خلاصة:
Golishuran, the most important work of Ata Nahayi, a prominent Kurdish novelist, presents a different narrative of the entry of modernity into society and the daily life of the marginalized people of Kurdistan. The difference in this narrative stems from its opposition to two dominant meta-narratives of historiography, namely Orientalism and Iranian nationalism, which have always attempted to write history with a specific writing policy, resulting in the silencing of other voices and the reproduction of other marginalized positions. The main claim is that the Kurdish novel, as a deconstructive text, has taken steps towards historical questioning by establishing an inverted narrative and adopting a different writing policy. The question is what this writing policy is and how the Kurdish novel, with its help, presents a historical narrative of the marginalized position and how, through conflict with dominant narratives, it provides the possibility of emerging a kind of counter-narrative. Within the framework of the tradition of subaltern studies, as an analytical possibility, the narrative of the Kurdish novel Golishuran has been analyzed. The results of the analysis show that this novel - by re-storying traumatic events, historicizing the marginalized position, deconstructing oppositions and hierarchies of power, and politicizing folklore - both voices the historically silenced expressions of marginality and engages in reconstructing the historical narrative. Ultimately, Golishuran performs the act of reclaiming the realm of marginality, which has been rejected in the concrete context of history of oppression and in the narratives of dominant historiography, in the form of an interpretation of subaltern nationalism.
ملخص الجهاز:
The difference in the narrative of this novel stems from its opposition to two major dominant historiographical narratives, namely Orientalism and Iranian nationalism, which have always engaged in a kind of historical writing by adopting a specific writing policy, the result of which is the silencing of another voice and the reproduction of other underprivileged positions.
mahmoudi91 (This article is part of a master's thesis) Problem Statement The main problem of this research is how dominant historiographical discourses (here, Orientalism and Iranian nationalism) engage in constructing a historical narrative by adopting a specific writing policy, in which the history of the Kurds is confronted with ideological oblivion and territorialization as subalterns.
The main question is what writing policy and strategies does the Kurdish novel employ to establish a historical narrative of the position of the underprivileged and how, through conflict with dominant narratives, does it provide the possibility of emerging a kind of counter-narrative?
1. Spivak 119 Dominant Historical Narratives: Orientalism and Iranian Nationalism Orientalist historiography, by introducing generalizing terms such as plunder 1 (McDowell, 2 2007: 74), banditry 3 (Van Bruinessen 4, 1992: 229; Nikitin 5, 1387: 296; Kinnane 6, 1370: 53), violence (Nikitin, 1387: 169, 182, 183; Lazier 7, 2003: 70), etc.
The dominant discourses mentioned, with specific strategies, attempt to present a narrative in which both the mechanism of subjection of the Kurds is produced and reproduced, and a constructed world is created that either has no place for these outcasts or, in order to render them invisible, like “the rest,” will only have a marginal presence to mark the space of the “other subordinate.
(
, 
, 
)
