روش‌شناسی نظریه‌پردازی نظریۀ دولت در اروپای قرون شانزده تا هجده میلادی
محورهای موضوعی : نظریه‌ها، روش‌شناسی‌ها و رویکردهای جدید در علوم سیاسی
علیرضا آقاباباگلی
1
,
سید محمدعلی حسینی زاده
2
1 - دانشجوی دکتری جامعه‌شناسی سیاسی، گروه علوم سیاسی، دانشکده حقوق و سیاسی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، تهران، ایران
2 - استادیار گروه علوم سیاسی و روابط بین‌الملل، دانشکده علوم اقتصادی و سیاسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران
کلید واژه: روش‌شناسی, نظریه‌پردازی, نظریه دولت, دولت- ملت, دولت تأسیسی.,
چکیده مقاله :
تکوین دولت مدرن، هم‌زمان با عبور نظریه‌پردازان سیاسی از اشکال قدیم حکومت و انتشار رسائل حاوی نظریه دولت بود. این نظریه‌ها به دلیل خصیصه تأسیسی سازمان جدید قدرت، تلاش می‌کرد با روشی غیر اثباتی و استفاده از سنت فلسفه سیاسی، به شکلی جامع و مانع، چگونگی استقرار نوع مطلوب ابعاد مختلف نهاد دولت را تجویز کند. رواج نظریه‌های دولت زمینه مشروعیت دینی و مقبولیت سیاسی آن را فراهم ساخت چنان‌که فرضیه پژوهش را امکان حصول روش‌شناسی نظریه‌پردازی نظریه دولت در اروپای قرون شانزده تا هجده میلادی با مطالعه «شش رساله دولت»، «لویاتان» و «روح‌القوانین» قرار می‌دهد. آثاری که به توضیح و توجیه هماهنگی «نهادهای پیرامونی» دولت، نظیر حکومت، بوروکراسی و ارتش حول «ایده مرکزی» خاص هر نظریه‌پرداز، مانند حاکمیت، امنیت یا قانون اساسی می‌پردازد. با روش‌شناسی بنیادین نظریه‌های ژان بُدَن، هابز و منتسکیو به‌مثابه راهنمای عملی نظریه دولت‌نویسی می‌توان به نگارش نظریه‌های تأسیسی دیگر دولت‌های جدید غیر اروپایی امید داشت.
The Methodology of Theorizing the Theory of the State in Sixteenth- to Eighteenth-Century Europe
Alireza Aghababagoli*
Seyed Mohammad Ali Hosseinizadeh**
The genesis of the modern state coincided with political theorists moving beyond classical forms of rule and publishing treatises articulating a distinct “theory of the state.” Due to the constitutive (tāʾsīsī) character of this emergent organization of power, these theories adopted a non-positivist methodology rooted in the tradition of political philosophy to formulate an exhaustive and exclusive (jāmiʿ wa māniʿ) prescription for establishing the optimal dimensions of the state as an institution. The proliferation of these state theories provided the groundwork for its religious legitimation and political acceptance. Accordingly, this study’s hypothesis posits the feasibility of deriving a methodology of theorizing the state in sixteenth- to eighteenth-century Europe through a critical examination of Jean Bodin’s Six Books of the Commonwealth, Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan, and Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws. These seminal texts explain and justify the alignment of the state’s “peripheral institutions” such as the government, bureaucracy, and standing army around a theorist’s specific “central idea,” such as sovereignty, security, or constitutionalism. By uncovering the fundamental methodology underpinning the theories of Bodin, Hobbes, and Montesquieu as a practical guide for state-theorizing, one can envision the articulation of constitutive theories of the modern state for non-European contexts.
Keywords: Methodology, Theorization, Theory of the State, Nation-State, Constitutive State.
