We are engaged in the training of confused intellectuals

According to Salimi: "It is not possible to solve the problem, and for this reason we are engaged in educating confused intellectuals in some fields; An intellectual who is familiar with all kinds of ideas, he himself does not know where to apply many of these ideas or if they will benefit anyone, and he enters the society.

Iran's Arjan Ambassador's Religion and Thought Service (Ambassador Arjan) - Mohsen Azmoudeh, Reza Dastjardi; Political knowledge or political science in Iran has little connection with the practical field of politics and the reality of politics. Researchers and scientists of political science, if not to say nothing, at least play a very little role in political decisions and planning, while political science is a practical science that observes real changes and developments, and political science should be used to plan public affairs and good and public interest in the city (police). Why is this? What is going on in our political science faculties and departments? What do political science students and graduates learn? How relevant is what they learn to what is going on in practice?

Hossein Salimi is a political science researcher and a professor at the Department of International Relations at Allameh Tabatabai University since 2003. He is also the author and translator of many works in the field of political thought and theory. Recently, the book "Hermeneutics and Knowledge of Global Relations" written by him has been published by Qomes Publishing House. On this occasion, we hosted him at Safir Arjan to discuss the relationship between theory and practice in politics.

The primary reason for the discussion is the publication of your new book, "Hermeneutics and Knowledge of Global Relations", and especially the discussion of the introduction of new theories in the field of political science and international relations to Iran, which, as I remember, I think, began in the early seventies. In the discussion we had before the start of the conversation, you mentioned that the universities were reopened after 1362; Some professors, such as Dr. Abbas Milani and Dr. Seyed Javad Tabatabai, as well as old professors, came to the universities and raised a new generation of students, of which you are also part of the same generation. After the war and in the early seventies, the space was a little more open and a series of new views and theories, as well as new schools of thought and schools were introduced, and all of these were proposed in philosophy, political science and sociology.

Since you yourself are one of the authors of these works and their consumers, please give a background and tell us what basically happened when our political science became familiar with new theories and went to them and people like Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, post-structuralists and Baudrillard? And were those previous currents, which were mainly dominated by a kind of orthodox left, ineffective? Or was it because the international environment had changed and our communication had increased, or because of the failures that existed, as well as migration or the removal of leftists from the university? Or at all, as Habermas says, was it a kind of conservatism that hid its political science behind these theories? In general, what happened that brought these debates to the space of our political sciences?

Your question is very wide-ranging and we can talk about it for hours; But the nature of studying in the field of politics and international relations has been the same since the beginning, even in the context of its original origin, for example, in the nineteenth century in Europe. In the 19th century in Europe, when you see that positivism is growing and in the late 19th century, it gradually enters the field of politics and international relations and creates scientific departments, at the same time, serious criticism of these scientist attitudes and the new scientific tradition that is born in Europe is also going on. For example, in the second half of the 19th century, at the same time that scientism trends entered most departments and universities in the world, you also see hermeneutic traditions, and at the same time you see the foundations of things that later become critical theories. At the same time, there are also Marxist criticisms in Europe of that day and even in American departments.

The mistake that many people make in evaluating the scientific environment in the field of social studies and politics is that they think that, for example, with the rise of scientism, everyone suddenly became a scientist, while this was not the case. At the same time as the scientists, very serious and thoughtful criticisms occurred in many times.

It is the same in Iran. In Iran, when social studies and politics were formed as knowledge, there was not much scientific tradition in it from the beginning. For example, in the field of politics, we had more political law courses in schools such as the School of Political Science, which is one of the first academies in Iran, and the Law School of Tehran University. Even, for example, in the educational certificates that were given in the sixties. They did not write political law or political science, they wrote political science. Because basically, they considered politics to be born from the field of administrative law and public law. It is interesting that until 1955 or 1956, political graduates could also obtain a lawyer's license. That is, they studied law and administrative law courses. For example, even in the sixties when we were students, the amount of legal lessons was still high.

Later, with the cooperation of the late Enayat and people such as the late Dr. Razavi and Dr. Qasim Iftikhari, a scientific trend was formed in the field of politics. But it is interesting that this scientific current, despite the fact that these people tried to separate themselves from the left current, was influenced by the left current, especially the new critical theory. When we see the curricula of that time, we see this dominance.

