| چکیده انگلیسی مقاله |
Introduction The study and analysis of the Mohammad Shahi period and its dominant pluralism—an area that has been addressed in only a few works due to the influence of the authoritarian nature of Qajar rule and the historiography of official historians—are significant for understanding the break from traditional governance models and Shiite jurisprudence. However, the governance model of this period, which marked a turning point in Iranians' confrontation with modernity and was shaped by the identity crisis resulting from the Iran-Russia wars in contemporary Iranian history, ultimately came to be perceived as a crisis in the Iranian mentality. This study employs the discourse theory of Laclau and Mouffe to explore why the pluralist discourse failed to attain a hegemonic position, alongside the aforementioned attitudes. By examining the semantic system and articulation of both the pluralist discourse and its antagonistic counterpart—the traditional religious discourse—this research aims to uncover the ideological foundations underlying the objective order of this period. Methodology The discourse theory of Laclau and Mouffe, which forms the methodological basis of this research, originates from the traditions of Marxism and structuralism (Saussurean linguistics) and seeks to deconstruct society as a coherent, unified whole. This approach is guided by two fundamental principles: 1- Contingency and 2- Antagonism. According to the first, physical phenomena do not possess inherent meaning; instead, meaning is assigned to them through discourse, and thus no meaning is ever fully established. The second principle posits that, due to the instability of meaning, constant conflict exists between different discourses. From this perspective, the "other" always and undeniably defines the "self." In this method, discourse formation begins with a nodal point—an element characterized by semantic stability that connects otherwise meaningless signs and grants them a new identity (articulation). The chain of equivalence resulting from this act of articulation forms a structured whole called a discourse. Generally, by examining the processes of articulation and related concepts such as element, moment, closure, and dislocation, Laclau and Mouffe aim to demonstrate how a discourse attains hegemonic status and how identities and social formations are shaped by this process. They also emphasize the limitations on action that arise from the semantic structure of discourses. Results and discussion This study finds that, within the social landscape of the Muhammad Shahi period, the failure of discourses such as Akhbarism, Shaykhism, and Babiism led to this era being dominated by two primary discourses: a pluralist discourse and a traditional (principled) religious discourse. On one hand, the nodal point of tolerance within the pluralist discourse fostered an understanding of the identity crisis resulting from the Iran-Russia wars, positioning the continuation of the modernity movement as its logical outcome. On the other hand, the meaning assigned to rationality in this discourse disrupted the traditional relationship between religion and politics, breaking sharply with the traditions of the Shiite Safavid monarchy and early Qajar theocracy. Consequently, the signifier of governance in this discourse acquired a rationalist meaning. Additionally, the nodal point of tolerance provided a foundation for minority rights by constructing a divine meaning for "difference." Contrastingly, the traditional religious discourse, with its nodal point of preserving religion, anchored its meaning in the government through the philosophical framework of prophecy. While legitimizing itself by attributing significance to concepts like ijtihad and taqlid, it also assumed a socio-political role. The nodal point of preserving religion conferred an identity-centric meaning that prioritized the protection of religion above all other considerations. This encoded the presence of any "other" threatening this identity as equivalent to apostasy, infidelity, heresy, etc., leading to rejection and safeguarding the integrity of the discourse’s established semantic system. The findings reveal that this nodal point of preservation also provided a minimal conceptualization of governance and an instrumental understanding of politics. Furthermore, the ongoing tension between these two discourses also extends to floating signifiers such as national interests and lifestyle, highlighting the ongoing contest over their meaning and significance. Conclusion The simultaneous emphasizing of different signs and signifiers, or assigning alternative meanings to the same signifiers within the discursive antagonism between these two discourses, introduced contradictory elements into the Iranian mentality. Despite embracing meanings associated with signifiers such as tolerance and modernity, the Shiite Iranian of this period, upon examining his mentality and thoughts, found neither a foundation for these meanings nor consistency with his traditional religious signifiers. The findings of this research indicate that the widespread acceptance and credibility of the traditional religious discourse, combined with the contradictions inherent in the competing discourses, the influence of Islamic nationalist discourse, and the shortcomings of pluralism—such as the presence of overtly anti-religious signifiers, the lack of robust theoretical support for its established signifiers compared to traditional religious discourse, and an inaccurate understanding of foreign policy—led to the perception of this discourse as a crisis within the Iranian mentality. |