دانشگاه اصفهان فنون ادبی 20088027 مقالات آماده انتشار 2026 07 27 Analyzing the Types and Relationships of Different Domains of Resistance Literature Based on the Paradigmatic Model (The Literature of Struggle Model) بررسی و تحلیل انواع و نسبت‌های حوزه‌های مختلف ادبیات پایداری بر مبنای الگوی پارادایمی (الگوی ادبیات مبارزه) 17 38 30670 10.22108/liar.2026.149169.2599 FA نعیمه آقانوری پژوهشگر پسادکتری زبان و ادبیات فارسی، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران حسین آقاحسینی استاد گروه زبان و ادبیات فارسی، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران 0000-0009-0009-0009 Journal Article 2026 06 07 In recent decades, scholarship on resistance literature has expanded significantly, and numerous researchers have critically examined this field in order to clarify its nature and various dimensions. However, despite the abundance of studies and the establishment of a theoretical framework in this area, a systematic review of scholarly sources indicates that ambiguities still remain regarding its definition, conceptual boundaries, and its relationship to other literary genres and theoretical discourses. In a previous study, drawing on the paradigm criticism approach, a new model entitled the "literature of struggle" was proposed to redefine resistance literature; this model seeks to identify and resolve the existing ambiguities. Based on that paradigmatic redefinition, the present article applies the new model to the analysis of the internal branches of resistance literature. In general, this study seeks, through a descriptive-analytical method, to answer the question: "What are the relationships among the various branches of resistance literature?" Its significance lies in the fact that, by analyzing the relationships and principal branches within the paradigmatic model and by examining a network of overlapping relations, the boundaries of resistance literature can be more clearly elucidated. According to the findings, within this model, the literature of struggle is divided into several subgenres; these subgenres are conceptually distinct from one another, yet at the paradigmatic level they occupy a shared field. Within this framework, the relationship between the literature of struggle, on the one hand, and resistance literature and protest literature, on the other, is one of absolute generality and specificity, while the relationship between resistance literature and protest literature is one of partial overlap. By redrawing these relationships and branches, this model offers a more comprehensive and dynamic picture of resistance literature and expands its capacity for future studies. Keywords: Resistance Literature, Protest Literature, Paradigmatic Model, Literature of Struggle. Introduction The understanding of any phenomenon or subject depends, to a large extent, on its precise definition—that is, a definition capable of revealing its various dimensions. Over the years, different scholars have proposed definitions of resistance literature, resulting in the formation of a relatively distinct theoretical or paradigmatic framework. In general, a paradigm refers to the overarching pattern of thought, theories, methods, and values on the basis of which the scholarly community operates during a given period in the history of research. The paradigm established in this field regards resistance literature as a socio-political, active, and committed literature concerned with confronting oppression, repression, and despotism. Yet despite the presentation of various viewpoints and the existence of such a paradigm, serious ambiguities and differences of opinion still persist in literary studies regarding the nature of resistance literature and various issues within this field, including the different types of resistance literature. In light of this situation, the need is felt for a comprehensive and exclusive model—one capable, while identifying the crises within the field, of determining the position of resistance literature and its related branches, and thereby providing a precise definition of each domain within resistance literature. The "literature of struggle model" is a model derived from a paradigmatic critique of the existing definitions and analyses. In other words, the persistence of challenges and the ongoing efforts to resolve ambiguities in the field of resistance literature highlighted the necessity of a new approach, and the presentation of the "literature of struggle" model constitutes a response to this need. The present study, however, seeks to explain the interrelations among the various branches of resistance literature on the basis of a new paradigmatic model entitled the "literature of struggle model"; in this respect, it is distinct from other studies in this field. On the basis of this paradigmatic model, the present study seeks to answer the following two research questions: What are the relationships among the various branches of resistance literature? What is protest literature, and what branches does it include? Materials and Methods The present study employs a descriptive-analytical method. Its significance lies in the fact that, through analyzing the relationships and principal branches within the paradigmatic model and examining a network of overlapping relations, it redefines the boundaries of resistance literature and paves the way for subsequent research on the study of concrete instances and the practical evaluation of these relationships. Research Findings In general, within the field of resistance literature, there are several