دانشگاه باقرالعلوم (ع) علوم سیاسی 1735-0557 29 1 2026 03 21 From Utopia to Reality: Formulating a Realist Approach in Political Thought از آرمان‌شهر تا واقعیت: صورت‌بندی رهیافت واقع‌نگری در اندیشۀ سیاسی 30 7 80374 10.22081/psq.2026.75005.3137 FA عباس عمادی استادیار، گروه علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران رضا استوار دانشجوی دکتری اندیشه سیاسی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران Journal Article 2026 06 07 The tension between reality and ideal, or between “what is” and “what ought to be,” has remained a persistent concern in the history of political thought. Although positivist and behavioral approaches to political science sought to marginalize normative and prescriptive concerns by concentrating primarily on the explanation of political facts, <br />the revival of normative political thought in recent decades has once again made the relationship between reality, ideals, and political action a significant theoretical issue. Against this background, the purpose of this article is to formulate and theoretically develop a distinct approach termed the "Realistic Approach". The study seeks to demonstrate that political thinking need not be confined to the conventional alternatives of idealistic abstraction, submission to existing realities, or pragmatic expediency. The central research question is: How can the relationship among objective realities, normative ideals, and practical prescriptions be explained in political thought? More specifically, can <br />the relationship between “what is,” “what ought to be,” and “what ought to be done” be adequately explained through the conventional opposition among idealism, realism, and pragmatism, or does it require a distinct conceptual framework? The history of political thought indicates that these three approaches have emphasized different dimensions of political reasoning. Idealism primarily focuses on “what ought to be,” giving priority <br />to normative principles, values, and desirable political ends, often without sufficiently considering the practical conditions and constraints of their realization. Realism concentrates on “what is,” emphasizing existing realities, power relations, historical circumstances, and practical limitations, but may ultimately accommodate itself to the existing order at the expense of normative ideals. Pragmatism, meanwhile, emphasizes “what ought to be done,” evaluating political ideas and prescriptions primarily in terms of their practical utility, consequences, and effectiveness. The problem addressed by this study is therefore whether these three approaches exhaust the possible forms of political thinking or whether a fourth approach can establish a more productive relationship between reality, ideals, and action. This study employs an analytical-comparative methodology. It examines the conceptual foundations and distinctive characteristics of idealism, realism, and pragmatism through a critical engagement with selected examples from the history of political thought and the ideas of prominent political thinkers. The comparative analysis is used to identify the epistemological, normative, and practical assumptions underlying each approach and to clarify their respective positions concerning the relationship between reality and ideals. On this basis, the study seeks to extract and formulate the conceptual components of the Realistic Approach. The findings indicate that the Realistic Approach <br />is distinguished by four fundamental characteristics. First, political thinking should be grounded in an accurate and comprehensive understanding of existing reality. Social problems, political crises, historical circumstances, power structures, and the concrete conditions of political life constitute the starting point of political reflection. In this respect, the Realistic Approach differs from idealism by refusing to begin with an abstract <br />and purely imagined political order detached from concrete circumstances. Second, it emphasizes the primacy of thought over reality. Attention to existing realities does not imply submission to them; rather, reality must be critically examined and evaluated through the categories, concepts, and normative standards of political thought. This principle preserves the autonomy of thought and prevents political reflection from becoming merely an instrument for legitimizing or reproducing the status quo. Third, the Realistic Approach maintains a commitment to ideals in light of practical possibilities and constraints. Ideals are neither abandoned when confronted with reality nor treated as immutable commands entirely detached from the conditions of their realization. Instead, they function as guiding normative principles whose priority, interpretation, and modes of implementation may be reconsidered and adjusted in response to concrete circumstances. Fourth, the Realistic Approach requires avoiding pragmatism and purely interest-driven reasoning. Practical feasibility and effectiveness are important considerations, but they cannot constitute the sole criteria for evaluating political ideas and prescriptions. Political ideals retain intrinsic normative significance and should not be sacrificed merely for immediate utility or efficiency. These characteristics distinguish the Realistic Approach from the three competing approaches. Unlike realism, it does not equate attention to reality with accommodation to the status quo. Unlike idealism, it does not disregard the practical limitations and conditions necessary for the realization of normative ideals. Unlike pragmatism, it does not reduce the validity of ideas and values to their usefulness or practical consequences. Instead, it seeks to establish a dynamic relationship between reality and ideals, theory and practice, and stability and reform-oriented dynamism. The study concludes that the relationship between “what is,” “what ought to be,” and “what ought to be done” cannot be adequately explained through a simplistic opposition between idealism, realism, and pragmatism. The Realistic Approach offers a distinct theoretical framework in which reality constitutes the starting point and the boundary of possibility for political reflection, but not its ultimate normative criterion. Ideals remain indispensable as sources of direction and normative evaluation, but their realization requires continuous reconsideration in light of concrete circumstances, available resources, social conditions, and practical constraints. Political action, accordingly, should neither wait for the realization of a perfect utopia nor abandon normative aspirations for the sake of immediate efficiency. Rather, the Realistic Approach advocates gradual and feasible reform within a long-term normative trajectory. It can therefore be understood as a theoretically grounded middle path between radical idealism and radical realism, while remaining distinct from pragmatism: a mode of political thinking that connects theory and practice within the “geography of the possible.” Through a dynamic and dialectical interaction between “what is” and “what ought to be,” it seeks to preserve the normative significance of political ideals while creating realistic conditions for their gradual, feasible, and meaningful realization. اندیشه‌های سیاسی از منظر منطق درونی تفکر، بر اساس سه مؤلفۀ «توصیف و تبیین واقعیت‌ها»، «ترسیم آرمان‌ها و ایده‌ها» و «تجویز راهکارهای عملی» شکل می‌گیرند. اگرچه برخی رویکردها در علوم سیاسی، دوگانگی میان «آرمان» و «واقعیت» را به چالش کشیده‌اند، با احیای اندیشۀ سیاسی هنجاری در دهه‌های اخیر بار دیگر به مسئله‌ای مهم در اندیشۀ سیاسی تبدیل شده است؛ بر این اساس پرسش اصلی مقاله حاضر آن است که نسبت میان واقعیت‌های عینی، آرمان‌ها و تجویزهای عملی در اندیشۀ سیاسی چگونه قابل تبیین است؟ بررسی تاریخ اندیشۀ سیاسی نشان می‌دهد که اندیشه‌ورزی سیاسی بیشتر تحت تأثیر سه رویکرد آرمان‌گرایی، واقع‌گرایی و عمل‌گرایی شکل گرفته است. واقع‌گرایان بیشتر بر «آنچه هست»، آرمان‌گرایان بر «آنچه باید باشد» و عمل‌گرایان بر «آنچه باید انجام شود» تأکید دارند. مقاله حاضر با بهره‌گیری از روش تحلیلی- تطبیقی و با بررسی دیدگاه‌های شماری از متفکران سیاسی، در پی استخراج و صورت‌بندی الگویی متمایز با عنوان «واقع‌نگری» است. یافته‌های پژوهش نشان می‌دهد که رهیافت واقع‌نگری بر چهار مؤلفۀ اساسی استوار است: «اندیشه‌ورزی بر مبنای درک دقیق واقعیت موجود»، «تقدم اندیشه بر امر واقع»، «تعهد به آرمان‌ها در پرتو امکانات و محدودیت‌های عملی» و «پرهیز از عمل‌گرایی و منفعت‌اندیشی صرف»؛ بر این اساس واقع‌نگری می‌کوشد میان آرمان و واقعیت، نظر و عمل، و محافظه‌کاری و پویایی اصلاح‌گرایانه پیوند برقرار کند. واقع‌نگری راهی میانه و هوشمندانه برای پیوند‌دادن اندیشه و عمل در جغرافیای ممکن‌هاست؛ رویکردی که نه آرمان‌ها را قربانی واقعیت‌ها می‌کند و نه در ورای واقعیت‌ها به خیال‌پردازی محض می‌پردازد و نه به عمل‌گرایی متمایل می‌شود، بلکه با تعامل دیالکتیک میان «هست» و «باید»، زمینه را برای تحقق تدریجی و امکانی آرمان‌ها فراهم می‌آورد. https://psq.bou.ac.ir/article_80374_beda443a728da41ed93e5cf8fd150fde.pdf

