چکیده:
This article examines Aramesh Doostdar’s critical concept of “religious culture” and proposes Daryush Shayegan’s later intellectual framework as a viable response to the cultural and identity deadlocks Doostdar identifies. Doostdar argues that the permanent dominance and hegemony of religious culture lead to inevitable cultural stagnation and the impossibility of independence, individuality, subjectivity, and human resistance. In his view, culture is a closed, static, homogeneous entity devoid of dynamism, in which the individual is dissolved and rendered incapable of innovation or agency. This conceptualization leaves no conceivable path for progress or escape. The article addresses two central questions: First, what are the identity-related consequences of Doostdar’s notion of religious culture? Second, can Shayegan’s reflections on intercultural relations and the connection between tradition and modernity offer a solution to these impasses? The analysis argues that the outcome of Doostdar’s rigid framework is best understood as an identity crisis or even an “absence of identity.” In contrast, the article suggests that Shayegan’s framework—which emphasizes a world characterized by a rhizomatic and fractured ontology—provides resources to overcome these deadlocks. Shayegan contends that no single culture can meet the needs of contemporary human beings. Modern individuals possess fragmented forms of consciousness and are multi-identified. They are therefore capable of moving freely between diverse cultural spaces and modes of being, actively choosing from various possibilities, and ultimately rediscovering and reconstructing their own identity.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Volume 15, Issue 3, Autumn 1404, 69-90 Scientific-Research Article Investigating the View of Dariush Shayegan in Confronting the Issue of "Identity Refusal" of Iranian Culture in the Thought of Aramesh Dustdar Majid Sarvand1 | Mohammad Jafar Jameh Bozorgi 2 1.
In Dustdar’s worldview and theology, in Islam, and in the relationship between the world and God, nature and especially humans have no self-foundation, and the Creator who creates existence from non-existence will be the determinant of the existence of everything other than Him. Therefore, in confronting the sacred, man finds himself before a realm that is “absolutely other,” something fundamentally different and has no kind or causal relationship with its creation.
From this point of view, according to him, the new thought and culture of the West have disintegrated the common spiritual insight of Eastern civilizations and, by replacing ideology with previous myths and metaphysical values, have created a kind of “false consciousness” that, through homogenization and identity, leads to the integration of any heterogeneity and the emergence of mass man.
The result of such an approach can be considered a crisis of identity or even “non-identity,” which we refer to as “identity refusal” in the views of Aramesh Dustdar, and we believe that the later intellectual scheme of Dariush Shayegan has the capacity to overcome such a cultural and identity impasse.
Therefore, in Dustdar’s conception, Iranian society, under the domination of religious culture and the lack of growth and flourishing of individuality and subjectivity, has remained homogeneous and closed in terms of culture and identity and has found no way to the new world.
(
, 
, 
)