principal groups of definitions: "foundational" definitions, "branch-oriented" definitions, "time-oriented" definitions, "criterion-oriented" definitions, and "action-oriented" definitions. Taken together, these definitions present a theoretical framework for resistance literature. However, within this framework, the relationship of resistance literature to war literature, protest literature, and similar fields is marked by various ambiguities. For example, resistance literature is at times regarded as the overarching category of protest literature, at times as a subcategory of it, and at other times as identical or synonymous with it. These ambiguities themselves underscore the necessity of critiquing the existing paradigm so that, through such critique and through identifying the crises that have complicated the research trajectory of resistance literature, a new model may be proposed for defining the various domains within this field. Within this framework, the literature of struggle, which addresses the very principle of confrontation between two opposing sides, is situated at the apex of a hierarchical structure, one branch of which is resistance literature. This gives rise to a new model. According to this model: Literature of Struggle Literature of struggle is literature centered on the principle of confrontation and containing within itself an element of awakening. This literary domain comprises two main divisions: "inner literature of struggle" and "outer literature of struggle." Resistance Literature Resistance literature is a form of literature—sometimes transhistorical and transregional—situated under the broader category of literature of struggle. It is socio-political in foundation, committed, and affectively stimulating (i.e., possessing an element of motivation). Because certain conditions are aggressive or imposed, this literature seeks to preserve values, achievements, or beliefs, defend them, and advance its aims by means of specific components. The most important components of resistance literature are as follows: the representation of the identity of uprising and struggle and emphasis on values; the depiction of the enemy's crimes; the recounting of popular bravery and perseverance; the commemoration of fighters and innocent victims along the path of the event; direct or indirect invitation of the audience to steadfastness and patience and condemnation of passivity; instilling hope regarding the fruition of efforts; the belittling and denunciation of the enemy; and instruction and awareness-raising. Subbranches or Types of Resistance Literature Within the framework of the proposed paradigm, resistance literature, as a branch of literature of struggle, is divided into the following categories. It should be noted that in a previous study, explanations were offered regarding war literature and revolutionary literature within this model; in the present section, in order to complete the discussion, their definitions are also provided. War or Defense Literature War or defense literature is a form of literature situated under resistance literature, committed and awakening in relation to the issue of war, which motivates its audience to rise against the enemy or to preserve acquired values by foregrounding the components of resistance. Since the best-known works on war have emerged from colonial powers such as the United States and Britain, it is preferable, in reference to the literature of Iran's eight-year war or twelve-day war, to use the terms "Sacred Defense Literature" or "Imposed War Literature" so as to distinguish it from war poetry in the conventional sense of world literature. Revolutionary Literature Revolutionary literature is a form of literature situated under resistance literature, committed and awakening in relation to the issue of revolution, which—at the level of deep structure or surface structure—motivates its audience to rise against political disorder or to preserve acquired values by foregrounding the components of resistance. This branch of literature is divided into three categories: pre-revolutionary literature, during-the-revolution literature, and post-revolutionary literature. Discursive Literature (Humanistic or Ideological Discourse Literature) In this type of literature, the poet or writer moves beyond a narrowly political outlook confined to borders and cultures and approaches war, revolution (against oppression and despotism), oppression, and tyranny through a humanistic vision, itself also informed by the author's particular ideology. Such literature struggles against opposing ideologies belonging to any time or place and rises in defense of its own position—namely, its anti-oppression stance—independent of national or ethnic prejudice. This form of resistance literature generally does not defend its own beliefs directly; rather, by defending those who belong to the same struggle-oriented camp as the creator of the work, it displays its particular ideology. Thus, discursive resistance literature constitutes the point of connection among all free human beings who oppose oppression, bloodshed, and aggression; this type of literature is even transhistorical and transtemporal. Hidden Resistance Literature This type of literature, which generally emerges in the non-crisis conditions following war and revolution or during periods of repression—more broadly, under relatively calm positive or negative circumstances—does not openly proclaim opposition to dominant political policies and has neither the intention nor the capacity for