نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری علوم‌سیاسی (جامعه‌شناسی سیاسی) دانشکده علوم‌سیاسی و حقوق دانشگاه علامه‌طباطبائی، تهران، ایران.

2 استاد علوم سیاسی دانشکده علوم‌سیاسی و حقوق دانشگاه علامه‌طباطبائی، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

تأثیر متقابل بین نهادها و قواعد شناختی در شکل دادن به مشروعیت سیاسی، جنبه ای محوری و در عین حال پیچیده در درک تحولات سیاسی است. این مقاله به بررسی این رابطه پیچیده در چارچوب تحولات سیاسی ایران - از سلطنت پهلوی تا ظهور جمهوری اسلامی - می‌پردازد و پویایی‌های دگرگون‌کننده و پیامدهای آن را آشکار می‌کند. این تحقیق در هسته خود به دنبال پاسخ به این سوال اساسی است: روابط متقابل قواعد شناختی و نهادها، چگونه با اثرگذاری بر مشروعیت وتحولات سیاسی، موجب انقلاب اسلامی ایران شد؟ پاسخ به این سوال به درک عمیق‌تر فرآیندها، رفتارها و پویایی‌های سیاسی رخ داده در انقلاب کمک می‌کند. هدف این تحقیق بررسی نحوه تعامل قواعد شناختی با ساختارهای نهادی و ارتباط آن با مشروعیت سیاسی و همچنین درک پیچیدگی‌های تحولات سیاسی و وقوع انقلاب است. روش این پژوهش کیفی و تفسیری-تحلیلی است. تحلیل با ترسیم ساختار نهادی ذیل حکومت پهلوی آغاز می‌شود که از ویژگیهای آن، اقتدار متمرکز و تحمیل قواعد شناختی سکولار و غرب‌گرا است. این پس‌زمینه، بستر را برای درک فرسایش مشروعیت ناشی از نارضایتی‌های عمومی، نابرابری‌های اجتماعی-اقتصادی و به حاشیه رانده شدن ارزش‌های سنتی و میل اجتماعی برای تغییرات دگرگون‌کننده فراهم میکند. در میان نارضایتی های اجتماعی، انقلاب اسلامی به عنوان نقطه عطفی ظهور کرد که هم چارچوب‌های نهادی و هم قواعد شناختی را تغییر میدهد. ماهیت دگرگون‌کننده تغییرات قواعد شناختی در این دوره در شکل‌دهی برداشت‌ها از مشروعیت سیاسی بسیار مهم است. این چکیده دریچه ای به تعامل پویا بین ساختارهای قدرت، باورهای اجتماعی و تکامل پارادایم های حکمرانی ارائه می دهد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Interrelationships between institutions and cognitive rules and their impact on political legitimacy: A case study of the 1979 Iranian Revolution

نویسندگان [English]

  • Ali Nanvayi 1
  • Mohammad Bagher Khorramshad 2

1 PhD Student, Department of Political Science, Faculty of Political Science and Law, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Professor, Department of Political Science, Faculty of Political Science and Law, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran. Allameh Tabatabai University, Tehran, Iran.

چکیده [English]

