The conception of individuals within a society as subjects and objects of action and knowledge has gained a prominent position in discourse analysis studies, leading to a range of analyses and efforts aimed at understanding the emergence of particular phenomena in society. Among the common methods of discourse analysis, Foucault’s approaches of archaeology and genealogy are outstanding. In its early phase, through the archaeological methods, Foucault identifies “formations” are analyzable in four categories: (1) objects, (2) enunciative modalities, (3) concepts, and (4) the formation of strategies. Ultimately, with the genealogical method and the focus on the problem of power, it declares that his goal is the study of the subject, rather than power itself. By introducing the notion of “disruptive practices” and examining “forms of resistance by subjects,” it locates the points of confrontation and contestation of strategies to reveal discursive instabilities, ruptures, and gaps.

By analyzing the discourse of the Pahlavi I and II periods through Foucault’s archaeological method, in this study, finds that cultural policy in the first Pahlavi era, through the marginalization and exclusion of Arab and Islamic history, the clergy, signs of tribal culture, dress, and language, as well as ethnic identities—considered as the “others” of “national unity”—constructed its discourse around privileging national identity with emphasis on nation-building, modernity, revival of ancient heritage, the Persian language, and unification of attire. The excluded concepts re-emerged during the twelve-year interval between the two Pahlavi discourses (1941–1953), allowing the return of Shiʿi religious culture, popular/folk traditions, and ruralism. These topics and concepts later influenced the creativity and artistic production of modernist artists in the 1950s and 1960s.

The main research question is: how can Shiʿi elements, which is referred to writing, in the visual arts of the Pahlavi period be analyzed within the four categories of the Foucault’s archaeological method? The further question asks: in what ways does writing in the artworks of the second Pahlavi era became an instrument of compliance, resistance, or personal expression for the subject? The research methodology is qualitative and analytical, based on discourse analysis through the Foucault’s approach. The sampling method is purposive and heterogeneous, which is guided by the research questions and qualitative content analysis. Decides, data collection has been constructed on the archaeology documents (note-taking) and observation.