از ایدۀ «ترقی» اروپایی اقتباس کرده بودند، پرسش بنیادین و به&zwnj;تبع آن راه&zwnj;حل متناسب با آن را داشته باشند و با اشکال متفاوتی از «امتناع در فکر- عمل» مواجه شدند. روش پژوهش این مقاله مبتنی بر تحلیل محتوا و مطالعه کتابخانه&zwnj;ای است که برای تبیین آن از روش&zwnj;شناسی «امتزاج افق&zwnj;ها»ی گادامر استفاده شده است.

http://political.ihss.ac.ir/fa/Article/Download/47606

مرکز منطقه ای اطلاع رسانی علوم و فناوریپژوهش سیاست نظری2008-57962038202623Conceptual History of “Cultural Iran [Īrān-e arhangī]”: From the Imaginary of a Natural Iran to the Imaginary of Iranshahrتاریخ مفهومی ایران فرهنگی: از انگارة ایران طبیعی به انگارة ایرانشهری5790fa سید احمدرضاآزموندانش آموخته دکتری اندیشه سیاسی، دانشکده علوم انسانی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایرانhttps://orcid.org/0009-0007-5174-3671سید علیرضاحسینی بهشتیدانشیار گروه علوم سیاسی، دانشکده علوم انسانی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران https://orcid.org/0009-0007-5174-3671 2024121Conceptual 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

مرکز منطقه ای اطلاع رسانی علوم و فناوریپژوهش سیاست نظری2008-57962038202623The Nature of Political Theory: An Analytical Approachماهیت نظریة سیاسی: رویکردی تحلیلی257286faجوادحیدریاستادیار گروه علوم سیاسی، دانشکده حکمرانی، دانشگاه شاهد، تهران، ایران0009-0007-6973-815X امید شفیعی قهفرخیاستادیار گروه علوم سیاسی، دانشکده معارف اسلامی و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه امام صادق(ع)، تهران، ایران0000-0003-1380-59782025429The Nature of Political Theory: An Analytical Approach Javad Heydari<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">*</a> Omid Shafiei Ghahfarokhi<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">**</a>   This article examines the nature of political theory, the difficulties in defining it, and the central problem of this field. The central question is whether a comprehensive and distinctive framework for political theory can be formulated. The hypothesis is that defining political theory around an organizing question frees us from the constraints of concept-centric, institution-centric, and problem-centric approaches, and enables an understanding of the origins of political theory’s core issues. The authors distinguish between the concepts of political studies and elucidate the descriptive and normative dimensions of political theory, evaluating the three aforementioned approaches. Drawing on Thomas Nagel’s perspective, they propose the organizing question — “How should we live?” — as a comprehensive and distinctive framework for political theory. The article then analyzes the tension between the personal and impersonal standpoints within each individual, which constitutes the fundamental source of political theory’s problems. Accordingly, the fundamental challenge is not merely institutional inadequacies, but rather the absence of a model capable of reconciling this inner conflict.   Keywords: Political Theory, Thomas Nagel, Personal and Impersonal Standpoints, Internal Conflict.   <ol style="text-align: left;"> <li> Introduction and Statement of the Problem</li> </ol> Political theory, as a foundational branch of political thought, despite its antiquity and historical richness, has always faced a definitional challenge in delineating its boundaries and nature. The dispersion of defining approaches—from a focus on abstract concepts (such as justice and power) and concrete institutions (such as the state) to an emphasis on problem-oriented lists or historical traditions—has not only blurred the boundary between this field and adjacent disciplines such as political philosophy and the social sciences, but has also generated deep disagreements regarding its relationship to normative questions (what ought to be) and descriptive questions (what is). The absence of a “unifying principle” capable of situating this apparent fragmentation within a coherent framework constitutes the principal problem confronting contemporary political theorizing. Identifying this gap, the present article poses the central question: is it possible, by relying on a fundamental “organizing question,” to offer a definition of political theory that is at once comprehensive (encompassing all legitimate concerns of the field) and exclusive (distinguishing it from other domains of knowledge), thereby overcoming the aforementioned challenges? The article’s hypothesis is that defining political theory around the question “How should we live?”—inspired by Thomas Nagel’s framework—can perform such a function and, moreover, make it possible to understand the internal and anthropological source of the enduring problems of this field, namely the conflict between the personal and impersonal perspectives within each individual.   <ol style="text-align: left;" start="2"> <li> Theoretical Foundations and Literature Review</li> </ol> Political theory has two interrelated dimensions: a descriptive dimension (explaining the political world as it is) and a normative dimension (prescribing the political world as it ought to be). The distinction between “empirical claims” and “normative claims” in the analysis of political controversies (such as the legalization of physician-assisted suicide or the provision of a basic income) is crucial. The existing Persian-language literature has also addressed these issues: some, through comparative analysis of normativist, scientistic, interpretivist, and hybrid approaches, have emphasized the necessity of a multidimensional approach (Mosleh, 2019). Others, by examining the distinction between political theory and political science, have stressed the diagnostic and critical role of theory in guiding practical politics toward human ends (Shakeri, 2016). Other studies have dealt with the transformation of foundational concepts such as security and power (Shakeri, 2006), the relationship between truth and power in different intellectual paradigms (Khorramshad & Nozari, 2018), the intertwined nature of explanatory and normative dimensions (Taghilou, 2017), the impact of anthropological assumptions on the formation of theories (Shojaeian, 2017), and the nature of theory in Islamic political philosophy (Soltani et al., 2020). Nevertheless, the innovation of the present article lies in offering an integrative framework centered on an “organizing question,” explaining the source of theoretical conflicts in intra-human duality, and providing a criterion for evaluating political theories based on their ability to balance competing demands.   <ol style="text-align: left;" start="3"> <li> Analysis and Critique of Classical Approaches to Defining Political Theory</li> </ol> This article examines and critiques three categories of classical approaches: Conceptual approaches: These approaches define political theory around abstract and normative concepts such as justice (Rawls), the ends of life (Berlin), the relationship between the collective and the individual (Blackburn), public affairs (Bevir), or power and legitimacy (Williams and Goodwin). The major problem with these approaches is excessive limitation; for example, an exclusive focus on “justice” may neglect the issue of “legitimacy,” emphasized by realists, or cosmopolitan concerns. Institutional approaches: In this view, the focus is on tangible institutions such as the state, government, and their objectives (Swift, Nozick, Plamenatz, Miller, Pettit). The fundamental flaw here is that the boundary between this approach and the conceptual approach is unclear (for instance, analyzing the “state” inevitably involves the concept of “legitimacy”), and it becomes trapped in ambiguity between descriptive and normative analysis. Problem-oriented and interpretive approaches: These approaches define political theory based on a list of key problems (justice, the duties of the state, normative ranking of states of affairs—Cohen; adding specific institutions—Waldron; or agreement, orientation, reconciliation, and a realistic utopia—Rawls) or on the interpretation of values and shared understandings (Pettit, Walzer, Dworkin). There is also a tradition-centered approach that defines the field based on historically formed works and thinkers. The main flaw of these approaches is excessive breadth and the lack of a foundational justification. The selection of problems or thinkers often appears arbitrary, and the question of the “unifying principle” behind these long lists remains unanswered. As Nietzsche put it, “only that which has no history can be defined”; therefore, relying solely on historical tradition is insufficient for defining a field.   <ol style="text-align: left;" start="4"> <li> The Proposed Solution: Definition through an “Organizing Question” To remedy the shortcomings of the above approaches, this article, inspired by Thomas Nagel, proposes defining political theory around an “organizing question”: “How should we live?” This four-part question (we / how / should / live) has the following advantages:</li> </ol> Exclusivity (differentiation): This question clearly distinguishes political theory from moral philosophy (which asks “How should I live?”) and from the social sciences (which examine “How do we live?”). Political theory is collective and normative. Comprehensiveness: The question is broad enough to encompass all traditional topics (justice, the state, legitimacy) as well as new and radical approaches (anarchism, feminism, and communitarianism, religious and non-Western perspectives). Every political theory is an answer to this fundamental question. Interpretive flexibility: Each component of the question allows for diverse interpretations. “We” may refer to a nation, humanity, or a specific community. “Should” may be grounded in morality or rationality. “How we live” includes all forms of collective life, from a powerful state to autonomous communities. Coherence-building: This question explains the unifying principle behind the seemingly disparate activities of political theory and provides a credible basis for delineating the boundaries of the field. Practical relevance: The main question naturally leads to the justificatory question “Why should we live this way?” which shapes a large part of political theory’s arguments (such as Nozick’s justification of the minimal state).   <ol style="text-align: left;" start="5"> <li> Deep Analysis of the Problem: The Conflict between Personal and Impersonal Perspectives</li> </ol> Drawing on Nagel’s philosophy, the article goes a step further by analyzing the internal source of the complex problems of political theory. According to Nagel, the fundamental problem is not merely the design of just institutions, but an intrinsic conflict within each individual between two perspectives: The impersonal (objective) perspective: This perspective is universal and impartial. From this viewpoint, the interests of all human beings matter equally, and principles such as equality and global justice emerge. Political institutions, in their ideal form, embody the demands of this perspective. The personal (subjective) perspective: This perspective is particular and position-dependent. From this viewpoint, an individual’s specific attachments, interests, and concerns—those of oneself, one’s family, and one’s close relations—are central. Nagel argues that all hard problems of political theory (such as the conflict between liberty and equality, individual and society, justice and efficiency) are rooted in this internal conflict. Political institutions are constantly striving to externalize the demands of the impersonal perspective, but their success is always constrained by the natural resistance of the personal perspective. Therefore, the central challenge of political theory is to find a model that can establish a fair and sustainable balance between these two aspects of human existence without making unreasonable demands on individuals. This analysis shows that the problem is not merely the inadequacy of external institutions, but the absence of a convincing theoretical model for reconciling this internal duality.   <ol style="text-align: left;" start="6"> <li> Conclusion</li> </ol> This article has shown that defining political theory around the “organizing question” “How should we live?” can offer a comprehensive, exclusive, and flexible solution to the problem of definitional indeterminacy in this field. This framework avoids the limitations of conceptual, institutional, and problem-oriented approaches and provides theoretical coherence to the discipline. Moreover, by linking this framework to Nagel’s analysis of the conflict between dual perspectives, the article reveals the depth of the problem and argues that resolving the dilemmas of political theory depends on directly confronting this fundamental anthropological conflict. Every political theory can be evaluated according to the extent of its success in offering a balanced answer to the organizing question, taking into account the unavoidable tension between the personal and impersonal perspectives. Consequently, this approach not only provides an illuminating definition, but also offers a powerful analytical tool for critiquing and evaluating existing political theories and guiding future research.   References Ackerly, B. & Bajpai, R. (2017) “Comparative Political Thought”, In: Blau, A. (Ed.). Analytical political theory. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316162576 Berlin, I. (1998) The proper study of mankind: An anthology of essays. Farrar, Straus & Giroux. ---------- (2006) Political ideas in the romantic age: Their rise and influence on modern thought. Chatto & Windus. Bevir, M. (Ed.). (2010) Encyclopedia of political theory. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412958660 Blackburn, S. (2005) The Oxford dictionary of philosophy. Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acref/9780199541430.001.0001 Cohen, G. A. (2011) On the currency of egalitarian justice, and other essays in political philosophy. Princeton University Press. DOI: 10.1086/293126 Dworkin, R. (2011) Justice for hedgehogs. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vkt Floyd, J. (2017) Is political philosophy impossible?: Thoughts and behavior in normative political theory. Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.15826/csp.2018.2.4.055. Goodwin, B. (2014) Using political ideas. Wiley. Gunnell, G. (1993) The descent of political theory: The genealogy of an American vocation. University of Chicago Press. Halperin and Heath (2025) Political Research: Methods and Practical Skills Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/hepl/9780198820628.001.0001. Held, D. (1991) Political theory today. Polity. Khorramshad, Mohammad Bagher & Mohammad Ismail Nouzari (2018) "Analyzing the Conceptual Evolution of Political Philosophy Based on the Two Components of Truth and Power in the Thought of Strauss, Arendt, and Foucault". Theoretical Politics Research (Pazhohesh-e Siyasat-e Nazari), No. 24, Fall & Winter, pp. 249-290. (in Persian). Knowles, D. (2001) Political philosophy. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203187883. Kymlicka, W. (2001) Contemporary political philosophy: An introduction. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/hepl/9780198782742.001.0001 Leopold, D., & Stears, M. (Eds.) (2008) Political theory: Methods and approaches. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199230082.001.0001. Matravers, M. (2015) “Twentieth-century political philosophy”. In D. Moran (Ed.), The Routledge companion to twentieth century philosophy. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203879368 McKinnon, C. et al (2019) Issues in Political Theory. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/hepl/9780198784067.001.0001 Miller, D. (2003) Political philosophy: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press. McAfee, N. & Howard, K. B. (2023) “Feminist political philosophy”, In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-political/. Mosleh, Pagueh (2019). "An Inquiry into Four Contemporary Approaches to 'Political Theory'". Contemporary Political Essays (Jostar-ha-ye Siyasi-e Moaser), 10(2), Summer, pp. 81-106. DOI: 10.30465/cps.2019.4347 (in Persian). Nagel, T. (1986) The View from Nowhere. Oxford University Press. ----------- (1991) Equality and Partiality. Oxford University Press. ---------- (2005) “The Problem of Global Justice”, Philosophy & Public Affairs. Vol. 33, No. 2, pp 113-147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2005.00027.x Nietzsche, F. (2011) On the genealogy of morality. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139014977. Nozick, R. (1974) Anarchy, state, and utopia. Basic Books. Pettit, P. (1991) Contemporary political theory. Prentice Hall. ---------- (1997) Republicanism: A theory of freedom and government. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0198296428.001.0001. Plamenatz, J. (1960) “The use of political theory”. Political Studies, 8 (1) (37-47). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1960.tb01124.x. Rawls, J. (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9z6v. ---------- (2001) Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv31xf5v0. Scanlon, T. M. (2003) The difficulty of tolerance. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615153. Schumaker, P. (2008) From Ideologies to Public Philosophies. Wiley-Blackwell. Shakeri, Seyed Reza (2006) "Power as Security; A Re-reading of Modern Political Theory". Strategic Studies Quarterly (Faslname-ye Motale’at-e Rahbordi), 9(4), No. 34, Winter, pp. 737-757. DOI: 20.1001.1.17350727.1385.9.34.2.5 (in Persian). ----------------------- (2016) "The Importance of Political Theory in Relation to Political Science: Review and Critique of the Book 'Understanding Political Theories'". Critical Review of Texts and Programs in Humanities (Pazhoheshname-ye Enteghadi-ye Motoon va Barname-ha-ye Olum-e Ensani), 16(4), Mehr & Aban, pp. 97-115. (in Persian). Shojaian, Mohammad (2023) "Human Felicity and Political Theory in the Quran". Journal of Politics (Faslname-ye Siyasat), 53(3), Fall, pp. 499-518. DOI: 10.22059/JPQ.2024.322485.1007788 (in Persian). --- (2017). "Political Theory and the Implications of Human Nature". Journal of Politics (Faslname-ye Siyasat), 47(4), Winter, pp. 929-948. DOI: 10.22059/JPQ.2017.200942.1006743 (in Persian). Smith, A. (2005) The Wealth of Nations. Penguin Classics. Soltani, Is’haq, et al. (2020) "The Nature of Theory in Political Philosophy from the Perspective of Allameh Tabatabai". Contemporary Political Essays (Jostar-ha-ye Siyasi-e Moaser), 11(1), Spring, pp. 53-79. DOI: 10.30465/cps.2020.28592.2393 (in Persian). Strauss, L. (1988) What is political philosophy? and other studies. University of Chicago Press. Swift, A. (2014) Political philosophy: A beginners’ guide for students and politicians. Polity. Taghiloo, Faramarz (2017) "A Meta-Theoretical Analysis of the Relationship between Explanatory and Normative Dimensions in Political Theory". Journal of Politics (Faslname-ye Siyasat), 47(3), Fall, pp. 571-592. DOI: 10.22059/JPQ.2017.139830.1006690 (in Persian). Vincent, A. (2004) The nature of political theory. Oxford University Press. Walton & et al (2021) Introducing Political Philosophy: A Policy-Driven Approach. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22471 Walzer, M. (1983) Spheres of justice: A defense of pluralism and equality. Basic Books. White, S. K., & Moon, J. D. (Eds.). (2004) What is political theory?. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446215425. Williams, B. (2005) In the beginning was the deed: Realism and moralism in political argument. Princeton University Press. DOI: 10.1515/9781400826735. Wolin, S. (1960) Politics and vision: Political philosophy from the classic problems of the Greeks to the contemporary problems of the "organization man". Allen & Unwin.       <a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">*</a> Corresponding Author: Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Faculty of Governance, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran. j.heydari@shahed.ac.ir 0009-0007-6973-815X <a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">**</a> Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Faculty of Islamic Studies and Political Science, Imam Sadiq University, Tehran, Iran. shafiei@isu.ac.ir 0000-0003-1380-5978این مقاله به واکاوی ماهیت نظریة سیاسی، دشواری&zwnj;های تعریف آن و مسئلة محوری این حوزه می&zwnj;پردازد. پرسش اصلی این است که آیا می&zwnj;توان چارچوبی جامع و متمایزکننده برای نظریة سیاسی ارائه کرد. فرضیه این است که تعریف نظریة سیاسی حول یک پرسش سازمان&zwnj;بخش، ما را از محدودیت&zwnj;های رویکردهای مفهومی، نهادی و مسئله&zwnj;محور می&zwnj;رهاند و امکان درک سرچشمة مسائل نظریۀ سیاسی را فراهم می&zwnj;سازد. نویسندگان با تمایز میان مفاهیم سیاست&zwnj;پژوهی، ابعاد توصیفی و هنجاری، نظریة سیاسی را تبیین کرده، سه رویکرد یادشده را ارزیابی می&zwnj;کنند. سپس با بهره&zwnj;گیری از دیدگاه تامس نیگل، پرسش سازمان&zwnj;بخشِ «ما چگونه باید زندگی کنیم؟» را به &zwnj;عنوان چارچوبی جامع و متمایزکننده برای نظریة سیاسی پیشنهاد می&zwnj;کنند. در ادامه، مقاله به تحلیل تعارض چشم&zwnj;انداز شخصی و غیر شخصی در هر فرد می&zwnj;پردازد که سرچشمة اصلی مسائل نظریة سیاسی است. از اینرو مشکل بنیادین، نه صرفاً نارسایی نهادها، بلکه فقدان الگویی است که بتواند این تعارض درونی را حل کند.

