تنازع گفتمانی و برتری اسلام سیاسی در فرایند انقلاب اسلامی ایران مقاله

پژوهش حاضر در پاسخ به این پرسش جامعه شناختی نگاشته می‌شود که چه دلایلی باعث برتری گفتمان اسلام‌گرایی در فرایند مبارزات منتهی به انقلاب اسلامی ایران شد. در فضایی که گفتمان‌های ملی‌گرایی لیبرال و مارکسیسم هم حضور موثری داشتند، اسلام گرایی چگونه توانست نظام معنایی خود را به عنوان گفتمان هژمون تثبیت کند. در این راستا نظریه تحلیل گفتمان لاکلا و موف به عنوان مبنای نظری و روش‌شناختی این نوشتار مورد استفاده قرار گرفته شده است. چرا که نظریه تحلیل گفتمان، انطباق بیشتری با ماهیت موضوع داشته و تبیین دقیق‌تری از آن ارائه می‌دهد. از این منظر، اسلام‌گرایی به عنوان یک گفتمان در نظر گرفته شده که در راستای مبارزه با گفتمان حاکم پهلوی و برقرار کردن نظام معنایی خود، ایدئولوژی‌های ملی‌گرایی لیبرال و مارکسیسم را به حاشیه برده و خود به عنوان پیروز بلامنازع نبرد انقلابی شناخته شده است. این پژوهش علت اصلی برتری گفتمان اسلام‌گرایی در منازعه با گفتمان‌های رقیب را توانایی امام خمینی در ساماندهی گفتمانی فراگیر می‌داند که اکثر مفاهیم گفتمان‌های ملی‌گرایی لیبرال و مارکسیسم در آن گنجانده شده و با خلق فضای استعاری و پوشش دادن طیف وسیعی از خواسته‌های انقلابیون، موجودیت گفتمان‌های رقیب را به چالش کشیده است.

The present research is written in response to this sociological question, what are the reasons that led to the superiority of the discourse of Islamism in the process of struggles leading to the Islamic Revolution of Iran. In a space where the discourses of liberal nationalism and Marxism had an effective presence, how was Islamism able to establish its semantic system as a hegemonic discourse. In this regard, the discourse analysis theory of Lacla and Moff has been used as the theoretical and methodological basis of this article. Because the theory of discourse analysis is more compatible with the nature of the subject and provides a more accurate explanation of it. From this point of view, Islamism is considered as a discourse that, in order to fight against the ruling Pahlavi discourse and to establish its own semantic system, marginalized the ideologies of liberal nationalism and Marxism, and is recognized as the undisputed winner of the revolutionary battle. This research considers the main reason for the superiority of the discourse of Islamism in the conflict with rival discourses to be Imam Khomeini's ability to organize a comprehensive discourse that includes most of the concepts of liberal nationalism and Marxism discourses, and by creating a metaphorical space and covering a wide range of revolutionaries' demands, the existence of rival discourses has challengedExtended abstract1-INTRODUCTION The present article has tried to look at the rise of Islamists in the Iranian revolution with a new perspective and explain the reasons for its superiority in the face of modern and secular currents of nationalism and Marxism. In this regard, using the discourse analysis theory of Laclau and Moff and relying on its epistemological foundations and conceptual tools, he considers the Islamic revolution of Iran as a semantic conflict in which the three discourses of liberal nationalism, Marxism and political Islam are against the ruling Pahlavi discourse. and tried to replace their semantic system with the Pahlavi semantic system. These three discourses are otherness and rivals of each other and they always tried to make their meaning system the undisputed winner of this struggle by rejecting and marginalizing the rivals. From the perspective of this article, the main reason for the superiority of the discourse of political Islam is its ability to use the concepts of the competing discourses of liberal nationalism and Marxism; So that this discourse managed to collect all the claims of the competing discourses in the meta-discourse of the Islamic Revolution and in this way mobilize all the opponents of the Pahlavi discourse and the revolutionary forces around its semantic system. 2-Theoretical Framework The scope of our work in this article is the discourse scope. This method is classified under postmodern methods and is a qualitative analysis method. Today, the concept of discourse emphasizes social processes that generate meaning. Some consider discourse as an analytical technique that is used to reveal patterns of understanding, belief, value, and the structure of faith in discourse. "Discourse" has been translated into speech analysis, speech analysis, speech analysis and discourse analysis. Of course, there is no clear consensus about what discourse is and how it works and is analyzed, and there is no general agreement about discourse analysis. The discourse of Laclau and Mouffe aims to understand and analyze how to create, function and transform thought as a discourse - which is the creator of meanings and political activities. According to them, the meanings of words and social actions are revealed if they are placed in the field of special discourse. Also, the success of political discourses depends on their ability to produce meaning. As a result, Laclau and Mouffe's discourse theory mixes meaning, politics and society and analyzes them together. 3Methodology Ernesto Lacla and Chantal Moff, whose current research was designed based on their opinions, consider discourse to be a semantic system larger than language, which has taken over parts of the social sphere and by taking over the subject's mind, to individual speech and behavior and It shapes their society. By introducing the Foucauldian concept of power into their theory, Lacla and Mouffe gave a driving force to the discourse. They used Saussure's "sign" instead of Foucault's "command" to explain the structure of discourse and considered it not a set of commands but a set of signs. The concept of formulation in Foucault's theory is also comparable to the concept of "articulation" in Lacla and Mouffe's theory of discourse, through which signs fuse together and form a semantic system. Here and there, seemingly small, and the use of "sign" instead of Foucault's "judgment", has given extraordinary flexibility to the discourse of Lacla and Mouffe . 4- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Political Islam as a discourse is the result of the response of Muslim societies to the two basic challenges of the decline and backwardness of Islamic civilization and the widespread and comprehensive invasion of Western modernism into the Islamic world. Harair Dekamjian and Babi Saeed, who are considered to be the most important researchers of Islamic movements, have considered the confrontation of Islamic societies with the West as the most important factor in the emergence of the discourse of political Islam. Dekamjian considers the main cause of the formation of contemporary Islamic movements to be the result of the confrontation of Muslim societies with various crises such as identity, legitimacy and culture. The discourse of the Islamic Revolution takes the concepts of nation, freedom and law from the discourse of liberal nationalism; And he took the concepts of anti-imperialism, social justice, struggle against capitalism, defense of the rights of the masses and anti-monarchy from the discourse of Marxism and elaborated them around the central sign of Islam. 5- CONCLUSION & suggestions The discourse of the Islamic revolution was a new articulation of political Islam, which was able to create a metaphorical and idealistic space in which all the hopes and aspirations of the revolutionaries were reflected by comprehensively using the concepts of the competing discourses of liberal nationalism and Marxism. This discourse included the revolutionary and progressive ideals of competing discourses in its articulation and questioned their hegemony and monopoly in the realization of such ideals. Revolutionary forces dissatisfied with the Pahlavi discourse found all their demands and demands in the discourse of the Islamic Revolution and gathered around its semantic system.

