Lectures on Islamic Anthropology by Hossein Soozanchi (1-5)

توضیح دکتر‌حسین سوزنچی پیرامون‌درس‌گفتار انسان شناسی اسلامی :‌امسال (سال تحصیلی ۹۴-۹۵) سومین سالی است که تدریس درسی با عنوان انسان شناسی اسلامی را در مقطع کارشناسی ارشد در دانشگاه باقرالعلوم (که اغلب دانشجویان دارای سابقه طلبگی می باشند) عهده دار شده ام. بحثهای آنتروپولوژی غربیها با اغلب بحثهایی که با عنوان انسان شناسی اسلامی نوشته شده بسیار تفاوت دارند و در این درسها می کوشم با پرهیز از گرته برداری و تقلید، نسبتی بین این دو حوزه برقرار کنم و از متنهای اسلامی، از کتاب هستی و هبوط (آقای پارسانیا) و رساله های انسان علامه طباطبایی بهره می برم.

درس‌گفتار انسان شناسی اسلامی و مبانی معرفت دینی

سیر بحث کلی ما در ترم جاری:

1) توضیحاتی درباره اصطلاح انسان شناسی ( Anthropology) به عنوان یک رشته علمی و شباهت و تفاوت انسان شناسی مورد نظر ما با انسان شناسی مطرح شده بین غربی ها.

2) بحث در حوزه انسان شناسی اسلامی، که در این زمینه سه الگو قابل طرح است: الگوی آقای پارسانیا در کتاب هستی و هبوط، الگوی فکری شهید مرتضی مطهری (در 3 کتاب انسان و ایمان،انسان وقران،اصول فلسفه و روش رئالیسم) و الگوی فکری علامه طباطبایی در رساله‌های انسان (1-الانسان قبل الدنیا، 2-الانسان فی الدنیا، 3-الانسان بعد الدنیا)

در جلسه اول به توضیح کلیاتی درباره مطلب اول و نیز اشاره ای به منابع اصلی بحث خواهیم پرداخت. در جلسه دوم مروری اجمالی بر مباحث انسان شناسی غربیها خواهیم داشت. سپس به سراغ انسان شناسی اسلامی خواهیم رفت.

مقدمه:

در غرب در حوزه مباحث معرفتی به ویژه در زمینه فلسفه و علوم انسانی و اجتماعی، دو جریان عمده فعالیت دارند که اختلاف نظرهای شدیدی هم گاه با هم دارند:

الف: جریان آنگلوساکسون ها(مهم ترین کشورهایشان انگلیس و آمریکا هستند.)

ب:جریان کانتیننتال ها(قاره ای)(مهم ترین کشورهایشان فرانسه وآلمان هستند.)

نکته:ساختارهای آموزشی کشور ما بر اساس جریان انگلوساکسون ها طراحی شده است و این در فهم خیلی از تقسیم بندیهای علمی در کشور (مثلا چرایی تفکیک دانشکده علوم انسانی (دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی) از دانشکده علوم اجتماعی در دانشگاه تهران و عدم این تفکیک در بسیاری از دانشگاههای دیگر، و ...) مهم است. به هر حال این تمایز در اغلب بحثهای علوم انسانی و اجتماعی غربی (از جمله همین بحث انسان شناسی) و خصوصا به منظور فهم جایگاه کتابهایی که در این زمینه از غرب ترجمه می شود، نباید مورد غفلت قرار گیرد.

بحث اول: اصطلاح انسان شناسی به عنوان یک رشته علمی

1) در غرب

دو کلمه مهم داریم: Anthropology که از ترکیب دو واژه یونانی Antropos (انسان) وLogos (عقل) ساخته شده، و واژه Ethnology که از در آن به جای واژه Antroposانسان، از واژه Ethnos(مردم، قوم) استفاده شده است.

در ادبیات غربی، حتی اینکه رشته «انسان شناسی» چیست و چه حوزه هایی دارد دو رویکرد وجود دارد:

الف) رویکرد انگلوساکسون (به ویژه در آمریکا): غالبا فقط از واژه Anthropology برای اشاره به این رشته استفاده می‌کنند که دو شاخه اصلی پیدا می کند (البته بعدا توضیح خواهیم داد که چهار شاخه اصلی دارد اما دو شاخه‌ای که عنوان «انسان شناسی» جزء اسمشان است دوتای زیر است؛ عنوان دو شاخه دیگر: باستان‌شناسی، و زبان‌شناسی است)

انسان‌شناسی زیستی (یا جسمانی) Biological or physical anthropology

انسان‌شناسی فرهنگی و اجتماعی Social and cultural anthropology

ب) رویکرد قاره‌ای (به ویژه در فرانسه): از دو واژه برای اشاره به دو حوزه مطالعاتی فوق استفاده می‌کنند. واژه Anthropology را غالبا برای اشاره به همان چیزی به کار می برند که در فرهنگ آنگلوساکسون « انسان‌شناسی زیستی (یا جسمانی)» خوانده می‌شود و در عوض واژه Ethnology را برای اشاره به انسان‌شناسی فرهنگی استفاده می‌کنند.

البته در متون انگلوساکسون هم گاه از تعبیر Ethnology استفاده می‌کنند اما دو تعبیر انسان‌شناسی فرهنگی و انسان‌شناسی اجتماعی در میان آنها شایعتر است.

