زمان های مختلط تاریخی ؛ نقدی بر دوگانه‌انگاری فلسفه تاریخ و تاریخ انتقادی در مطالعات ایرانی

Modern historiography, both within the Western intellectual tradition and in Iranian studies, has largely been structured around two dominant paradigms: the **philosophy of history** and **critical history**. The philosophy of history, grounded in grand narratives, teleological assumptions, and the idea of historical progress, interprets history as a linear process moving toward a predetermined end, explaining historical transformations through major ruptures and successive stages of development. In contrast, critical history rejects meta-narratives and emphasizes power relations, marginalized narratives, and the history of subaltern groups in an effort to uncover neglected dimensions of the past. Despite their fundamental differences, however, both approaches share a common epistemological limitation: they interpret history according to a single temporal logic and therefore fail to adequately explain the simultaneous coexistence of continuity and rupture, repetition and singularity, persistence and transformation, as well as the interaction of multiple temporal layers. Accordingly, the central objective of this study is to critique this epistemological dichotomy and to propose an alternative framework for understanding historical change, particularly within the field of Iranian studies.



Adopting a descriptive-analytical method, this study draws upon Reinhart Koselleck's theory of Multiple Temporalities (Zeitschichten) to examine its potential as an alternative historiographical paradigm. By engaging with Koselleck's conceptual history (*Begriffsgeschichte*) and placing it in dialogue with both the philosophy of history and critical history, the article seeks to demonstrate how the reduction of history to a single temporal framework can be overcome. Accordingly, the study critically reassesses the principal assumptions of these two historiographical traditions while exploring the theoretical capacities of Koselleck's concept of historical temporal layers for interpreting historical phenomena.



The findings indicate that Koselleck conceptualizes history neither as the product of rupture alone nor as the expression of uninterrupted continuity, but rather as the dynamic interaction of short-, medium-, and long-term temporal layers that coexist within every historical present. In this perspective, history is understood not as a linear progression or a collection of disconnected events, but as a field in which repetition and singularity, continuity and change, advancement and regression continuously interact. Consequently, concepts such as rupture, continuity, progress, and decline cease to function as rigid binary oppositions and instead acquire meaning only in relation to different temporal layers. Furthermore, by revealing the historical continuities between tradition and modernity and highlighting the theological origins of many modern political concepts, this approach challenges linear conceptions of modernity and historical progress while avoiding the reduction of history to dichotomies such as tradition/modernity, East/West, or past/present.



On this basis, the article argues that the paradigm of Multiple Temporalities provides a productive theoretical framework for reinterpreting Iranian history. Many influential concepts in Iranian studies—including *Iranian despotism*, *decline*, *decadence*, *suspension*, *transition*, and even the opposition between tradition and modernity—have been shaped by one or the other of the two dominant historiographical paradigms and therefore remain insufficient for explaining the complexity of Iran's historical experience. Koselleck's framework makes it possible to analyze Iranian history neither exclusively through state-centered and rupture-oriented narratives nor solely through subaltern histories, but through the simultaneous interaction of diverse temporal, social, and conceptual layers. The Iranian Constitutional Revolution, for example, can be interpreted not merely as a political rupture or the product of specific social forces, but as the outcome of the convergence of economic crises, epidemics, conceptual transformations, social change, the lived experiences of different social groups, and the persistence of long-standing intellectual and political traditions. Such an interpretation enables scholars to move beyond Orientalist assumptions, reductionist explanations, and linear historical narratives.



Beyond its methodological contribution, the proposed framework also encourages a reconsideration of the relationship between historical experience and historical interpretation. Rather than privileging a single temporal horizon, it emphasizes the coexistence of heterogeneous temporal structures and multiple historical rhythms, thereby providing a more nuanced understanding of historical complexity, conceptual transformation, and the layered character of social and political change.



In conclusion, this study argues that the theory of Multiple Temporalities should be understood not merely as a model of historical temporality but as an alternative historiographical paradigm capable of overcoming many of the theoretical limitations shared by both the philosophy of history and critical history. By recognizing the coexistence of heterogeneous temporalities and the continuous interaction of multiple temporal layers, this paradigm reconceptualizes history as a dynamic, multilayered, and contextually grounded process, thereby opening new methodological horizons for conceptual history, historical sociology, and the reinterpretation of Iranian history.