The relation between author and social context in discourse turn of Iranian and Islamic political thought is a matter of great concern. The social contexts of 7th to 9th centuries created new condition which in turn paved the ground for change and development of Irania More
The relation between author and social context in discourse turn of Iranian and Islamic political thought is a matter of great concern. The social contexts of 7th to 9th centuries created new condition which in turn paved the ground for change and development of Iranian and Islamic political philosophy and its discursive turn. In response to this change and political contexts of Iranian-Islamic society, emerged three schools of thought among the thinkers of this period. Al-Mawardi and introducing of caliphate system, Al-Ghazali with Islamic justification of authority of the Kings in order to reconcile between caliphate and kingship and, finally, Nizam al-Mulk by Siyasatnama (The Book of Government) who tried to pass the caliphate system and articulate a new discourse. Relying on the Iranian tradition of Ideal King, Nizam al-Mulk tries to justify kingship with an expedient approach. Such a conflict is distinguishable in Siyasatnama. Within this book, there is a conflict between three discourses: caliphate, kingship and religious discourse of resistance. This paper is going to verify the hypothesis that Nizam al-Mulk has played the role of “poiltical subjective” in the discursive transformation from writing Shariatnama (Islamic laws) to Andarzname (Book of advice). He uses three lingual strategies in order to play subjective situation role: to omit caliphate discourse by “concealing” it, and highlight the kingship discourse by excluding other discourses of resistance that are traceable in the book. The methodology of the article is a combination of Laclau and Mouffe discourse theory and micro-level approach of Van leeuwen discourse Analysis.
Manuscript profile
The dominant view among liberal and Marxist thinkers indicates that the ruling power seeks to adopt a legal order within a specific territory. Therefore, the ruling power is considered as a system of legal obligations and prohibitions that are applied withinthe law. But More
The dominant view among liberal and Marxist thinkers indicates that the ruling power seeks to adopt a legal order within a specific territory. Therefore, the ruling power is considered as a system of legal obligations and prohibitions that are applied withinthe law. But thinkers such as "Michel Foucault" and "Gilles Deleuze" recognize a gap in governance mechanisms. Foucault believes that since the 17thand 18thcenturies, instead of legal prohibitions, the government sought to shape its subjects in a positive way and tried to cultivate normal and obedient subjects. In the continuation of Foucault's studies, Gilles Deleuze continues that 20thcentury governments by regulatory ways, tryto lead the subjects towards their goals. In consequence, this article tries to address the question of what factor causes change in the way of governance in Foucault's and Deleuze's thought? The phenomenological examination of the opinions of these two thinkers shows that the root of innovation to governancelies in power.
Manuscript profile