Background and Problem Statement
The relationship between institutions and cognitive rules is a central issue in contemporary political analysis. Institutional theories usually emphasize formal organizations and governance structures, whereas cognitive institutionalism highlights the role of shared beliefs, values, and mental frameworks in shaping political legitimacy. Political legitimacy depends not only on institutional performance but also on the compatibility between institutional arrangements and dominant societal beliefs. When this compatibility weakens, legitimacy declines and the possibility of institutional transformation increases. The Iranian Revolution of 1979 provides an important case for examining this interaction. During the Pahlavi regime, rapid modernization, political centralization, and state-led secularization transformed the institutional structure of Iran. However, these reforms increasingly conflicted with the prevailing cognitive rules of large segments of society, particularly religious values and traditional norms. As a result, the regime’s political legitimacy gradually eroded, while alternative cognitive frameworks based on Islamic governance, anti-Westernism, and social justice gained wider acceptance. Although many studies have analyzed the Iranian Revolution from economic, sociological, or historical perspectives, fewer have investigated the reciprocal relationship between institutions, cognitive rules, and political legitimacy within a single analytical framework. This study addresses that gap.
Research Objective
The study aims to explain how the interaction between institutions and cognitive rules affected political legitimacy and contributed to the occurrence of the Iranian Revolution. It seeks to identify the mechanisms through which institutional arrangements shape cognitive rules, how cognitive rules influence institutional change, and how the compatibility or incompatibility between them affects political legitimacy.
Methodology
This research employs a qualitative, interpretive, and analytical approach. Data were collected from historical documents, academic books, scholarly articles, constitutional texts, and political records. The analysis is informed by cognitive institutionalism and political legitimacy theory. The study examines four dimensions: the institutional structure of the Pahlavi regime; the cognitive rules promoted by the regime, including secularism, nationalism, and Western-oriented modernization; the emergence of alternative cognitive rules centered on Islamic political thought and revolutionary ideology; and the interaction between institutional transformation and cognitive change before and after the revolution. The qualitative approach allows a comprehensive examination of historical processes, ideological transformations, and institutional evolution.
Findings
The findings show that political legitimacy is strongly influenced by the degree of alignment between institutions and cognitive rules. The institutional structure of the Pahlavi regime was characterized by centralized authority, concentration of power in the monarchy, extensive security institutions, and limited political participation. While these institutions promoted economic modernization, they increasingly failed to accommodate religious values, cultural diversity, and social demands. At the same time, the regime promoted cognitive rules emphasizing secular nationalism, Westernization, and royal authority. These cognitive rules gradually lost social acceptance. Economic inequalities, political repression, perceived corruption, and cultural tensions widened the gap between institutional practices and dominant societal beliefs, leading to a crisis of political legitimacy. During the revolutionary period, new cognitive rules became increasingly influential. Islamic governance, the doctrine of Velayat-e Faqih, anti-Western discourse, revolutionary activism, and social justice formed an alternative cognitive framework that provided ideological coherence for revolutionary mobilization. Following the revolution, major institutional transformation accompanied cognitive change. The monarchy was abolished and replaced by the Islamic Republic, whose institutional structure integrated religious authority into formal political institutions. Organizations such as the Guardian Council and the Assembly of Experts institutionalized the dominant cognitive rules of the new political order. The study therefore demonstrates that the establishment of the Islamic Republic represented not only a change of regime but also a simultaneous transformation of both institutional structures and cognitive rules.
Conclusion
