Abstract
The question of what is the method of John Pocock in political thought is the main concern of the present study. Along with Quentin Skinner and John Don, he is one of the founders of the Cambridge School of Methodology of Political Thought, which, despite Skinner's introduction in Iran, has neglected John Pocock's methodology. Emphasis on the historical political context along with the dominant linguistic paradigm is the main feature of his methodology. According to John Pacock's method of historiography, in order to study political thought, one must place the texts of political thought in their historical context, and on the other hand, the linguistic analysis of these texts as part of a paradigm or action of speech. Characteristic features of Pocock methodology are: historical context on the one hand and language, action, discourse and paradigm on the other. This method is opposed to text-based methodology. Following the publication of Pocock's work and his research on seventeenth-century British political thought, we are witnessing the discovery of a kind of Republican tradition that has challenged the tradition of liberalism in recent decades.
Keywords: political thought, historiography, context, paradigm, civic republicanism.
 
 
 
Introduction
Collingwood's idea that historians should examine the thoughts of historical actors based on their own time and Leslette's idea that the intentions of thinkers can be reconstructed based on textual evidence are the foundations of the method. He created a new school of political thought called the Cambridge School. (James, 2019: 3) In the Cambridge school, history should be understood in relation to politics and politics in relation to history. (Alexander, 2016: 361) The intellectual history of this school is known by the works of John Pocock, Quintin Skinner and John Dunn. The members of the Cambridge School are considered pioneers of the historical turn in the study of past thoughts and policies, and they provide innovative perspectives to examine the origins and nature of modern political thought. John Pocock articles titled "History of Political Thought; Methodological research", John Dunn with the title "Identity of historical ideas" and Quintin Skinner with the title "Meaning and understanding in the history of ideas", between1962 and 1969, established the Cambridge school as a school in methodology. (Whatmore, 2015: 61-62) In the meantime, the publication of Pocock's article became the main manifesto of the Cambridge approach and showed him as the leader of this school. (James, 2019: 4)
The question of what is John Pocock's methodology in political thought is the main concern of the present research. Thus, the main question is, what are the main features of John Pocock's methodology in political thought? And what are its characteristics? And what effect has this type of methodology had on reviving the idea of civil republicanism? In response to the above questions, the hypothesis of the article is that: based on John Pocock's historiographical method, to study political thought, on the one hand, the texts of political thought should be placed in their historical context, and on the other hand, the linguistic analysis of these texts should be A partial title of a paradigm or speech act. The characteristics of Pocock's methodology are: the historical context on one hand and language, action, discourse and paradigm on the other hand. In his opinion, in order to write the history of political thought, one should pay attention to the text, linguistics and history of the thoughts that are being investigated. This means that these ideas have emerged in the context of which text, language and history. In other words, according to John Pocock's methodology, in order to investigate political thought, like a historian, in addition to examining the historical and political contexts of the period of formation of thought, the dominant language paradigm of that period should also be identified and taken into consideration. After the publication of Pocock's works and his research on the political thought of the 17th century England, we have witnessed the discovery of a kind of republican tradition that has challenged the tradition of liberalism in the past decades.
 
