تحلیل فاصلۀ قدرت مبتنی بر نظریۀ ابعاد فرهنگی هافستِد و کاربست آن در اختلافات بنی هاشم و بنی امیه (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
یکی از ابعاد پنهان اختلافات بنی هاشم و امویان، تفاوت نگرش این دو دودمان به جزئیات قدرت، ازجمله «فاصله قدرت» است. فاصله قدرت که بسیار مورد توجه انسان شناسان است، توزیع و انباشت قدرت سیاسی، روابط بین مردم و صاحبان قدرت را واکاوی می کند. نظریه ابعاد فرهنگی «هافستِد»، همین مؤلفه را یکی از شش محور تفاوت فرهنگی جوامع برشمرده است. مقاله حاضر با تأکید بر مسئله فاصله قدرت، گزاره های تاریخی از رفتار قدرتمندان دو خاندان قریش را بررسی می کند و تحلیلی را از نقش دیدگاه غالب در هریک از این دو دودمان در اختلافات آنان، ارائه می دهد. براساس این پژوهش، شوق به فره مند دیده شدن، تأکید بر نمایش قدرت، قوم گرایی، تلاش برای حفظ برتری اقتصادی، گشاده دستی های نامتعارف و هدفمند و نگاه بهره جویانه به دیگران واموال عمومی، مواردی است که نشان می دهد بنی امیه به فاصله زیاد قدرت اعتقاد داشتند. در آن سو، ساده زیستی، نگاه نجیبانه به دیگران و اموال عمومی، فروتنی، نیکی به فرودستان و پرهیز از قبیله محوری، از شواهدی است که تأکید بنی هاشم بر فاصله کم قدرت را نشان می دهد. بر این اساس، باید گفت که تفاوت دیدگاه درباره فاصله قدرت، منشأ اصلی تفاوت نگرش دو خاندان امیه و هاشم به اقتصاد، جامعه و سیاست بوده است.Power Distance Analysis Based on Hofstede's Theory of Cultural Dimensions and Its Application in the Disputes between Bani Hashim and Bani Umayyad
One of the hidden aspects of the differences between Bani Hashem and the Umayyads is the difference in the attitude of these two dynasties to the details of power, including the ‘distance of power’. Power distance, which is of interest to anthropologists, analyzes the distribution and accumulation of political power and the relationship between people and those in power. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory has listed this component as one of the six axes of the cultural difference of societies. Emphasizing the issue of power distance, the present study examines historical statements about the behavior of the power of the two Quraysh dynasties and presents an analysis of the role of the dominant viewpoint in each of these two dynasties. According to this research, the desire to be seen as generous, the emphasis on the display of power, ethnocentrism, trying to maintain economic superiority, unconventional and purposeful generosity, and the utilitarian view of others and public property, are the issues that show that Bani Umayyah believed in a great power distance. On the other hand, simple living, a noble view of others and public property, humility, kindness to subordinates, and avoiding tribalism are some of the evidence that show Bani Hashem's emphasis on low power distance. Based on this, it should be said that the difference of opinion about the power distance was the main source of the difference in the attitude of the Umayyad and Hashem families towards the economy, society, and politics.Keywords: Bani Hashem, Umayyads, Power Distance, Wealth, Hofstede.IntroductionOne of the important points of difference between Bani Umayyah and Bani Hashem is the difference in the attitude of these two families toward power, wealth, and social status. Although many researchers have only considered power as the focus of the parties' enmity, it seems that wealth and social status also play a fundamental role in the emergence of this enmity.Regarding power, so far, most attention has been paid to the fact that Umayyad in order to take power from Hashim Ibn Abd Manaf, ignited the fire of hostility that reached its peak in the three battles of Badr, Seffin, and Karbala. The fire that remained burning after that and according to traditions will continue until the Day of Judgment, but no one has paid attention to the fact that the ‘distance of power’ is the most fundamental origin of the difference in the views of these two dynasties on the issue of power.According to the history writers, Amr (the son of Abdemanaf), who was known as Amr al-oula due to his greatness in behavior during the famine, ordered a camel to be sacrificed and bread to be baked. Since he ordered to feed his people, He ordered bread to be crushed in broth and became known as ‘Hashem’. This behavior and other social actions of Hashem always provoked the criticism of Umayya, because he believed in unwritten rules in the relations between elders and ordinary people. These issues, which existed in many ancient societies before the rise of Quraysh, were named centuries later by Gerard Hendrick Hofstede as indicators of power distance. He believed that the difference between cultures can be found in indicators such as patriarchy-feminism, individualism-collectivism, and power distance.Power distance is one of the main criteria for recognizing the difference in the culture of organizations, which can also indicate the cultural difference of societies. According to Hofstede, power distance refers to the extent to which a society accepts that power is unequally distributed and given to a few people.The present study aims to investigate the difference between low and high power in the behavior and speech of Umayyads and Hashemites, which is expressed in Hofstede's theory, using historical propositions, and based on these differences, reread the differences between the two dynasties.Materials and MethodsIn this study, the mentioned subject was examined by using library sources and an analytical-descriptive method through referring to various sources, especially historical reports and hadith books.Research FindingsThis study shows that one of the influential factors in the difference between Bani Umayyah and Bani Hashem is related to the perspective of these two groups on the issue of power distance. The Hashemites believed in the minimum distance between the people in power and the people, but the Umayyads believed in the large distance between the powerful and the general public as a strategy for the survival of the government.The words and historical quotes related to prominent people of these two dynasties clearly show the difference in the mentioned point of view. From a minimal perspective, ‘commitment’ and ‘ability’ are the two main criteria for being in the body of power, and in this context, kinship and friendship do not have a very effective place. Also, being in the pyramid of power is not beneficial. Those in power also do not want to show their power. Opening the arena for the participation of non-Hashemites in executive affairs, a noble view of the treasury and observing the aspects of caution in its use, simplicity, humility, and creating the opportunity to express criticism were the results of the dominance of this view in Bani Hashem.On the opposite point, in the distance of maximum power, it was the rich who have a distinct position in the power pyramid, and relatives and circle of friends have priority to be in the body of power. In addition, the officials are interested in being seen widely, being in the power system brings significant benefits for them. Efforts to maintain economic superiority, extravagance and biased exploitation of the treasury, ethnocentrism of power, luxury, assembly, and aristocracy are the manifestations of the dominance of this view on the Umayyad dynasty.Discussion of Results and ConclusionConsidering the results of the study, the difference in the attitude of Bani Umayyah and Bani Hashem towards other social, political, and economic issues also originates from the difference of opinion about the power distance. In other words, the difference of opinion about the power distance was the source of the difference in the attitude of the Umayyad and Hashem families towards the economy, society, and politics. Therefore, the ‘distance of power’ should be considered as the basis of the enmity between the Umayyads and the Hashemites. Power distance is an element that has not been given much attention in the ancient analysis of the hostility between these two dynasties.
تبلیغات
