Fundamentalist Reading and Understanding of New Ideologies "Review and Analysis of Two Odes by Mohammad Al-Maghout and Ahmad Shamlou"

Jacques Derrida, influenced by the uncertainty approach that emerged in the 20th century, began to establish a foundational perspective in the West. Following the New Criticism's success in diminishing the impact of external relations on the text, the focus shifted to the text itself, along with its form and structure, as the primary subjects of criticism. Consequently, critics increasingly concentrated on the text, while interest in the reader and the addressee diminished. But by proposing his theory, Derrida emphasized the essential role of the reader, thereby prompting a critique of traditional reading practices. He argued that it is impossible to ascribe a definitive meaning to a text. Given the diverse audiences and the inherent contradictions present within the same text, readers can derive multiple interpretations. Derrida believed that the intellectual and cultural background of a text's audience plays a crucial role in its analysis, contributing to the varied and sometimes contradictory interpretations of the same text. Furthermore, the denial of inherent meaning within the text also results in diverse interpretations. 
Introduction:
Deconstruction is a method of textual analysis and interpretation that originated from the ideas and philosophy of Jacques Derrida, a prominent French philosopher of the twentieth century. This approach challenges the conventional understanding of language and meaning, particularly the belief that texts have fixed, stable, or singular meanings.
According to Derrida, language is inherently unstable, and the meaning of any given text is perpetually deferred through an endless chain of signifiers. Words do not point to stable, referential realities; instead, they refer to other words, which in turn refer to additional words, creating an infinite process of deferral and difference—a concept Derrida termed "différance."
This indicates that any effort to derive a definitive or conclusive interpretation from a text is inherently flawed. The meaning is not embedded within the text, waiting to be uncovered by the reader; rather, it is generated through the act of reading itself.
In this context, deconstruction not only challenges the authority of the author but also questions the validity of traditional interpretations that seek to establish a single "correct" reading. It encourages readers to actively engage with the text, to interrogate its underlying assumptions, and to reveal the internal contradictions and tensions that undermine its claims to unity and coherence.
Thus, from a deconstructive perspective, the act of interpretation shifts from uncovering hidden truths within a text to exploring the myriad possibilities of meaning that arise through careful and critical engagement with language. This form of reading celebrates multiplicity, ambiguity, and the playful nature of language. Importantly, this approach does not seek to obliterate meaning entirely; rather, it aims to illuminate the complexity and contingency involved in the production of meaning.
From this perspective, deconstruction can be understood as a reader-centered or audience-centered approach to reading, in contrast to earlier schools of criticism such as New Criticism, which emphasized the autonomy of the text and sought to isolate it from the author, reader, and historical context. While New Criticism directed attention to the "text itself," focusing on its formal qualities and internal coherence, deconstruction shifts the focus to the reader. It asserts that meaning arises not solely from the text, but from the dynamic, contextual, and open-ended interaction between the text and the reader.
To define deconstruction succinctly, we can say that it is a method that rejects binary oppositions (such as presence/absence, literal/metaphorical, or center/periphery) as fixed and stable. Instead, it reveals how these oppositions are constructed within texts and how they can be reversed, displaced, or rendered unstable. Deconstruction aims to challenge the ideological foundations of a text, dismantling the structures that support a singular or dominant meaning.
In doing so, it liberates the text from the confines of a central, fixed interpretation, allowing for alternative readings and multiple perspectives.
In light of these theoretical foundations, this article aims to apply the method of deconstruction to two odes: one by Mohammad Al-Maghout, a prominent Syrian poet known for his satirical and revolutionary style, and another by Ahmad Shamlou, the renowned Iranian poet and intellectual. The purpose of this analysis is to uncover new ideological dimensions by dismantling the textual and semantic structures that seem to uphold a singular ideological perspective.
Method:
The methodology of this study is grounded in the theoretical principles of deconstruction, with a specific emphasis on its implications for ideological critique. By analyzing two selected odes through this lens, we aim to uncover the internal contradictions and tensions that undermine the superficial ideological messages of the texts.
The selection of Al-Maghout and Shamlou is not arbitrary; both poets are regarded as voices of resistance and revolution within their respective cultural and political contexts. However, as deconstruction reveals, their poetic language may not always align seamlessly with their ideological intentions. In other words, the form and structure of their language can generate unintended meanings that challenge or complicate their ideological objectives.
Results and Discussion:
Our analysis of the two poems revealed several key insights into the relationship between language, ideology, and meaning. One of the most significant outcomes of employing a deconstructive approach is the acknowledgment that texts do not convey a single, unified message. Rather, they are open to multiple interpretations, many of which may contradict the author's apparent or intended message. In both Al-Maghout’s and Shamlou’s poems, there is a stark contrast between the poets' revolutionary aspirations and the passive or complicit attitudes of the people. In Al-Maghout's poem, this contrast is vividly illustrated through the speaker's desire to instigate societal change, which is met with the apathy and inertia of the masses. Similarly, in Shamlou’s work, the speaker conveys frustration and even disdain toward the people, lamenting their unwillingness to rise and transform their reality. This duality—between the poet's idealism and the people's indifference—is not merely thematic but also structural, embedded in the very language of the poems.
What becomes evident through deconstruction is that both poets, despite their intentions, use language that is not entirely aligned with their ideological goals. They employ metaphors, imagery, and nuanced expressions that subtly undermine the narrative of transformation and progress. This linguistic dissonance creates an opportunity for alternative interpretations, suggesting skepticism, disillusionment, or even resignation. In some cases, the poets inadvertently introduce contradictions that lead to the interpretation that change is unattainable, or that the poet’s vision is inherently flawed or naive.
Moreover, deconstruction enables us to challenge traditional hierarchies within the text. While the poet may seek to privilege one side of a binary (e.g., poet vs. audience, change vs. stagnation, speech vs. silence), a deconstructive reading reverses or complicates these oppositions. In doing so, it reveals how the text depends on what it seeks to exclude or suppress, thereby exposing its internal reliance on the very ideas it seems to reject.
Another crucial observation is that language, in both poems, does not function as a transparent medium for conveying ideology. Instead, it serves as a disruptive force, continually destabilizing meaning and rendering it impossible to settle on a single, coherent ideological message. This phenomenon is not a result of a lack of poetic skill or clarity; rather, it is an inherent characteristic of language itself, as Derrida argued. Meaning is always in flux, and the poet's control over language is never absolute.
Conclusion:
In the end, by finding contradictions in the structure of these phrases, we were able to easily understand new meanings. And according to the perception of new meanings, we were able to extract a new ideology from the odes of the Arab traveler in the stations of space and curse. While both poets were looking for the ideology of change and revolution in their odes, but the language structure they used was not completely in the service of this ideology, and it made us able to break this new ideology structure, which is the lack of change and transformation. extract from the text.