پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 162 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 6,692 |
| تعداد مقالات | 72,232 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 129,191,963 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 102,023,081 |
فهم بنیان‌های «اُدیپی» سیاست: الهیات سیاسی یا الهیات فرهنگی؟ | ||
| فصلنامه سیاست | ||
| دوره 55، شماره 1، فروردین 1404، صفحه 152-125 اصل مقاله (508.44 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jpq.2025.384565.1008233 | ||
| نویسنده | ||
| محمد عبداله پور چناری* | ||
| استادیار، علوم سیاسی، دانشکده حقوق و الهیات، دانشگاه شهید باهنر کرمان، کرمان، ایران. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| هدف این مقاله، فهمِ سیاست از طریق عقده پدرکشی است. پیش‌فرض سیاست در دوره مدرن، از هابز تا اشمیت، رویکردی الهیاتی مبنی بر ایده «خدا» بود و با ایجاد تشابه ساختاری میان مفاهیم حاکم و خدا، برای حاکمیت حق مرگ و زندگی قائل بودند. در مقابل، این پژوهش بر آن است که با حفظ مفهوم خدا، ولی با گنجاندن ایده ادیپ، می‌توان تحولی در تحلیل و فهم الهیات سیاسی ایجاد کرد. به‌خصوص زمانی‌که سیاست را بر حسب ایده پدرکشی تحلیل کنیم. عقده ادیپ فرویدی بر این فرض است که «حق» مرگ و زندگی را باید در «رانه‌های» اعضای اجتماع جست. چون پدیده مرگ «امری درونی» و مرتبط با سائقه‌هاست. در ثانی، خاستگاه آن به واپس‌زنی «روانی-فرهنگی» سائقه‌های افراد برمی‌گردد. در این مناسبات میل به کشتن به سه صورت پدیدار می‌شود: صورت اول «پدر-والد» است، یعنی پدر، رقیب میل جنسی پسر و مانعی بزرگ برای آرزوها و امیال اوست. واپس‌زنی امیال توسط پدر، اسبابی برای قتل‌اش را فراهم می‌آورد. صورت دوم پدر، یعنی «پدر-خدا» در محیط فرهنگی اجتماع می‌باشد که کودک به دلیل حس درماندگی به پدری قادر و مطلق پناهنده می‌شود، هنگامی‌که خود را با او همسان می‌انگارد، همزمان او را به‌عنوان مانع فرهنگی قلمداد می‌کند و در ذهنش به شکل نمادین دست به قتل می‌زند. صورت سوم، پدر در نزد پسر در مناسبات سیاسی به شکل «پدر-شاه» بازنمایی می‌شود. وضع قانون و نظم از سوی حاکم، برای واپس‌زنی امیال کودک در حیطه عمومی و اسبابی برای قتلش از سوی کودک است. درواکنش بدان، رانه کودک از نیروگذاری روی ابژه جنسی صرف‌نظر می‌کند و معطوف به بدن خویش می‌شود تا از این طریق نهاد اید به تعادل برسد و اضطراب‌های سیاسی خود را تسکین بخشد. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| الهیات سیاسی؛ الهیات فرهنگی؛ پدرکشی؛ عقدة اُدیپ و عقده اختگی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Understanding the “Oedipal” Foundations of the Political:Political Theology or Cultural Theology? | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Mohammad Abdolahpour Chenari | ||
| Assistant Professor, Faculty Member, Department of Political Science, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Introduction In modern political discourse, from Hobbes to Schmitt, the underlying premise has often rested on the theological concept of “God.” Thomas Hobbes, in his seminal work *Leviathan*, articulates the authority of the ruler by asserting that “the natural right of God to rule over men and to punish them for breaking the laws... does not arise from the need for obedience and gratitude of men for the benefit of his creation, but that right must be considered the result of the irresistible power of God” (Hobbes, 2005: 317). This assertion establishes that the ruler’s authority is fundamentally rooted in a theological understanding of God’s omnipotence, rendering the ruler’s power indestructible by divine supremacy. Carl Schmitt, in his twentieth-century reflection on Hobbesian thought in *Political Theology*, further elaborates on this idea, famously stating, “The ruler decides on exceptions... The concept that has become commonplace is theological, that is, the transfer of these concepts from theology to the theory of the state, through which, for example, omnipotence has emerged in the form of an absolute legislator” (Schmitt, 2015: 29 and 61). The commonalities in the propositions presented by both thinkers encapsulate several foundational assumptions. Firstly, political theology inherently implicates the notion of sovereignty. Secondly, there exists a “structural/formal similarity” between legal and theological constructs, such as the parallels drawn between the divine