دانشگاه باقرالعلوم (ع) علوم سیاسی 1735-0557 29 1 2026 03 21 Political Institutions within the Horizon of the Existential Paradigm: A Theory Based on the Ontology of the Nafs and Its Characteristics نهاد سیاسی در افق پارادایم وجودی: نظریه‌ای بر پایۀ هستی «نفس» و ویژگی‌های آن 52 31 80375 10.22081/psq.2026.74788.3120 FA محمد پزشگی دانشیار، پژوهشکدۀ علوم و اندیشه سیاسی، پژوهشگاه علوم و فرهنگ اسلامی، قم، ایران 0000-0001-9527-1484 Journal Article 2026 05 23 The present study aims to develop a new theory entitled “Existential Political Institutionalism.” Drawing on the ontological paradigm of <em>al-Ḥikmat al-Mutaʿāliya</em> (Transcendent Philosophy), the study seeks to move beyond an instrumentalist understanding of political institutions and redefine them as structural and teleological manifestations of the actualization of human existence within the social realm. The central problem of this study is the reductionism inherent in modern political theories, which confine institutions to mere instruments for managing interests, allocating resources, <br />or maintaining administrative order. This study seeks to answer the question of how, by moving beyond a mechanical and technocratic perspective, one can formulate a theory of political institutions capable of incorporating qualitative dimensions, human dignity, <br />and the search for meaning into political structures. Adopting an analytical-interpretive approach, this study conceptually reexamines the fundamental principles of Transcendent Philosophy, including the primacy of existence (<em>aṣālat al-wujūd</em>) and the gradation of existence (<em>tashkīk al-wujūd</em>), and reconstructs these principles within the context of political science. Through comparative analysis, the proposed model is also evaluated against classical and contemporary theories of institutionalism. The findings of the study indicate that redefining institutions in terms of an existential paradigm leads to fundamental transformations in key concepts: (1) a shift from procedural legitimacy to “legitimacy based on the continuity of meaning”; (2) a redefinition of social justice, from mathematical distribution to “a balance in the recognition of human dignity”; and (3) a transformation in the nature of governance, from administrative control to “facilitating the development of social existence.” Existential political institutionalism is a trans-institutional approach that views political institutions as necessary environments for the collective actualization of human existence. By restoring the human subject to a position of centrality, this theory offers a valuable alternative to modern instrumental paradigms for addressing the crisis of alienation within contemporary political structures. پژوهش حاضر با هدف تدوین نظریه‌ای نوین با عنوان «نهادگرایی سیاسی وجودی» انجام شده است. این مطالعه بر آن است تا با بهره‌گیری از پارادایم هستی‌شناختی «حکمت متعالیه»، ساختار نهادهای سیاسی را از نگاه ابزاری‌گرایانه خارج کند و آنها را به مثابۀ تجلی ساختاری و غایت‌شناختی فعلیت‌یافتن وجودی انسان در عرصۀ اجتماعی بازتعریف کند. مسئله اصلی پژوهش، تقلیل‌گرایی در نظریه‌های سیاسی مدرن است که نهادها را صرفاً به ابزارهایی برای مدیریت منافع، تقسیم منابع یا حفظ نظم اداری محدود می‌کنند. این پژوهش در پی پاسخ به این پرسش است که چگونه می‌توان با عبور از نگاه مکانیکی و تکنوکراتیک، نظریه‌ای برای نهادهای سیاسی ارائه داد که بتواند ابعاد کیفی، کرامت انسانی و جستجوی معنا را در ساختارهای سیاسی لحاظ کند. این مطالعه با اتخاذ رویکردی تحلیلی- تفسیری، به بازخوانی مفهومی اصول بنیادین حکمت متعالیه (همچون اصالت وجود و تشکیک وجود) پرداخته و این اصول را در بافتار علوم سیاسی بازسازی می‌کند؛ همچنین از طریق تحلیل تطبیقی، الگوی پیشنهادی با نظریه‌های کلاسیک و نوین نهادگرایی سنجیده شده است. یافته‌های پژوهش نشان می‌دهد که بازتعریف نهادها بر پایۀ پارادایم وجودی، به تحولات بنیادین در مفاهیم کلیدی منجر می‌شود: ۱. گذار از مشروعیت رویه‌ای به «مشروعیت مبتنی بر تداوم معنا»؛ ۲. بازتعریف عدالت اجتماعی از توزیع ریاضی به «توازن در بازشناسی کرامت انسانی»؛ ۳. تغییر ماهیت حکمرانی از کنترل اداری به «تسهیل‌گری برای تکامل هستی اجتماعی». نتیجه اینکه نهادگرایی سیاسی وجودی، رویکردی فرا-نهادی است که نهادهای سیاسی را محیط‌های ضروری برای تحقق جمعی وجود انسان می‌بیند. این نظریه با بازگرداندن سوژۀ انسانی به مرکزیت، جایگزینی ارزشمند برای پارادایم‌های ابزاری مدرن در مواجهه با بحران بیگانگی در ساختارهای سیاسی معاصر ارائه می‌دهد. https://psq.bou.ac.ir/article_80375_8fe3c554e22cf897a5d3cf8d08ec5b53.pdf

دانشگاه باقرالعلوم (ع) علوم سیاسی 1735-0557 29 1 2026 03 21 The Nature of the International Environment in Islamic Political Jurisprudence and Its Implications for Relations with the Islamic and Non-Islamic World ماهیت محیط بین‌المللی در فقه سیاسی اسلام و دلالت‌های آن برای روابط با جهان اسلام و غیر‌اسلام 76 53 80376 10.22081/psq.2026.74564.3111 FA سید عبدالقیوم سجادی استاد، گروه روابط بین‌الملل، دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه خاتم‌النبیین(ع)، افغانستان. Journal Article 2026 04 28 The present study seeks to explain the nature of the international environment from <br />the perspective of Islamic political jurisprudence and to reconstruct the logic governing relations among political units within the framework of Islamic thought. The central question of the article is whether Islamic political jurisprudence understands the international environment as inherently conflictual and characterized by a struggle for survival, or whether it conceives of it as a peace-oriented sphere grounded in the possibility of mutual understanding and cooperation. The significance of this question lies in the fact that a substantial body of prevailing theories in international relations generally rests either on a model of conflict and competition or on a model emphasizing peace and cooperation. Yet, it appears that the logic of Islamic political jurisprudence cannot be fully reduced <br />to either of these two alternatives. From this perspective, the article seeks, through an examination of the foundations and implications of Islamic political jurisprudence, to offer a more precise, multilayered, and normative account of the international environment in Islamic thought. The research method employed in this article is an inferential-exegetical approach, by which the author, through reference to the conceptual and normative foundations of Islamic political jurisprudence and the extraction of their theoretical implications, seeks to uncover how the international environment is formulated within <br />the Islamic framework. Unlike purely descriptive approaches, this method attempts to reconstruct the underlying theoretical model from the relevant sources and foundations and to demonstrate how Islamic political jurisprudence understands its relationship with other political units and human communities. Accordingly, the principal finding of the study is that, from the perspective of Islamic political jurisprudence, the international environment does not possess a unidimensional character; rather, it has a threefold character and should be understood at three levels, or in terms of three distinct forms of relationality: <br />co-partisanship, coexistence, and mutual acquaintance. At the first level, namely, in relation to Islamic countries, the international environment is understood through the foundational concept of the Islamic ummah. At this level, the relationship among Islamic societies <br />and states is not merely legal or instrumental; rather, it is grounded in a form of <br />religious, civilizational, and identity-based interconnectedness that may be described as <br />co-partnering, or as friendly, intra-ummah solidarity. This type of relationship indicates that, within the logic of Islamic political jurisprudence, the Islamic world possesses a <br />form of normative unity and value-based interconnectedness that should be reflected in reciprocal relations among Muslims. At the second level, namely, in relation to non-Islamic countries, the article demonstrates that the basis of interaction is neither absolute rejection nor perpetual conflict, but social justice. On this foundation, the international environment carries the possibility of coexistence with others—a form of coexistence understood in terms of upholding justice, regulating relations, and recognizing the possibility of peaceful interaction with non-Muslims. This finding indicates that, contrary to some reductionist interpretations, Islamic political jurisprudence does not view relations with non-Muslims as inherently grounded in war and hostility; rather, it identifies significant possibilities for a just order and sustained interaction. At the third level, the article introduces the concept of mutual acquaintance, which opens up a horizon extending beyond mere coexistence. Here, mutual acquaintance refers to a form of relationship grounded in mutual recognition, the possibility of dialogue, understanding the other, and the development of human and social relations on a broader scale. Thus, the article’s tripartite model demonstrates that Islamic political jurisprudence regards the international environment as a complex and multifaceted sphere in which the nature of relations with others varies according to the parties’ identity-based relationship, normative foundations, and level of interaction. Overall, the article concludes that, in Islamic political jurisprudence, the international environment is neither merely a field of conflict nor simply a sphere of peace; rather, it constitutes a multilayered and norm-governed order grounded in two fundamental principles—the Islamic ummah and social justice—and explicable through the tripartite framework of co-partnership, coexistence, and mutual acquaintance. This model can make an important contribution to rethinking international relations theory from an Islamic perspective and open up a new horizon for understanding global relations within the framework of political jurisprudence. پژوهش حاضر در پی تبیین ماهیت محیط بین‌المللی از منظر فقه سیاسی اسلام و بازسازی منطق حاکم بر روابط میان واحدهای سیاسی در چارچوب اندیشۀ اسلامی است. مسئله اصلی مقاله آن است که آیا فقه سیاسی اسلام، محیط بین‌المللی را ذاتاً عرصه‌ای تعارضی و مبتنی بر منازعه برای بقا می‌فهمد، یا آن را ساحتی صلح‌محور و مبتنی بر امکان تفاهم و همکاری تلقی می‌کند. اهمیت این مسئله از آن‌روست که بخش مهمی از نظریه‌های رایج در روابط بین‌الملل، عموماً یا بر الگوی ستیز و رقابت استوارند و یا بر الگوی صلح و همکاری تأکید می‌ورزند؛ حال آنکه به نظر می‌رسد منطق فقه سیاسی اسلام را نمی‌توان به‌ صورت کامل در قالب هیچ‌یک از این دوگانه‌های تقلیل‌گرایانه فروکاست. از این منظر مقاله می‌کوشد با استنطاق از مبانی و دلالت‌های فقه سیاسی، تصویری دقیق‌تر، چندلایه‌تر و هنجاری‌تر از محیط بین‌المللی در اندیشۀ اسلامی ارائه دهد. روش پژوهش در این مقاله، استنطاقی است؛ به این معنا که نویسنده با رجوع به مبانی مفهومی و هنجاری فقه سیاسی اسلام و با استخراج دلالت‌های نظری آنها، در پی کشف نحوۀ صورت‌بندی محیط بین‌المللی در منطق اسلامی برآمده است. این روش، بر خلاف رویکردهای صرفاً توصیفی، می‌کوشد از دل منابع و مبانی، الگوی نظری مستتر را بازسازی کند و نشان دهد که فقه سیاسی اسلام چه فهمی از نسبت خود با دیگر واحدهای سیاسی و جوامع انسانی دارد؛ بر این اساس یافتۀ اصلی پژوهش آن است که محیط بین‌المللی از منظر فقه سیاسی اسلام، نه ماهیتی تک‌ساحتی و یک‌بعدی، بلکه ماهیتی سه‌گانه دارد و باید آن را در سه سطح یا سه گونه نسبت‌مندی متفاوت فهم کرد: هم‌پاری، هم‌زیستی و تعارف. در سطح نخست، یعنی در نسبت با کشورهای اسلامی، محیط بین‌المللی بر محور مفهوم بنیادین امت اسلامی فهم می‌شود. در این سطح، رابطۀ میان جوامع و دولت‌های اسلامی، رابطه‌ای صرفاً حقوقی یا ابزاری نیست، بلکه بر نوعی پیوستگی هویتی، دینی و تمدنی استوار است که آن را می‌توان با عنوان هم‌پاری یا همبستگی دوستانه و درون‌امت‌محور توصیف کرد. این نوع از رابطه، بیانگر آن است که در منطق فقه سیاسی اسلام، جهان اسلام واجد نوعی وحدت هنجاری و پیوند ارزشی است که باید در روابط متقابل میان مسلمانان بازتاب یابد. در سطح دوم، یعنی در نسبت با کشورهای غیر‌اسلامی، مقاله نشان می‌دهد که مبنای تعامل نه نفی مطلق و نه ستیز دایمی، بلکه عدالت اجتماعی است. بر پایۀ این شالوده، محیط بین‌المللی واجد امکان هم‌زیستی با دیگران است؛ هم‌زیستی‌ای که بر اساس رعایت عدالت، تنظیم روابط و پذیرش امکان تعامل مسالمت‌آمیز با غیرمسلمانان معنا می‌شود. این نتیجه حاکی از آن است که فقه سیاسی اسلام، بر خلاف برخی قرائت‌های تقلیل‌گرا، رابطه با غیرمسلمانان را به ‌طور ذاتی بر جنگ و تخاصم مبتنی نمی‌بیند، بلکه ظرفیت‌های مهمی برای نظم عادلانه و تعامل پایدار در آن شناسایی می‌کند. در سطح سوم، مقاله از مفهوم تعارف سخن می‌گوید که افقی فراتر از هم‌زیستی صرف را می‌گشاید. تعارف در اینجا ناظر به نوعی رابطه مبتنی بر شناخت متقابل، امکان گفتگو، ادراک دیگری و شکل‌گیری مناسبات انسانی و اجتماعی در سطحی گسترده‌تر است؛ بدین‌ترتیب الگوی سه‌گانه مقاله نشان می‌دهد که فقه سیاسی اسلام، محیط بین‌المللی را عرصه‌ای پیچیده و چندوجهی می‌داند که در آن، نوع رابطه با دیگران بسته به نسبت هویتی، مبنای هنجاری و سطح تعامل، متفاوت و متکثر است. در‌مجموع نتیجه‌گیری مقاله آن است که محیط بین‌المللی در فقه سیاسی اسلام، نه صرفاً میدان نزاع و نه صرفاً سپهر صلح، بلکه نظمی چندلایه و هنجارمند است که بر دو پایۀ اساسی امت اسلامی و عدالت اجتماعی استوار می‌شود و در قالب سه‌گانۀ هم‌پاری، هم‌زیستی و تعارف قابل تبیین است. این الگو می‌تواند سهمی مهم در بازاندیشی نظریۀ روابط بین‌الملل از منظر اسلامی داشته باشد و افق تازه‌ای برای فهم مناسبات جهانی در چارچوب فقه سیاسی بگشاید. https://psq.bou.ac.ir/article_80376_72651bc6c01b9b752b1703a3157425c1.pdf

دانشگاه باقرالعلوم (ع) علوم سیاسی 1735-0557 29 1 2026 03 21 A Constructivist Approach to Malik Bennabi’s Theory of the Islamic Commonwealth مشترک‌المنافع اسلامی مالک بن نبی؛ رویکردی سازه‌انگارانه به نظریه 96 77 80377 10.22081/psq.2026.74533.3108 FA ایمان محمدی دانشجوی دکتری، گروه علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه باقرالعلوم(ع)، قم، ایران احمد رهدار استادیار، گروه فقه مضاف، دانشگاه باقرالعلوم(ع)، قم، ایران Journal Article 2026 04 22 The present study seeks to examine and provide a metatheoretical account of the geopolitical and civilizational thought of Malik Bennabi, the prominent Algerian thinker, within the framework of social constructivist theory. In the twentieth century, following the experience of direct colonialism and the collapse of the Ottoman Caliphate, the Islamic world faced a profound structural and identity crisis, compounded by the forced imposition of the Westphalian nation-state system. In response to this crisis, Malik Bennabi proposed the idea of an “Islamic Commonwealth” not merely as a temporary political and military alliance, but as a grand civilizational-cultural strategy for overcoming this historical impasse. Accordingly, the fundamental objective of this study is to move beyond reductionist and materialist analyses of the causes of decline in Muslim societies and to offer a post-positivist reinterpretation of Bennabi’s theory, thereby illuminating its potential for generating an indigenous, identity-based, and non-Western model of regionalism within the international system. In pursuit of this objective, the central problem of this study concerns the feasibility of reconciling the indigenous and endogenous concepts in Bennabi’s thought with the foundations of modern international relations and contemporary crises. Accordingly, the central