Document Type : Research Paper
Author
BDepartment of Education Faculty of Humanities- Bu Ali Sina University-
10.22084/rjhll.2025.31411.2396
Abstract
Introduction
Educational policies are never neutral; they are discursive arenas where power, ideology, and social hierarchies are produced, legitimized, and reproduced. In post-revolutionary Iran, education has been redefined as a key instrument for transmitting Islamic and revolutionary values. Among all policy documents, the Fundamental Transformation Document of Education (FTDE) stands as the most authoritative roadmap for the country’s formal education system. This document, approved by the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution, claims to reform the educational system based on Islamic-Iranian identity, justice, and moral commitment.
However, despite its transformative rhetoric, the document has received little critical scrutiny regarding its hidden discursive structures, ideological assumptions, and power relations. This study addresses that gap by asking: How does the FTDE represent power and ideology through its linguistic and discursive strategies? Which social groups are foregrounded or marginalized? And what are the implications of these discursive choices for educational justice, linguistic diversity, and critical pedagogy in Iran?
Using van Dijk’s (2001) model of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), this research unpacks the text at three levels: textual (micro), social cognition (meso), and social context (macro). The focus is on uncovering how language constructs and legitimizes a specific worldview while excluding alternative voices—such as ethnic and linguistic minorities, students with special needs, and critical educational approaches.
Background
Over the past two decades, CDA has been increasingly employed in educational policy studies worldwide. Researchers have analyzed mission statements, textbooks, policy meetings, and assessment frameworks to reveal how language perpetuates inequality, marginalization, and ideological dominance (Rogers et al., 2016). In Iran, however, CDA remains underrepresented in educational policy research, despite the highly ideological nature of official documents.
Key themes in international CDA studies include: the representation of gender in textbooks (Barton & Sakwa, 2012), neoliberalism in educational mission statements (Ayers, 2005), and the construction of national identity through curricula. In the Iranian context, a few studies have examined textbooks or higher education policies, but no systematic CDA has been conducted on the FTDE—the most comprehensive educational policy document since the 1979 revolution.
The present study is situated within this gap. It builds on van Dijk’s theoretical framework, which emphasizes that discourse is not merely a reflection of social reality but a constitutive force. According to van Dijk, power abuse and inequality are often reproduced through seemingly neutral texts via strategies such as polarization (us/them), lexicalization (positive self-presentation, negative other-presentation), presupposition, and the suppression of alternative discourses.
Method
This research adopts a qualitative, interpretative design based on Faircloughian and van Dijkian CDA. The primary data source is the Fundamental Transformation Document of Education (FTDE), approved in 2011 by the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution of Iran. The analysis focuses on the document’s preamble, macro-goals, strategies, and evaluation indicators.
Van Dijk’s three-level model was operationalized as follows:
Textual level (micro): Analysis of syntactic structures (passivization, nominalization, modal verbs), lexical choices (evaluative terms, metaphors, polarization), and coherence markers.
Social cognition level (meso): Identification of underlying presuppositions, implicit knowledge, shared beliefs, and ideological schemas that are naturalized in the text.
Social context level (macro): Examination of institutional power relations, the political-ideological environment of post-revolutionary Iran, and the role of education as a state apparatus.
In addition, a comparative thematic analysis was conducted between the FTDE and two international frameworks: UNESCO’s Education 2030 Framework for Action and OECD’s Learning Compass 2030. This comparison helped highlight the ideological specificity of the Iranian document.
Coding was performed manually using a deductive-inductive approach based on van Dijk’s categories (e.g., exclusion, foregrounding, polarization, naturalization, lexicalization). Inter-coder reliability was ensured through peer review.
Results
The analysis revealed four major discursive strategies in the FTDE:
1. Lexicalization of Ideology
The document frequently uses positively connoted terms such as “faithful,” “committed,” “revolutionary,” “insightful,” and “pure Muhammadan Islam.” These terms are never defined operationally but function as identity markers. Conversely, no explicit negative terms are directed at internal groups; instead, implicit opposition is constructed against “Western cultural invasion,” “arrogant powers,” and “secular education models.”
2. Polarization (Us vs. Them)
A clear “in-group/out-group” dichotomy pervades the document. The in-group is defined by loyalty to the Islamic Republic, revolutionary values, and velāyat (political guardianship of the jurist). The out-group includes Western liberalism, secular humanism, and even non-official Islamic interpretations. This polarization is achieved through contrastive conjunctions, implicit presuppositions, and evaluative adjectives.
