نظام دانایی و گفتمان موسیقایی در کتاب سرگذشت موسیقی ایران؛ تحلیلی کیفی از اندیشه روح‌الله خالقی در پرتو نظریه گفتمان فوکو

Background: Sarghozasht-e Musiqi-ye Iran by Ruhollah Khaleqi is one of the foundational texts in the historiography of Iranian music, yet its importance exceeds the limits of conventional historical narration. The book may be read as an effort to formulate a modern system of musical knowledge in Iran. Rather than merely recounting musicians, styles, and historical developments, Khaleqi organizes Iranian music into a coherent field of knowledge through classification, explanation, educational argument, and cultural valuation. In this sense, the work participates in the making of what may be called a modern Iranian musical episteme.
This study approaches Khaleqi’s work through Michel Foucault’s discourse theory in order to show that Sarghozasht-e Musiqi-ye Iran is not only a documentary account of music history, but also a discursive intervention in the formation of “national music” in modern Iran. From a Foucauldian perspective, discourse does not simply reflect reality; it produces the conditions under which certain statements become acceptable as truth. Accordingly, Khaleqi’s language, categorizations, and institutional commitments can be understood as mechanisms for defining what counts as legitimate musical knowledge in twentieth-century Iran. The historical background of this process is the broader cultural modernization of late Qajar and Pahlavi Iran, when questions of national identity, scientific knowledge, institutional education, and modern cultural policy became increasingly central. Within this context, music was redefined from a mainly oral and master-apprentice practice into an object of writing, teaching, analysis, and national representation.
Previous studies have mostly examined Khaleqi as a composer, educator, or cultural reformer. Other works have discussed the discourse of Iranian traditional or national music in broader sociological terms, but fewer studies have analyzed Sarghozasht-e Musiqi-ye Iran itself as a discourse-producing text. This research addresses that gap by focusing on the epistemic structure of the book and by interpreting Khaleqi’s project as part of the intertwined relationship of knowledge, power, and cultural identity.
Objectives: The main objective of this research is to analyze the epistemic and discursive structure of Ruhollah Khaleqi’s musical thought in Sarghozasht-e Musiqi-ye Iran. More specifically, the study seeks to answer the following question: how did Khaleqi, through the production of a distinct discursive order, contribute to the formation of the concept of national music in Iran?
A second objective is to examine how Khaleqi transformed musical knowledge from an oral and experiential tradition into a written, teachable, and institutionally legitimized body of knowledge. The research also asks how his work links music with broader concepts such as science, education, nationhood, authenticity, and modernity. The underlying hypothesis is that Khaleqi’s contribution was not limited to preserving or narrating Iranian music; rather, he played a central role in constructing a modern regime of musical truth in which the “national musician” emerged as a new knowing subject.
Method: This study adopts a qualitative method based on Foucauldian discourse analysis. The corpus of analysis consists primarily of the two volumes of Sarghozasht-e Musiqi-ye Iran, supplemented by Khaleqi’s notes, theoretical writings, and selected secondary studies on Iranian music and discourse. Data were collected through documentary research and close reading of the text. 
The analysis focused on three interconnected levels. First, it examined the language of the text: key terms such as “scientific music,” “national music,” “authenticity,” and “education” were studied as discursive markers that define the boundaries of valid knowledge. Second, it explored the institutional dimension of Khaleqi’s project, especially the role of music education and the establishment of the National Music Conservatory in legitimizing a new musical order. Third, it analyzed the production of subjectivity, asking how the text imagines and constructs the ideal modern Iranian musician as a disciplined, knowledgeable, and nationally conscious subject.
The study is theoretically grounded in Foucault’s concepts of discourse, power/knowledge, and the production of truth. Rather than treating Khaleqi’s book as a transparent historical source, it reads it as an active site of knowledge production, where historical narrative, pedagogy, and cultural ideology intersect.
Result: The findings show that Khaleqi played a decisive role in shifting Iranian musical knowledge from a traditional oral context into the realm of writing, theory, and institutional education. In Sarghozasht-e Musiqi-ye Iran, music is no longer presented only as an inherited art of performance; it is redefined as a field of systematic knowledge that can be classified, documented, taught, and evaluated. This transformation is one of the clearest signs of the emergence of a modern musical discourse in Iran.
The analysis also demonstrates that Khaleqi’s discourse is structured around a distinction between legitimate and non-legitimate forms of musical knowledge. By privileging concepts such as scientific method, notation, disciplined training, and cultural refinement, he creates a hierarchy in which written, teachable, and analytically grounded music gains epistemic authority. In Foucauldian terms, this constitutes a system of truth: a set of discursive rules through which certain statements about Iranian music become valid and others become marginal (Foucault, 1980).
Another major finding is that power in Khaleqi’s discourse does not function through direct domination, but through educational and cultural institutions. The conservatory, the pedagogical text, and the broader cultural apparatus of modern music become mechanisms for organizing musical knowledge and training new subjects. In this framework, the “national musician” appears as a new epistemic subject: someone who must master tradition, internalize scientific order, and embody national cultural consciousness. Thus, Khaleqi’s project links music not only to art, but also to nation-building and the reproduction of cultural identity.
Finally, the study suggests that Sarghozasht-e Musiqi-ye Iran should be understood as more than a history book. It is a discursive text in which music, knowledge, and national identity are mutually produced. Its lasting influence on music education, scholarship, and criticism in Iran indicates that the epistemic order articulated by Khaleqi has continued well beyond his own historical moment.
Conclusion: This research concludes that Ruhollah Khaleqi was one of the most influential figures in the formation of modern Iranian musical knowledge. Through Sarghozasht-e Musiqi-ye Iran, as well as through educational institution-building, he helped transform Iranian music into a modern field of knowledge connected to science, pedagogy, and national identity. His work made it possible to think of music not simply as an aesthetic or performative practice, but as a legitimate cultural discourse.
From a Foucauldian perspective, Khaleqi’s significance lies in his role as a producer of discourse: he organized concepts, established norms of legitimacy, and contributed to the emergence of a knowing musical subject within a modern national framework. Therefore, Sarghozasht-e Musiqi-ye Iran may be read as a foundational text in the reproduction of musical knowledge through the intersection of power, education, and identity. The study ultimately shows that the history of music in modern Iran cannot be separated from the history of discourse, and that Khaleqi’s work remains central to understanding how national music was epistemically and institutionally constructed.