English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The objective of this paper is to examine how the dominant view of Iran in the Western world is deconstructed in Persepolis, by Marjane Satrapi, and Zahra's Paradise, by Amir and Khalil. Both works counter the stereotypical view of the Iranians as extremists, fundamentalists and incapable of democratic self-government. While the Islamic Republic is heavily criticized, the Iranian people and culture are positively represented. Resumo O objetivo deste trabalho é examinar como a visão hegemônica do Irã no Ocidente é desconstruída em Persépolis, de Marjane Satrapi, e O Paraíso de Zahra, de Amir e Khalil. Ambas as obras contrariam a visão estereotipada dos iranianos como extremistas e fundamentalistas incapazes de se governar democraticamente. Embora a República Islâmica seja duramente criticada, o povo e a cultura do Irã são representados de forma positiva. Iran's classification as a member of the “axis of evil” by George W. Bush in 2002 highlighted the fact that the country has been mostly associated in the West with terrorism, political radicalism and suspicions about the production of nuclear weapons. Although Persepolis (2003), by Marjane Satrapi, and Zahra's Paradise (2011), by Amir and Khalil, present a strong critique of the Iranian government, both graphic narratives write against common stereotypes about the country and its population, rejecting dichotomic and simplistic views. This essay will first present theoretical concepts and ideas about the representation of the Orient and then discuss how both books counter the hegemonic perspective. In postmodern times, the notion of discourse has acquired great importance. Roland Barthes considers that texts are necessarily intertextual, constituting a response to previous texts and deriving meaning from this relation with other discourses (HUTCHEON, 1988, p. 126, 128). Within this big dialogue, some discourses are privileged while others are excluded. Michel Foucault (1999, p. 10) claims that the control exerted over discourse shows its connection to power; more than a mere translation of systems of domination, discourse is the object of struggles and the power which we desire to hold. He also argues that the processes of formation and regulation of discourse are intertwined (FOUCAULT, 1999, p. 66). According to the author, the mechanisms of exclusion and delimitation may be external to discourse, relying on the support of institutions, or internal, one example being the organization of disciplines (FOUCAULT, 1999, p. 17, 29-30). There is a series of requirements, related to the concepts and techniques used, which must be fulfilled in order for a statement to be considered as belonging to a given discipline (FOUCAULT, 1999, p. 31-32). These ideas are particularly enlightening when studies about the Orient are taken into consideration. Edward Said (1978, p. 12) considers that Orientalism encompasses a diversity of discourses about the Orient, including texts from fields such as history, sociology, philology, among others, all of them related in various ways to different kinds of power. According to him, “[Orientalism] is, rather than expresses, a certain will 1 0 .1 7 7 7 1 /P U C R io .e sc ri ta .2 3 7 5 1

THE AXIS OF EVIL?: DECONSTRUCTION OF STEREOTYPES IN SATRAPI S PERSEPOLIS AND AMIR AND KHALIL S ZAHRA S PARADISE