NAMEH-YE-MOFID
Year:2003 | Volume:8 | Issue:4 (32 POLITICAL SCIENCE)|Papers Count:13

Political culture is no doubt one of the controversial concepts in political science, so that, despite half a century of its emergence, theorizing and dialogue on the concept are still going on. Boundaries and scope of the meaning, scientific explanation, ability, factors influencing the emergence, continuity and change of political culture, its implications for the political structure, change and stability are the main themes that are still subject to discussion and debate. The issues of concern for the present paper relate to the history of conceptual and theoretical development of political culture. But an attempt is made to examine the collection of ideas on the basis of certain criteria in order to determine the strong and weak points of each theory. The more important criteria of such kind are:1) Attitude toward the concept of "culture" and politics;2) Level of analysis in examining political culture;3) Advantages and weaknesses in research and explanation;4) Change of political culture.Thus while undertaking a historical study, the arguments of both proponents and opponents of each theory and even the emergence of new theories are presented. Finally, the status and relevance of each theory in the conceptual and theoretical development of the concept become rather clear through a comparative study on the basis of above criteria.

ljtihad as a discourse, i.e. a regulated framework within which the practical precepts of shi’i political life are produced and unified - is the subject of this paper. This historical apparatus is born in the rationalistic environment of the fourth and fifth hijrat centuries and gradually gained a focal point through an evolutional process.Analyzing overt and hidden rules governing this discourse has been subject to archeological analysis to which a section of this article is dedicated. In another section, the relation of ljtihad to the social context surrounding it is studied and the impossibility of its abstraction from the structure and power relations is argued.In the final section, its formal development in contemporary era and the emergence of rival and parallel sub-discourses from within and also the critical attitudes toward it are discussed.

For the first time, Karl Manheim put ideology and utopia in unique framework - sociology of knowledge. But Ricoeur's analysis in this article is more philosophical. Ideology and utopia, according to him, are two expressions of social imaginary.The author considers three levels for the two above concepts, and tries to panalize the levels of each concept with each other.To avoid pathologic forms of ideology and utopia, Ricoeur concludes, it is necessary to give correct function of ideology to utopia and it seems impossible except by the dialectical relation between the two concepts.

In this article some aspects of church - state relationship in western countries have been discussed. The position of the church in society has been changed historically. This process has been greatly influenced by the capitalism, modernity and secularization. So, we can find three different reactions to this development: affirmative approach in Christian theology that accepts advanced capitalism uncritically, reformist approach that demands some revision, and refutationist that radically advocate overall revision of state’s structure.Also, the author explains why and how church can no longer be a legitimate source of contemporary state in the West. Finally, he talks about the potentialities of the changing situation and its impact on church’s relations with society and institutions of civil society.

According to shi’a doctrine, Imam Ali (P.u.h.) and his eleven infallible descendants are appointed to lead the Islamic community after the holy Prophet (p.u.h.) and Muslims are obligated under Shari’at to follow and obey them; but this does not imply that the infallible leaders (p.u.h.) are allowed to establish a government through resorting to whatever means, even coercion and violence against the people. Only with the consent and support of the people are they obliged to establish Islamic government. In other words, the infallible Imams (p.u.h), despite being appointed by God to lead the community, the exercise of their authority is subject to the consent and will of the majority of the people.

Between the two intellectual periods of classic (before Augustine) and modem (before Renaissance) there is a long time space of a thousand years, which is named by many as dark age, and also known as the domination of theology over reason. A serious and critical deliberation, however, refutes this one-sideness. The first political philosopher of the period is Augustiue who considered understanding as the reward of faith. Apart from Augustine, as a prominent theological philosopher, there were in the same period, Averroes and Averroesians who vigorously defended rationalism against fedeism and considered philosophical deliberations as religiously obligatory. Thomas Aquinas undertook the coordination of these two extremes and systematically drew the boundaries between reason and revelation, religion and state, God and man. But these contrasts and interactions did not mean that there were no other philosophers engaged in the debate. William of Ockham is among the prominent political philosophers who avoided the employment of science and faith before reason and identified the church tyranny as the refutation of Christianity.To Ockham, Christianity is a religion of mercy and what the church authorities did in restricting reason and degrading human being contradicted the holy scripture. The present paper examines part of Ockham’s efforts and views in standing against despotism and the absolute monarchy of the Pope. The author argues that Ockham’s ideas and opinions in the 14th century played a distinct role in the formation of modem thought and the transcendence of reason over faith.