آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 54 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 2,674 |
| تعداد مقالات | 37,771 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 20,690,794 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 9,682,880 |
بلاغت استعاره در گفتمان سیاسی آمریکا علیه ایران: از آرایه ادبی تا ابزار شناختی قدرت (2002-۲۰۲۶) | ||
| علوم سیاسی | ||
| مقالات آماده انتشار، پذیرفته شده، انتشار آنلاین از تاریخ 03 آبان 1405 | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22081/psq.2026.75417.3170 | ||
| نویسنده | ||
| مرتضی براتی* | ||
| استادیار گروه آموزش زبان و ادبیات دانشگاه فرهنگیان. تهران. ایران | ||
| تاریخ دریافت: 24 تیر 1405، تاریخ بازنگری: 27 مهر 1405، تاریخ پذیرش: 03 آبان 1405 | ||
| چکیده | ||
| استعاره در گفتمان سیاسی فراتر از یک آرایه‌ی ادبی، سازوکاری شناختی و ایدئولوژیک برای بازنمایی، بازآفرینی و تثبیت واقعیت‌های سیاسی است. این مقاله با رویکردی تحلیلی-انتقادی و با بهره‌گیری از نظریه‌ی استعاره‌ی مفهومی (لیکاف و جانسون، ۱۹۸۰) و روش تحلیل استعاره‌ی انتقادی (چارتریس-بلک، ۲۰۰۴)، به بررسی کارکردهای شناختی و اقناعی استعاره در گفتمان سیاسی آمریکا با تمرکز بر جنگ اخیر علیه ایران می‌پردازد. پرسش اصلی آن است که استعاره‌های مفهومی در این گفتمان چگونه به‌عنوان ابزارهایی برای مشروعیت‌بخشی به اقدامات خصمانه و متجاوزانه علیه ایران، شکل‌دهی به ادراک عمومی و توجیه خشونت عمل می‌کنند. یافته‌ها نشان می‌دهد که گفتمان آمریکایی از پنج راهبرد استعاری اصلی علیه ایران بهره می‌گیرد: دوگانه‌سازی اخلاقی (ایران = شر مطلق)، سلسله‌مراتب تمدنی (ایران = پیشاتمدن/وحشی)، مالکیت/نام‌گذاری (ایران = موضوع تصرف)، بازی‌سازی (جنگ = سرگرمی/نمایش)، و بدن‌مندسازی خشونت (تحریم = عمل فیزیکی). در پایان، به‌طور اشاره‌وار، به مقاومت گفتمانی ایران در برابر این استعاره‌ها نیز پرداخته می‌شود. مقاله با تحلیل ده نمونه‌ی عینی از گفتمان مقامات آمریکایی علیه ایران نشان می‌دهد که استعاره‌ها به‌طور هم‌زمان آشکارسازی و پنهان‌سازی می‌کنند و با پنهان‌سازی قربانیان، خشونت را توجیه می‌نمایند. Metaphor in political discourse transcends its role as a mere literary device, functioning as a cognitive and ideological mechanism for representing, reconstructing, and stabilizing political realities. This article employs a critical-analytical approach, drawing upon Conceptual Metaphor Theory (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980) and Critical Metaphor Analysis (Charteris-Black, 2004), to examine the cognitive and persuasive functions of metaphor in American political discourse against Iran and Iranians. The central research question investigates how conceptual metaphors in this discourse operate as instruments for legitimizing hostile actions against Iran, shaping public perception, and justifying violence. The findings reveal that American discourse employs five principal metaphorical strategies against Iran: moral dichotomization (Iran = absolute evil), civilizational hierarchy (Iran = pre-civilized/barbaric), ownership/naming (Iran = object of appropriation), gamification (war = entertainment/spectacle), and embodiment of violence (sanctions = physical act). In conclusion, the article briefly addresses Iran's counter-discourse against these metaphors. Through the analysis of ten concrete examples from American officials' discourse against Iran, the article demonstrates that metaphors simultaneously reveal and conceal, and by obs | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| : استعاره‌ی مفهومی؛ گفتمان سیاسی آمریکا؛ ایران‌ستیزی؛ تحلیل استعاره‌ی انتقادی؛ مشروعیت‌زدایی؛ جنگ ایران ۲۰۲۶؛ بدن‌مندسازی خشونت | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| The Rhetoric of Metaphor in American Political Discourse against Iran: From Literary Device to Cognitive Instrument of Power (2002-2026) | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Morteza Barati | ||
| Assistant Professor, Department of Language and Literature Education, Farhangian University, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| bstract Metaphor in political discourse transcends its role as a mere literary device, functioning as a cognitive and ideological mechanism for representing, reconstructing, and stabilizing political realities. This article employs a critical-analytical approach, drawing upon Conceptual Metaphor Theory (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980) and Critical Metaphor Analysis (Charteris-Black, 2004), to examine the cognitive and persuasive functions of metaphor in American political discourse against Iran and Iranians. The central research question investigates how conceptual metaphors in this discourse operate as instruments for legitimizing hostile actions against Iran, shaping public perception, and justifying violence. The findings reveal that American discourse employs five principal metaphorical strategies against Iran: moral dichotomization (Iran = absolute evil), civilizational hierarchy (Iran = pre-civilized/barbaric), ownership/naming (Iran = object of appropriation), gamification (war = entertainment/spectacle), and embodiment of violence (sanctions = physical act). In conclusion, the article briefly addresses Iran's counter-discourse against these metaphors. Through the analysis of ten concrete examples from American officials' discourse against Iran, the article demonstrates that metaphors simultaneously reveal and conceal, and by obscuring victims, they serve to justify