However, the development and consolidation of the field of political science as a general field was related to the post-revolution era. For example, at the beginning of the revolution, we did not have more than 100 to 150 political science students in public universities; And it was only Tehran University, or other places, there was Tabriz, Shahid Beheshti University, and in Ferdowsi and these they also took a small number of students, but there was no other place; And they took exactly the same number of students that the executive systems, such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the like, needed.

As I said, it was after the revolution that the field of political science was established and its plans were written. At the same time, those who went to the Cultural Revolution Council and set the programs were mostly graduates of German universities, especially the leftist universities of the country. For this reason, the curriculum that was compiled after the Cultural Revolution is a completely left-wing curriculum, and you can see the spirit of neo-Marxist attitudes everywhere, including the syllabi. Even the title of the Iranian history lesson is all about the class struggle in Iran, the comprador bourgeoisie, understanding the nature of imperialism, or, for example, the problems of the third world.

At that time, there was a revolutionary mood in the country.

The revolutionary mood also likes this. But well, this process was completely left-wing and the shadow of Marxism fell on it. To some extent, the post-revolutionary atmosphere demanded this trend that the attitudes that criticize the modern movement in general, should be more attention of the academy.

A generation of those who later became Iranian professors went to France and studied during this period. Like Mr. Tabatabai and many others, or the newer generation of Dr. Tabatabai. French universities did not take money; It was easier to go there, and naturally, those who went from Iran to France would find ideas that were critical of modernism; Especially those like Foucault who came to Iran twice during the revolution and wrote admirable articles about the Iranian revolution. Naturally, the students who went to this country were very attracted to these figures. When these characters returned to Iran and started to compile curriculums, they somehow felt that maybe these ideas are beyond modernism, even if they are leftist; Newer lefts influenced by critical theory could be more influential.

Besides these, there are some who went to Germany and got acquainted with the newer generation of German philosophy. These people brought a tradition to Iran, which was again a critique of modernism, but from the perspective of German philosophy, which is associated with Nietzsche, Heidegger, Gadamer and others. These seemed attractive for the environment of the academy in Iran. Maybe in my opinion, it was a bit early.

You mentioned the processes in the West and Europe. If we base it on the fact that in the 19th century, the main current was scientism or positivism and was optimistic about Enlightenment beliefs, other currents entered critically and later became dominant in some periods and dominated their power; But here we went more critical from the very beginning. You mentioned some names, Mr. Dr. Iftikhari, Dr. Alam, or Dr. Razavi, who tried to introduce us to a series of ideas of modernists such as Montesquieu, Boden, and the like, who were the founders of political science; But in general, it seems that the current was a critical current.

exactly That is, the mainstream had not yet fully entered our academic environment, which we went to criticize; For example, in the field of methodology and method, which is one of the works that I follow professionally, Iranian academies have not yet learned the methods of experimental science, they went to theories that fundamentally beat the theories of experimental science. While one must first learn and apply the theories of experimental science; Then see what is its defect; And therefore, a kind of exaggeration was created in this field.

After a while, from the mid-seventies onwards, we see that some people have become extreme scientists; That is, if you do not use the statistics and methods of precise experimental science and hypothesizing, you are not a scientist. Some people said that these are all outdated positivisms and we should go to interpretation, hermeneutics, post-structuralism and the like in order to enter the new environment of global thinking. And such polarization was formed that both of them were somewhat premature.

What was the consequence of this delay and negligence?

Its consequences are just like picking unripe fruits, if you eat them, you may suffer from physical problems. For this reason, experimental scientific methods and scientific tradition in the knowledge of politics and many trends in social sciences and international relations have not been properly formed. We still see that many of our professors are not familiar with the axioms and basic principles of scientific methods and their application in the field of politics and international relations; And that's why when graduates leave university, they don't have the basic problem-solving tool, the use of scientific methods. This is a consequence.

Another consequence is that critical tendencies, interpretationist, interpretative attitudes and the like remain only at the level of criticism; That is, to say what is not good, and leave the human being, the graduate and the supporter, in a confused atmosphere. Okay, these are not good. We now want to be influential for the intellectual or practical environment of our time. what to do This incomplete understanding, this bad understanding; How can we have a positive understanding that can help our society? Because thinking in the field of politics and international relations is not only a matter for inside the book; It must have a social effect. The social effect of this process is pure rejection, and this leaves the human being, the graduate and the intellectual that we train, in a confused atmosphere, that if you ask him, "What is your influence?", he will say: "My influence is to reject and invalidate these." What to do now? This constant question "What should be done?" It remains unanswered.

