Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1
Associate Professor, Department of History, Arak University, Arak, Iran
2
Lecturer, Department of History, Arak University, Arak, Iran
Abstract
Introduction
In Iranian culture, symbols are not merely reflections of nature but also mechanisms for articulating social, moral, and political order. One of the most recurrent symbols is the wolf—an animal that, in Iranian texts ranging from ancient myths to Islamic and mystical literature, is consistently associated with threat, disorder, oppression, and greed. This study, employing Clifford Geertz’s interpretive approach to culture, seeks to examine the wolf not merely as a biological entity but as a multilayered cultural sign within the context of Iranian history. According to Geertz’s theory, culture is a web of meanings in which individuals are suspended, and interpreting such a web requires “thick description” of social and historical contexts. Through this lens, the wolf transforms from a zoological reality into a cultural symbol, shaped and reshaped through complex interactions with the economic, political, religious, and moral structures of Iranian society.
Within this framework, the central question of the study is how the symbol of the wolf has functioned in Iran’s historical, literary, and religious texts from ancient times to the Islamic era and how it has served as a tool to reflect collective fears, values, and socio-political critiques. Unlike earlier studies that have analyzed the wolf primarily through psychological or mythological lenses, this research argues that the wolf belongs to a broader system of meaning that has been reproduced in tandem with historical, religious, and social transformations. Accordingly, the aim is to decode the wolf as a historical, ethical, and political discourse and to analyze how it delineates the boundaries between order and chaos, power and victimhood, and morality and corruption. Subsidiary questions include how the representation of the wolf differs across Zoroastrian, Islamic, political, and mystical texts. The significance of this research lies in its capacity to shed deeper light on the historical mindset and the value-making structures of Iranian society-one that has turned culture into a tool for interpreting and giving meaning to lived experience.
Reaserch Methodology
This study employs a qualitative, interpretive methodology based on symbolic discourse analysis. The theoretical foundation is Clifford Geertz’s model of “thick description,” which regards culture as a system of meanings and insists that symbols must be interpreted within their historical and social contexts. Rather than relying on statistical or quantitative methods, the research is grounded in a close reading of cultural and historical texts-treating them not merely as data but as “cultural texts” in which layers of meaning are reproduced through interaction with power structures, ethical codes, and social anxieties.
The research process consists of several key steps. First, texts from different historical periods of Iran were collected and selected, including religious texts (such as the Qur’an, Hadith, and works by Islamic scholars), historical chronicles (both general and local histories), literary works (poetic and prose), and mystical writings, all of which contain meaningful references to the wolf symbol. These texts were chosen not only based on the frequency of wolf imagery but also with attention to the diversity of social and discursive contexts, to allow for comparative analysis across historical periods and intellectual domains.
In the second phase, the method of interpretive discourse analysis was applied. The analysis involved historical contextualization, examining the role of each text within its contemporary social order, and identifying semantic patterns wherein the wolf symbolizes concepts such as chaos, tyranny, greed, or power. Instead of relying on predetermined categories, meanings were extracted organically from the texts themselves through the process of interpretation.
The research also employed a comparative approach, analyzing symbolic discourses about the wolf in both pre-Islamic and Islamic Iran to highlight the semantic dynamism and the role of historical context in shaping the symbol’s evolution. Thus, the methodology centers on multilayered textual interpretation, socio-historical reconstruction, and symbolic analysis within a cultural-historical framework—aligned with the interpretive aims and theoretical orientation of the study.
Discussion
The symbol of the wolf in Iran’s cultural history functions far beyond a mere zoological image; it serves as a reflection of power structures, social fears, and ethical discourses. In the pastoral-agricultural society of premodern Iran, the wolf was not only a tangible threat to livelihood but also became a “symbolic Other” in opposition to order, security, and morality. This act of othering played a dual role: on one hand, it demarcated cultural boundaries between society and untamed nature, and on the other, it metaphorically critiqued institutional power and moral decay. As Geertz emphasizes, symbols reflect systems of meaning that encode historical anxieties into cultural narratives.
For instance, the metaphorical comparison of tyrannical rulers to wolves in texts such as Saadi’s Bustan or the Tarikhnameh-ye Herat is not merely literary imagery but a critical discourse against violence and injustice. This symbolism, when linked to the image of the sheep (representing the oppressed people), creates a moral polarity in which the wolf signifies unchecked power, greed, and tyranny, while the sheep embodies helplessness and the need for justice. Such uses of the wolf make it a political-ethical tool for delegitimizing authority and demanding equity. This is precisely where, in Geertz’s view, the symbol becomes an “active system of meaning-making.”
On the other hand, in mystical discourses, the wolf becomes a symbol of the nafs ammārah (commanding self) and the destructive forces within the human psyche. Poets and mystics employ the metaphor of the wolf to depict internal threats and to issue spiritual warnings against neglecting the self, which leads to moral collapse. In this usage, the wolf is not an external force but an internal enemy that must be overcome through spiritual discipline.
Thus, the wolf as a symbol in Iranian historical texts carries a plurality of meanings—from environmental threat to political corruption and moral danger. This semantic polyphony highlights the core function of symbols in Geertz’s theory: tools for encoding collective anxieties, organizing contradictory experiences, and providing a cultural framework for critique, legitimation, or resistance.
Conclusion
According to Clifford Geertz’s interpretive approach, symbols are not merely reflections of objective realities but systems of meaning-making that transform lived experiences into cultural discourses. Relying on the method of “thick description,” this study analyzed the wolf’s role as a polyphonic symbol in Iranian history, whose functions range from environmental threats to ethical-political metaphors. The findings indicate that within the socio-economic fabric of premodern Iran, the wolf functioned as a “cultural text” encoding both communal fears about subsistence insecurity (such as the destruction of livestock) and structural critiques of abuses of power (e.g., wolf-like rulers).
In Geertz’s framework, the persistence of the wolf symbol from antiquity to the Islamic era is not a sign of cultural stagnation but evidence of its symbolic flexibility in adapting to historical transformations. For example, while in Zoroastrian mythology the wolf represents an evil force threatening natural order, in Islamic discourse, the same symbol is recontextualized through notions like nafs ammārah or the tyrant ruler, serving as a vehicle for the reproduction of ethical norms. This shift illustrates how symbols dynamically migrate from material domains (like pastoral economies) to abstract realms (theology, mysticism, politics), turning “lived experience” into “collective wisdom.”
Moreover, metaphors such as the “wolf and sheep” relationship in texts like political siyāsat-nāmehs reflect not only historical anxieties of pastoral societies but also operate as critical discourses that challenge structures of power. This symbolic representation, consistent with Geertz’s view, shows how culture-through metaphorical narratives-redefines political relations. Even wolf-related proverbs (such as “the foxy wolf”) function as “micro-cultural texts,” reinforcing cautionary frameworks regarding greed and injustice.
Keywords
)