http://political.ihss.ac.ir/fa/Article/Download/50090

مرکز منطقه ای اطلاع رسانی علوم و فناوریپژوهش سیاست نظری2008-57962038202623Political Participation in Modern Systems: A Structural-Functional Approachگسترۀ مشارکت سیاسی (با رویکرد ساختارگرا- کارکردی) 287327faسید رحیم ابوالحسنیدانشیار گروه علوم سیاسی، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران 0000-0001-8610-77462025513The Scope of Political Participation (A Structural–Functional Approach)   Seyed Rahim Abolhasani<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">*</a>   The issue of organizing political participation has, since the emergence of democratic systems, been regarded as one of the central goals and functions of political parties and political actors. However, in many prevailing approaches, political participation is defined merely in terms of citizens’ external and individual actions—such as voting, demonstrations, or protests—while neglecting the consideration of the roles and functions of institutions and power structures as forms of political participation. By contrast, through a structural–functional approach, political participation can be redefined as the performance of roles and functions within the political system as a whole. Accordingly, activities such as political socialization, communication, political recruitment, interest articulation, interest aggregation, lawmaking, policymaking, law enforcement, and legal adjudication are regarded as dimensions of political participation. An empirical examination of these functions in Iran reveals the existence of a deep gap between society and formal structures: state media have weakened two-way political communication; political parties are incapable of recruiting and promoting elites; the bureaucracy is centralized and unaccountable; and representative and civil institutions perform ineffectively in articulating and aggregating interests. This situation has resulted in citizens’ participation being largely fragmented, episodic, and crisis-driven, rather than developing into institutionalized and sustainable participation. From this perspective, political participation is not merely the outward activity of citizens, but rather their presence and role performance within formal power structures and the functions of the political system—serving also as an indicator for assessing political effectiveness.   Keywords: Political participation; political system; structural–functional approach; Gabriel Almond; institutional functions.   Introduction Political participation is one of the most fundamental concepts in political science and political sociology and has consistently been regarded as a key indicator for assessing the dynamism, legitimacy, and effectiveness of political systems. However, in a significant portion of both classical and contemporary literature, political participation has largely been reduced to external, individual, and observable citizen actions—such as voting, attending gatherings, street protests, or electoral activities. While this approach represents part of the reality of political participation, it neglects the analysis of the roles of formal power structures, governmental institutions, and the internal functions of the political system in shaping participation (Milbrath, 1981, p. 23; Verba et al., 1995, p. 17). Within such a framework, political participation is often confined to action outside the state, leaving institutions such as parliament, bureaucracy, judiciary, official media, and even the educational system outside the scope of political participation. This limited conception, especially in societies like Iran, where a significant portion of political activity occurs within formal and semi-formal structures, prevents a comprehensive and realistic understanding of political participation (Jeroense & Spierings, 2023, p. 5). Consequently, rethinking the concept of political participation and expanding its analytical scope is both a theoretical and analytical necessity.   Problem Statement The primary question of this study is why the role of structures and institutional functions of the political system has received less attention in analyses of political participation, which have predominantly reduced participation to individual citizen behaviors. This conceptual reductionism, particularly in the analysis of political participation in Iran, has led to interpretations that speak of a "lack of opportunity for participation" or a "complete blockage of political participation," without precisely examining the internal functions of the political system and the institutional forms of participation. By applying Gabriel Almond’s structural–functional approach, politics can be seen as a set of interconnected roles and functions in which political participation flows through all of them (Almond, 1960, p. 21; Almond, 1396, p. 94). Within this framework, political participation is not merely protest or electoral action but the performance of roles across functions such as political socialization, political communication, political recruitment, interest articulation and aggregation, legislation, law enforcement, and judicial adjudication. The central research question is: How can political participation be redefined across the functions of the political system and analyzed within the context of Iran?   Research Objective The primary objective of this article is to provide a comprehensive and systemic definition of political participation based on Almond’s structural–functional approach and to apply it to analyze the state of political participation in Iran. The study seeks to demonstrate that political participation is not meaningful solely at the level of ordinary citizen behavior but also occurs within formal and informal power structures through the performance of institutional roles. Secondary objectives include: <ol style="text-align: left;"> <li>Critiquing reductionist approaches to political participation;</li> <li>Explaining Almond’s eight political system functions as levels of participation;</li> <li>Examining institutional gaps and inefficiencies in achieving political participation in Iran;</li> <li>Providing an analytical framework for assessing political participation as an indicator of political system effectiveness.</li> </ol>   Significance of the Study This study is significant because much of the literature on political participation in Iran either focuses on behavioral measures (e.g., electoral participation) or examines participation through normative and ideological concepts (Fathi, 1395, p. 66; Ghasemi et al., 1398, p. 41). As a result, institutional and systemic analyses of political participation have received limited attention. Given the evident decline in public trust, weak political parties, inefficiency of representative institutions, and the proliferation of episodic and crisis-driven forms of participation in Iran, there is a need for an analytical framework capable of explaining the structural roots of this situation (Norris, 2002, p. 11). Almond’s structural–functional approach allows political participation to be examined not merely as an individual act but as an institutional and intra-systemic process.   Theoretical Framework The theoretical framework of this article is grounded in Gabriel Almond’s structural–functional theory. Almond views the political system as a set of structures performing specific functions necessary for system survival (Almond & Powell, 1966, p. 12). These functions include political socialization, political communication, political recruitment, interest articulation, interest aggregation, legislation, law enforcement, and judicial adjudication. In this model, political participation flows through all these functions—from political socialization within families, schools, and media to elite participation in policymaking and judicial processes. Thus, political participation becomes a continuous and multi-layered process encompassing both citizens and power institutions (Almond, 1396, p. 97). This approach fundamentally differs from perspectives that consider participation solely as observable individual behavior (Giugni & Grasso, 2022, p. 75).   Research Methodology The methodology of this study is descriptive–analytical and theoretically based. Data were collected through library research, review of classical and contemporary political science texts, and document analysis. Almond’s theory is applied not only as a descriptive framework but also as an analytical tool to evaluate the functions of political participation in Iran. The analysis is conducted at two levels: first, conceptual clarification of political participation within the theoretical framework; and second, an empirical examination of political system functions and existing gaps in institutional participation in Iran. This approach enables a connection between theory and institutional reality (Hague, 2017, p. 203).   Findings and Discussion The findings indicate that political participation in Iran largely remains at the level of episodic, protest-oriented, and crisis-driven actions and rarely results in institutionalized and sustained participation. Weak political socialization, especially within the educational system and official media, has limited citizens’ familiarity with institutional roles in participation (Janmaat & Hoskins, 2022, p. 236). In political communication, the dominance of one-way communication and limited public dialogue has weakened effective feedback between society and the state (Coleman & Blumler, 2009, p. 41). In political recruitment, weak parties and opaque mechanisms have hindered elite circulation and the effective participation of social actors (Kitschelt & Wilkinson, 2007, p. 29). Furthermore, representative institutions have demonstrated limited and inefficient functions in articulating and aggregating interests, resulting in the accumulation of unmet demands (Almond, 1396, p. 99).   Conclusion The study demonstrates that political participation cannot be reduced solely to external citizen behaviors; rather, it must be analyzed in connection with institutional functions and power structures. Almond’s structural–functional approach allows political participation to be considered as an indicator of political system effectiveness. In Iran, the gap between society and formal structures, weak political parties, inefficient political communication, and limited transparent elite recruitment have led to participation that is largely fragmented and unstable. Strengthening political participation requires rebuilding institutional functions, expanding two-way communication, empowering parties and intermediary institutions, and redefining citizens’ roles within formal power structures. Only within such a framework can political participation evolve from episodic action into an institutionalized, sustained, and effective process (Norris, 2002, p. 15; Almond & Verba, 1963, p. 31).   Refrencecs Almond, G. A., & Verba, S. (1963) The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Princeton University Press. Ariestandy, D., Adidharma, W., & Isdendi, R. R. (2024). Transformation of political participation in the digital age: The role of social media in shaping public opinion and mass mobilization. JETBIS: Journal of Economics, Technology and Business. Atkinson, Sam (2013) The politics book. DK. pp. 1–5. Barker, D. C., & Tinnick, J. D. (2006) Competing visions of parental roles and ideological constraint. American Political Science Review, 100(2), 249–263 Bayat, A. (2017) Revolution without revolutionaries: Making sense of the Arab Spring. Stanford University Press. p. 132. Bergman, T. (2003) The European parliament and democratic legitimacy: A comparative view. Routledge. p. 34. Boix, C. (2010) Democracy and redistribution. Cambridge University Press. p. 42. Coleman, S., & Blumler, J. G. (2009) The Internet and democratic citizenship: Theory, practice, and policy. Cambridge University Press. Dabashi, H. (2011) Iran: The green movement. Transaction Publishers. p. 211. Dutkiewicz, G. (2014) Processes of recruitment and selection of political elites as a theoretical concept. Colloquium: Wydziału Nauk Humanistycznych i Społecznych, (3), 99–108. Ghazian, H. (2017) Public opinion in contemporary Iran. Routledge. p. 44. Giugni, M., & Grasso, M. (Eds.). (2022). The Oxford handbook of political participation. Oxford University Press. Hague, R. (2017) Political science: A comparative introduction (pp. 200–214). Macmillan Education UK. Hall, P., & Taylor, R. (1996) Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44(5), 936–957. pp. 941–942. Ishiyama, J. T., & Breuning, M. (Eds.) (2011) 21st century political science: A reference handbook (Vol. 1). SAGE Publications. Ismail, M. M., Hassan, N. A., Nor, M. S. M., Zain, M. I. M., & Samsu, K. H. K. (2021) The influence of political socialization among educated youth at Universiti Putra Malaysia. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 11(12), 2142–2159. Jankowski, R. (1988) Preference aggregation in political parties and interest groups: A synthesis of corporatist and encompassing organization theory. American Journal of Political Science, 32(1), 105–125. Janmaat, J. G., & Hoskins, B. (2022) The changing impact of family background on political engagement during adolescence and early adulthood. Social Forces, 101(1), 227–251 Jeroense, T., & Spierings, N. (2023) Political participation profiles. West European Politics, 46(1), 1–23. Johnson, C. (1982) MITI and the Japanese miracle: The growth of industrial policy, 1925–1975. Stanford University Press. p. 187. Kaim, M. (2021) Rethinking modes of political participation: The conventional, unconventional, and alternative in democratic theory. Democratic Theory, 8(1), 65–88. Khalaji, M. (2014) Iran’s ideological crisis. Washington Institute for Near East Policy. p. 5. Kitschelt, H., & Wilkinson, S. I. (2007) Patrons, clients and policies: Patterns of democratic accountability and political competition. Cambridge University Press. Leftwich, A. (2015) What is politics? The activity and its study. Polity Press. Mahoney, C. (2007) Lobbying success in the United States and the European Union. Journal of Public Policy, 27(1), 35–56. Milani, A. (2013) The Shah. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 67. Milbrath, L.W. (1981) Political Participation. In: Long, S.L. (eds) The Handbook of Political Behavior. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-3878-9_4 Moaveni, A. (2019) Guest house for young widows. Random House. p. 88. Norris, P. (2002) Democratic phoenix: Reinventing political activism. Cambridge University Press. Norris, P. (2011) Democratic deficit: Critical citizens revisited. Cambridge University Press. p. 112. Okon, E. E. (2012) Religion as instrument of socialization and social control. European Scientific Journal, 8(26), 136–143. Olson, M. (1965) The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Harvard University Press. Parsa, M. (2016) Democracy in Iran: Why it failed and how it might succeed. Harvard University Press. p. 193. Smith, J., & Johnson, A. (2018) The role of feedback in political participation: A review. Political Behavior, 40(3), 651–670. Thorson, E., McKinney, M. S., & Shah, D. (Eds.). (2016) Political socialization in a media-saturated world (Vol. 29). Peter Lang Transparency International. (2022) Corruption perceptions index 2022. Berlin: TI. p. 55. UNESCO. (2022) Media development indicators: Iran country report. UNESCO. p. 153. Van Aelst, P., van Erkel, P., D’heer, E., & others. (2017) Who is leading the campaign charts? Comparing individual popularity on old and new media. Information, Communication & Society, 20(5), 715–732. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995) Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Harvard University Press. Von Beyme, K. (2000) Parliamentary democracy: Democratization, destabilization, reconsolidation 1789–1999. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 211. Warren, M. E. (2017) What is democratic theory? Polity. Wøien Hansen, V., & Rødland, L. (2024) Explaining interest group position-taking across partisan policy dimensions. Journal of European Public Policy, 1–25. World Bank. (2023) Worldwide governance indicators. Washington, DC: World Bank. p. 77. Young, I. M. (2002) Inclusion and democracy. Oxford University Press.   <a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">*</a> Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran. abhasani@ut.ac.ir 0000-0001-8610-7746مسئله سامان&zwnj;دهی مشارکت سیاسی از آغاز تکوین نظام&zwnj;های دموکراتیک از اهداف و کارویژه&zwnj;های احزاب و کنشگران سیاسی برشمرده می&zwnj;شود؛ اما در بسیاری از رویکردهای متداول، آن را صرفاً در قالب کنش&zwnj;های بیرونی و فردی شهروندان، همچون رأی &zwnj;دادن، تظاهرات یا اعتراضات تعریف می&zwnj;کنند و از محاسبۀ نقش&zwnj;ها و کارکردهای نهادها و ساختارهای قدرت به &zwnj;عنوان مشارکت سیاسی غفلت دارند. در حالی &zwnj;که با رهیافت ساختارگرا- کارکردی می&zwnj;توانیم مشارکت سیاسی را به&zwnj;مثابه ایفای نقش&zwnj;ها و کارکردها در کلیت سیستم سیاسی بازتعریف کنیم. از اینرو کنش&zwnj;هایی مانند جامعه&zwnj;پذیری سیاسی، ارتباطات، استخدام سیاسی، تصریح منافع، تجمیع منافع، قانون&zwnj;گذاری، سیاست&zwnj;گذاری، اجرای قانون و قضاوت قانونی از ابعاد مشارکت سیاسی محسوب می&zwnj;شوند. بررسی انضمامی این کارکردها در ایران نشان می&zwnj;دهد که شکاف عمیقی میان جامعه و ساختارهای رسمی وجود دارد: رسانه&zwnj;های دولتی، ارتباطات سیاسی دوسویه را تضعیف کرده&zwnj;اند؛ احزاب ناتوان از جذب و ارتقای نخبگان&zwnj; هستند؛ بوروکراسی متمرکز و غیر پاسخگو است و نهادهای نمایندگی و مدنی در بیان و تجمیع منافع، ناکارآمد عمل می&zwnj;کنند. این وضعیت موجب شده که مشارکت شهروندان عمدتاً گسسته، مقطعی و بحران&zwnj;محور باشد و کمتر به مشارکت نهادی و پایدار بینجامد. از این&zwnj; منظر، مشارکت سیاسی نه صرفاً فعالیت بیرونی شهروندان، بلکه حضور و ایفای نقش در ساختارهای رسمی قدرت و کارکردهای نظام سیاسی است که می&zwnj;تواند به&zwnj;مثابه شاخصی برای سنجش کارآمدی سیاسی نیز عمل کند.

