Examining and Comparing the Function of the Focalizer of the Far-hand and the Focalizer of the Companion in Political and Critical Narratives

Focalization refers to the selection of the focal point through which people and fictional events are perceived. Based on the theory of focalization by Gerard Genette and Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan, this article examines and compares the roles of the focalizer and the accompanying focalizer in the four narratives: “Az Ranji Ke Mibarim,” “Dar Kham-e Rah,” “Tarik-khane,” and “Bad Az Zohr-e Akhar-e Paeez.” To this end, various aspects of focalization have been analyzed, including the type of focalizer and focalization, the focalized elements, the degree of continuity of focalization, time span, spatial extent, and ideological dimensions. The focalization techniques employed by this type of focalizer—including parallel and identical viewing angles, the use of variable focalization, companionship and identification with the characters, and the exploration of profound human experiences such as loneliness, poverty, and corruption—have made the works more believable and enduring. Conversely, the use of a distant and authoritarian focal point in the narratives of “Az Ranji Ke Mibarim” and “Dar Kham-e Rah” has resulted in works that are timeless and historically significant but primarily political and non-popular in content. Consequently, as political trends shift, these works and their associated ruling parties tend to be marginalized.
Introduction
Gerard Genet, the French structuralist theorist, classified and explained the main elements of narrative in his book “Narrative Discourse.” One of Genet's most significant contributions to the field of narration is the concept of focalization. According to Tolan's definition, focalization is a term coined by Genet to describe the inevitable choice and limitation of perspective within a narrative. This perspective represents the angle of vision through which events are indirectly seen, felt, understood, and evaluated by the observer. Focalization is notable because it emphasizes the "double-sidedness" of narrative: by focusing on a particular subject in specific ways, it not only reveals that subject but also exposes the ideology and viewpoint through which the subject is perceived.
Also pays attention to, or at least attempts to address, this distinction. Genet was the first to differentiate between seeing and telling, thereby contrasting the two concepts of "narrator" and "focalizer." By highlighting this distinction, he aimed to prevent the common confusion between the terms "narrative mode" and "narrative voice," the former referring to focalization and the latter to narration. At the narrative level, the narrator or narrative voice conveys everything about the characters, situations, and events. Of course, in addition to recounting the events, the narrator can also serve as a viewer of the story’s world. In this case, the narrator and the focalizer coincide, making it impossible to distinguish between the levels of narration and focalization. The four short stories: “Darreh Khazan-zadeh,” “Dar Khem-e Rah,” “Tarikkhane,” and “Bad az Zohr-e Akhar-e Paeez” written by Jalal Al Ahmad, Ebrahim Golestan, Sadegh Hedayat, and Sadegh Chobak, respectively, are examined in this research based on focal theory.
Materials and Methods
The present research seeks to answer these questions:                        
1- How did each of the authors of the studied political narratives and critical narratives use the aspects of focalization, focalization, and accompanying focalization in order to convey their ideology?         
2-In using a hand-held focuser or a mobile focuser, which one seems more efficient in conveying ideology and influencing the audience?                                                                                              
First, the four selected narratives are divided into political and critical categories based on whether their authors are affiliated with party activities. “Darreh Khazan-zadeh,” and “Dar Khem-e Rah,” which were produced under the commission of the Tudeh Party and aligned with party commitments, are classified as political narratives. “Tarikkhane” and “Bad az Zohr-e Akhar-e Paeez” written independently and detached from party politics, are categorized as critical narratives. Each narrative is then examined through various aspects of focalization theory and compared with the others to analyze the role of focalizers as the implicit authors within the narratives, as well as the methods of focalization and the reflection of ideology in the texts.
The common denominator of all the narratives is that they were written during the years when the Tudeh Party was active in the political and literary spheres of Iran, reflecting a discourse of resistance against domination. The theoretical foundation of this research is based on the theory of focalization by Gerard Genet and Raymond Kanan, encompassing various aspects of focalization: the focalizer, the focalized, the degree of continuity of focalization, and the perceptual aspects of focalization, including time span (order, delay, frequency), spatial extent, and the ideological dimension of focalization.
Results and Discussion

In political narratives, Faradast, as the focalizer and implicit author, places greater emphasis on his party commitments. In contrast, in critical narratives, the centralist focuses more on themes of populism and philanthropy.
In the party texts, the author-central-organizer draws the power relations only in the form of confrontation between the government and political fighters or lord and serf; However, the contrast in question is the focal point in critical narratives, ideological contrasts, including religious and belief, or the contrast between the individual and the society.
In political texts, Faradast's focus centers on mythologizing and depicting the pioneering struggles of working-class heroes, sometimes elevating their stories to the level of epic narratives. In contrast, critical narratives concentrate on portraying static and passive characters, highlighting the poverty, corruption, prostitution, and disorder faced by the middle and lower classes of the newly urbanized society.
Although ideology encompasses all the effects of legitimizing the struggle against domination, Faradat's centralizer views the revolutionary movement as a liberating force against the system of domination. In contrast, the centralizer of Companionship sees it as a reassessment of power relations and the proper application of ruling ideologies, serving as a reminder to society.

Conclusion
The research results indicate that the authors of the political narratives tend to use only the focalizer and its focalization possibilities, while the critical authors primarily employ the focalizer. In response to the first research question, it can be stated that the use of a trans-narrative focalizer in political narratives involves aspects such as internal and intervening focalization, the use of a fixed and singular focal point, and occupying a trans-narrative position that is fixed and detached from the narrative world. This perspective is accompanied by a vertical viewpoint, rapid pacing, and representation of a limited spatial area, along with close retrospectives. These narratives focus predominantly on purely political and party-related aspects, aiming to convey the ideology of the ruling party.
Although the critical authors have employed both the omniscient focalizer and internal focalization, the omniscient focalizer is neither authoritarian nor absolutely dominant in either of the two narratives studied. The use of variable and multiple focalizations, attention to both popular and critical aspects of the works, and engagement with profound and universal human suffering—all approached through a parallel and empathetic perspective that stands alongside the characters and depicts human suffering—have resulted in relatively more tangible, enduring, and accessible works. These characters, static and exploited within invisible networks of power, are portrayed with greater depth and resonance.