لازم به ذکر است که در خود فضای انگلوساکسون هم بین آمریکا و انگلیس یک تفاوتی هست به این بیان که در حوزه انسان‌شناسی فرهنگی و اجتماعی، جریان آمریکایی بیشتر بر تعبیر انتروپولوژی فرهنگی اصرار می‌ورزد و جریان انگلیسی بر آنترولوژی اجتماعی.

علاوه بر این، جناب آقای فکوری معتقدند استفاده از تعبیر اتنولوژی رو به زوال است و دلیل استفاده نشدن از اتنولوژی این است که این واژهEthnos دارای باری منفی است زیرا تعبیر در اصل به معنای «اقوام کوچنده» بوده و از همان ابتدا با اشاره‌ای به جوامع ابتدایی به کار گرفته شد؛ لذا با مطرح شدن بحث تکثر فرهنگی و دور شدن از وضعیت تفوق‌طلب استعماری قرن 19، استعمال این لفظ به نظر دارای سوگیری ارزشی بوده و کم کم کنار گذاشته شد.

البته سخن ایشان تاحدودی قابل مناقشه است زیرا اولا همین الان با همین عنوان جمعیتهای مردم‌شناس متعددی وجود دارند. به نظر می‌رسد اگر کاربرد این واژه کمتر شده ناشی غلبه فرهنگ آمریکایی در عرصه‌های این رشته (در مقابل جریانهای قاره‌ای) باشد.

برای مطالعه بیشتر:

مبانی انسان شناسی. روح الامینی. ص37؛ تاریخ اندیشه و نظریه های انسان شناسی. فکوهی. ص12؛ تاریخ انسان‌شناسی (از آغاز تا امروز)، بلوکباشی (مترجم). ص11.

2) در ایران

به تبع این تشتت در فضای غربی، معادل‌سازی برای دو کلمه آنتروپولوژی و اتنولوژی در ایران فرازو فرودهایی داشته است:

الف) در 1314 فروغی در اولین فرهنگستان ایران پیشنهاد می‌دهد که آنتروپولوژی به «مردم‌شناسی» و اتنولوژی به «نژادشناسی» ترجمه شود با این عنایت که در ادبیات فارسی کلمه «مردم» هم به وضعیت جماعت و توده‌ای اشاره دارد و هم به معنای «انسان» به کار رفته (سگ اصحاب کهف روزی چند/ پی نیکان گرفت و مردم شد) (به نقل از بلوکباشی، ص9)

ب) در 1347 غلامحسین صدیقی در شورای وضع و قبول لغات و اصطلاحات اجتماعی پیشنهاد داد که آنتروپولوژی معادل «انسان‌شناسی» و به مفهوم وسیع کلمه (مطالعه عمومی انسان، شامل جسمانی، باستانی، تاریخی، اجتماعی و فرهنگی) به کار رود و در مقابل کلمه اتنولوژی، اصطلاح «مردم‌شناسی» به معنی مطالعه هر یک از نهادهای انسانی (اقتصادی، اجتماعی، دینی، سنتی و فرهنگی) در محدوده معین استفاده شود. (به نقل از روح الامینی، ص38؛ بلوکباشی، ص12)

بحث دوم: فرق جامعه شناسی با انسان‌شناسی و مردم شناسی

جامعه‌شناسی با کلمه socio که از ریشه لاتین socii (به معنای همسر و شریک) گرفته شده از ابتدا در خصوص جوامع صنعتی و مدرن به کار رفت و نوعی نگاه جامعه معاصر به عنوان جامعه برتر در آن اشراب شده است، در واقع در مقام تبیین جامعه امروزی به عنوان حقیقت یک جامعه است و به لحاظ روش هم مثلا تاکید بر مباحث آماری و نظریه‌پردازی‌های علمی برای وضع موجود در آن جدی تر است؛ اما مردم شناسی چنانکه اشاره شد از ریشه ethnos که برای اشاره به جوامع بدوی به کار می‌رفت گرفته شده و تاکید آن بر مشاهده همدلانه و مشارکت بوده است. انسان‌شناسان مدعی‌اند نظریه‌های جامعه‌شناختی نه بر واقعیت خام، بلکه بر بازنمودهای واقعیت تاکید می‌کند و با اصرار بر چارچوب نظری و فرضیه دادن و تست آن در نمونه آماری، عملا دچار تقلیل‌گرایی (کل موضوع مورد مطالعه به فرضیات، و کل جامعه مورد مطالعه به نمونه‌های انتخاب شده) می‌شود؛ اما انسان شناس به ویژه به خاطر بهره‌گیری از روش مشاهده مشارکتی به سراغ متن واقعیت می‌رود و تحلیلهای خود از انسان را به خود متن واقعیت سوار می‌کند و واقعیت انسانی را هم منحصر در جوامع امروزی نمی‌کند. (فکوری، ص11-15)

Third Discussion: The Relationship Between Western Anthropology and Our Perspective on the Study of the Human Being

Today, some, like Mr. Fayyaz, insist that we should call this Western discipline merely ethnography, and that it has nothing to do with the anthropology we understand. However, it seems that although he may be right in terms of method and results, in terms of the questions raised in these two fields, there is great similarity, and if every science is formed around a series of questions, we can present our discussions in a way that opens a dialogue. The main discussion and the primary goal of offering this course is to address the horizon of theories in anthropology that lead to application. That is, Western anthropological discussions are entirely oriented toward application, but the major problem in the field of Islamic anthropology is the failure to address applied theories in the relevant discussions. Therefore, the first point is that their questions are also our questions. For example, consider a few of the main questions of this discipline:

1) The book "Anthropology: The Exploration of Human Diversity" by Conrad Phillip Kottak, p. 11: The subject of anthropology is the study of the total condition of human life, both in terms of past, present, and future; and in terms of biological, societal, linguistic, and cultural characteristics.

