This study employs a descriptive-analytical methodology to examine Morad Farahhadpour’s perspective on the nature and essence of modern Persian poetry (She’r-e No). Influenced by Alain Badiou, Farahhadpour posits modern poetry as an “Event” within the contemporary history of Iran; it is the concrete and embodied translation of Rimbaud’s famous dictum “absolute modernity”into Iranian literary history, with Nima Yushij being the originator of this Event. The defining characteristic of an “Event” is its unpredictability. However, this does not imply emergence ex nihilo; rather, it arises from a dialectical confrontation with tradition. The Event creates a rupture in our ordinary knowledge of the existing situation (classical poetry), but only when its very existence and emergence are profoundly denied by the “situation” itself. Accordingly, Nima and his followers (Shamlu, Forough, Royaee, etc.) are considered the subjects of this “Event,” having, in a sense, followed the logic of this rupture. In this sense, the subjects of the Event positively continued the internal logic of the initial negation inherent in the “Event,” becoming subjects precisely because of their fidelity to that logic, thereby constructing new currents. Nevertheless, Farahhadpour contends that following Nima and Shamlu, we no longer witness a fresh occurrence in the field of contemporary poetry. He argues that most poetry collections have been reduced to the personal self and a search for internal existential truth, where the echoes of those initial ruptures within the “Event” called She’r-e No are scarcely heard. In his genealogy of the poetic crisis, he traces the root of this lack and crisis to the realms of politics and literature: both the post-1979 Revolution’s distancing from its own emancipatory politics and the unfamiliarity of Iranian poets and critics with the historical experience of modern poetry, compounded by the decorative and theatrical nature that literary criticism has adopted.
 
Expanded Abstract
This research, employing a descriptive-analytical methodology, examines Farhadpour’s viewpoint regarding the nature and essence of New Poetry (She’r-e No). Under the influence of Alain Badiou, Farhadpour conceptualizes New Poetry as an “Event” (Rokhdaad) within contemporary Iranian history; in essence, the concrete and embodied realization of Rimbaud’s famous dictum, “to be absolutely modern,” within the trajectory of modern Iranian literature. Nima Yushij is identified as the originator of such an Event. The primary characteristic of an Event is its unpredictability. However, this does not imply an emergence ex nihilo; rather, it arises from a dialectical confrontation with Tradition. A rupture occurs in our common knowledge of the existing State (classical poetry), but this only happens when its very existence and manifestation have been deeply negated by the “State” itself. Accordingly, Nima and his followers (including Shamloo, Foroughi, Royaee, etc.) are considered the subjects of this Event, as they have, in a way, followed the logic of that schism. In this sense, the subjects of the Event positively continued the internal logic of the Event’s initial negation, thereby becoming subjects through their fidelity to that logic and establishing new currents. Nevertheless, Farhadpour maintains that subsequent to Nima and Shamloo, we witness no significant new occurrences in contemporary poetry; the majority of poetic collections have been reduced to the personal self and the pursuit of inner existential truth, with the echoes of the initial rupture and schism of the “Event” known as New Poetry growing fainter. In his genealogy of the poetic crisis, Farhadpour seeks the roots of this absence and crisis in the realms of politics and literature: both the 1979 Revolution’s distancing from its own emancipatory politics and the unfamiliarity of our poets and critics with the historical experience of modern poetry, in addition to the ornamental and theatrical manner adopted by literary criticism. Farhadpour analyzes Nimaic New Poetry and its adherents through a Badiouian framework. In his view, New Poetry, as an Event, constitutes a complete rupture with Tradition, leading to the creation of the New, initiating a new stage in history, and establishing a new logic. Consequently, New Poetry compelled its subjects to declare fidelity to this rupture and revolution, extracting its consequences from the poetry and progressively advancing that truth. He asserts, “If the rupture itself is associated with ‘Nima’ for us, the two principal subjects who advanced the logic of truth stemming from this novel and original Event are undoubtedly ‘Ahmad Shamloo’ and ‘Forough Farrokhzad.’ The crucial point here is the emphasis on this very logic of rupture, which has transformed New Poetry—as the realization of the experience of being absolutely modern and the experience of yielding to the contradictions of modernity—into a central pivot in our contemporary history” (Farhadpour, 1396: 10). It appears that when Farhadpour discusses the relationship between New Poetry and Tradition, he partially retreats from his prior assertion that New Poetry was a complete break from Tradition, or, in other words, he steps away from interpreting New Poetry as a Badiouian, unpredictable Event. In his view, the Constitutional Revolution (Mashruteh), in terms of rupture, was neither entirely able to break from the past nor did it successfully create a truth or a truly new entity. From this perspective, New Poetry truly stands as an exceptional experience. New Poetry, as a rupture with Tradition, is, precisely in the Hegelian sense of the word, a type of connection to Tradition. It is where the very act of breaking tradition becomes a tradition itself, and here we observe that in this kind of rupture, not only the present and future, but also the past is altered. According to Farhadpour, in New Poetry, we are faced with a dialectical relationship between negation and change: the negation of Tradition in the form of establishing a relationship with it. This is occurring while in other artistic fields, there is no parallel where one attempts to break Tradition and initiate a historical process of dialectical tradition-breaking. From this perspective, New Poetry is again an exceptional phenomenon (Farhadpour, 1396). Evidence of this is Nima’s own practice, who sometimes pauses, looks back, and even composes traditional pieces among his masterpieces (Kamali, 1395: 22). In a general synthesis, as alluded to earlier, Farhadpour believes that what we witness after Nima is, in a way, both fidelity to the Nimaic Event and, simultaneously, a repetition of that rupture. In response to the question, “What is the difference between poets like Shamloo and Nima?” he posits that firstly, we somewhat deviate from the Badiouian model here, implying the possibility of the Event being repeated while simultaneously altering the State. Subsequently, the difference between Nima and later poets lies in the fact that the Nimaic rupture occurs within a stable traditional State—that is, within a context that had not experienced an Event prior to Nima. However, later poets are all somehow echoes of him and that initial rupture. This can be interpreted as a form of fidelity to the Nimaic Event. Yet, concurrently, they are connected to another context because politics is present in all these poetic discourses; that is, in Nima’s poetry as well as in the poetry of subsequent writers. This is a politics that directly confronts and engages with the new State precisely in the capacity of negating any ideology—specifically, the state of the Rastakhiz Party, the 2500th Anniversary Celebrations, and the “Great Civilization” project (Ibid.: 836 and 837). Based on the Badiouian reading of the Event known as Nimaic New Poetry, it can be argued that some post-Nimaic poets, by recognizing the internal logic and contradictions inherent in Nimaic New Poetry itself and by utilizing the formal surpluses (excess forms) existing within the Nimaic poetic form, have emerged as subjects of the New Poetry Event, creating new currents far more numerous than the limited cases Farhadpour mentioned. In his view, in this more than a century since the Event of Nimaic New Poetry, no work has yet been created in recent literature that is powerful enough—independent of personal identity, taste, or individual games—to change the rules of the game and impose itself.