نشریه پژوهش سیاست نظری
پیاپی 33 (بهار و تابستان 1402)

The critique of the progress-based philosophy of history has been one of the most significant themes of the contemporary political philosophy. It has revealed, In the aftermath of the researches that have accomplished in the field of post-colonial studies, that unilinear history has heavy eurocentric presuppositions that have been at the service of the real history of the suppression of the non-western excluded people. Furthermore the concrete elements of the dissolution of the western progress- based history of philosophy and accordingly the possibility of proposing the history of the excluded such as the decline of the colonialism and the formation of nation-states have been discussed in these researches. In this paper, however, firstly we are trying, on the basis of the Thought of contemporary philosopher Gianni Vattimo, to go beyond the merely concrete discussion about this topic and reveal the ontological impossibility of metaphysical/ universal and progress-based philosophy of history, through demonstrating the relation between progress-based philosophy of history and objectivistic metaphysics. Secondly, on the basis of this point and through the hermeneutic nihilism, we want to present the idea of post-history as the theoretical ground for the possibility of proposing the history of the excluded.

One of the issues raised in the late political philosophy is the revival of the linguistic concept called "political judgment". Political judgment can be considered as the expression of one's understanding and perception of a political event or situation. Based on this definition, the essence ofPolitical thingis defined based on speech, decision and judgment in political life. Historically/ conceptually, political Judgment has gone through two major Transformation. One: in the form of Platonic awe and following predetermined criteria (idea-centric), And the second in the form of devalued face of the world of politics and centralization, interpretation and benefit of man as the standard of everything (relativistic). Nussbaum's normative approach proposes a third and distinct type of judgment under the title of "virtuosity-ability". Therefore, the question arises, what is the nature of political Judgment in Nussbaum's thought, and where is the position of "ability-virtue" in it? In her view, political judgment is related to "valuable and virtuous political feelings and emotions", and on the other hand, to "capability approach" in the sense of what citizens can and should do. From this point of view, Nussbaum tries to criticize the standard-oriented and non-normative Judgment by proposing political liberalism against comprehensive liberalism. And on the other hand, she is against imposing those judgments on the political decision-making situations of citizens.

Irony is one of the constitutive concepts in Richard Rorty’s pragmatism. The ironist is his ideal type of the person: self-creative and self-conscious, aware of his own contingency, anti-foundationalist, and always ready to revise his account of the self and the world radically. Michel Foucault, on the other hand, is concerned with the concept parrhesia. Parrhesiastes is a type of person comparable to the ironist. Hence, the main question in this paper is: what are the similarities and differences between the Rorty’s ironist and Foucault’s parrhesiastes. We will see that while the ironist is keen to confine irony to the private realm, in order not to humiliate anybody, the parrhesiastes has no reluctance to go beyond the limits of the private, and to speak the truth. He does not avoid the risk of saying the truth to those in power even at the cost of his life, while the former is more cautious. Self-creation and autonomy is shared between the two types of personalities. Socrates is the embodiment of both personalities. He is praised as an ironist as well as a parrhesiastes.

Establishing the concept and system of justice has been one of the important subjects of political thought and philosophy and ethics since ancient times. In the history of thought, most of the beliefs about justice have been based on a great idea of good and sometimes they have provided some preliminaries about good from which a system of right and justice can be deduced. However, the opposition between right and good as concepts that lead to two different systems of justice has been one of the important and long-standing topics of political thought. The importance of the discussion is that the conceptual superiority of one over the other can have wide consequences in the socio-political life of a society. In the discussions of contemporaries, the distinction or opposition of these two concepts was at the center of the debate between the schools of consequentialism and dutyism: consequentialists consider good to be the first and right actions are those that lead to good; Duties put the right first, consider it independent of good, and even prohibit the actions leading to good when they are exposed to fundamental moral rules. But John Rawls tried to propose a combination of the concepts of right and good in his theory of justice in such a way that right can be deduced from the ideas of good, and good is subject to the justice system as a branch of the concept of right. John Rawls's system of justice is a political system based on a political conception of justice that tries to provide an explanation of the requirements for realizing the greatest possible freedom and equality for the citizens of a democratic society. In fact, this structure can be considered as the "rule of law" which both enables the freedom of citizens to pursue their own good and sets limits for it so as not to violate the principles of justice.

