بررسی شیوه اعمال قدرتِ مبهم و استعاری در نمایشنامه قوی تراثرآگوست استریندبرگ (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
برخی از آثار ادبی، علیرغم ظاهر ساده و حجم کم، به قدری پر محتوا بوده و درونمایه قوی دارند که در معادلات فلسفی بزرگ ترین فیلسوفان دوره معاصر نیز می گنجند. نمایش قوی تر اثر یوهان استریندبرگ از این قاعده مستثنی نیست. هدف اصلی این مقاله پس از بازتعریف ابهام، فراتر از تعریف امپسونی و استعاره، گسترده تر از معنای دریدایی آن، با تکیه بر فرایند ناگزیر فراخواندن، فروهشتن و انتساب، کشف چگونگی اعمال قدرت نویسنده، و نقش او در خلق اثر- که خود خوانشی از دنیای پیرامون اثر است- و همچنین شیوه اعمال قدرت خواننده در درک و تفسیر متن- که خود بازنویسی اثر از دیدگاهی متفاوت است- می باشد و در این راه چهارچوبی کلی را که فوکو در بررسی قدرت و گفتمان ارائه نموده است، مبنای کار قرار می دهد. پس از یافتن ارتباط ابهام و استعاره با یکدیگر، به کشف نقش این دو در اعمال قدرت یا جلوگیری از آن و در نهایت رابطه این مفاهیم با ادبیات، خلق و خوانش این اثر ادبی پرداخته می شود. پاسخ به این سوال که ابهام و استعاره چه نقشی در تولید و اعمال قدرت یا جلوگیری از آن دارند هدف اصلی این کار پژوهشی است. در دنیای متن، همچون دنیای فرامتن، عرصه ابهام و استعاره سازی و در نتیجه میدان جنگ اراده ها، غرایز، منافع و استعاره های گوناگون و جنگ استعاره ها گاهی با روش های مسالمت آمیز به نوعی صلح یا آتش بس موقت می انجامند امّا در صورتی که چنین روش هایی به نتیجه نرسند، تنها خشونت برهنه زور می تواند استعاره ای را به نفع استعاره ای دیگر ناحق و باطل جلوه دهد. با توجه به اینکه روش تحقیق در این مقاله کیفی است، خوانش جزءبه جزء متن، گزینش برخی کلمات و اجزای تشکیل دهنده متن بر اساس رویکردی که در پیش گرفته شده است و توصیف کیفی داده ها عمده ی فعالیت ها را در پیاده کردن چهارچوب نظری تحقیق بر روی متن ادبی مورد مطالعه تشکیل می دهد.The Mechanisms of Ambiguous and Metaphorical Power Exertion in The Stronger by August Strindberg
Some literary works, despite their simple appearance and small volume, are so rich in content and have such strong symbolism that they encompass the equations of the greatest contemporary philosophers. The stronger by August Strindberg is not an exception to this rule. The main objective of this article, after redefining ambiguity, going beyond the definition of Empson and metaphor, broader than the Derridean meaning, relying on the inevitable process of inclusion, exclusion and identification, to discover how the author's power is exerted and his role in creating the work—which is itself a reading of the world surrounding the work—and also the mode of the reader's exercise of power in interpreting the text—which is a rewriting of the work from a different perspective—and in this regard, it establishes a general framework that Foucault has presented in his examination of power and discourse. After finding the connection between ambiguity and metaphor, the role of these two in exercising power or preventing it is explored, and ultimately, the relationship of these concepts with literature, the creation, and the reading of this literary work are examined. In the world of the text, similar to the world of the metatext, the arena of ambiguity and metaphorization, and consequently the field of battle of wills, instincts, interests, and various metaphors, sometimes result in a temporary peace, but if such methods do not yield results, only inevitable violence can expose one metaphor as unjust and invalid in favor of another metaphor.Extended abstract Introduction Power is not only one of the main concepts of political knowledge, but is the essence of it that sociologists are trying to distinguish it from the concepts of authority on the one hand, and force on the other hand. In its general and popular sense, power implies the ability to create a certain event, whether this ability is used or not. Furthermore “the influence or influence exerted by a person or group or any means and in the desired manner on the behavior of others” (Gould and Kolb, 1997: 457). In the view of most classical thinkers, power is always considered equivalent to government. In addition, it has characteristics such as having a political nature, being ordered and informed, hierarchical and top-down, reproducing the existing, negative and oppressive order. The writings of Michel Foucault (1926-84) on the humanities, the relations between power and subjectivity, provide a clear, different and critical perspective. According to Foucault, power is first of all productive. According to him, the most general concept through which power is produced is knowledge. Knowledge, especially the knowledge of social sciences, is strongly involved in the production of obedient minds and bodies. Power is inherently negative, limiting and restraining. “Also, Foucault rejects the hierarchical