本稿の著作権は著者が所持し、クリエイティブ・コモンズ表示 4.0 国際ライセンス（CC-BY) 下に提供します。
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.ja
Some Communication Manners to Stabilize Hegemony:
A Rhetorical Analysis of the Story of "The Iranians' Eid"
by Simin Daneshvar Based on Ideological Criticism
Sarah Saeedi Vernosfaderani, World Language and Society Education Centre of Tokyo University of Foreign Studies
1. Introduction
2. Artifact and the related context 3. Analysis Method
3.1. Rhetorical Criticism: From Criticism of Sermons to Analysis of Artefacts 3.2. The Purpose of Rhetorical Criticism
3.3. Ideological Criticism
3.4. The Stages of Rhetorical Analysis in Ideological Criticism 3.4.1. Identifying the Explicit Elements of Artefact
3.4.2. Identifying the Hidden Elements of the Artefact 3.4.3. Introducing the Ideology of Artefact
3.4.4. Identifying the Functions of the Artefact Ideology 4. The Analysis of the Story
4.1. Apparent Compassion and Interventionism
4.2. Intangible Promotion of Cultural Values and the Need to Adhere to Them 4.3. Humiliation of the Lower Culture
5. Conclusion
Keywords: Rhetoric Criticism, Ideological Criticism, Rhetoric, Simin Daneshvar, The Iranians' Eid.
Abstract
Ideological criticism is one of the methods of rhetorical criticism, in which the critic seeks to discover the beliefs, values, and hypotheses giving rise to an artifact or a set of
artifacts. The perspective of ideological criticism is based on the assumption that there are different ideologies prevalent in each culture, which can be potentially manifested in the form of artifacts; but, some ideologies in one culture are preferred to others, suppressing the ideologies that promote differentiated viewpoints distinct from the dominant ideology. The result is the prevalence of a dominant view toward the world in a culture or the dominance of a hegemonic ideology in some fields. Ideological criticism examines the communication methods leading to the overcoming of a hegemonic ideology. Based on ideological criticism, this study shows the manners by which Simin Daneshvar expresses the dominance of Western culture in the story of "The Iranians' Eid". This analysis revealed some of the communication methods by which the dominant culture overcomes the subordinate culture.
ﻩﺪﻴﮑﭼ
شور زا ﯽﮑﻳ ﯽﮑﻳژﻮﻟﻮﺋﺪﻳا ﺪﻘﻧ
.ﺖﺳاﯽﮑﻳرﻮﺗر ﺪﻘﻧ ﯼﺎه
شور
ﻦﻳا رد
شزرا ،ﺎهروﺎﺑ ﻒﺸﮐ ﯽﭘ رد ﺪﻘﺘﻨﻣ ﻪﻴﺿﺮﻓ و ﺎه
ﻪﮐ ﺖﺳا ﯽﻳﺎه
ﮏﻳﻪﻋﻮﻤﺠﻣ ﺎﻳ ﺖﮑﻔﻴﺗرﺁ ﺖﮑﻔﻴﺗرﺁ زا ﯼا
ﯽﻣ ﺪﻳﺪﭘ ار ﺎه ﻢﺸﭼ .ﺪﻧروﺁ
زاﺪﻧا
ﯽﮕﻨهﺮﻓ ﺮه رد ﻪﮐ ﺖﺳا ﻩﺪﺷ ﺎﻨﺑ ضﺮﻓ ﻦﻳا ﺔﻳﺎﭘ ﺮﺑ ﯽﮑﻳژﻮﻟﻮﺋﺪﻳا ﺪﻘﻧ
ﯼژﻮﻟﻮﺋﺪﻳا ﯽﻣ ﻪﮐ دراد دﻮﺟو ﯽﻧﻮﮔﺎﻧﻮﮔ ﯼﺎه
ﻩﻮﻘﻟﺎﺑ
رﻮﻃ ﻪﺑ ﺪﻨﻧاﻮﺗ
ﺖﻴﮑﻔﺗرﺁ ﺐﻟﺎﻗ رد
زاﯽﺧﺮﺑ ﺎّﻣا ،ﺪﻧﻮﺷ رﺎﮑﺷﺁ تﺎﻋﻮﻨﺼﻣ ﺎﻳ ﺎه
ﯼژﻮﻟﻮﺋﺪﻳا د ﺎه
ﯼژﻮﻟﻮﺋﺪﻳا ﺮﮕﻳد ﻪﺑ ﺖﺒﺴﻧ ﮓﻨهﺮﻓ ﮏﻳ ر
نﺎﺤﺟرﺎه
ﯽﻣ ﺚﻋﺎﺑ ﺮﻣا ﻦﻳا و ﺪﻧراد ﯼژﻮﻟﻮﺋﺪﻳا ﺮﮕﻳد ﻪﮐ دﻮﺷ
ﻪﮐ
ﯽﻳﺎه
ﻩﺎﮔﺪﻳد
ﺞﻳوﺮﺗار ﺐﻟﺎﻏ ﯼژﻮﻟﻮﺋﺪﻳا ﺎﺑ ﺰﻳﺎﻤﺘﻣ و ﺮﻳﺎﻐﺘﻣ ﯼﺎه
ﯽﻣ
نﺎﻬﺟ ﻪﺑ ﺐﻟﺎﻏ ﻩﺎﮕﻧ ﮏﻳ عﻮﻴﺷ ﺮﻣا ﻦﻳا ﺔﺠﻴﺘﻧ .ﺪﻧﻮﺷ بﻮﮐﺮﺳ ،ﺪﻨهدرد ﮏﻴﻧﻮﻣﮋه ﯼژﻮﻟﻮﺋﺪﻳا ﮏﻳ ﺔﻠﺒﻏ ﺎﻳ ﮓﻨهﺮﻓ ﮏﻳ رد
زاﯽﺧﺮﺑ
ﻩزﻮﺣ ﻩﻮﻴﺷ ﯽﮑﻳژﻮﻟﻮﺋﺪﻳا ﺪﻘﻧ .ﺖﺳﺎه ﯽﻃﺎﺒﺗرا ﯼﺎه
ﯽﻣ ﯽﺳرﺮﺑ ار ﯼا
ﺪﻨﮐﯽﻣ ﮏﻴﻧﻮﻣﮋه ﯼژﻮﻟﻮﺋﺪﻳا ﮏﻳ ﺔﺒﻠﻏ ﻪﺑ ﺮﺠﻨﻣ ﻪﮐ
ﺎﻣ ﻪﻟﺎﻘﻣ ﻦﻳا رد .دﻮﺷﯽﻣ نﺎﺸﻧ ﯽﮑﻳژﻮﻟﻮﺋﺪﻳا ﺪﻘﻧ ﺔﻳﺎﭘ ﺮﺑ ﻪﮐ ﻢﻴهد
رد
رﻮﺸﻧاد ﻦﻴﻤﻴﺳ
نﺎﺘﺳاد ﯽﻧاﺮﻳا ﺪﻴﻋ
ﺎه ور ﻪﭼ زا ش
ﮓﻨهﺮﻓ
ﺔﻄﻠﺳ نﺎﻴﺑ ﯼاﺮﺑ ﯽﻳﺎه
ﺎﻔﺘﺳا ﯽﺑﺮﻏ ﻦﻳا .ﺖﺳا ﻩدﺮﮐ ﻩد
شور زا ﯽﺧﺮﺑ ﻞﻴﻠﺤﺗ ﯽﻃﺎﺒﺗرا ﯼﺎه
ﯼا
ﯽﻣ رﺎﮑﺷﺁ ار
ﮓﻨهﺮﻓﺮﺑ ﻪﺒﻠﻏ ﯼاﺮﺑ نﺁ زا ﺐﻟﺎﻏ ﮓﻨهﺮﻓ ﻪﮐ ﺪﻨﮐ
ﯽﻣ ﻩدﺎﻔﺘﺳا ﺖﺳدوﺮﻓ ﺪﻨﮐ
.
