دیالکتیک صمیمیت و احترام در یک گفت وگوی تلویزیونی (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
پژوهش حاضر به بررسی مفهوم وجهه به معنای پیوند و جدایی رابطه ای در فرهنگ ایرانی مطابق با نظریه ساخت وجهه می پردازد و ابتدا استدلال می کند که تفسیر و تأویل مفهوم نظری وجهه به معنای پیوند و جدایی رابطه ای در فرهنگ ایرانی، به ترتیب، عبارت است از دو مفهوم صمیمیت و احترام. سپس، نحوه ساخت وجهه به معنای دیالکتیک صمیمیت/پیوند و احترام/جدایی در بخش هایی از گفت وگوی بین مجری و مهمان در برنامه دورهمی بررسی و نشان داده می شود که چگونه دیالکتیک صمیمیت/پیوند و احترام/جدایی با استفاده از ابزارهای زبانی و غیرزبانی مثل نحوه به کارگیری شیوه های خطابِ مفرد و جمع یا ترکیبی، تعارفات مرسوم، ادات تکریم، مکث ها، طول نوبت، جهت نگاه، و جز آن ساخته می شود. افراد در هر لحظه از تعامل با توجه به تفسیری که در آن لحظه از رابطه خود با دیگری دارند با به کارگیری ابزارهای مختلف زبانی و غیرزبانی رابطه صمیمیت و احترام را مشترکاً و به شکلی پویا برمی سازند. این پویایی رابطه را نمی توان با فهرست راهبردهای حفظ وجهه سلبی و ایجابی، آن چنان که در نظریه براون و لوینسن معمول است، نشان داد.Dialectics of Samimiat (‘cordiality’) and Ehterām (‘respect’) in a Television Talk
Abstract
The paper investigates the concept of face in the sense of relational connection and separation in Iranian culture in the light of Face-Constituting Theory. It is first argued that the culture-specific, folk understanding of connection and separation is conceptualized in samimiat (‘cordiality’, ‘friendliness’) and ehterām (‘respect’, ‘deference’). Then, extracts drived from a reality show conversation are analyzed to demonstrate how connection/samimiat and separation/ehterām are conjointly co-constituted by the host and the guest at the moment of interaction. Findings suggest that this is mainly achieved through dynamic use of various resources such as ta’ārof rituals, address forms, honorifics, disclaimers, turn size, pauses, and gaze direction. This dynamicity cannot be captured by simply enumerating a list of positive and negative face strategies as in Brown and Levinson’s model.
Keywords: Face-Constituting Theory, Face, Connection, Separation, Samimiat (‘Cordiality’), Ehterām (‘Respect’)
Introduction
In every social interaction, people (re-)create an image of self that is technically known as ‘face’ (Goffman, 1967; Brown and Levinson, 1987; Arundale, 2009, 2010, 2013, 2020). Goffman (1967, p.5) defines face as “the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact.” The very conceptualization of face has been shown to be in line with the Persian concept of āberu (‘reputation, lit. ‘water-of-face’) in Iranian culture (Hosseini, 2022) and covers concepts and behaviors much wider than what can be observed in a face-to-face conversation (Izadi, 2023). Brown and Levinson (1987, p. 61) define face as “the public self-image that every [competent] member [of society] wants to claim for himself”. So defined, face is claimed to be consisting of two aspects, namely ‘positive face’, delineated as “the positive consistent self-image or ‘personality’” and an individual’s desire for this image to be respected, and ‘negative face’ defined as the right of an individual featured with the “freedom of action and freedom from imposition” (Brown and Levinson, 1987, p. 61). Although this definition has largely been questioned for being inconsistent with the collectivist East Asian and African cultures and, inter alia, conflating face and politeness, the major bulk of the research on Persian im/politeness does not take a critical stance in adopting Brown and Levinson’s model (as their theoretical-analytical framework). (See for example, the papers in Abolhasani-Chime and Mahmoodi Bakhtiari, 2017)
In his Face-Constituting Theory (FCT), Arundale (2009, 2010, 2013, 2020) takes a different approach to face and defines it as “constituting in talk and conduct of both connection with other persons, in on-going, dialectic tension with separation from them” (Arundale, 2013, p. 109). In this theory, face is not considered as an individual’s possession, but it is taken to be an individual's understanding of his/her connectedness with and separateness from other individuals at the moment of interaction. It is interactionally achieved in communication. In other words, face is effectively constituted during routine social interactions where parties collaborate to create conversational turns, actions, and interpretations. The dynamic interplay between interpersonal connection and separation constitutes the fundamental dialectic of human relational experiences. Such a dynamicity is, likewise, a theoretical, culture-general understanding of face. According to Arundale (2013), the basic dialectical relation between connectedness and separateness finds its culture-specific interpretations through the ongoing interactions of individuals in each culture and community of practice. Arundale (2013) believes that the first step in understanding how face is constituted in conversation is to investigate how each group interprets connectedness to and separation from others. Drawing on FCT, the present study first argues that the culture-specific understanding of relational connectedness and separation, already termed ‘bonding’ and ‘differentiation’ (Izadi, 2015, 2017), is conceptualized in the two folk terms samimiat (‘cordiality’, ‘friendliness’, ‘intimacy’) and ehterām (‘respect’, ‘deference’). Next, analyzing extracts from a conversation between the host and the guest in a reality TV talk show, the present study demonstrates how face as relational connection/samimiat and separation/ehterām is dynamically co-constituted through ongoing talk-in-interaction.
