مرکز منطقه ای اطلاع رسانی علوم و فناوری پژوهش سیاست نظری 2008-5796 21 39 2026 9 23 The Language of Politics and the Encounter with Modernity: An Analysis of Language-Games of Power in Contemporary Iran زبان سیاست و مواجهه با مدرنیته: تحلیل بازی‌های زبانی قدرت در ایران معاصر 197 226 fa محمدرضا صالحی وثیق دانشگاه تهران سید مهدی ساداتی نژاد دانشگاه تهران 2025 9 30 The Language of Politics and the Encounter with Modernity: An Analysis of Language-Games of Power in Contemporary Iran   Mohammadreza Salehi Vasigh<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">*</a> Seyyed Mahdi Sadatinejad<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">**</a>   The present research explains Iran’s encounter with modernity not as a substantive dispute, but as a disruption of the “grammar of politics” and a shift in the rules of the language-games of power. The central question is why democracy and civil society have not become institutionalized in Iran, even while works such as Al-e Ahmad’s Gharbzadegi (Westoxification) or Shariati’s “revolutionary martyrdom” continue to reconstruct political reality. The theoretical framework rests on three principles: the historicity of concepts, the grammatical incompatibility of language-games, and re-grammaring as political action. Iranian intellectuals, functioning as engineers of political grammar, are grounded in structural contradictions. Al-e Ahmad makes cultural resistance the dominant discourse via the “pathology” of the West; Shariati produces the language of revolution by re-engineering religious concepts; Shayegan makes living within multiple language-games possible via “fragmented identity”; Soroush historicizes revelation and democratizes religious authority; Shabestari reveals tyranny by critiquing the language of taklif (duty/obligation); and Malekian enables rational dialogue through conceptual precision. The conclusion is that contemporary Iran’s intellectual history must be understood as a history of the transformation of the rules of the language-game of politics. Keywords: Language-games of power, grammar of politics, conceptual engineering, encounter with modernity, Iranian intellectualism.   Introduction At the outset of this research, we addressed one of the most fundamental philosophical developments of the twentieth century: the “linguistic turn,” which elevated language from a neutral tool for representing reality to a constitutive and foundational level. Relying on the works of Frege, Austin, Foucault, Bourdieu, and Habermas, we demonstrated that political conflicts occur not merely over the distribution of resources, but at a deeper level over the definition of concepts and the control of discursive rules. However, we noted that the bulk of these theories have focused on discourse at a macro level, paying insufficient attention to the finer, more fundamental layers of language namely, grammar and the rules of language-games in the Wittgensteinian sense. Consequently, we turned to the later philosophy of Wittgenstein to provide a framework for more precise analysis. We described Iran’s encounter with modernity, which began in the late nineteenth century and continues to the present, as a prominent example of a “grammatical crisis” a crisis in which two systems of semantic rules were in tension, with no possibility of simple translation between them. We traced the historical trajectory of this encounter from the Constitutionalist intellectuals, to the generation of Al-e Ahmad, Shariati, and Shayegan in the 1960s and 1970s, and subsequently to late religious intellectualism in the works of Soroush and Shabestari. In our literature review, we categorized existing studies into three types: content-critical studies that view language primarily as a tool for conveying meaning; ideological-dualist studies that assume the semantic stability of concepts such as “the West” or “tradition”; and macro-discourse studies that remain at a high level of abstraction without addressing the finer layers of language. Based on this, we identified a theoretical-methodological gap that shaped our central research question: How can we understand Iran’s encounter with modernity as a struggle over redefining the grammar of politics?   