حسینعلی نوذری

Hobbes's tendency to connect the two fields of ethics and politics has a historical background. Historical analysis shows that upon entering the modern era, with Machi-avelli and Hobbes and their contemporaries, politics and ethics find a realistic, relativ-istic, utilitarian and anti-ultra centric nature. Hobbes's systematic explanation of hu-man nature, ethics and politics begins with the fundamental characteristics of humans. He proposes a political system based on two scenarios of the natural state and the gov-ernment (commonwealth). According to him, if the unruly nature of man is not limited by an absolute ruler with full power, the return to the natural state or the war of all against all will be inevitable. Hobbes belonged to his own time and his concern was order, peace and security, and therefore, by combining moral philosophy (natural laws) and political philosophy (civil laws), and presenting an ethical view of human self-preservation, he builds a system consisting of do’s and don'ts based on the description of the characteristics of human nature to form a peaceful government based on the so-cial contract theory to lead everyone towards a society with security. Hobbes's moral philosophy originates from his theory about natural law, and natural law also includes his theory about natural rights. Natural law and natural rights are the two foundations on which Hobbes based his theory of ethics and politics, respectively.

One of the most important issues in the economy is the role of government in the process of eco-nomic growth and development. Production is a complex and social activity that requires all its con-texts and resources to achieve proper production for society. Therefore, the issue of importance is the manner and quality of government intervention in matters related to the economy and the wel-fare of the people, not the extent of this intervention. In Iran, there is always disagreement among thinkers on which institution is responsible for development. For some, the government has a duty to take the lead in development and to push it forward, but for others, the government is not a good institution to promote development. These groups play a minimal role for the government. This study, by comprehensively examining these two different approaches, examines the views and ideas of three prominent scientists and experts in the field of political economy and focuses on the role of government in development. Azimi introduced development in a more general way and believed that complete development is not possible without the development of all structures. According to him, in the developed world, structural guidance (structuring in the presence of technical domi-nance) is unnecessary and short-term guidance is necessary. The importance of the government in the development process is so great in the idea that the main and most important institution of de-velopment is the "government based on democracy"; And he puts the judiciary and the media in the next ranks. Reiis Dana considers the state to be class in nature and does not examine the state sepa-rately from the global relations of capitalism. This lack of attention has always caused development in a fragmented, unbalanced and unsuccessful country. According to Reiis Dana, development in Iran is due to the development of capitalism, because capitalist development in the world is growing unevenly. Nili believes that government intervention in development, in addition to inefficiency, deprives people of their freedoms. Therefore, Nili looks at the issue from another angle and defends government restrictions on the economy and development by prioritizing freedom over social jus-tice.

The position and relationship between the government and the civil society has always occupied the minds of political thinkers, especially in the modern period. In general, governments assume different roles depending on the application of different approaches. From the point of view of the relationship and the type of influence of the government on the society, there have always been two competing views, which are rooted in the thoughts of two prominent political philosophers: John Locke and Karl Marx. In John Locke's view, the government is a mediating entity, limited and conditional, based on the principle of consent and with the aim of creating peace and public welfare based on the social contract and the right of public rebellion in times of inefficiency and disobedience to the law, and ultimately independent of civil society. And in the view of Karl Marx, the concept of government is based on three different opinions. The government as a means of suppressing the working class, the government as an arbiter or mediator, and finally the government as a function of the changing economic infrastructure, and ultimately relying on classes of society.

The current article aims to examine the political foundations that are the main cause of the emergence of the Gothic style and its flow in history. Many critics and thinkers who research the Gothic genre agree that the begin-ning of Gothic literature should be considered the 18th century. Therefore, in this article, the 18th century is con-sidered as the starting point of Gothic. Since the impact and penetration of Gothic as well as its ambiguity and complexity is a more obvious and ponderable literary genre, the focus and emphasis in this article is on Gothic literature, and Gothic literature of the 18th century is considered as the origin of this literary genre. The present speech focuses on Gothic literature and studies the aspects and political factors that played a role in the for-mation of this literature in the middle of the 18th century in order to show the origin of this literary and artistic genre that has lasted for nearly three hundred years. The effective political factors in the emergence of the Goth-ic genre have been manifested in the form of legislation in various fields such as justice, according to a religious trend, policy making in the field of economy with regard to entering the era of modernity and land reforms. Vi-jay Mishra, a contemporary literary critic and theoretician, states in an article titled "Gothic Sublimity" that the explosion of capital in the second half of the 18th century created a literary phenomenon that was later called Gothic. From the very beginning, Gothic has a hint of rebellion and extravagance that disrupts the security of the mind and produces fear and apprehension. Therefore, the desire to read it is related to the feeling of need to specify the historical significance of the Gothic by mentioning the factors influencing it. In fact, following a kind of genealogical approach, the present research seeks to find an origin that did not stop at a specific or certain point in history as a starting point or origin. Rather, it is always developing and moving. And this mobility of the starting point is precisely the secret of the stability and continuity of the Gothic genre over the centuries. Centu-ries that have many essential differences, but have created something stable, progressive and changing from their hearts, which, unlike other literary and artistic genres and styles, has proven to have no time limit: The Gothic genre.