Introduction
As a critical discourse analysis, the present study aimed to uncover the verbal violence hidden in the discursive structure of various intellectual tendencies during the Constitutional period in Iran.
The central research question is: How can linguistic violence be identified and analyzed in the speeches and writings of different intellectual discourses during the Constitutional period? To address this question, the study employed a descriptive–analytical method. The analysis drew on Ruth Wodak’s framework of critical discourse analysis and Patricia Evans’s theory of verbal violence. These approaches were used to analyze strategies of verbal violence in the discourses of rival intellectuals: on one side, Mirza Malkam Khan and Talibov (representing Western/modernist discourse), and on the other side, Sheikh Fazlollah Nouri and Ayatollah Na’ini (representing religious discourse).
Literature Review
There are significant contributions about intellectual-cum-political discourses in Iran. For example, Tabari (2020), in Iranian Society During the Period of Reza Shah Pahlavi, examined the era of Reza Shah’s rule. Hossein Abadian (2019), in The Crisis of Consciousness and the Development of Intellectuals in Iran, explored the historical development of intellectual thought in Iran. In Iranian Intellectuals and Tradition, Ali-Hosseini (2019) addressed the relationship between Iranian intellectuals and the tradition, examining how contemporary Iranian intellectuals had understood the tradition.
In 2007, Mirsepasi explored some aspects of Iranian intellectualism in the book titled Iranian Intellectuals: Social Hope and Philosophical Despair, focusing on the antagonism and othering expressed by Iranian intellectuals toward modernity and the West. Kasravi (2006), in History of the Iranian Constitutional Revolution, highlighted the contributions of key figures who had emerged from among the masses and played a pivotal role in Iran’s Constitutional Movement. He also uncovered important aspects of the movement that had remained obscured despite their fundamental significance.
Most of the previous studies have primarily focused on physical or structural forms of violence; however, the present research deals with linguistic violence. Moreover, the current study is significant in terms of the comparative perspective on the Constitutional period and the early Pahlavi era, thereby making it possible to compare strategies of linguistic violence across two distinct socio‑political contexts.
Materials and Methods
The present study used a combination of Ruth Wodak’s critical–historical discourse analysis and Patricia Evans’s theory of verbal violence to describe and analyze verbal violence during the Constitutional period as reflected in the language of prominent intellectuals across different strands of intellectualism. At the level of textual analysis, Wodak’s critical–historical discourse analysis focuses on discursive strategies, formulated as five guiding questions (Wodak & Meyer, 2001). These strategies are: (1) referential or naming strategies, (2) predicational strategies, (3) argumentation strategies, (4) perspectivization or framing, and (5) intensification and mitigation. In addition to Wodak’s model, the analysis relied on Patricia Evans’s theory of verbal violence in The Verbally Abusive Relationship (2009). Evans identifies several forms of verbal abuse, including: withholding, countering, discounting, verbal abuse disguised as jokes, blocking and diverting, accusing and blaming, judging and criticizing, defining, undermining, threatening, labeling, and raging or verbal outbursts.
Results and Discussion
Mirza Malkam Khan regarded law and legislation as fundamental principles. Based on his descriptions and explanations, the establishment of law was his central demand, and he viewed legal reform as the essential foundation of progress. This emphasis on law appears in his referential, predicational, critical, and offensive strategies. For example, in his discourse he uses weakening and derogatory language—such as referring to people as alleyway animals or calling them a stupid group—to highlight the need for legal transformation.
Talibov identified the alphabet as the primary cause of the Islamic ummah’s ignorance. In his statements, Talibov employed not only a linguistic strategy but also perspectivization and intensification by amplifying the role of the alphabet as the fundamental source of ignorance. At the same time, his argument reflects a form of critical verbal violence, as it attributes the nation’s intellectual shortcomings to the inadequacies of the Persian language and script. This is particularly striking given that Persian literature has produced significant and influential works recognized throughout the world.
Sheikh Fazlollah Nouri, speaking with religious authority, categorically rejected constitutionalism. From a jurisprudential (fiqh) standpoint grounded in strict adherence to religious beliefs and criteria, he labeled anyone who acted against religion as lā‑mazhab (irreligious). Such statements reflect his discursive strategies of disciplinary linguistic, perspectivization, and intensification, through which he reinforces his views. This rhetoric constitutes a form of critical verbal violence, characterized by the outright negation of constitutionalism through religious prohibition (or harām). At the same time, this language contributes to verbal confrontation with Western‑influenced movements.
Na’ini emphasized freedom, separation, and, in general, the principles of constitutionalism; however, for him, the law itself carried even greater importance. He states that without drafting the constitution, all of the above measures are like shaving one’s head. In this analogy—employing predicational and perspectivization strategies—Na’ini uses a form of critical verbal violence that includes labeling. By asserting that any emphasis on constitutional reform without a proper legal foundation is futile and ineffective, he intensifies his critique and underscores the indispensability of law.
Conclusion
The present inquiry uncovered verbal violence within the discursive structures of different intellectual tendencies, examining the effects of such verbal abuse on its targets. Overall, the most salient form is the verbal violence used by Western-oriented intellectuals against scholars, the clergy, and religious thought. In contrast, verbal violence within religious discourse—largely produced by clerical scholars—appears to be directed more inward, reinforcing boundaries within the religious discourse, rather than directly confronting Western-oriented intellectual discourse. The verbal violence of this period manifested through five discursive strategies and in multiple forms, with varying frequency across the two camps. Moreover, consistent with the textual framework, the most prominent type in both discourses is critical verbal violence, as they both were critical of intellectuals. Next in frequency are insults, accusation and blame, and finally labeling, which occur more often than other types of verbal violence. The confrontational stance and rhetorical intensity of Western-oriented intellectuals, along with the destructive force of their language, were among the factors that shaped the course of constitutionalism