The status of Iran and west in Tabatabai's historiography and political implication

The problem of this article is that what’s the political implications of Tabatai’s researches as a whole (in two domain of west and Iran) for Iran’s present time. This problem is solved on the basis of this presupposition: Tabatai’s historiography reflects an intellectual constellation that signifies his implicit intention for Iran’s present time. The goal of this article is that clarify status of tradition (Iran’ past) and west (European thought) in this constellation. This research is done through Straussian interlinear interpretation and supposed that his intention for historiography isn’t clear and clarified with application of Strauss's hermeneutics. Applying of this method of research, namely Straussian interpretation that emphasize on interlinear implications in interpretation of texts, is compatible with Tabatabai's way. Because, his way in dealing with everyday events shows that he is neutral in political tentions. This procedure is compatible with his epistemological basis tow, such that he emphasizes on distinction between true knowledge and ideology and until he tries to conceal his intentions about Iran’s present time. However Applying of this method of research is necessary for understanding of his works. Also its theoretical framework is Althuserian problematic. But what’s Althuserian problematic that Tabatabai seeks to present Iran as a problematic? Problematic is equivalent with Kuhn’s paradigm and Lakatos’s research program and like them, is distinct to empiricist epistemology and consist of presuppositions and heuristic device that knowledge is based on it and second order knowledge is equivalent with knowing of its components. Also in spite of Althuserian epistemology’s belief about realism and testing of knowing claims, the relation between objectivity and subjectivity isn’t injective equivalent and their changes is different. Althusser believes that Marx's work is fundamentally incompatible with its antecedents because it is built on a groundbreaking epistemology (theory of knowledge) that rejects the distinction between subject and object. In opposition to empiricism, Althusser claims that Marx's philosophy, dialectical materialism, counters the theory of knowledge as vision with a theory of knowledge as production. Tabatabai precisely seeks to transform the domain of Iran’s studies (that political thought is one section of it) from ideological approach to an active research program, insofar as be applicable in several academic research. The first question that presents in Tabatabaei’s problematic is about modern stat. This question is: What’s the equivalence of this phenomena in Iranshahri tradition? Tabatabaie holds that modern state has no equivalent in Iranshahri tradition, but the nation’s gene, as a modern concept, exists in Iran’s pre-modern history. Because, Iran as a sign, implies on a meta-ethnic or inter-ethnic phenomena that make it districted in all non-west nations, until ancient ones. However modern state has exclusively western gene and is born from European kingdom in late middle centuries and evolves gradually. In primitive form of state, constitution is a variety of fundamental custom, separation of powers is order between nobles and king and so on. This embryonic form of stat evolve and transform to present form of state in Western Europe. In fact, Tabatabaie’s endeavors in historiography of political thought in Western Europe, can be reduce to this trajectory in history of Western Europe. The cause of this approach is that he thinks in all historical aspect must continuation of tradition in modern time be considered and presupposes the continuation of Iranshahri tradition. Although he holds that because of dysfunctions, historical degeneration and deterioration of thought, it is necessary that logic of modernity and its provisions be considered. He wants through this way, revitalizes pregnant concepts that is implicit in Iranshahri tradition. He seeks to trace back the genes of modern stat in Iranshahri tradition (in special domain, namely governance). It is important be said that he doesn’t hold the tradition in modern time is redemptive. Until he holds that without of historical degeneration and deterioration of thought, tradition has no solution for modern problems. In his view, despite tradition is dysfunctional, but determines deferent aspects of modern life. However it is necessary that in making state and institutionalizing of governance, be noted and consideration of thinkers and political agents doesn’t concentrates only on modern concepts. With negligence of cultural-historical contingency, application of this modern concepts, will be disadvantage. The problematic that Tabatabaie tend to produce it is a productive paradigm not only for political thought, but also can be applied for courses such as public law, Iran’s cultural studies and art researches. When this problematic will be apparent that his reply to critics is considered and his passages about these critics be interpreted through interlinear approach. Tabatabaie ascribes critics of his historiography as ideologist, uninformed historiographer and lay thinker. It can’t be said that being ideologist be excluded to Iran’s historiographers and lay thinkers isn’t named ideologist. In fact, the relation between being ideologist and being uninformed about foundations of west thought, is mutual and everyone reinforces another. Tabatabaei’s approach in this subject, shows that he selects althusserian epistemology as his meta-theory. He distinguishes between his way and his ideologist critics and this leads him to constitutes a problematic (in althusserian meaning) for Iran’s studies (specially for political thought). Also he prevents from lay historiography and in this way seeks to the most prominent argumentations, most difficult texts and most important interpretations about West’s political thought, in order to explain the foundations of west thought and shows the gap between this problematic of West and Iran’s historical materials. This is a sign that implies who applies West’s problematic for knowing of Iran’s history, are ideologists. In turn he seeks to constitute a problematic that is compatible with Iran (specially, Iran’s political thought). The basic question is that what is the political implications of this problematic for Iran’ present time. He counts constitutional revolution, the second unsuccessful renaissance and tries to realize it in Iran’s present time through removing the obstacles in intellectual domain. The ideal order that is equivalent with it can’t be incompatible with modern state’s components and necessaries. Although he emphasizes simultaneously both on European gene of these components and necessaries and the necessity of being compatible with historical-cultural identity. This is inseparable in any institutionalizing and making the constituting legal principles.