http://political.ihss.ac.ir/fa/Article/Download/50235

مرکز منطقه ای اطلاع رسانی علوم و فناوریپژوهش سیاست نظری2008-57962038202623An Analytical–Theoretical Examination of Multiculturalism from the Perspective of the Politicalبررسی تحلیلی- نظری چندفرهنگ‌گرایی از دریچۀ امر سیاسی129160fa سعید صافی اردهاییدانشجوی دکتری علوم سیاسی، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، ایران https://orcid.org/0009-0002-7590-6723رجبایزدیاستادیار گروه علوم سیاسی، دانشکده حقوق و علوم اجتماعی، دانشگاه تبریز، تبریز، ایران https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1838-25672025717An Analytical–Theoretical Examination of Multiculturalism from the Perspective of the Political   Saeed Safi Ardahai<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">*</a> Rajab Izadi<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">**</a>   This study seeks to examine, through an analytical approach and by drawing on qualitative data obtained from library-based research, the relationship between multiculturalism and the political from a theoretical perspective. The aim of the research is to uncover the connection between multiculturalism and the political by identifying the most significant theoretical justifications and arguments, as well as the critiques directed at multiculturalism from the standpoint of the political. The findings indicate that multiculturalism is linked to the political through three key concepts: the politics of recognition, identity politics, and the politics of difference. Viewed through this lens, multiculturalism has articulated a set of theoretical justifications while also becoming subject to various critiques. The study identifies four theoretical justifications of a political nature for multiculturalism: recognition, equality, freedom from domination, and redress for historical injustice. From the perspective of the political, six major critiques of multiculturalism are also identified: the cosmopolitan view of culture, the challenge of integration, the universal ideal of equality and concern for the rights of minorities within minorities, the diversion from redistributive politics, postcolonial critique, and feminist critique.   Keywords: multiculturalism, the political, identity politics, politics of recognition, politics of difference. Introduction Multiculturalism has articulated its theoretical justifications through the lenses of identity politics, the politics of recognition, and the politics of difference, and it is precisely through these perspectives that it has also been subjected to various critiques. Accordingly, the central research question of this study is formulated as follows: What are the most significant theoretical justifications and critiques of multiculturalism from the perspective of the political? The aim of the present study is to address this question and, consequently, to provide a theoretical analysis of multiculturalism through the prism of the political. To engage with this core issue, the study adopts a case-study methodology.   Methodology Drawing on qualitative data obtained from library-based research, the study first presents definitions and general discussions of multiculturalism and its core claims in order to clarify what multiculturalism is and what its fundamental assertions entail. It then identifies the conceptual connections between multiculturalism and the political through relevant theoretical frameworks. Finally, it examines the relationship between multiculturalism and the political by analyzing its major theoretical justifications as well as the critiques directed against it. In line with the case-study approach, the research proceeds step by step in exploring the issue at hand. From this perspective, the identified justifications and critiques themselves constitute forms of in-depth case studies, as the analysis moves within these arguments to examine their internal reasoning as well as the responses offered by multiculturalist theorists.   Theoretical Framework Multiculturalism is closely connected to identity politics, the politics of difference, and the politics of recognition. All three approaches share a commitment to revaluing identities that have been disrespected and to transforming dominant patterns of representation and communication that marginalize particular groups. Multiculturalism not only encompasses claims related to identity and culture, but also engages with economic interests and political power, including demands for compensation for the economic and political harms experienced by people as a result of their marginalized group identities. Multiculturalists argue that cultures and cultural groups themselves should be recognized and given due consideration. However, multicultural claims encompass a wide range of issues related to religion, language, ethnicity, nationality, and race. Culture is a contested and open-ended concept, and many of these categories are either subsumed under it or treated as equivalent to it. Distinguishing between different types of claims can help clarify what is at stake in each case. Language and religion lie at the center of many claims concerning the cultural accommodation of immigrants, while the key claim of minority ethnic groups is the right to self-government. Race plays a more limited role in multicultural discourse. Anti-racism and multiculturalism are distinct yet related ideas: the former emphasizes victimization and resistance, whereas the latter highlights cultural life, cultural expression, achievements, and related dimensions. Cultural life is recognized when concrete aspects of a group’s culture, such as African American art and literature in the United States, are incorporated into formal education. Many examples of cultural accommodations or differentiated group rights essentially assist minorities in doing what members of the majority culture are already able to do. Typically, a differentiated right held by a group refers to the right of a minority group, or its members, to act or refrain from acting in specific ways in accordance with their religious or cultural commitments. In some cases, such rights directly restrict the freedom of non-members in order to protect the minority culture and prevent its absorption into the majority culture, as illustrated by restrictions on the use of English in Quebec. However, when the right-holder is a group rather than an individual, such rights may also serve to protect internal group rules that constrain the freedom of individual members, an issue that will be addressed later in the study. Discussion and Conclusion Multiculturalism is closely linked to identity politics, the politics of difference, and the politics of recognition, and through these concepts it becomes connected to the political. From this perspective, multiculturalism advances a set of theoretical justifications, four of which are identified in this study: recognition, equality, freedom from domination, and redress for historical injustice. The justification of recognition emerges from communitarian critiques of liberalism and from ontological holism, emphasizing the importance of groups and the recognition of diverse communities. The second justification, equality, originates within liberalism, but a form of liberalism that has been revised through critical engagement with communitarian critiques. Will Kymlicka has developed the most influential liberal theory of multiculturalism by combining liberal values of autonomy and equality with an argument concerning the value of cultural membership. Freedom from domination draws on the civic republican tradition and develops the idea that domination constitutes a serious obstacle to human flourishing; freedom from domination is thus regarded as a good that can be realized through multiculturalism. Redress for historical injustice adopts a perspective that goes beyond liberalism and republicanism, emphasizing the necessity of confronting historical injustices and amplifying the voices of minority groups themselves. This justification is also informed by postcolonial thought, stressing the rights of Indigenous peoples and minorities whose rights were violated under Western colonialism, and viewing multiculturalism as a potential means of compensating for historical injustice. From the perspective of the political, multiculturalism has also been subject to several critiques. The first is the challenge of cosmopolitan culture. Cultural cosmopolitans argue that multicultural theories rely on an essentialist view of culture, whereas cultures are not distinct and self-contained wholes. With technological advancement and phenomena such as globalization, they argue, all cultures will ultimately converge into a single global culture, if they retain any independent existence at all. In response, multicultural theorists acknowledge that cultures overlap and interact, but maintain that individuals belong to distinct societal cultures and should be free to make their own choices. Some individuals may not wish to conform to a global or dominant culture, while others may prefer hybrid forms of cultural practice. In many cases, individuals remain loyal to their native culture in the private sphere while adopting dominant or global cultural norms in the public sphere.The challenge of integration and the ideal of universal equality, particularly directed at liberal multiculturalism, argues that there are no group rights, only individual rights, and that justice should address individuals rather than groups. According to this view, group rights may sacrifice the rights of marginalized members within groups, or what is sometimes described as minorities within minorities.Another critique emerges from the economic and cultural left. Cultural left theorists argue that multiculturalism represents a form of recognition politics that diverts attention away from redistribution. From this perspective, recognition politics challenges inequalities of status and seeks remedies through symbolic and cultural change, whereas redistribution politics targets economic inequality and exploitation and advocates structural economic transformation. Postcolonial critiques contend that colonized peoples should initiate decolonization through self-recognition, becoming free, dignified, and distinct participants in humanity, rather than relying on recognition granted by former colonizers. Former colonial powers, according to this view, possess no superior moral authority to recognize or withhold recognition from oppressed minorities or Indigenous peoples. Consequently, Indigenous communities should collectively redirect their struggles away from reconciliation-oriented recognition by existing states toward a resurgent politics of recognition grounded in self-determination, direct action, and cultural revitalization, addressing both the psychological and structural dimensions of colonial power. Finally, feminist critiques, similar to the challenge of integration and universal equality, argue that expanding protections for minority groups may come at the cost of reinforcing oppression against vulnerable members within those groups. While this issue has been described as the problem of minorities within minorities, feminist theorists place particular emphasis on the position of women within such contexts.   References Alesina, A. and E. Glaeser (2004) Fighting Poverty in the U. S. and Europe: A World of Difference, Oxford: Oxford University Press. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047279405278807">https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047279405278807</a> Anderson, E. (1999) “What is the Point of Equality?” Ethics,109(2): 287–337. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/233897">https://doi.org/10.1086/233897</a> Arneil, B. (2006a) Diverse Communities: The Problem with Social Capital, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511490156">https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511490156</a> Arneil, B. and F. MacDonald (2016) “Multiculturalism and the Social Sphere,” in The Ashgate Research Companion to Multiculturalism, D. Ivison (ed.), London: Routledge, pp. 95–117. <a href="https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315613314">https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315613314</a> Bachvarova, M. (2014) “Multicultural Accommodation and the Ideal of Non-Domination,” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy,17(6): 652–673. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2013.826500">https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2013.826500</a> Banting, K. and R. Johnston, W. Kymlicka and S. Soroka (2006) “Do Multiculturalism Policies Erode the Welfare State? An Empirical Analysis,” in Multiculturalism and the Welfare State, K. Banting and W. Kymlicka (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 49–91. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/00016993080510040603">https://doi.org/10.1177/00016993080510040603</a> Banting, K. and W. Kymlicka (eds.) (2006) Multiculturalism and the Welfare State: Recognition and Redistribution in Contemporary Democracies, Oxford: Oxford University Press. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/s004727940800202x">https://doi.org/10.1017/s004727940800202x</a> Barry, B. (2001) Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055400400146">https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055400400146</a> Bloemraad, I. (2006) Becoming a Citizen: Incorporating Immigrants and Refugees in the United States and Canada, Berkeley: University of California Press. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520940024">https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520940024</a> Blum, L. A. (1992) “Antiracism, Multiculturalism and Interracial Community: Three Educational Values for a Multicultural Society”, Office of Graduate Studies and Research, University of Massachusetts, Boston. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2014.922057">https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2014.922057 </a> Carens, J. (2000) Culture, Citizenship and Community: A Contextual Exploration of Justice as Evenhandedness, Oxford: Oxford University Press. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/0198297688.001.0001">https://doi.org/10.1093/0198297688.001.0001</a>. Coleman, D. L. (1996) “Individualizing Justice through Multiculturalism: The Liberals’ Dilemma,” Columbia Law Review,96(5): 1093–1167. <a href="https://doi.org/10.2307/1123402">https://doi.org/10.2307/1123402</a>. Coulthard, G. (2007) “Subjects of Empire: Indigenous Peoples and the ‘Politics of Recognition’ in Canada,” Contemporary Political Theory,6(4): 437–60. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.cpt.9300307">https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.cpt.9300307</a>. --------------- (2014) Red Skins, White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. <a href="https://doi.org/10.7202/1041624ar">https://doi.org/10.7202/1041624ar</a> DenscombeHartyn (2001) the good research guide: for small- scale social research projects, Philadelphia; Biddies Ltd. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/s0038038599250535">https://doi.org/10.1017/s0038038599250535</a> Fraser, N. (1997) Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections on the ‘Postsocialist’ Condition, London: Routledge. <a href="https://doi.org/10.2307/2654616">https://doi.org/10.2307/2654616 </a> Fraser, N. and A. Honneth (2003) Redistribution or Recognition? A Political-philosophical Exchange, London: Verso. <a href="https://doi.org/10.3366/per.2005.1.2.215">https://doi.org/10.3366/per.2005.1.2.215</a> Gooding-Williams, R. (1998) “Race, Multiculturalism and Democracy”, Constellations, 5(1): 18–41. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.00071">https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.00071</a> Green, L. (1994) “Internal Minorities and Their Rights,” in Group Rights, J. Baker (ed.), Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 101–117. Gutmann, A. (2003) Identity in Democracy, Princeton: Princeton University Press. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/383447">https://doi.org/10.1086/383447</a> Hero, R. (1998) Faces of Inequality: Social Diversity in American Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195117141.001.0001">https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195117141.001.0001</a> Hero, R. and R. Preuhs (2006) “Multiculturalism and Welfare Policies in the USA: A State-Level Comparative Analysis,” in Multiculturalism and the Welfare State: Recognition and Redistribution in Contemporary Democracies, K. Banting and W. Kymlicka (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 121–151. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/00016993080510040603">https://doi.org/10.1177/00016993080510040603</a> Ivison, D. (2006) “Historical Injustice,” in The Oxford Handbook of Political Theory, J. Dryzek, B. Honig and A. Phillips (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 507–25. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/s1468109910000186">https://doi.org/10.1017/s1468109910000186</a> Ivison, D., P. Patton and W. Sanders (2000) Political Theory and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/003231870105300112.%20">https://doi.org/10.1177/003231870105300112. </a> Kukathas, C. (1995) “Are There Any Cultural Rights?” Political Theory,20: 105–139. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591792020001006">https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591792020001006</a> ------------- (2003) The Liberal Archipelago: A Theory of Diversity and Freedom, Oxford: Oxford University Press. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/426351.%20">https://doi.org/10.1086/426351. </a> Kymlicka, W. (1989) Liberalism, Community and Culture, Oxford: Oxford University Press. <a href="https://doi.org/10.2307/1963282">https://doi.org/10.2307/1963282</a> ---------------- (1995) Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights, Oxford: Oxford University Press. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/s0008423900014700">https://doi.org/10.1017/s0008423900014700</a> --------------- (ed.) (1995) The Rights of Minority Cultures, Oxford: Oxford University Press. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/s0829320100005007">https://doi.org/10.1017/s0829320100005007</a> ------------- (1999) “Liberal Complacencies”, in Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? J. Cohen and M. Howard and M. C. Nussbaum (eds.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 31–34. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/233532">https://doi.org/10.1086/233532 </a> ------------- (2001) Politics in the Vernacular: Nationalism, Multiculturalism and Citizenship, Oxford: Oxford University Press. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/s0031819101410618">https://doi.org/10.1017/s0031819101410618 </a> Kymlicka, W. and K. Banting (2006) “Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State,” Ethics & International Affairs, 20 (3): 281–304. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7093.2006.00027.x">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7093.2006.00027.x </a> Kymlicka, W. and A. Patten (eds.) (2003) Language Rights and Political Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199262908.001.0001">https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199262908.001.0001 </a> Lovett, F. (2009) “Domination and Distributive Justice,” Journal of Politics, 71: 817–830. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381609090732">https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381609090732 </a> ----------- (2010) “Cultural Accommodation and Domination,” Political Theory, 38(2): 243–267. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591709354870">https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591709354870</a> Margalit, A. and J. Raz (1990) “National Self-Determination,” Journal of Philosophy, 87(9): 439–461. <a href="https://doi.org/10.2307/2026968">https://doi.org/10.2307/2026968 </a> Miller, D. (2002) “Liberalism, Equal Opportunities and Cultural Commitments,” in Multicultural Reconsidered: Culture and Equality and Its Critics, P. Kelly (ed.), Oxford: Polity Press, pp. 45–61. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/17.3.334">https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/17.3.334</a> Moore, M. (2005) “Internal Minorities and Indigenous Self-Determination,” in A. Eisenberg and J. Spinner-Halev 2005(eds.), pp. 271–293. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511490224.014">https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511490224.014</a> Nazari, A.-A. (2022) Analysis of the political: Understanding late theoretical foundations [in Persian]. Tehran: University of Tehran Press. Okin, S (1999) “Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?” in Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? J. Cohen, M. Howard and M. C. Nussbaum (eds.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 7–24. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/233532">https://doi.org/10.1086/233532 </a> Parekh, B. (2000) Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political Theory, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/378450">https://doi.org/10.1086/378450</a> Pettit, P. (1997) Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government, Oxford: Clarendon. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/s0953820800002363">https://doi.org/10.1017/s0953820800002363</a> Rawls, J. (1971) A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. Raz, J. (1986) The Morality of Freedom, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rorty, R. (1999) Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1515/sats.2000.177">https://doi.org/10.1515/sats.2000.177 </a> Scheffler S (2003) “What is Egalitarianism?” Philosophy and Public Affairs, 31(1): 5–39. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2003.00005.x">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2003.00005.x </a> Shachar, A. (2000) “On Citizenship and Multicultural Vulnerability,” Political Theory, 28: 64–89. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591700028001004">https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591700028001004 </a> -------------- (2001) Multicultural Jurisdictions: Cultural Differences and Women’s Rights, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/s0731126500010775">https://doi.org/10.1017/s0731126500010775 </a> Simpson, A. (2000) “Paths toward a Mohawk Nation: Narratives of Citizenship and Nationhood in Kahnawake,” in Political Theory and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, D. Ivison, P. Patton and W. Sanders (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 113–136. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/003231870105300112">https://doi.org/10.1177/003231870105300112 </a> Skinner, Q. (1998) Liberty before Liberalism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/s0953820800004143">https://doi.org/10.1017/s0953820800004143 </a> Song, S. (2005) “Majority Norms, Multiculturalism and Gender Equality”, American Political Science Review, 99(4): 473–1489. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055405051828">https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055405051828 </a> ------------ (2007) Justice, Gender and the Politics of Multiculturalism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/s1743923x09000129.%20">https://doi.org/10.1017/s1743923x09000129. </a> ------------- (2008) “The Subject of Multiculturalism: Culture, Religion, Language, Ethnicity, Nationality and Race?” in New Waves in Political Philosophy, B. de Bruin and C. Zurn (eds.), New York: Palgrave MacMillan, pp. 177–197. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230234994.%20">https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230234994. </a> Spinner-Halev, J. (2001) “Feminism, Multiculturalism, Oppression and the State,” Ethics, 112: 84–113. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/322741">https://doi.org/10.1086/322741 </a> Taylor, C. (1992) (1994) “The Politics of Recognition,” in Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition, A. Gutmann (ed.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 25–73. <a href="https://doi.org/10.7202/015381ar">https://doi.org/10.7202/015381ar </a> ----------- (1995) “Irreducibly Social Goods”, in Philosophical Arguments, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 127–145. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/233914.%20">https://doi.org/10.1086/233914. </a> Tom, C. (2018) Rethinking Recognition: Freedom, Self-Definition and Principles for Practice, Ph. D. Dissertation, Political Science Department, University of California/Berkeley, <a href="https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3xm3194x">available online</a>. Tully, J. (1995) Strange Multiplicity: Constitutionalism in an Age of Diversity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/s0953820800006294">https://doi.org/10.1017/s0953820800006294</a>. van Parijs, P. (ed.) (2004) Cultural Diversity versus Economic Solidarity, Louvain-la-Neuve: De Boeck. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996386.ch3">https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996386.ch3</a> Waldron, J (1995) “Minority Cultures and the Cosmopolitan Alternative,” in The Rights of Minority Cultures, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 93–119. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/s0829320100005007.%20">https://doi.org/10.1017/s0829320100005007. </a> Williams, M. (1998) Voice, Trust and Memory: Marginalized Groups and the Failings of Liberal Representation, Princeton: Princeton University Press. <a href="https://doi.org/10.2307/2585417">https://doi.org/10.2307/2585417 </a> Young, I. M. (1990) Justice and the Politics of Difference, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. <a href="https://doi.org/10.2307/1964259">https://doi.org/10.2307/1964259 </a>         <a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">*</a> Corresponding Author: Ph.D. Student in political science majoring in public policy Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran. <a href="mailto:saeedsafi@ut.ac.ir">saeedsafi@ut.ac.ir</a> <a href="https://orcid.org/0009-0002-7590-6723">https://orcid.org/0009-0002-7590-6723</a> <a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">**</a> Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Faculty of Law and Social Sciences, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran. <a href="mailto:r.izadi@tabrizu.ac.ir">r.izadi@tabrizu.ac.ir</a> <a href="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1838-2567">https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1838-2567</a>تحقیق حاضر می&zwnj;کوشد به روشی تحلیلی و با بهره&zwnj;گیری از داده&zwnj;های کیفی به&zwnj;دستآمده از کتابخانه به واکاوی رابطه میان چندفرهنگ&zwnj;گرایی و امر سیاسی از منظری نظری بپردازد. هدف تحقیق حاضر، کشف رابطۀ میان چندفرهنگ&zwnj;گرایی و امرسیاسی از طریق شناسایی مهم&zwnj;ترین توجیهات و استدلالهای نظری و نیز نقدهای وارده به چندفرهنگ&zwnj;گرایی از دریچۀ امر سیاسی است. یافته&zwnj;های پژوهش حاضر نشان می&zwnj;دهد که چندفرهنگ&zwnj;گرایی از طریق مفاهیم سه&zwnj;گانه سیاستِ شناسایی، سیاستِ &zwnj;هویت و سیاستِ&zwnj; تفاوت به امر سیاسی مرتبط شده و از این دریچه، توجیهاتی را استدلال نموده و نقدهایی نیز به آن وارد شده است. تحقیق حاضر، چهار توجیه نظری که از جنس امر سیاسی است، برای چندفرهنگ&zwnj;گرایی یافته که عبارتند از: به رسمیت شناختن، برابری، آزادی از سلطه و رسیدگی به بی&zwnj;عدالتی تاریخی. از دریچه امر سیاسی نیز شش نقد به چندفرهنگ&zwnj;گرایی شناسایی کردیم که عبارتند از: نگاه جهانوطنی به فرهنگ، چالش انطباق، آرمان جهانی برابری و توجه به حقوق اقلیت در اقلیت&zwnj;ها، انحراف از سیاست بازتوزیع، نقد پسااستعماری و نقد فمنیستی.

