Organisation für islamische Kultur und Beziehungen Spektrum Iran 0934-358X Artikel in der Presse 2026 06 13 The Body Politic Under the Knife: A Critical Evaluation of Medical–Political Metaphors in Iranian Political Discourse The Body Politic Under the Knife: A Critical Evaluation of Medical–Political Metaphors in Iranian Political Discourse 245447 10.22034/spektrum.2026.574837.1062 DE Mohsen Karami Faculty of Religion and Media, IRIB University 0000-0003-3669-1029 Journal Article 2026 02 09 Political metaphors are not merely rhetorical devices but cognitive instruments that shape perception, structure judgment, and guide collective action. Among them, medical–political metaphors are particularly influential, as they draw on culturally authoritative notions of health, disease, diagnosis, and treatment to interpret political realities. This article offers a philosophical analysis of the epistemic, ethical, and socio-political implications of such metaphors. Drawing on Conceptual Metaphor Theory, Critical Discourse Analysis, discourse ethics, and theories of epistemic injustice, it argues that medicalized political language functions not only descriptively but also as a mechanism that reorganizes political understanding through biologically grounded schemas. The analysis proceeds in three stages. First, it reconstructs the conceptual structure of five recurrent medical–political metaphors, showing how political actors, institutions, and conflicts are mapped onto medical categories such as pathology, infection, surgery, and cancer. Second, it examines their epistemic consequences, arguing that these metaphors simplify political phenomena, produce category mistakes, obscure agency and structural causality, narrow interpretive possibilities, encourage affective shortcuts in reasoning, and improperly transfer the authority of scientific discourse into domains of normative and political contestation. Third, it explores their ethical and political consequences, showing how they may contribute to dehumanization, weaken mutual recognition, enable epistemic injustice, legitimize exclusionary practices, and reshape political culture by normalizing antagonistic identities and exceptional forms of governance. The article concludes that medical–political metaphors are not neutral tools of political communication. By framing political disagreement as pathology, they reshape the epistemic and moral conditions under which democratic judgment, public deliberation, and political pluralism operate. Their significance lies not only in the meanings they convey but also in the forms of political reality they render intelligible and governable. A critical examination of these metaphors is therefore essential for understanding the relationship between language, power, and democratic life. Political metaphors are not merely rhetorical devices but cognitive instruments that shape perception, structure judgment, and guide collective action. Among them, medical–political metaphors are particularly influential, as they draw on culturally authoritative notions of health, disease, diagnosis, and treatment to interpret political realities. This article offers a philosophical analysis of the epistemic, ethical, and socio-political implications of such metaphors. Drawing on Conceptual Metaphor Theory, Critical Discourse Analysis, discourse ethics, and theories of epistemic injustice, it argues that medicalized political language functions not only descriptively but also as a mechanism that reorganizes political understanding through biologically grounded schemas. The analysis proceeds in three stages. First, it reconstructs the conceptual structure of five recurrent medical–political metaphors, showing how political actors, institutions, and conflicts are mapped onto medical categories such as pathology, infection, surgery, and cancer. Second, it examines their epistemic consequences, arguing that these metaphors simplify political phenomena, produce category mistakes, obscure agency and structural causality, narrow interpretive possibilities, encourage affective shortcuts in reasoning, and improperly transfer the authority of scientific discourse into domains of normative and political contestation. Third, it explores their ethical and political consequences, showing how they may contribute to dehumanization, weaken mutual recognition, enable epistemic injustice, legitimize exclusionary practices, and reshape political culture by normalizing antagonistic identities and exceptional forms of governance. The article concludes that medical–political metaphors are not neutral tools of political communication. By framing political disagreement as pathology, they reshape the epistemic and moral conditions under which democratic judgment, public deliberation, and political pluralism operate. Their significance lies not only in the meanings they convey but also in the forms of political reality they render intelligible and governable. A critical examination of these metaphors is therefore essential for understanding the relationship between language, power, and democratic life.