Well, in this very section, Allameh Tabatabai (RA), in his Three Treatises, examines the human being before the world, in the world, and after the world, and this is the same as studying the human being in the past, present, and future; or if we consider the issue of biology as the same horizon of the life of the spirit, why should we not have something to say regarding human biology, and likewise regarding society and culture. Regarding language, a point: The horizon presented in the Quran about language is a horizon far superior even to intuition (the revelation of the Quran, its very wording, is divine, and the rank of the Quran is higher than Hadith Qudsi and therefore above the Prophet's mystical unveilings), which is, of course, different from the horizon of language as a purely conventional matter.

2) "Cultural Anthropology" by Daniel Bates and Fred Plog, p. 23: What has caused the triumph and superiority of humans over other creatures? What speculations can we entertain about the future of the human species? Why are humans so biologically similar yet so socially different?

In fact, the first and last questions are questions about the nature and essence of the human being, which distinguishes them from other creatures, and the second question is a question about the future and the resurrection of humankind.

3) "Social and Cultural Anthropology" by John Monaghan and Peter Just (pp. 8 and 20). When first explaining, it says the importance of ethnography is the only subject on which all anthropologists agree (i.e., it defines the horizon as ethnography), but when it wants to enumerate the main questions of this field, it says: What is the unique characteristic of the human being? How do groups of people (family, class, tribe, and nation) form, and what is the factor of their cohesion? What is the nature of belief, economic exchange, and the self, and how should they be studied?

4) "Fundamentals of Anthropology" by Rouholamini, pp. 21-28: The most important questions: What is the origin of the human being? What is the origin of social life?

5) "History of Anthropological Thought and Theories" by Fakouhi, pp. 329-330: In the book's conclusion, it first says we want to address the existence of the human being, but not in the philosophical-religious dimension, rather in the biological-cultural dimension; then on the next page, when it wants to explain the subject of anthropology, it says: A deep scientific-human desire to enter the depths of human existence to understand the most hidden and obscure angles of this existence.

Fourth Discussion: A Brief Introduction to Some Books in This Field

Some books that introduce the general trend:

1- "Fundamentals of Anthropology, Searching the City with a Lamp" by Mahmoud Rouholamini (Attar Publications, Tehran 1989). One of the first books in Iran. A concise and useful introduction to the entirety of this title and its related branches.

2- “Anthropology: Origins, Concepts, Works, and Scholars” (translated by Alireza Khoddami) (Tehran: Fasl-e No Publications, 2007). The author’s name is given as Charles-Henri Favrod, but he was in fact the editor-in-chief of a contemporary encyclopedia series (in French), from which the translator rendered this entry, titled “Anthropologie,” and subsequently compiled a glossary of anthropological terms. The original text is 24 pages, which is the minimum to be read for the next session.

3- “The History of Anthropological Thought and Theories” by Nasser Fakouhi. (Tehran, Ney Publishing, 2002) A very good and comprehensive book. When one compares it with the next book, one might think he wrote it with that book in mind; of course, he has added many discussions and consulted numerous additional sources, but the course and main outlines of the discussion are the same, and for situating oneself in the general landscape of this discipline, studying it is better than the other books.

4. “A History of Anthropology (From the Beginning to the Present)” by Thomas Hylland Eriksen and Finn Sivert Nielsen. Translated by Ali Boloukbashi. (Tehran, Gol Azin, 2008) The original work dates from 2001, and was alluded to in the previous entry.

Some books that primarily introduce the subject matter of this discipline:

1- “Cultural Anthropology” by Daniel Bates and Fred Plog, translated by Mohsen Thalasi (Tehran: Elmi, 1996). This book, especially in the field of cultural anthropology, is considered one of the core texts that delves into the issues.

2) “Anthropology (Discovering Human Differences).” Conrad Phillip Kottak, translated by Mohsen Thalasi (Tehran: Elmi, 2007). It provides a relatively comprehensive introduction to the topics of various fields of anthropology and is apparently one of the core texts of this discipline.

3) “Social and Cultural Anthropology” by John Monaghan and Peter Just (from the concise “Mokhtasar-e Mofid” series, Mahi Publishing, 2010). The original work is from 2000, a concise book with an American approach that reflects the appeal of this discipline, focusing only on the branch of cultural and social anthropology.

4- “General Anthropology” by Asghar Askari Khanqah and Mohammad Sharif Kamali. (Tehran: SAMT Publications, 1999). It encompasses both biological anthropology and social and cultural anthropology. Despite being published by SAMT in 1999, and one would expect a work superior to those of Westerners, or at least not purely propagating Western ideas, unfortunately, this is the case, and indeed, much of the authors’ information seems outdated; that is, even compared to Mr. Fakouhi’s book, much of the authors’ information does not advance beyond the first half of the twentieth century.

