فهرست مطالب سعید وصالی

The purpose of the article is to bring Mead’s and post-structuralists’ views closer together. Here, Symbols and discourses play an important role.

A theoretical investigation has been conducted in Mead’s and post-structuralists’ ideas with emphasis on Michel Foucault. Moreover, various concepts such as discourse, self, subject and object may help us to reach a convergence between these two. Theoretically, the place of language and meaning as well as using various aspects of discourse and theories related to post-structuralists, in sum, will give some theoretical observations.

When an individual is placed in a dynamic and symbolic environment, it comes out of certainty and then accepts various and even rival meanings. The issues of ‘self’, ‘subject’ and ‘society’ are Mead’s points of departure to enter into the universe of discourse that begins with two origins of ‘I’ and ‘Me’. According to Mead, representation of the ‘self’ clarifies two concepts of ‘Mind’ and ‘Reality’. Placement of the individual in collectivity, leads the person to the situation where she may see herself as an object (external) and thus, here symbols play a basic role. Even mind is formed through symbols that have been replaced with different objects and construct it. In fact, symbols enter into the mechanism of human behavior and form his/her thought. G. H. Mead believes that significant symbols and gestures assume the social process of experience and behavior in which they develop. According to Mead, the “world of discourse” implies a context in which these significant symbols and gestures have meaning. Here, Mead talks of ‘generalized other’ in the sense that an individual accepts attitude of others towards her and finally all these specific attitudes are flourished in the form of single point of view. It is obvious that Mead links the world of discourse with the concept of ‘generalized other’. All this social process is a space where symbols have a common and the same meaning for all members of the group. At the same time, social participation is formed in these conditions. The formation of mind which is a matter related to the subject, actually has an external feature based on accepting attitude of others which in turn relies on symbols. All these happen through language that provides communication and social presence.In fact, significant symbols arouse mental streams and, in this way, an individual is able to think and also, she responds to herself. Therefore, it can be said that thinking is formed through the presence of symbols as well as the social process.

 On findings, it can be said that Mead’s concept of ‘social self’ has always been constructed in a social process as well as the universe of discourse and therefore, the concept of ‘self’ will accept various meanings. According to Foucault, individual or ‘subject’ has been involved in discursive sphere and eventually an integrated discursive whole is remained. Foucault has dealt with a displaced, limited and disintegrated subject and therefore, a ‘suspended’ subject as well as ‘discursive events’ may emerge.Emphasizing on discourse, Foucault considers improvisation of concepts to be formal, and then believes to the suspension of these discourses, in order to reach the ‘discursive events’ that constitutes his desired human sciences. In this way, making concepts and announcing them and finally, emergence of ‘discursive act’ becomes important. Therefore, discourses and their constituent concepts having functional features, each of which plays a role in the whole discursive feature. Because of the historical importance of functions in the making of concepts, Foucault is indifference about structures, that is to say, he studies the formation process of those concepts and also complexities hidden behind them.Mead believes that in the formation of self, the issues of experience and social behavior are of great importance. At the same time, social functions are essential features that play an important role in their creations. Mead says that an individual does not respond to every kind of stimulus, rather, she responds only to some of them and language shows the process of the motivation released by the individual.Symbols are used as mediators by language, and as a result of this use, the social self of the individual is shown. By emphasizing the formation of the discourse, Foucault emphasizes the phenomenon of language and highlights discourses. Language has become a complex phenomenon. Before Foucault, Mead discussed about the object and paid attention to the formation of the subject and the mind through objects (symbols). Here we see that G. H. Mead’s intended object, which creates the mind and thinking through symbols, coexist with Foucault’s multiple and unstable subject. Both find each other in the outside world through symbols.There is an important point that is emphasized throughout this article. In fact, we have two notions of symbol and discourse; understanding the former is simple and the latter is complex. The article tried to demonstrate that there is a relationship between these two concepts that may be established by theories and concepts discussed from both sides of social interactionists and post-sturctrulists. The kind of thought of Mead and Foucault are as such that they have referred to these concepts. Studying issues mentioned above may show that we have come from simplicity to complexity. This has happened through the use of language and also the quality of this usage. The complexities of establishing social relationship in the contemporary world are largely related to the issue of language. The importance of language dates back to making symbols which are apprehensible in the relationship between individuals. But, while observing the use of language today, in market place, in regulations and rules, in working conditions, etc. these complications may be visible. As G. H. Mead and Foucault emphasized, not only discourses but even symbols have become complicatedFoucault defines the ‘subject’ as a social construct and Mead, introduces the ‘mind’ as a social phenomenon. The Mead’s social self and Foucault’s discursive subject reach to each other. In the end, it can be stated that we have come from symbols to discourses but the symbols still stand.