In this research, we aim to trace the various paths that ultimately led to the emergence of the modern nation-state and its implications in contemporary political structures worldwide. What we now recognize as the modern nation-state, which continues to exist in various forms of political systems, has its roots in ancient and gradual transformations in the West (Europe). These developments can be depicted as a paradigmatic narrative of the dialectic of needs and responses. This narrative begins with ancient Greece and its devotion to rationality and freedom, and continues along different paths, on the one hand, with modern evangelical traditions and the exploration of Roman legal structures, and on the other hand, by passing through historical, social, political, and economic contexts, the great Western powers (England, France, Germany, and the United States) have pursued different paths towards the emergence of the modern state. In retracing these various paths, we have utilized Kuhn's paradigmatic approach.

Islamic civilization in the second century AH was accompanied by the transfer of various sciences from Greece to Iranian civilization and from there to the Islamic world. In the process of the construction of objective structures, such as the government, it took its mental support from Greece and Plato and Aristotelian philosophy. Along the way, because of the characteristics of Arab culture and its religious elements, as well as the experience of Iranshahr that was being transmitted to the Islamic world, Plato's philosophy and apostasy were taken into account on the metaphysical basis, while Aristotelian philosophy, which is close to realism, became a state of thought. That is to say, the difficulties of the political are not thought of in the orbit of Aristotelian philosophy, but from the point of view of Platonic political philosophy. From this perspective, the question is why was the political philosophy in the process ignored? How would the objective structures of Islamic civilization be organized if Aristotelian political philosophy? The hypothesis in this article is that in Islamic civilization, there were subjective structures and structures that marginalized Aristotelian political philosophy. Intellectual structures such as mental duality, along with the domination of religious ideas, led to the manifestation of structures influenced by this notion in the political arena. Religious thought and mythical ideas were a fundamental factor in the tendency to think about the political and government structure. Of course, the experience of governing in the Iranian life of the Sassanid era, where neo-lauretism was the intellectual support of solving political difficulties, was also favored by Muslims as a model for thinking of social hardships. But on the contrary, Aristotelian philosophy, based on social realities and rational approach, was marginalized in the process. To this end, we analyze the subject with the Wittgenstein Interpretative Approach.

Investigating the history of the political thought of power limitation in the Qajar era, which led to the constitutional monarchy, is the aim of the present study, and the question has been raised that what process the concept of constitutional monarchy goes through as the final manifestation of the power limitation in the Qajar era. Skinner's research program was selected as the basis of the research, which believes in the historical course of thought, and considers it identifiable through linguistic conventions. The result of the study shows that the constitutional monarchy is the result of the development of three linguistic covenants in the limitation of power: the limitation of power first entered the field of Iranian political thought during the reign of Feth Ali Shah as the limited king, and then in the Nasrid era with two covenants of absolute monarchy. And moderate monarchy developed. The final course of the idea of power limitation was in the era of Mozaffari, when the continuation of the autocratic monarchy led to very unfavorable conditions in Iran and the transition from it was considered a constitutional monarchy. In Skinner's opinion, all the processes used to limit power in the Qajar era are corrective measures to legitimize the political system.

Good governance refers to achieving the rule of law, transparency, accountability, participation, equality, efficiency, effectiveness, accountability, individual freedom, press freedom, and active civil society. Along with these prerequisites, political culture, and in particular the political culture of the elites, is crucial in institutionalizing the principles of good governance, especially in developing countries. This subject has drawn the attention of certain good governance studies academics in recent decades. The results showed that if the political culture of the elites is democratic or accepts at least some minimal democratic values, it can act as the basis for advancing democracy or political development in the sense of raising political participation and competition. In societies where, for various and complex reasons, the political culture of the elites is anti-participatory in the sense of being anti-democratic, authoritarian political structures and an ideology consistent with it can pose a significant barrier to the advancement of democratic indicators. A political culture that is authoritarian and non-participatory acts as a factor that hinders political development. In contrast, democratic and participatory ideals and attitudes significantly influence a country's political development. This is more evident in emerging nations when elite political culture has a more robust coefficient of determination.

This study aims to analyze the governance patterns in Iran before and after the Iran-Russia wars, and their relationship with the environment. Two major governance patterns and two different rationalities in the exercise of power, in terms of method, scope, and perspective, are discussed. Using a descriptive-analytical approach and documents, the governance process is examined from the perspective of Michel Foucault's governmentality framework, and the relationship between the environment, politics, and the formation of a new rationality in governance in Iran is explored. The research question is: "How did the formation and establishment of new governance mechanisms and techniques in Iran after the Iran-Russia wars take place, and what impact did it have on the relationship between the environment, politics, and the formation of new governance innovations in Iran? " The study argues that "with an awareness of the failure of governance based on the monarchy system, reformists gradually exposed society to the power of control and guidance of the population by creating new techniques and institutions, and established new governance innovations. " In general, two strategies can be identified in the administration of the territory after the Iran-Russia wars: the traditional strategy of the monarchy based on divine-political obligation and the strategy of new governance innovations based on new techniques, each leaving a different form of the relationship between the environment and politics in terms of the mode of exercising power, the scope of power, and the control perspective.