در این راستا با بهره گیری از نظریه تحلیل گفتمان لاکلا و موف و با تکیه بر مبانی معرفتی و ابزارهای مفهومی آن ، انقلاب اسلامی ایران را به مثابه منازعه ای معنایی تلقی می کند که در آن سه گفتمان ملی گرایی لیبرال ، مارکسیسم و اسلام سیاسی در مقابل ٧٦ گفتمان حاکم پهلوی قرار گرفته و سعی داشتند نظام معنایی خود را جایگزین نظام معنایی پهلوی بکنند. دلیل عمده برتری گفتمان اسلام سیاسی ، توانایی آن در بهره گیری از مفاهیم گفتمان های رقیب ملی گرایی لیبرال و مارکسیسم است ؛ به طوری که موفق شد تمامی ادعاهای گفتمان های رقیب را در فراگفتمان انقلاب اسلامی گرد آورده و به این صورت همه مخالفان گفتمان پهلوی و نیروهای انقلابی را حول نظام معنایی خود بسیج کند. Khomeini,1982:213) در مصاحبه فوق امام خمینی با بهره گیری از مفهوم آزادی و بیان عبارت «ما موافق رژیم آزادی های کامل هستیم »، به طور تلویحی و غیر مستقیم گفتمان انقلاب اسلامی را بهترین گزینه برای تحقق آزادی های کامل معرفی می کند؛ در واقع او با بیان این عبارت سعی می کند گفتمان ملی گرایی لیبرال را که مهم ترین مروج مفهوم آزادی است ، ناتوان از ٨٦ برقراری نظامی آزاد و دموکراتیک نشان داده و به حاشیه براند. »(١٩٨٢٢٦,Imam Khomeini ) در پاسخ فوق ، امام خمینی با قرار دادن مفهوم جمهوری در زنجیره هم ارزی دال مرکزی اسلام ، سعی می کند جمهوری خواهی را در چارچوب نظام معنایی اسلام تعریف کرده و آن را از انحصار گفتمان مارکسیسم درآورد.