artifacts. The perspective of ideological criticism is based on the assumption that there are different ideologies prevalent in each culture, which can be potentially manifested in the form of artifacts; but, some ideologies in one culture are preferred to others, suppressing the ideologies that promote differentiated viewpoints distinct from the dominant ideology. The result is the prevalence of a dominant view toward the world in a culture or the dominance of a hegemonic ideology in some fields. Ideological criticism examines the communication methods leading to the overcoming of a hegemonic ideology. Based on ideological criticism, this study shows the manners by which Simin Daneshvar expresses the dominance of Western culture in the story of "The Iranians' Eid". This analysis revealed some of the communication methods by which the dominant culture overcomes the subordinate culture.
ﻩﺪﻴﮑﭼ
شور زا ﯽﮑﻳ ﯽﮑﻳژﻮﻟﻮﺋﺪﻳا ﺪﻘﻧ
.ﺖﺳاﯽﮑﻳرﻮﺗر ﺪﻘﻧ ﯼﺎه
شور
ﻦﻳا رد
شزرا ،ﺎهروﺎﺑ ﻒﺸﮐ ﯽﭘ رد ﺪﻘﺘﻨﻣ ﻪﻴﺿﺮﻓ و ﺎه
ﻪﮐ ﺖﺳا ﯽﻳﺎه
ﮏﻳﻪﻋﻮﻤﺠﻣ ﺎﻳ ﺖﮑﻔﻴﺗرﺁ ﺖﮑﻔﻴﺗرﺁ زا ﯼا
ﯽﻣ ﺪﻳﺪﭘ ار ﺎه ﻢﺸﭼ .ﺪﻧروﺁ
زاﺪﻧا
ﯽﮕﻨهﺮﻓ ﺮه رد ﻪﮐ ﺖﺳا ﻩﺪﺷ ﺎﻨﺑ ضﺮﻓ ﻦﻳا ﺔﻳﺎﭘ ﺮﺑ ﯽﮑﻳژﻮﻟﻮﺋﺪﻳا ﺪﻘﻧ
ﯼژﻮﻟﻮﺋﺪﻳا ﯽﻣ ﻪﮐ دراد دﻮﺟو ﯽﻧﻮﮔﺎﻧﻮﮔ ﯼﺎه
ﻩﻮﻘﻟﺎﺑ
رﻮﻃ ﻪﺑ ﺪﻨﻧاﻮﺗ
ﺖﻴﮑﻔﺗرﺁ ﺐﻟﺎﻗ رد
زاﯽﺧﺮﺑ ﺎّﻣا ،ﺪﻧﻮﺷ رﺎﮑﺷﺁ تﺎﻋﻮﻨﺼﻣ ﺎﻳ ﺎه
ﯼژﻮﻟﻮﺋﺪﻳا د ﺎه
ﯼژﻮﻟﻮﺋﺪﻳا ﺮﮕﻳد ﻪﺑ ﺖﺒﺴﻧ ﮓﻨهﺮﻓ ﮏﻳ ر
نﺎﺤﺟرﺎه
ﯽﻣ ﺚﻋﺎﺑ ﺮﻣا ﻦﻳا و ﺪﻧراد ﯼژﻮﻟﻮﺋﺪﻳا ﺮﮕﻳد ﻪﮐ دﻮﺷ
ﻪﮐ
ﯽﻳﺎه
ﻩﺎﮔﺪﻳد
ﺞﻳوﺮﺗار ﺐﻟﺎﻏ ﯼژﻮﻟﻮﺋﺪﻳا ﺎﺑ ﺰﻳﺎﻤﺘﻣ و ﺮﻳﺎﻐﺘﻣ ﯼﺎه
ﯽﻣ
نﺎﻬﺟ ﻪﺑ ﺐﻟﺎﻏ ﻩﺎﮕﻧ ﮏﻳ عﻮﻴﺷ ﺮﻣا ﻦﻳا ﺔﺠﻴﺘﻧ .ﺪﻧﻮﺷ بﻮﮐﺮﺳ ،ﺪﻨهدرد ﮏﻴﻧﻮﻣﮋه ﯼژﻮﻟﻮﺋﺪﻳا ﮏﻳ ﺔﻠﺒﻏ ﺎﻳ ﮓﻨهﺮﻓ ﮏﻳ رد
زاﯽﺧﺮﺑ
ﻩزﻮﺣ ﻩﻮﻴﺷ ﯽﮑﻳژﻮﻟﻮﺋﺪﻳا ﺪﻘﻧ .ﺖﺳﺎه ﯽﻃﺎﺒﺗرا ﯼﺎه
ﯽﻣ ﯽﺳرﺮﺑ ار ﯼا
ﺪﻨﮐﯽﻣ ﮏﻴﻧﻮﻣﮋه ﯼژﻮﻟﻮﺋﺪﻳا ﮏﻳ ﺔﺒﻠﻏ ﻪﺑ ﺮﺠﻨﻣ ﻪﮐ
ﺎﻣ ﻪﻟﺎﻘﻣ ﻦﻳا رد .دﻮﺷﯽﻣ نﺎﺸﻧ ﯽﮑﻳژﻮﻟﻮﺋﺪﻳا ﺪﻘﻧ ﺔﻳﺎﭘ ﺮﺑ ﻪﮐ ﻢﻴهد
رد
رﻮﺸﻧاد ﻦﻴﻤﻴﺳ
نﺎﺘﺳاد ﯽﻧاﺮﻳا ﺪﻴﻋ
ﺎه ور ﻪﭼ زا ش
ﮓﻨهﺮﻓ
ﺔﻄﻠﺳ نﺎﻴﺑ ﯼاﺮﺑ ﯽﻳﺎه
ﺎﻔﺘﺳا ﯽﺑﺮﻏ ﻦﻳا .ﺖﺳا ﻩدﺮﮐ ﻩد
شور زا ﯽﺧﺮﺑ ﻞﻴﻠﺤﺗ ﯽﻃﺎﺒﺗرا ﯼﺎه
ﯼا
ﯽﻣ رﺎﮑﺷﺁ ار
ﮓﻨهﺮﻓﺮﺑ ﻪﺒﻠﻏ ﯼاﺮﺑ نﺁ زا ﺐﻟﺎﻏ ﮓﻨهﺮﻓ ﻪﮐ ﺪﻨﮐ
ﯽﻣ ﻩدﺎﻔﺘﺳا ﺖﺳدوﺮﻓ ﺪﻨﮐ
.
