Iranian Journal of Sociology

Abstract This study explained why the national identity became important in the first Pahlavi state, why ancient elements of Iranian identity were highlighted, and why Islamic elements of their identity were marginalized. The results show that due to Iran's integration into the world system, the necessity of modern nation-building, and the importance of national identity in the modern state, made Iranians focus on their national identity. Since the powerful social forces challenged the state power at this period of time, the state tried to eliminate these social forces by enacting specific identity policies. Therefore, the state’s identity policies were mainly based on the state interests and not on the state ideology. In addition, these policies were formulated to weaken the rival social forces, especially the clergy and tribal leaders.    

Abstract The main question of the present study is to analyze the concept of the modern state in the thinkers’ thoughts of the Qajar era and their normative view on the definition of the scope and framework of the modern state. Using historical sociology, this paper attempted to recognize the state-building trends and investigate the mental-intellectual structure of Iranian intellectuals about state and politics in the Qajar period. The analysis of the available documents reveals that the practices such as eliminating opposition groups and centralizing power, modernizing the judiciary or reforming the structure of the army, and even entering the global economic system, by themselves could not result in the formation of a state. In contrast, the issue of territorialization and the accumulation of capital in modern Persia were central in the state-building process. In addition, Mirza MalekomKhan, a leading intellectual in the Constitutional era, enlightened the nature of the state and its mechanisms by emphasizing the monopoly of power, the establishment of an efficient court, the restructuring of the army, and the need for national unity. It is important to note that MalekomKhan’s ideas about the intellectual basis of modern state overlap with Charles Tilly’s; they both believed that in multi-ethnic societies such as Iran, building a national state based on a territory like the United States and Switzerland is more suitable.

Abstract Assistant Professor at Science and Culture University of Tehran Discursive contexts of modern state emergence in Iran dates back to the years 1851-1887. During this period, some major events helped to form the common political history in Iran and the idea of the modern state and national identity become problematic. The purpose of the present research is to encounter with the current trends of theorizing the history of the state in Iran and, on the other hand, put the idea of a modern state and a nation-building project in the context of real and forgotten events. Referring to cholera and famine as two major events in Iran's contemporary history (but forgotten under the prevailing narrations), we examined the relationship between the Iranian regulation discourse and the emergence of a modern state. Governmentality is the central concept of the theoretical perspective in this article. Using this perspective, we attempted to explain the formation of Iranian regulation. In other words, we focused on the governing poverty, which is the result of cholera, and governing the wealth as well. In addition, these two governing trends and their relationship with the idea of the modern state.
 

Abstract The state in contemporary Iran is a relatively neglected subject, especially by sociologists. One of the few studies conducted on this matter is an article by Hamid Reza Jalaeipour titled: A Theoretical Attempt for Evaluation formation of the Nation-State in Contemporary Iran. He, in that article, tries to presents an analysis regarding the situation of the nation-state in contemporary Iran. Since participation of the academic community on this matter can shed light on certain aspects of the nature of the state in the contemporary Iranian history, what was in my mind in writing the present article was twofoldan: an attempt to present a critique of Jalaeipour's paper, and to open the way in this regard. Reflecting on the afore-said article leads one to see that the writer has confused the category of nation-state with that of the transition to democracy (and its ups and downs). Such a confusion has led him to offer a definition for the nation-state which is neither consistent with those of the thinkers nor with the historical facts. Aside from that, on the subject of the nation-state, he uses theories of two thinkers which are essentially different from one another. Due to the conceptual confusion the writer's analysis regarding the formation process and the situation of the nation-state in Iran is not sound. The present article attempts to provide an alternative framework on the subject through a critical interpretation of the said article.