Methodology To answer this question, we utilized a conceptual-grammatical analysis approach, in which key political concepts served as our unit of analysis. Our method comprised three steps: reconstructing the prior grammar of a concept, identifying the grammatical operations performed by the intellectual, and evaluating the political consequences of this re-grammaring. We constructed our theoretical framework by combining three approaches: applying Spragens’s four-stage model to clarify the historical context of intellectual crises; employing Skinner’s concepts of “normative vocabulary” and “affirmative action” (کنش ایجابی) to reveal the operational and political dimensions of conceptual innovation; and utilizing the later Wittgenstein’s theory of “language-games,” “grammar,” and “forms of life” to analyze the underlying rules of meaning-making. We selected thinkers who have directly intervened in the redefinition of fundamental political concepts: Al-e Ahmad, Shariati, Shayegan, Soroush, Shabestari, and Malekian. This selection was based on two complementary logics: a theoretical logic (the degree of the thinker’s intervention in the linguistic and semantic rules of politics) and a historical-spectral logic (the continuity and transformation of the encounter with modernity from the 1960s to the present).   Discussion and Findings In our case analysis, we demonstrated that each thinker, by intervening at the level of semantic rules, constructed a new grammar that itself carried structural contradictions. Regarding Al-e Ahmad, we argued that by combining “West” and “-strickenness” (-zadegi), he shifted modernity from the language-game of “politics and choice” to the language-game of “medicine and therapy,” thereby transforming the political opponent into a “patient.” We showed that his rigid dualisms (authenticity vs. imitation) created a “grammatical monopoly” that excluded a third position from the sphere of meaningfulness. Writing on Shariati, we argued that by redefining “martyrdom” from a passive event into a history-making action, he created the language of revolutionary mobilization, yet we showed that by essentializing the “Imamate” and maintaining a command structure, he remained trapped in the conflict between “individual consciousness” and “obedience to leadership.” In our examination of Shayegan, we clarified that through “fragmented identity” and “parallel consciousnesses,” he opened the possibility of living in multiple language-games; however, we concluded that he lacked a clear criterion for distinguishing “living tradition” from “dead tradition,” and his intermediary grammar led to relativism devoid of prescriptive power. In analyzing Soroush, we showed that by separating “Sharia” from “human understanding,” he moved revelation from “absolute divine command” to “sacred human experience,” thus democratizing religious legitimacy; yet, we argued that his simultaneous effort to maintain sanctity while accepting the historicity of interpretation led to ambiguity in defining “the self of religion.” Writing on Shabestari, we noted that through the theory of the “prophetic reading of the world,” he considered the Quran to be the “Prophet’s speech” rather than direct divine speech, effectively deconstructing the language of duty (taklif); however, we showed that he provided no clear criterion for distinguishing “prophetic revelation” from “mystical inspiration.” In our analysis of Malekian, we demonstrated that by dividing beliefs into “objective” (āfāqi) and “subjective” (anfosi), he sought to base the public sphere on empirical rationality; we argued, however, that this division itself rested on a secular presupposition that marginalized the majority of religious beliefs. We also showed that in his critique of metaphysics, he relied on metaphysical presuppositions himself. In our comparative analysis, we concluded that in escaping traditional grammar, all these thinkers became trapped in new grammars that reproduced similar structural limitations; we found the root of this paradox in the “untranslatability” between language-games based on different forms of life.   