1. Introduction
According to Althusser, art is rooted in ideology, but it is not merely an ideological phenomenon1). It can be said that each text partly reflects or incorporates the hegemonic ideologies of its time in any historical period. The reflection of hegemonic ideology in literary or non-literary works sometimes provides a critique of that ideology for the critic, thereby challenging the dominant ideology as the hidden tool for social control. If we accept that ideology is a social action that helps in concealing the true nature of reality and distorts or transforms or conceals power relations in a society, then the ideological reading of a text that reflects ideology is, in fact, a kind of struggle by the critic to disclose the deletions, concealments, and distortions. Some scholars believe that ideology eventually ends in human societies, whereas Feminists and Marxists believe that ideology ends when ideological criticism performs its job properly2).
In this study, the story of "The Iranians' Eid" by Simin Daneshvar was selected to be analyzed through the perspective of ideological criticism, in which the critic seeks to discover the beliefs, values, and hypotheses giving rise to a work or a set of works. In fact, the purpose of ideological criticism is primarily to discover and identify the ideology reflected in literary or non-literary works. Ideology arises from value beliefs, with other possible beliefs in its opposition. Ideology is the basis of the knowledge, attitudes, motivations, and attachments of individuals and groups, and defines their intellectual frameworks; a framework within which they view the world or some aspects of the world and makes sense of it. It should be borne in mind that all methods of rhetorical criticism are aimed at discovering worldviews and hidden meanings in a text or proving the existence of specific meanings in the work, and naturally finding what is already clear to the reader is not the goal of the critic. The question of the present study is as follows:
What are the methods utilized by Simin Daneshvar in the story of "The Iranians' Eid" to express the dominance of Western culture?
By classifying the explicit elements of the story under the hidden meanings, this study shows how the author portrayed the dominant Western (American) culture. This analysis shows how the use of communication methods allowed the Western culture to overcome the subordinate culture. Simin Daneshvar decidedly points to these manners in this story.
2.Artifact and the related context
Rhetoric/communicative action or artefact are common terms used in rhetorical criticism to express different concepts. Rhetorical action or communicative action, as Karlyn Campbell states in a book of the same title, refers to "a deliberate, designed, and artistic attempt to remove obstacles in a specific situation with a particular audience in a specific subject to achieve a specific goal"3). In other words, the rhetorical action is the ways in which the speaker or communicator communicates with the audience, for example, a poet seeking solace and removing obstacles uses deliberate means to communicate with the audience; this act is called rhetorical/communicative action. Sonja Foss believed that the rhetorical/communicative action is performed in the presence of the target audience of the speaker and an artefact is a tangible impact and/or evidence of the rhetorical action4). For example, considering a concert as a rhetorical action, the page or tape on which this concert is recorded is an artefact of that rhetorical action, or if a poet reads a poem on a stage, the poet's act is a rhetorical action and the book in which the poem is published is an artefact.
Further, the subjects of rhetorical criticism are the rhetorical actions and artefacts. Since rhetorical actions are always displayed in front of an audience (e.g. a lecture or a concert) and are often fleeting, their rhetorical analysis is difficult; hence, the rhetorical critics prefer to study the artefacts of rhetorical actions5). Therefore, artefacts are considered as rhetorical action documents and are the data that is studied in rhetorical criticism. Artefacts are any form of symbol use; for example, song, poetry, lecture, artwork, buildings, and paintings are all artefacts and tangible evidence of communicative action. Through analyzing the rhetorical actions and artefacts, rhetoric criticism helps to understand the communication process6). In other words, rhetoric criticism is a critical approach to analyze symbolic relationships and aims at providing a better understanding of communication7).
The artefact studied here was selected from the collection "A City like Paradise", and is the second story by Simin Daneshvar which was released in 1961. Like the other nine short stories in this collection, this story describes the difficult life and ignorance of the Iranian people. The title of the book and the title of the selected story (regarding the content of the stories that describe the difficult lives of the Iranian people at a particular period) are both ironic and paradoxical. This story describes a part of the history of Iran from 1951 to 1961, after the coup of 1953. The period in which there was no hope for change and thinking and people's struggles against Shah and the manifestations of Western civilization also subsided.
2.Artifact and the related context
Rhetoric/communicative action or artefact are common terms used in rhetorical criticism to express different concepts. Rhetorical action or communicative action, as Karlyn Campbell states in a book of the same title, refers to "a deliberate, designed, and artistic attempt to remove obstacles in a specific situation with a particular audience in a specific subject to achieve a specific goal"3). In other words, the rhetorical action is the ways in which the speaker or communicator communicates with the audience, for example, a poet seeking solace and removing obstacles uses deliberate means to communicate with the audience; this act is called rhetorical/communicative action. Sonja Foss believed that the rhetorical/communicative action is performed in the presence of the target audience of the speaker and an artefact is a tangible impact and/or evidence of the rhetorical action4). For example, considering a concert as a rhetorical action, the page or tape on which this concert is recorded is an artefact of that rhetorical action, or if a poet reads a poem on a stage, the poet's act is a rhetorical action and the book in which the poem is published is an artefact.
Further, the subjects of rhetorical criticism are the rhetorical actions and artefacts. Since rhetorical actions are always displayed in front of an audience (e.g. a lecture or a concert) and are often fleeting, their rhetorical analysis is difficult; hence, the rhetorical critics prefer to study the artefacts of rhetorical actions5). Therefore, artefacts are considered as rhetorical action documents and are the data that is studied in rhetorical criticism. Artefacts are any form of symbol use; for example, song, poetry, lecture, artwork, buildings, and paintings are all artefacts and tangible evidence of communicative action. Through analyzing the rhetorical actions and artefacts, rhetoric criticism helps to understand the communication process6). In other words, rhetoric criticism is a critical approach to analyze symbolic relationships and aims at providing a better understanding of communication7).
