This paper attempts to extend Ladislav Kesner and Richard Elbridge's insights toward collectivist explanation in art historiography in response to Branko Mitrovic's critique in “, Rage and Denials”, . A counterexample situation in architectural historiography is propounded to elucidate how a collectivist explanation in a moderate realist form is not only apt but, in some cases, inevitable. It relies on our primary claim, the possibility of some non-essentialist, nonideological, non-deterministic and non-egocentric collectivist explanations, regarding the main faults assigned to collectivist stances in art historiography by Branko Mitrovic. The Counterexample situation explains the possible actions not implemented and decisions not taken in designing a building. In addition to the choices that led to the final formulation of the artwork, one must also consider the other options available, those possible choices that were left out, to clarify feasible limitations and, conversely, the choices that led to the emergence of the work. Even considering that all final decisions merely result from chemical interactions in actors' brains, one cannot judge alternative options the same way, some of which did not even occur in the artist's mind or the network of agents involved. The repetition of dismissing these alternative options during a long-duré, e, thus the formation of a pattern, cannot be explained by the individualistic stance proposed by Mitrovic.

The constructive role of war in the life of human societies has led historical studies to provide multiple explanations of this social phenomenon. If we accept that this confusion and multiplicity of explanations is the result of historians' different epistemological perspectives, then recognizing the paradigmatic foundations of explanatory models will be the way to overcome this confusion. Based on this, the article seeks to explore the criteria determining the correct application of explanatory models in historical studies of war. If we assume that the social ontology of historians has methodological implications that are more compatible with an explanation model, then the problem of the article can be answered by formulating three paradigms of explanation in the historical studies of war. Based on the understanding paradigm, the application of the understanding model of explanation implies accepting the atomistic answer to the problem of agency and structure and denying the determining role of social structures in the occurrence of wars. In the deductive-nomological paradigm, the application of the covering law model of explanation will be correct only if the claim of holistic ontology on the determining role of social structures and culture is taken for granted. In the narrative paradigm, in order to explain wars as social phenomena, one must consider the agency and structure as overlapping dualities, with reference to structuration, and plot the narrative by taking into accout the two-way effect of social situations and the response of historical agents to the situation.

Many biologists believe that evolution is grant theory in modern biology. Believing on the centrality of evolutionary theory to the rest of biology is a special case of a more general idea: nothing in biology can be understood completely without attending to its history. According to this idea, we should regard biology as a historical science rather than a nomothetic one. But it may be supposed that as physics have been changed from a historical to nomothetic science, biology should also be changed to a more “accurate” science, that is, a nomothetic science. In this essay, I try to reject this idea by presenting some historical evidences to show that it is not because of evolutionary theory that biology is historical.

The relationship between Historical Sociology (HS) and International Relations (IR) is one of the relatively new fields of study, which has attracted the attention of researchers and activists of both fields during the last few decades. In other words, the impact of the international environment on internal developments is the basis for the emergence of this field of study with general titles such as International Historical Sociology (IHS) or Historical Sociology of International Relations (HSIR) during the first years or decade of the current century. The theoretical research on the book “Global Historical Sociology” (GHS), raises the question of whether it is possible to know global historical sociology as a conjuncture point between the mentioned fields of study. The authors of the book criticized this tenet as a transdisciplinary branch that includes three areas: World Sociology, Historical Sociology, and World History. The studies carried out show that ambiguity in the possibility of methodological integration of the fields of sociology and history on the one hand and neglecting the position of the state in global transformations or its overlapping with the newly emerging field of Global Studies causes the current deficiencies in the content and methodological coherence of the book. However, the mentioned attitude can be more carefully considered and developed in the future. In this article, it will be tried to express the strengths and weaknesses of this work with a critical view.

This research article examines legal discrimination against children born out of wedlock in Iran. Despite laws promoting equality, societal attitudes influenced by beliefs continue to result in discrimination. The study explores the reconciliation of religious beliefs with legal frameworks and the changes made to the Iranian legal system in response to positive human rights developments. The Article seeks to bridge the research gaps by comparing the experiences of Iranian children with those in other countries affected by Islamic law. The study employs library sources and descriptive and historical research methods to examine the legal status of children born outside of marriage, both nationally and internationally, and the discrimination they face. The Article is structured into four distinct sections: an analysis of Islamic Law, a review of the Iranian legal system, an assessment of Iran's compliance with international conventions, and a discourse on the necessity of substantial positive change. The Article ultimately recommends the eradication of discrimination through heightened awareness and the advancement of inclusivity for all children, irrespective of their lineage. In summary, this research Article aims to shed light on legal challenges faced by children born outside of marriage in Iran, with the goal of promoting positive changes in their treatment.

The subject of this paper is to explain the situation of hejab/Bi-hejab in contemporary Iran; whose main issue refers to the current situation of Iranian society. In the sense that the expansion in the scope and number of women and girls who are not compatible with the Islamic hejab can be explained. In this strategy, reality is studied in the light of theory and a kind of theory testing is done; the causal mechanisms in the theory are traced in the studied reality. we came to the conclusion that the general Bi-Hejabi common in current Iran It cannot be a dialectical result arising from the policies of the Islamic Republic. At the same time, the emergence of the Internet and the expansion of social networks in recent decades in Iran cannot be the basis of the answer to the problem analyzed in this research. It seems that a part of Iranian women have been moving towards westernization in terms of clothing since the era of “Naser al-Din Shah”; And what we are witnessing today can be the result of the said ongoing process so far. In general, this paper shows that Elias' theory of civilization has an acceptable efficiency in analyzing the behavior patterns of Iranians and revealing the hidden logic behind their changes. As a result, this article, while strengthening Elias's theory, confirms and suggests its application in the analysis and analysis of related issues in the context of Iranian society.

The era of Imam Sajjad’s (A) imamate was marked by severe oppression, during which the life of the Imam (A), his Shia followers, and even the survival of Shi‘ism faced serious danger. Through the practice of taqiyya (precautionary dissimulation), Imam Sajjad (A) succeeded in preserving both his own life and that of the Shia community while safeguarding and spreading the teachings of Shi‘ism in those perilous circumstances. By avoiding political conflicts, concealing his theological beliefs, and maintaining discreet communication with his followers away from the threat of persecution, the Imam (A) was able to achieve his goal. The hypothesis of this study is that Imam Sajjad (A), by employing political taqiyya, successfully led Shi‘ism through this fearful period unscathed. Drawing upon reports from early historical sources and using a descriptive–analytical method, this article seeks to explain and answer the question of why Imam Sajjad (A) adopted taqiyya. The finding demonstrates how the Imam protected both his own life and the continuity of Shi‘ism through the strategy of political taqiyya.