understanding of power and believes that power is not a simple concept communicated from top to bottom and ordered, but is in a network of complex relationships that flows and flows. Power is rooted in different layers of social, linguistic and it has a discourse and determines the structure of the society”. (Horrocks, 2000: 59) William Empson (1906-84) by publishing his famous work titled Seven Types of Ambiguity in 1930, breathed a new spirit in the form of ambiguity and gave a considerable depth and richness to the debates related to it. The metaphor is equally familiar. The relationship between power and metaphor in creation as well as reading and interpreting the text has been less studied and it can be said that metaphorical mechanisms have been left out of view, especially in its comprehensive and broad meaning. Research MethodConsidering that the research method in this article is qualitative, reading the text carefully, selecting some words and components of the text based on the approach that has been taken, and qualitative description of the data are the main activities in implementing the theoretical framework. The approach of this research is hybrid. In terms of language, it relies more on Derrida's foundational teachings, focuses on Foucault's point of view on power, and of course calls for help from the findings of experts such as Empson and Jacobson. The tool for data collection is a fiche, and the sources from which the required data are collected include books, magazines, and library resources in general, as well as electronic and internet databases. The data collected in this way are measured and evaluated, and after prioritization, based on the research approach and the course of discussion, are arranged and organized, and then they are analyzed in two general methods, deductive and inductive. Discussion Who is the stronger? Stronger can refer to having a physically stronger body, stronger thoughts, stronger military force, or stronger financial and economic structure. There is no absolute definition of what "stronger" means. Being stronger can also have meaning within the context of family relationships, where women may be stronger than men, and children may be stronger than women. Chaos may be stronger than order, and good may be stronger than evil. Someone who is stronger in one aspect may be weaker in other aspects, and so on However, which option Strindberg has chosen cannot be definitively determined by the audience of the play or the reader of the text, and the meaning of uncertainty in literature is precisely what falls under the title of ambiguity. More importantly, the exercise of power by the author concludes in every act of summoning and obliterating, opening the way for ambiguity, which itself becomes the grounds for the exercise of power by the audience or reader.“Metaphor is a kind of deviation from the practical and logical use of language... and contains a dense analogy or leading to the opposite, in which two dissimilar things are implicitly considered equal and similar to each other.” (Abrams 2005:163) To clarify this point, the following example is helpful. Strindberg may have invoked this option: "Ms. X is stronger" which is a metaphor in the form of "A is B" and of course it is connected to a network of other metaphors for example "he who is flexible is stronger" because Mrs. X is flexible or "the one who is married is stronger" because Mrs. X has found a safe shelter for herself by marrying Bob. It is possible that Strindberg has interpreted this option as follows: "Miss Y is stronger." This is a metaphor in the form of "A is B," which leads to a chain of interconnected metaphors in a network. For example, "Silence is stronger," because Miss Y remains silent and advances her purposes in silence, or "One who operates outside formal frameworks is stronger," as Miss Y, although unmarried to Bob, has had a profound impact on his family life, causing Mrs. Y (Bob's wife) to resemble Miss Y in many aspects to be accepted by her husband. Strindberg might have read this option as the main interpretation and disregarded the previous two options: "Bob is stronger," which, like the previous metaphors, connects to a vast network of other metaphors. For example, "Man is stronger," as Bob exploits the rivalry between Lady X and Miss Y and keeps both dependent on him, or "One who infiltrates official institutions is stronger," as Bob has significant influence in theaters and can help the women around him find jobs, thus establishing control over them. Here, the reader or audience is the one who reads and interprets. He resolves the ambiguity through his exercise of power, as he, through his