http://political.ihss.ac.ir/fa/Article/Download/50866

مرکز منطقه ای اطلاع رسانی علوم و فناوریپژوهش سیاست نظری2008-57962038202623"A Theoretical Reflection on the Relationship Between Power Structure and the Stability/Instability of Political Partiesتحلیل تطبیقی رابطۀ ساختار قدرت و پایداری/ ناپایداری احزاب سیاسی در ساختارهای اقتدارگرا، دموکراتیک و شبه¬اقتدارگرا193220fa مسلم خسروی زارگزدانشجوی دکتری علوم سیاسی، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، ایران0009-0009-1086-4957وحید سینائیدانشیار علوم سیاسی دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه فردوسي مشهد، ایران 0000-0003-3985-24492025722Comparative Analysis of the Relationship between Power Structures and the Stability/Instability of Political Parties in Authoritarian, Democratic, and Semi-Authoritarian Systems   Moslem Khosravy Zargaz<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">*</a> Vahid Sinaee<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">**</a>   Political parties, as intermediary institutions between the state and society, play a fundamental role in strengthening democratic processes and enhancing the efficiency of governance. However, the durability and stability of these parties are directly influenced by the structural characteristics of power within different political regimes. The present study adopts a comparative approach to examine the relationship between the structure of political power and the stability or instability of political parties. The central research question is: Why do political parties remain stable in some regimes while persisting instability characterizes others? In response, the study hypothesizes that the constituent elements of power structures—including the nature of political authority, the mode of power distribution and participation, the separation of powers, and the role of informal institutions—function as key determinants of party stability or instability across democratic, authoritarian, and semi-authoritarian regimes. The findings indicate that, within democratic structures, despite organizational weaknesses and socio-economic pressures, conditions exist that facilitate party continuity and stability. In contrast, in authoritarian structures, the concentration of power and the suppression of political competition result in the establishment of state-dominated single-party systems and the decline of alternative parties. Semi-authoritarian regimes, which ostensibly employ democratic mechanisms but operate in practice with authoritarian tendencies, exhibit shorter party life cycles and reduced overall party stability.   Keywords: Power Structure, Authoritarianism, Democratic, , semi-authoritarianism, political party.   Introduction Political parties, as intermediary institutions between the state and society, play a vital role in consolidating democracy, aggregating interests, and enhancing governance efficiency. However, their durability and performance are heavily influenced by the prevailing institutional environment and the structure of power. A review of the literature indicates that while prior studies have emphasized sociological, economic, and legal factors in party instability, the systematic role of the “structure of power” as an independent variable has received relatively little attention. This study addresses this theoretical gap by proposing an analytical framework based on the “structure of power,” defined along two dimensions: the mechanism of power transfer (competitive versus monopolized) and the quality of power distribution (centralized versus decentralized), which manifest across three ideal-typical regime forms: democratic, authoritarian, and semi-authoritarian.   Research Findings In authoritarian structures, the concentration of power, suppression of political competition, and dominance of informal and security institutions render party independence and stability virtually impossible. Parties in such contexts are either entirely eliminated or transformed into instruments for regime legitimation and the distribution of rents. Dependence on individual leadership, weak social bases, lack of broad organizational capacity, and the threat of judicial-security dissolution shorten party life cycles and make them entirely contingent on the central power nucleus. In contrast, democratic structures, by providing an institutional environment composed of transparent electoral laws, free media, separation of powers, and independent oversight bodies, enable healthy competition and the institutionalization of parties. Party stability in this context arises from responsiveness to public demands, programmatic consistency, and internal cohesion. Nevertheless, these structures are not immune to instability. Factors such as personalized politics (charismatic dependency), ideological polarization, internal corruption, and inability to respond to socio-economic crises can lead to party decline or replacement. Crucially, however, such instability occurs within the legal framework and through electoral competition, allowing the system to reproduce and reform party institutions. Semi-authoritarian structures create a complex and dualistic environment. These regimes maintain the formal appearance of democracy (e.g., elections and multiparty systems) while employing undemocratic tools—media control, electoral engineering, and legal and financial restrictions—that severely constrain competition. In this context, ruling parties or “loyal pseudo-opposition” parties are strengthened, whereas independent opposition parties are marginalized, weakened, and isolated. The absence of genuine competition, systemic inequalities in resource access, and widespread public distrust prevent even permitted parties from playing effective representative roles, thereby undermining institutional stability. Party life cycles are shorter and highly dependent on developments within the inner circles of power.   Conclusion In conclusion, political party stability is neither accidental nor incidental but a direct and systematic outcome of power structure design. Democratic structures, by creating competitive impulses and opportunities for reform, provide the conditions for party dynamism and relative longevity. Conversely, authoritarian and semi-authoritarian structures, through mechanisms of monopoly, control, and exclusion, inherently generate party instability. This study demonstrates that any effort to strengthen party systems and consolidate democracy requires fundamental attention to reforming power structures toward a competitive, decentralized, and accountable framework.   References Azadi, Esmail. (2019) Genealogy of Political Currents and Pathology of Parties in Iran. Tehran: Sales Publications. Attaway, Marina. (2007) Transition to Quasi-Democracy or Quasi-Authoritarianism. Translated by Saeed Mirterrabi. Tehran: Ghomes Publications. Ahmadi, Mona et al. (2022) "Legal Obstacles to the Establishment and Development of Political Parties in Iran: A Critique of the 2016 Law on the Activities of Political Parties and Groups." Quarterly Journal of Politics, Year 5, No. 11, pp. 342-360. https://doi.org/10.30510/psi.2022.319702.2801 Akhavan Kazemi, Bahram. (2009) Causes of the Inefficiency of Political Parties in Iran. Tehran: Islamic Revolution Documents Center. Ardestani, Mahmoud. (2010) Democracy and the Military in Egypt. Tehran: Ziaei Publications. Smith, Brian Clive. (2008) Understanding Third World Politics: Theories of Development and Political Change. Translated by Amirmohammad Yousefi and Mohammad Saeed Ghaeni Najafi. Tehran: Political and International Studies. Ashrafi, Akbar. (2018) "Examining the Philosophy of Formation and Reasons for the Suspension of the Islamic Republican Party's Activities." Iranian Political Sociology, No. 2, pp. 67-90. Emam Jomehzadeh, Seyed Javad, and Seyed Davoud Masoumi. (2010). "Rentierism and Its Impact on the State-Party Relationship in Iran (1951-1979)." Contemporary Political Essays, Year 1, No. 1, pp. 33-49. Ayoubi, Hojatollah (2001) Political Parties in the West. Tehran: Soroush Publications. Bakhshi Ani, Reza et al. (2022) "Democracy or Dictatorship: The Effect of Political System Type on Economic Institutions." Quarterly Journal of Economic Research and Policies, Year 30, No. 102, pp. 53-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.52547/qjerp.30.102.53 Blondel, Jean. (1999) Comparative Government. Translated by Ali Morshedizad. Tehran: Islamic Revolution Documents Center. Pirouz, Majid. (2021) Analysis of Institutional Barriers to the Institutionalization of the Islamic Republican Party. Doctoral Dissertation in Political Science, Supervisor: Seyed Alireza Beheshti, Faculty of Humanities, Tarbiat Modares University. Tabriznia, Hossein. (1998) Some Causes of Political Party Instability in Iran. Tehran: Siavash Publications. Duverger, Maurice. (2007) Political Parties. Translated by Rahim Oloumi. Tehran: Amir Kabir Publications. Shahbazi, Mahboob. (2001) The Fate of Democracy: The Role of Elections in Iran's Democratic Process. Tehran: Roozeneh Publications. Abbasi, Reza. (2020) Political Systems in the Contemporary Era. Tehran: Islamic Azad University Publications. Alam, Mohammad Reza. (2000) The Share of Iranian Political Culture in the Instability of Political Parties from the First Parliament to the Fall of the Qajar Dynasty. Doctoral Dissertation, Supervisor: Ali Asghar Mossadegh, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Shahid Beheshti University. Ghazi (Shariatpanahi), Abolfazl (2004) Constitutional Law and Political Institutions, 12th Edition. Tehran: Mizan Publications. Ghanavati, Nasrin et al. (2017) "Reproduction of Rentier Structure in Iran." Strategic Studies in Public Policy (Globalization Strategic Studies), Year 7, No. 25, pp. 203-221. Ghovan, Abdolali (1992) Political Development and Administrative Transformation. Tehran: Ghomes Publications. Katz, Richard S., and William Crotty (2016) Handbook of Party Politics. Translated by Mohsen Mirdamadi and Seyed Alireza Beheshti Shirazi. Tehran: Roozeneh Publications. Kavian, Mahmoud (2009) Islamic Movements in Egypt. Tehran: Khat-e Sevvom Publications. McLean, Iain (2002) The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Translated by Hamid Ahmadi. Tehran: Mizan Publications. Montesquieu, Charles de. (1994) The Spirit of the Laws. Translated by Ali Akbar Mohtadi. Tehran: Amir Kabir Publications. Nouzari, Hassan Ali (2002) Political Parties and Party Systems. Tehran: Gostareh Publications. Weber, Max (2016) Economy and Society. Translated by Mohammad Emadzadeh et al. Tehran: SAMT Publications. Hemmati, Zahra et al. (2023) "Applying the Causal Layered Analysis Method to Analyze the Dysfunction of Political Parties in Iran (1906-2021)." Siasat-e Motalea Quarterly, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 141-162. <a href="https://doi.org/10.22034/sm.2023.528931.1693">https://doi.org/10.22034/sm.2023.528931.1693</a>. Abdullah, W. J. (2016) Assessing party structures: Why some regimes are more authoritarian than others. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 70 (2),121–140.https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2016.1151859. Bill, J. A. (1973) The plasticity of informal politics: The case of Iran. Middle East Journal, 27(2), 131–151. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4325054. Bryan, A. (2021) Political parties and republican democracy. Contemporary Political Theory, 21(2), 262-282. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41296-021-00499-5. Dahl, R. A. (1971) Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. Yale University. Press.https://dispes.units.it/sites/dispes.units.it/files/all_pers/Dahl%20Poliarchy001.pdf. Della Porta, D. (2004) Political parties and corruption: Ten hypotheses on five vicious circles.Crime,Law and Social Change, 42(1), 35–60. https://doi.org/10.1023/B\:CRIS.0000041038.99879.9c. Easton, D. (2024) The analysis of political structure. Routledge Ekman, J. (2009) Political participation and regime stability: A framework for analyzing hybrid regimes. International Political Science Review, 30(1), 7–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512108097054. Gill, Graeme. (1987) The single party as an agent of development: Lessons from the Soviet experience. World Politics, 39 (4), 566–578. https://doi.org/10.2307/2010292. Gray, J. (2016, February 13) The role of political parties in Putin’s hybrid-regime. E-International Relations. https://www.e-ir.info/2016/02/13/the-role-of-political-parties-in-putins-hybrid-regime. Gugin, L. C. (2008) The impact of political structure on the political power of women: A comparison of Britain and the United States, 37–56. https://doi.org Hafner, Fink D. (2024) Party system changes and challenges to democracy: Slovenia in a comparative perspective. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54949-6. Linz, J. J. (1964) An authoritarian regime: Spain. In E. Allardt & Y. Littunen (Eds.), Cleavages, ideologies and party systems (pp. 291–341). Helsinki: Transactions of the Westermarck Society. ---------- (2000) Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. Lynne Rienner Publishers. Moe, T. M. (2005) Power and Political Institutions. Perspectives on Politics, (3),215-233. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592705050176. Pildes, R. H. (2002) Constitutionalizing democratic politics (Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper Series, No. 44). New York University School of Law. https://ssrn.com/abstract=317800. Pinto, António Costa. (2002) Elites, single parties and political decision-making in fascist-era dictatorships. Contemporary European History, 11(3), 429–454. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0960777302003053. Przeworski, A. (1991) Democracy and the market: Political and economic reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. Cambridge University Press. Reuter, O. J. (2021) Why do ruling parties extend authoritarian rule? Examining the role of elite institutions and mass organization (V-Dem Working Paper Series 2021:118). V-Dem Institute, University of Gothenburg. https://www.v-dem.net/media/publications/wp_118_final.pdf. Rye, D. (2015) Political parties and power: A new framework for analysis. PoliticalStudies,63(5),1052–1069. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12158. Sondrol, P. C. (2007) Paraguay: A semi-authoritarian regime? Armed Forces & Society, 34(1), 46–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X06295513. World Scientific. (2025) Authoritarian party systems. World Scientific. Retrieved April 10, 2025, from. https://www.worldscientific.com Zahirinejad, M. (2016) Hybrid regime and rentier state: Democracy or authoritarianism in Iran? Hemispheres: Studies on Cultures and Societies, 31(4), 21–31. https://doi.org/10.15804/hso160402.     <a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">*</a> Ph.D. Student in Political Science, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashad, Iran. <a href="mailto:moslem.khosravy@birjand.ac.ir">moslem.khosravy@birjand.ac.ir</a> 0009-0009-1086-4957 <a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">**</a> Corresponding Author: Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashad, Iran. sinaee@um.ac.ir <a href="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3985-2449">0000-0003-3985-2449</a>احزاب سیاسی به &zwnj;عنوان نهادهای میانجی میان دولت و جامعه، نقشی بنیادین در تقویت فرایندهای دموکراتیک و ارتقای کارآمدی نظام حکمرانی ایفا می&zwnj;کنند. با این حال دوام و پایداری این احزاب به &zwnj;طور مستقیم تحت &zwnj;تأثیر ویژگی&zwnj;های ساختاری قدرت در انواع رژیم&zwnj;های سیاسی قرار دارد. پژوهش حاضر با رویکردی تطبیقی، به واکاوی رابطۀ میان ساختار قدرت سیاسی و پایداری یا ناپایداری احزاب سیاسی می&zwnj;پردازد. پرسش اصلی این است که چرا احزاب سیاسی در برخی از رژیم&zwnj;های سیاسی پایدارند، در&zwnj; حالی &zwnj;که در برخی دیگر دچار ناپایداری می&zwnj;شوند؟ در پاسخ به این پرسش، فرضیه پژوهش اینگونه مطرح می&zwnj;شود که مؤلفه&zwnj;های سازندۀ ساختار قدرت شامل: سرشت حاکمیت سیاسی، شیوۀ توزیع و مشارکت در قدرت، تفکیک قوا و  نهادهای غیر رسمی ساختار قدرت، در چارچوب انواع رژیم&zwnj;های سیاسی اعم از دموکراتیک، اقتدارگرا و شبه&zwnj;اقتدارگرا، عامل تعیین&zwnj;کننده در ثبات یا بی&zwnj;ثباتی احزاب سیاسی محسوب می&zwnj;شود. یافته&zwnj;های پژوهش نشان می&zwnj;دهد که در ساختارهای دموکراتیک، علی&zwnj;رغم وجود ضعف&zwnj;های سازمانی و فشارهای اجتماعی- اقتصادی، زمینه&zwnj;های لازم برای تداوم و ثبات احزاب فراهم می&zwnj;گردد. در مقابل، در ساختارهای اقتدارگرا، تمرکز قدرت و حذف رقابت سیاسی به شکل&zwnj;گیری نظام تک&zwnj;حزبی دولتی و زوال سایر احزاب منجر می&zwnj;شود. همچنین در رژیم&zwnj;های شبه&zwnj;اقتدارگرا که در ظاهر از سازوکارهای دموکراتیک بهره می&zwnj;گیرند اما در عمل رویکردی اقتدارگرایانه دارند، چرخۀ حیات احزاب، کوتاه&zwnj;تر بوده و میزان پایداری آنها، کاهش می&zwnj;یابد.

