ethos

Based on eighteen months of ethnographic fieldwork from 2004 to 2006 among a range of Iranian organizations in Washington, D.C., this article argues that the studied organizations were engaged, without being always necessarily aware of it or formulating it as such, in what we may call an “ethos transplant:” a transformation of “Iranian character” and political culture to make it more susceptible to “democracy;”a subject-making project in the Foucauldian sense.  We trace this medicalized discourse about “national traits” and “political culture” to the 19th century and review several outbursts of this approach in the Iranian and international scene thenceforth.  Bram Stoker’s 1897 novel, Dracula, is discussed at length as the epitome of this kind of approach

Nowadays, although our aesthetic ideas are based on modern theories and perspectives that have pervaded the art, the root of western tradition of art dates back to Greek and Roman art tradition. Theory of form in art tries to emphasize the materiality of artistic object, though in later theories, it has been more flexible and proposes issues such as content and function, as well as attributing concepts such as composition, color, technique etc. to the artwork. Plato by proposing mimesis theory and expanding its scope considered a pattern and framework for attitudes and thoughts in static arts such as painting, literature and dynamic performance arts such as drama and music, and managed to regulate and organize them. For Plato, in this process, ēthos functions as a determinant factor.  This present study is an attempt to discuss this question with descriptive-analytical approach: “will artistic form in Plato's theories be important after proposing the representational attitude toward art?” The results demonstrated that Plato's samples of beauty, in addition to descriptions and implications about the features of artistic form in some conversations can be considered equal to artistic form and due to the reflective theory in its revolution process, artistic form development into transcendence ethical form.

L’identité et l’ethos sont deux des notions importantes qui servent à révéler les traits de caractère intradiscursifs et extradiscursifs du sujet parlant dans les analyses du discours. Cet article a pour but de jeter quelque lumière sur les traits identitaires et l’ethos discursif d’un leader exceptionnel qu’est Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, commandant de la Guerre d’indépendance turque et fondateur de la République de Turquie. Le corpus étudié a été délimité par certains extraits de discours tenus entre 1919 et 1939, où Atatürk a utilisé le pronom « je » (et « nous »). Le cadre théorique est composé de deux notions relevant de l’analyse du discours : l’identité et l’ethos. Dans les analyses effectuées, il a été traité d’une part l’identité personnelle, l’identité de positionnement et l’identité discussive d’Atatürk, de l’autre, la dimension catégorielle, expérientielle et idéologique dans les extraits de discours d’Atatürk. Et les différents ethos ressortis à travers le corpus ont été précisés comme ethos combatif, solidaire et honnête ; ethos résolu et hardi ; ethos humble ; et ethos collectif.