تحرک هنجاری و ظهور میان‌نسلی به نام «روشنفکری حوزوی»

Extended Abstract
 
Introduction and Objectives: The history of intellectual developments in contemporary Iran has always been a scene of conflict or dialogue between two major currents: “seminary traditionalism” and “modern intellectualism.” Each of these currents, with their distinct epistemological systems, sources of legitimacy, and lifeworlds, has reproduced specific social and political polarizations. However, field observations and textual analysis in recent decades indicate the emergence of a problematic and hybrid phenomenon known as “Hawzah Intellectualism” (Islamic Seminary Intellectualism). The main issue of this research is to confront the ontological and sociological ambiguity of this emerging group; actors who belong to the traditional structure of the seminary in terms of their “institutional position” and educational origins, but who have found meaningful overlap with the secular intellectual current in terms of their “normative orientations” and epistemological concerns. The fundamental question is: Is Hawzah Intellectualism merely an intellectual fluctuation, or is it the emergence of a new “generation unit” in the social structure of Iran? To answer this question, Karl Mannheim’s theory of the sociology of knowledge, especially his ideas on the “problem of generations” and “normative mobility,” provides a powerful analytical framework. The issue of this research is to show how the change in the “tempo of social change” in Iran has led to a gap in the lived experience of young seminarians compared to previous generations (traditional teachers). “Hawzah Intellectualism” is neither reducible to the intellectual current (due to the preservation of institutional ties with religion) nor to the traditional seminary current (due to the change in the interpretive system); rather, it should be analyzed as the emergence of a “mediating generation” that has emerged from the dialectic of tradition and modernity. This generation seeks to formulate a kind of “human religion” compatible with modern life by reinterpreting the essence of religion and separating it from historical contingencies. Failure to understand the generational and sociological nature of this group will lead to strategic errors in understanding the cultural dynamics of Iranian society.
Method: In order to analyze this issue in detail, this article has used a “descriptive-analytical” method based on documentary studies. In the first step, using a library method, Karl Mannheim’s theoretical literature on generations and the sociology of knowledge was extracted and formulated. In the second step, with an analytical approach and with reference to the texts and positions of the most prominent figures of the Hawzah intellectual movement, their intellectual and behavioral components were enumerated. Finally, by applying these components to Mannheim’s concepts such as “generational position,” “generation unit,” and “normative mobility,” it has been argued how this movement has emerged as a necessary and structural (and not accidental) outcome in the epistemological sphere of Iran.
Results: The outcome of the intellectual activity of the Hawzah intellectual movement is the de-ideologization of the seminaries. In other words, these movements, consciously or unconsciously, have collectively targeted the legacy of “political Islam” arising from the thought and conduct of Imam Khomeini for criticism, weakening, and divergence. Despite their apparent and discursive differences, these movements have significant commonalities in terms of principles, methods, and goals (Dībā, 2008, p. 83). Seminary intellectuals believe that traditional religion, due to its belonging to past centuries, is incapable of responding to the needs and problems of contemporary humans. Moreover, from their perspective, presenting a general and fixed prescription for all humans in all historical periods is considered fruitless and ineffective. Therefore, this spectrum tries to present a new reading of religion by utilizing the capacities of modern philosophies, especially in the fields of linguistic analysis and hermeneutics, and by considering it historical. Also, one of the most important concerns of the intellectual movement is tying the problems, sufferings, and hardships of the concrete life of the people of society to their ideologies and belief systems. Intellectuals, according to their own clarification and confession, introduce their main concern as making citizens aware of “more correct” beliefs and, consequently, reducing the suffering and hardship of human life. It seems that this movement, consciously or unconsciously, has come to the conclusion that in order to reconcile tradition and modernity, or to reduce the suffering of their fellow humans, it is inevitable to avoid commitment to a particular religion or school that is accompanied by the least negative language towards other traditions, and instead, to suffice with a kind of “colorless spirituality” and a “borderless” religion. The third axis that can be attributed to the Hawzah intellectual movement is the establishment and expansion of a human religion centered on a pluralistic cultural self, not a Kantian transcendental self; a religion that values human dignity and has the ability to create a correct connection between humans in a single cultural discourse. The fourth axis is the expansion and deepening of secularism. In this reading, efficiency becomes a criterion for the validity or suspension of divine decrees, and in contrast, modernized rationality replaces religious rationality that reveals divine decrees. The natural consequence of such an approach is the gradual passing beyond jurisprudence and the abandonment of traditional seminary methods in religious inference. The intellectual movement, in understanding religious texts, uses methods and approaches that are seriously influenced by modern hermeneutics. Moreover, the central issues and theoretical concerns of this movement are often not of the kind of formal and internal-discursive issues of the seminaries; although many of its bearers and theorists have studied in the seminary tradition for years and have even been in teaching positions. In the opinion of these people, adherence to the Jawāherī model of ijtihad is not necessary, and the development of jurisprudence requires accepting the free method of ijtihad; meaning that all those who are scientifically qualified can express the results of their ijtihad without pressure or fear.
Discussion and Conclusions: The Mannheimian analysis showed that although Hawzah intellectuals share a “generational location” and physical lifeworld with traditional clergy and breathe within the context of the seminary institution, they have become an independent “generation unit” due to their experience of “fresh contact” with the modern world and the new humanities. Unlike their traditional peers who perceive the legacy of the past as unchangeable, this generation unit has engaged in a critical “appropriation” of tradition and passed it through the filter of modern rationality. The findings show that this group, in a pendulum-like movement, has distanced itself from the jurisprudential dogmas of traditionalists and moved towards humanistic norms and critical rationality. However, this movement does not mean a complete rupture and joining secular intellectualism. The Hawzah intellectual, while maintaining the central signifier of “faith” and “the sacred,” refuses to be completely transformed into conventional liberalism. The result is the formation of a “hybrid” identity that exists in the intermediate space of “tradition/modernity.” The present study showed that Hawzah intellectualism has changed its epistemological priorities in order to resolve the conflict between modern life and the sacred text. This current, by marginalizing the maximalist jurisprudential approach (which considers religion to be the law of all aspects of life), has turned towards highlighting the “moral,” “theological,” and “mystical” dimensions of religion. Motives such as “articulating truth and reducing suffering” and the attempt to establish a “human religion” indicate a transition from the traditional “duty-oriented” approach to a modern “rights-oriented” approach in the religious reading of this generation.