order and societal organization, as well as between the ruler and God (Taubs, 1399). Thirdly, both perspectives delineate an antagonistic distinction between friend and enemy within theological and political domains (Schmidt, 1393b: 35). Fourthly, the framework of political theology is predicated upon an intrinsic faith in obedience (Mayer, 1393: 193). Lastly, the theological-type ruler possesses the ultimate right to life and death over subjects, grounded in the assertion that “the omnipotence of the state... is a kind of omnipotence of God” (Schmidt, 1393b: 45), thus framing political authority as a derivative of the theological conception of divinity. Conversely, the twentieth century witnessed efforts to extricate the concept of God from political thought, endeavoring to divest it of its theological dimensions. Notably, Hans Kelsen, in his article “the Concept of the State and Social Psychology with Special Reference to Freud” (Kelsen, 1924) sought to reconceptualize the state through the lens of Freudian mass psychology, positing a connection between the empirical realities of statecraft and its intrinsic nature. This analytical approach signifies a paradigm shift where a scientific worldview supplants the theological framework governing political relationships. In his later works, such as “The Form of the State and the Worldview” (Kelsen, 1973b) and “God and the State” (Kelsen, 1973a), Kelsen further elaborates on the absence of the divine image in the realm of politics, rendering the omnipotent ruler as a mere observer. Through Kelsen's transformation of theological concepts into a form of “natural theology,” he illustrates how scientific rationality undermines the structural analogies between legal and theological ideations, effectively obscuring the notion of God from political discourse. In this transitional framework, the “transcendental” ruler—initially endowed with the right to determine life and death within society—emerges as an “internally permanent” power, stripped of the transcendental authority once attributed to it (Kelsen, 20007: 527). Consequently, the law is reduced to an “absolute command,” devoid of intrinsic values and emotions, and is recast solely as a construct of human reason (Kant, 1381: 40-44). As a result, the traditional understanding of the law, grounded in fundamental order (*Recht*), is replaced by a legal system defined by mere rules (*Gesetz*). This shift signifies a profound transformation in the relationship between theology and politics, reflecting the broader secularization of political discourse in the modern era. Method In Hans Kelsen's reductionist view, while certain elements of Freud's mass theory were acknowledged, much of his thought was overlooked, particularly regarding the father-child relationship and the role of instincts. Furthermore, the omission of God's name in Kelsen's theology suggests a cosmological perspective that excludes “God as an alien” (Tillich, 1997: 18) from the state. However, this alienation of the state from God can be reconsidered by adopting an ontological approach inspired by Paul Tillich's cultural theology. Such a reexamination emphasizes the significance of the father-son relationship and the interplay of libido and ego instincts in analyzing the patricidal drive in politics, particularly within fantasy contexts. This approach opens new avenues for understanding the concept of sovereignty in political theology and addresses a fundamental question: Does political collapse stem from theological factors or cultural-psychological dynamics? Furthermore, what are the underlying foundations of this collapse? Generally, this article aims to explore an alternative path by reintegrating the idea of the father into political discourse and addressing the aforementioned fundamental issue. A cultural-psychological approach will be employed to tackle this topic by drawing on the insights of Tillich and Freud. Consequently, the discussion will examine whether patricide is fundamentally a psychological or legal issue. Additionally, three aspects of the father figure, God, and