The Dialectic of Ideology and Utopia:The Comparison of the Discourse of Adamiyat and Kasravi aboutthe Function of the Utopia of Revolutionary Social Democracy inthe Constitutional Movement during the Period of the First Parliament

The aim of the present article is inquire into the epistemological presuppositions of the discourse of Adamiyat and Kasravi about the Function of the Utopia of Revolutionary Social Democracy during the period of the First Parliament on the basis of the analytical-interpretational perspective of “the Dialectic of Ideology and Utopia” in order that get at the answer of the main question which were Adamiyat and Kasravi able to guard their historiography about the Constitutional Movement against “the Ideologic Contradiction” and “the Utopian Contradiction”; if yes, How and on what ground did they do that? The research findings show that Adamiyat knows the Constitutional Movement an event has been realized and ended. The political-social conflicts due to the Utopia of Revolutionary Social Democracy changed the Constitutional Movement, but Adamiyat on the basis of the Bureaucratic and Constitutional Rationalism uses the Ideology of Political Democracy to hide this change. This “Concealment” means the Constitutional Movement is suffer with “the Ideologic Contradiction” in Adamiyat’s historiography. Kasravi believes the Persian Constitutional is the fruit of in season, but an “unripe” fruit. the Utopia of Revolutionary Social Democracy did not have a relation to the concrete position of Iran and Iranian. This separateness lets the Utopia in order to escape encounter the concrete problems of social existence in a society that has-been. This the “unreality” means the Persian Constitutional was not the unripe fruit, but was the fruit of out of season. Thus, the Constitutional Movement is suffer with “the Utopian Contradiction” in Kasravi’s historiography.