This research concludes that the interaction between institutions, cognitive rules, and political legitimacy offers a comprehensive explanation for revolutionary political transformation. The collapse of the Pahlavi regime resulted from the growing divergence between its institutional arrangements and the dominant cognitive rules of Iranian society. Conversely, the initial legitimacy of the Islamic Republic was strengthened by the alignment between newly established institutions and widely accepted revolutionary beliefs. The study argues that neither institutions nor cognitive rules alone can fully explain major political transformations. Revolutionary change occurs when existing institutions lose cognitive support while competing cognitive rules become sufficiently institutionalized to provide an alternative basis for political legitimacy. This framework contributes to the broader literature on cognitive institutionalism by showing that political legitimacy is produced through the continuous interaction between institutional arrangements and cognitive rules, and it may be applied to the analysis of regime stability and institutional change in other political contexts.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Cognitive Rule
  • Institutions
  • Political Legitimacy
  • Iranian Revolution
  • Pahlavi Regime
  • Islamic Republic
  • Institutional Change.  
آبراهامیان، یرواند.(1377). ایران بین دو انقلاب. ترجمه: احمد گل محمدی و محمد ابراهیم فتاحی. تهران: نشر نی.
ادیب‌زاده، مجید.(1387). زبان، گفتمان و سیاست خارجی دیالکتیک بازنمایی از غرب در جهان نمادین ایرانی. تهران: نشر اختران.
اشرف و بنوعزیزی.(1388). طبقات اجتماعی، دولت و انقلاب در ایران. تهران: نشر نیلوفر
آل احمد، جلال. (1356). غرب زدگی. تهران: رواق.
آل احمد، جلال. (1357). در خدمت و خیانت روشنفکران. تهران: خوارزمی.
بشیریه، حسین. (1388). موانع توسعه سیاسی در ایران. تهران: نشر گام نو.
حسینی‌زاده، محمد علی. (1389). اسلام سیاسی در ایران. قم : انتشارات دانشگاه مفید.
داگلاس نورث و دیگران(۱۳۹۶). خشونت و نظم های اجتماعی. ترجمه: جعفر خیرهواهان و رضا مجیدزاده. تهران: انتشارات روزنه.
سهرابی و صالحی نجف آبادی.(۱۳۹۷). دلایل هژمونیک شدن گفتمان غرب ستیزی در میان روشنفکران ایران، دهه 40 و 50. مجله علوم سیاسی، پاییز 1397.
شریعتی، علی.(1393). امت و امامت. تهران: سپیده باوران.
شفیعی‌فر، محمد. (1393). انقلاب اسلامی؛ ماهیت، زمینه ها و پیامدها. تهران: دفتر نشر معارف.
کاتم، ریچارد. (1371). ناسیونالیسم در ایران. تهران: نشر کویر.
مناشری، دیوید. (1397). کتاب نظام آموزشی و ساختن ایران مدرن. تهران: نشر حکمت سینا
میرسپاسی، علی. (1386). روشنفکران ایران. تهران: نشر توسعه.
میلانی، عباس.(1378). تجدد و تجددستیزی در ایران. تهران: نشر آتیه.
Translated References into English
Achen, C. H., & Bartels, L. M. (2016). Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government. Princeton University Press.
Aronson, E. (1969). The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance: A Current Perspective. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 1–34). Academic Press.
Baddeley, A. D. (2012). Working memory: theories, models, and controversies. Annual review of psychology.
Barthes, R. (1974). S/Z. Editions du Seuil.
Beetham, D. (1991). The Legitimation of Power. Palgrave Macmillan.
Blais, A., Gidengil, E., Nevitte, N., & Nadeau, R. (2019). Cognitive Mobilization and Voting Behavior: A Comparative Study. Oxford University Press.
Brehm, J. W. (1966). A Theory of Psychological Reactance. Academic Press.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Harvard University Press.
Campbell, A. (1965). Ethnocentrism of Discontent. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 29(2), 183-204.
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing Theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103-126.
Coronel, J. C., & Bucy, E. (2020). A Cognitive Neuroscience Perspective on Political Knowledge, Misinformation, and Memory for "Facts." In The Handbook of Communication Science and Biology.
Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.
Fisher, W. R. (1984). Narration as a human communication paradigm: The case of public moral argument. Communication Monographs, 51(1), 1-22.
Fiske, S. T. (2010). Interpersonal stratification: Status, power, and subordination. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 941-982). Wiley.
Greif, A., & Mokyr, J. (2017). Cognitive rules, institutions, and economic growth: Douglass North and beyond. Journal of Institutional Economics, 13(1), 25-52. doi: 6
Hobsbawm, E. J. (1994). Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century, 1914-1991. Vintage.
Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence. Cambridge University Press.
Iyengar, S., & Hahn, K. S. (2009). Red Media, Blue Media: Evidence of Ideological Selectivity in Media Use. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 19-39.
