Orientalism and Occidentalism in Iranian Culture

This panel was compiled by the Conference Program Team from independently submitted paper proposals


Presentations

by /

Simantov Melamed, is an Iranian Jewish scholar who symbolizes the cultural integration of Iranian Jews into Greater Khorasan, many of whom had been speaking the Iranian language since the 10th century. Melamed, born in the city of Yazd towards the end of the 18th century, is the successor of those Jews who had fled from the forced conversions of the Safavid era (1620-1690s).
Having spent his youth in Herat, serving as a teacher and religious Judge (Dayan), Melamed moved to Mashhad towards the end of his life, where he became the spiritual leader of the Jewish community and his fame reached beyond the borders of Mashhad to Bokhara and other far away communities. The date of his death is uncertain, but it is certain that he was dead by the time of the massacre of Jews in Mashhad in 1839, possibly between 1799 to 1826.
Melamed’s major work Ḥayat al Ruḥ (the Eternity of the Soul), which is approximately 8,000 lines, prose and verse, was edited and published in 1905 in Jerusalem, in Judeo-Persian. A study of his different works, demonstrates that he was a well versed as a writer, poet and translator, with extensive knowledge in Judaism, and religious sources as well as some basic education in general philosophy and Jewish thought.
Ḥayat al Ruḥ, is a compilation of ethical speeches combined with philosophical explanations of Judaic scholars, and verses of poetry or prose in the manner of Iranian literary masters. Having quoted a verse from the Quran as well as many Iranian literary and ethical sources, one can assume that he was familiar with the works of Iranian literary masters like Sa ‘di and Hafez.
The ethical, theological and philosophical parts of the book, as embellished rhythmic, rhymed prose, remind us of the Golestan of Sa ‘di or the writings of Khajeh Abd Allah Ansari, while the verse parts in the form of Ghazal, Qasdieh, couplets and Qta‘a, reflect his Iranian literary sophistication.
Among the Judaic sources, his work directly refers to the works of Maimonides and Bahya Ibn Paquda the Jewish scholar of Saragossa, Spain.
While the mystical theme of Ḥayat al Ruḥ, concentrates on a means to reach the final stage of unification with Eternity, the author’s personal advice and comments, reflect his socio-intellectual status as a Jew and his concern about the gradual reduction of his community’s overall religious identity in the Diaspora.

by /

The most important feature distinguishing the god Mithra from other gods is his appearance in different religious traditions of the ancient world. The god Mithra is seen firstly in the Vedic tradition, later appears in the Avestan texts and Persian royal inscriptions, and ultimately emerges as the focus of a mystery cult in the Roman Empire. The dilemma over Mithra’s origin and his transmission from one culture to another offers another enigmatic query in Mithraic studies.
For many years, Mithraic scholars studied Roman Mithraic archeological remains with an understanding based on Iranian sources such as the Avestan texts, the royal inscription and the Pahlavi literature. However, as of the1970s, new studies took ancient Greco-Roman astrology into consideration. This has largely challenged the previously held idea of the mystery cult of Mithra having oriental origins. As a result of this new scholarly approach, Classicists now understand the Mystery cult of Mithras in the Roman Empire as a celestial religion with a complex cosmology, similar to the mystery cults of Cybele or Isis.
Yet among Iranologists the main emphasis has remained on interpreting and grasping the cultic features of the Roman Mithraism based on the Iranian creation myth and mythology. In fact, Iranologists have even altered their interpretations of the Iranian sources to match with the Roman archeological remains of the cult in some cases. This situation, since the 70s, simply reflects the fact that there has not been an effective communication link between the Iranologists and Classicists. Now, after 40 years, remodeling the methodology of Mithraic studies seems necessary in order to bridge the gap between the Iranologist studies and the works of Mithraic scholars.
This paper surveys the dominant trends in Mithraic studies over the past century. It also examines the dialectic between theory and the historical contexts cultivating it. This is an endeavor to deconstruct the history of Mithraic studies in order to discover what set of socio-political discourses have encouraged these methodologies and theoretical approaches. What are the key concepts in Mithraic studies, and how are they constructed? What are the main directions of Mithraic studies and why?