Introduction and Problem Statement
The central problem of this article arises from the relationship between the emergence of the nation-state in Europe and the necessity of theorizing the state. The modern European state in the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries was not merely another iteration of classical governments; rather, it was a new form of power organization that required comprehensive theories to achieve internal territorial stabilization, legitimize authority, regulate relations between the government and society, and enable its own external projection. From this perspective, the theory of the state is neither a scattered reflection on politics nor a historical report of power transformations, but a constitutive text through which the theorist attempts to explain and prescribe the creation, establishment, harmonization, and legitimation of their desired state. Focusing on three important texts of the European political philosophy tradition Jean Bodin’s Six Books of the Commonwealth, Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan, and Charles de Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws the present article asks: Can a methodology for theorizing the state be extracted from these works and utilized as a guide for state-theorizing in new non-European societies? The importance of this question stems from the fact that in many Persian studies, and even in some general political science works, sufficient distinction is not made between concepts such as the state, government, political system, political theory, and theory of the state. The result of such conflation is that any type of essay-writing on political power, without carrying a coherent plan for establishing or reconstructing the state, is introduced under the title of “theory of the state.”
Background and Research Gap
Research shows that a significant part of existing works on the state either remain within the history of political thought, introduce types of political systems, or conflate the state with the government and the executive branch. Some works also equate the theory of the state with political theory, while the relationship between the two is one of general-to-specific; every theory of the state is a type of political theory, but not every political theory is a theory of the state. A theory of the state emerges when the main subject of thought is the state itself as the comprehensive institution of power, and the theorist attempts to explain its main elements namely, the central idea, legitimacy, sovereignty, territory, government, administrative apparatus, and military force in a harmonious relationship with one another. In this regard, the article, while using Thomas Spragens’s discussion on understanding political theories critically, distances itself from the “live film” analogy and compares the theory of the state to a “screenplay.” Just as a screenplay is an antecedent text and a guide for making a film, the theory of the state is also an antecedent text and a guide for establishing, stabilizing, or reconstructing the organization of power. This analogy allows the theory of the state to be examined not merely by testing the truth and falsehood of its propositions, but in terms of its internal structure, narrative order, crisis diagnosis, solution provision, and formulation of the necessary institutions to realize the solution.
Theoretical Framework and Methodology
The article’s framework is based on the distinction between foundational methodology and applied methodology. Foundational methodology, instead of examining the application of a theory to external subjects, addresses how the theory is formed, its epistemological and logical foundations, its relationship with the historical and cultural context, and its internal structure. Therefore, the goal of the article is not to judge the correctness or incorrectness of the theories of Bodin, Hobbes, and Montesquieu, but to focus on discovering the logic of their theorizing in the realm of the state. The article is inspired by Syd Field’s three-act screenplay structure model to demonstrate the structure of the theory of the state. Based on this, the theory of the state is understood as a text having a beginning, a middle, and an end: the beginning is accompanied by observing the crisis and diagnosing the pain; the middle is dedicated to defining the state, explaining the central idea, and organizing peripheral institutions; and the end is the formulation of the treatment or prescribing the desired form of the state. This model allows researchers to reconstruct a minimal and common structure for constitutive state theories behind the substantive and historical differences of the three examined texts.
Regarding the implementation method, the article is a historical-conceptual and text-oriented study. The three selected texts are chosen not for a complete comparison of the history of the state in Europe, but because of their position in formulating three important moments of the theory of the state: the sovereignty-centric moment in Bodin, the security-centric moment in Hobbes, and the constitutional-centric moment in Montesquieu. Therefore, the research does not claim to have collected all examples of state theory in Europe, but attempts to reconstruct the minimal logic of state-writing by studying cases that have the highest constitutive capacity. For this reason, the repeating elements in these works, such as the definition of the state, the relationship between state and government, the concept of legitimacy, the issue of sovereignty, territorial domain, army, administrative apparatus, law, judiciary, and the desired form of government, have been examined as structural signs of the theory of the state. This research method allows the article to go beyond the level of mere historiography and reach a model of theorizing.
