Social hierarchy in Iran, as in other modernizing nations, has undergone major changes in the twentieth century. Nevertheless, contemporary patterns of social hierarchy are rooted in the traditions of inequality that prevailed during the Qajar era. In provincial Iran, these traditions of hierarchy and inequality were structured in part by the form of political authority. In the nineteenth century, many provincial regions were ruled by local notables who maintained varying degrees of independence from the royal court. Along with leading landowning families, merchants, and clergy, they formed the elite of provincial society. The culture of social hierarchy was also shaped by traditional Islamic and Persian views of society and by the meaning attributed to the distribution of wealth, power, and prestige in Iran.

The rich subtlety of the Iranian political process has long defied scholarly attempts to comprehend and explain. Native Iranian writings have been stunted both by a traditional tendency to stress chronology over analysis as well as by sociopolitical deterrents that have deflected the academic searchlight away from the political system. European scholarship has seldom focused directly upon the Iranian polity but has instead preoccupied itself with history very broadly conceived. This historical discussion has closely followed the Persian sources both in method and substance. This thrust has been joined with the European concern with formal-legal structures and cultural determinants. The result has often been descriptive history in which the political component has been ultimately viewed as a by-product of cultural traits, religious heritage, or the idiosyncracies of particular political actors.

Sadeq Hedayat's life and works have been subjected to numerous comments and criticisms of both a general and particular nature. But, with the possible exception of The Blind Owl, there have been very few detailed studies of his individual short stories. This has created two major defects in the understanding of the man and his works: on the one hand, it has resulted in a serious neglect of many of Hedayat's stories which are well worth studying in their own right; and, on the other hand, it has contributed to an imbalance in the overall assessment of his socio-literary achievements. Indeed, it can be argued that a full appreciation of The Blind Owl itself is not quite possible without a careful study of Hedayat's earlier and--to some extent--later works.