Hermeneutic application of the concept of peace in the Iranian school and contemporary Communitarianism

Document Type : Original Article

Author
Nilofar Chinichian
Political Science, Mohammad Rasoolallah University, Tehran, Iran
10.22034/ipsan.2026.583344.1008
Abstract
Peace has always been one of the most fundamental moral and political concepts in the history of thought. A concept that always faces a crisis of meaning. The two intellectual horizons of the Iranian school with ancient roots, Iranian-Islamic wisdom and the contemporary Communitarianism school, emphasizing concepts such as the common good and the critique of liberal individualism, defined a specific understanding of peace.
Main question: Based on Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutics, what are the similarities and commonalities between the Iranian school of peace and contemporary collectivism in explaining virtue-based peace?
Research hypothesis: Despite historical and cultural differences, these two traditions have conceptual convergence in components such as the common good, tolerance, altruism, and the critique of extreme individualism.
The purpose of the research: To analyze the Iranian school of peace and explain the possibility of its inter-horizon dialogue with contemporary Communitarianism in redefining the concept of peace.
Findings: In both, it is understood as a moral and virtue-based matter and has a close connection with justice, tradition, and common good. Gadamer's hermeneutic method allows the horizons of these two intellectual streams to be combined.
Conclusion: In both intellectual traditions, peace is considered as a virtue-based and moralistic policy.
Keywords
Iranian peace
Communitarianism
common good
ethics
hermeneutics
Barash, D. P., & Webel, C. P. (2011). Peace and conflict studies. Sage.
Brosius, M. (2010). Pax Persica and peoples of the Black Sea Region: Extent and limits of Achaemenid imperial ideology. In Black Sea Studies. Aarhus University Press. Aarhus University Press, London, UK
Fredrick Starr, S. (2018). Lost enlightenment: Central Asia’s golden age from the Arab conquest to Tamerlane (H. Afshar, Trans.). Tehran: Markaz Publication.
Gadamer, H.-G. (2004). Truth and method. London: Continuum.
Gali, V. B. (1993). Philosophers of peace and war (M. Hakimi, Trans.). Tehran: Nahr-e-Markaz.
Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, peace, and peace research. Journal of Peace Research.
Galtung, J. (1996). Peace by peaceful means: Peace and conflict, development and civilisation. London: Sage Publications.
Kajtez, I. (2018). The essence of phenomenon of peace and the notion of peace building. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330975845
Rawls, J. (1993). The law of peoples. Critical Inquiry, 20(1).
Richmond, P. O. (2008). Peace in international relations. New York: Routledge.
Sandel, M. (1982). Liberalism and the limits of justice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Taylor, C. (1992). Multiculturalism and “the politics of recognition”. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge University Press.
Wiesehöfer, J. (2009). The Achaemenid Empire. In I. Morris & W. Scheidel (Eds.), The dynamics of ancient empires (pp. 66–98). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Peace Studies
Volume 1, Issue 2
Spring 2025
Pages 95-130