چکیده:
این مقاله به «مسئله‌سازی» هویت ایرانیان از اواسط قرن دوازدهم شمسی می‌پردازد که توسط روشنفکرانی مانند آخوندزاده و آقاخان کرمانی شروع شد و در ادامه وارد زیست-سیاست ایرانیان شد و اندیشه‌ها و نهادهای مختلفی پیرامون هویت ایرانیان تولید و به یک هدف برای اندیشه و سیاست ورزی قرار گرفت. بر این بنیاد، سوال اساسی پژوهش حاضر این خواهد بود که چرا هویت ایرانیان مسئله شد و با توجه به این مسئله شدن چه تغییرات گفتمانی و غیر گفتمانی در مناسبات اجتماعی و سیاسی هویت ایرانیان رخ داد؟ برای پاسخ به سوال فوق‌الذکر ما با به‌کارگیری روش تبارشناسی و روابط دانش/قدرت میشل فوکو و همچنین با توجه به مسئله‌سازی هویت ایرانیان، سامانه‌ها و روابط قدرتی که در اطراف هویت ایرانیان شکل گرفت را بررسی می‌کنیم. نتایج تحقیق آن است که از دوره ملکم خان و آقاخان کرمانی، هویت ایرانیان وارد یک مسئله برای اندیشه و سیاست ورزی شد و این مسئله شدن به اشکال مختلف تا امروز ادامه داشته است.
This article deals with the "problemization" of Iranian identity since the middle of the 12th century, which was started by intellectuals such as Akhundzadeh and Agha Khan Kermani. Later, it entered the bio-politics of Iranians, and various ideas and institutions were produced around the identity of Iranians, and it was put to a goal for thought and politics. Based on this, the basic question of the current research will be why the identity of Iranians became an problem? Considering this problematization, what discursive and non-discursive changes occurred in the social and political relations of Iranian identity? To answer this question, we use Michel Foucault's method of genealogy and knowledge/power relations, and also considering the problematization of the identity of Iranians, we examine the systems and power relations that were formed around the identity of Iranians. The results of the present research are that from the period of Malkam Khan and Agha Khan Kermani, the path of theorizing about progress and development went towards identity, and after that, a set of discursive and non-discursive procedures was formed, which brought the identity of Iranians into the game of right and wrong.Key words: identity, identity of Iranians, genealogy, problematization. Foucault's reading of the problematization of the identity of Iranians: from the end of the 12th century to the present dayExtended abstractIntroductionThe first production of knowledge about the identity of Iranians in the form of historiography of nationalism and eternalist narrative was started by Mirza Fath-Ali Akhundzadeh and Mirza Aqa Khan Kermani, and later this knowledge was turned into an official ideology by the Pahlavi government. From this point of view, "identity of Iranians", according to the concept of "problemization" in Michel Foucault's geneology, from this historical period onward, the problem and attention of power relations and relationships became. Based on this, different forces (discursive and non discursive practices) existing in every historical period tried to exert power over the identity of Iranians, which they did through various institutions, tools, techniques, tactics, and discourses. In addition to this issue and considering the "contingency" of history from Foucault's genealogy point of view, in different historical periods and lineages and with the presence of new forces around the identity of Iranians, we witnessed the various "constructions" of Iranian identity in this historical period.Research Question And HypothesisAccording to the said material, the question that this research wants to answer is why the identity of Iranians became an issue and what discursive and non-discursive changes occurred in the social and political relations of Iranian identity due to this issue? The hypothesis of this article is that, before Akhundzadeh and Kermani, the mainstream of modernism emphasized the issue of technology and law and sought to reform the government system; But according to the emergency situation of this historical period (from the constitutional revolution to the coming to power of Reza Shah) and based on the response to the specific needs of this historical period, such as ending the chaos and lack of internal solidarity, ending threats and foreign presence, and failing to reach Constitutional ideals formed a kind of formulation between discursive and non-discursive elements and led the Iranian society towards a linguistic-racial identity system. This problematization of the identity of Iranians has continued until now despite the ups and downs, and the issue of Iran's progress and development is mostly tied to the issue of identity.MethodologyTo answer this question, we use Michel Foucault's method of genealogy and knowledge/power relations, and also considering the problematization of the identity of Iranians, we examine the systems and power relations