Welcome to the Iran 1400 Project podcast, where we explore the
past, present, and possible futures of Iran through informed
dialogue, independent thought, and diverse voices.
From historical insight to emerging narratives, we connect
ideas to action in the pursuit of a more just, inclusive, and
forward-looking society. Join us as we rethink Iran's
trajectory, one conversation at a time.
Today we're embarking on, well, quite an exploration.
We're looking into Iran's intellectual traditions.
It's a story that's often misunderstood, I think, but it's
really revealing, tells us a lot about Iran's past, present, and
maybe its future too. We're going to try and untangle
some pretty complex ideas, uncover some surprising things,
all linked to Iran's civic destiny, really.
And our guide for this journey? It's an article from the Iran
1400 Project by Wafa Mostagim. What's really useful here is
that the article itself draws on the thinking of two very
distinguished scholars, Dr. Mehrzad Borgiardi and Doctor Ali
Mehr Sapasi. Right.
And our goal really is to give you a bit of a shortcut, a way
to understand how Iranian thought has wrestled with some
big things, maternity, identity, and, you know, the basic
question of what a just an inclusive society actually looks
like. Now, the scholars we're looking
at, they do have different takes on things, but what's key is
they both see this critical turning point in Iran after
1953, and crucially, both are calling for a renewed
intellectual tradition. 1 Based on What's the openness, civic
ethics, and public accountability?
OK, so to kick things off, let's tackle a core question.
What does it actually mean to be an intellectual in the Iranian
context this term? Rosenfecker.
And yeah, why does one of these scholars say they should be like
stones in the shoe? That sounds uncomfortable.
Well, this term Rosenfecker, in modern Iran, it carries specific
weight. It's definitely more than just,
say, a scholar or a specialist. The Rosenfecker is seen as a
creator of social thought. This is someone who is actively
interpreting history, critiquing them wounds of society, and
trying to envision ethical futures.
And the word itself, Rosenfecker, it has an
interesting background. Apparently it came into Persian
through Ottoman Turkish, and they got it directly from the
French intellectual, which, you know, became famous during the
Dreyfus affair back in the late 19 country France.
It meant public figures taking a moral stand.
Exactly. And Doctor Bergiardi, he really
expands on this. He argues an intellectuals job
isn't just commentary. It goes beyond that.
There's a deep moral responsibility, he says, to make
people think, to confront uncomfortable truths.
His analogy is pretty vivid. Intellectuals aren't like
restaurant waiters just serving up what the public wants.
No, there's stones in the shoe. They're meant to be agents of
discomfort, of disruption. So it's suggesting, yeah, a
challenging role, maybe an inconvenient one for public
thinkers. Right, a stone in the shoe.
So maybe think about that for a moment.
You listening? What does it really mean for
ideas to be disruptive? Not just comforting, it's quite
a metaphor. OK, so starting with that
definition, Brugiardi then points us to a specific
historical time. He talks about a kind of golden
age for Iranian intellectual life.
This period stretches from the 19 O 6 Constitutional Revolution
right up to the end of Reza Shah's reign in 1941.
And why golden age? Well, because this era saw the
rise of what he calls intellectual statesman.
These weren't just thinkers writing essays, they were
actively involved in building things, the legal system,
education, cultural institutions of modern Iran.
So the key insight is how ideas were directly translating into,
well, nation building. And we're talking about some
really big names here, people like Muhammad Ali.
For Rugi, he was a Prime Minister, a philosopher and
translated Western classics. Hugely important.
Then there's Ahmad Khazravi, a historian, a social critic, and
interestingly, he started out as a cleric.
Also Alamed Dakota, the famous lexicographer and satirist, and
Ali Akbar Davar, basically the founder of Iran's modern
judiciary. Plus Sade Hadiyat, the modernist
writer. That kind of existential voice.
His work still hits hard today. Yeah.
And what's really striking is how many of these figures, as
you mentioned, Khazravi, started in religious seminaries but then
fully embraced modernist ideals. It shows this incredible
synthesis, really, of tradition, modernity and their intellectual
energy was focused on building institutions, not just critique
for critique's sake. But this period, this time of
building foundations, it didn't last.
It was, well, brutally cut short.
