جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "religious intellectuals" در نشریات گروه "علوم اجتماعی"

This research is a comparative study of the two discourses of the religious intellectual of the 40s and the discourse of the Islamic Revolution. In this essay, the author first used the epistemological framework of Lacla and Mouffechr('39')s theory and its methodological strategy to articulate these discourses based on their central slab. Shariati, with a sociological point of view, was able to present a political image of Islam centered on "revolutionary-social Islam", and the forerunner of the Islamic Revolution. In the continuation of this discourse, the discourse of the Islamic Revolution, also with a jurisprudential approach, with the focus of "pure Islam" as the central axis in the epicenter of the epistemological and thematic, of all political movements after the Islamic Revolution, with the same discursive components, was able to reproduce in a newer and more different form of production and theorize. Findings of the research indicate that both discourses, based on the belief in the combination of religion and politics with a relatively democratic approach and through the use of the "nations and pontificate" system, were able to establish their ideal state which, in contrast to totalitarian systems, religion the traditional and supportive clerics led to the marginalization of the dominant discourse and ruling of the era, the "Pahlavi’s discourse”. Both of these discourses, with the limitations of the powers of the leadership, however, despite the differences in the form and content, were able to emphasize the role of the people and their influence on the choice.

This paper reviews and criticizes the “Incomplete Modernity of Iranian Intellectuals”, written by Gholamreza Goodarzi (2008). The book includes four chapters and the author intends to offer a historical trend of the role of Iranian intellectuals in the incomplete modernity in Iran. The most criticism consists of: the lack of theoretical framework for the research, offering the variant approaches without reviewing and criticizing them, criticizing with no grounds and documents, saying again the repeated claims, using the concepts without understandable explaining, and the lack of innovation.