Another characteristic of political science after the revolution, which many people point to, is the emphasis on thought; Now when you talk to most political science students and graduates, they are full of theories and names; They have read many books and know different philosophers, but it seems that political science is not only thought. The professors you mentioned are generally professors of political thought, such as Dr. Bashirieh and Tabatabai, and they are mostly political philosophers. What has been the result of this predominance of thought?

I accept your word. We have experienced two phenomena or complications inside. One of the reasons for the dominance of thought was the weakness of the method I mentioned. Of course, among the people I mentioned, Dr. Iftikhari tried very hard to implement the scientific method, and I can truly say that among the two or three generations of current professors of political science, he was the one who implemented the scientific attitude and methods, but again, this did not become a tradition; It means a method that can solve the problem and have application. It didn't become mainstream; And a large number of students and professors in the fields of political science, international relations, regional studies, etc. have entered the universities, which naturally could not deal with practical issues, and these sought refuge in the field of thought and thought; It is mostly because of the attraction it has for the mentality of us Iranians, especially the youth. In this regard, they say that for Iranians, like Germans, abstract and mental topics are more attractive. Even now in classes, if you want to tell the theoretical background of a discussion, it is so attractive to everyone and they continue that the introduction may make us not reach the main point.

The nature of universities in Iran has also been influential. I will give an example. I had gone to one of the universities in England for a study opportunity. I asked a PhD student there, what do you think about the English school? He didn't know anything about it. Then, I asked one of the prominent members of the English school in that faculty, who was my professor, why they don't know these things? He said: Why should he know about the English school? He is working on the political economy of Dubai, and a company that wants to invest there has paid for that problem to be solved in the form of a doctoral thesis. This student is also working on his thesis to solve the problem of that company, and to have a research experience to get his doctorate and later go to work there. Why should he know English school? In response, I said, in Iran, if someone does not know these schools, he will not find the necessary legitimacy to go and solve the problem somewhere.

The nature of the university elsewhere is such that they put an issue in the middle; You do your PhD thesis to solve it, when you solve it, you get your PhD and start working in the same field. But when the university here does not have such a nature, when you enter, you have to leave the university like an encyclopedia or a collection of different knowledge, so that when you enter the society, you will see if parts of this collection are useful or not. As I said, in the fields of method, even the methods derived from new intellectual trends, such as interpretivism, discourse, etc., because in the field of method, there is still a serious methodological poverty in universities, it is not possible to solve the problem, and for this reason, we are engaged in training lost intellectuals in some fields; An intellectual who is familiar with all kinds of ideas, he himself does not know where to apply many of these ideas or if they will benefit anyone, and he enters the society.

We talked about university and academy, but look at this side as well. If a student goes to a university that actually teaches him work, outside the university, how much do decision-making and policy-making institutions use the achievements or efficiency and skills of the graduate?

This is what I mean by the nature of the university. In other parts of the world, if a university cannot attract its money and credits in this way, that university will disappear altogether. University is an institution that attracts credits and needs of society. Why are the world's leading universities outstanding? Because they have very good teachers? not only Have very good students? Yes, why, they also have good students? Because there are big institutions that invest. Well, naturally, the most prominent students in the world come there and attract funds; And it solves their problem. This is why, for example, Harvard and MIT are important.

This also leads to criticism. They say that this is how universities become agents of other departments.

This is also true, he creates an added value for these universities that the most important critics of modernism and even the modern university in this way are getting paid and working in the same universities. But here, where we only channel the oil money and allocate it to teachers' salaries, etc., it is natural that the existing results are extracted from it. It means that no one has the skills to solve problems for the society. Solving the problem that I am talking about is not only technocratic and bureaucratic, it is also solving the intellectual problem of the society, we find problem solving skill in it; And on the one hand, even we have this demand from the humanities to become like engineers, which never happens, and on the other hand, we take it in the direction of becoming a lost thinker.

Of course, it is not desirable for you to become like engineers. is it true

It is not possible at all. The same book "Hermeneutics and Knowledge of Global Relations" that we are talking about is because it shows that in principle, humanities and social sciences cannot be artistic in this way, but they can solve problems in this situation.

