Monavar al-Fekr and the duality of “law” and “consciousness”
Subject Areas : پژوهش سیاست نظری
attaallah karimzadeh
1
*
,
abbas manochehri
2
,
Sohrab Yazdani
3
1 - Ph.D in Political Thought, Faculty of Humanities, Tarbiat Modares University, Iran.
2 - Professor, Department of Political Science,Faculty of Humanities,Tarbiat Modares University, Iran.
3 - Retired Associate Professor of History, Faculty of Humanities, Kharazmi University, Iran.
Keywords: intellectual history, progress, law, Consciousness, Impasse.,
Abstract :
Monavar al-Fekr and the duality
of “law” and “consciousness”
Ata’ollah Karimzadeh*
Abbas Manoochehri**
SohrabYazdani***
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. https://doi.org/10.2307/1864689
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. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429427121
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.
*Corresponding author: Ph.D in Political Thought, Faculty of Humanities, Tarbiat Modares University, Iran.
0009-0004-9777-4244
**Professor, Department of Political Science,Faculty of Humanities,Tarbiat Modares University, Iran.
0009-0009-4908-6013
***Retired Associate Professor of History, Faculty of Humanities, Kharazmi University, Iran.
0009-0003-0829-6803
آبادیان، حسین (1392) بحران آگاهی و تکوین روشن¬فکری در ایران، چاپ دوم، تهران، کویر.
آجودانی، ماشاءالله (1386) مشروطۀ ایرانی، چاپ هشتم، تهران، اختران.
آخوندزاده، میرزافتحعلی (1357) الفبای جدید و مکتوبات، به کوشش حمید محمدزاده، تبریز، احیاء.
-------------------- (1364) مکتوبات، به اهتمام محمدباقر مؤمنی، تهران، شبگیر.
آدمیت، فریدون (1340) فکر آزادی و مقدمۀ نهضت مشروطیت، تهران، سخن.
------------- (1351) اندیشۀ ترقی و حکومت قانون: عصر سپهسالار، تهران، خوارزمی.
آشوری، داریوش (1376) ما و مدرنیت، تهران، مؤسسه فرهنگی صراط.
استیوارت هیوز، هنری (1386) آگاهی و جامعه، ترجمه عزتالله فولادوند، چاپ چهارم، تهران، علمی و فرهنگی.
الگار، حامد (1369) دین و دولت در ایران: نقش عالمان در دورۀ قاجار، ترجمۀ ابوالقاسم سری، چاپ دوم، تهران، توس.
ام.
برنز، رابرت و هیو ریمنت پیکارد (1400) فلسفه علم تاریخ، ترجمه عباس منوچهری و دیگران، تهران، سمت.
امانت، عباس (1400) قبلۀ عالم: ناصرالدینشاه قاجار و پادشاهی ایران 1313-1247، ترجمۀ حسن کامشاد، چاپ هشتم، تهران، کارنامه.
توکلی طرقی، محمد (1395) تجدد بومی و بازاندیشی تاریخ، تورنتو، کتاب ایراننامه.
حائری، عبدالهادی (1367) نخستین رویاروییهای اندیشهگران ایران: با دو رویۀ تمدن بورژوازی غرب، تهران، امیرکبیر.
دوستدار، آرامش (1377) درخششهای تیره، چاپ دوم، پاریس، خاوران.
ضیاءابراهیمی، رضا (1397) پیدایش ناسیونالیسم ایرانی: نژاد و سیاست بیجاسازی، ترجمۀ حسن افشار، چاپ دوم، تهران، مرکز.
طباطبایی، جواد (1392) تأملی دربارۀ ایران: نظریۀ حکومت قانون در ایران؛ مبانی نظریۀ مشروطهخواهی، جلد دوم، بخش دوم، تهران، مینوی خرد.
------------- (1395) تأملی دربارۀ ایران: نظریۀ حکومت قانون در ایران، جلد دوم، بخش نخست: مکتب تبریز و مبانی تجددخواهی، چاپ سوم، تهران، مینوی خرد.
فیرحی، داوود (1399) مفهوم قانون در ایران معاصر: تحولات پیشامشروطه، تهران، نشرنی.
قاضیمرادی، حسن (1399) نوسازی سیاسی در عصر مشروطۀ ایران، چاپ یکم، تهران، اختران.
کرمانی، میرزا آقاخان (1326 ق) آیینۀ اسکندری: تاریخ ایران، جلد اول، تهران.
----------------- (2000) سه مکتوب، به کوشش بهرام چوبینه، اِسن آلمان، نیما.
----------------- (بیتا) صد خطابه، ویراستاری محمدجعفر محجوب، بیجا، شرکت کتاب.
مستشارالدوله، میرزایوسف (1397) یک کلمه، به کوشش باقر مؤمنی، لندن، مهری.
ملکمخان، میرزا (1381) رسالههای میرزا ملکمخان ناظمالدوله، گردآوری و مقدمۀ حجتالله اصیل، تهران، نشرنی.
------------ (2535 شاهنشاهی) روزنامۀ قانون، با کوشش و مقدمۀ هما ناطق، تهران، امیرکبیر.
منوچهری، عباس (1395) فراسوی رنج و رؤیا (روایتی دلالتی- پارادایمی از تفکر سیاسی، کتاب اول)، تهران، پژوهشکده تاریخ اسلام.
Bleicher, Josef (1980) Contemporary hermeneutics: hermeneutics as method, philosophy, and critique. New York, Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315112558.
Bayat, Mangol (1982) Mysticism and Dissent: socioreligious Thought in Qajar Iran, Syracuse University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/1864689.
Hashemi, Ahmad (2019) Rival Conceptions of Freedom in Modern Iran: An Intellectual of the Constitition Revolution, London and New York, Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429427121.