Metaphorical incarnations of the “other” and Iranian International Relations discourses
| Date | 01 September 2019 |
| Published date | 01 September 2019 |
| Author | Heidarali Masoudi |
| DOI | 10.1177/1354066119828184 |
research-article2019
EJ R
I
Article
European Journal of
International Relations
Metaphorical incarnations
2019, Vol. 25(3) 748 –771
© The Author(s) 2019
of the “other” and Iranian
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066119828184
DOI: 10.1177/1354066119828184
International Relations
journals.sagepub.com/home/ejt
discourses
Heidarali Masoudi
Shahid Beheshti University, Iran
Abstract
Iranian International Relations academics have impacted both the official and public
discourses on foreign policy issues, and vice versa. More specifically, how the “other”
is constructed in Iranian International Relations discourses has an important role
in determining how Iran acts in world politics. Assuming that International Relations
discourses in Iran are inextricably intertwined with the construction of the “other,” this
article aims to investigate how Iranian International Relations scholars use metaphors as
linguistic tools for the representation of the “other.” Specifically, this article analyzes the
metaphorical construction of the “other” in Iranian International Relations academic texts.
Applying metaphor analysis, instances of the “other” have been selected and analyzed.
The hypothesis was that there are two different categories of metaphors representing
the “other”: first, there are context-oriented metaphorical incarnations that attempt to
construct Iran’s “relationship” with others in foreign arenas, considering internal and
external opportunities and limitations; and, second, there are essentialist metaphorical
incarnations of particular actors, such as the US, Israel and Arab states as the “other.”
The analysis shows that body and religion can be regarded as nodal points around which
context-oriented and essentialist International Relations metaphorical discourses,
respectively, have been articulated. The context-oriented discourse is inspired by realist
insights into home-grown Iranian International Relations while the essentialist discourse
is influenced by official foreign policy rhetoric and Iranian historical culturalism.
Keywords
Discourse, foreign policy, International Relations, Iran, metaphor, other,
representation
Corresponding author:
Heidarali Masoudi, Shahid Beheshti University, Velenjak, Shahid Shahriari Squ, Tehran 1473684133, Iran.
Email: h_masoudi@sbu.ac.ir
Masoudi
749
Introduction
Iranian International Relations (IR) scholars have had a tremendous impact on how the
“other” has been represented in Iranian international and foreign discourses. For instance,
the Nuclear Deal or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between Iran and the
P5+1 countries2 could not have be achieved unless Iran and the P5+1 countries had
accepted that it was possible for both sides to finally achieve a win–win solution based
on a non-zero-sum game. The emergence of some new terms and metaphors in Iranian
official discourses on foreign and international issues is directly or indirectly the result
of academic understanding of international dynamics. In other words, new approaches to
international issues have been achieved through new, innovative articulations of self/
other identities. For instance, this is the case in the highest level of the foreign policy-
making process in Iran, especially in Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s discourse,
when he talked about “heroic flexibility against a powerful wrestler,” (Khamenei 2013
[1392])3 namely the US, which is Iran’s major other.
The existing literature on self–other opposition includes three theoretical perspec-
tives: explanatory theory, with a focus on the interaction between the self and the “other”
at the personal level; the subaltern approach in colonial and post-colonial discourse; and,
finally, a metaphorical understanding of the self–other interaction (Duncombe, 2011:
35–45). In this article, I choose the latter approach for two reasons. First, metaphorical
expressions have an important role in constructing Iranian foreign and international rhet-
oric. Metaphors have been linked to the practice and rhetoric of Iranian practitioners and
academics on foreign and international issues. Second, despite the ever-increasing role
of IR academic words and terms in the articulation of Iranian discourses on foreign and
international issues, the metaphorical aspects of their contributions remain relatively
underexplored. I speculate that this is mostly because the impacts and effects of IR schol-
ars have been explained through the positivist lens rather than representational ones (see
Haji-Yousefi, 2010). Therefore, metaphorical analysis is applied in this article to fill the
gap in the literature.1
Parallel to other sources of metaphorical thinking, the metaphoric understanding of
foreign policy has mostly been constructed by IR academic discourses. Key representa-
tions of enemies and rivals in the international arena have been made through what are
known as theoretical academic discourses, with which practitioners are informed about
the international environment and the proper foreign policy that they have to adapt to
maximize the state’s national interests in international politics.