http://political.ihss.ac.ir/fa/Article/Download/50923

مرکز منطقه ای اطلاع رسانی علوم و فناوریپژوهش سیاست نظری2008-57962038202623Critical Analysis of the Discourse of Political Pan-Islamism in Maulana Muhammad Barakatullah Bhopali’s (Indian) Thought in the 1924 Book 'The Khilafet'تحلیل انتقادی گفتمان پان‌اسلامیسم سیاسی در اندیشۀ «مولانا محمد برکت‌الله بوپالی» (هندوستانی) در کتاب «خلافت» (چاپ 1924 میلادی)329376faمحمدمحمدزاده ویژهدانشجوی دکتری مطالعات هند، دانشکده مطالعات جهان، دانشگاه تهران، ایران https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5940-0098 مازیار مظفری فلارتیاستادیار گروه مطالعات جنوب و شرق آسیا و اقیانوسیه، دانشکده مطالعات جهان، دانشگاه تهران، ایران https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5305-8589 حشمتالسادات معینی فردانشیار گروه مطالعات جنوب و شرق آسیا و اقیانوسیه، دانشکده مطالعات جهان، دانشگاه تهران، ایران https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4256-3808 حمیدهمولائی فرسنگیدانشیار گروه مطالعات جنوب و شرق آسیا و اقیانوسیه، دانشکده مطالعات جهان، دانشگاه تهران، ایران https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2692-950X2025723Critical Analysis of the Discourse of Political Pan-Islamism in Maulana Muhammad Barakatullah Bhopali’s (Indian) Thought in the 1924 Book 'The Khilafet'   Mohammad Mohammadzadeh Vizheh <a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">*</a> Maziar Mozaffari Falarti<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">**</a> Heshmat Saddat Moeinifar<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3">***</a> Hamideh Molaei Farsangi<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4">****</a>   From the perspective of historians, the First World War is regarded as a turning point in the political and social transformations of West Asia. The collapse of the Ottoman state, the formation of secular nation-states, and the weakening of the institution of the caliphate are considered among the most significant consequences of this war. Some Islamists, including Muhammad Barkatullah, viewed the disintegration of the Ottoman caliphate as a serious threat to the cohesion of the Islamic ummah and emphasized the necessity of rethinking the concept of the caliphate. Following the abolition of the caliphate, Barkatullah proposed the idea of a “Caliphate Republic” in an attempt to present a new model for organizing the Islamic ummah in opposition to secular nation-states and global imperialism. The central hypothesis of this study is that the concept of the Caliphate Republic constitutes the most important unifying component in Barkatullah’s pan-Islamist discourse. Employing Ruth Wodak’s Discourse-Historical Approach, this article analyzes Barkatullah’s book The Khilafat and seeks to answer the following questions: “How did Barkatullah use the institution of the caliphate to consolidate Islamic unity?” and “How did Barkatullah justify concepts such as spiritual communism, Islamic unity, and the secular state in pursuit of pan-Islamist objectives?” The findings indicate that Barkatullah’s thought has both theoretical and practical dimensions. On the practical level, by integrating the spiritual and material (financial) aspects of the caliphate, he proposed a solution to overcome the crisis resulting from its collapse and advanced three components—individual spirituality, a communist economy, and a secular state—in a heterogeneous and unstructured combination, aimed at achieving Muslim unity. On the theoretical level, his pan-Islamist discourse is grounded in a redefinition of the caliphate—one that presents it not merely as a traditional institution, but as a model for organizing the Islamic ummah and resisting the structures of global imperialism.   Keywords: Transnational Islamism; Pan-Islamism; Caliphate; Discourse-Historical Approach; Muhammad Barkatullah.   Introduction British colonial domination over India represents a paradigmatic case of political, economic, and cultural imperialism in Asia, producing enduring consequences such as economic inequality, social injustice, religious fragmentation, and normative transformation. These conditions, coupled with rising political consciousness and widespread discontent, catalyzed the emergence of anti-colonial movements. Initially reactive to local grievances, these movements gradually evolved into broader ideological discourses by integrating national and religious frameworks. Three principal ideological currents emerged: absolute nationalism, rooted in secular modernity and emphasizing sovereignty, social justice, and economic equity; absolute Islamism, which rejected territorially bounded nationalism as incompatible with the transnational ummah and prioritized Islamic identity; and an intermediate nationalist–Islamist discourse that sought synthesis through shared values like freedom, justice, and resistance to colonialism. Within this ideological spectrum, Maulana Muhammad Barkatullah Bhopali emerged as a distinctive intellectual figure who bridged Islamism, nationalism, and even socialist thought in the struggle against colonial rule. His 1924 book The Caliphate stands at the intersection of these discourses, reinterpreting the Caliphate not merely as a historical institution but as a political and spiritual project for Muslim unity and anti-colonial mobilization. This study examines Barkatullah’s Pan-Islamist discourse in The Caliphate, analyzing how he redefined Islamic unity in response to the collapse of the Ottoman Caliphate and the pressures of Western imperialism.   Literature Review This research draws on three interconnected bodies of literature. First, studies on the socio-political context of late 19th- and early 20th-century India and the Islamic world illuminate how British colonial policies marginalized Muslim communities, fueling resistance and alternative ideologies such as nationalism and Pan-Islamism. These works highlight the role of colonialism in reshaping religious and political identities. Second, scholarship on Pan-Islamism and the Caliphate question reveals that Pan-Islamism was not merely religious idealism but a political response to Western domination and the disintegration of the Ottoman order. The Caliphate, as both symbolic and institutional center of Muslim unity, became a focal point of debate. While Ottoman-centered Pan-Islamism was largely defensive, it inspired diverse intellectual responses: from Rashid Rida’s call for restoration, to Ali Abd al-Raziq’s secular critique, to al-Sanhuri’s reformist reinterpretation. After the Caliphate’s abolition in 1924, the idea of “Islamic unity” increasingly replaced institutional revival. Third, biographical and analytical works on Barkatullah’s life and activism reveal the deep interconnection between his transnational experiences—spanning Europe, the U.S., and Asia—and his theoretical formulations. His engagement with revolutionary networks, anti-colonial diplomacy, and Marxist ideas shaped a unique vision of Pan-Islamism as both ideological and practical resistance.   Problem Statement Despite growing interest in anti-colonial thought, Barkatullah remains a relatively understudied figure, particularly regarding his conceptualization of the Caliphate and its role in Pan-Islamist discourse. Central questions remain unexplored: How did Barkatullah reconcile Islamic unity with republican and even socialist ideals? In what ways did he redefine the Caliphate in response to colonialism and the post-Ottoman vacuum? And how did his discourse navigate tensions between spiritual authority, political mobilization, and economic justice? This study addresses these gaps by critically analyzing The Caliphate as both a theoretical text and a political manifesto, situating it within the broader discourse of anti-colonial Pan-Islamism.   Methodology The study employs Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), specifically Ruth Wodak’s Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA), to examine the construction and function of key concepts in Barkatullah’s text. DHA emphasizes the dialectical relationship between language, power, ideology, and historical context, asserting that discourse both reflects and reproduces social realities. The approach utilizes five analytical strategies: Referential (naming and categorization), Predicational (attribution of qualities), Argumentation (justification of claims), Perspectivization (framing of viewpoints), and Intensification/mitigation (emphasizing or downplaying ideas). By integrating linguistic analysis with historical and socio-political context, this method enables the uncovering of hidden ideological structures and power dynamics. The central research question is: How was the discourse of Pan-Islamism in Muhammad Barkatullah’s thought formulated and consolidated through specific discursive strategies in connection with historical and anti-colonial contexts?   Findings and Discussion Analysis of The Caliphate reveals Barkatullah’s effort to reconstruct the institution as a consultative, transnational, and anti-colonial framework grounded in the collective will of the ummah. He distinguishes between the “authentic Caliphate” of early Islam—characterized by service, consultation (shura), equality, and public welfare—and the “Ottoman sultanate,” which he critiques for merging spiritual and temporal power, leading to despotism under rulers like Abdulhamid II. Barkatullah traces the Caliphate’s decline to both external interference—European powers exploiting ethnic and nationalist divisions—and internal authoritarianism. He views its 1924 abolition not as an isolated event but as the culmination of a long historical process. In redefining the Caliphate, he returns to the “golden age” of the Prophet and the Rightly Guided Caliphs, portraying early Islamic governance as inherently just and egalitarian. Notably, he describes early Muslim economic practices using the term “spiritual communism,” emphasizing communal solidarity and resource equity—concepts resonant with 1920s leftist discourse but framed within Islamic ethics. Crucially, Barkatullah advocates for a clear separation between religion and politics. He warns that a centralized religious state risks tyranny and instead proposes a secular, law-based state alongside a spiritual Caliphate. This spiritual institution would focus on moral guidance, Qur’anic revival, interfaith peace, and social justice through ethical management of public funds (bayt al-mal), rather than political rule. However, this model faces significant limitations. By renouncing political authority, the spiritual Caliphate lacks mechanisms for enforcing unity, resisting colonial influence, or resolving intra-Muslim conflicts. His vision, while ideologically rich, appears more as a cautious retreat than a viable political program. The text reflects deep tensions: between Pan-Islamist idealism and geopolitical realism, between Islamic unity and national liberation, and between revolutionary anti-colonialism and institutional feasibility.   Conclusion Maulana Muhammad Barkatullah Bhopali’s The Caliphate represents a pivotal yet underrecognized contribution to anti-colonial and Islamic political thought. His discourse exemplifies the complex interplay of Islamism, nationalism, and transnational solidarity in the early 20th century. By redefining the Caliphate as a spiritual, consultative, and justice-oriented institution, Barkatullah sought to preserve Islamic identity while adapting to modern realities. Yet his proposal ultimately reveals intellectual ambivalence—a response to crisis rather than a coherent blueprint for action. This study demonstrates that Barkatullah’s thought cannot be reduced to a single ideology. Instead, it occupies a liminal space where Pan-Islamism, anti-colonial resistance, and socio-economic justice converge. While his vision of a spiritual Caliphate may lack practical enforceability, it remains significant as a moral critique of both colonial domination and authoritarian rule. In an era of fragmented Muslim polities and enduring external intervention, Barkatullah’s call for unity, justice, and ethical governance continues to resonate—albeit as a challenge rather than a solution.   Refrence Ansari, H. (2014) Maulana Barkatullah Bhopali’s transnationalism: Pan Islamism, colonialism, and radical politics. In Transnational Islam in interwar Europe: Muslim activists and thinkers (pp. 181–209). Palgrave Macmillan. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137387042_8">https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137387042_8</a>. Aydın, C. (2006). Beyond civilization: Pan Islamism, Pan Asianism and the revolt against the West. Journal of Modern European History, 4(2), 204–223. <a href="https://doi.org/10.17104/1611-8944_2006_2_204">https://doi.org/10.17104/1611-8944_2006_2_204</a>. Barakatullah, M. (1970) The Khilafat (Urdu). Society for Pakistan Studies. Belmekki, B. (2007) The impact of British rule on the Indian Muslim community in the nineteenth century. Revista de Filología Inglesa, (28), 27–46. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1163/22138617-12340266">https://doi.org/10.1163/22138617-12340266</a>. Islam, A. (2021) Pan Islamic international cooperation and anticolonialism: South Asia, Turkey, and Southeast Asia. Hamdard Islamicus, 44(1), 9–28. <a href="https://doi.org/10.57144/hi.v44i1.193">https://doi.org/10.57144/hi.v44i1.193</a>. Khalid, A. (2013) Pan Islamism in practice: The rhetoric of Muslim unity and its uses. In E. Özdalga (Ed.), Late Ottoman society: The intellectual legacy (pp. 201–224). Routledge. <a href="https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203481387-15">https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203481387-15</a>. Khan, S. O. (2007) The “Caliphate question”: British views and policy toward pan Islamic politics and the end of the Ottoman caliphate. American Journal of Islam and Society, 24(4), 1–25. <a href="https://doi.org/10.35632/ajis.v24i4.427">https://doi.org/10.35632/ajis.v24i4.427</a>. Landau, J. M. (2015) Pan Islam: History and politics. Routledge. <a href="https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315680552">https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315680552</a>. Madhusoodanan, S. (2009) The development of nationalism in the Indian case (Undergraduate honors thesis). University of South Florida. Rajan, M. S. (1969) The impact of British rule in India. Journal of Contemporary History, 4(1), 89–102. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/002200946900400106">https://doi.org/10.1177/002200946900400106</a>. Shamshad, M., & Rehman, A. (2021) Khilafat Movement in sub-continent: A shade of pan-Islamism. The Dialogue, 16(2), 87–98. Siddiqui, S. (2017) The career of Muhammad Barkatullah (1864–1927): From intellectual to anti-colonial revolutionary (Master’s thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill). <a href="https://doi.org/10.17615/1wsz-2f56">https://doi.org/10.17615/1wsz-2f56</a>. Siddiqui, S. (2019) Coupled internationalisms: Charting Muhammad Barkatullah’s anti-colonialism and pan-Islamism. ReOrient, 5(1), 25–46. <a href="https://doi.org/10.13169/reorient.5.1.0025">https://doi.org/10.13169/reorient.5.1.0025</a>. Soleimani, K. (2016) Islam and competing nationalisms in the Middle East, 1876–1926. Palgrave Macmillan. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59940-7">https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59940-7</a>. Verma, V. (2019) Modernity, colonial injustice and individual responsibility: A study of Gandhi and Ambedkar. In Gandhi and the contemporary world (pp. 113–128). Routledge India. <a href="https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367809447-8">https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367809447-8</a>. Wodak, R. (2001) The discourse historical approach. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 63–94). SAGE. <a href="https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857028020.n4">https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857028020.n4</a>. Wodak, R. (2015) Critical discourse analysis, discourse-historical approach. In The international encyclopedia of language and social interaction (Vol. 3). Wiley. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi116">https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi116</a>.     <a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">*</a> Ph.D. Student in Indian Studies, Faculty of World Studies, University of Tehran, Iran. <a href="mailto:mohammadzadeh.mv@ut.ac.ir">mohammadzadeh.mv@ut.ac.ir</a> <a href="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5940-0098">https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5940-0098</a> <a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">**</a>Corresponding Author: Assistant Professor, Department of South, East Asian and Oceanian Studies, Faculty of World Studies, University of Tehran, Iran. <a href="mailto:mmfalarti@ut.ac.ir">mmfalarti@ut.ac.ir</a> <a href="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5305-8589">https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5305-8589</a> <a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3">***</a>Associate Professor, Department Department of South, East Asian and Oceanian Studies, Faculty of World Studies, University of Tehran, Iran. <a href="mailto:hmoinifar@ut.ac.ir">hmoinifar@ut.ac.ir</a> <a href="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4256-3808">https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4256-3808</a> <a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4">****</a>Associate Professor, Department Department of South, East Asian and Oceanian Studies, Faculty of World Studies, University of Tehran, Iran. <a href="mailto:hmolaei@ut.ac.ir">hmolaei@ut.ac.ir</a> <a href="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2692-950X">https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2692-950X</a>از منظر تاریخ&zwnj;پژوهان، جنگ جهانی اول، نقطه عطفی در تحولات سیاسی-&zwnj;اجتماعی غرب آسیا محسوب می&zwnj;شود. سقوط حکومت عثمانی، شکل&zwnj;گیری دولت- ملت&zwnj;های سکولار و تضعیف نهاد خلافت، از مهم&zwnj;ترین پیامدهای این جنگ ارزیابی شده&zwnj; است. برخی از اسلام&zwnj;گرایان از جمله محمد برکت&zwnj;الله، فروپاشی خلافت عثمانی را خطری جدی برای انسجام امت اسلامی دانسته و بر ضرورت بازاندیشی در مفهوم خلافت تأکید داشتند. پس از انحلال خلافت، برکت&zwnj;الله با طرح ایده «جمهوری خلافت» کوشید تا الگویی نوین برای سازمان&zwnj;دهی امت اسلامی در برابر دولت- &zwnj;ملت&zwnj;های سکولار و امپریالیسم جهانی ارائه دهد. فرضیۀ محوری این پژوهش آن است که مفهوم جمهوری خلافت، مهم&zwnj;ترین مؤلفۀ وحدت&zwnj;آفرین در گفتمان پان&zwnj;اسلامیسم برکت&zwnj;الله است. این مقاله با بهره&zwnj;گیری از رویکرد گفتمان تاریخی «روث ووداک»، کتاب «خلافت» برکت&zwnj;الله را تحلیل کرده و کوشیده به پرسش&zwnj;های زیر پاسخ دهد: «چگونه برکت&zwnj;الله از نهاد خلافت برای تحکیم اتحاد اسلامی استفاده کرده است؟» و «برکت&zwnj;الله چگونه مفاهیمی مانند کمونیسم معنوی، اتحاد اسلامی و دولت سکولار را در راستای تحقق اهداف پان&zwnj;اسلامیسم توجیه کرده است؟». یافته&zwnj;های پژوهش نشان می&zwnj;دهد که اندیشه برکت&zwnj;الله دارای دو بعد نظری و عملی است. در بعد عملی، او با ادغام ابعاد معنوی و مادی (مالی) خلافت، راه&zwnj;حلی برای عبور از بحران فروپاشی خلافت ارائه کرده و سه مؤلفه معنویت فردی، اقتصاد کمونیستی و دولت سکولار را در ترکیبی ناهمگون و بدون چارچوب، اما با هدف اتحاد مسلمانان پیشنهاد کرده است. در بعد نظری، گفتمان پان&zwnj;اسلامیستی او بر بازتعریف خلافت استوار است؛ بازتعریفی که خلافت را نه صرفاً نهادی سنتی، بلکه الگویی برای سازمان&zwnj;دهی امت اسلامی و مقاومت در برابر ساختار امپریالیسم جهانی معرفی می&zwnj;کند.

http://political.ihss.ac.ir/fa/Article/Download/50925

مرکز منطقه ای اطلاع رسانی علوم و فناوریپژوهش سیاست نظری2008-57962038202623Neo-Constructivism: An Analysis of Identity, Narrative, Norms, and Methodology in International Relationsسازه‌انگاری نوین: تحلیل هویت، روایت، هنجار و روش‌شناسی در روابط بین‌الملل161191faزهرااحمدیدانشجوی دکتری گروه روابط بین‌الملل، واحد علوم و تحقیقات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران https://orcid.org/0009-0002-2696-4409محمدرضادهشیریاستاد گروه روابط بین‌الملل، دانشکده روابط بین‌الملل وزارت امور خارجه، تهران، ایران https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8223-33582025726Neo-Constructivism: An Analysis of Identity, Narrative, Norms, and Methodology in International Relations   Zahra Ahmadi<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">*</a> Mohammadreza Dehshiri<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">**</a>   Over the past three decades, constructivism has become one of the dominant approaches in International Relations. However, most studies have focused on its classical dimensions, while the more recent developments of this intellectual tradition have received less systematic attention. Aiming to address this theoretical gap, this article examines four emerging strands of constructivism: Narrative Power, Ontological Security Framework, Norm Contestation Theory, and Constructivist Grounded Theory. Each of these strands highlights new dimensions of global politics, ranging from the role of narratives in legitimization, to the importance of identity continuity for states, the dynamics of normative conflicts within the international order, and methodological rethinking in constructivist scholarship.The article adopts a qualitative and theoretical approach, based on conceptual analysis and a systematic review of the literature. In each section, the main thinkers and key works are introduced, the evolution of ideas is traced, and their analytical capacities for understanding contemporary transformations in the international system are assessed. The findings indicate that by moving beyond static and materialist frameworks, these four strands possess strong explanatory power for identity crises, normative contestation, and the complexities of global politics. Accordingly, this article offers an integrated picture of late constructivism and opens new horizons for identity- and norm-oriented research in International Relations.   Keywords: Constructivism, Narrative Power, Ontological Security, Normative Conflict, and Contextual Constructivist Methodology.   Introduction According to constructivist theory, political reality is socially constructed through intersubjective processes. This perspective highlights the limitations of classical theories that focus narrowly on material power and instrumental rationality when addressing identity crises, normative conflicts, and competing narratives in the contemporary world. Constructivism, as an approach that treats meaning, identity, norms, and discourse as foundational elements of international order, emerged in the late twentieth century in response to the deadlocks of positivism and rationalism. Its development has been shaped by the works of Wendt, Onuf, Finnemore, Sikkink, and Adler. Despite conceptual and methodological expansion, much of the literature remains focused on classical formulations, while more recent constructivist branches have been less systematically developed. This study therefore asks how four emerging strands of constructivism—narrative power, ontological security, normative conflict, and contextual constructivist methodology—are addressed in contemporary literature and how they relate to new phenomena such as digital globalization, the role of non-state actors, and narrative-driven politics. The study aims to provide a framework for reviewing, comparing, and analytically structuring these strands in relation to foreign policy, normative developments, and global order without presupposing a specific explanatory claim.   Research Methodology This study employs a qualitative, theoretical, and analytical approach, using conceptual-developmental analysis and systematic literature review to investigate the four emerging strands of constructivism. Through conceptual inquiry, the study extracts foundational components and developmental trajectories for each strand. The review focuses primarily on literature from 2000 to 2024, using critical engagement with foundational and developmental works to construct a conceptual map of recent transformations. The primary analytical strategy is “theoretical content analysis,” in which key concepts are coded, inter-conceptual relationships are identified, and the explanatory capacity of each strand is evaluated within a comparative-analytical framework. Given the exploratory nature of the research question and the lack of prior integrated frameworks, this approach enables a deeper understanding of the internal evolution of constructivism and its capacity to explain contemporary global political dynamics.   Findings Theoretical and Epistemic Foundations of Constructivism Constructivism rests on the premise that social reality, identities, norms, and interests are constructed through intersubjective, discursive, and historical processes. It stands in contrast to materialist and rationalist approaches, which treat structures and interests as given. Within this framework, structures and actors are mutually constitutive, and norms are not external constraints but core elements shaping actors’ identities and preferences. Interests emerge from social identities, and political action follows a logic of appropriateness rather than pure utility. Language and discourse are instruments for shaping reality, and power extends beyond material resources to include the capacity to generate meaning, legitimacy, and norms. Accordingly, identities, interests, norms, and even boundaries of self/other are dynamic and mutable; global political transformation requires shifts in dominant interpretive frameworks, providing the analytical foundation for the emerging constructivist strands of narrative power, ontological security, normative conflict, and contextual methodology.   Classical Branches of Constructivism From its inception, constructivism has been a pluralist tradition rather than a unified theory, with diverse strands and epistemic positions. Wendt categorized constructivism into modern, postmodern, and feminist currents, while subsequent scholars, including Hough, conceptualized it in terms of conventional versus critical constructivism. Conventional constructivism employs limited positivist principles to produce conditional empirical generalizations and attempts to bridge rationalist and interpretivist approaches. Critical constructivism, drawing on critical theory, emphasizes power, inequality, subordination, and the historical contingency of knowledge, positioning the researcher as part of the meaning-making process. These strands differ in their treatment of identity, knowledge, and methodology: conventional approaches treat identity as a dependent variable, while critical approaches view it as socially constructed, fluid, and power-contingent. Methods vary from data-driven quantitative approaches to discourse- and genealogy-based analyses. Yet all constructivist strands share commitments to the social nature of institutions, the intersubjectivity of meaning, and the dialectical actor-structure relationship. Late developments have shifted focus from stabilized norms to the dynamics of meaning, narrative construction, and discursive power, enhancing the theory’s analytical capacity in understanding contemporary global complexity.   Narrative Power Approach Narrative power, as a late development of constructivism, posits that narratives are central mechanisms for producing meaning, shaping identity, and directing political action in international relations. Inspired by constructivist emphasis on social construction, narratives are seen not as mere reflections of reality but as discursive frameworks through which political actors interpret the past, present, and future, formulate interests, and legitimize actions. Power is thus not confined to material resources but resides in the capacity to produce, stabilize, and contest dominant narratives, which influence public perception, national identity, foreign policy, and even international order. Global politics is understood as a field of narrative competition, where states and non-state actors use storytelling, representation, and persuasion to define reality, legitimacy, and position within the international system.   Ontological Security Framework The ontological security approach assumes that states, like individuals, require continuity and coherence in their identity to act effectively and sustainably in foreign policy. Identity threats can provoke ontological anxiety. Unlike materialist perspectives, which focus on survival and physical resources, this approach emphasizes meaning, narrative, and identity as central to security and interprets foreign policy behavior as identity-driven and discursively mediated. States maintain ontological security by reproducing established narratives and obtaining legitimacy from others, a process that can foster either stability or crisis. Key concepts include identity, meaning, narrative, and intersubjective interaction, with applicability extending to institutions and societies. Ontological security thus provides an analytical lens for understanding actions that traditional rationalist and materialist theories cannot fully explain, particularly under crisis conditions.   Normative Conflict Approach The normative conflict approach focuses on the dynamics and reinterpretation of norms in international relations. Norms are not imposed, fixed structures but products of interactions among actors within socio-political contexts. Implementation, violation, and interpretation of norms are always contested; negotiation, resistance, adaptation, and localization drive their reproduction and legitimation. Historically, this strand traces back to Kratochwil and the critical development of Wiener, with further contributions by Brune, Risse, and Lantis, and recent operationalization by Bettiza, Lewis, Gadinger, and Niemann. Normative conflict reveals that even accepted norms are subject to reinterpretation, challenge, and local and international influence, highlighting the role of power in shaping and transforming meaning and norms. This approach enables analysis beyond simple rule compliance or violation, emphasizing the interplay of meaning, power, and context as drivers of normative evolution.   Contextual Constructivist Methodology (CCM) Contextual constructivist theory (CCM) is a qualitative, reflexive approach that views knowledge as socially constructed through interactions between researchers and participants, rather than discovered. Building on Charmaz’s reinterpretation of classic grounded theory, CCM emphasizes contextual dependence, co-construction of meaning, and the cyclical nature of data collection and analysis, with theoretical sampling linking data to theory. CCM allows multi-layered analysis of norms, identities, and political-social interactions, integrates digital data and interdisciplinary or indigenous methods, and enables study of complex identity and cultural phenomena in international relations and beyond. Its key advantage lies in analytical richness through interactive meaning-making, bridging the gap between researcher and subject, though coding and analysis require rigorous methodological frameworks to maintain coherence and validity. CCM offers a flexible, innovative tool for understanding socio-identity phenomena and global politics, treating meaning and knowledge as products of interactive processes rather than objective realities.   Conclusion This study examined late constructivist strands to provide insight into the internal evolution of the tradition and its capacity to address contemporary global political complexity. These strands demonstrate that constructivism is no longer solely a classical identity-focused theory but a network of analytical approaches capable of capturing diverse levels of political action—from meaning-making and narrative construction to identity anxiety and normative conflict. The study argues that current global political dynamics, including narrative competition, identity polarization, normative legitimacy challenges, and evolving knowledge production, require approaches that integrate fluidity of meaning, historicity of identity, and context-dependence of political action. Late constructivist strands offer a broader analytical horizon, enabling a move beyond reductionist materialist explanations. Limitations include a focus on four selected strands at the expense of others, and the analysis remains largely theoretical. Future research can enrich this framework through empirical studies in specific foreign policy contexts, especially non-Western societies, and by linking these approaches to technological developments, digital data, and new discourse analysis methods. The value of this research lies in providing a conceptual framework for understanding the less visible layers of global politics, where meaning, identity, and norms are not peripheral but constitute the core of political action. This framework can help scholars understand contemporary world order not only as a distribution of power but as an ongoing process of social construction and redefinition.   References Emam-Jomehzadeh, Seyyed Javad, et al. (2013) “A Comparative Study of the Concept of Identity from the Perspective of the English School and Constructivist Theory in International Relations.” Political Research Quarterly (Scientific–Specialized Journal), Vol. 3, No. 8, pp. 128–144. Acharya, A. (2004) How ideas spread: Whose norms matter? Norm localization and institutional change in Asian regionalism. International organization, 52(8), 239–275. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818304582024">https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818304582024</a>. Ceydilek, E. (2023) not necessarily existential threats: identity-constitutive role of the foreign policy discourse on distant humanitarian crises. Alternatif Politika, 15(3), 445-470. <a href="https://doi.org/10.53376/ap.2023.17">https://doi.org/10.53376/ap.2023.17</a> Deitelhoff, N. (2020) what is in a name? Contestation and backlash against international norms and institutions. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 22(4), 715–727. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148120945906">https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148120945906</a>. Ejdus, F. (2020) Conflict, Peace, and Ontological Security. In: The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Peace and Conflict Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11795-5_126-1">https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11795-5_126-1</a> Falomir‐Pichastor, J., Muñoz‐Rojas, D., Invernizzi, F. & Mugny, G. (2004). Perceived in‐group threat as a factor moderating the influence of in‐group norms on discrimination against foreigners. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(2), 135–153. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.189">https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.189</a>. Gadinger, F. & Niemann, H. (2025) Normativity in practice: Ordering through enactment, learning, and contestation in global protests. Review of International Studies, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0260210525000142. Hopf, T. (1998) The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory. International Security, 23, 171–200. <a href="https://doi.org/10.2307/2539267">https://doi.org/10.2307/2539267</a>. Isaacs, R. (2017) The micro-politics of norm contestation between the OSCE and Kazakhstan: square pegs in round holes. Third World Quarterly, 39(9), 1831-1847. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2017.1357114">https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2017.1357114</a> Jackson, C. & Subotić, J. (2024) The ontological security-seeking paradox: domestic and international effects of public architecture in North Macedonia’s ‘Skopje 2014’ project. Millennium Journal of International Studies, 53(1), 3–30. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298241231742">https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298241231742</a> Keohane, R. O. (1988) International Institutions: Two Approaches. International Studies Quarterly, 32(4), 379-396. <a href="https://doi.org/10.2307/2600589">https://doi.org/10.2307/2600589</a> Levinger, M. & Roselle, L. (2017) Narrating Global Order and Disorder. Politics and Governance, 5(3), 94–98. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v5i3.1174 McSweeney, B. (2009) Security, Identity and Interests: A Sociology of International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. <a href="https://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam032/99011332.pdf">https://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam032/99011332.pdf</a>. Mitzen, J. (2006) Ontological Security in World Politics: State Identity and the Security Dilemma. European Journal of International Relations, 12(3), 341–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066106067346. Onuf, N. G. (1989) World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations. Columbia, United States: University of South Carolina Press. Persaud, I. (2019) Insider and Outsider Analysis: Constructing, Deconstructing, and Reconstructing Narratives of Seychelles’ Geography Education. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919842436">https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919842436</a>. Risse, T., & Wiener, A. (1999) Something Rotten” and the Social Construction of Social Constructivism: A Comment on Comments. Journal of European Public Policy, 6(5), 775–782. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/135017699343379">https://doi.org/10.1080/135017699343379</a>. Saltnes, J. & Thiel, M. (2021) The politicization of lgbti human rights norms in the EU-Uganda development partnership. JCMS Journal of Common Market Studies, 59(1), 108–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13141. Theys, S. (2017) Constructivism. In M. Stephen, International Relations Theory (pp. 36–41). Bristol, UK: E-International Relations. https://www.e-ir.info/2018/02/23/introducing-constructivism-in-international-relations-theory. Walker, R. J. (2019) East Wind, West Wind: Civilizations, Hegemonies, and World Orders. In Culture, Ideology, and World Order (pp. 1–21). New York: Taylor & Francis Group. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780429044878-1/east-wind-west-wind-civilizations-hegemonies-world-orders-walker Waltz, K. N. (1979) Theory of international politics. New York: McGraw-Hill. https://www.amazon.com/Theory-International-Politics-Kenneth-Waltz/dp/0075548526. Wendt, A. (1992) Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391–425. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2706858.         <a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">*</a> Ph.D. Student, Department of International Relations, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran. <a href="mailto:zahra.ahmadi@srbiau.ac.ir">zahra.ahmadi@srbiau.ac.ir</a> https://orcid.org/0009-0002-2696-4409 <a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">**</a> Corresponding Author: Professor, Department of International Relations, School of International Relations, Tehran, Iran. <a href="mailto:m.dehshiri@sir.ac.ir">m.dehshiri@sir.ac.ir</a> https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8223-3358سازه&zwnj;انگاری طی سه دهه اخیر به یکی از رویکردهای مسلط در روابط بین&zwnj;الملل بدل شده است. اما بیشتر پژوهش&zwnj;ها بر ابعاد کلاسیک آن تمرکز داشته، تحولات متأخر این سنت فکری، کمتر به &zwnj;طور منسجم بررسی شده است. این مقاله با هدف برطرف کردن این خلأ نظری، به واکاوی چهار شاخۀ نوظهور سازه&zwnj;انگاری می&zwnj;پردازد: قدرت روایی، امنیت هستی&zwnj;شناختی، منازعۀ هنجاری و نظریۀ زمینه&zwnj;ای سازه&zwnj;انگارانه. هر یک از این شاخه&zwnj;ها، ابعاد تازه&zwnj;ای از سیاست جهانی را برجسته می&zwnj;سازند؛ از نقش روایت&zwnj;ها در مشروعیت&zwnj;بخشی تا اهمیت تداوم هویت برای دولت&zwnj;ها، پویایی مناقشات هنجاری در نظم بین&zwnj;المللی و بازاندیشی روش&zwnj;شناختی در مطالعه سازه&zwnj;انگاری. روش مقاله، کیفی و نظری است و بر پایه تحلیل مفهومی و مرور نظام&zwnj;مند ادبیات تنظیم شده است. در هر بخش، ضمن معرفی متفکران اصلی و آثار شاخص، سیر تکاملی ایده&zwnj;ها ترسیم و ظرفیت&zwnj;های تحلیلی آنها برای فهم تحولات معاصر نظام بین&zwnj;الملل بررسی شده است. یافته&zwnj;ها نشان می&zwnj;دهد که این چهار شاخه، با عبور از چارچوب&zwnj;های ایستا و مادی&zwnj;گرا، توانایی بالایی در تبیین بحران&zwnj;های هویتی، منازعات هنجاری و پیچیدگی&zwnj;های سیاست جهانی دارند. بدین &zwnj;ترتیب مقاله حاضر، تصویری یکپارچه از سازه&zwnj;انگاری متأخر ارائه می&zwnj;دهد و افق&zwnj;های تازه&zwnj;ای برای پژوهش&zwnj;های هویتی- هنجاری در روابط بین&zwnj;الملل می&zwnj;گشاید.