Materials and Method
To support the claim of the paper, firstly, we will describe the etymological and semantic features of the terms ‘samimiat’ and ‘ehterām’. Then, we will be concerned with reviewing and reinterpreting previous research findings on connection-separation dialectics. Next, we will embark upon analyzing some excerpts derived from one of the episodes of a talk show named Dorehami (‘get-together’), broadcast on national Iranian TV over a period of 4 years. The data set consists of a conversation between Mehran Modiri, the host, and his guest, Reza Rashidpour, another TV and radio host and presenter. The data are analyzed for any features that contribute to the relational connection and separation between the interlocuters. More specifically, conversations have been examined for the use of honorifics, address terms, ta’ārof conventions, word choice, turn size, and pauses to scrutinize how they constitute to practicing both ehterām and samimiat in the on-going talk.
Discussion of Results & Conclusion
The idea that samimiat and ehterām constitute the culture-specific construal of relational connection and separation was formed based on Hosseini (2019). He reports that his research participants were asked to comment on the appropriateness of the hosts’ behavior in eight extracts from two television talk shows where potentially evaluative moments had formed (see Watts, 2003). In Hosseini’s (2019) data, samimiat and ehterām and their synonyms were found to be the most frequent terms in the comments, suggesting that these terms play a key role in folk understandings of interpersonal relations in the Iranian culture.
Etymologically, ehterām is derived from the Arabic triconsonantal root ‘h-r-m’ and is related to haram, harām, harim and hormat which are also common in Persian. Haram is defined as “any place that is highly respectable and not everyone is allowed to enter” (Anvari, 2002, p. 2503). Harim is “the territory of something sacred that is revered and trespassing it would be inappropriate” (Sadri Afshar et. al., 2002, p. 496). Harām means “banned or forbidden [for ethical or religious reasons]” and hormat is, to some extent, synonymous with ehterām and means ‘the quality of being forbidden’. As a result, ehterām can be understood as a kind of distance, curtain, or a distinction that separates people. This interpretation is in line with previous findings on ehterām (see below). Samimiat is a derivation from Arabic samim which etymologically means “the pure or main part of something located at its core which is not besmirched by anything” (Sadri Afshar et. al., 2002, p. 862). Samimi, as an adjective, is defined as “the quality of a relationship or behavior characterized by honesty, kindness and purity of friendliness” (Anvari, 2002). Samimiat, as a noun, is defined as “empathy and kindliness” (Sadri Afshar, et al. 2002). These descriptions indicate that samimiat, similar to connection in FCT, is a quality of the relationship and not a possession of the individual. The association of samimiat with “empathy”, “kindliness” and “friendliness” further suggests that it is related to “connectedness in a relationship”.
Moreover, samimiat and ehterām have always been present in the Iranian studies on interpersonal relations, especially on politeness and face, but not together as a pair. Beeman (1986, p. 27) argues that the three key principles in Iranian interpersonal relations are ta’ārof (‘ritual politeness’), samimiat (‘cordiality’, ‘friendliness’) and zerangi (‘cleverness’, ‘wiliness’). Samimiat is defined by him as the ethics of “communality”, “friendliness” and “absolute reciprocity” (Beeman, 1986, p. 40) and “ties of intimacy” (p. 140). Koutlaki, (2009, p. 120) sees the cordiality principle as one of the three principles of politeness in Persian (the other two being deference and humility principles), explicating it as “show[ing] interest in other’s affairs, concern for other’s needs, comfort and welfare; express[ing] your agreement, sympathy with and friendliness towards other”. Although in the latter the word samimiat has not been explicitly addressed, the conceptualizations reminisce its function in Persian.
Koutlaki (2002, P. 1742) defines ehterām as indexing one’s status in the hierarchy of social relationships. She believes that “[e]hterām … establishes the positions and statuses of the interactants with respect to one another and is shown through the adherence to the established norms of behaviour according to the addressee’s position, age, status and interlocutors’ relationship.” In the same vein, Izadi (2015, p. 85) also asserts that “ehterām highlights the distance (to whatever degree) between the individuals, hence hampering their total unity. In other words, every time two interactants use honorifics to pay ehterām to each other, they co-construct a degree of distance by not encroaching on each other’s territory of individuality and at times by recognizing each other’s social status.”
Moreover, the existence of collocations like “samimi va/ammā mohtaramāneh”, (‘friendly/cordial and/but respectful’) and “mohtaramāneh ammā na chandān samimi” (‘respectful but not very friendly/cordial’) and the absence of “samimi ammā/va nāmohtaramāneh” (‘friendly/cordial and/but disrespectful’) further suggest that samimiat and ehterām are intertwined and the existence of one does not negate the other, but one implies the other: there is no samimiat/connection without ehterām/separation and no ehterām/separation is possible without a degree of samimiat/connection.
Thus said, we argue that the bonding and differentiation that Izadi (2015, 2017) postulates as Iranian construal of connection and separation, is better captured in the folk terms samimiat and ehterām, respectively. Ehterām consists in indexing one’s horizontal or hierarchical distance from another individual and constitutes degrees of separation. Samimiat, however, involves using language that highlights one’s closeness, friendliness, and cordiality with one’s interlocuter.
The rest of the paper illustrates how face as relational connection/samimiat and separation/ehterām is conjointly co-constituted in conversations from a reality TV show between the host and the guest. The interactants dynamically use the various resources available in the Persian language and culture, especially ta’ārof conventions, honorifics, address forms, disclaimers, turn size, pauses and gaze direction to construct different degrees of samimiat and ehterām depending on their goals and purposes at each moment of the conversation.
It is concluded that in an on-going interaction, face, defined as connection with and separation from another, can be captured in Iranian culture in the folk terms samimiat and ehterām. It is constituted in the ongoing moment of interaction with a variety of verbal and non-verbal resources dynamically employed to co-construct relationships at the moment of interaction. The paper also demonstrates that focusing simply on Brown and Levinson’s strategies for saving positive and negative face cannot capture the dynamicity of face constitution in interaction.
تبلیغات
