Iranian Journal of Sociology

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 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.