Investigating "transformation from" and "transformation in" the security-military discourse of the Islamic Republic of Iran compared to the security-military discourse of Islam

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, International Relations Department, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Political Science Department, Faculty of Humanities, Yasuj University, Yasuj, Iran

10.22084/rjir.2023.27620.3615

Abstract

Objective: Security-military discourses shape security practices and actions. The security discourse even gives meaning to security-military equipment and specifies who these equipment should be aimed at and who should not be aimed at. The security discourse constructs an enemy (or other) country in the form of a discourse. These propositions also apply to the security-military discourse of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The main purpose of the current research is to examine the security-military discourse of Islam (as a reference discourse) and the security-military discourse of the Islamic Republic of Iran (1368-to now) and to examine the "transformation from" and "transformation in" the discourse of the Islamic Republic of Iran compared to the discourse of Islam.
Methodology: The methodology of this research is based on Lacla and Mouffe's discourse analysis method. This research is descriptive-analytical. The data required for this research has been collected from library and web-based sources (official and reliable websites). In this research, the articulation of the security discourse of Islam and then the articulation of the security discourse of the Islamic Republic of Iran have been examined, and in the findings section, a qualitative comparison method has been used to examine the "transformation from" and "transformation in" the discourse. The Islamic Republic of Iran is used in relation to the security discourse of Islam.
Findings: The security-military discourse of Islam has the master signifier "justice" and 9 moments and the security-military discourse of the Islamic Republic of Iran has the master signifier "maintaining the system" and 9 moments. Although these two discourses have different master signifiers and some of their tenses are different from each other, the qualitative comparison of these two discourses shows that the security-military discourse of the Islamic Republic of Iran has suffered from "the security-military discourse of Islam". The transformation of the "discourse" has not taken place, and it has taken place only according to the temporal and spatial requirements of the "transformation in" the security-military discourse of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Conclusion: The security-military discourse of the Islamic Republic of Iran  derived from the security-military discourse of Islam.

Keywords

References

  • Allama Majlisi, Muhammad Baqir (1983). Bihar al-Anwar. Volume 78. Beirut: Arab Heritage Revival House. (In Persian)
  • Baylis, J. (2014). International and global security in the post-cold war era. In John Baylis, Steve Smith & Patricia Owens. The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. Sixth Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Booth, K. (1991). “Security and Emancipation”. Review of International Studies, Vol. 17, No. 4: 313–326.
  • Buzan, B., & Wæver, O. (2009). “Macrosecuritisation and security constellation: Reconsidering scale in securitization theory”. Review of International Studies, Vol. 35: 253–276.
  • Buzan, B., Wæver, O., & de Wilde, J. (1998). Security: a new framework for analysis. Boulder, Colo. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
  • Fatal Neyshabouri, Mohammad Ibn Hassan (2002). Rawdah al-Wa'izin and Basira al-Mu'izin. Volume II. Translation and Annotation: Mahmoud Mahdavi Damghani. Qom: Dalil Ma. (In Persian)
  • Gee, J. P., & Handford, M. (2012). In James Paul Gee & Michael Handford. The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis. London & New York: Routledge.
  • Harpham, G. G. (2013). Language Alone: The Critical Fetish of Modernity. Second Edition. London & New York: Routledge.
  • Howarth, D. (2000). Discourse. Buckingham & Philadelphia: Open University Press.
  • Howarth, D. (2015). Introduction: Discourse, hegemony and populism: Ernesto Laclau’s political theory. In David Howarth. ERNESTO LACLAU: Post-Marxism, populism and critique. London & New York: Routledge.
  • Ibn Babawayh, Ali bin Hussein (2003). Qualities (Al-Khisal). Volume 1. Authenticated and commented by Ali Akbar al-Ghaffari. Qom: The group of teachers in the seminary in Qom, Center for Islamic Publications. (In Persian)
  • Jørgensen, M. & Phillips, L. (2002). Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. London, Thousand Oaks & New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
  • Laclau, E. (2006). “Ideology and post-Marxism”. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11(2): 103–114.
  • Laclau, E. (2007). Discourse. In Robert E. Goodin, Philip Pettit & Thomas Pogge. A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy. Volume II. Second Edition. Massachusetts & Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
  • Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (1987). “Post-Marxism without Apologies”. New Left Review, Vol. 1, No. 166: 79-106.
  • Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (2001). Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. Second Edition. London & New York: Verso.
  • Misbah Yazdi, Mohammad Taghi (2011). Society and History from the Perspective of the Qur'an. Qom: Publications of Imam Khomeini Educational and Research Institute. (In Persian)
  • Mohammadi Eshtehardi, Mohammad (1997). Hearing Stories about the Conquest of Mecca and the battle of Hunain. Qom: The group of teachers in the seminary in Qom, Center for Islamic Publications. (In Persian)
  • Momeni Rad, Akbar; Aliabadi, Khadija; Fardanesh, Hashem; Mazini, Nasser (2013). “Qualitative Content Analysis in Research: Nature, Stages and Validity of Results”. Educational Measurement Quarterly, Vol. 4, No. 14: 187-222. (In Persian)
  • Norrick, N. R. (2001). Discourse and Semantics. In Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi E. Hamilton. The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Massachusetts & Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
  • Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., & Hamilton, H. E. (2001). Introduction. In Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi E. Hamilton. The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Massachusetts & Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
  • Tamimi Amodi, Abd al-Wahid bin Muhammad (1987). Ghurar al-Hikam and Durar al-Kalem. Translated and compiled by Mustafa Derayati. Qom: Publishing Center of the Islamic Information Office. (In Persian)
  • Torfing, J. (1999). New Theories of Discourse: Laclau, Mouffe and Zizek. Massachusetts & Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
  • Williams, P. D. (2008). Security studies: an introduction. In Paul D. Williams. Security Studies: an introduction. London & New York: Routledge.
  • Wyn Jones, R. (1999). Security, Strategy and Critical Theory. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics