The purpose of this study is to examine the meaning transformation of Despotism signifier from Safavid Era to the rising of Iranian Despotism discourse in Qajar era. The method is archaeology and the study is focused on the relations of the meaning transformation with discourse practices. Pre-modern texts were investigated for the significance of Despotism. The results suggested that these significance refer to ethical meanings. Then it can be claimed that Despotism in pre-modern texts do not have politico-cultural connotations. Conceptual significance Turn of Despotism to a discourse is the byproduct of historical events such as war, cholera and famine. This turn creates a new order of things, on one hand, and problematized Despotism as a barrier for this new order, on other hand. In this context Despotism became the central signifier of a discourse which tries to theorize the Iranian society. This concept in Iranian study is behaved like a fetish which should be returned to its historical springs.

Since proverbs are based on the life experiences of people, by studying them we can reconsider the social, cultural, and political structure of these ethnic groups. The political structure of Iran until constitutionalism is characterized by Despotism, in which the king was on top of the pyramid of power and people were his slaves at the bottom. Despotic power, popularity of deterministic ideas, lack of intellectuality and philosophy in society, allegiance to the power relations, and lack of individualism are examples that during the history have formed proverbs and words that have damaged the foundation of any kind of intellectuality, social movement, and progress. Proverbs as a representative of human thought and the most important role model for common people’s life have formed a considerable portion of Iranian’s language and culture. The purpose of this article is to analyze the background that has played a role in people’s yielding to Despotism as is manifested in proverbs. It is concluded that Despotism has cultural backgrounds rather than being the result of authority exercise and over the history has formed people’s language and thought.

Structuralism is a general approach in various academic disciplines that explores the relationships between fundamental elements of some kind, upon which some higher mental, linguistic, social, cultural etc "structures" are built, through which then meaning is produced within a particular person, system, or culture.Structuralism appeared in academic psychology for the first time in the 19th century and then reappeared in the second half of the 20th century, when it grew to become one of the most popular approaches in the academic fields that are concerned with analyzing language, culture, and society. The work of Ferdinand de Saussure is generally considered to be a starting point of the 20th century structuralism.Today structuralism is less popular than approaches such as post-structuralism and deconstruction. There are many reasons for this. Structuralism has often been criticized for being a historical and for favoring deterministic structural forces over the ability of individual people to act. As the political turbulence of the 1960s and 1970s (and particularly the student uprisings of May 1968) began affecting academia, issues of power and political struggle moved to the center of people's attention. In the 1980s, deconstruction and its emphasis on the fundamental ambiguity of language rather than its crystalline logical structure-became popular. By the end of the century structuralism was seen as a historically important school of thought, but it was the movements it spawned, rather than structuralism itself, which commanded attention.

In December 2011, popular uprising swept away Middle East and Africa north and wondered the world. This uprising led to Chain and unprecedented protests in the Arab region from Tunisia, Egypt Morocco to Yemen and Bahrain and took the protests to the street to call freedom, justice, democracy, human right and in one word “ change” . Purpose of this research is present of comprehensive percept of Arab uprisings and explanation of popular sudden and spontaneity uprising in Middle East in year 2011 and until now. Method of research is descriptive and analytical method. This research based on credible sources is looking for to answer to this question “ what causes and fields led to failure of Arabic revolutions and return of instability and continuing tyranny to Arab world. Findings of this research shows that sets of internal and external causes and varieties such as lack of essential cultural contexts (conditions) to establish of democracy, lack of political and judicial Institutionalization, weak of developments and economic and military Institutionalization and intervention of extra0regional power such as America, lack of Charismatic and empowered leader and weak of Discourse and people mobilization and… . . have contributed in defeat revolution of Egypt, Libya and Yemen and continuation of tyranny and Deficiency of democracy in Arab world. This research using theory of John Furan and Goldstone is going to explain why and how rise of different results in Arabic countries after Arab uprising year 2010 until now.

The Qajar kings managed to spread their political dominance, characterized by Despotism, over Iranian society through the expansion and development of burocracy prior to the constitutional revelution. In this regard the current study purports to investigate the relience of political Despotism on burocracy during this period using Weber's model of patrimonialism. In the Qajar political structure, the king presiding over all issues of political authoriry, acted as a patrimonial ruler. The king appointed burocratic staff at will, based on self-designated criteria, controlling them through strict surveillance, and removing them from burocratic circles when threatening his power. The burocrats in return acting as his devotees, focused their efforts on consalidating his traditional dominance over society, knowing that their survival was directly dependent upon their performance in this respect. In Weberian traditional authority, Despotism is a dimension of authoritarinism accomplished under special conditions, including the existence of a dependent state burocracy which actes as the executive arm of the patrimonial ruler.

