نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشیار علومسیاسی دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران.
2 دکتری علوم سیاسی دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران.
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله English
نویسندگان English
Introduction
Before encountering the civilizational order of Western modernity, the Iranian agent possessed a historical awareness that it had to shape its destiny on two levels. First, how to create a connector or intermediary among the diverse Iranian ethnic groups and religions within the shared geographic bedrock of the Iranian plateau. This connector would serve as a foundation for achieving the technology of “Iranian Peace” within the geographic territory of the Iranian plateau. Second, how to create an intermediary and modality between rulers and the governed, through which they could access the technology of the “Iranian State” in their history. The technologies of “Iranian Peace” and the “Iranian State” represent two formations of the Iranian governance order. This governance order and its technologies are referred to in this article using the theories of Hegel and some other contemporary theorists of “civilization.”
The fundamental question of this article is the conceptualization of governance and its nature in Iranian politics and its relation to the nature of governance in the West. The historical nature of governance in the foundational history of Iran, before encountering the civilizational order of Western modernity in the 16th century, cannot be articulated within the dual models of governance in the West, namely “empire” and “nation-state.” Instead, this foundational history, based on the geographical and historical components of Iran, possesses a historical structure distinct from the dual Western models of governance. This governance model is conceptualized here as a “civilizational nation.” The idea of a civilizational nation is conceptualized based on James Rosenau’s concept of governance and the Hegelian concept of Aufheben. Based on the concept of the “civilizational nation,” the research findings show that the idea of Iran in its history has had the following three levels:
“Iran”: the object of Iran’s geographical territory as an independent, non-constructed ontological object with an eternal and everlasting nature.
“Iranian”: the pluralism of diverse and opposing ethnic groups and religions as social agents that have been constructed and are constantly undergoing historical transformation.
“Governance Technologies of the Iranian Civilizational Nation”: mechanisms of governance or ruling without a relationship of dominance and subjugation between rulers and the ruled, and among the diverse Iranian ethnic groups and religions sharing the geographical bedrock of the Iranian plateau, which mediate between the concept of “Iran” and the concept of “Iranian.”
Narrating the foundational history of pre-modern Iran based on the governance order of the “Iranian Civilizational Nation” and the governance technologies of “Iranian Peace” and the “Iranian State” represents a reversal of the official and dominant interpretations in discourses on “underdevelopment,” such as Mohammad Ali Homayoun Katouzian’s reading of “Iranian Despotism,” Aramesh Dustdar’s “The Impossibility of Thinking in the Religious Culture,” Mahmoud Sariolghalam’s “Tribal Characteristics of Iranians,” Ahmad Ashraf’s “Patriarchal Tribal Despotism,” and others, which conceptualize the pre-modern historical past of Iranians as the “cause of underdevelopment” in modern times. Contrary to the narratives of “underdevelopment,” the concept of the “Iranian Civilizational Nation” conceptualizes the historical past of Iranians before their encounter with the civilizational order of Western modernity not as a “decadent past” but as a “developed past.” In this view, the Iranian agent, considering its geographical and historical singularities, was able to articulate its unique governance order in its history. This order, or governance technology, allowed the Iranian agent to achieve “peace” within its territorial geography and to access the “art of connecting” rulers and the ruled in its history.
Methodology
This article discusses the idea of Iran as a civilizational nation by drawing on James Rosenau’s work on governance and Hegel’s concept of the concrete universal, with modifications and adjustments made by the authors. The research method in this article is the “history of thought” or “history of ideas.” The following foundational principles can be outlined for the conceptualization of this scientific method. The combination of the “descriptive-explanatory” method with the “prescriptive-normative” method is one of the features of the scientific method of the “history of ideas.”
Findings
Within the theoretical framework of the “civilizational nation,” a fundamental distinction emerges between the concept of “Iran” as an ontological object—independent of the Iranian subject, eternal and everlasting within the natural boundaries of the Iranian plateau—and the concept of “Iranian” as a constructed, historical, temporary, and variable subject corresponding to the diverse and non-reducible ethnicities and religions.
In the reading of the “Iranian Civilizational Nation,” coordination is established between the source of continuity and stability of the Iranian nation, which is the concept of “Iran,” and the source of change and transformation in the Iranian nation, which is the concept of “Iranian,” through a third level that acts as an intermediary and modality between the two levels of “Iran” and “Iranian.”
This third level is the Iranian governance order. Historically, it acted as an intermediary between the source of continuity and stability of “Iran” and the source of change and transformation of “Iranian” before the encounter with the civilizational order of Western modernity. Through its mediation between the geographical territory of the Iranian plateau and the diverse Iranian ethnic groups and religions, this governance order formed the technology of “Iranian Peace”; through its mediation between rulers and the ruled, it created the technology of the “Iranian State.”
Conclusion
Before encountering the West, Iranians were able to develop governance technologies as intermediaries between points of unity and diversity in their foundational history. These technologies, independent of individuals and personal power, led to the formation of the “art of connecting,” nation-building, integration, historical continuity, stability, and long-term historical perspective.
In the governance order of Iranian peace, this technology of unity in diversity operated through the triad (Nowruz / King of Kings / Royal Road), linking the geographic unity of the Iranian plateau with the diversity of Iranian ethnic groups and religions in ancient Iran’s foundational history. Similarly, in the governance order of the Iranian state, the technology of governance operated through the triad (Iranian etiquette / Iranian ministry / dehqān), uniting Arab, Turkmen, and Mongol rulers and conquerors with the diversity of Iranian cities in foundational Iranian history.
This process began to decline from the mid-reign of Shah Abbas of the Safavid dynasty, with Iran’s encounter with the West and its efforts to Europeanize, although it had continued successfully during ancient Iran, the Islamic period, and even the Mongol era. The attempt to Europeanize and eliminate these intermediaries has been the main obstacle to revisiting them and combining Iranian peace and the Iranian state over the past four centuries. The revival of these orders depends on returning to them with an interpretation that aligns with contemporary needs.
کلیدواژهها English
