جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "ernesto laclau" در نشریات گروه "علوم سیاسی"

Through the analysis of the events of the Islamic Revolution of Iran, the study aims to reveal a new perspective on populism. Based on the theory of "Ernesto Laclau", our problem is to understand the nexus between populist mobilization and the necessity of reconstructing the "new people". According to my understanding, the identity of "the Mostazafan" in the Islamic revolution represents the new people. The main question is how did the demands of underprivileged groups integrate into the populist mobilization? In this article, the "thick description" method is used for data analysis. The findings of the research show that in the light of the political discourse of Shiism and the leadership of Imam Khomeini, The "Mostazafan" became a homogenizing name for the unification of all demands and an equivalential chain was formed. In the following, by critically examining Asef Bayat's outstanding book, the authors reach the understanding that if the identity of Mostazafan had not arisen from an empty signifier, then the urban poor would have continued "quiet encroach" regardless of revolutionary motives. The dynamics of the Islamic Revolution of Iran should not be analyzed in the context of fixed and predetermined content, but in the light of "discursive articulation" according to the conclusion of this article.

The present research is about the pragmatics of the discourse of commitment and the problem of autonomy in the paintings of 1960s and 1970s in Iran, particularly the institutes that produced such a discourse. The method of research is qualitative content analysis. We answer the following main question: How did the discourse of commitment from the perspectives from the viewpoints of Ernesto Laclau, Chantal Mouffe, and Norman Fairclough affect the visual language of Iranian painting in 1960s and 1970s? The findings indicate the factors the contributed to the formation of this discourse of commitment in the paintings of those decades. According to the discourse of commitment that was prevalent then, the main visual elements of a committed autonomous painting is as follows: the paintings were often figurative (formalist) and narrative (content-centered); the content and form were visible separately; formalistic innovation was not accepted in the forms of the paintings; they were easy to understand by laypeople; masses of people were encouraged to cut off the hands of the corrupt regime and imperialism, particularly America, from the public wealth of the country, which was accompanied by communication of concepts such as fight against injustice, pursuit of justice, pursuit of Islam, return to oneself, autonomy, nativism, etc.; all those concepts were against the Pahlavi regime, and the central node for religious groups was Islamism, and for leftist groups was populism

The present research was conducted with the aim of investigating the main elements of the discourse of the government after the Islamic Revolution of Iran, and to explain the main elements of the discourse, Laclau and Mouffe's discourse approach and descriptive books and research articles were used. Since every discourse has signifiers, the findings of the research show that the reformist discourse forms signs such as freedom, legalism, religious democracy, human rights, and having fair and free relations with the whole world around the central signifier of the people. They gave. On the other hand, fundamentalists have formed their semantic system by adding signs such as justice, security, values, cultural invasion, etc. around the central sign of the province.

There is no doubt nowadays about the attractiveness of democracy as an accepted model of government, and concurrently there is an awareness of its shortcomings and drawbacks. Consequently, many scholars including political philosophers are trying to use different approaches in order to develop proper and more efficient models of democracy. From a post-structuralist point of view, Habermas, Laclau, and Mouffe seek to provide models of democratic politics and government that are more successful in establishing a good democratic order. Considering the conflictive and clashing political and social interests, ideas, and tendencies, it is not an easy task to address the inadequacies of previous models of democracy. By comparing Jürgen Habermas's deliberative theory with the agonistic democratic approach of Laclau and Mouffe, the authors’ objective is to study the two models of democracy proposed by these three thinkers, and find suitable answer to the following key research question: Which of these two post-Marxist theories has more democratic and realistic possibilities? They use qualitative content analysis of written texts to examine the two models of democracy in dealing with the pluralism of values ​​and sources of political and social power. The strengths and weaknesses of each of the two theories are explained, and the democratic possibilities, specifically in terms of the underlying factors of feasibility and achievement are discussed. The conclusion is that Habermas post-structuralist theory of deliberative democracy will not be able to pave the way for inclusive, adequate and long-lasting democratic rule by bridging the gap between opposing views and interests of a plurality of groups in the social sphere, and overcoming power struggles and conflict of interests through deliberation. In contrast, Laclau and Mouffe's model of democracy is based on the acceptance of dissent and antagonisms, and the idea that oppressive power relations in the societies must be challenged through agonistic contestation. The authors argue that Laclau and Mouffe's model of democracy is more realistic than Habermasian model due to its emphasis on the impossibility of ignoring or removing power struggles, hegemony, antagonisms and conflicts from the society. By recognizing the relations of power in societies and the need to change them, it is more effective for establishing a proper political order.