3. Exclusion and Marginalization
The FTDE systematically excludes or marginalizes:
Linguistic and ethnic minorities (Azeris, Kurds, Baloch, Arabs, etc). By insisting on Persian as the sole language of instruction without any mention of mother-tongue education.
Students with special needs (physical, intellectual, or emotional) are mentioned only briefly in instrumental terms, not as rights-holders.
Critical pedagogical approaches (e.g., problem-posing education, democratic classroom, student agency) are completely absent.
Gender is not addressed as an axis of inequality; instead, a traditional, undifferentiated notion of “student” is presumed.
4. Naturalization of Hegemony
The document presents its ideological claims as self-evident truths. For example, the statement “The mission of the education system is to educate faithful, committed, revolutionary, insightful, creative, and entrepreneurial human beings based on the teachings of pure Muhammadan Islam” is offered without justification. No alternative educational philosophies (e.g., humanistic, progressive, or multicultural) are acknowledged. This naturalization makes ideological contestation difficult.
5. Comparative Findings with UNESCO and OECD
UNESCO 2030 emphasizes inclusive, equitable, quality education with clear operational definitions of equity, gender equality, and global citizenship.
OECD Learning Compass 2030 focuses on student agency, transformative competencies, and co-agency with peers, teachers, and communities.
In contrast, the FTDE prioritizes system loyalty, ideological conformity, and national-religious identity over critical thinking, diversity, or global cooperation.
Discussion
The results demonstrate that the FTDE is not a neutral policy document but a discursive instrument of ideological reproduction. By employing lexicalization, polarization, exclusion, and naturalization, the text constructs a closed universe in which the Islamic Republic’s political theology becomes the only legitimate foundation for education.
1. Implications for Educational Justice
Despite explicitly mentioning “educational justice,” the FTDE fails to address structural inequalities based on language, region, class, or disability. The insistence on Persian-only instruction perpetuates linguistic discrimination against non-Persian-speaking students, contradicting UNESCO’s mother-tongue education principles. Similarly, the absence of gender analysis ignores decades of feminist scholarship on educational equity.
2. Power and Hegemony
From a Foucauldian perspective, the FTDE operates as a regime of truth: it defines what can be said, thought, and practiced in education. Teachers, principals, and curriculum developers are positioned not as critical professionals but as executors of a predetermined ideological agenda. This reduces pedagogical autonomy and stifles innovation.
3. Comparison with International Norms
Compared to UNESCO and OECD frameworks, the FTDE appears inward-looking, security-oriented, and resistant to epistemological pluralism. While international documents encourage preparing students for a diverse, rapidly changing world, the Iranian document seeks to protect students from “cultural invasion” and solidify a monolithic identity.
4. Limitations and Future Research
This study analyzed only one document. Future research should extend CDA to other policy texts, including national curriculum guidelines, teacher training policies, and school textbooks. Moreover, ethnographic studies could investigate how teachers and students resist, negotiate, or appropriate these discourses in everyday classroom interactions.
Conclusion
This extended abstract has presented a critical discourse analysis of Iran’s Fundamental Transformation Document of Education using van Dijk’s framework. The findings reveal that the document systematically reproduces power and ideology through lexical choices, polarization, exclusion, and naturalization. While claiming to promote justice and transformation, it marginalizes linguistic minorities, students with special needs, critical pedagogies, and gender equity. In comparison with UNESCO and OECD frameworks, the FTDE is characterized by ideological rigidity, system-centeredness, and a defensive stance toward global educational discourse.
The study concludes that educational policy analysis in Iran must move beyond technical or administrative perspectives and adopt critical, discourse-centered approaches. Only by exposing the hidden mechanisms of power and exclusion can scholars and practitioners open spaces for more democratic, inclusive, and just educational futures.
References
- Ayers, D (2005). “Neoliberal Ideology in Community College Mission Statements.” Review of Higher Education, 28, 527–549. DOI
- Barton, A., & Sakwa, L (2012). The Representation of Gender in English Textbooks in Uganda.” Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 20, 173–190. DOI
- OECD (2019). OECD Learning Compass 2030. OECD Learning Compass 2030
- Rogers, R., Schaenen, I., Schott, C., O’Brien, K., Trigos-Carrillo, L., Starkey, K., & Chasteen, C. C (2016). “Critical Discourse Analysis in Education: A Review of the Literature, 2004 to 2012.” Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1192–1226. DOI
- UNESCO (2015). Education 2030 Framework for Action. UNESCO Document
- Van Dijk, T. A (2001). “Critical Discourse Analysis.” In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton Eds., The Handbook of Discourse Analysis pp. 349–371. Blackwell. DOI
Keywords
Subjects