Discussion & Result
Pocock's concern is the history of political thought and the correct understanding of it. Political thought is formed from several linguistic actions that can be understood by political actors in their specific historical contexts. In other words, political thought is produced in a plural linguistic space, which Pocock calls historical discourse or historiography. (Pocock, 2009: viii) In his opinion, there are two approaches to investigate political thought. In the first approach, which is emphasized by Pocock, political thought is considered as an aspect of social behavior in which people show their behavior in dealing with each other and the institutions in the society. Which leads to the formation of political thought. In the second approach, political thought is only considered as an aspect of intellectual activities. Political thought is a reflection of the social structure and political conditions of that society. Our historian believes that thought reflects the society and interests in it.  Pocock believes that in order to understand political thought, one should look at the history of historiography as a branch of political thought. (James, 2019: 8) The subject of Pocock's historiography is paradigms. As he writes, "The actors of my story are more paradigms than people, concepts that are used for a longer period of time and do not change so easily." (Pocock, 1971: 29) Thus, from Pocock's point of view, the methodological tools of the historiography of political thought constitute the historical context on one side and language, action, discourse and paradigm on the other side. In Pocock's methodology, paying attention to the historical and political conditions of the period in which the political thought was written is a necessary condition for its investigation, but it is not sufficient; because the linguistic paradigms or the dominant political language of that period should also be identified and taken into consideration. In his opinion, it is only by adopting such an approach that the reader or historian of political thought can find a common ground with the author of the creation and through that can reach an understanding of his political thought. Pocock's main basis is linguistic paradigms, especially political language, and he tends towards a kind of structuralism, and in this regard, he has been influenced by Thomas Cohen's paradigm idea and Ferdinand de Saussure's linguistics.
Pocock believes that in order to understand political thought, one should look at the history of historiography as a branch of political thought. (James, 2019: 8) He considers historiography as a form of political thought and believes that "we will gain a better theoretical understanding of political societies if we know what, why, when and how they produced their history and They discuss about it. In addition, historians, who considers himself one of them, gain a better understanding of political theory and political phenomena. (Pocock, 2011: 1) In his book Ancient Law and Feudal Laws (Pocock, 1987), which is a study about the history of thought in 17th century England, he emphasizes that historical thought is nothing like mere historiography. He wants to show how "pasts" are conceptualized, and how the relationships between them lead to the formation of a concept called "history". (Pocock, 1962: 24) History is not just the political history of past events: history is something from the past that can be related to the understanding of politics, and politics cannot be studied separately from history. The question that arises is what is this "thing"? In political science, there are facts that are developed by laws; In the history of political thought, it is a thought that can be considered as actions or accidents; In the field of political philosophy, they are signs of eternal truths; And from the point of view of political theology, it is a unique event that can be generalized to all events and in all places. (Alexander, 2016: 362-364)
For Pocock, the historian of thought at work is like a student who must be familiar with the languages ​​of debate in the historical context. He should know which language was used, how and why in historical debates. (Pocock, 1962: 13) According to him, relationships between humans are made through language, a language that emphasizes a number of institutionalized and pre-existing structures. "The words that carry out my action do not belong to me, but have been borrowed by me, moreover, the said words have been institutionalized. Therefore, my actions are pre-instituted; They must be implemented through institutionalized methods. But the language structures that are institutionalized are created to be used by more than one person, and they work for more than one purpose and in more than one situation; These words are never free from doubt. "To perform a speech act, I have to borrow someone else, and exactly the other person is also stuck in such a predicament; All verbalized actions are mediating. But the institutionalization of my language makes it comprehensible to others, and in this way, he can give my answer using words that I also understand, and thus the communication is saved from doubt. In fact, it is this institutionalization that allows us to understand each other and respond to each other. Language gives me power, but a power that I cannot control alone and prevent others from participating in it. In exercising the power of verbal action, I have entered into a politics of shared power. Based on the language used in any society, there have always been a set of rules, such as the rules that exist between masters and slaves or men and women, forcing the latter based on ideology. The first to act. In such an atmosphere, the slave cannot use the master's language to build his own world. (Pocock, 1973: 38-39)
 
Conclusion
Based on what has been said, Pocock has planned his methodology based on historiography; This methodology, in contrast to the text-centered methodology of Ostravas, emphasizes contextualism along with the linguistic paradigm, and is briefly categorized as follows:
1. In order to investigate political thought, it is necessary to reconstruct and re-create the atmosphere of the creation of the text based on the historical and political conditions of the period of formation of that thought.
2. The historian of political thought may know more about the historical and social world of that text than what the author shows in the text, and based on this, he can make hypotheses about explicit, implicit, unconscious and even contrary intentions and actions form the fact contained in the text;
3. Language is an act of power that the speaker applies to the listener, and discourse is a series of actions that are performed in language and within the framework of the linguistic paradigm;
4. In order to clarify the structure and organization of the research, the dominant language paradigm in each historical period should be identified; Paradigms may be modified or completely changed. Studying the history of political thought is studying the rise and fall of paradigms. One of the paradigms that has always received attention and is once again becoming a dominant language paradigm is civil republicanism;
5. By reconstructing the context or historical and political conditions and identifying the dominant language paradigm, a common ground is created between the reader (historian) and the author of the text, within the framework of which it is possible to understand political thought.