Summary of the issues raised in the first session: The following three issues are the main problems of anthropology in Western theories, which were mentioned in the previous session. There is near consensus on the first two issues, but the diversity of their theories pertains to the third issue:

1- The problem of human origin (Darwinian evolution)

2- The ultimate end of humanity (greater dominion (welfare) or freedom)

3- What does human essence depend on? What does the distinguishing feature of the human being depend on? Here, we turn to aspects in which humans share commonality, such as being rational, etc.; but they have sought this distinguishing feature in the problem that humans, unlike other living beings, despite being so biologically similar, are so different in terms of human societies. In fact, they have pursued the human distinguishing feature in the question of why such difference exists in the human domain; that is, they have emphasized the differentiating factors among humans and human societies, contrary to us, who emphasize the commonalities among humans; and they have considered this very model of differentiation within the human species (which exists in no other species) as the primary distinguishing feature of the human being. The point of mentioning this was that, in response to their theories, our emphasis on the common human element (the rational animal, innate nature, the theomorphic living being, etc.) does not bring us into dialogue with them. These points must be raised as the basis of our discussion, but they do not answer their problem.

So the crucial point in Western anthropological theories is this: how are human differences (with an emphasis on the collective view, i.e., the differences between human societies) explained?

As an example, consider the two questions presented as the most important questions of anthropology in the book The History of Anthropology:

1) How do we relate to others? Are others like us, or are they completely different?

2) Universalism (should universal commonalities be centered and everyone become the same) or relativism (should the specific characteristics of each society be centered and cultural diversity be recognized)?

A Review of Major Western Anthropological Theories:

We will now review the most important Western theories, drawn from the book by Mr. Nasser Fakouhi (which we suspect he compiled largely with reference to the book The History of Anthropology).

A) Early Roots

Unlike common texts (including the aforementioned book) which trace the roots back to ancient Greece, he begins with religions, which is a good point even if the discussion is weak. However, its formulation as a discipline (which is the main focus of our discussion) dates back to the 18th century and the issue of colonialism:

After military domination, colonialism required political domination, and in this context, it faced two challenges:

- The challenge of understanding the people under domination due to their difference from the colonizers,

- Justifications it faced within its own society, given the wave of democratization sought by the modern state.

One of the earliest justifications was racism (e.g., Count de Gobineau), based on two components:

1- Belief in a biological division of humans beyond ethnicity and nationality

2- Hierarchical classification of races based on biological characteristics

Some events that intensified this need:

- The conquest of America and the intensification of colonial movements in the world

- The rise of Islam on the eastern borders

- The emancipation of the Jews of France and their competition with other French citizens

- The need for an ideological justification for the slave trade and the violence it necessitated.

These set the stage for the first theories to begin with a complete justification of the superiority of the European race over other races (the natural superiority of modern man), and the other theories were, in a sense, reactions to this.

B) Classical Theories

The most important grand theories essentially come down to this theory of evolutionism (transformism) and four theories opposed to it; then he (Mr. Fakouhi) presents about 10-12 theories that can be called contemporary theories (emerging in the second half of the twentieth century and having adherents). We will first give a report, and in the next session, a broad classification of these will be presented.

1- Transformism: (Evolutionism; Spencer – Marcel Mauss)

Belief in a progressive course in human reason and cognitive faculties within a linear historical evolution (an inherent and natural principle of change based on the natural sciences and natural laws).

In fact, it assesses the problem of societal differences in this way: humans have traversed a hierarchy in their evolutionary process, and Western man occupies the final stage of this evolutionary path, while non-Western humans are situated at lower levels.

Note 1: The remaining views present in evolutionary theories stand in opposition to the theory of evolutionism (transformism).

Point 2: When it is said that a certain view stands in opposition to another view, it means they share many similarities, yet their differences, though limited, become very pronounced. Thus, all previous views, for instance, accept the Darwinian prehistory of humans and the confinement of humans to the material world, etc. So, they oppose evolutionism only in its explanation of the differences among human societies (that this evolution is based on natural laws of evolution), but they go along with it in other components.

2-Diffusionism:

Its important figure is Boas (American), and the classification of anthropology into four fields, mentioned in the previous session, is his idea. The axis of his analysis is reflection upon:

- Cultural changes: Why do cultural phenomena change?

- Cultural similarities: Why are cultural phenomena in different cultures similar to one another?

Change results from being influenced by an external environment (transmission [migration], proximity, imitation, and acculturation)

3-Functionalism: (Malinowski)

In analyzing any social phenomenon, two components must be considered:

A: Totality: Every phenomenon must be considered as a part situated within a whole, with attention to the principle of dynamism (phenomena are constantly moving from one level to another; they are not permanently and solely in the role of part or whole)

B: Utility: Every phenomenon must have some kind of impact and, in the society where it has emerged, respond to a need (functional necessity)

The invention of the participant observation method by Malinowski.

He saw functions in individual and biological needs (unlike Durkheim and Radcliffe-Brown, who saw function as a response to social needs).

4-Structuralism: (influenced by Saussurean linguistics)

Every human phenomenon must be understood within the structure (within the system or pattern of which this phenomenon is a part); not as an independent component and an atomized particle separate from its text and context

A: Functional Structuralism: (Structural Functionalism) Radcliffe-Brown.

B: Structuralism: Lévi-Strauss (they consider functions in social need) The existence of similar processes and mechanisms in human thought under the influence of linguistics

Point: Both functionalists and structuralists stand in opposition to the atomistic view, with the difference that in functionalism, the phenomenon is understood as part of a process (emphasis on dynamism), but in structuralism, the phenomenon is understood as part of a situation (emphasis on statics).