http://political.ihss.ac.ir/fa/Article/Download/50953

مرکز منطقه ای اطلاع رسانی علوم و فناوریپژوهش سیاست نظری2008-57962038202623The Islamic Revolution: The Competition Between the Shah's Utopia and the Revolution's Utopiaانقلاب اسلامي: رقابت آرمان‌شهر شاه و آرمان‌شهر انقلاب91127faمحمدسمیعیدانشیار دانشکده مطالعات جهان، گروه مطالعات ایران، دانشکده مطالعات جهان، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران 5091-1704-0002-0000محمودمحمدیدانشجوی دکتری دانشکده مطالعات جهان، گروه مطالعات ایران، دانشکده مطالعات جهان، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران7317-3118-0003-00002025728The Islamic Revolution: The Competition Between the Shah's Utopia and the Revolution's Utopia   Mohammad Samii<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">*</a> Mahmoud Mohammadi<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">**</a>   Revolution can be understood as a competition between utopias that are articulated, on the one hand, by the established ruling order and, on the other, by revolutionary opponents for the masses. In the years leading up to the Islamic Revolution of Iran, the Pahlavi regime portrayed a bright future for Iranians, while revolutionary thinkers likewise articulated visions of the future and constructed their own utopias. In effect, the revolution was a competition between these two sets of utopian visions. This perspective, however, has received relatively little attention in analyses of the Islamic Revolution of Iran. The present study, drawing on Karl Mannheim’s theory of ideology and utopia, examines and compares the utopian visions of the two principal opposing poles in the Islamic Revolution of Iran: Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, representing the ruling establishment, and the theorists of the revolution, namely Imam Khomeini, Morteza Motahhari, and Ali Shariati. The aim of this study is to analyze the role of utopian thought in the formation of the Islamic Revolution and to understand the fundamental differences between these two types of utopias. In this regard, the article seeks to determine how the utopias of these two poles differed from one another and why one proved successful, while the other failed, in attracting the support of the masses. The findings of the study indicate that the utopia articulated by the theorists of the revolution, characterized by elements such as mystery and spirituality, flexibility of expression, revolutionary nature, and a strong capacity for popular mobilization, was able to provide a powerful driving force for the revolution. By contrast, the Shah’s utopia, although based on a modern blueprint and focused on development and the project of the “Great Civilization,” failed to achieve comparable success due to its worldly character, structural limitations, and lack of popular mobilization. This study underscores the importance of paying attention to utopian thought in the analysis of revolutions and demonstrates that differences in the nature and function of utopias can be a determining factor in the success or failure of revolutionary movements.   Keywords: Utopia, Imam Khomeini, Motahari, Shariati, Pahlavi.   <ol style="text-align: left;"> <li> Introduction and Statement of the Problem</li> </ol> Utopia, in its literal sense, refers to an imaginary city that embodies perfection and beauty and offers human beings a life of happiness and fulfillment. From a sociological perspective, utopia is not merely a literary fantasy, but rather an ideal political society in which its inhabitants exist in a desirable and optimal condition. One of the principal conditions for the emergence of revolutions is precisely the articulation of such a utopia, since every revolution is inherently opposed to the existing order and projects a vision of a desirable future. This characteristic fully corresponds to what is referred to as utopian thought—an outlook that draws nourishment from deep dissatisfaction with the present and depicts human liberation in the future. In the course of the Islamic Revolution of Iran, two rival models of utopia confronted one another. On the one hand, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, particularly in his book Toward the Great Civilization (1977), presented an image of a modern and advanced Iran as the inevitable future of the country. On the other hand, Muslim theorists and opponents of the regime constructed their utopia on the basis of religious values and social justice. The fundamental question of this research is why, despite the fact that both sides—the ruling establishment and the revolutionaries—possessed utopian visions, the utopia of the revolutionaries succeeded in mobilizing the masses, while the Shah’s utopia failed to attract popular support. Through a comparative examination of the views of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Imam Khomeini, Morteza Motahhari, and Ali Shariati, this study seeks to explain the reasons for this success and failure.   <ol style="text-align: left;" start="2"> <li> Theoretical Framework: The Role of Utopia in Social Movements</li> </ol> The theoretical framework of this study is grounded in the relationship between dissatisfaction and change. According to theorists such as Sargent and Mannheim, the first defining feature of utopian works is revulsion toward society and suffering caused by the existing condition. Utopias typically reflect the objective circumstances of each society and articulate the problems of their time. In his book Ideology and Utopia, Karl Mannheim distinguishes between two forms of thought: ideology, which serves to preserve the existing order, and utopia, which functions as a catalyst for change and the improvement of social conditions. Similarly, Melvin Lasky argues in Utopia and Revolution that utopian ideas can become powerful drivers of revolutionary transformation, provided that they resonate with social realities. On this basis, successful revolutionary utopias generally possess four key characteristics: (1) ambiguity and flexibility of expression, which allow different social groups to project their aspirations onto them; (2) a revolutionary and abrupt character, favoring fundamental transformation over gradual reform; (3) a non-governmental origin, emerging from within society rather than from above; and (4) a strong capacity for popular mobilization.   <ol style="text-align: left;" start="3"> <li> Research Methodology</li> </ol> This study employs a qualitative comparative method based on case analysis. Through this approach, the researcher seeks to gain in-depth insight and provide a comprehensive description of social processes. Given the limited number of cases examined (four figures), this method makes it possible to analyze the deeper and often hidden layers of thought. To this end, a ten-dimensional comparative model has been developed, encompassing components such as origin, content, the role of religion, the position of the people, political system, social justice, means of realization, degree of ambiguity, responsiveness to the needs of the time, and mobilization capacity.   <ol style="text-align: left;" start="4"> <li> Research Findings: Analysis of Competing Utopias</li> </ol> 4.1. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s Utopia: The Great Civilization The Shah’s utopia, promoted during the final years of his reign, had a distinctly governmental and top-down origin. He defined his goal as achieving the era of the “Great Civilization,” understood as providing the highest level of material and spiritual life through science and industry. Content and political system: The Shah outlined his ideal system across four domains—political, economic, social, and educational. He emphasized “independent national policy” and the Rastakhiz Party, arguing that Western-style democracy led to fragmentation; therefore, he proposed a single-party model as a form of guided participation. Religion and spirituality: Although the Shah emphasized Islam, he viewed it primarily as an ethical support for material modernization. He spoke of religious faith while simultaneously confronting what he described as “reactionary” forces. Social justice: He conceived justice in terms of the White Revolution, profit-sharing with workers, and land reform. However, due to the authoritarian nature of these measures, they failed to establish an emotional bond with the masses. Means of realization: His approach relied on gradual reform initiated by the state. His utopia lacked ambiguity, and its excessive clarity and focus on technical and administrative details left little room for collective imagination and hope. 4.2. Imam Khomeini’s Utopia: Islamic Government Imam Khomeini’s thought emerged in reaction to the anti-Islamic policies of the Pahlavi regime and the penetration of Western culture. The origin of this utopia was revolutionary and bottom-up. Content: In Kashf al-Asrar, Imam Khomeini described a religious state as a “paradise on earth,” to be established by the clergy. His goal was the implementation of Qur’anic law so that human happiness might be realized. Political system and leadership: He founded his political vision on the principle of velayat-e faqih. In this model, the clergy function as the head in relation to the body of the state. Legislation was viewed as the exclusive right of God, and Western laws were dismissed. The role of the people: Unlike the Shah’s model, Imam Khomeini regarded the people as the primary agents of change, believing that it was the masses who must rise up against unjust governments. Mobilization capacity: By linking sacred concepts with promises of both worldly justice and otherworldly salvation, his utopia generated immense capacity for mass mobilization. 4.3. Morteza Motahhari’s Utopia: Historical Evolution and Mahdist Justice Motahhari viewed utopia through the lens of the philosophy of history and movement toward perfection. He believed that every revolution is rooted in dissatisfaction with the present and aspiration for an ideal condition. Content and justice: Motahhari emphasized the idea of a classless Islamic society—one free of oppression and tyranny, yet based on natural differences in talent. He accepted reciprocal interaction within society. Political system: In his view, the jurist-ruler functions as an ideologue who oversees the correct implementation of ideology, rather than serving merely as an executive authority. He stressed intellectual freedom and open engagement with opposing ideas. Religion and spirituality: Motahhari regarded spirituality as the core of society and warned that without justice and reasonable freedom, the Islamic Republic would fail. His utopia served as a prelude to the Mahdi’s uprising and the final perfection of history. 4.4. Ali Shariati’s Utopia: Ummah and Imamate Shariati viewed human beings as inherently utopia-seeking and considered religion to be fundamentally utopian in nature. He reconstructed Islam as a liberating ideology. Content: His utopia, termed the ummah, was a society founded upon three symbols: the Book (awareness), the Scale (justice), and Iron (power). He sought the realization of spirituality, freedom, and equality. Political system: Shariati identified the organizing principle of the ummah as imamate and emphasized the role of the “responsible intellectual” as the successor to the prophets. He believed the intellectual must guide humanity from what is to what ought to be. Social justice: He strongly opposed exploitation, despotism, and deception, envisioning a classless society in which human values replace material ones. Mobilization capacity: Shariati’s symbolic language and use of figures such as Abu Dharr and Husayn endowed his discourse with exceptional power to mobilize youth and intellectuals against the established order.   <ol style="text-align: left;" start="5"> <li> Analysis and Discussion: The Confrontation of Two Utopian Logics</li> </ol> Comparative analysis reveals several reasons why the Shah’s utopia was rejected while the revolutionaries’ utopia prevailed. First, origin and nature: The Shah’s utopia was top-down and directive, viewing the people merely as executors of orders. In contrast, the revolutionaries’ utopia was bottom-up, emerging from the cultural and historical fabric of society. Second, the role of religion and identity: The Shah treated religion as a decorative supplement to material development, conflicting with the deeply religious identity of Iranian society. Revolutionary leaders, by contrast, placed religion at the core of their utopia. Third, clarity versus inspirational ambiguity: The Shah’s programmatic and technical approach lacked imaginative power, whereas revolutionary utopias were accompanied by a form of sacred ambiguity that enabled diverse groups to project their aspirations onto them. Fourth, justice and the needs of the time: The Shah focused on material development but failed to connect it with spiritual and identity-based needs. Revolutionary thinkers addressed this crisis through a transcendent metaphysical framework. Fifth, opportunity for realization: The Pahlavi regime had decades to implement its vision, whereas the revolutionaries benefited from the “purity of distance” from power, rendering their utopia untested and therefore more appealing.   <ol style="text-align: left;" start="6"> <li> Conclusion</li> </ol> The comparative analysis demonstrates that the success of a utopia in becoming a revolutionary driving force depends on its alignment with the collective imagination of society. The revolutionaries’ utopia, grounded in spirituality, justice, and active participation, succeeded in mobilizing the masses. However, an examination of the decades following the revolution shows that every utopia faces serious challenges at the stage of implementation. The Pahlavi utopia failed due to its authoritarian nature and neglect of national-religious identity. The revolutionary utopia, while highly successful in mobilization and regime change, has encountered difficulties in translating lofty ideals into everyday realities. The central lesson of this study is that utopias require flexibility and continuous adaptation to the needs of their time in order to endure. Victory in revolution was the product of the power of dreams, but lasting stability depends on the sincere realization of those dreams. The gap between utopia and reality is precisely where any utopian project risks a crisis of legitimacy.   References Asil, Hojjatollah (2014) Utopia in Iranian Thought, 3rd ed. (Electronic Version), Tehran, Ney. Bornabaldaji, Somayyeh (2011) Investigating the Views of Five Contemporary Poets, M.A. Thesis in Persian Language and Literature, supervised by Mohammad Reza Torki, Tehran, University of Tehran. Pezeshki, Mohammad et al. (2005) The Islamic Revolution and Why and How it Happened, 44th ed., Qom, Office for Publishing Maa'rif. Pahlavi, Mohammad Reza (1977) Towards the Great Civilization, Tehran, Pahlavi Library. Pahlavi, Mohammad Reza (1993) Response to History, translated by Hossein Abotrabian, Tehran, Motarjem. Habibi, Seyyed Mohsen and Mohammad Saleh Shokoohi Bidehendi (2009) "Innovation and Creativity in the Early Years of the 21st Century, Mirzadeh Eshqi's Three Panels and Utopia," Architecture and Urban Planning (formerly Honar-ha-ye-ziba), Vol. 1, No. 38, pp. 93-103. https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.22286020.1388.1.38.9.3. Khomeini, Ruhollah (n.d.) Kashf al-Asrar, n.p., n.p. Khomeini, Ruhollah (1998) Velayat-e Faqih: Islamic Government, Tehran, Institute for Compilation and Publication of Imam Khomeini's Works. Davari Ardakani, Reza (2003) Farabi: The Philosopher of Culture, Tehran, Saqi. Davari Ardakani, Reza (1977) Farabi: The Founder of Islamic Philosophy, 2nd ed., Tehran, Imperial Iranian Academy of Philosophy. Rouvillon, Frederic (2006) Utopia in the History of Western Thought, translated by Abbas Bagheri, Tehran, Ney. Satari Sarbanqoli, Hassan (2012) "Utopia in the Thoughts of Intellectuals of Constitutional Era of Iran", Journal of Fine Arts - Architecture and Urban Planning, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 55-64. https://doi.org/10.22059/jfaup.2012.29697. Sardarnia, Khalilollah and Hossein Mohseni (2017) "Constitutional Intellectualism from Democratic Utopia to Authoritarianism (From the Perspective of Sociology of Knowledge and Romanticism)", Journal of Faculty of Law and Political Science, Vol. 3, No. 11, pp. 87-121. https://doi.org/10.22054/tssq.2017.8105. Samiei, Mohammad (2019) Power Struggle in Iran: Why and How Did the Clergy Win?, Tehran, Ney. ------------------------ (2021) Development and Happiness among Iranians: Why Do We Feel Like We Are Lost Generations?, Tehran, Ney. Shariati, Ali (1983) Islamology (2), Tehran, Qalam. --------------- (1982a) Human, Tehran, Elham. --------------- (1982b) Worldview and Ideology, Tehran, Mona. --------------- (1982c) Hussein, Heir of Adam, Tehran, Qalam. --------------- (1982d) Religion Against Religion, Tehran, Sabz. --------------- (1981a) Islamology (1), Tehran, Shariati. --------------- (1981b) What Should Be Done?, Tehran, Qalam. --------------- (1981c) Woman, Tehran, Sabz. ---------- (1980a) History of Civilization, Tehran, Office for Compilation and Editing of the Works of Martyr Dr. Ali Shariati. --------------- (1980b) History and Recognition of Religions, Tehran, Tashayyo. --------------- (1980c) Alawite Shi'ism and Safavid Shi'ism, Tehran, Tashayyo. --------------- (1980d) The Class Direction of Islam, Tehran, Office for Compilation and Editing of the Works of Martyr Dr. Ali Shariati. --------------- (1978a) Return, Europe, Hosseiniyeh Ershad. --------------- (1978b) Shia, Europe, Hosseiniyeh Ershad. --------------- (1978c) We and Iqbal, Europe, Hosseiniyeh Ershad. --------------- (1978d) Prayer, Europe, Hosseiniyeh Ershad. --------------- (1976a) With Familiar Audiences, Europe, Hosseiniyeh Ershad. --------------- (1976b) Revolutionary Self-Cultivation, Europe, Hosseiniyeh Ershad. Eivazi, Mohammad Rahim (2012) The Islamic Revolution and Its Historical Roots, Tehran, Payam -e Noor University. Ghafari, Gholamreza (2009) "The Logic of Comparative Research," Iranian Social Studies, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 99-119. https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.20083653.1388.3.4.5.2. Mannheim, Karl (2020) Ideology and Utopia: An Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge, translated by Fereydoon Majidi, Tehran, SAMT. Motalabi, Masoud and Mohammad Mahdi Naderi (2009) "A Comparative Study of the Concept of Utopia in Islamic, Iranian, and Western Political Thought," Political Studies, No. 6, Winter, pp. 125-146. Morteza Motahari (2019a) Family and Sexual Ethics, Tehran, Sadra. ---------------------- (2019b) The Uprising and Revolution of Imam Mahdi (AS) and the Article of the Martyr, Tehran, Sadra. ---------------------- (2018) The Decline and Rise of Civilizations from the Perspective of the Quran and Dialectical Logic, Tehran, Sadra. ---------------------- (2017) Society and History in the Quran, Tehran, Sadra. ---------------------- (2011) The Purpose of Life, Tehran, Sadra. ---------------------- (2010) Sexual Ethics in Islam and the Western World, Tehran, Sadra. ---------------------- (2006a) The Future of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, Tehran, Sadra. ---------------------- (2006b) Monotheistic Worldview, Tehran, Sadra. ---------------------- (2003) Ten Discourses, Tehran, Sadra. ---------------------- (2002) Islam and the Needs of the Time, Tehran, Sadra. ---------------------- (2001a) Philosophy of History, Tehran, Sadra. ---------------------- (2001b) The Struggle Between Right and Wrong, Tehran, Sadra. ---------------------- (1999) Notes, Tehran, Sadra. ---------------------- (1998) A Critique of Marxism, Tehran, Sadra. ---------------------- (1993) On the Islamic Revolution, Tehran, Sadra. ---------------------- (1978) The Reciprocal Services of Islam and Iran, Tehran, Sadra. Motehari, Morteza and Mohammad Hossein Tabatabaei (2011) Principles of Philosophy and Realism Method, Tehran, Sadra. Mo'men, Abolfath (2002) "The Pahlavi Quran!", Zamaneh, Issues 5 and 6, pp. 38-43. Mirzaii, Jamshid (2023) "A Review of the Status of Comparative Research in the Field of Social Studies in Iran", Research in Social Studies Education, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 33-40. 10.48310/rsse.2024.15464.1176. Nodehi, Kobra et al. (2016) "The Utopia of Leftist Poets in Mashhad (1320-1325)", Contemporary Persian Literature, Vol. 6, No. 18, pp. 75-100.                 <a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">*</a>Corresponding Author: Associate Professor, Department of Iranian Studies, Faculty of World Studies, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran. <a href="mailto:m.samiei@ut.ac.ir">m.samiei@ut.ac.ir</a> 5091-1704-0002-0000 <a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">**</a>Ph.D. Student, Department of Iranian Studies, Faculty of World Studies, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran. <a href="mailto:m.mohammadi1366@ut.ac.ir">m.mohammadi1366@ut.ac.ir</a> 7317-3118-0003-0000انقلاب را می&zwnj;توان رقابت آرمان&zwnj;شهرهایی دانست که از یکسو حکومت مستقر و از سوی دیگر مخالفان انقلابی برای توده&zwnj;های مردم ترسیم می&zwnj;کنند. در سال&zwnj;های منتهی به انقلاب اسلامی ایران، رژیم پهلوی، آینده&zwnj;ای روشن برای ایرانیان ترسیم می&zwnj;کرد و اندیشه&zwnj;گران انقلابی نیز به بیان دورنمایی از آینده پرداخته، آرمان&zwnj;شهرهایی شکل می&zwnj;دادند. در واقع انقلاب، رقابت بین این دو دسته آرمان&zwnj;شهر بود. از این منظر کمتر به انقلاب اسلامی ایران پرداخته شده است. پژوهش حاضر با اتکا بر نظریۀ «کارل مانهایم» دربارۀ «ایدئولوژی و آرمان&zwnj;شهر»، به بررسی و مقایسۀ آرمان&zwnj;شهرهای دو قطب متضاد اصلی در انقلاب اسلامی ایران یعنی محمدرضا پهلوی (حکومت) و نظریه&zwnj;پردازان انقلاب (امام خمینی، مرتضی مطهری و علی شریعتی) می&zwnj;پردازد. هدف این مطالعه، تحلیل نقش اندیشۀ آرمان&zwnj;شهری در شکل&zwnj;گیری انقلاب اسلامی و فهم تفاوت&zwnj;های بنیادین میان این دو دسته آرمان&zwnj;شهر است. در این راستا مقاله می&zwnj;کوشد تا دریابد که تفاوت آرمان&zwnj;شهرهای این دو قطب و دلایل توفیق یا عدم توفیق آنها در جلب نظر توده&zwnj;های مردم چه بود. نتایج پژوهش نشان می&zwnj;دهد که آرمان&zwnj;شهر نظریه&zwnj;پردازان انقلاب با ویژگی&zwnj;هایی چون رازآلودی و معنویت، انعطاف&zwnj;پذیری در بیان، ماهیت انقلابی و ظرفیت بسیج مردمی، توانست نیروی محرکه&zwnj;ای قدرتمند برای انقلاب فراهم آورد؛ در حالی &zwnj;که آرمان&zwnj;شهر شاه، هرچند دارای طرحی مدرن و متمرکز بر توسعه و تمدن بزرگ بود، به&zwnj; دلیل زمینی &zwnj;بودن، محدودیت&zwnj;های ساختاری و فقدان بسیج مردمی، موفقیت مشابهی کسب نکرد. این پژوهش بر اهمیت توجه به اندیشۀ آرمان&zwnj;شهری در تحلیل انقلاب&zwnj;ها تأکید دارد و نشان می&zwnj;دهد که تفاوت در ماهیت و کارکرد آرمان&zwnj;شهرها می&zwnj;تواند عامل تعیین&zwnj;کننده&zwnj;ای در توفیق یا شکست انقلاب&zwnj;ها باشد.