by /

The prominence of travelogues as a useful heuristic source for the study, exploration and understanding of processes of identity formation, performance and transformation and conceptualization of various forms of Self-Other relations has been on the rise in the field of International Relations (IR). However, most of the studies that use travelogues as a heuristic source to explore such issues as power, knowledge and identity are European travelogues. In particular, Tzvetan Todorov’s The Conquest of America has been a predominant source for the conceptualization of various forms of Self-Other relations and processes of identity formation, performance and transformation in IR. While within the fields of literature and cultural studies a rise in the number of studies of non-European travelogues is perceptible, only the analysis of European travelogues have so far informed the conceptualizations of various forms of Self-Other relations in the discipline of IR. The problem with the prevalence of European travelogues, and in particular Todorov’s work, as the source for the conceptualization of various forms of Self-Other relations is the implicit extrapolation of European experiences to universal experiences and the exclusion of other – non-European – experiences and forms of Self-Other relations. This paper explores other forms of Self-Other relations through the study of Muhammad Ibrahim’s travelogue, the Safina’i Sulaimani. In 1685 Ibrahim travelled as a member of the Safavid diplomatic envoy to Siam and encountered during his journey various peoples with whom he interacted. Through the deconstructive analysis of the text of his travelogue, I reveal in this paper the author’s politics of identification of the self and the others, the various categories he uses to make sense of the others and his experiences of difference, and the hierarchy that he establishes between these others in relation to the position of the self. Through this deconstruction of Ibrahim’s politics of the identification of the self and the others I explore his various ways of othering and how they contribute to the conceptualization of alternative forms of self-other relations and challenge at the same time the contemporary mode of thinking and conceptualization of forms of self-other relations.

by /

ذبیح بهروز و «ضد شرق‌شناسی»
داریوش رحمانیان
سویه‌های مهمی از تاریخ اندیشه در ایران روزگار جدید و معاصر نکاویده مانده است. از آن میان یکی چگونگی مواجهه ایرانیان با شرق‌شناسی است. باید پرسید که اندیشه‌گران و نخبگان ایرانی با ذهنیت شرق‌شناسانه چگونه برخوردی کردند؟ روایت شرق‌شناسان در آگاهی و شناخت و فهم ایرانیان از تاریخ و فرهنگ و کیستی خود چگونه آثاری برجای نهاد؟
در یک تقسیم‌بندی مقدماتی می‌توان گفت که برخورد فرهیختگان ایرانی با ذهنیت و روایت شرق‌شناسی سه شکل کلی داشته است: گروهی همدل و همراه؛ گروهی مخالف و معترض؛ و برخی نیز ترکیبی ازین دو گرایش بوده اند. البته این دسته‌بندی کلی است و بنابراین نمی‌توان بدون پرداختن به نمونه های جزئی و خاص ادعای دقت مطلق داشته داشت.
در میان محققان جدید نسل اول ایران کسانی که در گروه نخست جای می‌گیرند در اکثریتند. از آن میان می‌توان کسانی چون علامه قزوینی، تقی‌زاده، اقبال، حسن پیرنیا، و پورداوود را یاد کرد. کسروی موضعی ترکیبی و دوگانه داشت. او از سویی استواری روش پژوهشی شرق‌شناسان را می‌ستود؛ و از دیگر سوی ذهنیت و اغراض و غرور آنان را بایسته نقد می‌شمرد و درباره تقلید کورکورانه و خودباختگی در برابرشان هشدار می‌داد .
در نسل نخست محققان جدید ایران مخالفان و معترضانی که تقریبا یکسره بر کار شرق‌شناسان ایراد بگیرند و اساسا بر اغراض غیرعلمی آنان انگشت تاکید بنهند اندکند. ذبیح بهروز شاید تنها نماینده این گرایش در آن روزگار بود. بهروز را می‌توان یک «ضد شرق‌شناس» تمام‌عیار انگاشت. اگر «ضد شرق‌شناسی» گونه‌ها و اقسامی داشته باشد؛ او پیشگام یک گونه ویژه از جریان «ضد شرق‌شناسی» در ایران بود. واژه جریان را با احتیاط به‌کار می‌گیریم. به زعم بهروز شرق‌شناسان بنا بر اغراض مذهبی و سیاسی به دستکاری تاریخ ایران و شرق می‌پردازند. غرض آنان اینست تا از سویی افسانه‌های تورات و از سوی دیگر قدمت و اصالت بدون رقیب تمدن یونانی را به اثبات برسانند. به همین علت نامها و اصطلاحات و تعابیر توراتی را بر تاریخ و جغرافیای ایران و پیرامون تحمیل کرده‌اند. همچنین به علت رقابت بزرگ دستاوردها و میراث تمدنی و فرهنگی ایران و هند با تمدن یونانی؛ با حذف و تحریف روایات و شواهد قدمت وعظمت تاریخ و تمدن ایران و هند را کاسته و پوشانده‌اند.
بهروز آثاری در موضوع ادبیات و نمایشنامه، زبان، خط، تقویم و گاه‌شماری دارد. از آن میان «مرآة السرایر و مفتاح الضمایر» اثری در نقد شرق‌شناسان است به نثر و نظم. همچنین انجمن «انجمن ایران کوده» را برپا کرد. این مقاله به شرح دیدگاههای او درباره شرق‌شناسان می‌پردازد.