In this paper, we attempt to demonstrate that the theoretical framework of "Historical Essentialism" (negation of the West and articulation of oneself as the Western other) used by some Iranian researchers as the basis for the conceptualization of the contrast between the geography of the East against the geography of the West, results in no more than the reproduction of the evil cycle of the duality of "Orientalism" and "Eurocentrism" in civilizational analysis. The fundamental question is how, in the era of Western modernity's domination, can we, as non-Westerners, articulate our own civilization based on our historical and geographical characteristics? The hypothesis of this research is that a non-western subject as a solution cannot assume the role of being "other" of the western modernity's civilizational order in the form of "Historical Essentialism". The essentialist strategy has no solution other than reproducing the same vocabulary of Western academic Orientalism as the historical essence of the East. On the contrary, a non-western subject can form their civilizational order based on the historical and geographical vocabulary of their societies by using a common global heritage that connects them with the western subject, in the form of a "Historical Hybridity". The findings of this article show that the late works of Samuel Eisenstadt about "comparative sociology based on civilizational analysis" is the most applicable theory to investigate this claim. This theory, while acknowledging a shared heritage as "conditions of possibility for civilizational order" in world history, emphasizes pluralistic "articulations of civilizational order" and the absence of a hegemonic civilizational order in world history that could claim "legitimacy. " This paper presents the conceptual framework of "Historical Hybridity " as a replacement for "Historical Essentialism that is presented in Shayegan's "Asia versus the West". The meaning of "Historical Hybridity" is not to express a "unidirectional evolutionary" relationship between Western and non-Western societies, that non-Western societies must necessarily follow the same path as Western societies in the articulation of their social formations; Rather, on the contrary, it seeks a "global history without a center" in which Western and non-Western people could on the basis of a common and hybrid heritage, speak independently based on the historical and geographical singularities of their societies and produce different formations of civilizational order at the level their societies' history. In other words, "Historical Hybridity" is a "unity in diversity. " The method of this article involves the history of ideas or the history of thought based on the comparative sociology approach and data collection method is referring to the original sources of civilizational order theorists.

The literature on revolution has gone through four theoretical waves in explaining diverse revolutions. Although these waves belong to different terms, all of them have essentialist ontology and they are seeking to find impressive attributes in breaking out and prospering incidents. The precedent for bringing revolutions into focus in Historical Sociology (HS) turns to Brinton Moor, Charles Tilly, and ThedaSkocpol endeavors that by concentrating on structure and interior causation paid less attention to exterior conditions; but their works broke the closed-loop and made a weak relation between revolutions and international. However their manners in methodological point of view were closely connected with previous theoretical waves; since from HS perspective, the revolutions are stemmed from accumulated incidents which are made from social relations within a supranational context. The object of the current work is to examine the evolution of the international factor in revolution theories in the light of historical sociology theorists. According to the findings, the international factor has gone through three major evolutions in the insight of historical sociology theorists. First, in the 70s, from a structural point of view, it refers to the influence of the international system on revolutions. Second, the international factor enters the text from the margins of the relevant literature, and the inter-state perspective is highlighted; in the transition to the third step, not only inter-state communication is considered, but the inter-social attitude and the relations between the people and the network.

The main aim of this paper is to investigate Liberalism, Totalitarianism, and security as discourses that related to Bio-Politics. The goal of discourse is making subject that is identified by his/her norms and controls in daily life. In this current text we want to reveal relation of mentioned discourses to bio-politics and body-politics. Relation of discourses to body- politics have been developing in twenty century in theories and multiple texts. On the considering this texts, legislations and actions that tending to classification of bodies and population is one of main preoccupation of discourses in recent century. Norms of economical body or body which should be a productive body of capital, other body and security comes of mentioned discourses. Part of often researches have used to Michael Foucault though, therefore in recent text we used genealogy. So, our hypothesis is the Liberalism, Totalitarianism, and security are strongly to bio-politics, and originally they comes of elements of bio-politics. Consequently, current systems has been founded as bio-political discourses, due to accruing global/ local subjects.