The importance of this research lies in the fact that explaining Iranian “pre-theoretical
assumption” (Tsygankov and Tsygankov, 2010: 663) in terms of international reality can
help analysts to identify the metaphorical foundations of an encounter between Iran as
self and its “others.” IR scholars were selected as a speech community on the grounds
that they have been influential in framing the Iranian imagination of international life.
The importance of IR academic discourses lies in the fact that IR scholars are expected
to serve their society with their knowledge and insights (Gerner and Schrodt, 2002: 221).
Specifically, Iranian IR scholars have had a key role in formulating Iranian foreign pol-
icy by providing an “accessible framing” (Eriksson and Norman, 2011: 417) and ideas to
the Iranian media, and, more importantly, by making policy recommendations to the
state apparatus or semi-state research centers and think tanks.
750
European Journal of International Relations 25(3)
This study uses metaphor analysis to examine how the “other” has been constructed
in Iranian IR scholars’ views for the first time. The article has seven interrelated sections.
First, the existing literature on the subject is reviewed. Then, in the second section, the
theoretical framework is discussed. In the third section, the methodology is described.
The fourth section is devoted to an extensive analysis of metaphorical expressions in
Iranian IR texts, and the fifth section investigates the extent to which these metaphorical
representations shape theoretical debates in Iranian IR. In the sixth section, the dominant
metaphorical representations in Iranian IR discourses are explored. Finally, the “interac-
tion” between IR academic and official discourses is discussed.
Literature review
There have been increasing numbers of works in IR focusing on the self–other dichot-
omy in recent decades. Iver Neumann (1996: 168) has contended that analysis of the
self–other dichotomy would help bring about knowledge for IR scholars in terms how
international actors are “constituted, [and] how they maintain themselves.” It is also
emphasized by David Campbell (1998: 65) that “the paradigm of sovereignty” operates
on the basis of some simple dichotomies, such as self–other, which, in Der Derian’s
(2009: 191–192) view, “are undergoing serious and sustained challenges” in postmodern
world politics.
The self–other dichotomy has had a significant role in the formation of Iranian collec-
tive identity. One can find numerous examples of differentiation between Iranian/non-
Iranian and the we/other group in Iranian cultural and historical texts, based on the
Persian mythology of good/evil (for an excellent work, see Amanat and Vejdani, 2012).
Moreover, Iran’s modern history has also been influenced by the self–other dichotomy.
For instance, as far as the construction of the “other” is concerned, Iranian history from
the Safavid dynasty can be divided into three periods; first, in the Safavid era, the “other”
was constituted in terms of domestic politics; second, in the Qajar and Pahlavi eras, the
“other” was constituted on the basis of foreign issues; and, finally, in the Islamic Republic
era, domestic and foreign policy has been in place for more than three decades to con-
struct the “other.” Therefore, the significance of the “other” is found not only in aca-
demic canons, but also in the development of Iranian historical thought regarding the
world beyond its borders.
Scholars examining the self/other in Iranian discourses have done so predominantly
in the context of history and foreign policy debates. In the historical context, Tavakoli-
Targhi (2016 [1395]). explored the self–other binary in the framework of European–non-
European relations, and in another book sought to show that Iranian representations of
European women have had a key role in constructing “Europe” as the “other” (Tavakoli-
Targhi, 2001).
In the context of Iranian foreign policy, Adib-zadeh (2008 [1387]) has examined the
particular forms of representations that pervade interpretations of the “West” as the
“other,” and has argued that the type of representational schemas produced in these dis-
courses can be considered as...
To continue reading
Request your trial