http://political.ihss.ac.ir/fa/Article/Download/50985

مرکز منطقه ای اطلاع رسانی علوم و فناوریپژوهش سیاست نظری2008-57962038202623A Semiotic Analysis of Modernization and Identity Conflict in the Iranian New Wave Cinema: A Case Study of Mr. Haloo (i.e. Aqayeh Haloo) and The Suitor (i.e. Khastegar) Based on Julia Kristeva’s Theoryتحلیل نشانه‌شناختی مدرنیزاسیون و تعارض هویتی در موج نو سینمای ایران (مطالعة موردی: «آقای‌ هالو» و «خواستگار» بر اساس نظریۀ «ژولیا کریستوا»)377400fa آسیه مهاجریدانشجوی دکتری تاریخ، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه بین‌المللی امام خمینی، قزوین، ایران 0009-0009-4751-4950عبدالرفیع رحیمی دانشیار گروه تاریخ، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه بین‌المللی امام خمینی قزوین ایران0000-0002-1645-0300محسنبهرام‌نژاداستاد گروه تاریخ، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه بین‌المللی ‌امام‌خمینی، قزوین، ایران0000-0002-3936-9345باقرعلیعادل‌فراستاد گروه تاریخ، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه بین‌المللی ‌امام‌خمینی، قزوین، ایران0009-0003-3719-4830سيد محسنعلوي‌پوردانشیار گروه علوم سیاسی، پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی، تهران، ایران 0000-0001-7996-0538202597A Semiotic Analysis of Modernization and Identity Conflict in the Iranian New Wave Cinema: A Case Study of Mr. Haloo (i.e. Aqayeh Haloo) and The Suitor (i.e. Khastegar) Based on Julia Kristeva’s Theory   Asiyeh Mohajeri<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">*</a> Abdolrafi Rahimi<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">**</a> Mohsen Bahramnejhad<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3">***</a> Bagherali Adelfar<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4">****</a> Seyyed Mohsen Alavipour<a href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5">*****</a>   This study, assuming the representation of the conflict between tradition and modernity in Iranian New Wave cinema, examines the behavior and disorientation of the tradition-oriented subject in confronting accelerated modernization and state cultural policies. The aim of the research is to represent the identity crisis of the tradition-oriented subject in response to these processes. The central question is how the interaction between the semiotic and symbolic orders in the films Mr. Haloo and The Suitor reflects the identity crisis of tradition-oriented subjects. This study, relying on Julia Kristeva’s theory of language and meaning, is qualitative and based on a semiotic analysis of selected sequences. The findings indicate that disruptions in the coordination between the semiotic and symbolic orders lead to identity fragmentation and psychological disarray in the subject. The study emphasizes the importance of a dialectical analysis of the semiotic and symbolic realms and its role in reinterpreting meanings within cultural and social layers.   Keywords: semiotic order, symbolic order, Julia Kristeva, Iranian New Wave cinema, modernization, identity conflict.   Introduction and Statement of the Problem In the 1960s and 1970s, Iranian cinema transformed from an imported, limited, and largely entertaining medium into a problem-oriented and thoughtful form capable of revealing hidden layers of collective life and narrating and critiquing the cultural and political conditions of society. During this period, with transformations in social structures, urban growth, the expansion of the middle class, mass rural-to-urban migration, and a deepening gap between traditional and modern lifestyles, the cinematic representation of Iran moved away from simple, hero-centered, and repetitive narratives toward depicting identity crises, value conflicts, and generational tensions. This shift was not merely a change in audience taste but indicated a broader shift in collective consciousness and a sense of crisis in response to modernization imposed from above and accelerated upon society. Within this context, the Iranian New Wave, as a modernist and critical movement, distanced itself from the dominant logic of Film Farsi—characterized by melodrama, superficial hero-making, and fixed narrative formulas—and, relying on realist storytelling and multilayered character development, established a new cinematic language. In this language, the tension between deep-rooted tradition and rapid modernization, the rupture between village and city, and the conflict between individual desires and dominant social structures were central. The Iranian subject was depicted not as a stereotypical type but as a disoriented, fragmented individual caught between conflicting orders, seeking their place in a transforming world. From the perspective of political theory, this cinematic movement can be understood beyond merely aesthetic transformation; the New Wave, as a culturally based visual expression, becomes a socio-political text in which meaning and power are negotiated. While reflecting the official discourse of the Pahlavi era, this cinema critiques state cultural policies, the imposed definition of national identity, and the idealized image of the “modern Iranian,” questioning the limits and contradictions of this project. Through these representations, mechanisms of domination, forms of symbolic resistance, methods of marginalization, and the legitimacy crisis of the existing order in the years leading up to the revolution are revealed indirectly and symbolically. This study, assuming the representation of the conflict between tradition and modernity in Iranian New Wave cinema, examines the behavior, speech, and disorientation of the tradition-oriented subject in confronting accelerated modernization and state cultural policies. The central question is: How does the interaction between the semiotic and symbolic orders in the films Mr. Haloo (Dariush Mehrjui, 1970) and The Suitor (Ali Hatami, 1971) reflect the identity crisis of tradition-oriented subjects within the context of modern urban transformations? These two films were purposefully selected because both center on a male character rooted in tradition, who, in confronting women embodying signs of modernity and failing to establish romantic relationships or marriage, reaches an impasse. This impasse is not merely the failure of an individual relationship but dramatizes the crisis of a historical subject. The male protagonists in both films represent subjects who cannot find a stable place in either the traditional or modern order: their ties to collapsing past structures are weakening, while full integration into the new order remains impossible, leaving them suspended and alienated. The aim of this research is to investigate the dialectic between these two realms and explain the failure of the modernization identity project through a semiotic analysis of these films—demonstrating how state cultural policies, at the level of collective unconscious and lived experience, produce crises.   Research Method Key sequences from both films were selected based on criteria such as the presence of traditional symbols, confrontation with modernity, portrayal of gender relations, and explicit or implicit indicators of the subject’s psychological crisis. They were analyzed at three levels: semiotic, symbolic, and dialectical. At the semiotic level, attention was paid to music, rhythm, silence, gazes, and camera movement; at the symbolic level, dialogues, social situations, roles, and narrative structure were examined. At the dialectical level, the interaction, overlap, or rupture between the semiotic and symbolic levels and their impact on the construction of the subject’s identity were analyzed. Data were collected through repeated and participatory observation and coded based on an open categorization of signs in both semiotic and symbolic orders.   Literature Review Previous research indicates that although Kristevan semiotic approaches have been applied in visual arts and Persian literature, the interaction between the semiotic and symbolic orders in Iranian films has not been studied.   Theoretical Framework This study is grounded in Julia Kristeva’s theory of language, which views language as a dialectical space between the semiotic and symbolic orders. Inspired by Freudian psychoanalysis and critically reinterpreting Lacan, Kristeva argues that subject formation does not occur at a fixed point but through a fluid process between pre-linguistic, bodily, and affective drives (the semiotic) and the rule-governed structures of language and socio-cultural institutions (the symbolic). The semiotic is associated with the chora: a pre-linguistic, bodily space in which mother-child relations, rhythms, sounds, and unconscious energies operate in emotional and corporeal experience rather than fixed concepts. The symbolic, in contrast, is the realm of grammar, law, institutions, social roles, and paternal order that situates the subject within a network of stabilized meanings and defines identity. Unlike Lacan, who emphasizes the dominance of the symbolic order and the repression of desire, Kristeva stresses the dynamic interaction between these two realms, noting that the semiotic is never entirely suppressed and continually re-emerges in language and culture through ruptures, slips, rhythms, and emotional outbursts. A relative balance between these orders constitutes the “subject-in-process,” a constantly becoming and evolving subject whose identity is never fully fixed. Disruption in this balance—either through excessive repression of the semiotic by the symbolic or the unchecked eruption of the semiotic and collapse of the symbolic—leads to identity fragmentation and psychological disorder. In Pahlavi-era Iran, the symbolic order is observable in state modernization policies, official development discourse, and pre-defined notions of the modern citizen, while the semiotic manifests in local traditions, customs, emotions, religious embodiment, and gender relations that remain marginal to the official order. Cinema’s dual nature (visual-auditory) makes it an unparalleled arena for exploring this theoretical framework: the symbolic is expressed through narrative, dramatic structure, and dialogue, while the semiotic is conveyed through sound, music, editing rhythm, camera movement, mise-en-scène, and bodily presence, allowing the tension between the semiotic and symbolic to materialize within cinematic language itself. In Mr. Haloo, Haj Rahim-Ali, representing traditional and moral order, comes from the village to the city and encounters modernizing Tehran, urban advertisements, an emerging middle class, new work relations, and modern women. The irregular rhythms of traditional music at the film’s start evoke an emotional connection to the village and past attachments, which are disrupted by urban sounds, street noise, and modern music, producing an auditory dissonance between past and present. Shaky close-ups of Haj Rahim-Ali’s face, montage sequences highlighting humiliation and failure, and the contrast between his simple, intimate language and the formal, distancing speech of others illustrate the dialectical rupture between the traditional semiotic and the modern symbolic order. Here, the traditional semiotic—present in his body, tone, gaze, and emotions—comes under pressure from the rational, bureaucratic, urban symbolic order and, unable to find a new form of expression, transforms into repression, silent rage, and emotional failure. In The Suitor, Khavari, a teacher, faces an urban and capricious woman and interacts within the traditional framework of courtship, using formal and polite language. At the semiotic level, his anxious body, repeated expressions, pauses, and nervous laughter reveal inner tension between desire and fear, showing how the semiotic manifests in daily behavior. At the symbolic level, class relations, the girl’s family expectations, and modern standards of spouse selection create a structure in which the traditional subject is subordinate. The courtship scenario reveals the subject’s inability to enter the modern symbolic order while exposing the hidden collapse of traditional structures; he can neither internalize the new rules nor rely on the old logic, leaving him in painful suspension.   Conclusion The findings confirm that disruption in the semiotic-symbolic dialectic directly leads to the identity fragmentation of the tradition-oriented subject. The traditional symbolic order can no longer cope with the dynamics of modernity, and the modern symbolic order does not fully absorb the subject; in other words, neither provides the conditions for a coherent, low-tension identity. This suspended identity reflects the contradictions of accelerated modernization, which, without genuine interaction between tradition and semiotic innovation, produces unstable identity and paves the way for broader social and political crises in the years leading to the revolution. Kristeva’s theory thus provides an effective framework for understanding identity crises in Iranian New Wave cinema and Pahlavi cultural policies, demonstrating the importance of considering the interplay between language, body, desire, and power in cinematic analysis. It is recommended that this approach be extended to other New Wave and post-revolutionary films, with a focus on semiotic elements such as music, bodily expression, sound, and the role of women, to reveal deeper layers of meaning-making and identity conflict in contemporary Iranian culture. Reference Aghababaee, Ehsan; Mehdi ,Adibi, Mohammadi Jamal (2010) Narrative Analysis of Fantasy and Ideology in the Movie Aghaye- Halu, Journal of Fine Arts: Performing Arts and Music [Honarhaye Ziba – Honarhaye Namayeshi va Musiqi], (42), 15–16. Barrett, Estelle (2018) Kristeva Reframed: Interpreting Key Thinkers for the Arts, Mehrdad Parsa, Trans. Tehran: Shavand Publishing [Nashr-e Shavand]. ISBN 9786009785780. Elliott, Anthony (2023) Social theory and psychoanalysis in transition: self and society from Freud to Kristeva (Parviz Sharifi Daramadi&Leila Torani Trans. Tehran: Gam-e No [Gām-e No]. ISBN 9786227450064. Fath taheri, Ali; Parsa, Mehrdad (2012) A Study of the Concept of Semiotic Chora with a Reference to Plato’s Timaeus, Wisdom and Philosophy [Hekmat va Falsafeh], 29(Spring), 77–92. Freud, Sigmund (2015) The ego and the id (Amin Pasha Samadian, Trans. Tehran: Pendar-Taban [Pendar-Taban]. ISBN 9786006895536. Freud, Sigmund (2021) Beyond the pleasure principle (Mohammad Houshmand Vije,Trans. Tehran: Nashr-e Shoma-e. ISBN 9786229959893. Ghiyasvand, Mehdi (2013) Kristeva’s Hermeneutics and Intertextuality. Wisdom and Philosophy [Hekmat va Falsafeh], 3(Autumn), 97–114. Graham, Allen (2016) Intertextuality (Payam Yazdanjoo, Trans. Tehran: Markaz Publishing [Nashr-e Markaz]. ISBN 9789643056315. Hatami, Ali (1971) The suitor [Film], Iran. Jamee, Navid;Sharifzadeh, Mohammadreza;Mokhtabad Amreii, Seyed Mostafa; Adel, Shahabeddin (2022) An analysis on Iranian Cinema of 90th decade in mediation with the concept of Abject and Its relation to the feminine based on Julia Kristeva s thought. Journal of Performing Arts and Music [Name-ye Honarhaye Namayeshi va Musiqi], 29(Summer), 5–21. Kristeva, Julia (1984) Revolution in poetic language. Columbia University Press.ISBN: 9780231056434 Kristeva, Julia (2023) Communal individuation. Tehran: Roozbehan Publishing [Nashr-e Roozbehan]. ISBN: 9789648175806. McAfee, Noelle (2006) Julia Kristeva (Mehrdad Parsa,Trans. Tehran: Markaz Publishing [Nashr-e Markaz]. ISBN 9789643058913. Mehrjui, Dariush (1970) Mr.Halu [Film].Iran. Movallali, Keramat (2019) Foundations of Freudian–Lacanian psychoanalysis (13th ed.). Tehran: Ney Publishing [Nashr-e Ney]. ISBN 9786220602262. Najafi, Zohre (2017) Analysis of the semiotic and the symbolic in Ghesseye Shahre Sangestan Based on Kristeva’s Theory. Contemporary World Literature Studies [Pajouhesh-e Adabiyat-e Mo‘aser-e Jahan], 2(Autumn & Winter), 615–639. Nematollahi, Javad; Sayyad,Alireza. (2022) New Woman Akin to Modern Urban Way in the new wave of Cinema in Pre-Islamic Revolution Era: Case Study of Films Mr. Naive (1973) and TheBalooch. Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities [Motale‘at-e Miyandesh-e dar Oloum-e Ensani], 2 (Spring), 127–152. Payne, Michael (2001) Lacan, Derrida, Kristeva (Payam Yazdanjoo, Trans. Tehran: Markaz Publishing [Nashr-e Markaz]. ISBN 964-305-604-X. Shahriari, Zahra ;Afarin, Farideh (2019) Semananalysis in Social Poster Entitled Nurture Women’s Voices, by Parisa Tashakori According to the Ideas of Julia Kristeva. Women in Culture and Art [Zan dar Farhang va Honar], 2(Summer), 199–231.           <a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">*</a> Corresponding Author: Ph.D. student in History, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran. as.mohajeri61@gmail.com 0009-0009-4751-4950 <a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">** </a>Associate Professor, Department of History, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran. rahimi@hum.ikiu.ac.ir 0000-0002-1645-0300 <a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3">*** </a>Professor, Department of History, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran. bahramnejad@hum.ikiu.ac.ir 0000-0002-3936-9345 <a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4">**** </a>Professor, Department of History, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran. b.adelfar@ikiu.ac.ir 0009-0003-3719-4830 <a href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5">***** </a>Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Institute of Humanities and Cultural Studies, Tehran, Iran. <a href="mailto:alavipour@ihcs.ac.ir">alavipour@ihcs.ac.ir</a> 0000-0001-7996-0538این پژوهش با فرض بازنمایی تعارض سنت و مدرنیته در سینمای موج نو ایران، به بررسی رفتار و سرگشتگی سوژۀ سنت&zwnj;مدار در مواجهه با مدرنیزاسیون شتاب&zwnj;زده و سیاست&zwnj;های فرهنگی دولت می&zwnj;پردازد. هدف پژوهش، بازنمایی بحران هویت سوژۀ سنت&zwnj;مدار در مواجهه با این فرایندهاست. پرسش اصلی این است که تعامل میان امر نشانه&zwnj;ای و امر نمادین در دو فیلم «آقای &zwnj;هالو» و «خواستگار»، چگونه بحران هویت سوژه&zwnj;های سنت&zwnj;مدار را بازتاب می&zwnj;دهد. این مطالعه با تکیه بر نظریۀ زبان و معنای «ژولیا کریستوا»، به &zwnj;صورت کیفی و بر پایه تحلیل نشانه&zwnj;شناختی سکانس&zwnj;های منتخب انجام شده است. یافته&zwnj;ها نشان می&zwnj;دهد که اختلال در هماهنگی میان امر نشانه&zwnj;ای و امر نمادین، به گسست هویتی و آشفتگی روانی سوژه منجر می&zwnj;شود. این پژوهش بر اهمیت تحلیل دیالکتیکی ساحت&zwnj;های نشانه&zwnj;ای و نمادین و نقش آن در بازخوانی معانی در لایه&zwnj;های فرهنگی و اجتماعی تأکید دارد.