Structure: the placement of individuals within a defined set of institutionalized relations;

Function: the contribution of one organ to the functioning of other organs and to the maintenance of the whole society.

5- Culture and Personality (Culturalism) (Sapir)

It has roots in the views of Freud and the unconscious mind. In the position of analyzing how the individual is formed and how they behave (culture, the set of shared behaviors among the individuals of a given society, and the result that occurs from these behaviors in materiality. From the reasons and factors of personality formation, they arrive at the formation of cultures.

Margaret Mead (the feminism movement) also has roots in this thought.

C) Contemporary Theories and Currents (second half of the 20th century):

After World War II, the dominance of past views disappears. In this section, Mr. Fakouhi has presented opinions within ten views:

1-Cultural Ecology: (Ecological Anthropology) (Ecology) (Neoevolutionism)

They are evolutionists of a sort, but with a series of modifications, they tied natural evolution to environmental and ecological discussions, and therefore these can be considered a kind of synthesis of evolutionism and diffusionism, differing from each:

Difference from evolutionism: They believe in multilinear evolution, evolution has no specific order, evolution does not necessarily have a leap point)

Difference from diffusionists (Boas): They do not accept cultural particularism.

2-Cultural Materialism: Human societies are socio-cultural systems, and understanding these systems must be done through their "material products" and the "material conditions in which they live."

3-Feminist Anthropology and Gender:

Note that feminism has three generations:

A: The first generation was more pragmatic, meaning they wanted to show that women could enter any field. In anthropology as well, the first generation, like men, engaged in participant observation in primitive societies.

B: The second generation: The well-known movement that was theoretically protest-oriented. They distinguished between sex and gender (sex & gender) and argued there is no necessary correlation between the two (femininity is not a biological position but a socio-cultural position imposed on women and must be fought against. (Hence, they sought to eliminate differences between men and women). They do not have noteworthy scientific products in anthropology, and their products are biased.

C: The third generation, who were less introduced in Iran, are a group who believe in the interaction between sex and gender and accept the presence of the biological element in culture. (They have noteworthy scientific work in anthropology, and the anthropology of gender was carried out at this stage, where even the anthropology of men was proposed)

4-Cognitive Anthropology: (cognitive) (ethno science)

A branch of cognitive science that is strongly materialist. They consider cognition solely the product of brain activities and seek to reduce cultural elements to this cognitive domain.

5-Interpretive and Symbolic Religious Anthropology :

It is better to divide it into two parts:

A: Religious anthropology, which is better considered the anthropology of religion; that is, the positions some anthropologists have adopted regarding the reality called religion.

B: Interpretive and symbolic anthropology: These believe that culture is a set of meanings understood and interpreted through symbols. Its difference from cognitive anthropology is that the latter examined meanings only through language; but these consider language one of the domains of symbols, not the only domain.

These stand in opposition to two groups:

- Cultural materialism. They believe that they have confused cause and effect (objects, material things, etc., are the crystallization of mentalities and symbolic interpretation, not vice versa)

- Lévi-Strauss's structuralism: They believe that symbols have independent meanings and are not purely passive within the sets they are placed in.

6-The Manchester School

A series of anthropological studies and extensive field research for which a good explanation of their common ground has not been given. Apparently, their common ground is that they base the primary analysis in identifying human societies on conflict and contradiction, and, for example, they attribute both the strengthening of social cohesion and its weakening to conflict (e.g., against an enemy).

7-Economic and Marxist Anthropology

Marx analyzed human societies based on the mode and instruments of production; later thinkers introduced modifications: Gramsci, the concept of hegemony (the reason for the ruling class's power is not merely its possession of the means of production, but also the inculcation of its own ideology as the universal ideology); and the Birmingham School of Cultural Studies, influenced by him, traced the role of media, etc., in this reproduction of the ruling ideology; the Frankfurt School critiqued the domination of capitalist power through technocratic and positivist ideology; and Althusser's structuralism opposed the one-dimensionalization of Marxism in the economic dimension and introduced three modifications to Marxism: simultaneous attention to the three economic, political, and ideological dimensions; opposition to the determinism of superstructure and base; and the convergence of various causes in historical movement (processes of production (society, labor, etc.) are always connected with processes of reproduction (family, childbearing, culture).

8-Political Anthropology

It entered into subjects such as the examination of forms of political power, the link between politics and the sacred, and the relationship between power and kinship.

9-Bourdieu's Social Anthropology

Habitus are systems of durable, transposable dispositions (through education, the process of socialization, imitation, etc.) that internalize the external structures of individuals (through their actions, they reproduce the structures), and structures are social relations established among actors with unequal powers, with the aim of perpetuating domination and rule within a field (field: an arena in which potential and actual forces enter into exchange with one another).

10--Post-structuralism (Postmodernism; Cybernetics)

A challenge to the certainties of modernity concerning the human being. Figures such as Lacan, Barthes, Lyotard, Baudrillard (reality is always transformed into and manipulable by hyperreality), Derrida (the system of thought has been logocentric, always positing a center and creating binary oppositions, and through deconstruction, the boundaries of these oppositions must be broken), Foucault (what is presented as truth is shaped throughout history by powers and for the consolidation of their own power.

