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/ar/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/ar/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/ar/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، ایران0000-0003-1380-59782025429