Volume 11, Issue 3 (12-2025)
فصلنامه تحقیقات بنیادین علوم انسانی 2025, 11(3): 46-46 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Nejadi M H, Lotfi Qaramalki H. The Normative Model of Legitimate Field Interference
in the Alawi Governance System: Principles, Components, and Functions
(With an Emphasis on Pierre Bourdieu's Field Theory). فصلنامه تحقیقات بنیادین علوم انسانی 2025; 11 (3) :46-46
URL: http://frh.sccsr.ac.ir/article-1-690-en.html
URL: http://frh.sccsr.ac.ir/article-1-690-en.html
Abstract: (4 Views)
Pierre Bourdieu's field theory, despite its extensive analytical capacities, lacks a normative framework for distinguishing "legitimate" from "illegitimate" field interference. However, the present study does not aim to fill this theoretical gap; rather, by employing the sensitizing concepts of Bourdieu's field theory, it describes and extracts a "normative model of legitimate field interference" from Nahj al-Balagha. This model can provide a normative framework for analyzing field interferences from the perspective of Nahj al-Balagha in dialogue with Bourdieu's theory. The research adopts a directed qualitative content analysis approach, using the sensitizing concepts of Bourdieu's field theory to reinterpret Nahj al-Balagha. The findings led to the identification of five main fields: the political field of power with the logic of Wilayah (as a legitimizing and regulating field), and four functional fields: judiciary, bureaucracy, military, and economy. Thematic coding of the normative propositions in Nahj al-Balagha resulted in the extraction of four fundamental principles for determining the legitimacy of field interference: institutional interdependence (legitimacy of interference at the level of establishment and resource provision), procedural independence (illegitimacy of interference in the internal processes of fields), negation of domination (prohibition of structural domination of one field over another), and accountability (the requirement for all fields to be subject to oversight). These principles were formulated in a two-level model, in which the political field of power (with the logic of Wilayah) occupies the first level as the source of legitimacy and regulator, while the functional fields are placed at the second level. The final model demonstrates that in Alawi governance thought, the legitimacy of field interference is contingent upon three conditions: the source of interference (legitimate Wilayah), the level of interference (institutional legitimate, procedural illegitimate), and the direction of interference (mutual, non-dominative, and accountable). This model does not seek to fill the normative gap in Bourdieu's theory; rather, by introducing the conceptual distinction of "institutional interdependence/procedural independence," it offers a theoretical addition to Bourdieu's framework.
Keywords: Field Theory, Pierre Bourdieu, Nahj al-Balagha, Normative Model, Field Interference, Legitimacy, Procedural Independence, Accountability.
References
1. * نهجالبلاغه. (۱۳۸۵). ترجمه محمد دشتی. قم: انتشارات مشهور.
2. دلشاد تهرانی، مصطفی. (۱۳۹۴). حکومت حکمت: دولت در نهجالبلاغه. تهران: انتشارات دریا.
3. مطهری، مرتضی. (۱۳۷۵). سیری در نهجالبلاغه. تهران: انتشارات صدرا.
4. منتظری، حسینعلی. (۱۳۸۸). مبانی فقهی حکومت اسلامی (ج۱). تهران: انتشارات سرایی.
5. Afsaruddin, A. (2013). Striving in the Path of God: Jihad and Martyrdom in Islamic Thought. Oxford University Press.
6. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. University of California Press.
7. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press.
8. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Harvard University Press.
9. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241-258). Greenwood.
10. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice. Stanford University Press.
11. Bourdieu, P. (1993). The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature. Columbia University Press.
12. Bourdieu, P. (1996). The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field. Stanford University Press.
13. Bourdieu, P. (2000). Pascalian Meditations. Stanford University Press.
14. Bourdieu, P. (2012). Sur l'État: Cours au Collège de France (1989-1992). Seuil.
15. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. University of Chicago Press.
16. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
17. Calhoun, C. (1993). Habitus, field, and capital: The question of historical specificity. In C. Calhoun, E. LiPuma, & M. Postone (Eds.), Bourdieu: Critical Perspectives (pp. 61-88). University of Chicago Press.
18. Crouch, C. (2004). Post-Democracy. Polity Press.
19. Gadinger, F. (2023). Fields, trajectories, and symbolic power: Studying practices of polycentric governing with Bourdieu. In F. Gadinger & J. A. Scholte (Eds.), Polycentrism: How governing works today (pp. 213-235). Oxford University Press.
20. Grenfell, M. (Ed.). (2012). Pierre Bourdieu: Key Concepts (2nd ed.). Routledge.
21. Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
22. Medvetz, T. (2012). Think Tanks in America. University of Chicago Press.
23. Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic Capitalism and the New Economy: Markets, State, and Higher Education. Johns Hopkins University Press.
24. Spunaugle, A. (2024). Ancient Near Eastern field theory: Adapting Bourdieu for social biographies of the ancient world. Journal of Ancient History, 12(2), 204-221.
25. Tamanaha, B. Z. (2012). The several meanings of "politics" in judicial politics studies: Why "ideological influence" is not "partisanship". Emory Law Journal, 61(4), 759-778.
26. Weber, M. (1978). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. University of California Press.
27. Wright, E. O. (2005). Approaches to Class Analysis. Cambridge University Press.
28. Zeveleva, O. (2024). A sociological response: Challenging the modernity-centrism of Pierre Bourdieu's field approach. Journal of Ancient History, 12(2), 333-342.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
