Project Executor: Hasan Rahmani

Various answers have been given to questions related to the nature of modernity and modern times based on different criteria that are used to distinguish premodern times from the modern times. Marx considers the change in the mode of production and division of labor as the main criterion of this transformation. Max Weber uses his argumentative origins to explain this evolution in the process of rationalization and initial accumulation. And finally, for Foucault, the change in the discourse of power and government, along with the fundamental transformation of "self" in and through the modern age, is the basis of this transition from pre-modern times to the modern times. However, there is no consensus on exactly when modern era began. How we specify timelines for the history is completely in line with the criteria we use to define modernity. Nevertheless, from the perspective of all these scholars, modernity was started in Europe, regardless of globalization and being globalized. Hence, when we try to apply these questions to a non-Western society with different experiences and social history, questions and solutions will certainly become more complicated. This study tries to use Foucault's genealogy method in order to evaluate a series of significant indications around the concept of Iranian modern “self”, and answer questions about the nature of modernity in Iran and its root of development. To do this, the researcher focused on the emerging forms of torture that replaced classical torture in Iran. Creating a disciplinary society, changing the function of prisons, and finally, the foundation of the new educational system and the birth of the social sciences in Iran are among the other subjects that shed light to answers of key questions related to modernity in Iran.

Another finding of this study is the fact that Iranians are completely dependent on disciplinary institutions such as health, security and education. They have acquired the principles of their lives by living and working in disciplinary institutions, surrendering to educational system, and the necessary correction and discipline. Discipline has become their secondary nature. In addition, Iranians define their goals through instruments provided by disciplinary institutions. It seems that the consolidation and establishment of liberalizing processes and resistance against unifying forces and institutions is a social duty, which has been neglected in Iran’s current disciplinary society. The increasing number of alternative Iranian institutions is a thorn on the body of this disciplinary political utopia.