The formation of political modernity in Iran (1890-1908)

Volume 10, Issue 2
July 2019
Pages 107-133

Document Type : Original Research

Abstract
The subject of this article is the generation of political modernity in Iran. The sociological analysis of political modernity in Iran, due to lack of consistency between its consequences and Western political modernity. Has been a challenging issue. In order to overcome these challenges, political modernity in Iran is studied as one of multiple forms of modernity in the world, and therefore as a unique historical fact. The main problem of this study is the question of how the generation of political modernity in Iran occurred during the period of 1889-1909. The theoretical framework of the paper has formulated based on the theory of multiple modernities. The framework contains five analytical levels: world system, colonial confrontation, sociopolitical system, collective agency and individual agency. The research method used in this research was historical-narrative analysis. The results of the research indicate that the political modernity of Iran in this period of time has been the result of several elements at five levels of analysis: Competition and cooperation among the world powers at the level of world system, Confronting Russian and British threats at the level of colonial confrontation, Economic crises, lack of independence and inefficiency of the political system at the level of sociopolitical system, and the Iranian agents’ solutions for existing problems and answering the question of the ideal way of ruling the public life at the levels of individual and collective agency. The interplays of the above elements during 1890 to 1909 has led to the formation of the first Iranian parliament in 1906 and its temporary closure in 1908.

Keywords

Subjects
− Apter, D.(1965) The Politics of Modernization, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
− Black, C.E.(1966) The Dynamics of Modernization, New York: Harper.
− Buss, Sarah(2014), Personal Autonomy, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy(Winter 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta(ed.), URL = .
− Chakrabarty, Dipesh.(2008). Provincializing Europe: postcolonial thought and historical difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
− Chatterjee, Partha 1997. Our modernity. Rotterdam/Dakar: SEPHIS and CODESRIA: 1–20.
− Deutsch K(1961) Social mobilization and political development, American Political Science Review(3): 493–514.
− Eisenstadt S. N.(2001). The civilizational dimension of modernity, International sociology, vol 16(3): 320-340
− Eisenstadt, S. N.(2000), Multiple Modernities, Daedalus, Vol 120, No. 1(Winter 2000)
− Eyerman R.(1994), “Modernity and Social Movements”, in: Haferkamp, Hans; Smelser, Neil J.(1992): Social change and modernity. Oxford: University of California Press.
− Giddens, Antony.(1984). “The constitution of society”, London: Polity.
− Huntington, S.(1968) Political Order in Changing Societies, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
− Kamali, Masoud(2006), Multiple Modernities, Civil Society and Islam; The Case Study of Iran and Turkey, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press
− Kaya, Ibrahim.(2004). “Modernity, Openness, Interpretation: A Perspective on Multiple Modernities”. Social Science Information, 43(1), 35–57.
− King, Debra S.(2006): “Activists and Emotional Reflexivity: Toward Touraine’s Subject as Social Movement”. Sociology 40(5).
− Lerner, D.(1958) The Passing of Traditional Society: Modernizing the Middle East, Glencoe, IL: Free Press
− Martinelli, A.(2005). Global modernization: Rethinking the project of modernity. London: SAGE Publications
− Matin, Kamran(2013): Recasting Iranian modernity. International relations and social change. London, New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group(Iranian studies).
− McClelland, D.(1961) The Achieving Society, Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
− Organski, A.F.K.(1965) The Stages of Political Development, New York: Knopf.
− Rostow, W. W.(1962). The Stages of Economic Growth. London: Cambridge University Press
− Said, Edward(1976), “Arabs, Islam and the Dogmas of the West”. The New York Times Book Review, 31 October 1976
− Sewell, W. H(2005) “A theory of structure: duality, agency and transformation” in: Spiegel, G. M.(2005). Practicing history: new directions in historical writing after the linguistic turn. New York, London: Routledge
− Sharifi, Majid(2008), Imagining Iran: Contesting Political Discourses in Modern Iran(Doctoral dissertation), University of Florida
− Talattof, Kamran(2011), Modernity, sexuality, and ideology in Iran, Syracuse: Syracuse University Press
− Therborn, Göran(2003), “Entangled Modernities”, European Journal of Social Theory, volume 6, issue 3, pp 293-305
− Therborn, Göran(2010), “Different Roads to Modernity and Their Consequences: A Sketch”, in: M. Boatca et(eds.), Decolonizing European Sociology, Farnham: Ashgate
− Wagner, Peter(2008), Modernity as experience and interpretation: A new sociology of modernity. London: Polity
− Wagner, Peter.(2010), “Multiple Trajectories of Modernity: Why Social Theory Needs Historical Sociology”. Thesis Eleven, 100(1), 53–60.
− Wallerstein, Immanuel(1974) “The modern World System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century”. New York: Academic Press.