Findings
The study of Six Books of the Commonwealth shows that Bodin constructs his theory of the state around the central idea of sovereignty. He defines the state at the beginning, considers sovereignty indivisible, distinguishes between the state and the government, and then discusses institutions such as the government, the senate, the judiciary, the administrative apparatus, officials, citizens, territory, and the standing army. His theory is formed in reaction to the crisis of civil war and the collapse of the political order in France, and in the end, he prescribes monarchy as the most appropriate form of the state. In Leviathan, Hobbes places the central idea of security at the center of his theory. For him, the state is an artificial man and a legal person created to escape the state of war and ensure peace. Hobbes also distinguishes between state and government, speaks of types of government, discusses sovereignty, civil law, territory, judiciary, public agents, and subordinate organizations, and finally introduces his theory as a response to establishing a new state. In The Spirit of the Laws, Montesquieu does not start with a direct definition of the state, because after Bodin and Hobbes, the concept of the state was somewhat established; instead, he seeks his central idea in the concept of the constitution and its relationship with political liberty. He explains the constitutional state through the separation of powers, the moderation of power, the proportionality of law to the nation’s situation, and the organization of relations between the legislative, executive, and judicial powers. Therefore, if Bodin formulates the absolute sovereignty-centric state theory and Hobbes the security-centric state theory, Montesquieu expands the constitutional, law-centric state theory.
Innovation and Implications
The innovation of the article lies in formulating the theory of the state as a special type of political theory consisting of two main parts: the central idea and the peripheral institutions. The central idea determines the main meaning of the desired state, and the peripheral institutions are the tools for realizing that meaning at the objective level of power. This understanding shows that the theory of the state is efficient only when it can establish a link between the conceptual level and the institutional level. If the theorist places an idea like sovereignty, security, or the constitution at the center, they must show how the government, army, administrative apparatus, law, judgment, taxation, territory, and citizenship relations should be at the service of realizing that idea. Therefore, a theory of the state lacking peripheral institutions is reduced to a political slogan, and peripheral institutions lacking a central idea will turn into scattered organizations lacking direction.
Applications and Limitations
From the perspective of the article, the use of the European experience is defensible only when a distinction is made between methodological adaptation and substantive imitation. Bodin, Hobbes, and Montesquieu’s theories were written in the context of specific European crises, and their answers cannot be directly transferred to other societies. But their method can be used to raise fundamental questions: Around which central idea should the desired state be consolidated? What is the relationship of this idea with government, law, military force, and the administrative apparatus? What kind of legitimacy supports it? And how can harmony be created among peripheral institutions? Answering these questions separates the theory of the state from the level of general reflection about politics and turns it into a strategic text for state-building. The limitation of the research is also that it only examines three prominent texts and does not claim to offer a complete history of the theory of the state in Europe.
Discussion and Conclusion
The main finding of the article is that in these three theories, the sequence of discussions is not completely identical, but all of them address a set of common elements: observation of crisis, definition or redefinition of the state, determination of the central idea, explanation of the relationship between state and government, determination of the status of legitimacy, sovereignty and territory, and harmonization of peripheral institutions such as government, army, and administrative apparatus. From this perspective, a constitutive theory of the state is a text that establishes a systematic link between the central idea and the peripheral institutions. The function of such a text is not merely describing the existing state of affairs, but increasing the theoretical and practical capacity of the state for survival, administration, control, legitimation, and public persuasion. Another result of the research is that the theory of the state should not be conflated with the theory of government, the theory of the political system, or political theory in a general sense. Also, the European experience of the theory of the state is not substantively and directly adaptable for other societies, but its method i.e., starting from a crisis, defining the state, determining a central idea, and organizing peripheral institutions around that idea can be a guide for state-theorizing in non-European societies. Thus, the article shows that the lack of an indigenous and coherent theory of the state in countries facing the issue of the modern state is not just a theoretical deficiency, but can also lead to a vacuum of legitimacy, institutional incoherence, and inability to lead society. Hence, the foundational methodology of Europe’s constitutive state theories is important not for imitating the content of absolute or constitutional European states, but for learning the method of theorizing about the state.