But then, there are also strategists like Kissinger or Farid Zakaria, who, although they are not thinking people in that sense, but as advisors or policymakers, they are next to the decision-making bodies. You mentioned the economy, but how much does it relate to the political structure that really wants to use a scientist and a scholar of political science in its decisions?

It completely goes back to the structure and institution of science in Iran. When we train scientists of political science and international relations, do we want them to be ambassadors of certain ideas and problem solvers? Do we want critical thinkers to criticize everything? What do we want to do?

These functions can come out of the university in any way and in any field; But because various institutions, both investors and policy makers, are undecided in this field, our professors and students in the university are left in a state of abandonment, and finally the flow of ideology, serious criticism, or promotion of a particular point of view comes out of it. The process of solving the problem has not been seriously formed yet. Now, some people think that the arrival of ideas that criticize modernism, such as interpretivism and poststructuralism, fueled this process.

Let's go back to our main discussion. You were mostly a critic of this trend, while you yourself are among the participants and perpetrators of the ideological trend, especially critical thoughts.

My opinion is that by the way, these ideas do not want to avoid solving the problem at all. In this book, I have quoted a sentence from Gadamer that says: "Whether we like it or not, new science is advancing on all fours; Whether I like it or not, whether I criticize it or not." But with these views, we want to say that there are things in the world of politics and international relations, there are other things that we cannot understand with these sciences, and by the way, it is very important in the process of understanding the problem and solving the problem.

Let's take an example from the facts. Now the whole world is talking about Iran's nuclear case. If these mentalities that modern knowledge and modern international relations have given us, that these things happen in the action and reaction between big and medium powers, and this scientific realist attitude to international relations, suddenly cause an issue like Iran's nuclear issue to stand out in the world. Interpretive methods say to get out of this mold a little. Is this really the main problem of the world, or is it that one-fifth of the world's people are dying of hunger today? Why is this crisis not seen? What is the mentality, structure of consciousness and meaning on me, a politician or a diplomat in the world today, that has caused me not to see it and this has become so prominent in my mind and become the main issue of the world? These happen to be solving a bigger problem.

In today's world, isn't the problem that half of the world's population, namely women, lives under violence, the problem of our world? Instead, whether or not this country has reached the threshold of nuclear weapons is too important to become the central issue of our world. What is awareness? Interpretivist methods say to return from this framework of modern thinking and action; Come out and take a look at the structure of consciousness in your mind that drives you to approach things this way. You have to rethink it, to bring to the text what is marginalized, and to marginalize what is in the text, according to Richard Ashley and Walker, who are two of the postmodern writers in this field. These are also inviting us to solve the problem.

In Iran, the use of these new trends is a part of what you said: wandering intellectuals full of mentality, thought, concepts, ideas, etc.; Another use is the type of resistance axis. That is, in the continuation of the post-colonial debates, just to attack the system of global imperialism. You say that these ideas can mostly be used to change the way we think about all political issues. How can this happen?

It seems to me that if these new thought trends are placed in the context of interaction with new issues and the possibility of exchanging opinions between this new thought flow and the flow of action, both bureaucratic and official action in the field of politics and critical action in the field of politics, then synthesis will gradually be born from within the dialectic between these. Look, for example, professors have long meetings with diplomats for ten or twelve years now. Of course, it really had little effect; Because our diplomats have formed their mentality and structure of consciousness in this realist framework in which modern thought has emerged, and regardless of that, they do not understand diplomatic approach. While many of our professors say that you should shake yourself from this structure of consciousness and understand the world in a different way; And according to Alexander Wendt, if you understand the world in a different way, your world will become a different world. The world is what you perceive it to be. If our world has become an anarchic world in today's form, it is because politicians, governments and governments understand it this way; If they understand the world differently, the world will be different. This dialectical flow must be formed in our society to understand in a different way.

You mentioned concepts like imperialism and the like. You are right. Many political activists still think based on frameworks that have Marxist roots and have nothing to do with Islam. They see the world from a Marxist perspective; It means domination relations based on capitalism and exploitation; Exactly the Leninist reading of Marx. The new trends say to get out of yourself a little bit, look at yourself and the structure of your consciousness, see if this solves everything or if it also needs to be revised.