Soothsaying Discourse in Iran A critical analysis

Authors
Hamzeh Norouzi 1
alireza Karimi 2
Masoumeh Gholami 3
1 Tehran University
2 Graduate Student of Development, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Tehran
3 Graduate Student of Demography, Allame Tabatabaei University
Abstract
Soothsaying has always existed in mankind’s life as a common lore in society. In recent years,  due to some reasons such as the prevalence and variety of ways of soothsaying, the elite’s entering the field, and utilization of a scientific discourse to refute soothsaying, this area has received a momentum. Using the theory of disciplined discourse of Focault and discourse analysis, the present paper attempts to examine the formal-scientific nature of soothsaying and then, using the discourse of agents of this field, tries to compare the cognition offered by soothsaying and its precautions with scientific discourse. Included in the Focault-like formal-scientific discourses to reject the soothsaying is negation and interpretation. According to these mechanisms, soothsaying is an abusive, fictitious, and an act of swindle, and its precautions are of little scientific insight, whereas agents of informal discourse, many of whom are elite and literate, note the benefits of soothsaying in the daily life.

Keywords

 
- Culter, A (1982). The reliability of speech errors data, in A. Culter (Ed). Slips of the tongue, Berlin: Mouton
- Czerwinski, M. LightFoot, N. & Shiffrin, M. (1992) Automation & training in visual search, American Journal of Psychology, 105, 271-351.
- Dehghani, L. Zamani, B. E. & Abedi,A. (2011), Relation between Iranian students’ attitudes subscales with the kind of internet usage in universities, 3rd world conference on educational sciences- 2011 Bahceschir university, 03/02/2010, Turkey, Istanbul.
- Durkin, K. (1998). Implicit content and implicit processes in mass media use, in Kim Kirsner, “Implicit and explicit processes, University of Australia: Australia
- Dyrendal,A. (2005). Media construction of “Satanism” in Norway (1988-1997). http://skepsis. no.
- Innis, A. (1951). The bias of communication, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, p. 3.
- Kirsner,K. (1998). Implicit and explicit processes, University of Australia: Australia
- Lewandowsky, S. & Brainbridge, J. V. (1994), Implicit memory, in Ramachndrau (Ed), Encyclopedia of human behavior, San Diego: Academic Press, (pp. 589-600).
- Levy, B. A. & kirsner, K. (1989). Reprocessing text: indirect of measures of word and message level processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Leaning, Message & Cognition, 15, 407-411.
- Lewicki, P. Czyzenwska, M. Hoffman, H. (1987). Unconscious acquisition of complex procedural knowledge, Journal of Experimental psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 13, 523-530.
- Mcluhan, M. (1974). Understanding Media, The extensions of Man”, O, 82-83. London: Abacus.
- Schramm, W. (1970). The nature of communication between human in the Process and effects of communication, Urban: University of Illinois Press.
- Shashaani, L. & Khalili, A. (2001). Gender and computers: Similarities and differences in Iranian College students attitudes toward computers, Computers and Education, 37(3): 375-363.
-Torkzadeh, G. , Thomas, P. , & Dyke, V. (2002). Effects of training on Internet self-efficacy and computer user attitudes. Computers in Human Behavior, 18(5), 479-494.
Cultural Studies & Communication
Volume 6, Issue 18
Spring 2020
Pages 161-202