A Re-examination of Anthropological Theories with a View to the Book *Being and the Fall*

* Classification of anthropological theories based on an ontological perspective:

A) Materialist

1) The tool-making animal

2) The symbol-making animal

B) Acceptance of realms beyond matter:

3) Subordinate to the material world: Polytheistic religions (designing the supernatural based on the material world)

4) The material world is subordinate to spiritual realms (attention to this world and the hereafter)

* Classification of anthropological theories based on an epistemological perspective A) Positivist: A materialist interpretation of the human being (as opposed to the monotheistic and vicegerent-of-God view) B) Interpretive: Meaningful action (meaning = the real, i.e., worldly and illusory, end) (as opposed to the Resurrection) C) Critical (subordinate to the interpretive): Reform based on a type of rationality [instrumental, communicative, etc.] (as opposed to belief in revelation)

Note 1: Despite their differences, the aforementioned schools can be evaluated as sharing common ground in answering three important questions in the discussion of knowing the human being (origin, end, path):

Origin: Darwinian evolution

End: Welfare (domination over nature), Freedom (liberation from the domination of nature and others)

Path: Material progress

The answers to the above questions are highly decisive in the formation of an anthropological system of thought. Just as the book Being and the Fall seeks to provide answers from the perspective of religion (reason and revelation). The questions that prevailing schools have explicitly put forward as the main subject and questions of anthropology are: firstly, the distinction between humans and animals, and secondly, the differences among humans themselves (different societies). In this materialistic climate, since they have deemed ultimate purpose to be a matter of convention, they have today fallen into relativism, considering no path or school to possess truthfulness or even preference over another in the interpretation of the human being.

Point 2: Regarding the differences among human societies, it must be noted that the analysis of a faith-based society, despite points of commonality, is very different from the analysis of a disbelieving society, and the analysis of the former is far more complex. This is because, from an anthropological perspective, the existential horizon of the believer differs fundamentally from the existential horizon of the disbeliever. For example, a human being in a faith-based society not only has the potential for transcendence from the animal level and attainment of the station of God's vicegerency, but also has the potential for movement along the path of decline and descent to a level lower than animals, that is, to the level of Satan. These very different existential realities mean that one cannot present a complete and correct analysis of faith-based societies merely through material and animalistic views, and solely by relying on elements such as ambition, utilitarianism, rapacity, and so on. Just as an analysis of the Saqifah incident solely with elements like utilitarianism and ambition, and without attention to an element such as envy, will not yield a correct picture. And it is for this reason that the multitude of Western analysts were unable to predict and analyze post-revolution Iranian society, whereas with religious anthropology, one can even analyze disbelieving societies well.

An Examination of the Idea of Evolution

Question: Now, does Islam accept the theory of evolution, or is it in conflict with it?

The criteria for classification are body structure, body function and operation, and the mode of body growth (Carl Linnaeus).

The place of modern humans in this classification:

Kingdom: Animals, Phylum: Chordates, Subphylum: Vertebrates, Class: Mammals, Order: Primates, Family: Hominids, Genus: Homo, Species: Homo sapiens

I will elaborate on this classification from the primates onward:

Primates are of two types:

+ Prosimians

+ Anthropoids, and anthropoids are of three types:

- Catarrhines (Old World monkeys) - Platyrrhines (New World monkeys) - Hominoids, and hominoids are of two types: * Apes, which are themselves of two types: robust (chimpanzee, gorilla, and orangutan) and gracile (gibbon and siamang) * Hominids, which are of two types: ! Extinct humans ! Current humans

And the periods proposed in anthropology for the hominid family:

1. Australopithecus walked on two legs and was, of course, more herbivorous than carnivorous (brain volume 380-590 cc), around 4-5 million years ago, with specimens found up to 1.75 million years ago.

2. Homo habilis, less than 2 million years ago (toolmaking began around 1.5 million years ago), brain volume 580-775 cc.

3. Homo erectus, of which two important types have been identified, with its history reaching back to 400,000 years ago. Scientists believe its vocal apparatus was not yet prepared for speech. Its two important types are:

3.1. Java Man (around 1.5 million to 500,000 years ago), brain volume 775-1225 cc.

3.2. Peking Man (around 700,000-500,000 years ago).

4. Homo sapiens (thinking human), for which three important grades are mentioned:

4.1. Pre-Neanderthal (Archaic Homo sapiens or advanced Homo erectus, which existed until about 100,000 years ago).

4.2. Neanderthal: from 150,000 years to 35,000 years ago.

4.3. Modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens), who lived in three periods: the Paleolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic.

4.3.1. Cro-Magnon, which belongs to the Paleolithic period and mostly disappeared by 12,000 BCE (14,000 years ago).

4.3.2. From the Mesolithic period (10,000 BCE), the cold and glacial conditions moderated, changes occurred in human habitation areas, and the period of sedentism and settlement began.

4.3.3. The Neolithic period, which begins from 9,000 BCE (11,000 years ago), is the period in which agriculture and animal husbandry (the domestication of animals) began, and the first human-built sites containing evidence of agriculture and animal husbandry belong to this period.

