A Comparative Analysis of Aime Cesaire’s The Tempest and Gholam Hossein Saedi’s Eye for an Eye from the perspective of Michel Foucault

Conducting comparative studies is one of the prevalent approaches in literature. American school of comparative literature provides a suitable framework for research on themes, opinions, and hidden concepts of works irrespective of their original language. In this article we compare, Eye for an Eye by an Iranian playwright Gholam Hossein Saedi and The Tempest by Aime Cesaire, a French Black writer and poet. This research by drawing from Foucault's ideas scrutinizes the similarities and differences between these two plays. In Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, Foucault explains governments' methods of punishment throughout history. People in power, by using their own approved system of thoughts and punishments, put common people of society under pressure and chastise them. Foucault does not necessarily think these punishments are deterrent or adequate to the crime committed by a criminal, yet his/her body is used as a penal and correctional system. It will be examined that in these two cases the kings’ presence as the highest office of power is the only determinant of punishment. The absence of a judiciary system in both plays highlights the fact that much of the government's actions are biased. In Eye for an Eye, the dominant system prefers corporal punishments whereas in The Tempest play it privileges the mental/psychological one. Foucault believes that dominant institutions sometimes use punishment for its dramatic nature in order to intimidate people. This nature of punishment is represented and noticeable in both of our selected plays.