Discourse analysis

This article aims to indicate how Akhavān-Sāles- the greatest defender of Nimāei poetry- introduced Nimāei poetry as the superior poetry and norm against the rival and sometimes contradictory poetic currents of his period. Our approach is based on the theory of discourse analysis by Laclau and Mouffe. By analyzing how discourses are articulated in literary works, we examine the influence of broader social, political, and cultural elements on the creation and reception of literature. This approach will enrich our understanding of critical literary works and demonstrate the power of interdisciplinary research to provide a deeper understanding of the social and political contexts that influence literary texts. The results show that Akhavān, with his mastery and sufficient knowledge of Persian poetry and a tendency towards socially committed literature, deconstructed and rejected other poetic discourses by expressing their structural (aesthetics) and content flaws. By introducing Nimā’s method as a mythical approach, free from other poetic discourses’ defects and shortcomings, Akhavān endeavored to convince Nimā’s opponents and revealed the superiority of his poetic style and its distinction from other poetic currents. Akhavān’s embracing of classical poetry and thought and his attempt to adapt the intellectual and formal themes and roots of Nimā’s innovations with classical poetry’s style is the secret of his success in reconciling the traditional and modern thought in the world of poetry.

Israel’s foreign policy at times diverges from prevailing realist expectations, specifically rational considerations and prudence. This article argues that this is the result of what Ernst Cassirer calls mythical thought or what can be called a myth-based discourse that constructs the mindset of policy makers and has made the emergence of non-realist elements in Israel’s foreign policy possible. In this discourse, quantity, quality, similarity, space, and time acquire specific characteristics and, in the field of foreign policy, this primarily leads to maximalist aspirations, volunteerism, reactiveness, lack of proportionality between capabilities and actions, and at times refraining from diplomatic engagements. However, we encounter a state's identity as a modern ruling state which, to gain international recognition and acceptability, must abide by the norms and laws that define statehood. On the other hand, we face an identity stemming from a mythical discourse, encompassing non-modern, irrational elements and self-definitions based on rules that often contradict legal discourse. Relying on discourse analysis, the texts produced by Israeli foreign policymakers are analyzed to show how this specific way of thinking has made non-realist elements in Israeli foreign policy possible.

Iranian exceptionalism has been a major factor in preventing rapprochement between the US and Iran. There are two major factions within the foreign policy establishment of the Islamic Republic representing “reconciliation discourse” and “resistance discourse”. These two can be seen as sub-discourses within the Islamic Revolution discourse engaged in a struggle over its “correct” interpretation. The reconciliation discourse emphasizes on “prudence”, while the resistance discourse emphasizes upon “conscientiousness”, both signifiers within the Islamic Revolution discourse. Both movements agree that these signifiers exist within the discourse, but they disagree about the primacy and centrality of one over the other. The “reconciliation discourse” seeks development as the main goal of Iran’s foreign policy, and, hence, considers reconciliation with the US to be a precondition to that goal. Its arguments imply that Iran is not an exceptional country. The resistance discourse, on the other hand, is deeply exceptionalist and deems resistance against the US and maximalist independence to be the main objectives of Iran’s foreign policy. This discourse strongly opposes mending ties with the US because such a move would be understood as a threat to Iran’s exceptionalism. These sub-discourses also perceive the US differently; the reconciliation discourse considers US to be dynamic and heterogenous, while the resistance discourse considers US to be unchanging and monolithic, and this disagreement also contributes to their policy toward the US, and this understanding is also closely intertwined with exceptionalism. Overall, the dispute over Iranian exceptionalism has made relationship with the US the main issue of contention within Iranian foreign policy discourses.