Jost, J. T. (2006). The end of the end of ideology. American Psychologist, 61(7), 651-670.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kunda, Z. (1990). "The case for motivated reasoning". Psychological Bulletin. 108 (3): 480–498.
Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2013). The Rationalizing Voter. Cambridge University Press.
Lupia, A. (2016). Uninformed: Why people seem to know so little about politics and what we can do about it. Oxford University Press.
Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. D. (Eds.). (2009). Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of Rationality. Cambridge University Press.
Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2).
Patrikarakos, D. (2017). War in 140 Characters: How Social Media Is Reshaping Conflict in the Twenty-First Century. Basic Books.
Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics. American Political Science Review, 94(2), 251-267.
Roese, N. J., & Vohs, K. D. (2012). Hindsight Bias. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(5), 411-426.
Singer, P. W., & Brooking, E. T. (2018). LikeWar: The Weaponization of Social Media. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Sniderman, P. M., & Theriault, S. M. (2004). The Structure of Political Argument and the Logic of Issue Framing. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 383-408). Oxford University Press.
Sunstein, C. R. (2017). #Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton University Press.
Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity and social comparison. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation Between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 61–76). Academic Press.
Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social Identity and Intergroup Relations (pp. 15–40). Cambridge University Press.
Tversky, Amos; Kahneman, Daniel (1981). "The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice". Science. 211 (4481): 453–58.
Van Bavel, J. J., & Pereira, A. (2018). The partisan brain: An identity-based model of political belief. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(3), 213-224
Westen, D. (2007). The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation. PublicAffairs.
Wiley. Jost, J. T. (2006). The end of the end of ideology. American Psychologist, 61(7), 651-670.
Wood, M. J., Douglas, K. M., & Sutton, R. M. (2012). Dead and alive: Belief in contradictory conspiracy theories. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(6), 767-773.
Worth, S. E. (2014). The social construction of self: The role of narrative identity. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed., Vol. 21, pp. 445-451). Top of Form
Worth, S. E. (2014). The social construction of self: The role of narrative identity. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed., Vol. 21, pp. 445-451). Elsevier.
Translated References into English
Abrahamian, E. (1998). Iran between two revolutions (A. Golmohammadi & M. E. Fattahi, Trans.). Tehran: Ney Publication. [In Persian]
Adibzadeh, M. (2008). Language, discourse, and foreign policy: The dialectic of representation of the West in the Iranian symbolic world. Tehran: Akhtaran Publication. [In Persian]
Ashraf, A., & Banuazizi, A. (2009). Social classes, the state, and revolution in Iran. Tehran: Niloufar Publication. [In Persian]
Al-e Ahmad, J. (1977). Gharbzadegi (Westoxication). Tehran: Ravaq Publication. [In Persian]
Al-e Ahmad, J. (1978). On the service and betrayal of intellectuals. Tehran: Khwarizmi Publication. [In Persian]
Bashiriyeh, H. (2009). Obstacles to political development in Iran. Tehran: Gam-e No Publication. [In Persian]
Hosseinizadeh, M. A. (2010). Political Islam in Iran. Qom: Mofid University Press. [In Persian]
North, D. C., Wallis, J. J., Webb, S. B., & Weingast, B. R. (2017). Violence and social orders (J. Kheirekhahan & R. Majidzadeh, Trans.). Tehran: Roozaneh Publication. [In Persian]
Sohrabi, M., & Salehi Najafabadi, M. (2018). Hegemonic causes of the anti-Western discourse among Iranian intellectuals during the 1960s and 1970s. Journal of Political Science, Autumn Issue. [In Persian]
Shariati, A. (2014). Ummah and Imamate. Tehran: Sepideh Bavaran Publication. [In Persian]
Shafiei-Far, M. (2014). The Islamic Revolution: Nature, contexts, and consequences. Tehran: Daftar-e Nashr-e Maaref. [In Persian]
Cottam, R. W. (1992). Nationalism in Iran. Tehran: Kavir Publication. [In Persian]
Menashri, D. (2018). Education and the making of modern Iran. Tehran: Hekmat Sina Publication. [In Persian]
Mirsapasi, A. (2007). Iranian intellectuals. Tehran: Tose'eh Publication. [In Persian]
Milani, A. (1999). Modernity and anti-modernity in Iran. Tehran: Atieh Publication. [In Persian]