Conclusion In our conclusion, we demonstrated that Iran’s encounter with modernity is, beyond an ideological dispute, a struggle over the rules of the language-game of power. We argued that every instance of re-grammaring, while conceptually innovative, has been grounded in a structural contradiction rooted in a shared fundamental challenge: the untranslatability between language-games based on different forms of life. We showed that democracy is not merely a political system but a specific language-game that demands a form of life based on negotiation, pluralism, and the acceptance of uncertainty. We argued that the incompatibility of this language-game with the authoritarian grammar of certainty and hierarchy in Iran explains why the superficial adoption of modern concepts has been more prevalent than their deep internalization. The essential paradox revealed in this research is that intellectuals, in their attempt to escape traditional grammar, became captives of new grammars that reproduced similar limitations: we showed that Shayegan remained reliant on Western hermeneutic vocabularies, Soroush fueled interpretive relativism, Shabestari reached a grammatical dead-end, and Malekian, in rejecting metaphysics, relied on metaphysical presuppositions. We concluded that the primary implication of these findings for understanding contemporary Iranian politics is that legitimacy crises are rooted in the structural conflict between the official language, based on the grammar of duty, and the social language, based on participatory concepts a tension that explains why formal reforms, without changes to the underlying structure of the language of politics, have often failed. Finally, we stated that although we have illuminated these grammatical dynamics, we do not offer a definitive solution for overcoming the untranslatability between language-games, positing instead that sustainable transformation depends on designing strategies for constructive interaction between different forms of life.   References Al-e Ahmad, J. (1977) Gharbzadegi [Westoxification] (A. Mostafavi, Ed.). Ravaq. [in Persian] Bourdieu, P. (1991) Language and symbolic power (J. B. Thompson, Ed.; G. Raymond & M. Adamson, Trans.). Harvard University Press. Foucault, M. (1972) The archaeology of knowledge (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). Pantheon Books. (Original work published 1969) Habermas, J. (2003) Truth and justification (B. Fultner, Ed. & Trans.). The MIT Press. (Original work published 1999) Hashemian, F. S., & Ghaffari Qarabagh, S. A. (2025) Baz-khani-ye enteqadi-ye mo’alefeh-haye modernite dar ma’naviyat-e jadid bar asas-e andisheh-haye Allameh Tabatabaei [A critical rereading of the components of modernity in new spirituality based on the thoughts of Allameh Tabatabaei]. Biannual Journal of Islamic Spirituality Studies, 3(1), 191–224. <a href="https://doi.org/10.22081/jsr.2025.68866.1086">https://doi.org/10.22081/jsr.2025.68866.1086</a> [in Persian] Hesam-Ghazi, R., & Nezhad-Iran, M. (2022) Risheh-yabi-ye tahavvol-e negaresh-e Dariush Shayegan be modernite [Tracing the roots of the evolution in Dariush Shayegan’s attitude toward modernity]. Political Quarterly, 52(3), 665–690. <a href="https://doi.org/10.22059/jpq.2023.318019.1007734">https://doi.org/10.22059/jpq.2023.318019.1007734</a> [in Persian] Honari Latifpour, Y., et al. (2024) Baznamayi-ye zehniyat-e Doctor Ali Shariati dar bab-e modernite [Representation of Dr. Ali Shariati’s mentality regarding modernity]. Journal of Islamic Revolution Research, 14(52), 73–92. <a href="https://doi.org/10.22084/rjir.2024.29219.3778">https://doi.org/10.22084/rjir.2024.29219.3778</a> [in Persian] Imani, A., & Azarang, P. (2024) Barresi-ye tatbiqi-ye movajeheh ba modernite-ye gharbi dar ara-ye falsafi-ye Seyyed Ahmad Fardid va Reza Davari [A comparative study of the confrontation with Western modernity in the philosophical views of Seyyed Ahmad Fardid and Reza Davari]. Contemporary Political Essays, 15(1), 197–227. <a href="https://doi.org/10.30465/cps.2023.41318.3018">https://doi.org/10.30465/cps.2023.41318.3018</a> [in Persian] Malekian, M. (n.d.-a) Aqlaniyat va zendegi-ye aqlani [Rationality and rational life]. [PDF file]. [in Persian] Malekian, M. (n.d.-b) Chalesh-haye din va modernism dar jahan-e Eslam [Challenges of religion and modernism in the Islamic world] (S. N. Ahmadi, Interviewer). Khat-e Sevvom, (3–4). <a href="https://bidgoli1371.blogfa.com/category/22">https://bidgoli1371.blogfa.com/category/22</a> [in Persian] Malekian, M. (2012) Aqlaniyat va ma’naviyat ba’d az dah sal [Rationality and spirituality after ten years]. <a href="https://bidgoli1371.blogfa.com/post/143">https://bidgoli1371.blogfa.com/post/143</a> [in Persian] Malekian, M. (2013) Vahy va tajrobe-ye dini-ye Payambar (pbuh) [Revelation and the religious experience of the Prophet]. [PDF file]. [in Persian] Mojtahed-Shabestari, M. (2002a) Naghd-i bar qera’at-e rasmi az din (bohran-ha, chalesh-ha, rah-hal-ha) [A critique of the official reading of religion (crises, challenges, solutions)]. Tarh-e No. [in Persian] Mojtahed-Shabestari, M. (2002b) Hermeneutik, ketab va sonnat (farayand-e tafsir-e vahy) [Hermeneutics, the book, and tradition (the process of interpreting revelation)]. Tarh-e No. [in Persian] Mojtahed-Shabestari, M. (2008) Theori-ye qera’at-e nabavi az jahan [The theory of the prophetic reading of the world] (F. Noroozi, Ed.). Anjoman-e Ehyagaran-e Falsafe-ye No. [in Persian] Nezhad-Iran, M., & Hesam-Ghazi, R. (2024) Tamayoz-e rooykard-e siasi ba rooykard-e falsafi be mafhoom-e gharbzadegi dar andisheh-ye Al-e Ahmad va Shayegan [Distinction between political and philosophical approaches to the concept of Westoxification in the thought of Al-e Ahmad and Shayegan]. Social Theories of Muslim Thinkers, 14(4), 1–19. <a href="https://doi.org/10.22059/jstmt.2024.370747.1686">https://doi.org/10.22059/jstmt.2024.370747.1686</a> [in Persian] Pourzaki, G. (2024) Tahavvol dar adat-vareh-haye meidan-e rowshanfekri-ye orfi dar movajeheh ba modernite va gharb [Transformation in the habitus of the secular intellectual field confronting modernity and the West]. Theoretical Politics Research, (36), 231–257. [in Persian] Sabbagh Kaljahy, H., et al. (2023) Ta’ammoli dar nesbat-e sonnat va tajaddod-garaei dar andisheh-ye Shariati [A reflection on the relation between tradition and modernism in Shariati’s thought]. Fundamental Western Studies, 14(2), 119–139. <a href="https://doi.org/10.30465/os.2024.48820.1981">https://doi.org/10.30465/os.2024.48820.1981</a> [in Persian] Shariati, A. (1971). Tashayyo’-e Alavi va Tashayyo’-e Safavi [Alid Shi’ism and Safavid Shi’ism]. Hosseiniyeh Ershad Publications. [in Persian] Shariati, A. (2012) Ommat va emamat [Ummah and Imamate]. Teribon-e Mostaz’afin. [in Persian] Shayegan, D. (1999). Asia dar barabar-e Gharb [Asia facing the West]. Amirkabir. [in Persian] Shayegan, D. (2001) Bot-haye zehni va khatere-ye azali [Mental idols and perennial memory]. Amirkabir. [in Persian] Skinner, Q. (1969). Meaning and understanding in the history of ideas. History and Theory, 8(1), 3–53. <a href="https://doi.org/10.2307/2504188">https://doi.org/10.2307/2504188</a> Skinner, Q. (2016) Ideas in context: Conversation with Quentin Skinner (H. Li, Interviewer). The Chicago Journal of History, 1(2), 119–127. Soroush, A. (1988). Bast va qabz-e theoric-e shari’at [The theoretical contraction and expansion of religion]. Keyhan-e Farhangi. [in Persian] Soroush, A. (2006) Bast-e tajrobe-ye nabavi [The expansion of prophetic experience]. Serat Cultural Institute. [in Persian] Spragens, T. A. (2010) Fahm-e nazariye-haye siasi [Understanding political theory] (F. Rajaei, Trans.; 6th ed.). Agah. [in Persian] Wittgenstein, L. (2001) Pazhoohesh-haye falsafi [Philosophical investigations] (F. Fatemi, Trans.). Nashr-e Markaz. [in Persian]   <a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">*</a> Corresponding Author: Ph.D. in Political Science, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran. mo.rezasalehi@ut.ac.ir https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1157-6326 <a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">**</a> Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran. msadatinejad@ut.ac.ir https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4802-0735 پژوهش حاضر مواجهه ایران با مدرنیته را نه نزاعی محتوایی، بلکه برهم&zwnj;خوردن «گرامر سیاست» و جابه&zwnj;جایی قواعد بازی&zwnj;های زبانی قدرت تبیین می&zwnj;کند. پرسش اصلی این است که چرا دموکراسی و جامعه مدنی در ایران نهادینه نمی&zwnj;شوند، حال&zwnj;آنکه «غرب&zwnj;زدگی» آل&zwnj;احمد یا «شهادت انقلابی» شریعتی واقعیت سیاسی را بازمی&zwnj;سازند. چارچوب نظری بر سه اصل استوار است: تاریخمندی مفاهیم، ناسازگاری گرامری بازی&zwnj;های زبانی، و بازگرامرسازی به&zwnj;مثابه کنش سیاسی. روشنفکران ایرانی همچون مهندسان گرامر سیاسی، بر تناقضات ساختاری استوارند. آل&zwnj;احمد با «بیماری&zwnj;وارگی» غرب، مقاومت فرهنگی را گفتمان مسلط می&zwnj;کند؛ شریعتی با بازمهندسی مفاهیم دینی، زبان انقلاب را تولید می&zwnj;کند؛ شایگان با «هویت چندپاره»، زیست در چند بازی زبانی را ممکن نشان می&zwnj;دهد؛ سروش وحی را تاریخی و اقتدار دینی را دموکراتیزه می&zwnj;کند؛ شبستری با نقد زبان تکلیف، استبداد را برملا می&zwnj;کند؛ ملکیان با دقت مفهومی، گفت&zwnj;وگوی عقلانی را ممکن می&zwnj;سازد. نتیجه آن است که تاریخ فکری معاصر ایران را باید تاریخ تحول قواعد بازی زبانی سیاست دانست.

http://political.ihss.ac.ir/ar/Article/Download/51652