Introduction

This article attempts to explain the need for creating a space for explicit dialogue based on real concepts in society in order to establish rational understanding and sustainable peace. The author believes that considering the excessive influence of figurative language to bypass censorship barriers in societies under authoritarian and totalitarian rule, this issue can lead to misunderstanding and strengthen the discourse of authority.

Metaphor

One of the literary devices used in artistic works (whether written, visual, or auditory) is metaphor. In figurative speech, by extending the meaning and attributes of a word or sentence to another, the use of the original word or sentence is avoided.

With the development and growth of language, this figurative expression gradually expands its scope and takes the form of verbal metaphor. In a way that we use a sentence that may not have a literal meaning or may seem irrational, but it has a meaning in the general language. For example, when we hear the sentence “the exchange rate has gone up”, we understand its meaning and imagine an increase in the financial value of the currency compared to the national currency in our minds, but we cannot imagine what relationship “up” and “down” can have with the value of the currency in a literal sense! However, verbal metaphors are not always so general and in many cases, they become much more complex. These verbal metaphors are usually extracted from literary works and become established in the common language of the people.

In countries where the space is closed by the ruling government, artists and intellectuals try to use metaphorical language to express their ideas and break free from censorship. This issue has been evident in the history of literature and has led to the emergence of a new literature in political and social relationships in these societies. For example, in the famous poem “Yardbastani”, the yardbastani (schoolmate) symbolizes the generation of student activists who are seeking equality, freedom, enlightenment, and struggle against the existing dictatorship and tyranny. This metaphorical expression has spread in societies under oppression and censorship and has taken on a universal meaning, even though it may not have a literal meaning and may symbolize something else.

Discourse and semantic change in figurative language

After explaining and defining the discursive approach in the political and social sphere, discursive struggle, along with the expansion of communication media, which have replaced monologue-based dialogues of ruling apparatuses and have been reduced to information media, has transformed the dominant space. According to the explanations of Laclau and Mouffe, discourse has a central signifier and a set of floating signifiers around the central signifier. The central signifier is the fundamental and main core of a discourse, and all elements (signifiers) are related to it. For example, in socialist discourse, the central signifier is justice, and in liberal discourse, it is individual freedom. (Of course, this may vary in different analytical perspectives.) The floating signifiers present in the discourse are related to this central signifier and become transformed into concepts.

Sometimes in the competition of discourses, a significant element (concept) is taken from the discourse of the rival and, after a period of time and a series of interpretive stages referred to as “moment,” a new meaning is formed around the central element of the discourse and becomes part of it. Let me clarify this issue with an example. In the 1960s, a group of religious students and scholars who were against the concept of “guardianship of the jurist” and believed that guardianship should only be for the Imams, referred to themselves as “guardians.” By taking this significant element from their discourse, the discourse of “guardianship of the jurist” gave it a new meaning based on the central element of guardianship. As a result, today we use the term “guardian” for those who are loyal and believe in the concept of “guardianship of the jurist.”

The problem of the expansion of metaphorical speech is evident here. As mentioned, after a while, the metaphorical speech that has taken the place of meaning and gained intrinsic value is taken over by the discourse of totalitarianism and dictatorship, and by giving it a new meaning around its central axis, it transfers its value to the discourse of authority and, on the other hand, leaves the opposing discourse empty. The expansion of information media, which in these types of political systems serves the discourse of authority entirely, has shortened and shortened this time, and with high speed and in large volumes, it gives the rival discourse a new meaning and serves the discourse of dictatorship and totalitarianism.

In the present era, although the use of metaphor is necessary to express certain concepts of human, political, and social rights, its use has faced difficulties and has essentially taken the words of critics captive. This is because in these closed regimes, the opportunity for clear, meaningful, and conceptual speech is not given to speakers in the fields of human and social sciences. On the other hand, it is only this discourse of authority that is widely and aggressively dominant in society.

These problems arise when language, as a public discourse tool, is used to create rational understanding and, subsequently, sustainable peace – as mentioned in the article titled “The Formation of Rational Understanding and the Creation of Sustainable Peace” in the month of Bahman – is heavily manipulated and, in other words, deceptive. It is not clear which discourse or central theme this figurative word or phrase is based on. For example, an oppressive government may speak of respecting human rights or being democratic, while in reality, it does not align with the general principles stated in the Human Rights Charter or the description of a democratic society.

Conclusion

Taking into consideration the mentioned factors and the importance of the subject, it can be concluded that in these circumstances, the only way to resolve this issue is by expanding the conceptual domains in the fields of humanities and social sciences. Surely, it is through strengthening the meaningful and direct aspects of this domain that we can hope to create a space for proper and rational dialogue and criticism, based on mutual understanding.

Sources

1. Barcelona, Antonio (1390), Metaphor and Metonymy with a Cognitive Approach, Translators: Farzan Sajjadi, Leila Sadeghi, Tina Amrollahi, First Edition, Tehran: Negah-e Jahan.

2. Truth, Seyyed Sadegh (2008), Methodology of Political Science, First Edition, Qom: Mofid University Press.

3. Peace Line Magazine, Issue 12, February 2011, Rational Formation of Agreement and Establishment of Sustainable Peace, Mohammad Saber Abbassian, pp. 6-8.

Wikipedia Encyclopedia