References
Aghababagoli, A. (2024a) Seminar-e eslam-e siasi va nazariye-ye dolat dar Iran [Seminar on political Islam and the theory of state in Iran] [Seminar presentation]. Department of Administrative Sciences and Economics, Shahid Beheshti University. [in Persian]
Aghababagoli, A. (2024b) Nazariye-ye dolat va eslam-e siasi dar Iran [Theory of state and political Islam in Iran] [Master’s thesis, Shahid Beheshti University]. [in Persian]
Ahmadvand, S. (2015) Tarikh-e tahavol-e dolat dar Eslam (ta payan-e Omavian) [History of the evolution of the state in Islam (until the end of the Umayyads)]. Nashr-e Ney. [in Persian]
Afzali, R. (Ed.). (2020) Dolat-e modern dar Iran [The modern state in Iran]. Mofid University Press. (Original work published 2007) [in Persian]
Anbarani, A., Azghandi, A., Modir-Shanechi, M., & Zibakalam-Mofrad, S. (2018) Dar chisti-ye dolat-e modern (be sooye yek rooykard-e sazmani) [On the nature of the modern state: Towards an organizational approach]. Political Science Quarterly, 14(43), 60–133. [in Persian]
Anter, A. (2014) Max Weber’s theory of the modern state: Origins, structure and significance (K. Tribe, Trans.). Palgrave Macmillan.
Bashirieh, H. (2019a) Tarikh-e andisheh-haye siasi dar gharn-e bistom: Andisheh-haye Marxist-i [History of political thought in the 20th century: Marxist thought] (Vol. 1; 2nd ed.). Nashr-e Ney. [in Persian]
Bashirieh, H. (2019b) Tarikh-e andisheh-haye siasi dar gharn-e bistom: Liberalism va mohafeze-kari [History of political thought in the 20th century: Liberalism and conservatism] (Vol. 2; 2nd ed.). Nashr-e Ney. [in Persian]
Bloom, W. T. (1994) Nazariye-haye nezam-e siasi: Classic-haye andisheh-ye siasi va tahlil-e siasi-ye novin [Political systems theories: Classics of political thought and new political analysis] (A. Tadayyon, Trans.; Vol. 1). Aran. [in Persian]
Bodin, J. (1993) Les six livres de la République [The six books of the commonwealth]. Librairie Générale Française.
Danaeifard, H. (2009) Ravesh-shenasi-ye omumi-ye nazariye-pardazi [General methodology of theorizing]. Humanities Methodology, 15(58), 7–32. [in Persian]
Descartes, R. (n.d.). Goftar dar ravesh-e rah bordan-e aghl [Discourse on the method] (M. A. Foroughi, Trans.; Vol. 1). Kanoon-e Ta’lif va Tarjomeh. [in Persian]
Eivazi, M. R., & Mohammadi, E. (2011) Ravesh-shenasi va karbord-e an dar nazariye-pardazi dar olum-e ejtemaei [Methodology and its application in theorizing in social sciences]. Strategic Defense Studies, 12(46), 90–167. [in Persian]
Field, S. (2020) Chegouneh film-nameh benevisim [Screenplay: The foundations of screenwriting] (A. Akbari, Trans.). Niloufar. [in Persian]
Field, S. (2022) Kalbod-shekafi-ye chahar film-nameh [The screenwriter’s workbook] (A. Akbari, Trans.). Niloufar. [in Persian]
Firahi, D. (2008) Ravesh-shenasi-ye danesh-e siasi dar tamaddon-e Eslami [Methodology of political knowledge in Islamic civilization]. Research Institute of Hawzah and University. [in Persian]
Firahi, D. (2016) Nezam-e siasi va dolat dar Eslam [Political system and state in Islam]. Samt. [in Persian]
Gill, G. (2003) The nature and development of the modern state. Palgrave Macmillan.
