Furughi and Dialogical Modernization

Ramin Jahanbegloo

I think where Foroughi is original as a thinker is that he does not formulate a sharp contrast between his dynamic view of history and his dynamic approach to modernization to an ontology of tradition. Foroughi does not reduce the idea of “tradition” to a static element which reduces the human agency in history. As such, most of Foroughis’ works on Persian history and Persian literature closely parallel and complete his political and philosophical views on modernity and liberalism.

Foroughi’s new approach to Persian classical literature and his insistence in the making of Farhangestan and the celebration of Ferdowsi as a national poet of Iran reveal several important aspects of his dialogical thinking. First, he was aware of the enormous political potential of Persian classical literature as a metaphysical foundation for Iranian nationalism, but also for cultural change in Iran. Second, Foroughi realized that the emphasis on Persian classical literature would be a way to appreciate and to appropriate modernity in Iran.

In the case of Foroughi, the dialogical approach to modernization, which actually establishes a conversation between tradition and modernity, was not neither a methodology to emphasize on the uniqueness of Iranian national identity (as some nativist intellectuals did) nor to implement the hegemonic view of the European universalist claims without taking into account the cultural context of Iran. For Foroughi the goal was to accommodate Iranian heritage, as presented in the canon of Persian history, philosophy and literature, with modern European values.

This is the reason why, Foroughi equated the concept of “progress” with the three principles of order, education and organization. For him the efficiency of European bureaucracy was the state-centered organization, but he also explained the working of the European legal and political system in terms of public opinion and separation of powers. For Foroughi, the precondition for acquiring Western type bureaucratic organization was not only the promotion of modern rationalism, but also a sense of civic education in Iran.

We can see here a duality at the ontological core of Foroughi’s discourse of “dialogical modernization” that is exemplified by the dual project of “Enlightenment from Above” and “Enlightenment from Below”. As such, in Foroughi’s political and philosophical agenda, the process of “Enlightenment from Above” is exemplified by the strong personality of an enlightened despot who is supposed to implement modern reforms.

However, all through his career Foroughi advocated liberal forms of citizenship. Also, I do think that Foroughi’s general interest in the history of philosophy is partly because he considered philosophy as a mode of “Enlightenment from Below” helping Iranians to become more mature in their political judgment and everyday reasoning. Indeed for him philosophy was a continuous process of thinking which stemmed from his pragmatic view of human intervention in the world. Indeed, without philosophy, he contended, no tangible and pragmatic results could be obtained in Iran.

Despite his unsystematic method, Foroughi may be considered as one of the earliest intellectuals and statesmen in Iran to pay serious attention to modern philosophy and to issues of rationality in modern Europe. Foroughi’s effort to preserve Iran’s nationhood and national unity was accompanied by the creation of a strong central government as an essential prerequisite for reform and progress and for freeing the country from foreign intervention. But in the shadow of the strong character of Reza Shah Foroughi was able to show his liberal facet which I believe was completed by his dialogical approach to modernization, meaning that he valued national symbols and respected the religious traditions while he appreciated modern thinking and encouraged Iranians to have an investigative spirit.

If we take a close look at two of Foroughi’s books, Andishey-e Dur va Deraz (Distant and Lengthy Thought) which is a short essay published in 1927 , while he was serving as Iran’s ambassador in Kemalist Turkey and Seyr-e Hekmat dar Urupa  (the Course of Philososphy in Europe) written in 1922 as a long introduction to his translation of Descartes’ Discours de la Methode, we can see not only Foroughi’s special interest in the founding principles of modern Europe, but also we can understand his dialogical role in accommodating the Iranian worldview with the rational mode of thinking. Foroughi writes in the introduction of Seyr-e Hekmat Dar Urupa: “ In this book I have not taken a position to accept, refuse, or to criticize the research of philosophers, or compare them to the ideas of our own philosophers because that by itself is a long story, out of capacity of this book… In my opinion, what is more imperative and beneficial is the task of informing my countrymen about the European philosophical concepts.” So for Foroughi the work of “enlightening” Iranians actually goes through the process of “informing” them with new concepts. But in another paragraph of the same introduction, Foroughi uses the two notions of ‘borrowing’ and ‘inventing’. This act of ‘borrowing’ from Europeans is accompanied with a work of ‘adopting’, ‘assuming’ and finally ‘inventing’ by the Iranians. There are several points here that exemplifies the work of ‘dialogical modernity’ in Foroughi’s mind:

1-First, according to Foroughi, Iran needs to understand the strategic importance of modern values and modern issues.

2-Second, this philosophical project cannot move forward without Iran assuming its own cultural dimension.

3-Third, for Foroughi, there is no learning possible without reciprocity. But while it is important to ‘preserve’ one’s own language, it would be an error to think that the language that enables us to think and act in the world is the best.

4-Fourth, to have a dialogue with European heritage we need to have a culture of dialogue which is supported by the ‘invention’ of new concepts.

5-Fifth,it is through this language of ‘dialogue’ and not necessarily ‘imitation’ that according to Foroughi the political future of Iran can be re-invented and strengthened.

This is where Foroughi’s effort to create the Farhangestan (Iranian Academy) in May 1935 becomes significant and his message addressed to this institution emphasizes on the process of reform of Iranian thought by familiarizing Iranians with the works of their great writers, but also translating classical works of European civilization. I certainly do not believe that Foroughi’s project of dialogical modernization is  a way to promote a de-contextualized and abstract rationality as a guarantor of human progress and enlightenment. On the contrary, he is quite attentive to the dialogical potentialities and possibilities of Western philosophy. This is where in Foroughi’s work the two voices of modernity and tradition converge to produce an empathic dialogue.