Suchergebnisse

Abstract
Iranian nationalism and its implications for historiography remains one of the more contested areas of study among scholars of Iran and most studies will make reference to it consciously or unconsciously in their discussion of continuity and change. Two broad schools of thought have emerged; one that is radically modernist in its approach, drawing on the ideas of Edward Said, while the other derives its inspiration from the Cambridge school and the field of hermeneutics. This impressive collection of essays suggests the former and excels at the latter, with diverse studies analyzing the origins of nationalist ideology and its successes and failures over the last century. Imbued with Enlightenment ideas, Iranian nationalism has yet to succeed in transforming itself from an ideology of state control to one of social emancipation as its founding fathers had hoped.

In August 2009, in the aftermath of the popular protests that followed the highly controversial elections of that year, the Iranian authorities arrested hundreds of intellectuals/activists and charged them with sedition against the state. What was more peculiar was the decision to accuse 'in absentia' a number of western intellectuals for their role in fomenting the crisis, not least the long deceased German sociologist Max Weber. Weber was publicly denounced for his analyses of patrimonialism and sultanism, and their capacity for change. In sum, Weber was being accused of providing the ideological blueprint for 'regime change'. This article looks at the way in which the concept of 'regime change' has been increasingly used as a political tool to suppress dissent within Iran and argues that far from being seditious, Weber's ideas remain more relevant today in Iran than they ever were. The prospect of 'regime change' remains more a product of the paradoxes of sultanism, than any threat-real or imagined-from abroad. Adapted from the source document.