that were formed around the identity of Iranians. Discussion and ConclusionThis article emphasizes that Malkom Khan and Akhundzadeh took the path of theorizing about progress and development in the direction of identity. Based on this, after them, a set of discursive or non-discursive procedures was formed, which brought the identity of Iranians into the game of right and wrong and put it in the form of a goal for thought and policy making. In every historical period, different groups and currents tried to exercise power over the identity of Iranians through various institutions, tools, techniques, tactics, and discourses. Meanwhile, in this process, various ideas and institutions were produced around the identity of Iranians. This problematization occurred in different forms: either in the form of Pahlavi antiquarian politics, in the form of Islamic-Shia politics, in the form of Islamic thought to fight against the Shah's rule, or in the form of a return to antiquarianism to fight against the Islamic Republic's rule.It's as if we gave in to this identity system and we still follow it to this day. Imperial, Islamic, Marxist, antiquarian, etc. identification and identification has shown itself on the political, social and cultural behavior of us Iranians in silent, revolutionary, theoretical ways. From that date until today, although it was not common to be frank about the identity of Iranians, today it is not so secret; The voice of the identity is used without excessive cloying and things are used without veiling too much; Even though it is against the will of the ruler and they shout it in street demonstrations. In order to get rid of these identity systems and return to the basic principles of Iranian constitutionalism, this research offers the following suggestions:- Before we get involved in the vicious circle of pre-Islamic identity or post-Islamic identity, or to throw away the Aryan flag or to support the Shia heritage of Iranian identity, we must insist on the rule of law, limiting the power of rulers and the values of freedom and equality.- Since the identity of Iranians became a problem and was later chosen as the official and basic ideology by different governments, and even identity resistances against those ideologies occurred, we have less discussed how to live peacefully with different identities of Iranians. Considering the linguistic, ethnic and racial identity diversity of Iranians, there are various narratives of its past. To strengthen the unity between these different identities, while maintaining this plurality and diversity, we must pay attention to the political and civic forms of identity. In other words, instead of requiring living in Iran to have a specific linguistic, religious or ethnic identity, we should move our thinking to living in Iran, which belongs to all Iranians. While we must abandon the fundamentalist and unified narrative of identity, we must make it clear to all Iranians that those who live in Iran have the same destiny and their interests and desires can only be found in a peaceful coexistence with goals such as the rule of law and Limiting rulers is possible.
خلاصه ماشینی:
با توجه به مطالب گفته شده ، سؤالی که این تحقیق می خواهد پاسـخ دهنـد ایـن اسـت کـه چرا هویت ایرانیان مسئله شد و با توجه به این مسئله شدن چه تغییرات گفتمانی و غیر گفتمانی در مناسبات اجتماعی و سیاسی هویت ایرانیان رخ داد؟ فرضیه مقاله حاضر این است ، تا آن قبل از آخوندزاده و کرمانی ، جریان اصلی تجددخواهی بر مسئله فناوری و قانون تأکید می کردنـد و به دنبال اصلاح دستگاه دولت بودند؛ ولی با توجه به وضعیت اضـطراری ایـن برهـه تـاریخی (از انقلاب مشروطه تا روی کار آمدن رضاشاه ) و بر مبنای پاسخ به نیازهای مشخص این دوره تاریخی مثل پایان دادن به هرج ومرج و عدم همبستگی داخلی ، پایان دادن به تهدیدها و حضور خارجی و ناکامی دررسیدن به آرمان های مشروطه ، یک نوع صورت بندی میان عناصر گفتمـانی (Discourse) و غیر گفتمانی (Non Discoursive) شکل گرفت و جامعه ایرانی را بـه سـمت یـک سامانه هویت زبانی -نژادی برد.
روشــنفکرانی چــون حسین کاظم زاده ایرانشهر، محمود افشار، مشـفق کـاظمی ، احمـد کسـروی ، ابـراهیم پـورداود، عباس اقبال و سید حسن تقی زاده با تنوعات فکری شان همگی بر این باور بودنـد کـه آمـال و آرزوهای دموکراتیک مشروطه ، شوقی برنمی انگیزد و به اقتضای اوضاع کنونی بایـد بـه سـمت «دیکتاتور ایدئال »، «یک دماغ منور» و «مستبدی روشن اندیش » حرکت کرد که زمینه و مقدمات لازم برای انقلابی اجتماعی را فراهم آورد (نظری ، ١٣٨٦، ١٤٤)؛ بنابراین با توجه به ایـن برهـه خاص تاریخی (از انقلاب مشروطه تا روی کار آمدن رضاشاه ) و بر مبنای پاسـخ بـه نیازهـای مشخص این دوره تاریخی مثل پایان دادن به هرج ومرج و عدم همبستگی داخلی ، پایان دادن به تهدیدها و حضور خارجی و ناکامی دررسیدن به آرمان های مشروطه ، یک نـوع صـورت بنـدی میان عناصر گفتمانی و غیر گفتمانی شکل گرفت و جامعه ایرانی را به سمت یک سامانه هویت زبانی -نژادی برد.
(
, 
, 
)
