The Causes of the Constitutional Revolution in Iran Author(s): Ervand Abrahamian Source: International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 10, No. 3 (Aug., 1979), pp. 381-414 Published by: Cambridge University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/162146 Accessed: 29/10/2009 16:32 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International Journal of Middle East Studies. http://www.jstor.org Int. J. Middle East Stud. 10 (I979), 38 -414 Printed in Great Britain 38I Errand Abrahamian THE CAUSES OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL REVOLUTION IN IRAN The mode of production in material life conditions the social, political, and intel- lectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, the social being that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come in conflict with the existing relations of production - or what is but a legal expression for the same thing - with the property relations. Then begins an epoch of social revolution. KARL MARX Ideas were all-important for the individual whom they impelled into action; but the historian must attach equal importance to the circumstances that gave these ideas their chance. Revolutions are not made without ideas, but they are not made by the intellec- tuals. Steam is essential for driving a railway engine; but neither a locomotive nor a permanent way can be built out of steam. CHRISTOPHER HILL The writers furnished not only their ideas to the people who made the (French) revolution, but also their temperance and disposition. As the result of their long education, in the absence of any other instructors, coupled with their profound ignorance of practice, all Frenchmen from reading their books finally contracted the instincts, the turn of mind, the tastes and even the eccentricities natural to those who write. To such an extent was this the case that, when finally they had to act, they transported into politics all the habits of literature. DE TOCQUEVILLE THEORIES OF REVOLUTION Marx, the prophet of revolution, may no longer haunt conservative politicians, but Marx, the theorist of revolution, continues to both attract and arouse social scientists. In the words of one student of politics, the social sciences, especially political sociology, can be described as a 'century-long dialogue with Karl Marx.'1 And as one prominent historian of ideas has aptly stated, Marx can properly be called the midwife of twentieth-century social thought, 'for in the process of discarding what they had found invalid in Marxism and explaining AUTHOR'S NOTE: I would like to thank the Ali Banuazizi, James Bill, the late T. Cuyler Young, and Mangol Bayat Philipp for reading and commenting extensively on this paper. Of course, they are not responsible for any errors or opinions found in the paper. 1 E. Nordlinger, ed. Politics and Society: Comparative Political Sociology (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1970), p. 8. 0020-7438/79/o200-020o $01.50 ( 1979 Cambridge University Press 382 Ervand Abrahamian what aspects of it had proved helpful, the innovators of the late nineteenth century took their first steps towards constructing a more general theory of social reality.'2 For example, Emile Durkheim developed the paradigm of 'mechanical and organic solidarity' to counter the theory of class struggle.3 Vilfred Pareto and Gaetano Mosca stressed the dichotomy between ruling elites and ruled masses to supplant the concept of socioeconomic classes.4 Robert Michels formulated the 'iron law of oligarchy' to warn that popular organizations, such as the Social Democratic Parties, would bring in not the era of democratic socialism but the autocracy of bureaucratic socialists.5 And Max Weber, of course, devoted much of his career to showing that the dynamics of class conflict should be studied concomitantly with the heavy weights of conservative ideol- ogies, traditional religions, ethnic castes, and bureaucratic institutions.6 The recent revival of interest in theories of revolutions has rekindled the old dialogue between Marxists emphasizing the role of classes and non-Marxists stressing the importance of ideas, cultures, religions, and ideologies.7 Marx had argued that changes in the economic base of society created new forces, new interests, and new aspirations in the class structure of the same society. These social changes, in turn, undermined the political, institutional, and ideological superstructure controlled by the ruling class. As Engels eulogized at his friend's funeral, Marx's main contribution had been to prove that the superstructure of any society - especially the dominant values, laws, and organizations - were founded on the class structure, not vice versa as previous philosophers, particu- larly Hegel, had claimed.8 Thus according to Marx, revolutions were caused not by disruptions in the mode of perception but by innovations in the means of production; not by radical ideas but by revolutionary classes; not by 'outside agitators,' 'empty-headed propagandists,' and 'underground anarchists' - 'the magical alchemists of insurrection' - but by viable and broad social classes; and not by small groups of intellectuals but by major classes fighting for their own interests while 'inspiring' the masses with the dream of 'a new social order.'9 2 S. Hughes, Consciousnessand Society (New York, 1958), p. 74. 3E. Durkheim, The Division of Labor (New York, I964). 4 V. Pareto, The Ming of Society (London, 1935); G. Mosca, The Ruling Class (New York, I939). 5 R. Michels, Political Parties (New York, 1949). 6 H. Gerth and C. W. Mills, eds, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (New York, 1969). 7 For recent works on theories of revolution see: L. Stone, 'Theories of Revolution,' World Politics, I8, 2 (January 1966), 159-I76: P. Zagorin, 'Theories of Revolution in Contemporary Historiography,' Political Science Quarterly, 88, i (March 1973), 3-26; L. Kaplan, ed. Revolution: A Comparative Study (New York, 1973); C. Welch and M. Taintor, ed. Revolution and Political Change (Los Angeles, 1972); C. Johnson, Revolution- ary Change (Berkeley, 1968); special issue 'Revolution and Social Change,' Comparative Politics, 5, 3 (April 1973); special issue 'Theories of Revolution,' Comparative Studies in Society and History, i8, 2 (April 1976). 8 F. Engels, 'Speech at the Graveside of Karl Marx,' Selected Works (Moscow, 1958), II, I67. 9 S. Padover, ed., Karl Marx on Revolution (New York, I97I), pp. 55, 422-424, 456- 462. The Causes of the Constitutional Revolution in Iran 383 Although Marx and Engels considered ideologies to be a part of the super- structure dependent upon the social structures, they did not deny the possibility that radical ideologists could, at times, develop into independent forces capable of helping undermine the ruling class. As Engels protested in his old age when young disciples tried to reduce all phenomena to economic explanations, Marx's 'guide to history' was designed to prove that the mode of production was the 'ultimate,' but not necessarily the 'only,' assertive force in social change: According to the materialistconception of history, the ultimatelydetermining element in history is the productionand reproductionof real life. More than this neither Marx nor I have asserted. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determiningone, he transformsthat propositioninto a meaningless, abstract,senseless phrase.The economic situationis the basis, but the variouselements of the superstructure- political forms of the class struggle, constitutions, judicial forms, and reflexes of all these actual struggles in the brains of the participants,such as political, juristic, philosophicaltheories, religious views, and systems of dogmas - all these exercise their influence on the course of historicalstruggles and in many cases predominatein determiningtheir form. There is an interactionof all these elements in which the economic movement finally asserts itself as necessary.10 The interaction between socioeconomic environment and ideological forces has become the focus of interest for a school of empirical Marxist historians in Britain. For example, Christopher Hill has devoted much of his work to the complex relationship between Puritanism and the middle class gentry in the English Revolution.i Edward Thompson has detailed the