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.
AcharyaA (2011) Dialogue and discovery: In search of International Relations theories beyond the West. Millennium — Journal of International Studies39(3): 619–637.
2.
Adib-MoghaddamA (2009) Discourse and violence: The friend–enemy conjunction in contemporary Iranian–American relations. Critical Studies on Terrorism2(3): 512–526.
3.
Adib-zadehM (2008 [1387]) Zabān, guftimān va siyāsat-i khārijī: Diyāliktīk-i bāznamāyī az Gharb dar jahān-i namādīn-i Īrānī [Language, Discourse, and Foreign Policy: Representational Dialectics on the West in the Iranian Symbolic World]. Tehran: Nashr-i Akhtarān.
4.
AhoueiM (2009 [1388]) Tahavol-e negah-e Irani be regime sahyonisti [Development of the Iranian approach to the Zionist regime]. Danesh-e Siasi5(1): 5-31.
5.
Akhavan ZanjaniD (1990 [1369]) Sakhtar-e jamey-e beinolmelal [Structure of international society]. Ettelaat-e Siasi va Eghtesadi5(1): 19-23.
6.
Akhavan ZanjaniD (2000 [1379]) Miz-e gerd-e jahani shodan va asaret-e an bar jomhouri-e islami-e Iran [Globalization and its impacts on the Islamic Republic of Iran]. Motaleat-e Khavar-e Miyaneh23: 5-40.
7.
Akhavan ZanjaniD (2005 [1384]) Teradjedi-e faghr ya melodi-e tosee nesbat-e ma va jahani shodan [Tragedy of poverty or melody of development]. Rahbord36: 247–272.
8.
AmanatAVejdaniF (eds) (2012) Iran Facing Others. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan US.
9.
AsgarkhaniAM (2002 [1381]) miz-e gerd-e jahani shodan: abaad va payamadhay-e an 2 [Roundtable on globalization: Aspects and consequences 2]. Motaleat-e Melli3(11): 231-264.
10.
BavandH (2002 [1381]) jahan-e Irani be masabe-e nazariye-e siasat-e khareji [Iranian world as a cultural theory of foreign policy]. Farhang-e Diplomacy4 (2)
11.
BukhA (2009) Identity, foreign policy and the other: Japan’s Russia. European Journal of International Relations15(2): 319–345.
12.
CampbellD (1998) Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity. Minneapolis, MN, and London: University of Minnesota Press.
13.
CarverTPikaloJ (eds) (2008) Political Language and Metaphor: Interpreting and Changing the World/Edited by Terrell Carver and Jernej Pikalo. London: Routledge.
14.
Charteris-BlackJ (2004) Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, and New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
15.
ChiltonPLakoffG (2005) Foreign policy by metaphor. In: SchffnerCWendenA (eds) Language and Peace. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic, pp. 37–60.
16.
Der DerianJ (2009) Critical Practices in International Theory: Selected Essays. New York, NY: Routledge.
17.
DotyRL (2002) Imperial Encounters: The Politics of Representation in North-South Relations. Minneapolis, MN, and London: University of Minnesota Press.
18.
DrulákP (2006) Motion, container and equilibrium: Metaphors in the discourse about European integration. European Journal of International Relations12(4): 499-531.
19.
DrulákP (2008) Identifying and assessing metaphors: Discourse on EU reform. In: CarverTPikaloJ (eds) Political Language and Metaphor: Interpreting and Changing the World/Edited by Terrell Carver and Jernej Pikalo. London: Routledge, pp. 105–118.
20.
DuncombeC (2011) Foreign policy and the politics of representation: The West and its Others. Global Change, Peace & Security23(1): 31–46.
21.
DuncombeC (2015) Representation, recognition and respect: Foreign policy and the Iran–US relationship. European Journal of International Relations. 22(3): 1-24.
22.
EhteshamiAMolaviR (2012) Iran and the International System. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, and New York, NY: Routledge.
23.
ErikssonJNormanL (2011) Political utilisation of scholarly ideas: The “clash of civilisations” vs. “soft power” in US foreign policy. Review of International Studies37(1): 417–436.
24.
EyvaziMR (2003 [1381]) Enghelab-e islami and karamadi-e siasate na sharghi na gharbi [Islamic revolution and the efficiency of nor East, nor West policy]. Andishe-e Enghelab-e Islami4: 29–42.
25.