Golmohammadi, A. (2023) Chisti, tahavol va cheshm-andaz-e dolat [The nature, evolution and perspective of the state]. Nashr-e Ney. [in Persian]
Hobbes, T. (2020) Leviatan [Leviathan] (C. B. Macpherson, Ed.; H. Bashirieh, Trans.). Nashr-e Ney. [in Persian]
Malek, N. (2013) Motale-e tatbighi-ye mafhoom-e ravesh-shenasi va nazariye az manzar-e pazhoohesh-haye kammi va keifi ba takid bar nazariye-pardazi dar memari [Comparative study of the concept of methodology and theory from the perspective of quantitative and qualitative research with an emphasis on theorizing in architecture]. Comparative Art Studies, 3(5), 29–117. [in Persian]
Mannheim, J. B., & Rich, R. C. (1998) Ravesh-haye tahghigh dar olum-e siasi: Tahlil-e tajrobi [Empirical political analysis: Research methods in political science] (L. Sazgar, Trans.). University Publishing Center. [in Persian]
Montesquieu, C. L. (2023) Rooh-e ghavanin [The spirit of the laws] (A. A. Mohtadi, Trans.; Vol. 1). Amirkabir. [in Persian]
Mosleh, P. (2019) Moghadamat va osul-e nazariye-pardazi-ye siasi [Fundamentals and principles of political theorizing]. Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies. [in Persian]
Naghibzadeh, A. (2018) Tarikh-e diplomasi va ravabet-e beynolmelal: Az peyman-e Vestfali ta emrooz [History of diplomacy and international relations: From the Peace of Westphalia to today]. Ghomeys. [in Persian]
Nelson, B. R. (2006) The making of the modern state: A theoretical evolution. Palgrave Macmillan.
Parsania, H. (2013) Nazariye va farhang: Ravesh-shenasi-ye bonyadin-e takvin-e nazariye-haye elmi [Theory and culture: Fundamental methodology of the formation of scientific theories]. Rahbord-e Farhang, 6(23), 7–28. [in Persian]
Pilbeam, P. (2022) Saltanat dar Faranse 1814-1848 [The monarchy in France 1814-1848]. Nashr-e Ney. [in Persian]
Rakkabian, R. (2014) Barresi-ye entegadi-ye nazariye-haye dolat dar tabyin-e dolat dar Jomhuri-ye Eslami-ye Iran [A critical study of state theories in explaining the state in the Islamic Republic of Iran] [Doctoral dissertation, Baqir al-Olum University]. [in Persian]
Spragens, T. A. (2021) Fahm-e nazariye-haye siasi [Understanding political theory] (F. Rajaei, Trans.). Agah. [in Persian]
Tabatabai, S. J. (2005) Dibache-i bar nazariye-ye enhetat-e Iran [An introduction to the theory of decline in Iran] (Vol. 1; 4th ed.). Negah-e Moaser. [in Persian]
Tabatabai, S. J. (2020) Tarikh-e andisheh-ye siasi-ye jadid dar Oropa: Jeld-e nokhost: Az nozayesh ta enghelab-e Faranse [History of modern political thought in Europe: Vol. 1: From the Renaissance to the French Revolution]. Minooye Kherad. [in Persian]
Tahaee, S. J. (2006) Andisheh-ye dolat-e modern (be sooye nazariye-ye dolat-e Imam Khomeini) [The thought of the modern state: Towards Imam Khomeini’s theory of state]. Orouj. [in Persian]
Vincent, A. (1997) Nazariye-haye dolat [Theories of the state] (H. Bashirieh, Trans.). Nashr-e Ney. [in Persian]
Weiner, P. P. (Ed.). (2018) Farhang-e andisheh-haye siasi [Dictionary of the history of ideas] (I. Berlin, Ed.; K. Deyhimi, Trans.). Nashr-e Ney. [in Persian]
Zeidabadi, A. (2018) Elzamat-e siasat dar asr-e mellat-dolat [The necessities of politics in the era of the nation-state]. Nashr-e Ney. [in Persian]
* Corresponding Author: Ph.D. Student in Political Sociology, Allameh Tabatabaei University, Tehran, Iran.
https://orcid.org/0009-0000-1116-069X
** Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science and International Relations, Faculty of Economics and Political Science, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7646-2805
آقاباباگلی، علیرضا (1403الف) سمینار اسلام سیاسی و نظریه دولت در ایران، دانشکده علوم اداری و اقتصاد دانشگاه شهید بهشتی.