http://political.ihss.ac.ir/fa/Article/Download/51389

مرکز منطقه ای اطلاع رسانی علوم و فناوریپژوهش سیاست نظری2008-57962038202623Foucault's Hermeneutics of the Self: A Framework for the Genealogy of Sexual Ethicsهرمنوتیک خود فوکو: چارچوبی برای تبارشناسی اخلاق جنسی221256fa مهدی سلطانی گردفرامرزیدانشجوی دکتری رشته ایران‌شناسی، بنیاد ایران‌شناسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران 0009-0006-2213-3260محمدجوادغلامرضا کاشیدانشیار، گروه علوم سیاسی، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، تهران، ایران 0000-0002-8952-370Xقبادمنصوربختدانشیار، گروه تاریخ، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران0000-0003-1475-000820251011Foucault's Hermeneutics of the Self: A Framework  for the Genealogy of Sexual Ethics   Mahdi Soltani Gordfaramarzi<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">*</a> Mohammad Javad Gholamreza Kashi<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">*</a>* Ghobad Mansourbakht<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3">*</a>**   Michel Foucault’s later discussions in the 1980s represent a fundamental shift from a sole focus on the genealogy of power–knowledge discourses to the analysis of modes of subjectivation in what he terms the “hermeneutics of the self.” This theoretical study, focusing on the concept of the hermeneutics of the self, seeks to clarify its theoretical foundations and analytical capacities in relation to the genealogy of sexual ethics. Foucault demonstrates how self-techniques in ancient traditions, such as the “test of the self” based on the recollection of rules, and in Christianity, such as “confession” as a decoding of inner truth, guided the individual toward self-recognition as an ethical and sexual subject. Analysis of these techniques reveals that the subject is not a fixed, pre-existing entity but a historical construct formed in the interaction between power, knowledge, and practices of self-care. The article shows that the hermeneutics of the self, as a theoretical approach, not only explains the transformation of sexual experience in the West but also holds significant potential for the historical and discursive study of sexual ethics in the Iranian context. Accordingly, this article offers an innovative reading of the hermeneutics of the self, providing a new perspective for Iranian studies and enabling a reconsideration of the relations among power, truth, and sexual ethics in Iran’s cultural history.   Keywords: Hermeneutics of the self, genealogy of the subject, technologies of the self, test of the self, confession.   Extended Abstract Introduction Michel Foucault’s late intellectual project, which took shape primarily in the final decade of his life, signals a decisive shift in his critical inquiry into power, knowledge, and subjectivity. Whereas Foucault’s earlier works, within the frameworks of archaeology and genealogy, were largely concerned with the historical examination of discursive formations, institutional practices, and disciplinary mechanisms, his later writings and lectures increasingly focus on the ethical dimension of subjectivity. This shift finds its most explicit expression in the concept of the “hermeneutics of the self,” a concept that refers to specific historical modes through which individuals are invited, obliged, or compelled to interpret themselves as subjects of truth. This turn toward ethics does not represent a rupture with Foucault’s earlier analyses of power, but rather an internal transformation of his critical method—one that makes possible a more comprehensive genealogy of ethical and sexual subjectivity. This article argues that the hermeneutics of the self occupies a central yet under-theorized position within the overall architecture of Foucault’s thought. The concept functions as a theoretical hinge between archaeology, genealogy, and ethics, providing an indispensable framework for understanding how subjects are constituted not only through external constraints but also through active practices of relating to themselves. From this perspective, sexual ethics cannot be understood solely through juridical models of prohibition, repression, or moral normativity; rather, it must be conceived as a historical and contingent field of ethical problematization in which individuals come to recognize themselves as sexual subjects through practices of self-examination, confession, discipline, and ethical reflection.   Research Background The article first situates the hermeneutics of the self within the broader trajectory of Foucault’s intellectual development. From his early studies of madness, medicine, and the human sciences to his genealogical analyses of discipline, biopolitics, and governmentality, Foucault consistently challenged essentialist and universalist conceptions of the human subject. In Discipline and Punish and the first volume of The History of Sexuality, he demonstrated how modern subjects are produced through disciplinary techniques and regulatory mechanisms that operate at both the individual and population levels. Yet these works left partially open a fundamental question: how individuals actively participate in the process of their own subjectivation. Foucault’s later lectures and writings address precisely this issue, redirecting attention to the ethical practices through which subjects establish their relationship to truth.   Theoretical Approach At the core of this inquiry lies the concept of “technologies of the self,” which refers to the ways in which individuals act upon their bodies, thoughts, conduct, and modes of being in order to transform themselves in accordance with particular ethical ideals. The hermeneutics of the self denotes a specific configuration of these technologies in which the “self” becomes an object of interpretation and disclosure. Foucault explicitly rejects the idea of an inner, pre-discursive self waiting to be discovered. For him, subjectivity is the historical product of practices that link truth-telling, power relations, and ethical obligation. Accordingly, the self is neither an autonomous essence nor merely an effect of domination, but rather the outcome of historically contingent forms of exercising power over oneself.   Method Methodologically, the article adopts a theoretical and interpretive approach rooted in Foucauldian genealogy. Rather than presenting an empirical study, it reconstructs a conceptual framework capable of guiding genealogical analyses of sexual ethics across different historical and cultural contexts. Genealogy, in this sense, does not seek origins or linear developments, but instead focuses on ruptures, transformations, and contingent formations of ethical subjectivity. The primary sources include Foucault’s works, lectures, and interviews, alongside a critical engagement with secondary literature in philosophy, social theory, and gender studies.   Findings A substantial portion of the article is devoted to a comparative analysis of ethical subjectivity in Greco-Roman philosophy and early Christianity. Drawing on Foucault’s readings of Stoic, Epicurean, medical, and early Christian texts, the article demonstrates how different regimes of truth produce distinct configurations of ethical and sexual subjectivity. In Greek ethics, sexual conduct was primarily problematized in terms of moderation, balance, and self-mastery. Practices such as self-examination, meditation, and mnemonic exercises were oriented toward the recollection and stabilization of ethical principles, rather than the interpretation of inner desire. The ethical subject produced within this framework may be described as an ascetic subject—a subject who orders sexual conduct through rational discipline rather than through confession or continuous self-disclosure. Early Christianity introduced a fundamental transformation in this ethical configuration. Through practices such as confession, obedience, spiritual guidance, and the constant scrutiny of thoughts, Christianity established a hermeneutic regime in which the self became a permanent object of suspicion and interpretation. Sexual desire was no longer merely a matter of conduct, but became a privileged site of truth requiring continual interpretation and articulation. The obligation to disclose one’s inner thoughts and desires to an external authority transformed the ethical subject into a being whose moral status depended on the articulation of hidden truth. The article argues that this Christian hermeneutics of the self constituted a decisive historical rupture in the genealogy of sexual ethics, profoundly reshaping Western moral experience and laying the groundwork for modern techniques of normalization and self-surveillance. On the basis of this historical analysis, the article shows that modern sexuality is not a natural or biological given, but a discursive and ethical construction. Modern scientific, psychiatric, pedagogical, and psychological discourses have inherited Christian confessional techniques in secularized form, transforming them into methods of examination, diagnosis, and normalization. Individuals are encouraged to interpret their desires, identities, and behaviors through expert knowledge, thereby constituting themselves as sexual subjects. The hermeneutics of the self enables a critical understanding of these processes by revealing how ethical relations to oneself become subtle mechanisms of power that operate not through overt coercion, but through voluntary self-scrutiny. The article also addresses major critiques directed at Foucault’s later work, particularly accusations of moral relativism, individualism, and political quietism. Critics have argued that the hermeneutics of the self lacks a normative foundation and reduces ethics to individualized practices of self-fashioning. In response, the article demonstrates that Foucault’s project is not normative but diagnostic: the hermeneutics of the self offers a critical ontology of the present that reveals the historical conditions under which particular forms of ethical subjectivity acquire authority. Far from depoliticizing ethics, this framework shows how power operates precisely through practices that appear voluntary, internalized, and self-governing. The article further clarifies the relationship between the hermeneutics of the self and Foucault’s analysis of governmentality. Ethical practices of relating to oneself do not operate in a vacuum, but are embedded within broader regimes of governance that seek to guide conduct through freedom rather than coercion. By compelling individuals to assume ethical and sexual responsibility for themselves, the hermeneutics of the self becomes a technology of governance that aligns individual self-understanding with dominant regimes of truth and morality. This dynamic is particularly salient in modern sexual ethics, where regulation increasingly takes place through discourses of choice, responsibility, self-care, and authenticity. Moreover, the article advances a methodological intervention by foregrounding ethical practices of the self as a central site for genealogical analysis. By shifting the focus from institutional norms and official discourses to the micropolitics of ethical self-relations, it becomes possible to gain a more precise understanding of how sexual ethics operates at the level of everyday conduct and moral reflection. Ethical subjectivity thus appears not as a secondary effect, but as a pivotal mechanism at the intersection of power, knowledge, and subjectivity. Finally, the article explores the applicability of the hermeneutics of the self beyond Western historical contexts. Although Foucault’s empirical analyses are largely confined to Greco-Roman and Christian traditions, his conceptual framework can be productively employed to study non-Western ethical regimes. Iranian and Islamic traditions—particularly practices of ethical self-examination, ascetic discipline, mystical self-cultivation, and juridical–ethical regulation—can be analyzed as technologies of the self that establish distinct relationships between truth, authority, and subjectivity. This approach avoids both cultural essentialism and simplistic universalism, offering instead a historically grounded and context-sensitive genealogy.   Conclusion In conclusion, the article argues that the hermeneutics of the self constitutes one of the most fundamental and theoretically fertile dimensions of Foucault’s critical project. By shifting the analytical focus from repression and law to practices of self-formation and truth-telling, this framework enables a powerful genealogy of sexual ethics. Sexual ethics, from this perspective, is not merely the imposition of external norms, but the active product of ethical relations that individuals establish with themselves. By clarifying the conceptual status of the hermeneutics of the self and demonstrating its applicability in comparative and historical studies, the article makes a theoretical contribution to Foucauldian studies, ethics, and sexuality.   Refrences Afary, J., & Anderson, K. B. (2005) Foucault and the Iranian Revolution: Gender and the seductions of Islamism. University of Chicago Press. Bhabha, H. K. (1994) The location of culture. Routledge. Braidotti, R. (2013) The posthuman. Polity Press. Butler, J. (2021) Giving an account of oneself revisited: Ethics, vulnerability, and critique. Fordham University Press. Crenshaw, K. (1989) Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139–167. Deleuze, G. (1988) Foucault. University of Minnesota Press. Foucault, M. (1970) The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. Pantheon Books. --------------- (1972) The archaeology of knowledge. Pantheon Books. --------------- (1984) Nietzsche, genealogy, history. In P. Rabinow (Ed.) , The Foucault reader (pp. 76–100). Pantheon Books. -------------- (1985) The history of sexuality, volume 2: The use of pleasure. Vintage Books. -------------- (1986) The history of sexuality, volume 3: The care of the self. Vintage Books. -------------- (1995) Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Vintage Books. -------------- (2016) About the beginning of the hermeneutics of the self: Lectures at Dartmouth College, 1980. University of Chicago Press. -------------- (2018) The history of sexuality, volume 4: Confessions of the flesh. Pantheon Books. Gannon, M. J. (2002) Cultural metaphors: Their use in management practice and as a method for understanding cultures. Advances in International Management, 14, 131–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-7929(02)14013-0 Gamez, P. (2023) Inhuman hermeneutics of the self: Biopolitics in the age of big data. Foucault Studies, (34), 80–110. https://doi.org/10.22439/fs.i34.6939 Gutmann, J. (1988) Rousseau’s and Foucault’s “technologies of the self.” In L. H. Martin, H. Gutman, & P. H. Hutton (Eds.) , Technologies of the self: A seminar with Michel Foucault (pp. 99–116). University of Massachusetts Press. Habermas, J. (1987) The philosophical discourse of modernity: Twelve lectures. MIT Press. Hayles, K. N. (1999). How we became posthuman: Virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature, and informatics. University of Chicago Press. Koopman, C. (2019) How we became our data: A genealogy of the informational person. University of Chicago Press. McNay, L. (1994) Foucault and feminism: Power, gender and the self. Polity Press. Mills, S. (2003) Michel Foucault. Routledge.         <a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">*</a> Corresponding Author: Ph.D. Student of Iranology, Shahid Beheshti University, Iranology Foundation, Tehran, Iran. <a href="mailto:m.soltani55@gmail.com">m.soltani55@gmail.com</a> 0009-0006-2213-3260 <a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">*</a>*Associate professor, Department of Political Science, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran. <a href="mailto:javadkashi@atu.ac.ir">javadkashi@atu.ac.ir</a> 0000-0002-8952-370X <a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3">*</a>**Associate Professor, Department of History, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran. <a href="mailto:g_mansourbakht@sbu.ac.ir">g_mansourbakht@sbu.ac.ir</a> 0000-0003-1475-0008مباحث متأخر میشل فوکو در دهه ۱۹۸۰ نشان&zwnj;دهنده چرخشی اساسی از تمرکز صرف بر تبارشناسی گفتمان&zwnj;های قدرت - دانش به تحلیل شیوه&zwnj;های سوژه&zwnj; شدن در قالب آنچه او «هرمنوتیک خود» می&zwnj;نامد، است. این پژوهش نظری با تمرکز بر مفهوم هرمنوتیک خود می&zwnj;کوشد بنیان&zwnj;های نظری و ظرفیت&zwnj;های تحلیلی آن را در پیوند با تبارشناسی اخلاق جنسی روشن سازد. فوکو نشان می&zwnj;دهد که تکنیک&zwnj;های خود در سنت&zwnj;های باستانی، مانند «آزمون خود» مبتنی بر یادآوری قواعد و در مسیحیت مانند «اعتراف» به&zwnj;مثابه رمزگشایی از حقیقت درونی، چگونه فرد را به بازشناسی خویشتن به &zwnj;منزله سوژۀ اخلاقی و جنسی هدایت کردند. تحلیل این تکنیکها آشکار می&zwnj;سازد که سوژه نه یک موجودیت ثابت و پیشینی، بلکه برساخته&zwnj;ای تاریخی است که در تعامل میان قدرت، دانش و شیوه&zwnj;&zwnj;&zwnj;های مراقبت از خویشتن شکل می&zwnj;گیرد. مقاله نشان می&zwnj;دهد که هرمنوتیک خود به&zwnj;مثابه رویکرد نظری، علاوه بر توضیح تحول تجربه جنسی در غرب، پتانسیل بالایی برای مطالعۀ تاریخی و گفتمانی اخلاق جنسی در بستر ایرانی دارد. بنابراین مقاله حاضر با ارائه خوانشی نوآورانه از هرمنوتیک خود، چشم&zwnj;اندازی تازه برای مطالعات ایرانی فراهم می&zwnj;کند و امکان بررسی دوباره مناسبات قدرت، حقیقت و اخلاق جنسی را در تاریخ فرهنگی ایران مهیا می&zwnj;سازد.

http://political.ihss.ac.ir/fa/Article/Download/51779