The artefact studied here was selected from the collection "A City like Paradise", and is the second story by Simin Daneshvar which was released in 1961. Like the other nine short stories in this collection, this story describes the difficult life and ignorance of the Iranian people. The title of the book and the title of the selected story (regarding the content of the stories that describe the difficult lives of the Iranian people at a particular period) are both ironic and paradoxical. This story describes a part of the history of Iran from 1951 to 1961, after the coup of 1953. The period in which there was no hope for change and thinking and people's struggles against Shah and the manifestations of Western civilization also subsided.
The story of "The Iranians' Eid" describes the life of an American family who immigrated to Iran. The two children of the family (John and Ted) saw Haji Firouz on the eve of Nowruz and this character drew their attention. The children then decided to help Haji Firouz look better and provided Haji Firouz's father, who brushed people's shoes, with a stand to promote his job. They decorated the stand with images of American culture. The American family's dog (Mickey) was lost. They story finally ends with the death of Haji Firouz's father.
3. Analysis Method
3.1. Rhetorical Criticism: From Criticism of Sermons to Analysis of Artefacts
Significant and continuous changes have occurred in rhetorical criticism definition, theories, and methods in the twentieth century. Rhetorical criticism in the twentieth century is generally divided, under the influence of rhetorical theories, into two approaches. The traditional approach, known as Neo-Aristotelian criticism, emerged in the 1920s to analyze and study the sermons. Herbert Wichelins, a contemporary scholar and author, is known as the founder of the Neo-Aristotelian criticism. He proposed, based on traditional rhetorical theory, a method for evaluating sermons, which was widely accepted and many scholars have used this method to analyze sermons or similar texts.8) With the rise of rhetorical sense and the emergence of theorists who proposed new definitions and theories, rhetorical criticism changed from a critical approach to a critical movement, and the neo-Aristotelian criticism is only one of its approaches. In other words, rhetorical criticism was applied before 1960 as a method proposed by Herbert Wichlens for sermons, but since then, under the influence of new theories, some form of pluralism emerged in rhetorical studies, and many perspectives were suggested for the analysis of human relations. Influenced by these developments, studies published prior to 1960 for the analysis of sermons and other texts were called Neo- Aristotelian criticism, and this method became one of the various perspectives of rhetorical criticism. This change even altered the Neo-Aristotelian criticism and caused critics to use this critical approach to examine other texts (artefacts) and expand the Neo-Aristotelian criticism9). By the beginning of the 1960s, rhetorical criticism had become increasingly a critical movement, involving the study of any form of communication, including oral and written, visual, and non-visual. Contemporary researchers' theories and the definitions of rhetoric were the most important reasons that shifted the rhetorical criticism of sermons to studying the human relations and turned it to a complex critical movement. The effective role
of the contemporary theorist and researcher Kenneth Burke in this change is undeniable.
Redefining the rhetoric, Burke made the rhetoric critics to begin studying the analysis of symbols and create new perspectives for the study of symbolic relationships. According to Burke, rhetoric is a symbolic tool by which people can develop a sense of cooperation.10) Consequently, the impact of this definition can be seen in the books on rhetorical criticism as well as the definitions provided by critics of rhetorical criticism; for example, Edwin Black calls this approach, in his book "Rhetorical Criticism: A Study in Method" a critical system seeking to investigate effective communication.11) Also, Robert S. Cathcart views rhetorical criticism as an approach that studies how communication takes place and measures the value of communication.12) Charles Stewart defines rhetorical criticism as the study of human symbolic attempts to change the fellowman's behavior.13) Sonja Foss defines rhetorical criticism as a process of thinking about symbols, which aims at discovering how symbols work and how they affect humans.14) According to her, "rhetorical criticism is a qualitative research method designed to systematically investigate and discover symbolic artefacts to identify the communication process"15). Therefore, since the 1960s – the period of pluralism or the modern era of rhetorical criticism – studies of rhetorical criticism extended from examining the impact of sermons and other texts to assessing the impact of any symbols or examining any kind of communication; hence, it can be deduced that the studies of rhetorical criticism are divided in two traditional and modern periods. In traditional period, it is only considered as a method of criticism, whereas in the modern era, it is regarded as a criticism movement (like literary criticism).
3.2. The Purpose of Rhetorical Criticism
It was previously stated that rhetorical criticism was, prior to the 1960s, often used to analyze sermons, preachings, teachings, and texts that were deliberately intended to persuade an audience, but since then, rhetorical criticism was used in the US departments of Communication Sciences to evaluate all artefacts – oral and written, visual and non-visual – and expanded dramatically from the past and became a critical movement encompassing different perspectives and approaches. These methods, though different in analyzing and evaluating the artefacts, share the same goal (even the Neo-Aristotelian criticism). All perspectives of rhetorical criticism seek to discover the ways in which communication is used to achieve a specific purpose or to show a particular worldview. Moreover, these perspectives
help the critic to discover what ways of communication have been produced by a particular worldview. In fact, the purpose of rhetorical criticism is providing a better understanding of the impact and function of communication, and ultimately a better understanding of human values and beliefs.
In short, the purpose of rhetoric criticism is explaining, analyzing, evaluating, and interpreting communication actions or artefacts.16) Rhetorical criticism is intended to find how artefacts affect and how they shape reality for the audience. To put it better, in this critical approach, the critic shows how the various components of a message communicate with each other and with the environment, and how this communicative message shares the meaning. In this context, Foss defines rhetorical criticism as the process of researching and explaining communication actions and artefacts for a better understanding of human relations17). In his view, the ultimate goal of this critical movement is enhancing the human knowledge of communication through analyzing one or more artefacts.18) It can be said that the end result of rhetorical criticism is improving a human's abilities to communicate.
Rhetorical criticism helps people use the critics' findings to communicate and use them as a tool for better communication. It should be noted that rhetorical criticism not only helps one to be more successful in communicating with others, but also helps him/her to become more alert in dealing with communication messages.19) Naturally, when a person is more aware of communication, s/he can have a better response to communication messages.
3.3. Ideological Criticism
Ideology is a term used to refer to "any system of norms and beliefs governing social and political attitudes of a group, social class, or society as a whole"20). Ideological criticism is one of the methods of rhetorical criticism, through which the critic seeks to discover the beliefs, values, and hypotheses that give rise to an artefact or a set of artefacts. The perspective of ideological criticism is based on the assumption that there are different ideologies in each culture, which can be potentially manifested in the form of artifacts, but some ideologies in one culture are preferred to others, suppressing the ideologies that promote differentiated viewpoints distinct from the dominant ideology.21) The result is the prevalence of a dominant view toward the world in a culture or the dominance of a hegemonic ideology in some fields.
