myth of discursive analyses

Reducing the method to "tool and technique" is the Consequence of a stereotype that distinguishes the "research method" from the "theoretical framework" and determines the function of the academy in empirical research; the use of the theory of discourse based on this approach, in addition to creating dissonance Theoretical-methodical, is a new academic myth and reflects the disregard of tension within historical theory means the tension of two types of historical stereotypes mean realism and abstraction-historicism . They are divided among the academy as the true position of "science," and non-academic field as the real realm of "intellectual thinking". Of course, in recent years, as the hegemony of postmodernism is dominated, the second stereotype means "refusal of imported theories to explain the specific situation of Iran", "Native-Islamic science" has also come to academic discourse. whether we say that the second stream is merely a reaction to the academic positivism, or named it an independent Interpretation, it seems both of them -in a clear and secret agreement- has caused reproducing the dominated myth in present time.  While discourse analysis that follows the tradition of Roland Barth, is going to analyze the myths. The main concern of the paper is decoding myth of discourse theory in Iran with the help of some theoretical vocabularies of Laclau and Mouffe and the semiotic system of Barrett especially Barth's controversy with his Contemporary literary critics.