Sociology
F. Nateghi; E. Towfigh
Abstract
This paper seeks to explicate "bio-resistance" in an interdisciplinary perspective inspired by political philosophy, history, anthropology, and sociology. Here the concept of "bio-resistance" is formulated along the lines of thought drawn from an integrated reading of Spinoza and Deleuze. Using the genealogical ...
Read More
This paper seeks to explicate "bio-resistance" in an interdisciplinary perspective inspired by political philosophy, history, anthropology, and sociology. Here the concept of "bio-resistance" is formulated along the lines of thought drawn from an integrated reading of Spinoza and Deleuze. Using the genealogical method and the transcendental empiricism approach, this paper has also undertaken a historical study on the emergence of multitude as a product of the actualization of "bio-resistance". In the contemporary Iranian history, population as the multitude has been realized within the period between the collapse of the old and the blossoming of the new order during Constitutional Movement and Social Movements between1941 and 1953, as well as during in the 1979 Iranian Revolution. In each of these moments, Anjumans, Unions, and Shuras can be regarded as forms of multitude which displayed the collective resistance of subaltern groups against "bio-power". "Existence" is the immanent cause of life, and human beings faced with dangers threatening their existence, tend to be united under a common destiny. "Bio-resistance" is thus a collective political activity in the service of self-preservation, made possible by the transformation of subjugated body-subjects into liberated ones in pure optical and sound situations. The results of this study guide us to three fundamental principles: 1. To exist is to resist; 2. Preservation of existence a political praxis; 3. There can be no individual liberation without a collective effort.
Sociology
M. Fouladiyan; H. R. Jalaeipour
Abstract
There are different and at times contradictory concepts of Charismatic and Farrahmandaneh authority. Some researchers and translators have used these concepts interchangeably. There are, however, fundamental differences between these two. Based on the three types of authority in Weber`s view, ...
Read More
There are different and at times contradictory concepts of Charismatic and Farrahmandaneh authority. Some researchers and translators have used these concepts interchangeably. There are, however, fundamental differences between these two. Based on the three types of authority in Weber`s view, in this article I have tried to clarify the meanings and boundaries of them. To do this, basic dimensions of the three Weberian types of authority are discussed along with Farrahmandaneh authority in order to clarify the status of Farrahmandaneh authority in Weber`s intellectual system. Since the concept of authority and different forms of it are understood and interpreted in different epistemic systems, to achieve a comprehensive understanding of it and in particular, to compare the types of Weberian authority with Farrahmandaneh authority, one has to rely on sociology, political science, and even history and literature. As far as the limits and scope of this article allow, the interdisciplinary nature of this concept has been in the forefront. The results show that despite some similarities, Farrahmandaneh authority has major differences with Charismatic authority. In fact, Farrahmandaneh authority is a kind of traditional authority which due to structural factors contains some dimensions of Charismatic authority as well.