------------- (1403ب) نظریه دولت و اسلام سیاسی در ایران، پایان¬نامه کارشناسی¬ارشد اندیشه سیاسی در اسلام، به راهنمایی سید محمدعلی حسینی‌زاده، دانشکده اقتصاد و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی.
احمدوند، شجاع (1394) تاریخ تحول دولت در اسلام (تا پایان امویان)، تهران، نشرنی.
اسپریگنز، توماس (1400) فهم نظریه‌های سیاسی، ترجمة فرهنگ رجایی، تهران، آگه.
افضلی، رسول (پدیدآور) (1399) دولت مدرن در ایران، (حمید احمدی، عباس حاتمی، محمدحسین حافظیان، پرویز دلیرپور، خلیل الله سردارنیا، علیرضا سمیعی، حسین سیف زاده، محمدعلی قاسمی، مسعود مطلبی، و احمد نقیب زاده، محققین)، قم دانشگاه مفید. (نشر اثر اصلی ۱۳۸۶).
بشیریه، حسین (1398الف) تاریخ اندیشه‌های سیاسی در قرن بیستم، اندیشه‌های مارکسیستی، جلد 1، چاپ دوم، تهران، نشرنی.
------------ (1398ب) تاریخ اندیشه‌های سیاسی در قرن بیستم، لیبرالیسم و محافظه‌کاری، جلد 2، چاپ دوم، تهران، نشرنی.
پارسانیا، حمید (1392) «نظریه و فرهنگ: روش‌شناسی بنیادین تکوین نظریه‌های علمی»، راهبرد فرهنگ، سال ششم، شماره 23، صص 7-28.
پیلبیم، پملا (1401) سلطنت در فرانسه 1814-۱۸48، تهران، نشرنی.
تی. بلوم، ویلیام (1373) نظریه‌های نظام سیاسی؛ کلاسیک‌های اندیشه سیاسی و تحلیل سیاسی نوین، ترجمة احمد تدین، جلد 1، آران.
دانایی‌فرد، حسن (1388) «روش‌شناسی عمومی نظریه‌پردازی»، روش‌شناسی علوم انسانی، سال پانزدهم، شماره 58، صص 7-32.
دکارت، رنه (بی‌تا) گفتار در روش راه بردن عقل، ترجمة محمدعلی فروغی، جلد 1، کانون تألیف و ترجمه.
رکابیان، رشید (1393) بررسی انتقادی نظریه‌های دولت در تبیین دولت در جمهوری اسلامی ایران، پایان¬نامه دکتری علوم سیاسی، به راهنمایی: محمدتقی آل غفور، دانشکده علوم سیاسی، تاریخ، علوم اجتماعی، دانشگاه باقر العلوم علیه¬السلام.
زیدآبادی، احمد (1397) الزامات سیاست در عصر ملت- دولت، تهران، نشرنی.
طاهایی، سید جواد (1385) اندیشه دولت مدرن (به سوی نظریه دولت امام خمینی)، تهران، عروج.
طباطبایی، سید جواد (1384) دیباچه‌ای بر نظریه انحطاط ایران، جلد ۱، تأملی درباره ایران، چاپ چهارم، تهران، نگاه معاصر.
---------------- (1399) تاریخ اندیشه سیاسی جدید در اروپا؛ جلد نخست: از نوزایش تا انقلاب فرانسه، دفتر سوم: نظام‌های نوآیین در اندیشه سیاسی، تهران، مینوی خرد.