But the analysis:

Darwin's theory, insofar as it expresses a material progression from nature to present-day creatures, including humans, does not necessarily pose a problem. Regarding the creation of Adam, the mere fact that the Qur'an says He created him from dust is not a reason to deny the theory of evolution, because it is entirely possible that He created him gradually from dust, as evidence can be found to support this, such as the use of the term "created" (khalaqa) in the noble verses, which is often used in the context of gradual creation, not instantaneous creation or creation from nothing (for example, in verse 14 of Surah Al-Mu'minun, He says: "then We created the drop into a clinging clot, then We created the clinging clot into a lump, then We created the lump into bones..."). And Allamah Tabatabai says that if we emphasize the special and distinct creation of man, it is not because his creation was preceded by dust, but because of other evidence, such as the likening of Jesus to him: "Indeed, the example of Jesus to Allah is like that of Adam. He created him from dust; then He said to him, 'Be,' and he was" (Aal-e-Imran/59). And if the creation of Jesus without a father, or the creation of a snake from a staff, is possible in a miraculous way and does not negate the scientific laws of gradual creation in its own context, then the creation of Adam, the father of mankind, in a miraculous way is also possible and does not negate the scientific laws of gradual creation.

So, the main problem with the theory does not arise from accepting the instantaneous creation of man; rather, the primary point of conflict relates to the purely materialistic view of its proponents. That is, in our belief, at some stage of creation (for example, 10-12 thousand years ago, which roughly corresponds to the time of Neolithic man who was a farmer and herder), the divine spirit was breathed into man, and "then We produced him as another creation," and Adam, the father of mankind (PBUH), was created. Meaning, even though Adam, in material terms, has a history tracing back to dust, and therefore material elements are important in his identity, in his creation, a non-material matter was also considered that distinguished him from all previous material beings. Hence, the existential horizon of man must be seen as material-spiritual, not purely material. Whereas, by relying on this theory, they propose a gradual material progression up to the animal, and from the animal to the tool-making animal, and at most to the cultural or symbol-making animal, in such a way that present-day man is precisely a continuation of that previous animal, only slightly more advanced.

Therefore, in our view, all those considered physiologically prior to contemporary humans are merely human-like animals that became extinct before the creation of this human, and as stated in the above division, they even differ from humans physiologically. So the human said to have had a cave-dwelling and hunting period refers to these human-like animals, and incidentally, there are plenty of cave-dwelling and hunting animals even now. When the criterion for identifying a human is reduced solely to physiological dimensions, the difference between Homo habilis (handy man) and contemporary humans is perhaps greater than the difference between that same being and an ape, yet they do not consider it an ape, just as they distinguish between an ape and a bear, for example. In the same way, even Neanderthal is other than contemporary humans, and if the criterion for distinguishing human from non-human were merely material dimensions, one could accept that their material and physiological similarities are such that both could be called human. But should the essential characteristic of the human be pursued on the horizon of physiology? Note that the most important characteristic of humans before contemporary humans is tool-making, and this is not proof of being human, just as we have numerous tool-making animals (such as the beaver, which builds dams), and contemporary humans (and not even Neanderthals) are the only beings among terrestrial living creatures that possess culture, and possessing culture depends on possessing speech, which can bring concepts into the mold of word and meaning and, without spatial and temporal connection with the next generation, transmit its experiences and culture through black on white (=writings) to subsequent generations, and thus shape history (hence, that being which lacks expression and speech, and therefore belongs to the prehistoric period, although physiologically close to humans, is not human), and perhaps it is for this reason that the Holy Quran introduces the first characteristic of the human after his creation as the enjoyment of expression: In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. The Most Gracious ... Created man, Taught him speech. And the fact that Westerners, due to confining the understanding of the human to the materialistic dimension, define culture in such a way that they present cave-dwelling and hunting periods as cultural periods of the human, the result is that they do not distinguish between reason and instinct and have underestimated the place of speech and expression in human life; otherwise, in this sense, other animals (even ants and termites) also have culture. But why are civilization and culture truly specific to humans? Because the human is the only being that possesses expression (speech is other than producing sound to attract the addressee's attention. Speech and expression are based on convention, and their signification is not natural; therefore, they can cross the boundaries of time and space, transmit experiences, and transform culture), and possessing expression has distinguished him from others, and analyzing the reality of expression and convention on the material horizon is not possible.

Up to this point, we have reviewed Western schools of anthropology and made a reference to Mr. Parsania's discussions, who, by linking anthropological discussions to epistemology and ontology, has offered a new rereading of the issue. He reread it from the basis of ontology, and we from the perspective of epistemology. Now, a broader classification:

We saw that the most important issues in anthropology are two matters:

1) The distinction of humans from animals

2) The distinction of humans from one another

Regarding this distinction, initially there were the evolutionists, who saw the answer to both in the evolutionary progress of the human, and later everyone took a stance against it.

In truth, the beginning of the issue of anthropology was the discussion about progress: how should backward nations (who, while being human, are different from us advanced nations) first be understood, and secondly, how can we realize this path of progress for other societies. Since the Darwinian evolutionary difference between societies was truly unacceptable, all subsequent schools took a stance against this analytical model and, regarding human movement, doubted seeing movement as progress and wanting to place everyone on this path, and they became proponents of cultural relativism.

In fact, the initial premise (that the central issue is human progress and development) was correct, but their horizon of vision regarding this progress was materialistic and therefore mistaken, and with this mistaken horizon, an incorrect answer was given to that premise (namely, that the standard of superiority is the civilized Westerner). Because of that wrong answer, later thinkers questioned that premise (that the central issue is progress and that a specific end is envisioned for humanity) and became proponents of cultural relativism.

