Iranian Journal of Sociology

Abstract “Conflict" is seen as the essence of the employee -employer relationship in all conventional discourses as dialectic of polar and Hegelian type, where conflict is essentially transformed into contradiction. However, Simmel and Gurvitch attention and understanding of dialectic can bring about fundamental changes in the relationship between employee and employers. The discovery, recognition, and examination of the existing backgrounds and issues and their role in the worker-employer relationship are among the objectives of this research. The research was conducted using an inductive fieldwork strategy with a grounded theory approach. Non-formal observation tools were employed, and the researcher participated fully. Formal and informal interview techniques were also used, and discourse analysis and situational analysis were employed in data analysis. The results demonstrate that understanding roles in the relationship between employee and employers and overcoming the contradictory view of each party can lead to confusion between employee and employers. In other words, the emergence of a multidimensional dialectic instead of a unidimensional or polar dialectic recognizes contradictions and differences, and understanding it can distance oneself from the strategy of constant struggle and replace it with a strategy of negotiation. This strategy can facilitate the interests and demands of both groups.
 
Conflict of interest: According to the authors, the article did not have any conflict of interest.
 

Abstract By an anthological critic, this study attempts to emancipate the other from the dominance of the subject (dominant religious discourse); however, the goal is not to reverse such a relation. But the main objective of this study is to show the fundamental relation between the subject and the other. The concepts which have been born out of theoretical articulation (Burger, Bakhtin, Ranciere) are based on the relation between the subject and the other. By this standpoint, the other is not an object among the plurality of cognition objects to be grasped by the subject. The other, in fact, possesses its subjectivity (cognitive subject), which is lost in every moment due to the mediation of special social, historical, political, and cultural conditions. The question is: What is the relationship between religious pluralism and the intertextuality? In other words, what is the relationship between religious tolerance and I in a social context? By examining research literature, we attempted to identify the relation of the other with the subject regarding the dialectic of tolerance and negation.  Following that, we extracted a theoretical-conceptual model to provide the possibility of revealing the complexities of descriptions and analysis. Based on Berger's theory of religion, the subjects obtain a partial autonomy (against the heteronomy of classic standpoint). Therefore, with the help of a marketing religion, the subjects can look for their favorite goods. Through the mediate of this autonomy of subjects (Kantian cognitive subject), the encounter of subjects with the other is not of a one-sided and authoritarian one. Also, this encounter which is replete with dialogue and dialogism (Bakhtinian Dialogue), places the subject among different meanings and signs. These meanings invite the subject to construct logical articulations from the phenomena which rise up against the subject in the market of religion. The hierarchies that reconstruct the other as an object which lacks consciousness get deconstructed, and the other, as a subject, gets liable to cognition of plural objects (Rancerian Politics) which will, in turn, be supplied in this market.