GernerDJSchrodtPA (2002) Taking your academic expertise public: Lessons learned responding to the 11 September crisis. International Studies Perspectives3(2): 221–229.
26.
Haji-YousefiAM (2010) Teaching International Relations in Iran: Challenges and prospects. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Canadian Political Science Association, 2–3 June, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada.
27.
HallRB (2001) Applying the “self/other” nexus in International Relations. International Studies Review3(1): 101–111.
28.
HansenL (2006) Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War. New York, NY: Routledge.
29.
HulsseR (2006) Imagine the EU: The metaphorical construction of a supra-nationalist identity. Journal of International Relations and Development9(4): 396–421.
30.
IvieRL (1997a) Cold War motives and the rhetorical metaphor: A framework of criticism. In: MedhurstMJ (ed.) Cold War Rhetoric: Strategy, Metaphor, and Ideology. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, pp. 71–80.
31.
IvieRL (1997b) Metaphor and the rhetorical invention of Cold War “idealists.” In: MedhurstMJ (ed.) Cold War Rhetoric: Strategy, Metaphor, and Ideology. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, pp. 103–130.
32.
KhameneiA (2013 [1392]) ‘Beyanat dar Jaam-e farmandehan sepah [Speech for IRGC commanders]’, Available at http://yon.ir/RQ4Qu.
33.
KhaniMHSadeghiMM (2013 [1392]) Tahlil-e hazine va fayede: rahbord-e hemayat-e hamejanebe gc regime sahyonisti dar siasate kharehi-e hyalat-e motahede-e amrica [Cost and benefit analysis: Strategy of widespread support of the Zionist regime in US foreign policy]. Pajoheshha-e Rahbordi-e Siasat2(6): 141-132.
34.
KornprobstMPouliotVShahN, et al. (eds) (2008) Metaphors of Globalization: Mirrors, Magicians and Mutinies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
35.
LakoffG (1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. Metaphor and Thought2: 202–251.
36.
LakoffGJohnsonM (2003) Metaphors We Live by. Chicago, IL, and London: University of Chicago Press.
37.
MajidiMRSamoudi PilevarAR (2014 [1393]) Talashha-e regim-e sahyonisti baray-e barsazi-e barname-e hasteei-e Iran be onvan-e tahdid-e amniati [Zionist regime’s efforts for the construction of the Iranian nuclear program as a security threat]. Pajoheshha-e Enghelab-e Islami3(10): 191–214.
38.
Malek MohammadiHRMadaniM (2013 [1392]) Farhang-e hakem bar taamolat-e Iran va arabestab az manzar-e tahlil-e sazeengarane [Culture dominated on the Iran–Saudi Arabia interactions: A constructivist analysis]. Siasat28(43): 61–80.
39.
MarksMP (2011) Metaphors in International Relations Theory. New York, NY, and Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
40.
MasoudiH (2010 [1389]) Tahavvol-e- Resht-e- Ravabet-e-Beinolmelal: Az Hegemoni-e Amrikaei ta Bastarha-e- Denesh-e- Jahani [The evolution of IR: From American hegemony to a ground for global knowledge]. In: MoshirzadehHEbrahimiN (eds) Tahavol-e- Mafahim dar Ravabet-e- Beinolmelal [Conceptual Evolution in IR]. Tehran: Pajoheshkad-e- Motaleat-e- Rahbordi, pp. 46–77.
41.
MesbahiM (2009) IR scholars and international systems: Learning and socialization. International Political Sociology3(3): 346–350.
MoshirzadehH (2009) A “hegemonic discipline” in an “anti-hegemonic” country. International Political Sociology3(3): 342–346.
45.
MoshirzadehH (2015a) International relations in Iran and its discursive dynamics. Iranian Review of Foreign Affairs5(4): 5–45.
46.
MoshirzadehH (2015b) Iranian scholars and endogenous IR. Paper to be presented at the ISA Global South Conference, Singapore.
47.
MoshirzadehH (2018) Iranian scholars and theorizing international relations: Achievements and challenges. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace. 7(1): 103–120.
48.
MousaviMAKadkhodaeeE (2015) The role of academic discourse in shaping USA–Israel relations. Iranian Review of Foreign Affairs6(2): 132–154.
49.
NaghibzadehA (1994 [1373]) Miz-e gerd darbare-e solh-e saf va Israel [Roundtable on peace accord between PLO and Israel]. Motaleat-e Khavar-e Miyaneh1: 5-36.