revolution, rebellion, or the like, nor hope for a total transformation of conditions. Rather, because of a sense of danger regarding a certain matter, it engages in awakening; or it defends an idea or value that has come under attack, and in any case rises, at the level of meaning, in opposition to the other side. In addition to political resistance, such literature may also involve cultural or religious resistance, since culture and religion are inseparable elements of every society and belong to the sphere of social life; their destruction or deterioration is at times dependent upon the policies pursued by those in power. Protest Literature and Its Branches In this paradigmatic arrangement, protest literature is a part of literature of struggle that possesses a social or socio-political dimension and emerges in criticism of falsehoods and wrongs. Protest may manifest itself in different forms such as patriotism, libertarianism, and the pursuit of justice. Pure protest literature (struggle-oriented protest literature) differs from revolutionary protest literature (resistance-oriented protest literature). In light of the above classifications and within the framework of this paradigmatic approach, another classification of literature of struggle may also be proposed: episodic literature and ongoing literature. Discussion of Results and Conclusion The relationships among the various branches of the literature of struggle may be understood as a composite relationship involving both discursive overlap and functional distinction. The relationship of the literature of struggle to protest literature and resistance literature: If the literature of struggle is regarded as the encompassing ground that includes both resistance literature and protest literature, the relationship among these categories may be described as one of absolute generality and specificity. The relationship between resistance literature and protest literature: Within this discursive field, the relationship between resistance literature and protest literature is one of partial overlap. The relationship between revolutionary literature and protest literature: According to the proposed framework, the relationship between these two types of literature is, in general, one of partial overlap. The relationship between war literature and protest literature: With regard to war literature—particularly in cases where the war is imposed—there is a form of protest embedded within the work, for instance, protest against the enemy's crimes. However, since this protest appears only in some works of war literature, the relationship between the two should be considered one of partial overlap. Moreover, if the subject of a work is war but the components of resistance are absent from it, the work is equivalent to a war poem and stands in a relationship of mutual exclusion to resistance literature. The relationship of resistance literature and the literature of struggle to the literature of lamentation and regret: Within the paradigmatic structure under discussion, the literature of lamentation, regret, and the like generally does not fall under the category of the literature of struggle. In other words, it stands in a relationship of mutual exclusion to both the literature of struggle and resistance literature. By clarifying the relationship of each branch to the others, a more precise image of each category—especially resistance literature—can be formed. Such an image is also helpful in analyzing broader interrelations. Future studies will seek to address these relationships in greater detail and with greater scholarly precision. Given the proposed classification of literary types, which divides works according to their purpose and mode of function into two main categories—autonomous literature and committed literature—the literature of struggle may generally be regarded as one of the branches of committed literature. Thus, the conclusion of the present article is a movement toward relational analysis in resistance literature studies; a direction that can make the path of future research clearer. مطالعات ادبیات پایداری در دهه‌های اخیر گسترش چشمگیر داشته است و پژوهشگران فراوان این حوزه را نقد و بررسی کرده‌‌اند تا چیستی و ابعاد مختلف ادب پایداری شناخته شود؛ ولی در عین‌ کثرت مطالعات و استقرار چارچوبی نظری در این حوزه، بررسی نظام‌مند منابع علمی نشان می‌دهد همچنان ابهام‌هایی در تعریف، حدود مفهومی و نسبت آن با دیگر گونه‌های ادبی و گفتمان‌های نظری وجود دارد. در پژوهش پیشین، با بهره‌گیری از رویکرد نقد پارادایمی، الگویی جدید با عنوان الگوی «ادبیات مبارزه» برای بازتعریف ادبیات پایداری ارائه شد که می‌کوشد ابهام‌های موجود را شناسایی و برطرف کند. مقالۀ حاضر، بر مبنای بازتعریف پارادایمی یادشده، الگوی جدید را در تحلیل شاخه‌های درونی ادبیات پایداری به ‌کار گرفته است. به‌طور کلی، این پژوهش درصدد است تا با روش توصیفی‌‌تحلیلی، به این پرسش پاسخ دهد: «نسبت‌ها میان شاخه‌های مختلف ادبیات پایداری چگونه است؟» و ضرورت آن از این نظر است که با تحلیل نسبت‌ها و شاخه‌های اصلی در الگوی پارادایمی و واکاوی شبکه‌ای از روابط هم‌پوشان، مرزهای ادبیات پایداری تبیین می‌شود. طبق نتایج، براساس الگو، ادبیات مبارزه به چند زیرگونه تقسیم می‌شود؛ زیرگونه‌هایی که از هم تمایز مفهومی دارند؛ اما در سطح پارادایمی در یک میدان مشترک هستند. در این جایگاه، نسبت ادبیات مبارزه با ادبیات پایداری و اعتراض، «عموم و خصوص مطلق» و نسبت ادبیات پایداری با ادبیات اعتراض، «عموم و خصوص من وجه» است. این الگو، با بازترسیم روابط و شاخه‌ها، تصویری جامع‌تر و پویا‌تر از ادب پایداری ارائه می‌دهد و ظرفیت آن را برای مطالعات آینده گسترش می‌بخشد.

https://liar.ui.ac.ir/article_30670_450f154d955116e8bcc665361c59b09c.pdf