question of the study is: How do the key concepts of Malik Bennabi’s theory of the Islamic Commonwealth correspond and organically relate to the ontological and epistemological assumptions of the metatheory of social constructivism? More specifically, this study seeks to determine how the four fundamental pillars of constructivism-namely, the primacy of ideas and layers of meaning over material factors; the precedence and primacy of identity over national interests; the mutual constitution of structure and agency; and the predominance of the logic of appropriateness over the logic of consequences-are reproduced and conceptualized within Bennabi’s epistemic framework and his structural vision for the Islamic world. To answer the aforementioned question and address the research problem, the study employs a descriptive-analytical method and <br />the technique of qualitative content analysis of texts. In the methodological process, the conceptual and metatheoretical framework of social constructivism was first examined <br />and elaborated, with particular emphasis on the views of theorists such as Alexander Wendt, Peter Katzenstein, and Martha Finnemore. Subsequently, adopting a text-centered approach, the fundamental components and dimensions of Malik Bennabi’s civilizational theory were extracted from his later works, particularly <em>Wajhat al-ʿĀlam al-Islāmī</em> <br />(<em>The Orientation of the Islamic World</em>) and his dedicated treatise on the “Islamic Commonwealth,” and were then systematically compared with the indicators and assumptions of the constructivist school. Through this process, the theoretical connections between the idea of the Islamic Commonwealth and established concepts in the international relations literature were theoretically formulated. The findings of this study indicate that, unlike rationalist approaches such as realism, which seek to explain power and security primarily in terms of material resources and military capabilities, Malik Bennabi locates the roots of the decline and backwardness of the Islamic world in the breakdown of intersubjective ideas and the loss of the social efficacy of faith. The most significant manifestation of this theoretical correspondence is found in the central concept of “colonizability” (<em>qābiliyyat al-istiʿmār</em>). From a constructivist perspective, Bennabi regards colonialism not primarily as an objective and geographical phenomenon, but as a defective cognitive and identity structure that has hollowed out the agency of Muslims from within. The idea of the Islamic Commonwealth represents an attempt to transform <br />this intersubjective understanding and redefine Muslims’ identity from that of passive, colonizable subjects into active, civilization-building agents, organized as a “third pole” within the bipolar order of the Cold War. Furthermore, by rejecting the ineffective dichotomy between the “romantic revival of a unified caliphate” and “separate imported nation-states,” Bennabi’s proposed model introduces a new institutional structure based on a plurality of agents within a unified macrostructure. By dividing the Islamic world into <br />six geographical-cultural regions—Arab, Iranian, Sino-Mongolian, Malay, African, and European—he proposes a gradual, functionalist process of integration. Within this model, overarching civilizational identity functions as an independent variable and the primary source for defining states’ national interests. Consequently, interactions among Islamic states are grounded not in the mere calculation of material costs and benefits and adherence to the logic of consequences, but in normative commitments and endogenous Islamic values, and are guided by the logic of appropriateness. Another significant finding of the study is that this identity- and civilization-oriented approach is not confined to the historical circumstances of the mid-twentieth century; rather, it possesses considerable potential for reinterpretation within the contemporary geopolitical landscape. The theoretical framework of the Islamic Commonwealth can serve as a robust operational foundation for explaining the structural requirements of the concept of resistance and for supporting the broader discourses of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Given that the theory emphasizes identity-based independence and the rejection of hegemony, it closely aligns with the doctrine of a new Islamic civilizational project and the strategy of Islamic unity. Moreover, Bennabi’s analytical framework can make an additional contribution to the conceptual enrichment and advancement of Iran’s higher-level policy documents, particularly the “Second Step of the  Revolution” Statement and the “Iranian-Islamic Model of Progress” document. It explains how networks of meaning and local centers of resistance can, through the accumulation of social efficacy and the transformation of social practices, develop from dispersed units into a stable and influential power bloc within the international system. Finally, the present study concludes that Malik Bennabi’s theory should be regarded as a pioneering form of civilizational constructivism. Chronologically preceding Alexander Wendt and the formal emergence of post-positivist and identity-oriented approaches in the West, Bennabi adopted a distinctly problem-driven approach in emphasizing the social nature of power, security, and anarchy in international politics. The overall conclusion of this study suggests that the idea of the “Commonwealth” within Bennabi’s epistemic framework is not merely a transient political and security alliance, but rather an identity-based security community designed, through the mutual constitution of structure and agency, to safeguard the authenticity, agency, and integrity of the Islamic ummah in the modern era. Bennabi’s thought demonstrates that civilizational paralysis and fragmentation in the Islamic world are not rigid, immutable material realities; rather, they are socially constructed phenomena whose transformation is possible only through the reconstruction of identity-based and cognitive structures and the conscious transformation of the actors’ intersubjective practices. نظریه مشترک‌المنافع اسلامی (فکرة کمنولث اسلامی) مالک بن نبی، متفکر برجسته الجزایری را می‌توان پاسخی تمدنی به بحران‌های ساختاری جهان اسلام در قرن بیستم، به‌ویژه پس از فروپاشی خلافت و ظهور دولت-ملت‌های وستفالیایی دانست. پژوهش حاضر در پیِ بازخوانی این نظریه در چارچوب فرانظری سازه‌انگاری اجتماعی است تا جوابی باشد به پرسش اصلی این مقاله که «چگونه مفاهیم کلیدی نظریۀ مشترک المنافع اسلامی مالک بن نبی با مفروضات سازه‌انگاری مانند اولویت انگاره‌ها بر عوامل مادی، برتری هویت بر منافع، تکوین متقابل ساختار-کارگزار و منطق تناسب در برابر منطق پیامدها همخوانی دارند؟». یافته‌های این نوشتار که با روش توصیفی-تحلیلی و بر پایۀ نظریۀ سازه‌انگاری سامان یافته، نشان می‌دهد که بن نبی بر خلاف رویکردهای خردگرا، ریشۀ انحطاط و عقب‌ماندگی جهان اسلام را نه در کمبود منابع مادی، بلکه در فروپاشی انگاره‌های بین‌الاذهانی و فقدان کارآمدی اجتماعی ایمان می‌بیند. او با ارائۀ مدل مشترک‌المنافع به عنوان یک قطب ثالث در فضای دوقطبی جنگ سرد، در پی بازتعریف هویت مسلمانان از سوژه‌های استعمارپذیر به کنشگران تمدن‌ساز بود. بن نبی با تقسیم جهان اسلام به شش منطقۀ جغرافیایی-فرهنگی، الگویی از همگرایی تدریجی را پیشنهاد می‌دهد که در آن هویت تمدنی کلان، منبع اصلی تعریف منافع ملی دولت‌ها قرار می‌گیرد. این رویکرد می‌تواند در عصر حاضر بازتعریف شده و در تعریف چارچوب عملیاتی مطابق نیازهای مفهوم مقاومت و یا گفتمان‌های کلان جمهوری اسلامی ایران همانند تمدن‌سازی نوین اسلامی و وحدت اسلامی و همچنین کمک به پیشبرد اسناد بالا‌دستی چونان گام دوم انقلاب یا سند ایرانی-اسلامی پیشرفت کمک مضاعف کند. نتیجه اینکه نظریۀ بن نبی را می‌توان نوعی سازه‌انگاری تمدنی پیش‌گامانه دانست که با تقدّم زمانی نسبت به الکساندر ونت و تحولات منجر به نظریه‌های هویتی به صورت مسئله‌محور و با ارائه چارچوب نظری جامع، بر ماهیت اجتماعی و هویتی قدرت و امنیت در نظام بین‌الملل تأکید ورزیده و مشترک‌المنافع را به مثابۀ یک جامعۀ هویتی برای صیانت از اصالت امت اسلامی در عصر مدرن طراحی کرده است. https://psq.bou.ac.ir/article_80377_8064cbf819bfe30a7b2ef44fbd89765b.pdf

