This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: IRANIAN DISCOURSE And DIALOGUE M.Fatih Ş eyhano ğ lu * A. INTRODUCTION The ideas, Toynbee continuously insists on in his writing “A study of History”, that the civilizations are being predominated and destroyed and the globe’s becoming uni-cultural began to be mentioned by theorists who are close to USA government during post-cold war era. As known, the other civilizations came to have no right to survive due to the fact that USA retains hegemony all over the world now. Especially along with the globalization movement and depending on the unique dominance of one state, other cultures are gradually being replaced by consumer societies; the trend that the Westerners exactly want. Therefore, under the dominance of one power in the world, the term dialog remains an unpractical utterance that the defeated and/or the powerless uses. There can be no importance of talking either about dialog or confrontation in an environment in which only one power and civilization dominates. As Nietzsche indicates, the reality is something subjective; but who determines the reality is the powerful one. For this, we can only talk about attacks and suppress of a powerful civilization. In this way, I will try to explain the reasons why Iran cannot be a representative of the Islamic civilization. That the fact that Shia interpretation of Islam is the formal religion and that this sect is not so common in Islamic geography are the main factors why Iran couldn’t have been so influential on other Islamic states. I will also try to explain how influential the Persian culture has been on today’s Islamic culture and how this effect negatively influenced the struggles for dialogue. I will also be so concerned with the following topics; how the Kerbela-oriented thinking led them to make various mistakes, why they are unable to offer an alternative paradigm, why they are trying to be integrated into the international system, how Iran asserts itself with a kind of discourse of inter-civilizational dialogue while adopting a sort of realist-based foreign policy keeping their interests prior, especially Khatemi’s saying that Iran is the mere Islamic state that can undergo dialogue with the West and how consistent the * Graduate student International Relations Department at Fatih University. [email protected] 1 Iranian claim of being an intersecting point of the Eastern and Western cultures. Also, I will try to talk about how inconsistent the attribution of inter-civilizational dialogue to the Persian people. It is impossible for the universal values of Islam to reconcile with the ones of today’s modern nation-states. What’s more, the process of Islam’s being protestanized began with the initiation of the religionization of nation-states. In sum, modern nation-state cannot represent the universal values. With the modern states, the understanding of God has been reduced to a kind of simple special matter of nations. So that, with the Iran Islamic Revolution, modernism kind of simple special matter of nations....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 02/01/2012 for the course POLS 494 taught by Professor Garymoncrief during the Fall '11 term at Boise State.
- Fall '11
- The Land