عالم، عبدالرحمن (1396) بنیادهای علم سیاست، تهران، نشرنی.
عضدانلو، حمید (1396) سیاست و بنیادهای فلسفی اندیشه سیاسی، تهران، نشرنی.
عنبرانی، عطا و علیرضا ازغندی محسن مدیر‌شانه‌چی و صادق زیبا‌کلام‌مفرد (1397) «در چیستی دولت مدرن (به سوی یک رویکرد سازمانی)»، علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه آزاد کرج، 43 (14)، صص 60-133.
عیوضی، محمد‌رحیم و احسانه محمدی (1390) «روش‌شناسی و کاربرد آن در نظریه‌پردازی در علوم اجتماعی»، مطالعات دفاعی استراتژیک، سال دوازدهم، شماره 46، صص 90-167.
فیرحی، داوود (1387) روش‌شناسی دانش سیاسی در تمدن اسلامی، مجموعه مقالات، قم، پژوهشگاه علوم و فرهنگ اسلامی.
---------- (1395) نظام سیاسی و دولت در اسلام، تهران، قم، سازمان مطالعه و تدوین کتب علوم انسانی دانشگاه‌ها (سمت)، مرکز تحقیق و توسعه علوم انسانی، دانشگاه باقرالعلوم.
فیلد، سید (1399) چگونه فیلمنامه بنویسیم، ترجمة عباس اکبری، تهران، نیلوفر.
---------- (1401) کالبد‌شکافی چهار فیلمنامه، ترجمة عباس اکبری، تهران، نیلوفر.
گل¬محمدی، احمد (1402) چیستی، تحول و چشم‌اندازِ دولت، تهران، نشرنی.
مانهایم، یارول و ریچارد ریچ (1377) روش‌های تحقیق در علوم سیاسی: تحلیل تجربی، ترجمة لیلا سازگار، تهران، مرکز نشر دانشگاهی.
مصلح، پگاه (1398) مقدمات و اصول نظریه‌پردازی سیاسی، تهران، پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی.
ملک، نیلوفر (1392) «مطالعه تطبیقی مفهوم روش‌شناسی و نظریه از منظر پژوهش‌های کمی و کیفی با تأکید بر نظریه‌پردازی در معماری»، مطالعات تطبیقی هنر، سال سوم، شماره 5، صص 29-117.
منتسکیو، شارل لوئی دوسکوندا (1402) روح القوانین، ترجمة علی‌اکبر مهتدی، جلد اول، تهران، امیرکبیر.
نقیب‌زاده، احمد (1397) تاریخ دیپلماسی و روابط بین¬الملل؛ از پیمان وستفالی تا امروز، تهران، قومس.
هابز، توماس (1399) لویاتان، ویراستة سی. بی. مکفرسون، ترجمة حسین بشیریه، تهران، نشرنی.
وینر، فیلیپ پل (پدیدآور) (1397) فرهنگ اندیشه‌های سیاسی، ویراستة آیزیا برلین، ترجمة خشایار دیهیمی، تهران، نشرنی.
وینسنت، اندرو (1376) نظریه‌های دولت، ترجمة حسین بشیریه، تهران، نشرنی.
Anter, Andreas (2014) Max Weber’s Theory of the Modern State: Origins, Structure and Significance. Translated by Keith Tribe. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
doi:10.1057/9781137364906.
Bodin, Bodin, Jean (1993) Les six livres de la République: un abrégé du texte de l’édition de Paris de 1583. Edited and presented by Gérard Mairet. Paris: Librairie générale française.
doi:10.1522/030172874.
Gill, Gill, Graeme (2003) The Nature and Development of the Modern State. London: Red Globe Press.
doi:10.1007/978-1-4039-4046-9.
Nelson, Brian R. (2006) The Making of the Modern State: A Theoretical Evolution. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
doi:10.1057/9781403983282.