Hegemony actually means preferring a group's ideology over another. Thus hegemony is a form of social control that the more powerful groups in the society bring upon the ideology of
weaker groups. Once a particular ideology in a culture becomes a hegemonic ideology, the interests of some groups are supplied more than those of others; so, it can be said that hegemonic ideology represents the interests of more powerful groups in the society. This dominant ideology gradually defines and classifies the surrounding world for members of a culture and puts the prospect of viewing the world in a specific context. In other words, hegemonic ideology makes a kind of norm in the society that makes the members consider a particular viewpoint as quite natural and evident22). Such a process, however, is not always deliberate or self-conscious. Sometimes, a particular ideology is subconsciously transformed to the hegemonic ideology of a culture and affects the worldview of its members. Ideological criticism examines the factors that transform an ideology to the dominant ideology and the factors that make the dominant ideology natural. In addition, it considers the ways by which the dominant ideology can be challenged. In fact, the critic explains the role of communication in the creation and stabilization of an ideology and shows which group or groups' interests are represented by the hegemonic ideology. In other words, the critic reveals the hegemony of the communication forces in the society and its mechanisms. Such an analysis would naturally provide the opportunity for criticizing the dominant ideology and the conditions for its change. Many scholars have played roles in shaping the perspectives of ideological criticism in rhetorical studies, including prominent scholars such as Teun A. van Dijk, Philip C. Wander, Michael Calvin MacGee, Raymie E. McKerrow, Janice Hocker Rushing, Thomas S. Frentz, Lawrence Grossberg, Celeste Michelle Condit, and Dana L.
Cloud. Each of these scholars was influenced by different philosophical views and theories in his/her work, including structuralism, semiotics/semiology, criticisms of Marxism, deconstructionism, postmodernism, cultural studies, and feminist criticism; that is why each had played an important role in creating a part of the perspectives of ideological criticism in rhetorical studies, and the researches by these scholars ultimately helped to formulate a definite method for ideological criticism23). The present study examines the story of "The Iranians' Eid" through ideological criticism and shows how the hegemonic ideology (Western culture) overcame other ideologies.
3.4. The Stages of Rhetorical Analysis in Ideological Criticism
To discover the ideology represented by an artefact and to understand the communication, the critic performs the analysis process in four stages: 1. identifying the
explicit elements of the artefact; 2. identifying the hidden elements of the artefact associated with the explicit elements; 3. introducing the artefact ideology; 4. identifying the functions of the artefact ideology.24)
3.4.1. Identifying the Explicit Elements of Artefact
The first stage of ideological analysis is identifying and examining the aspects of the artefact that signify the critic's discovery of its ideology. In fact, at this stage, the critic is attempting to identify the hypotheses based on which the artefact is created and the ideology is shaped; thus, the critic examines the signs that somehow imply an implicit ideology through careful study of the content and structure of the artefact.25) One of the simplest ways that makes identifying the ideology of an artefact easy is encoding the artefact based on its explicit and hidden elements. Identifying the explicit elements of an artefact refers to the identification of explicit features that at first glance attract the critic's attention. These elements can be basic arguments, types of evidence, images, specific terms, or metaphors. In visual artefacts (images), physical features such as shape and color are considered as explicit elements of the artefact. Any form the artefact comes in, the critic nonetheless studies the visible signs at this stage that give a clue to the ideology of the artefact. It should be noted that an artefact may represent more than one ideology, but the critic has the option to focus on the issues that attracted his/her attention. The critic may use ideological criticism merely to discover a particular ideology that is relevant to a particular subject and merely examines the ideology associated with that particular subject in the artefact; for example, the feminist criticism – which is one of the branches of ideological criticism – focuses solely on gender- related issues and the critic encodes the explicit and hidden elements of gender in the process of analyzing. In this method, the critic, for example, to encode the explicit elements of the artefact focuses on aspects representing female and male gender or femininity and masculinity.26)
3.4.2. Identifying the Hidden Elements of the Artefact
In the second stage of analyzing the artefact, the critic studies the ideas, references, subjects, implications, or concepts represented by the explicit elements of the artefact. In fact, at this stage, the critic is trying to find the meaning of the explicit elements of the artefact that underlie the ideological hypothesis of the artefact. To illustrate this, the interpretation
presented by the critic is considered to be valid only for him/her; that is, it is an impression the critic developed and may be different from that developed by another person. It should be borne in mind that the basis of rhetorical criticism rests on the assumption that there is no absolute and constant truth, but that the truth derives from human interpretation of symbols;
thus, the perception of artefact may vary from person to person. The possibilities proposed by the critic for the explicit elements of artefact help him/her in later stages to identify the ideology of the artefact. In fact, the explicit and hidden elements identified by the critic turn to an ideology themselves in the following stages.
3.4.3. Introducing the Ideology of Artefact
In the third stage, the critic classifies the hidden elements of the artefact in specific groups and presents them in a coherent framework to represent the ideology represented implicitly by the artefact. In fact, at this stage, the critic shows what thoughts or issues are associated with all or most of the hidden elements of the artefact. It should be noted that at this stage, the main emphasis is on the hidden elements of the artefact identified by the critic in the previous stage. If the critic has difficulty in explaining the ideology of the artefact, s/he can achieve an outline by examining the artefact in the following questions, which makes it easier for her/him to interpret. Questions like the following can help the critic to be sure on the ideology of the artefact:
What sort of reading of the artefact is preferred?
What beliefs, emotions, and thoughts are created in the audience by the artefact?
What hypotheses are proved by the arguments in the artefact?
What features, roles, actions, or attitudes are offered by the artefact?
What issues are neglected by the audience?
What attitudes are avoided?
What worldviews or alterative interpretations can be offered against the ideology of the artefact?
What are described as unacceptable, negative, undesirable, marginal, or unimportant by the artefact?27)
Moreover, if any skepticism about the ideology of the artefact persists or the critic fails
to state the ideology in one or two short sentences, it will be fruitful to examine the factors that are generally the constituents of the ideology. The critic may notice that the hidden elements of the artefact raise questions about all or some of the components of the ideology.
These components include:
Membership: who believes in the identified ideology? What are the positions and interests of these people? Who can join this group?
Activities: what activities the people who believe in this ideology take part in?
Goals: what do those who believe in the ideology pursue and what do they seek to understand?
The main belief: what belief best represents the essence of the ideology?
The main event: what event, invention, historical period, movement, or circumstance had the greatest impact on shaping the ideology?
