پژوهشنامه علوم سیاسی
سال چهارم شماره 3 (پیاپی 15، تابستان 1388)

The study of relation between man and politics is one of the main apprehensions in political philosophy. The literature of subject in general and political subject in particular embraces a broad range in social science and humanity, but how the subject turns into political subject in this literature particularly the 20th century literature is important. In this article we deal with political subject or the political area of subject and its meaning and concept change. A political and philosophical image of the subject that points to the relation between man and politics: the fact that the human person, that is, the Descartes and Kant subject, alienated with regard to his or her identity by absolute things such as power, technology, patriarchy, media and so on. This issue processed by different schools tends to answer the question that how and through what mechanisms in 20th century and afterwards specifically after September 11, 2001, the human subject has turned into political subject that viewpoints of schools and thinkers such as Anarchists, Feminists, Existentialists, Focault, Marcuse, Lukach, Althusser and Baudrillard are examined on this basis? In fact, the aim of this essay is to understand the political thoughts in this context.

The goal of this paper is to study the political and social aspects of the poem of Iran’s well-known contemporary poet, Parvin Etesami. Comparing not only to all Iranian contemporary female poets, but to many male poets of the same period, Parvin worked more on social and political issues. One of the major and dominant political and social characteristics of Parvin’s poem is the preference of social justice over political liberties. Nevertheless, Parvin’s poem is also the reflection of her contradictory views on social and political matters and problems. The author believes that this contradiction is resulted from the contemporary effects of the social context and political-social currents of her time on one hand and cultural manifestations of Iran’s literary heritage particularly theosophical and pantheistic heritage on the other hand.

The reality that justice and security are both counted as high virtues for different societies, makes it difficult to answer the question that if they contradict each other which one has to be preferred or what is the relation between these two virtues? In this article, the author defining these concepts and clarifying the positions of contradiction between “justice” and “security” theoretically and practically, will categorize the existing views including security-centered and justice-centered approaches. Afterwards criticizing these two approaches, he presents an alternative standpoint based on interaction. According to this new approach, there should be a distinction between the two main aspects of justice and security (function and foundation). Only then it appears that justice and security do not contradict in linear conditions (security function with justice function and/or security foundation with justice foundation) and such contradiction may only occur in crisscross conditions (security function with justice foundation and/or security foundation with justice function). In such situations also functions will naturally have priority over foundations.

Integrationism may be said to have been the third approach of social theorizing in the last three decades of the 20th century. This approach, influenced by two other approaches namely positivism and interpretationism, simultaneously integrates both voluntarism and structuralism. While voluntarism claims unlimited freedom for agents, structuralism believes that structure, society and system play as a determining factor which limits the action of any actor. Integrationists consider the followers of either voluntarism or structuralism reductionists who have methodological weaknesses. They seek to develop an integrationist theory with dialectical and reflexive correlation in a dynamic and historical framework (in modern world) on the basis of culture, communication and language. Bringing up his “structuration theory”, Giddens presents a dynamic model on the relation of agent and system (the independence of human being on one hand and determining effect of institutions in social interaction on the other hand- duality of structure). Combining the habit-like theory and field in “Genetic structuralism”, Bourdieu is looking for elimination of the contradiction between objectivism and subjectivism. Habermas, too, addressing the “Communicative action theory”, seeks to combine the knowledge system (objective factors) and human interests (subjective phenomena) – communicative rationality. All three thinkers try to contribute to both the human rehabilitation and dynamism of society.

The issue of the relation between tradition and modernity has been one of the major offspring of the Constitutional era in Iran. Modernity may be said to consist of two elements. One is “modernization” that is the total political, social, scientific and technological changes which have emerged in the West and resulted in the industrial development and political power of the Western countries. The other one is “modernism” which may be said to mean an endeavor in quest of the truth in order to free human beings from trusteeship on the one hand and act to determine the limits of reason in understanding on the other. Religion is one of the most important elements of tradition. Considering this, the present article seeks to study the opinion of religious scholars and intellectuals of the constitutional era about the relation between tradition and modernity. In this regard, some scholars believe in the contradiction between tradition and modernity while defending modernity. Some believe the same but considering the nature of modernity irrespective of modernization. Finally some scholars argue for the possibility of integrating modernity and tradition and believe that the former is included in Islam.

In his letter to governor of Egypt, Imam Ali (AS) wrote: “The best works from the viewpoint of a ruler should be the one which is the middle in terms of “right,” the most inclusive in terms of “justice,” and the most overarching in terms of “people’s satisfaction.” It seems that Imam Ali's (AS) remark is too complicated and needs some clarifications. Here, the relation among “right, justice, and public satisfaction” should be demonstrated. The author has not been able to find new material in some interpretations of Nahj-ul-Balagha and other related works. Then, he tried to come up with a new interpretation of Imam Ali's (AS) words in order to formulate an inclusive political rule in the area of justice. Regardless of whether the new interpretation is correct or not, it is of such importance as to both make the present paper worthy of analysis, and reminds us of the need to write new material and interpretations on this viewpoint of Imam Ali (AS).

Mojtahed Shabestari is one of the religious modernists of current Iran who views religion and religious contexts on the basis of hermeneutic epistemology particularly using Gadamer’s dialogue hermeneutic and Betti and Hirech method hermeneutic. The center of Shabestari’s religious view is based on two categories- “religious pluralism” and “religious experience”- which are rooted in his reading of religion on a hermeneutic basis. In his view, the category of religion is basically located in private field. On one hand, Shabestari has stated some theories in the field of politics, the center of which is the category of “human rights”. This article seeks to study and evaluate the relation between these two aspects. Consequently, hermeneutic requirements and provisions and principles of human rights do not comply with each other according to Shabestari and the relation between them has not enough necessary transparency and logical strength. This is because “human rights” is based on the subject-centered view of modernization, the requirements of which does not comply with the basis of hermeneutic epistemology specially “dialogue hermeneutic” basis.