مرکز منطقه ای اطلاع رسانی علوم و فناوری پژوهش سیاست نظری 2008-5796 21 39 2026 9 23 The Methodology of Theorizing the Theory of the State in Sixteenth- to Eighteenth-Century Europe روش‌شناسی نظریه‌پردازی نظریۀ دولت در اروپای قرون شانزده تا هجده میلادی 141 168 fa علیرضا آقاباباگلی علامه طباطبایی سید محمدعلی حسینی زاده دانشگاه تهران 2025 4 12 The Methodology of Theorizing the Theory of the State in Sixteenth- to Eighteenth-Century Europe   Alireza Aghababagoli<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">*</a> Seyed Mohammad Ali Hosseinizadeh<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">**</a>   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]   <a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">*</a> Corresponding Author: Ph.D. Student in Political Sociology, Allameh Tabatabaei University, Tehran, Iran. <a href="mailto:alirezaghababagoli@gmail.com">alirezaghababagoli@gmail.com</a> https://orcid.org/0009-0000-1116-069X <a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">**</a> Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science and International Relations, Faculty of Economics and Political Science, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran. <a href="mailto:m_hosseinizadeh@sbu.ac.ir">m_hosseinizadeh@sbu.ac.ir</a> https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7646-2805 تکوین دولت مدرن، هم&zwnj;زمان با عبور نظریه&zwnj;پردازان سیاسی از اشکال قدیم حکومت و انتشار رسائل حاوی نظریه دولت بود. این نظریه&zwnj;ها به دلیل خصیصه تأسیسی سازمان جدید قدرت، تلاش می&zwnj;کرد با روشی غیر &zwnj;اثباتی و استفاده از سنت فلسفه سیاسی، به شکلی جامع و مانع، چگونگی استقرار نوع مطلوب ابعاد مختلف نهاد دولت را تجویز کند. رواج نظریه&zwnj;های دولت زمینه مشروعیت دینی و مقبولیت سیاسی آن را فراهم ساخت چنان&zwnj;که فرضیه پژوهش را امکان حصول روش&zwnj;شناسی نظریه&zwnj;پردازی نظریه دولت در اروپای قرون شانزده تا هجده میلادی با مطالعه «شش رساله دولت»، «لویاتان» و «روح&zwnj;القوانین» قرار می&zwnj;دهد. آثاری که به توضیح و توجیه هماهنگی «نهادهای پیرامونی» دولت، نظیر حکومت، بوروکراسی و ارتش حول «ایده مرکزی» خاص هر نظریه&zwnj;پرداز، مانند حاکمیت، امنیت یا قانون اساسی می&zwnj;پردازد. با روش&zwnj;شناسی بنیادین نظریه&zwnj;های ژان بُدَن، هابز و منتسکیو به&zwnj;مثابه راهنمای عملی نظریه دولت&zwnj;نویسی می&zwnj;توان به نگارش نظریه&zwnj;های تأسیسی دیگر دولت&zwnj;های جدید غیر اروپایی امید داشت.

http://political.ihss.ac.ir/fa/Article/Download/49921