Original texts: what resources (book, movies, etc.) best meet the requirements of the ideology?
The main power: who or what is the highest power based on the ideology?
Values/norms: what are the core values of the ideology? How do those who believe in this ideology evaluate themselves and others?
Group status and relationships: who supports the representatives of this ideology?
Who are the enemies or opponents of the ideology?
Resources: what social resources do the representatives of this ideology need?28)
In the process of analysis, the artefact of each component of the ideology may provide information about the artefact ideology, but the critic ultimately must select the field containing the most information about the ideology and introduce the ideology of the work in the shortest sentences.
3.4.4. Identifying the Functions of the Artefact Ideology
In the final stage, the critic shows what functions the reconstructed ideology has for the audience who know it and what the results are. Does the artefact persuade audiences to accept particular situations or conditions on social issues? Does the artefact offer an attitude about a situation or subject that is, for some simple reasons, inaccurate or inappropriate?
How does the reconstructed ideology change the worldview of the audience? Does the reconstructed ideology make issues natural, normal, and evident to help the audience be sure about it? Does the artefact draw the attention of the audience to the viewpoint represented by the minority group?29)
4.The Analysis of the Story
The Classification of the Explicit Artefact Elements under the Represented Concepts
In the story of "The Iranians' Eid", there are three distinct sets of the explicit artefact elements implicitly representing it, which are as follows:
1. Apparent compassion and interventionism
2. Intangible promotion of cultural values and the need to adhere to them 3. Humiliation of the lower culture
4.
These concepts indicate that the author (Simin Daneshvar) has anti-western (American) views in this story and outlines a way to show Western culture's dominance over other cultures. In fact, she expresses her worldview of the West through this application of expression. Almost all descriptions and information used by the author can be categorized by these three sets.
4.1. Apparent Compassion and Interventionism
The author, in this story, shows that the American family interfere in various ways in the work of Haji Firouz who is the symbol of the Iranian people and Iranian culture. They pretend they are sympathetic, while ultimately, it is revealed that the issue if losing their family dog is more important than the death of Haji Frirouz's father. In fact, the method of "apparent compassion and interventionism" is one of the communication methods by which hegemony can be achieved. Here are some of the elements signifying "apparent compassion and interventionism" in this story:
"The boys and their mother decided to buy new things for Haji Firouz in The Iranians' Eid".30)
How does the reconstructed ideology change the worldview of the audience? Does the reconstructed ideology make issues natural, normal, and evident to help the audience be sure about it? Does the artefact draw the attention of the audience to the viewpoint represented by the minority group?29)
4.The Analysis of the Story
The Classification of the Explicit Artefact Elements under the Represented Concepts
In the story of "The Iranians' Eid", there are three distinct sets of the explicit artefact elements implicitly representing it, which are as follows:
1. Apparent compassion and interventionism
2. Intangible promotion of cultural values and the need to adhere to them 3. Humiliation of the lower culture
4.
These concepts indicate that the author (Simin Daneshvar) has anti-western (American) views in this story and outlines a way to show Western culture's dominance over other cultures. In fact, she expresses her worldview of the West through this application of expression. Almost all descriptions and information used by the author can be categorized by these three sets.
4.1. Apparent Compassion and Interventionism
The author, in this story, shows that the American family interfere in various ways in the work of Haji Firouz who is the symbol of the Iranian people and Iranian culture. They pretend they are sympathetic, while ultimately, it is revealed that the issue if losing their family dog is more important than the death of Haji Frirouz's father. In fact, the method of "apparent compassion and interventionism" is one of the communication methods by which hegemony can be achieved. Here are some of the elements signifying "apparent compassion and interventionism" in this story:
"The boys and their mother decided to buy new things for Haji Firouz in The Iranians' Eid".30)
The father was a teacher in Iran: "the father was a teacher and although he was American, he did not ask for high salaries".31)
Compassion for Haji Firouz: "Haji Firouz was not twenty years old and had no mother. So, who sewed his red clothes?"32)
"it was not revealed who sewed Haji Firouz's clothes and John Mickelson's research on Haji Firouz's life did not come to fruition, but instead, it was discovered that Haji Firouz makes his face black by shoe wax".33)
Making a stand for Haji Firouz's father: "the boys and their mother made up their minds and decided to make a wooden stand in the wasteland near their home and buy a few shoe wax cans, nails, horseshoes, shoelace, breechcloths, and soap to help Haji Firouz and his father to have a shop".34)
Decorating the shop of Haji Firouz's father: "the little shop was really beautiful".35)
"The first customers of the small shop were Mr. and Mrs. Mickelson and their sons".36)
"Once the job was booming, John and Ted remembered Haji Firouz's father's clothes that were dirty. Red satin-yellow stripe, a tasseled party hat. They made a good- looking outfit appropriate for a wandering actor and how nice it was. Especially the yellow stripe on the red satin; when he was dancing, they were shaking beautifully and Haji Firouz hit his tambourine so hard that it could be heard very loudly".37)
When Haji Firouz's father dies and is put in a coffin: "John said: if I knew, I would made a beautiful box for him".38)
4.2. Intangible Promotion of Cultural Values and the Need to Adhere to Them
Another way to achieve hegemony is to "promote intangibly cultural values and the need to adhere to them". In this story, the author shows that the American family teach, in various ways, their traditions and cultures to Haji Firouz who symbolizes the Iranian people and Iranian culture:
The father of the family is tall and even the mother looks at him with respect let alone the people of Iran: "the mother was short and raised her head when talking to the father".39)
Dominating the cultural symbols, Ted's party hat may be reminiscent of the
American flag: "Haji Firouz made his own party hat. That much is clear. In John Mickelson's view, Ted could make a better party hat by cardboard and paint it red with stars painted on it".40)
Decorating Haji Firouz's father's shop with pictures relating to the American culture:
"they made the shop and painted it and decorated it with the pictures of football players, bicycle riders, Mickey Mouse, and advertisements of Pepsi Cola cut from their newspapers".41)
Painting the flag of America next to the flag of Iran at the top of the shop on Sunday, the holiday in the West: "painting at the top of the shop and buying the flags of Iran and America took them all in the morning. … The flags of Iran and America were put at the top of the shop".42)
The way Haji Firouz called the American boy: Haji Firouz calls the boy whose name is John as "Mr. John" (Aqa Jan). regarding the meaning of this term in Persian as
"father, grandfather, and owner" represents the authority of the American family over Haji Firouz who is, in the story, the symbol of the Iranians: "he pronounced the name "John" very well and said: Aqa Jan".43)
Teaching Haji Firouz how to collect money in a Western way: "John Mickelson taught him to take his hat in front of the audience and collect money. Haji Firouz did so. But, only Mrs. Mickelson's boy put coins in Haji Firouz's party hat and it made a sound. Others threw coins on the ground or handed it to him".44)
The destruction of everything in the shop except the shoe-waxing ware bought by the American family: "John looked at the fallen pictures, blanket and mattresses left at a corner of the shop. He saw Haji Firouz's party hat crushed on the ground and the waxing tool that was the only remaining item in regular order in the shop".45)
Referring to the resurrection of the dead by Jesus Christ: "but the wind could only awaken the fallen trees. The resurrection of the dead could not be done by the wind.