دانشگاه باقرالعلوم (ع) علوم سیاسی 1735-0557 29 1 2026 03 21 The Role of Transformation and Transmutation Functions in the Fall of the Pahlavi Regime نقش کارویژه‌های تبدیل و استحاله در سقوط نظام پهلوی 118 97 80378 10.22081/psq.2026.72290.3030 FA علیرضا محمدی کارشناسی ارشد، گروه علوم سیاسی، دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی، مازندران، بابلسر، ایران. محمد رادمرد دانشیار، گروه علوم سیاسی، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، مازندران، بابلسر، ایران محمدتقی قزلسفلی استاد، گروه علوم سیاسی، دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی، مازندران، بابلسر، ایران Journal Article 2025 07 25 Transformation and transmutation functions can serve as criteria and a framework for assessing the effectiveness of political systems. These functions can provide reliable indicators for examining successful transitions in political development. Conversely, examining the extent to which these functions are fulfilled can also help explain why a political system deteriorates and ultimately collapses. This constitutes the objective of the present article. Accordingly, the study adopts Almond and Powell’s transformation and transmutation functions to propose a new approach to explaining the collapse of the Pahlavi regime, particularly given that the Pahlavi regime itself claimed to be pursuing the modernization and development of Iran. Yet, rather than bringing the process of development to fruition, it ultimately experienced collapse. This study can therefore shed light on the reasons for the political development impasse under the Pahlavi political system. Numerous studies have examined the causes and mechanisms underlying the fall of the Pahlavi regime; however, this article seeks to explain this historical development from a different perspective. The present study addresses the following question: What relationship existed between the transformation and transmutation function and the fall of the Pahlavi regime? More precisely, was the regime’s inability to fulfill the components of the transformation and transmutation function the principal cause of its collapse? To answer this question, the study hypothesizes that the Pahlavi regime collapsed because it was unable to translate the inputs of the political system—including the articulation and aggregation of interests—into outputs, namely, the formulation and implementation of laws and the judicial functioning of the system. In other words, according to this hypothesis, under the Pahlavi regime, political inputs were effectively  prevented from entering the power structure because of the suppression of political freedoms, the prohibition of genuine political parties, and the absence of meaningful popular participation. Consequently, the collapse of the regime became inevitable. This study adopts the theoretical framework of Almond and Powell’s theory, through which political development is examined from a functionalist perspective. In the midst of the <br />Cold War, these two scholars sought to clarify the requirements for achieving political development in developing countries. Given the limitations of the study, among the three sets of political-system functions identified by these scholars—namely, transformation and transmutation functions, adaptation functions, and the functional capabilities of the political system—this article focuses on the first and uses it as a framework for explaining the fall of the Pahlavi regime. Methodologically, the article is also based on a causal approach. A causal mechanism refers to a sequence of events and variables through which at least two or more variables are linked to one another. In this study, the fall of the Pahlavi regime is the dependent variable, while the six transformation and transmutation functions constitute the independent variables. Transformation and transmutation encompass several functions. More specifically, interest articulation, interest aggregation, rule-making or legislation, rule application by the executive branch, judicial performance, and political communication are components that, taken together, reflect the level of effectiveness of a political system; their inadequate performance can ultimately lead to the collapse of a political system. Data <br />for this study were collected through library-based research. The findings indicate <br />that although the Pahlavi regime ostensibly pursued a modernization project, it was fundamentally deficient in the transformation and transmutation function, because it neither permitted the free articulation of interests nor formulated laws in accordance with public demands. In effect, what persisted was a traditional and authoritarian political system that had merely adopted a developmentalist façade. This reality can provide important lessons for the analysis of contemporary political systems and the diagnosis of obstacles to development, offering valuable insights to researchers and policymakers. For example, achieving sustainable development requires realizing the transformation and transmutation function through the institutionalization of political participation, the rule of law, and government accountability to the will of the people. This challenge extends beyond the Cold War era and remains a major concern for many political systems today. According to this study, this functional gap gradually eroded the social base of the Pahlavi regime and, at the critical juncture of the 1979 Revolution, led to the regime’s collapse, given the absence of any legal capacity for converting protests into peaceful political change. تاکنون پژوهش‌های زیادی به تبیین چرایی و چگونگی سقوط حکومت پهلوی پرداخته‌اند، ولی این مقاله تلاش می‌کند با رویکردی متفاوت به تبیین این واقعیت بپردازد. پژوهش حاضر در پی پاسخ به این پرسش است که بین کارویژۀ تبدیل و استحاله با سقوط نظام پهلوی چه ارتباطی وجود دارد؟ به عبارت دقیق‌تر، آیا ناتوانی این نظام در اجرای مؤلفه‌های کارویژۀ تبدیل و استحاله عامل اصلی فروپاشی آن بوده است؟ در راستای پاسخ به این پرسش، فرضیه پژوهش این بود که چون حکومت پهلوی نتوانست خروجی‌های نظام سیاسی، شامل تمهید و اجرای قوانین و عملکرد قضایی نظام را بر اساس ورودی‌های نظام شامل بیان و تجمیع منافع تنظیم کند، سقوط کرد؛ به عبارت دیگر مطابق این فرضیه، در نظام پهلوی، ورودی‌های سیاسی به دلیل سرکوب آزادی‌های سیاسی، ممنوعیت احزاب واقعی و فقدان مشارکت مردمی معنادار، در‌عمل راهی به درون ساختار قدرت نداشتند؛ از‌این‌رو سقوط رژیم امری اجتناب‌ناپذیر بود. این پژوهش چارچوب نظری خود را بر اساس نظریۀ آلموند و پاول قرار داده است که طی آن توسعۀ سیاسی از منظری کارکردگرایانه بررسی می‌گردد. عملکرد صحیح آنها می‌تواند به سقوط یک نظام سیاسی بینجامد. گردآوری داده‌ها نیز در این پژوهش به شکل کتابخانه‌ای تدوین شده است. نتیجه اینکه نظام پهلوی اگرچه به‌ظاهر پروژه نوسازی را دنبال می‌کرد، در ذات خود فاقد کارکرد تبدیل و استحاله بود؛ زیرا نه به بیان آزادانۀ منافع اجازه می‌داد و نه قوانین را بر اساس مطالبات عمومی تنظیم می‌کرد. در‌واقع شاهد ادامۀ نظام سیاسی سنتی و اقتدار‌گرایی بودیم که تنها ظاهری توسعه‌گرا به خود گرفته بود. این واقعیت، می‌تواند درس‌های مهمی برای تحلیل نظام‌های سیاسی معاصر و آسیب‌شناسی موانع توسعه در اختیار محققان و تصمیم‌گیران عرصۀ سیاست فراهم سازد؛ برای نمونه به منظور دستیابی به توسعه‌ای پایدار، باید کارویژۀ تبدیل و استحاله را از طریق نهادینه‌سازی مشارکت سیاسی، حاکمیت قانون و پاسخ‌گویی نظام حکومتی به خواست مردم تحقق بخشید؛ امری که فراتر از دوران جنگ سرد، چالش عمدۀ بسیاری از نظام‌های سیاسی در عصر کنونی نیز هست؛ همین شکاف کارکردی به‌تدریج پایگاه اجتماعی نظام پهلوی را فرسوده کرد و در بزنگاه انقلاب ۱۳۵۷، با توجه به نبود هرگونه ظرفیت قانونی برای تبدیل اعتراضات به تغییرات مسالمت‌آمیز، موجب فروپاشی نظام گردید. https://psq.bou.ac.ir/article_80378_4dae0d6de64b739c90ecf548b0943017.pdf