In other words, the most important issues of anthropology include: origin, end, and path. Westerners initially encountered these same three issues; however, their answers to the two issues of origin and end gradually altered the very nature of the question of the "path."

Their position was as follows:

1- Origin: Darwinian evolution

2- End: Domination, freedom, welfare

3- Path: Technological progress, which was subjected to critiques, after which cultural relativism emerged, claiming that no definite path exists.

So, in fact, regarding the important issue of cultural differences, if our premise is progress, cultural differences, from a macro perspective, take on a kind of longitudinal state and become the very issue of the "path" (which was the position of the evolutionists, and our position concerning humanity is the same, albeit with a very different interpretation from that of the evolutionists). However, if the premise of progress is denied and the ends of societies, as well as their mode of movement and progression, are considered entirely plural, cultural differences become completely latitudinal, and we arrive at cultural pluralism (which is today considered one of the important principles of anthropology). Thus, in any case, our premise regarding the human path is deeply intertwined with the issue of differences among societies and influences the position we take towards it.

It is apparently along these lines that Mr. Parsania, in his book *Being and the Fall*, discusses the arc of descent and ascent, and in fact describes societies within these two arcs (primarily the arc of descent), though it seems the arc of ascent should receive more attention.

With these preliminaries, it becomes clear how much the horizon of analysis differs in understanding the nature of the problem. It seems we have three levels and three horizons of analysis (the sensory and imaginal-material horizon; the rational-essential horizon; and the intuitive-existential horizon), each of which adopts a specific viewpoint on the three main issues of our discussion (origin, path, and end). If we wish to arrive at our own viewpoint on the most important issues of anthropology (the distinction between humans and animals, the distinctions among humans themselves), we must first understand the foundational answers within the higher horizon under discussion, and then find the extensions of these answers in the lower horizons. Given that the answers of Western schools regarding the origin and end of humanity are roughly aligned with one another, and their main differences concern the path (which they largely view latitudinally, thus adhering to pluralism and explaining the path through the primacy of plurality), we will first apply these three horizons to the two issues of human origin and end, and God willing, in the next session, we will turn to the axis of the path (the discussion of explaining the reasons for the differences among human societies).

The Nature of Anthropological Theories: The Differentiating Feature of Humans from Non-Humans:

1) The Origin of Humanity (from what being)

2) The End of Humanity (to what extent of being)

a) The Sensory (and Imaginal) - Material Horizon of Analysis:

1- Origin: Darwinian evolution: The distinction of humans lies in the body and bodily functions.

2- End: Domination over nature, and freedom from nature's domination

b) The Essential - Rational Horizon

1) Western: Phenomenology (and Existentialism)

1- Origin: Darwinian evolutionism + the precedence of existence over essence (an indeterminate essence shaped by the individual themselves)

2- End: a) Absurdity (Nihilism): There is no goal, so the end is absurdity.

b) The Social Construction of Reality: The human being constructs their own end.

2) Eastern (Philosophical Psychology)

1- Origin: Topics such as the effusion of the spirit into the body, composition by way of annexation or union, corporeal origination, primordial nature (in addition to instinct), free will (further detail in the chart below)

2- End: Spiritual resurrection, bodily resurrection, substantial motion

C) The Existential-Intuitive Analytical Horizon 1- Origin: Topics such as the arc of descent, the Muhammadan Reality (PBUH), the pre-worldly human, the realm of pre-existence, withdrawal and descent

2- End: The realization of divine vicegerency, the paradise of the meeting (with God), the station of lordship arising from servitude, guardianship over the world, the arc of ascent

***

As an example of analyses from the rational-essential horizon, one can point to the analysis of the human being found in the books of Martyr Motahhari, especially in the books "Man and Faith" and "Man in the Quran." (Note that the difference between this horizon and the existential-intuitive horizon is that in the former, the human being is considered as an entity distinct from other existents, possessing an essence different from the rest, whereas in the latter analysis, the human being is the manifestation of the whole and holds the station of divine vicegerency, being, in reality, the macrocosm, and the world of all else is subsidiary to his existence. Thus, all else is understood in relation to him, and his resurrection and return is not only the resurrection of the human being (O man! Verily you are toiling towards your Lord, painfully toiling, and you will meet Him) but the resurrection of the entire world (To Allah is the journey's end, to Him all shall return).

Analysis of the Human Being in the Rational-Essential Horizon Based on the Discussions of Martyr Motahhari

1) Essential Characteristics of the Human Being

1-1- Essential qualities shared with other existents:

a) With all material existents: Nature (body and vegetative soul)

b) With animals (Instinct), which includes appetite (attraction) and anger (repulsion)

1-2) Exclusive essential qualities (which constitute the differentia of the human being from the animal), which can be divided into two categories:

1-2-1) A quality for its own sake: Primordial nature, possessing two dimensions: cognitive (perceptive) and dispositional (inclination)

1-2-2) A quality for the sake of another: Free will – volition

2) Accidental characteristics of the human being that are important in understanding his essence: Due to the human being's perfection through the acquisition of accidents (this will be discussed later in the treatise "Man in the World"), what is important in this context is understanding human limitations, which can be divided into two areas:

2-1) Existential and purely deterministic limitations (heredity, geographical environment, time, and history)

2-2) Conventional and violable limitations (society and social environment)

Chart