Arshin Adib-Moghaddam
5 min
Arshin Adib-Moghaddam introduces 'psycho-nationalism' as a framework to understand how modern states manufacture and sustain national identity. Rather than viewing nations as natural or primordial entities, the author argues that they are 'love stories' engineered by governments to secure the loyalty of their citizens. This process involves the strategic exploitation of a grey area between healthy national affinity and hegemonic, aggressive nationalism. By targeting the cognition and emotions of the populace, states turn the nation into a siren song that demands submission, sacrifice, and, if necessary, the use of brute force to maintain sovereignty.
Adib-Moghaddam uses Iran as a primary site of investigation to demonstrate these dynamics. He examines how successive Iranian regimes—from the Pahlavi dynasty to the post-1979 Islamic Republic—have utilized different, often contradictory, narratives to consolidate power. Under the Shah, the state promoted a pre-Islamic, Aryan-centric identity to align Iran with Western modernity and justify monarchical rule. Conversely, the post-revolutionary state shifted toward a Shia-Islamic framework, utilizing symbols of martyrdom and resistance to position Iran as the vanguard of a global movement against 'oppressive' powers. Despite these ideological shifts, the underlying mechanism remains the same: the state creates a 'psycho-discourse' to discipline the population and define the 'in-group' against an 'other'.
While the book focuses on Iran, it positions the nation-state as a global phenomenon where identity is constantly performed and contested. The author argues that psycho-nationalism is not a uniquely Western or Eastern invention but a pervasive tool of statecraft that relies on the manipulation of history, language, and culture. However, this state-driven indoctrination is never absolute. The book highlights how civil society, through poetry, philosophy, and popular culture, consistently resists these state-engineered identities. By revealing the constructed nature of the nation, the author aims to provide a 'psycho-ethnography' that helps readers recognize and resist the manipulative power of nationalist discourse in their own lives.
States routinely and readily exploit the grey area between sentiments of national affinity and hegemonic emotions geared to nationalist aggression. In this book, Arshin Adib-Moghaddam focuses on the use of Iranian identity to offer a timely exploration into the psychological and political roots of national identity and how these are often utilised by governments from East to West. Examining this trend, both under the Shah as well as by the governments since the 1979 Iranian revolution, Adib-Moghaddam's analysis is driven by what he terms 'psycho-nationalism', a new concept derived from psychological dynamics in the making of nations. Through this, he demonstrates how nationalist ideas evolved in global history and their impact on questions of identity, statecraft and culture. Psycho-nationalism describes how a nation is made, sustained and 'sold' to its citizenry and will interest students and scholars of Iranian culture and politics, world political history, nationalism studies and political philosophy.
Alex: It's analytically motivated. Iran is a hard case precisely because it's an ancient nation—one with a dense, pre-existing civilizational history that the state cannot simply invent from scratch. The Islamic Republic has to constantly re-engineer a layered identity to legitimize its current political form. That makes the constructedness of the project more visible, not less. You can see the seams. A newer state building identity from a thinner historical base might make the engineering look cleaner, and the mechanism easier to miss.
Sam: So the interpretive work is essentially archaeological—peeling back those layers to expose the mechanism underneath.
Alex: That's a fair description. And the goal Adib-Moghaddam sets is to show that once you strip away the constructed meanings, the nation-state is a vacant space. Real social life happens in the everyday, not in the myth. The myth is the state's instrument, not the people's authentic expression. [[RP_SECTION:methodological-limitations|Methodological Limitations]]
Sam: That raises the obvious methodological question. This is interpretive work throughout. A referee would push hard on the absence of any empirical psychological testing to validate the cognitive filtering claims.
Alex: That's the binding limitation, and the paper doesn't really contest it. This is a theoretical framework—a lens for reading state-society relations—not an experimentally validated mechanism. The claim that national identity functions as a narcissistic feedback loop is analytically compelling, but it isn't derived from experimental social psychology or large-scale survey data on identity fusion and political compliance. The framework tells you where to look; it doesn't close the empirical loop. [[RP_SECTION:future-research-directions|Future Research Directions]]
Sam: So the work it can do is more diagnostic than predictive. It gives researchers a vocabulary for interpreting state behavior, but it can't yet generate testable predictions about when the psycho-discourse holds versus when the state has to fall back on coercion.
Alex: Precisely. And that's where the research agenda opens up. If you could operationalize the degree of identity fusion between citizen and national symbolic order, you might be able to model the conditions under which coercive mechanisms become necessary. That's the empirical work this framework is waiting for—and it's a tractable problem for political psychologists or quantitative comparative researchers willing to take the theoretical scaffolding seriously.
Sam: The deeper implication is that the narratives that feel most natural are often the ones most worth scrutinizing—especially when they come attached to demands for unconditional loyalty.
Alex: That's the practical upshot of treating the nation as a constructed discourse rather than a given. It creates analytical space to ask whose interests that construction serves, and what a more pluralistic, less coercively managed relationship between states and the people living within them might look like. Thanks for listening to ResearchPod.