Representing the Political Rival on Persian X: Ordinary Boundary-Making, Othering, and the Moralization of Conflict across Three Political Cases

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Associate Professor of Political Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

2 M.A. in Political Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

10.22059/wsps.2026.413598.1585
Abstract
This article examines how political rivals are represented in Persian-language discussions on X and identifies the point at which ordinary political disagreement develops into deeper relational conflict. Focusing on the relationship constructed toward political opponents, the study analyzes three major political cases: Iran’s 2024 presidential runoff election, debates over the enforcement of the Chastity and Hijab Law, and controversies surrounding negotiations between Iran and the United States. Using a qualitative, text-centered, and processual-comparative design, the research takes the interactional-discursive cluster as its primary unit of analysis. The findings are based on six clearly documented and auditable sets of evidence. Results show that differences among the cases cannot be explained solely by conflict intensity. In the electoral case, conflict intensifies mainly through challenges to legitimacy and belonging. In the hijab case, moral judgments concerning coercion, humiliation, and harm shape the dominant pattern. In the negotiation case, evidence is more fragmented, with strategic distrust sometimes approaching moral interpretations of compromise. Across all three cases, evidence does not support political hatred as the dominant logic of interaction

Keywords

Subjects


Articles in Press, Accepted Manuscript
Available Online from 28 May 2026

  • Receive Date 01 January 2026
  • Revise Date 01 March 2026
  • Accept Date 28 April 2026