دانشگاه باقرالعلوم (ع) علوم سیاسی 1735-0557 29 1 2026 03 21 The Supportive Street as Solidarity and Collective Mobilization in the American–Israeli War against Iran: An Introduction to the Inadequacy of Non-Mobilization and Street Politics خیابان حامی به‌مثابۀ هم‌بستگی و هم‌جنبشی در جنگ آمریکایی- صهیونیستی علیه ایران (درآمدی بر نابسندگی ناجنبشی و سیاست خیابان) 146 119 80379 10.22081/psq.2026.75262.3157 FA مهدی نادری دانشیار، گروه علوم سیاسی، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران مرضیه عابدی دانشجوی دکتری، گروه علوم سیاسی، دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران. Journal Article 2026 06 29 The present study aims to explain a new pattern of collective action under conditions of external crises and existential threats by examining the street presence of the Iranian people during the American–Israeli war against Iran, referred to as the Ramadan War of 2026. Its primary objective is to conceptualize “collective mobilization” and to redefine the street as an infrastructure for producing solidarity, social support, and national cohesion. Within this framework, the street is understood not merely as a site of protest, demand-making, or confrontation with power, but as a space for collective self-preservation, the expression of<br />a shared fate, and the reproduction of social bonds. The study also proposes a five-level model that explains the process through which an external crisis is transformed into a shared perception of threat, the synchronization of dispersed actors, the formation of <br />a collective body, and ultimately the production of the “supportive street.” Prevailing theories of street politics and social nonmovements, particularly Asef Bayat’s theoretical framework, have largely focused on the everyday, gradual, dispersed, and demand-oriented actions of subaltern groups in response to internal social problems. Within these theories, the street is generally conceived as an arena of resistance, protest, slow encroachment, and the exertion of pressure on political power. However, the experience of the widespread and simultaneous presence of people in the streets of Iran during the Ramadan War of 2025 demonstrated that street action can, in response to an external threat, acquire a supportive, defensive, and solidarity-building function. Accordingly, this study seeks to answer the following question: What limitations do these street presences reveal in the theory of nonmovements and the concept of street politics? This study adopts a theoretical–analytical and interpretive approach, using a case-study research strategy. The case under examination consists of the street actions and public presence of the Iranian people during the Ramadan War of 2025, from the early morning of February 28, 2026 to August 1, 2026. The data were collected through three main avenues. First, the researchers conducted direct participant and field observation of gatherings and street presences, particularly in Tehran and Shiraz, over approximately 150 consecutive nights. Second, they reviewed the relevant theoretical literature in political sociology, social movements, street politics, and nonmovements. Third, they examined reports from domestic and international media, as well as accounts published on social media platforms. The data were analyzed through the coding of field notes, source comparison, and cumulative interpretive analysis. Finally, a five-level model was extracted and formulated, comprising the event, perceptual, field, processual, and consequential levels. The findings show that the formation of collective mobilization begins with a disruptive event. The military attack, the assassination of the leadership, the bombing of infrastructure, and the attack on an elementary school in Minab disrupted the normal routines of everyday life by generating structural shock and compressing social time. At the perceptual level, these events were interpreted through the historical memory of U.S. antagonism toward Iran, including the 28 Mordad coup (1953), the Iran–Iraq War, sanctions, and the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani. As a result, the military threat was transformed into an existential and identity-based threat to a shared “we,” thereby creating a symbolic boundary between the “self” and the “hostile other.” At the field level, this shared perception became tangible through people’s sustained nightly presence, the symbolic occupation of major streets and squares, collective walks, car and motorcycle convoys, and family gatherings. The street became a site where a collective body emerged—a body that, beyond the physical presence of the people, embodied a message of collective self-preservation, resistance, and social deterrence. The use of the national flag, headbands, and religious–national slogans enabled a temporary transcendence of partisan, class, and generational differences. Likewise, the affect of loss and passive mourning was transformed, through Ashura rituals, into action-oriented and epic energy. The media and social media networks also connected dispersed gatherings <br />into a national “we.” At the processual level, collective mobilization emerges through a cumulative chain: a disruptive event leads to perceptual reinterpretation; the shared perception activates a collective affect; this affect is consolidated through symbols and rituals; and the subsequent synchronization of actors in the public sphere gives rise to informal forms of organization. At the consequential level, this process results in the formation of a cohesive collective “we,” increased horizontal trust, strengthened bonds of collective self-preservation, and the continuation of self-reproducing participation in the public sphere. The findings of the study demonstrate that, under conditions of external threat, the street is not merely an arena of conflict, protest, or demand-making; it can also become an infrastructure for producing solidarity, shared identity, and social care. The concept of “collective mobilization,” proposed to explain this form of collective action, <br />is distinct from the concepts of social movement, nonmovement, protest, resilience, <br />and mutual aid because it emphasizes spontaneous, simultaneous, ritualized, and communitarian action in response to an external crisis. Accordingly, the “supportive street” is a space in which society reproduces its cohesion through embodied, symbolic, and affective presence. The study’s five-level model demonstrates that an external threat, <br />when connected to historical memory, collective affect, shared symbols, and the occupation of public space, can be transformed from a source of disruption into a source of <br />renewed solidarity. Thus, collective mobilization provides a conceptual framework for understanding protective and solidarity-oriented forms of collective action and may be applied to the study of other large-scale crises, including natural disasters, regional crises, and environmental threats. حضور خیابانی در بسیاری از تحلیل‌های علوم اجتماعی بیشتر در قالب اعتراض، مقاومت یا کنش‌های اعتراضی جمعی فهم شده است؛ با این حال تجربۀ حضور مردم در جریان جنگ رمضان ۱۴۰۴ نشان می‌دهد که خیابان می‌تواند کارکردی فراتر از اعتراض یافته و به فضایی برای شکل‌گیری همبستگی اجتماعی تبدیل شود. این مقاله با بازخوانی انتقادی چارچوب نظری آصف بیات دربارۀ «سیاست خیابان» و «ناجنبش‌ها» نشان می‌دهد که این چارچوب در تبیین حضورهای هم‌بستگی‌محور مبتنی بر ادراک تهدید مشترک و همدلی جمعی، با محدودیت مواجه است.<strong> </strong>در پاسخ به این خلأ، پژوهش حاضر با هدف صورت‌بندی مفهوم «هم‌جنبشی» و با اتکا به رویکرد نظری- تحلیلی و بررسی موردی این رویداد، ابعاد موضوع را در پنج سطح رخدادی، ادراکی، میدانی، فرایندی و پیامدی مورد واکاوی قرار می‌دهد. یافته‌های تحلیل پنج‌سطحی نشان می‌دهد که هم‌جنبشی از پیوند میان «ادراک تهدید مشترک» و «هم‌حضوری بدون سازمان‌دهی رسمی» شکل می‌گیرد؛ فرایندی که در آن، تبدیل کالبد خیابان به عرصۀ مشاهده متقابل و اشتراک عاطفی، به بازتولید فوری اعتماد بینافردی و تقویت پیوندهای افقی جامعه می‌انجامد. درنتیجه مفهوم هم‌جنبشی نشان می‌دهد که خیابان را نباید صرفاً میدان منازعه و اعتراض دانست؛ بلکه در شرایط بحران، خیابان می‌تواند به ‌مثابۀ زیرساختی اجتماعی برای تولید، مرئی‌سازی و بازتولید هم‌بستگی و هویت جمعی عمل کند. https://psq.bou.ac.ir/article_80379_2a01cebd08b0ba3dcdc80e73172f669b.pdf

