International Journal on Criminology Volume 7, Number 2, Spring 2020 | Page 41

International Journal on Criminology
Palabras clave: Irán, Shiismo, Secularismo, secularización, blasfemia
理解伊朗伊斯兰共和国内的体制
摘要
世俗化是一个在以公众与宗教空间逐渐分离、宗教影响力下降为大致特征的新事务状态中达到高潮的过程。这是西方人类科学对世俗化的定义 , 即世俗化过程与西方现代性共存 ,
且表达一个摆脱宗教束缚的世界。如今的伊朗是由两个不同的世俗化运动相互交织 , 且由三个阶段组成的结果 : 传统宗教的去神圣化、政治化宗教的再神圣化、政治化宗教的去神圣化。
关键词 : 伊朗 , 什叶派 , 世俗主义 , 世俗化 , 亵渎神圣
Secularization is a process culminating in a new state of affairs, loosely characterized
by a growing separation of the public and the religious spheres,
and a decline of religion. This is how the human sciences of the West define
secularization, as a process coextensive with Western modernity and expressive of
a world becoming disenchanted.
The West has studied the phenomenon mainly in terms of the elimination
of religion from the public sphere. Regardless of whether one sees it, like Blumenberg,
1 as a withdrawal of religion, requiring new ways of thinking, or, like Schmitt, 2
as a transfer of content from the religious to the political domain, within structures
modeled initially by theology, it is unanimously agreed that the concept of
secularization describes a space governed by the separation of religion and state.
While, strictly speaking, the theoretical debate revolves around the elimination or
the conversion of religion, missing from the various meanings of the term “secularization”
is the more literal one of how elements from beyond this world can be
applied to the earthly world. This literal definition could paradoxically have led
Western thought to decry the contradiction: How could secularization, conceived
as religion’s loss of hegemony over society, include the idea of the total investment
of the secular world with elements whose origin was transcendent? This second
view of secularization, envisaged in particular by sociologists such as Farhad
1 See Hans Blumenberg, The Legitimacy of the Modern Age (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1985
[1966]).
2 See Carl Schmitt, Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty (Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press, 1985 [1922]).
32