own exercise of power, selects one option among the equal ones, highlights it, and relegates the others to the background. Sometimes, the reader's choice aligns with the author's intention, and sometimes these two choices diverge, creating a field of power struggle. Conclusionwhat motivates the act of inclusion, exclusion, and identification is not logic, right, legitimacy, or any internal or external laws. It is a blind will that directly feeds on illogical, extralegal, and trans-legal instincts. Any ambiguity or metaphor is caused and driven by interests, instincts, pleasures, and blind wills that exist and support specific interests, instincts, pleasures, and conflicting wills. The powerful one-act play demonstrates the effect of Strindberg by highlighting the intricate ambiguity in the process of metaphorization and the power struggle between the author and the reader over the claim of truth and the "invalidation" process. ReferencesAbrams, M. H. (2005). <em>A Glossary of Literary Terms. Eighth Edition</em>. With Contributions by Geoffrey Galt Harpham. Boston: Thomson Wadsworth.Azdanlou, H.(2005). <em>Getting to Know the Basic Concepts of Sociology</em>. Tehran: Nei. Bashiriyeh, H.(2001). <em>Political Sociology</em>. Tehran: Nei.(In Persian) Cook, J.( 2008). <em>Poetry in Theory: An Anthology 1900-2000</em>, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Davidson, D.(1978). <em>What Metaphors Mean. From On Metaphor</em>, ed. Sheldon Sacks. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Derrida, J. (1976). <em>Of Grammatology. Trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak</em>. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Dreyfus, H. Rabinau, P.(2008). <em>Michel Foucault, Metastructuralism and Hermeneutics</em>. Translated by Hossein Bashirieh, Tehran: Nei Publishing House. (In Persian) Empson, W. (2004). [1930; 1947; 1953]. <em>Seven Types of Ambiguity</em>. London: Pimlico.Eyvazi, R.(2006). <em>Divan Hafez (editing and proofreading)</em>. Tehran: Amirkabir. (In Persian) Foucault, M.(1978). <em>The History of Sexuality: An Introduction</em>. Trans. Robert Hurley. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Gould, J. L. Kolb, W.(1997). <em>Culture of the Social Sciences</em>. Translated by Mohammad Javad Zahedi Mazandarani, Tehran: Maziar Publishing House. (In Persian) Habib, M. A. R. (2008)<em>. A History of Literary Criticism and Theory: From Plato to the Present</em>. Second Edition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Jacobson, R. (2000). “The Metaphoric and Metonymic Poles” in David Lodge (ed.) Modern Criticism and Theory, New York: Longman.Jalaipour, H.R. Mohammadi, J. (2012). <em>Late Theories of Sociology</em>. Tehran: Nei. (In Persian) Johnson, B.( 2006). “<em>A world of Difference</em>” in Dorothy J. Hale (ed.) The Novel: An Anthology of Criticism and Theory 1900-2000, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Horrocks, Ch. (2000). <em>Foucault, the First Step</em>. Translated by Payam Yazdanjo Tehran: Shirazeh Publishing and Research. (In Persian) Lakoff, G. Turner, M. (1989). <em>More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor</em>. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Moein, M.(1981). <em>Farhang Farsi (Intermediate - Vol. 2)</em>. Tehran: Amir Kabir. (In Persian) Mousavi Sabet, F; Khalili Jahantigh, M. & Barani, M. (2020). “A Cognitive Metaphor of "Love in" Wish You Speak" by Mustafa Rahmandoust (Based on the Theory of George Lakoff and Mark Johnson)”. <em>Journal of Lyrical Literature Researches</em>, 18(34):203-226. doi. 10.22111/jllr.2020.5296. (In Persian) Nash, K. (2013). <em>Contemporary Political Sociology</em>. Translated by Mohammad Taghi Delfrooz, Tehran: Kavir. (In Persian) Peshawar, A.(1997). <em>Political Sociology</em>. Ahwaz: Islamic Azad University Publications. (In Persian) Rabinow, P. (ed.). (1984). <em>The Foucault Reader</em>, New York: Pantheon Books.Richards, I.A. (1936). <em>The Philosophy of Rhetoric</em>. Oxford University Press, London.Seidman, S.(2013). <em>The Struggle of Votes in Sociology. </em>Translated by Hadi Jalili, Tehran: Nei. (In Persian) Stocker, B. (2006). <em>Derrida on Deconstruction</em>. London and New York: Rutledge Taylor & Francis Group.Stones, R. (2000). <em>Great Sociological Thinkers</em>. Translated by Mehrda Mirdamadi, Tehran: Publishing Center. (In Persian) Strindberg, A.(2019). <em>The Stronger</em>. Translated by Mahsa Ganji, Tehran, Negar Taban. (In Persian) Torabi Moghadam, M. Khalifelou, S. F. (2016). “Cognitive Limitations in Metaphors”. <em>Journal of Lyrical LiteratureResearches</em>,15(29): 31-48.doi: 10.22111/jllr.2017.3961. (In Persian) .
تبلیغات