Both Bruggerty and Mere Sapasi point squarely at the 1953 coup
that removed Prime Minister Mohammad Mostadeh.
They see this is a fundamental rupture.
It shattered that constitutional tradition, leading into an era
of repression and really deep intellectual disillusionment.
Right. And if you zoom out, what mostly
filled that vacuum and intellectually speaking was a
dominant nativist trend, or you could call it a counter
enlightenment discourse, Its main features a deep suspicion
of modernity, of liberalism, of Western influence in general.
And this current, it drew a quite a bit of inspiration from
certain European thinkers, people like Martin Heidegger,
his critiques of technology, irrationalism, they kind of
resonated with this feeling of cultural alienation.
And maybe Friedrich Nietzsche too, you know, his questioning
immorality, his emphasis on the will to power can be read as
rejecting those universal liberal values.
Basically they saw Western ideas like democracy and development
as, I don't know, spiritually empty or even culturally
poisonous. And the shift in thinking
brought new figures to the forefront.
People like Ahmad Fardeeb, the philosopher who actually coined
that term, garbzadegi. It means something like West
toxication or West struckness. Then Jalal Ali Ahmad, who really
popularized Garbzadegi, made it a household term, almost.
He painted Western influences, the sort of spiritual disease
eating away at Iranian identity. You also had Ali Shariati, who
blended Islamic ideas with revolutionary thought, pushing
for a kind of purified, socially active Islam, and Sayed Hossein
Nasser. Promoting Islamic metaphysics is
the real alternative to secular modernity.
Oh, and even earlier there was Fakhruddin and Shadman, another
cultural critic who coined Ferangi ma ABI, which is sort of
similar meaning like blind imitation of the West.
Yes, and Musa Pasi, he has a particularly sharp take on this
whole current. He describes it as being driven
by resentment and he explicitly links it to the European counter
Enlightenment. He even suggests, quite
provocatively, that this line of thinking, and it's more extreme
versions, actually underpinned fascist ideologies in Europe.
And he points to Heidegger's own deeply troubling association
with Nazism as a kind of warning sign.
It illustrates what can happen, he argues, when you elevate
cultural purity or authenticity above critical reason and, you
know, pluralism. So you really see this profound
change, don't you? The intellectual focus shifts
from building concrete institutions to mainly
critiquing these big concepts, modernity, the West.
But amidst all this, the sources we're drawing on introduce
someone who's often overlooked a really surprising figure.
Yeah, we're talking about Abdul Baha.
He lived quite a while ago, 1844 to 1921.
What makes him stand out is that he was articulating principles
of what you might call ethical modernity way before they became
common currency and say, reformist circles.
Later on, he offers this unique thread.
It's actually quite remarkable when you look at the principles
he was promoting back then, things that sound incredibly
current today, like gender equality, universal education,
the idea that science and religion can be in harmony, not
conflict. Also international cooperation,
peace, and crucially, the separation of religion and
politics. I mean, these were pretty
radical ideas for his time anywhere in the world, let alone
in that context. Right.
And he wasn't just writing about this stuff in isolation.
He actually gave public talks during travels in Europe and
North America around 1911 to 1913, and in those talks he was
directly tackling many of the concerns that Iranian modernist
would debate much later. It shows this real global
engagement. Which does raise an interesting
question. Why was he mostly left out of
Iran's mainstream secular intellectual story?
Maybe it was his religious identity, the Baha'i faith, or
the political marginalization of that community.
But whatever the reason, his contributions really represent a
distinctively Iranian voice, engaging with global
Enlightenment ideas, proposing solutions to modern problems
from within that specific cultural context.
It's kind of like finding this hidden current of thought, isn't
it? A real aha moment, maybe for
understanding the bigger picture of Iranian thinking.
OK, so moving from this fascinating sort of sideline
figure, let's jump forward again to the period after the 1979
Islamic Revolution. Now, that revolution promised
liberation, but ultimately it ended up exposing what Bergeri
bluntly calls the intellectual bankruptcy of that dominant
nativist tradition. The outcome, as we know, was
authoritarianism and from any deep disillusionment.
True, but even within that sense of crisis, both Brujourdi and
Mitsapasi see significant signs of intellectual renewal starting
to emerge. For instance, you see the rise
of religious intellectualism, thinkers like Kativar, Shabba
Stari doing really profound work rethinking theology from within.