During the recent years, the importance of the discussion of social responsibility has increased day by day; So that nowadays it is mentioned as a main priority for organizations, with the expansion of joint-stock companies, related issues and problems arose from it. The most important problem was related to the issue of how likely the companies that the investor wants to invest in will go bankrupt and the capital of the shareholders will be lost. In the financial literature, there are non-differentiating words for bankruptcy. Some of these words are: unfavorable financial situation, failure, failure of the business unit, deterioration, financial distress, inability to pay debts, etc. Dunn and Bradstreet define the term bankrupt companies as follows: business units that stop their operations. Due to assignment or financial distress, the suspension of commercial operations or loss by creditors. The purpose of this research is to investigate the effect of social responsibility disclosure, intellectual capital on financial distress and sustainability reporting in companies listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange. ) is. The number of 124 companies in the period of 2016-2021 from among all the companies accepted in the Tehran Stock Exchange have been selected as the research sample of the statistical community of the research, the statistical analysis is done using Eviuse software. In order to test the research hypotheses and determine the relationship between independent and dependent variables, econometric models have been used and the relevant hypotheses have been investigated using the panel multivariate regression method, the findings indicate the existence of a positive and meaningful relationship between social responsibility and Intellectual capital is with the reporting of companies' sustainability and financial helplessness.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the conditions governing individuals' supportive actions and strategies. Based on the conceptual framework, supportive action has been studied from different perspectives and based on the method of contextual theory, in-depth interviews have been conducted with 22 residents of Mashhad regarding different experiences of supportive action and their reasons for taking supportive action. Since in the present study, achieving more in the perspective of actors has been considered, targeted sampling has been used. The main criterion for selecting participants is the experience of the studied phenomenon. For this purpose, first, indicators such as religious views, age group, education, income and economic background were identified so that completely different examples could be considered based on them. The interviews were coded at three levels: open, central, and selective, and finally identified 35 main categories that fall into four categories: conditions (causal, interventional, and contextual), action strategies, consequences, and main categories. Based on the analysis of the findings of this study, the core category is "Combining pre-modern semantic perception and modern tools in advancing Supportive action", which includes another core category is entitled "Transition from a family-oriented and religious duty to community-oriented and social responsibility based Supportive action".

Reducing the method to "tool and technique" is the Consequence of a stereotype that distinguishes the "research method" from the "theoretical framework" and determines the function of the academy in empirical research; the use of the theory of discourse based on this approach, in addition to creating dissonance Theoretical-methodical, is a new academic myth and reflects the disregard of tension within historical theory means the tension of two types of historical stereotypes mean realism and abstraction-historicism . They are divided among the academy as the true position of "science," and non-academic field as the real realm of "intellectual thinking". Of course, in recent years, as the hegemony of postmodernism is dominated, the second stereotype means "refusal of imported theories to explain the specific situation of Iran", "Native-Islamic science" has also come to academic discourse. whether we say that the second stream is merely a reaction to the academic positivism, or named it an independent Interpretation, it seems both of them -in a clear and secret agreement- has caused reproducing the dominated myth in present time.  While discourse analysis that follows the tradition of Roland Barth, is going to analyze the myths. The main concern of the paper is decoding myth of discourse theory in Iran with the help of some theoretical vocabularies of Laclau and Mouffe and the semiotic system of Barrett especially Barth's controversy with his Contemporary literary critics.

The act of “the structure of welfare and social security comprehensive system” was designed for the purpose of universalism, regulation and integration in plans and activities related to the country’s social security. Therefore, the aim of the present article is to investigate this act and also discuss  the different considerations existing around its approval as well as its implementation. The necessity of the article is because of the lack of an efficient social security that has become an essential institution in the structure of Iranian society. The lack of this system may result in an irreparable damage in the context of the social system because any change in the social security strategies may lead to changes in the social and economic structure of the country. In terms of methodology, this is a qualitative research on the basis of the descriptive-analytical technique for which three levels of analysis (finding the problem, knowing the problem and solving the problem) are taken into