The 1960s (the 1340s in the Iranian calendar) is considered one of the most significant periods in the history of Iran. Rapid modernization, the centralization of political power, transformations in patterns of social life, land reform, extensive rural-to-urban migration, the growth of informal settlements, the expansion of modern mass media, the development of modern education, and increasingly close ties with Western culture abruptly disrupted existing values, norms, and systems of “identity,” while raising questions about their relationship to emerging “Others” and turning this issue into a major concern for intellectuals and artists. Consequently, art, literature, and particularly dramatic literature became arenas for representing tensions surrounding “identity,” crises of communication, and the ways in which individuals encounter the “Other.” Owing to its dialogic nature, meaning in drama is constructed through the interaction and confrontation of characters with one another and with the world around them. Theatre, therefore, is not merely a passive mirror of “identity” crises but also an active field for representing and even redefining such crises. In the dramatic text, these crises emerge not through direct description but through actions, dialogues, silences, power relations, and the ways in which characters encounter others. From this perspective, studying dramatic texts can shed light on significant dimensions of identity crises in Iranian society. In their plays, Gholamhossein Saedi and Mohsen Yalfani have vividly depicted the identity crisis of contemporary Iranians through individual and collective relationships.
Numerous studies have examined the social and political dimensions of Iranian theatre in the 1960s; however, most of these studies have treated identity merely as a social construct or as an outcome of the political context, or have approached the issue through psychoanalytic perspectives focused on the characters’ individual trauma. What remains largely unexplored is the absence of a normative and ethical criterion for distinguishing why dramatic characters respond differently to similar conditions of repression and accelerated modernization—an analytical criterion capable of explaining the identity crisis through characters’ relationships with emerging “Others.” To address this theoretical and analytical gap, the present study draws on the ethical philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas (1906–1995) to comparatively reread the relationship between “identity” and the “Other” in the four plays under study. Saedi depicts a world in which fear, suspicion, violence, and the disintegration of human relationships overshadow the lives of his characters. The individuals in his works are often trapped in environments where the possibility of genuine communication with others is gradually eroded, and they progressively lose the ability to define themselves. Yalfani, by contrast, although portraying similar conditions of social pressure, isolation, and restriction, depicts characters who continue to seek understanding, ask questions, and establish relationships with others. Thus, the works of these two playwrights provide an appropriate basis for examining two distinct modes of representing “identity” in Iranian dramatic literature. A significant body of research on the works of Saedi and Yalfani has been grounded in sociological, political, psychological, or semiotic approaches. Although these studies have illuminated valuable dimensions of their works, they have paid less attention to how the “identity” of characters is formed in relation to the “Other” and to the mechanisms through which this identity is consolidated, destabilized, or redefined. Moreover, existing scholarship has generally approached “identity” as a social or cultural category and has paid comparatively little attention to it from the perspective of moral philosophy. This situation points to a research gap that underscores the necessity of the present study. To address this gap, the present study draws on the ethical philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas. By offering an ethical interpretation of the relationship between “identity” and the “Other,” Levinas’s philosophy provides a suitable framework for examining the crisis of “identity.” In Levinas’s thought, “identity” is neither independent nor self-grounded; rather, it takes shape through an encounter with the “Other.” Human beings attain an understanding of themselves when they confront the “Other” and experience a sense of responsibility towards them. From this perspective, “identity” is not the product of isolation but the outcome of an ethical relationship with the Other. Such an understanding makes it possible to study the plays of Saedi and Yalfani not merely as reflections of social conditions but as sites in which the ethical relationship between “identity” and the “Other” emerges and is represented. The primary objective of this study is to examine the relationship between “identity” and the “Other” in Gholamhossein Saedi’s A-ye bi Kolah, A-ye ba Kolah, and Choub be Dasthaye Varazil (The Varazil Stick-Bearers) and Mohsen Yalfani’s Amuzegaran (The Teachers) and Mard-e Motevaset (The Average Man). Its secondary objective is to elucidate the differences between the two playwrights’ approaches to the representation of “identity.” The study employs a qualitative, comparative-analytical methodology. Data were collected through library and documentary research. The data-collection instrument consisted of systematic note-taking from the four plays and from theoretical works related to Levinas’s thought. The four plays—Saedi’s A-ye bi Kolah, A-ye ba Kolah, and Choub be Dasthaye Varazil, and Yalfani’s Amuzegaran and Mard-e Motevaset—were purposively selected and analyzed. The main research question is “How the relationship between “identity” and the “Other” is represented in the works of Saedi and Yalfani.” The subsidiary question is, “What differences exist between the two authors in their representation of this relationship?” The findings indicate that, in Saedi’s works, identity takes shape within an atmosphere of fear, suspicion, and the breakdown of communication with the Other, and the characters gradually lose their capacity for a humane encounter with the Other. By contrast, in Yalfani’s works, identity is reproduced through questioning, resistance, and the preservation of the possibility of dialogue with the Other; even under conditions of repression, the possibility of redefining identity remains. Accordingly, Saedi presents an image of fragmented and crisis-ridden identity, whereas Yalfani portrays identity as dynamic and dependent on the continuation of the relationship with the Other. Ultimately, a close examination of the four plays by Gholamhossein Saedi and Mohsen Yalfani reveals the blockage of dialogue and the breakdown of the ethical relationship with the “Other” as consequences of the identity crisis in the 1960s.