50.
NaghibzadehA (1997 [1376]) reghabet-e ghodratha-e mantaghei dar asia-e miyane [Competition of regional powers in Central Asia]. Ettelaat-e Siasi va Eghtesadi119: 76-83.
51.
NaghibzadehA (1999 [1371]) Negahi be seir-e nazare pardazi va jadalha-e nazari dar revabet-e beinolmelal [Development of IR theorization and theoretical debates]. Siasat-e Khareji6(1)
NeumannIB (1996) Self and other in international relations. European Journal of International Relations2(2): 139–174.
54.
OppermannKSpencerA (2013) Thinking alike? Salience and metaphor analysis as cognitive approaches to foreign policy analysis. Foreign Policy Analysis9(1): 39–56.
55.
PaipaisV (2011) Self and other in critical international theory: Assimilation, incommensurability and the paradox of critique. Review of International Studies37(1): 121–140.
56.
RajaeiF (2000 [1379]) jahani shodan va sisat-e khareji-e johouri-e Islami-e Iran [Globalization and the Islamic Republic of Iran’s foreign policy]. Majaleye Daneshkadeye Hoghogh va Oloume Siasi Daneshgah-e Tehran .
57.
SariolghalamM (1992 [1371]) Sonnat, modernism va frahang-e tosee [Tradition, modernism, and culture of development]. Ettelaat-e Siasi va Eghtesadi61: 26-29.
58.
SeifzadehH (1991 [1370]) tarh-e sistematik-e mafhoumi baraye motaleeye siasat-e khareji [A systematic conceptual framework for analysis of foreign policy]. Majaleye Daneshkadeye Hoghogh va Oloume Siasi Daneshgah-e Tehran26: 153–196
59.
SeifzadehH (1998 [1377]) barresiye tahavolat-e ravabet-e Iran and America [Analysis of historical developments in Iran–USA relations: Roundtable of Iranian IR, politics, and history scholars]. Yaad13(1): 13-70.
60.
SeifzadehH (1999 [1378]) miz-e gerd-e jaygah-e khaver-e miyane dar monasebat-e beinolmelali [Roundtable on the role of the Middle East in new international relations]. Motaleat-e Khavar-e Miyaneh18: 7–42
61.
SeifzadehH (2001 [1380]) kand-o kavi dar jelveha-e siasi-e jahani shodan va nesbat-e an ba mabani-e sterategik-e siasat-e khareji [Investigation on political aspects of globalization and its relation to the strategic foundation of foreign policy]. Rahbord20: 215-229.
62.
ShahN (2008) Beyond sovereignty and the state of nature: Metaphorical readings of global order. In: KornprobstMPouliotVShahN, et al. (eds) Metaphors of Globalization: Mirrors, Magicians and Mutinies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 184–202.
63.
SoleimaniR (2010 [1389]) Nafy-e gheyr dar mafsal bandi va tasbit-e goteman-e siasat-e khareji jomhouri-e islami-e Iran va monasebat-e Tehran-Washington [Exclusion of the other in the articulation and stabilization of Islamic Republic of Iran’s foreign policy discourse and Tehran–Washington interactions]. Faculty of Economics and Political Science, Tehran.
64.
Tavakoli-TarghiM (2001) Refashioning Iran: Orientalism, Occidentalism, and historiography. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, and New York, NY: Palgrave.
TsygankovAP (2008) Self and other in International Relations theory: Learning from Russian civilizational debates 1. International Studies Review10(4): 762–775.
67.
TsygankovAPTsygankovPA (2010) National ideology and IR theory: Three incarnations of the “Russian idea.”European Journal of International Relations. 16(4) 663–686
68.
VaughanC (2005) A comparative discourse analysis of editorials on the Lebanon 1982 crisis. In: SchffnerCWendenA (eds) Language and Peace. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic, pp. 61–74.
69.
WalkerRBJ (1989) History and structure in the theory of international relations. Millennium — Journal of International Studies18(2): 163–183.
70.
WalkerRBJ (1993) Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
71.
WalterJHelmigJ (2008) Discursive metaphor analysis: (De)Construction(s) of Europe. In: CarverTPikaloJ (eds) Political Language and Metaphor: Interpreting and Changing the World/Edited by Terrell Carver and Jernej Pikalo. London: Routledge.