دانشگاه باقرالعلوم (ع) علوم سیاسی 1735-0557 29 1 2026 03 21 Reviving the Social Communication System: A Pillar for Strengthening Religious Democracy احیای نظام ارتباطات اجتماعی؛ رکن تقویت مردم‌سالاری دینی 166 147 80380 10.22081/psq.2026.74967.3135 FA احمد اولیایی استادیار، گروه مطالعات عدالت اجتماعی، پژوهشگاه علوم و فرهنگ اسلامی، قم، ایران Journal Article 2026 06 04 The primary objective of this study is to examine the relationship between <strong>“</strong>social communication” and “collective identity” as two fundamental pillars of the realization of religious democracy. Within this framework, the study seeks to demonstrate that the mere individual and quantitative presence of people in political and social arenas is insufficient for achieving religious democracy. Rather, what distinguishes this model of democracy from other democratic paradigms is its emphasis on the “collective identity” of the people as a meaningful and integrated whole. Accordingly, the ultimate objective of the study is to explain how the social communication system can be reconstructed and revitalized in such a way as to facilitate the formation of this collective identity and, ultimately, actualize <br />the theoretical capacities of religious democracy for state-building and system-building grounded in popular agency. More precisely, by focusing on the communicative dimension, the study seeks to propose an operational strategy for moving from the existing condition—characterized by a qualitative decline in social communication—to a desirable condition in which communication serves as a medium for producing shared meaning and collective solidarity. The central problem of this study arises from an apparent contradiction in the social context of contemporary Iran. On the one hand, the theory of religious democracy, as the foundation of the Islamic Republic, places strong emphasis on the role and collective will of the people in determining their own destiny and regards its realization as dependent upon the active participation of “the people with a collective identity.” On the other hand, empirical evidence indicates that the quality of social communication has declined, while people, despite their apparent engagement in extensive and numerous social networks, are increasingly moving toward individualism. This situation gives rise to the central question of the article: Under conditions in which the foundations of social communication have deteriorated in quality and become increasingly superficial, how can the capacity of the people, understood in its collective sense, be harnessed for system-building and state-building? In other words, the fundamental issue is whether a meaningful relationship exists between the existing system of social communication and the possibility of forming the collective identity required by religious democracy, or whether the two stand in opposition to one another; and, if this relationship has been disrupted, what strategies can be adopted to reconstruct it? This study seeks to provide a theoretical and practical response to this problem by identifying the factors underlying the decline of social communication—including modernity, industrialization, and the dominance of cyberspace—as well as the fundamental differences between patterns of communication in traditional and modern societies. This study adopts a qualitative approach and employs a descriptive-analytical method. First, the conceptual framework of the study was developed through a systematic review and examination of the relevant theoretical literature on religious democracy, collective identity, and social communication. At this stage, data were collected through documentary and library-based research, focusing on authoritative domestic and international sources. Second, drawing on Ferdinand Tönnies’s theory of “Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft” as its theoretical framework, the study analyzes transformations in the communication system of contemporary Iran. The theory was selected because Tönnies clearly distinguishes between two forms of human will—organic/natural will versus rational/arbitrary will—and between two forms of social bonds—community based on natural solidarity versus society based on contract and self-interest. These distinctions correspond closely to the research problem, particularly the differences between traditional and modern systems of communication. Third, using logical analysis and theoretical reasoning, the descriptive findings are interpreted within the framework of Tönnies’s theory. The study then derives and formulates strategies for revitalizing social communication, with emphasis on two principal dimensions: “the transition from a transmission-oriented approach to a ritual-oriented approach to communication” and “attention to state-building grounded in popular agency.” The findings of this study indicate that the system of social communication in contemporary Iran has undergone a fundamental transformation from the “community” model toward the “society” model. In other words, forms of communication grounded in organic will, shared emotions, kinship, neighborhood ties, and tradition-based friendship have gradually given way to forms of communication that are rational, contractual, superficial, and based on individual and instrumental interests. This transformation, driven primarily by processes of modernization, industrialization, urbanization, and, above all, the growing dominance of cyberspace with its networked and fluid characteristics, has resulted in Iranian individuals, despite having numerous and extensive connections across virtual social networks, operating at a more individualistic and isolated level than in the past. The consequence of this process is the loss of society’s capacity to generate a “shared message” and “collective meaning,” whereas religious democracy fundamentally requires such a shared message to realize itself—a message that must emerge from a living, dynamic system of social communication grounded in internal solidarity. In other words, although modern social networks have expanded communication quantitatively, they have not only failed <br />to contribute qualitatively to the formation of collective identity but, by reinforcing individualism and an instrumental, profit-oriented outlook, have also created conditions for the disruption of the social bonds required by religious democracy. Accordingly, the findings of the study indicate that there is a direct and meaningful relationship between the decline of solidarity-based social communication (the “community” model) and the inability to realize religious democracy. Based on the findings and analyses, this study concludes that revitalizing the system of social communication should not be regarded <br />as a secondary option, but rather as a fundamental and indispensable pillar for realizing religious democracy in contemporary Iran. To achieve this objective, two key strategies are proposed. First, there should be a shift from the transmission model of communication—which views communication merely as the transmission of a message from a sender to a receiver—to the ritual model of communication, which understands communication as participation in a shared ritual and the reproduction of collective bonds. This shift can help redefine the role of media and communicative spaces, transforming them from instruments of information dissemination into platforms for strengthening social solidarity. Second, state-building should be reconceptualized on the basis of popular agency. This means that the process of system-building should not proceed solely from the top down through governing institutions; rather, it should be pursued by activating collective will and empowering social actors at both the local and national levels. هدف اصلی این پژوهش، تبیین نسبت میان نظام ارتباطات اجتماعی و شکل‌گیری هویت جمعی به‌ عنوان رکن بنیادین مردم‌سالاری دینی در جمهوری اسلامی ایران است. مقاله در پی آن است که نشان دهد تحقق مردم‌سالاری دینی، صرفاً با حضور فردی مردم میسر نمی‌شود، بلکه به هویت جمعی مبتنی بر نظامی از ارتباطات زنده و پویا نیاز دارد. مسئله اصلی پژوهش از این پرسش سرچشمه می‌گیرد که چگونه می‌توان از ظرفیت مردم با معنای جمعی‌اش برای نظام‌سازی و دولت‌سازی بهره برد، در‌حالی‌که ارتباطات اجتماعی آنها دچار افول کیفی شده است؟ این افول ناشی از مدرنیته، صنعتی‌شدن و سیطرۀ فضای مجازی، انسان ایرانی را در عین گسترش کمی ارتباطات، به فردیت فروبرده است. این مقاله با رویکردی ارتباطاتی و با روش توصیفی- تحلیلی و با بهره‌گیری از نظریۀ فردیناند تونیس (تمایز «اجتماع» و «جامعه») به تحلیل تحول نظام ارتباطی در ایران معاصر پرداخته است. نتایج پژوهش نشان می‌دهد که ارتباطات اجتماعی در ایران از الگوی «اجتماع» (ارادۀ ارگانیک و طبیعی) به سوی «جامعه» (ارادۀ عقلانی و خودکامه) تحول یافته است. جامعۀ مدرن با ارتباطات سطحی و مبتنی بر منفعت، قادر به تولید پیام مشترک نیست؛ در‌حالی‌که مردم‌سالاری دینی مشارکت را به‌ مثابۀ تولید پیام مشترک نیاز دارد. نتیجه‌گیری نهایی مقاله بر ضرورت احیای ارتباطات اجتماعی از دو راهکار تأکید دارد: گذار از رویکرد انتقالی به رویکرد آیینی در ارتباطات، و توجه به مفهوم دولت‌سازی مبتنی بر فاعلیت مردم؛ زیرا بدون بازسازی نظام ارتباطی مبتنی بر همبستگی، هویت جمعی مورد نیاز مردم‌سالاری دینی تحقق نمی‌یابد. https://psq.bou.ac.ir/article_80380_46afd2aca8deefa4d19b1838d7db6ac1.pdf

دانشگاه باقرالعلوم (ع) علوم سیاسی 1735-0557 29 1 2026 03 21 A Scientometric Analysis of the Journal Political Science, with an Emphasis on Its Conceptual Structure, Scientific Collaboration Network, and Citation Patterns تحلیل علم‌سنجی نشریۀ علوم سیاسی با تأکید بر ساختار مفهومی، شبکه همکاری علمی و الگوی استنادی 192 167 80381 10.22081/psq.2026.73560.3079 FA رضا کریمی دانشیار، گروه علم اطلاعات و دانش‌شناسی، دانشگاه قم، قم، ایران Journal Article 2025 11 24 This study was conducted to provide a comprehensive analysis of the scholarly <br />and content-related profile of the journal <em>Political Science</em> and seeks, by employing scientometric approaches, to present an accurate picture of the structure of scholarly production in the journal. Accordingly, the study focuses primarily on three key dimensions: the conceptual structure of the journal’s scholarly output, the scientific collaboration network among its authors, and the journal’s citation indicators. The statistical population comprises 1,021 articles published between 2004 and 2023, with data collected from the Islamic World Science Citation Center (ISC) database and the journal’s online submission and publication system. To analyze the data, specialized scientometric tools were employed, including RavarMatrix for extracting the word co-occurrence matrix and UCINET and NetDraw for visualizing and analyzing scientific networks. The findings indicate that the journal’s thematic structure is organized into 22 distinct conceptual clusters. These clusters encompass a broad range of key topics in political science, including Islamic political thought, the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, security and national interests, democracy and political participation, political identity, political jurisprudence, social justice, and political discourses in Iran and the Islamic <br />world. The breadth of this thematic range indicates the journal’s multidimensional <br />and interdisciplinary character, while also reflecting its continued focus on fundamental issues in political science. Following the adoption of scientific publishing policies and <br />the journal’s attainment of scientific-research status in 2011, the journal underwent a discernible conceptual shift. During the first period (2004–2010), foundational, theoretical, and discursive concepts predominated, whereas in the second period (2011–2023), the journal’s content shifted toward more specialized, problem-oriented, and applied topics. The analysis of citation patterns likewise indicates that articles published between 2004 and  2006, prior to the journal’s attainment of scientific-research status, had the greatest impact due to their discursive and agenda-setting character and consequently received the highest number of citations. By contrast, during the second period, the structural requirements imposed on scientific-research articles appear to have somewhat reduced the rate at which articles accumulated citations. Overall, the findings of this study provide a comprehensive, longitudinal, and data-driven picture of the intellectual and social structure of the journal <em>Political Science</em> over a twenty-year period. This analysis can serve as a basis for improving academic publishing policies, enhancing publication quality, and restoring the journal’s position as an influential source of scholarly discourse. The findings concerning the authors’ academic collaboration network further indicate that collaboration within the journal operates predominantly through a multi-cluster, networked structure, comprising two major author clusters with the highest levels of connectivity and several secondary clusters with moderate levels of interaction. An analysis of the authors’ institutional affiliations shows that Baqir al-Olum University, the University of Tehran, Shahid Beheshti University, and Imam Sadiq University have made the greatest contributions to the journal’s scholarly output and function as its principal centers of knowledge production. این پژوهش با هدف تحلیل جامع وضعیت علمی و محتوایی نشریۀ <em>علوم سیاسی</em> انجام شده است و تلاش دارد با بهره‌گیری از رویکردهای علم‌سنجی، تصویری دقیق از ساختار تولید علم در این نشریه ارائه دهد. در این راستا تمرکز اصلی مطالعه بر سه محور اساسی شامل ساختار مفهومی تولیدات علمی، شبکه همکاری علمی نویسندگان و شاخص‌های استنادی نشریه یاد‌شده بوده است. جامعه آماری پژوهش شامل ۱۰۲۱ مقاله منتشرشده در فاصلۀ سال‌های ۱۳۸۳ تا 1402 است که داده‌های آنها از پایگاه استنادی علوم جهان اسلام (ISC) و سامانۀ نشریه گردآوری شده است. به ‌منظور تحلیل داده‌ها، از ابزارهای تخصصی علم‌سنجی شامل نرم‌افزارهای RavarMatrix برای استخراج ماتریس هم‌رخدادی واژگان و نرم‌افزارهای UCINET و NetDraw برای ترسیم و تحلیل شبکه‌های علمی استفاده شد. نتایج پژوهش نشان داد که ساختار موضوعی نشریه در قالب ۲۲ خوشۀ مفهومی متمایز سازمان یافته است. این خوشه‌ها دامنۀ گسترده‌ای از موضوعات کلیدی در حوزۀ علوم سیاسی را در بر می‌گیرند که از جمله مهم‌ترین آنها می‌توان به اندیشۀ سیاسی اسلامی، سیاست خارجی جمهوری اسلامی ایران، امنیت و منافع ملی، مردم‌سالاری و مشارکت سیاسی، هویت سیاسی، فقه سیاسی، عدالت اجتماعی و گفتمان‌های سیاسی در ایران و جهان اسلام اشاره کرد. وجود این طیف موضوعی گسترده نشانگر ماهیت چندبعدی، میان‌رشته‌ای و در عین حال متمرکز نشریه بر مباحث بنیادین علوم سیاسی است. مجله تحت تأثیر سیاست‌گذاری علمی و اخذ رتبۀ علمی- پژوهشی در سال ۱۳۹۰، دچار یک چرخش مفهومی ملموس شده است؛ به‌ طوری‌ که در مقطع نخست (۱۳۸۳ تا ۱۳۸۹) مفاهیم بنیادین، نظری و گفتمانی غلبه داشته، ولی در مقطع دوم (۱۳۹۰ تا ۱۴۰۲) محتوای نشریه به سمت مباحث تخصصی‌تر، مسئله‌محور و کاربردی سوق یافته است. تحلیل الگوی استنادی نیز مؤید آن است که مقالات منتشرشده در سال‌های ۱۳۸۳ تا ۱۳۸۵ (دوره پیش از اخذ رتبه)، به دلیل ماهیت گفتمانی و جریان‌ساز خود، بیشترین میزان تأثیرگذاری را داشته‌اند و در صدر استنادها قرار دارند؛ در‌حالی‌که در مقطع دوم، الزامات ساختاری مقالات علمی-پژوهشی تا حدودی شیب دریافت استنادات را کاهش داده است. در‌مجموع یافته‌های این پژوهش تصویری جامع، روندی داده‌محور از ساختار فکری و اجتماعی نشریه <em>علوم سیاسی</em> در یک بازۀ بیست‌ساله ارائه می‌دهد که می‌تواند به‌ عنوان مبنایی برای بهبود سیاست‌گذاری علمی، ارتقای کیفیت انتشار و احیای مرجعیت گفتمانی نشریه مورد استفاده قرار گیرد. یافته‌های مربوط به شبکه همکاری علمی نویسندگان نیز بیانگر آن است که ساختار همکاری در نشریه بیشتر به ‌صورت چندخوشه‌ای و شبکه‌ای عمل می‌کند؛ به‌گونه‌ای‌که دو خوشۀ اصلی نویسندگان با بیشترین میزان ارتباط و چند خوشه فرعی با ارتباطات متوسط شکل گرفته است. تحلیل وابستگی سازمانی نویسندگان نشان داد که دانشگاه‌های باقرالعلوم(ع)، تهران، شهید بهشتی و امام صادق(ع) بیشترین میزان مشارکت در تولیدات علمی نشریه را داشته‌اند و به‌ عنوان هستۀ اصلی تولید علم در این مجموعه عمل می‌کنند. https://psq.bou.ac.ir/article_80381_29b0479c2f23ab083a8af5fcdfc1fe17.pdf