Dehkhoda is one of Iran's most influential literary political elites in the constitutional era. He has dealt with the most important political issues of Iran's constitution in the course of many years, with a powerful pen and a penetrating view. Among the literate and the cultural, at least, there was at least one person who was as knowledgeable as the Dehkhoda who knew the status quo in both thought and action. Understanding his important political ideas, beyond his literary and cultural personality, plays an important role in the proper understanding of constitutionalism. He was a full-fledged "progressive" who had a national and Iranian view of the important feature of his valuable vocabulary. On the basis of this rise, he regarded constitutionalism as a positive, legal, libertarian political system, and in the negative sense defined it as an antithesis of "Despotism". Dehkhoda must be regarded as a continuation of the early intellectuals of the Qajar era, who go beyond them and move towards a different understanding and understanding. This article seeks to explain Dehkhoda's understanding of constitutionalism, given her place in modern Iranian intellectual history.

Liberation and freedom are of the themes of this century lyrical poetry which deserve more attention regarding their social background. Social poetry which was started and nourished with constitution (Mashrotiat) penetrated the spirit and mind of people so that it has been used as a suitable means for the requisites of society.The role and effect of poets in struggle and conflict with absolutism and Despotisms and stimulation and awareness of society cannot be ignored. Mohamad Reza Shafiee Kadkani is one of the most influential poets who poured his ideas–Absolutism, Despotism, liberality–into poetry so that a big amount of his works has been dedicated to such kind of poetry. In this essay the share of Shafiee Kadkani's poem in alertness and vigilance of society and Islamic revolution will be discussed. It is obvious that there is a mutual relationship between oblique and ambiguous language with motifs like liberty and freedom in the totalitarian society. 

Arabic countries such as Iraq, for their possession of petroleum, natural gas and other natural resources are, undoubtedly, among rich countries. However, as far as industry, technology, and culture are concerned, they are lagging behind. This has given rise to uprisings and the continuous collapses of regimes in such countries. Recognizing cultural and political factors behind such backwardness, which is rooted in the monarchial structure of these countries, can lead to new illuminating experiences useful for those interested in political discourse. Among famous poets whose poetry might yield such knowledge is the Iraqi poet, Ahmad Matar. Studying his collection of poems reveals that, probably more than any other political poet, he has been able both to familiarize the addressee with the undemocratic political structure in Arabic countries and warn the reader of the consequences of such a structure for the individual and the community – consequences such as normalizing fear and sadness among the community, passivity and disappointment, spreading hypocrisy and insincerity, bringing about identity crisis and social and economic corruption.

Among different views on historical development in Iran, political economy has been the dominant approach. This approach deliberately disregards culture and social behavior of people in understanding the development process. It also believes in the political determinacy of all forms of concentration of wealth, social classes and cultural demands.Among the sub-theories of political economy paradigm, “Iranian Despotism” (by H. Katouzian) is has more academic credibility than other theories. In his study, Katouzian puts emphasis on the absence of contract (lack of rights and ownership) and tyranny (absence of law) as important causes of underdevelopment in Iran.In the explanation it gives of tyranny, lawlessness, and lack of accumulation and of property rights, this theory ignores the social and cultural conditions of society -or, legal-normative system. Iranian Despotism is the other side of the coin of western constitutionalism and it follows a model of economic development dominant in western society.The present article criticizes the concepts of Despotism and dichotomy of nation-state in this theory, exposing the elitist aspects of its approach.

Freedom and security are the two main desires of all societies. Therefore, providing security necessitates a powerful and centralized government. Such a powerful system needs to be monitored and reviewed; otherwise it will lead to Despotism.Hence people will tend to have freedom and that will cause different social movements. It is important to remember that liberal societies need to have people who take responsibilities, are well-informed and shape an organized community. If these things do not happen, they will face chaos.In this article the author has masterminded a new model for analyzing the developments of contemporary political history of Iran based on freedom and security demands. This is named a “Pendular Model” which intends to answer this question: “What is the meaning of freedom and security? And how these phenomena have influenced the developments in the contemporary political history of Iran? ” As an answer to this question, the author has come up with the hypothesis mentioned below and analyzes it with a descriptive and explanatory approach.The hypothesis: Freedom and security have the fundamental role in the development of contemporary political history and the Islamic Revolution of Iran and will influence the future of Iran.