It was Jesus Christ. No. It was only Jesus Christ who resurrected from the dead. No one else ever stepped out of the coffin".46)
4.3. Humiliation of the Lower Culture
The American family repeatedly humiliated Haji Firouz, who symbolizes the Iranian people and Iranian culture. In the first place, it may seem that "humiliation of the lower
American flag: "Haji Firouz made his own party hat. That much is clear. In John Mickelson's view, Ted could make a better party hat by cardboard and paint it red with stars painted on it".40)
Decorating Haji Firouz's father's shop with pictures relating to the American culture:
"they made the shop and painted it and decorated it with the pictures of football players, bicycle riders, Mickey Mouse, and advertisements of Pepsi Cola cut from their newspapers".41)
Painting the flag of America next to the flag of Iran at the top of the shop on Sunday, the holiday in the West: "painting at the top of the shop and buying the flags of Iran and America took them all in the morning. … The flags of Iran and America were put at the top of the shop".42)
The way Haji Firouz called the American boy: Haji Firouz calls the boy whose name is John as "Mr. John" (Aqa Jan). regarding the meaning of this term in Persian as
"father, grandfather, and owner" represents the authority of the American family over Haji Firouz who is, in the story, the symbol of the Iranians: "he pronounced the name "John" very well and said: Aqa Jan".43)
Teaching Haji Firouz how to collect money in a Western way: "John Mickelson taught him to take his hat in front of the audience and collect money. Haji Firouz did so. But, only Mrs. Mickelson's boy put coins in Haji Firouz's party hat and it made a sound. Others threw coins on the ground or handed it to him".44)
The destruction of everything in the shop except the shoe-waxing ware bought by the American family: "John looked at the fallen pictures, blanket and mattresses left at a corner of the shop. He saw Haji Firouz's party hat crushed on the ground and the waxing tool that was the only remaining item in regular order in the shop".45)
Referring to the resurrection of the dead by Jesus Christ: "but the wind could only awaken the fallen trees. The resurrection of the dead could not be done by the wind.
It was Jesus Christ. No. It was only Jesus Christ who resurrected from the dead. No one else ever stepped out of the coffin".46)
4.3. Humiliation of the Lower Culture
The American family repeatedly humiliated Haji Firouz, who symbolizes the Iranian people and Iranian culture. In the first place, it may seem that "humiliation of the lower
culture" is not an appropriate communication method for gaining hegemony, but it should be noted that humiliation does not always result in disgust but sometimes it provokes a sense of humility in the human being and causes one to pursue a different culture in order to get rid of the inferiority. Examples of "humiliation of the lower culture" in this story are:
Comparison of haji Firouz to an American dog at the beginning of the story: "they liked Haji Firouz so much that their dog was out of favor".47)
Judging the members of the lower culture by their appearance not by their beliefs:
"he knew the strangers in the strange country where he was living by their clothes.
He was interested in strange clothes and costumes. He could know people by their different clothes. He did not know their language and was not likely to learn it".48)
The American mother does not allow her children to play with the Iranian children:
"their mother was tough. She told them if they play with the kids in the alley after school, they would get a thousand sicknesses".49)
Haji Firouz's military tribute to the American children's school bus: "when the children's carriage passed, no one would have understood he was not a statue if the black-faced man had not saluted them".50)
Haji Firouz symbolizes the Iranian people and paints his face black by shoe wax.
This matter implies humiliation in Iranian culture: "Haji Firouz painted his face black by shoe wax".51)
The children painted the flag of Iran; they did not portray the lion, the sun, or sword that are the symbols of Iran. Lion's short hand that did not reach the sword reminds one of the weakness of Iran: "Ted had painted the lion and the sun on the flag of Iran very flagrantly. He could not even put the sword in the hand of the lion. The sword was on the air and the hand of the lion was outstretched but did not reach the sword".52)
The mother's statement that the Iranian policemen did not even dare to kill American dogs: "John Mickelson believed that the policemen and sweepers had killed the dog. Ted Mickelson believed that Mickey had been killed by the children playing in the alley. Mrs. Mickelson laughed and said: "Be sure. No policeman dares to kill an American's domestic dog. The children also have no such courage".53)
"The kids were sad. Their mother said to go and visit Haji Firouz to reduce their
grief. Maybe he knew where Mickey was".54)
John asked Haji Forouz about his dog when his father was dead: "do you know Mickey is lost? Do you think the police had killed Mickey?"55)
5. Conclusion
This study analyzed the story of "The Iranians' Eid" from the perspective of ideological criticism. The story takes place in the winter, a reminder of the cold, bitter, and dark atmosphere of Iran in the years following the 1953 coup. In this story, the theme of waiting for the coming of the spring and Haji Firouz, who announces the coming of the spring, eventually changes to mourning with the death of Haji Firouz's father in the spring. In fact, the change in behavior and appearance of Haji Firouz from playing tambourine and dinging in the red dress at the beginning of the story to mourning, crying, and wearing black clothes at the end signifies this theme. The author shows that the American family who immigrated to Iran try in a variety of ways to superimpose their culture on Haji Firouz and just as Haji Firouz's father could make his job thrive with the help of the American family and Haji Firouz is getting ready for the Eid, everything changes. Applying ideological analysis, this study shows that, according to the author, the American family used three methods to promote their culture, which are the communication methods by which dominant cultures achieve hegemony: 1. apparent compassion and interventionism, 2. intangible promotion of cultural values and the need to adhere to them, and 3. humiliation of the lower culture. The author symbolically illustrates how dominant culture overcomes through these three methods. The results of this study revealed communication manners that are used by the foreign cultures to promote their own traditions and cultures. These communication manners are arguably more and sometimes more complex but the purpose of rhetorical criticism is to enhance the human knowledge of communication to the same extent as the artefact that is being studied.
The rhetorical analysis of an artefact ultimately offers a relational theory that is more applicable for that artefact than to other artefacts. The critic actually promotes a general understanding of some aspects of the relationship based on the limited evidence available in the artefact. Participation in communication theory is therefore in fact a part of the rhetorical analysis in which the critic presents his/her unique views on artefacts and offers a new understanding of it.
Notes 1) Makaryk, 2011: 44.