violence. The theoretical foundation of this research rests upon the premise, advanced by Lakoff and Johnson (1980), that metaphor is not merely a matter of language but a fundamental feature of human thought and cognition. According to this view, conceptual metaphors allow us to understand one experiential domain (the target domain) in terms of another (the source domain). For instance, the conceptual metaphor "ARGUMENT IS WAR" enables us to speak of "attacking" an opponent's position, "defending" our own claims, and "winning" or "losing" an argument. This cognitive mechanism is particularly potent in political discourse, where abstract and often contentious issues must be rendered accessible and compelling to diverse audiences. Moreover, following the insights of Charteris-Black (2004, 2005), this study recognizes that metaphor choice in political communication is rarely neutral; rather, it reflects and reinforces underlying ideological commitments and serves strategic persuasive functions. The findings of this research indicate that war metaphors, journey metaphors, and illness metaphors constitute the most prevalent and powerful source domains in contemporary political rhetoric, each generating distinct cognitive and ideological consequences. War metaphors, for instance, frame political challenges as existential threats requiring urgent and decisive action, thereby legitimizing extraordinary measures, mobilizing national resources, and creating a sense of collective purpose. Journey metaphors, by contrast, emphasize progress, shared direction, and the inevitability of eventual success, thereby fostering hope and sustaining public support through periods of difficulty. Illness metaphors serve to delegitimize political opponents by portraying them as pathological threats to the health of the body politic, thereby justifying their exclusion or elimination. Each of these metaphorical frameworks carries specific implications for how audiences understand political reality and evaluate political actors and policies. Through the systematic analysis of concrete instances drawn from the discourse of American politicians—spanning from John F. Kennedy's space race rhetoric to Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal speeches, from Ronald Reagan's "city upon a hill" imagery to George W. Bush's post-9/11 framing, and extending to the 2026 war against Iran—this article demonstrates how metaphors are systematically utilized as "rhetorical weaponry" in the pursuit of political agendas. The analysis reveals how metaphors such as "Iran will be bombed back to the Stone Age," "their entire civilization will die tonight," and the persistent "Hitler" analogy for Iranian leadership function to dehumanize the enemy, justify military aggression, and manufacture domestic consensus through the construction of an existential threat. Particular attention is devoted to the 2026 war against Iran, where the American administration employed a systematic metaphorical campaign to legitimize its military intervention. The "Stone Age" metaphor, drawing upon the source domain of primitive pre-civilization, maps onto the target domain of contemporary Iran, thereby reproducing the Orientalist discourse analyzed by Edward Said (1978) that portrays non-Western peoples as backward, irrational, and in need of Western "civilizing" intervention. Similarly, the "dying civilization" metaphor frames the Iranian political system as a terminal patient whose demise is both inevitable and desirable, thereby neutralizing moral qualms about the human cost of military action. The "Hitler" analogy, which Lakoff (1991) had earlier analyzed in the context of the Gulf War, maps the entire source domain of Nazi Germany—including not only "evil" but also "inevitable defeat"—onto the target domain of the Iranian leadership, thereby suggesting that regime change is both morally justified and historically destined. This study also examines how metaphors serve as sites of discursive contestation and resistance. In the context of the 2026 war, the Iranian resistance employed visual metaphors and internet memes that mapped the source domain of "play and entertainment" onto the target domain of "lethal warfare," thereby reducing trauma, generating hope and national confidence, and redefining national identity in the face of foreign aggression. This demonstrates that metaphors can serve both hegemonic and counter-hegemonic functions, depending on who deploys them and to what ends. The article thus contributes to a deeper understanding of the relationship between language, cognition, and power in contemporary political discourse, highlighting the crucial role of metaphor in the production and contestation of political meaning. The findings underscore the necessity for critical awareness of metaphorical framing in political communication, both as a tool of manipulation and as a resource for resistance, and suggest avenues for future research into the comparative analysis of metaphorical systems across political cultures and ideological contexts. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Conceptual Metaphor, American Political Discourse, Critical Metaphor Analysis, Persuasion, Ideology, Iran War 2026 | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 2 |
||