There's also been a noticeable growth in investigative
journalism and of course, a much more vibrant public discussion
online, plus better access to Western philosophical texts than
before. And maybe most importantly, a
kind of public rethinking of identity itself, seeing it as
inherently hybrid, you know, embracing the pre Islamic parts,
these log parts and the modern influences rather than feeling
forced to choose one exclusive heritage.
And Musepasi, he specifically calls for a return to what he
terms democratic modernity. He actually points to the
American philosopher John Dewey as a really good model here.
Dewey's pragmatism, his focus on civic education, it shaped this
kind of hopeful, engaged public philosophy, one that really
champions individual agency, pluralism and strong civic
ethics. It feels like a deliberate
contrast to the sort of resentment and disillusionment
that took hold after 53. Absolutely.
And this is where Bougherty and Musepasi really come together.
Yeah. Despite their different nuances,
both focus intensely on that post 1953 break in the
discourse. They both offer strong critiques
of the intellectual trends that followed.
Perusherity focuses on maybe a kind of moralistic shallowness
he sees, while Mir Sipasi, as we said, draws those provocative
parallels to European counter Enlightenment and even fascist
ideologies. But crucially, they both
envision futures rooted in something new.
Whether it's Burgiardi's call for a civic maturity and
embracing that hybrid identity or Merci Pasi's democratic
modernity, the shared message seems to be move past those
counter Enlightenment frameworks.
Reclaim an ethical, public thought that's grounded in real,
active civic agency. OK, so let's try and connect
this whole intellectual story, this whole arc, to something
very current, which is the emergence of a new civic
generation in Iran today. This is something other articles
in the Year on 1400 project explore as well.
Yes, and the way this generation is described is quite telling.
They're often seen as post ideological.
They're digitally connected obviously, and seem very
ethically driven. They appear to be rejecting both
the old extremes in a nostalgia for the monarchy and the current
theocratic authoritarianism. They seem to be looking for
something else entirely. And what they emphasize seems
different too. Things like honesty over just
repeating slogans, participation instead of polarization, and
demanding dignity over rigid dogma.
It feels very grounded, like a demand for practical ethical
change from the bottom up. It really does.
And that's a stark contrast to those earlier periods we
discussed. You had the intellectual
statesman shaping institutions from the top down.
Later you had thinkers calling for democratic civic ideals.
Maybe more abstractly, this new wave, it seems different.
They appear to be building from the ground up through things
like mutual aid networks, online activism, local community
initiatives. And this is where it gets really
interesting. You see those ideals we
mentioned from Abdul Baha, things like consultation,
truthfulness, service, kind of reappearing.
But, and this is key, not really as theology, more as a practical
civic ethos, How people should treat each other, how
communities should function. It's a fascinating example of
ideas finding new life in a totally new contest.
So as we wrap up this deep dive, it's pretty clear, isn't it?
Iran's intellectual tradition isn't some straight line.
It's not static at all. It's this dynamic, constantly
evolving thing, always adapting to new realities, new
challenges. I think that's exactly right.
The big take away here might be that Iran's intellectual future
probably doesn't lie in looking backward, whether it's nostalgia
or rigid ideology. Instead, it seems to be emerging
in this new ethic, an ethic of inquiry, of participation, and,
crucially, of moral imagination. The tradition is still alive,
you could say, not maybe an old doctrines, but in this
continuing, evolving search for justice and truth adapted for
today. And here's a really provocative
thought to leave you with. This comes straight from the
source material we've been discussing.
The train of thought has not stopped, it has changed tracks.
And perhaps, ultimately, what comes next depends less on what
systems or ideologies might collapse, and far more on what
rises to take its place. Thank you for listening to the
Iran 1400 Project podcast. The Iran 1400 Project invites
scholars, experts, and and intellectuals to share their
assessment of the evolution of institutions and ideas during
the past 100 years to inspire a vision of Iran in the 1400s.
If you found today's episode thought provoking, be sure to
subscribe, share, and continue the conversation.
For more content and upcoming events, visit iran1400.org.
Until next time, stay engaged, stay informed, and stay hopeful.