2) Ibid: 45.
3) Karlyn Campbell, 1982: 6.
4) Sonja Foss, 2009: 5. 5) Ibid: 6.
6) Ibid: 5-7. 7) Ibid: 14.
8) Wichelins, 1925: 209 & Brock et al., 1990: 23.
9) Edwin Black, 1978: 33.
10) Kenneth Burke, 1969: 43.
11) Black, 1978: 10.
12) Robert S. Cathcart, 1966:3.
13) Charles Stewart, 1973: 1.
14) Foss, 2009: 3. 15) Ibid: 6.
16) Campbell, 1982: 16, Andrews, 1990: 6.
17) Foss, 2009: 5. 18) Ibid: 8. 19) Ibid: 8.
20) Makaryk, 2011: 44. 21) Foss, 2009: 210. 22) Ibid: 210. 23) Ibid: 211-214. 24) Ibid: 214. 25) Ibid: 214-216. 26) Ibid: 215-216. 27) Ibid: 218. 28) Ibid: 218-219. 29) Ibid: 220.
30) Daneshvar, 1982: 33. 31) Ibid: 33.
32) Ibid: 34. 33) Ibid: 35. 34) Ibid: 35. 35) Ibid: 35. 36) Ibid: 35. 37) Ibid: 36. 38) Ibid: 38. 39) Ibid: 33. 40) Ibid: 34. 41) Ibid: 35. 42) Ibid: 35. 43) Ibid: 36. 44) Ibid: 36. 45) Ibid: 37. 46) Ibid: 37.
grief. Maybe he knew where Mickey was".54)
John asked Haji Forouz about his dog when his father was dead: "do you know Mickey is lost? Do you think the police had killed Mickey?"55)
5. Conclusion
This study analyzed the story of "The Iranians' Eid" from the perspective of ideological criticism. The story takes place in the winter, a reminder of the cold, bitter, and dark atmosphere of Iran in the years following the 1953 coup. In this story, the theme of waiting for the coming of the spring and Haji Firouz, who announces the coming of the spring, eventually changes to mourning with the death of Haji Firouz's father in the spring. In fact, the change in behavior and appearance of Haji Firouz from playing tambourine and dinging in the red dress at the beginning of the story to mourning, crying, and wearing black clothes at the end signifies this theme. The author shows that the American family who immigrated to Iran try in a variety of ways to superimpose their culture on Haji Firouz and just as Haji Firouz's father could make his job thrive with the help of the American family and Haji Firouz is getting ready for the Eid, everything changes. Applying ideological analysis, this study shows that, according to the author, the American family used three methods to promote their culture, which are the communication methods by which dominant cultures achieve hegemony: 1. apparent compassion and interventionism, 2. intangible promotion of cultural values and the need to adhere to them, and 3. humiliation of the lower culture. The author symbolically illustrates how dominant culture overcomes through these three methods. The results of this study revealed communication manners that are used by the foreign cultures to promote their own traditions and cultures. These communication manners are arguably more and sometimes more complex but the purpose of rhetorical criticism is to enhance the human knowledge of communication to the same extent as the artefact that is being studied.
The rhetorical analysis of an artefact ultimately offers a relational theory that is more applicable for that artefact than to other artefacts. The critic actually promotes a general understanding of some aspects of the relationship based on the limited evidence available in the artefact. Participation in communication theory is therefore in fact a part of the rhetorical analysis in which the critic presents his/her unique views on artefacts and offers a new understanding of it.
Notes 1) Makaryk, 2011: 44.
2) Ibid: 45.
3) Karlyn Campbell, 1982: 6.
4) Sonja Foss, 2009: 5.
5) Ibid: 6.
6) Ibid: 5-7.
7) Ibid: 14.
8) Wichelins, 1925: 209 & Brock et al., 1990: 23.
9) Edwin Black, 1978: 33.
10) Kenneth Burke, 1969: 43.
11) Black, 1978: 10.
12) Robert S. Cathcart, 1966:3.
13) Charles Stewart, 1973: 1.
14) Foss, 2009: 3.
15) Ibid: 6.
16) Campbell, 1982: 16, Andrews, 1990: 6.
17) Foss, 2009: 5.
18) Ibid: 8.
19) Ibid: 8.
20) Makaryk, 2011: 44.
21) Foss, 2009: 210.
22) Ibid: 210.
23) Ibid: 211-214.
24) Ibid: 214.
25) Ibid: 214-216.
26) Ibid: 215-216.
27) Ibid: 218.
28) Ibid: 218-219.
29) Ibid: 220.
30) Daneshvar, 1982: 33.
31) Ibid: 33.
32) Ibid: 34.
33) Ibid: 35.
34) Ibid: 35.
35) Ibid: 35.
36) Ibid: 35.
37) Ibid: 36.
38) Ibid: 38.
39) Ibid: 33.
40) Ibid: 34.
41) Ibid: 35.
42) Ibid: 35.
43) Ibid: 36.
44) Ibid: 36.
45) Ibid: 37.
46) Ibid: 37.
47) Ibid: 33.
48) Ibid: 33.
49) Ibid: 33.
50) Ibid: 34.
51) Ibid: 35.
52) Ibid: 35.
53) Ibid: 36.
54) Ibid: 36.
55) Ibid: 39.
References
Andrews. J.R. (1990). The Practice of Rhetorical Criticism. New York: Macmillan.
Black, Edwin. (1978). Rhetorical Criticism: A Study in Method. New York: Macmillan.
Brock, B.L., Scott, L. & Chesebro, J.W. (1990). Methods of Rhetorical Criticism. A twentieth-century perspective. Third edition, revised. Detroit: Wayne State University.
Burke, Kenneth. (1969). A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Campbell, K.K. (1982). The Rhetorical Act. California: Wadsworth.
Cathcart,Robert. (1966). Post Communication: Criticism and Evaluation. Indianapolis: Bobbs- Merrill.
Daneshvar, Simin. (1982). A City like Paradise, Tehran: Kharazmi.
Foss, Sonja.K. (2009). Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice. Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland.
Makaryk, Rime Irena. (2011). Encyclopedia of Contemporary Literary Theories, translated by Mehran Mohajer and Muhammed Nabavi, Tehran: Agah.
Stewart, Charles J. (1973). Historical Survey: Rhetorical Criticism in Twentieth Century America in Explorations in Rhetorical Criticism. Ed. G. P. Mohrmann, Charles J. Stewart, and Donovan J.
Ochs. University Park: Pennsylvania State UP: 1–31.
Wichelns, Herbert A. (1925). The Literary Criticism of Oratory. Studies in Rhetoric and Public Speaking: In Honor of James Albert Winans. New York: Century: 181–216.