the king, will be analyzed. In conclusion, a summary of findings and references will be provided. Results The findings suggest that analyzing politics through the lens of paternal figures—specifically concepts such as the Oedipus complex and the notion of castration, ideas not commonly explored in political analyses—reveals significant insights. When considering figures like Hans Kelsen, it becomes evident that this perspective is largely shaped by the masses’ identification with political rulers. By retaining the idea of “God” as central to politics, we can more effectively understand the metaphorical “murder” of the three fantasies of the father: the father as parent, the father as God, and the father as king. The first observation is that within the home environment, a child's initial fantasy regarding the political ruler closely mirrors their perception of the father as the parent. This recognition forms the foundation for the child's earliest political feelings toward the father, particularly the notion of “patricide,” as the father is perceived as an obstacle to the child's sexual desires. The second observation suggests that as the child matures, they encounter the concept of God in their cultural surroundings. While named God, this figure reflects their understanding of the father from the home environment. Here, God embodies a fantasy of the father, imposing taboos and limitations on desires through commandments and prohibitions, prompting the child to mentally “overcome” this figure as well. Lastly, as the political ruler, the father seeks to restrict the child's desires and aspirations through societal laws, positioning himself as an adversary in the child’s mind, much like the father figure. Consequently, the child harbors an unconscious desire to “eliminate” this ruler, though such impulses seldom materialize in reality. Discussion and Conclusion Contrary to the prevailing view in political theology, the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” in politics has psychological foundations. Particularly when the collapse of power is at stake, this issue is more closely tied to the subjective, or mental, aspect of politics than to the objective, concrete structures of political institutions. Thus, if politics is viewed through the lens of the natural, the idea of the father comes into focus. At this point, the fantasy of the father-parent extends into the political realm, and the ruler is perceived through the lens of the natural father. The political subject, in turn, forms reciprocal and transitory feelings toward the ruler. Consequently, politics becomes a subject of negative and positive passions and emotions, such as hate and love. When politics obstructs the expression of the subject's desires, it leads to the repression of those frustrated desires while simultaneously fostering feelings of resentment and fear within the subject. However, when politics is shaken by natural or political crises, subjects alleviate the psychological burden of suppressed desires by expressing happiness, even as they continue to adhere to the survival of the political order. When politics is viewed through a cultural lens, the fantasy of a sovereign God emerges in political relations. This subjective God stands in contrast to the theological God, whose existence does not depend on the thoughts and beliefs of the subjects. Like the natural father, this subjective God undergoes death and decay, particularly when individuals experience, associate, or imagine painful and tragic events in their personal lives. In these moments of terror, the agent responsible for the failure of desires and wishes is perceived as the mental God. Even in dire circumstances, when individuals appeal to this idea but receive no response, the psychological outcome is the death of the mental God. For the subjects, the death of the mental God signifies the death of its associated figure—the ruler. It is under these conditions that the political ruler reaches the peak of mental death and collapse within the political community, paving the way for natural collapse and objective death. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| political theology, cultural theology, patricide, Oedipus complex and castration complex | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Arendt, H. (2019). Eichmann in Jerusalem, Trans by Shams, Tehran: Boruj. Bain, William. (2010). Political Theology I: System, Anarchy, Balance of Power, in Political Theology of International Order, pp.159-184. Bakunin. (2022). God and State, Trans by Goodarzi, Tehran: Resan Publishing. Balsdon, J. (1960). Auctoritas, Dignitas, Otium, Classical Quarterly, vol.10 (1-2): pp. 43-50. Baume, S. (2009). On political theology: A controversy between Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt, History of European Ideas, 35:3, pp. 369-381. Bodin, J. (1967). Six books of the commonwealth, Trans by Tooley, Basil Blackwell Oxford. Buckland, W. (1966). A Text-Book of Roman law from Augustus to Justinian, Cambridge University press. Crook, J.A. (2009). Patria Potestas, The Classical Quarterly, Vol. 17, Issue 1. PP. 113-122. Dyzenhaus, D. (2015). Kelsen, Heller and Schmitt: Paradigms of Sovereignty Thought, Theoretical Inquiries in Law, Vol. 16:337, pp. 337-366. Elias, N. (2019). Solitude at the Edge of Death, Trans by Mehregan and Najafi, Tehran: Gam No. Ensafi, M; Ahmadvand. (2021). The Concept of Blood Clot and the Foundation of Modern Political Thought, Theoretical Politics Research, Fall and Winter, No. 30, pp. 217-246. Espejo, P. (2012). Does political theology entail decisionism, Philosophy and Social Criticism, 38(7) 725–743. Fallahi, J (2022). A Study of the Confrontation of Political Theology with Modern Culture, Religions and Mysticism, Issue 1, spring and Summer, pp. 187-206. Fallahi, J. (2018). The Potentials of Mathew's Political Theology for Narrative Theology, Religions and Mysticism, Spring-Summer, No. 1, pp. 129-151. Fazeli and Ghadiri. (2022). Leviathan and Political Epicureanism, Politics Quarterly, Volume 52, No. 3, pp. 717-742. Filmer, R. (2017). Patriarch or the Natural Power of Kings, Trans by Ardestan, Tehran: Negah Moasar. Foucault, M. (2019). The Will to Know, Trans by Sarkhosh and Ashin Jahandideh, Tehran: Nei. Freud, Z. (1991). On Narcissim: An Introduction, in Freud’s On Narcissim an Introduction, Edit by Sandler and Et Al. Yale University Press, pp. 3-33. Freud, Z. (1994). Dostoevsky and Oedipus, Trans by Hossein Payandeh, Arghanun, autumn, No. 3, pp. 253-272. Freud, Z. (2003). Interpretation of Dreams, Trans by Shiva Roygared, Tehran: Markaz Publishing House. Freud, Z. (2017). Three Treatises on Sexual Theory, Trans by Malek Ismaili, Tehran: Negah. Freud, Z. (2018). Totem and Taboo, Trans by Mohammad Ali Khonji, Tehran: Negah Publications. Freud, Z. (2019). Reflections on War and Death, Trans by Dabiri, Tehran: Pilah. Freud, Z. (2019). Treatise and Explanation of the Future of a Dream, Trans by Ranjbar and Karimkhani, Tehran: Negah Publications. Freud, Z. (2019a). Dissolution of the Oedipus complex, They Beat You in Childhood, Trans by Mehdi Habibzadeh, Tehran: Publications. Freud, Z. (2019b). They Beat a Child, They Beat You in Childhood, Trans by Mehdi Habibzadeh, Tehran: Publications. Freud, Z. (2019c). Negation, They Beat You in Childhood, Trans by Mehdi Habibzadeh, Tehran: Publications. Freud, Z. (2021). Mass Psychology and Ego Analysis, Trans by Rafiee, Tehran: Nei. Freud, Z. (2022). Why War, Albert Einstein and Freud's Correspondence, Trans by Najed, Tehran: Nei. Freud, Z. (2022a). Beyond the Pleasure Principle, Trans by Meysam Bazani, Tehran: Arjomand Publications. Freud, Z. (2022b). Civilization and Its Boredoms, Trans by Mobasheri, 13th edition, Tehran: Mahi. Fromm, E. (2019). The Human Heart, Tendency to Good and Evil, Trans by Khoshdel, Tehran: Paykan. Fromm. E. (2018). Anatomy of Human Destruction, Aggression and Destruction, Trans by Saburi, Tehran: Ashtian. Gaughan, E. (2009). Murder was not a Crime: Homicide and power in the Roman Republic, U.S.A: University of Texas Press. Geuss, R. (2017). Public Good and Private Good. Trans by Afshar, Tehran: Markaz. Kashi, G; Taghizadeh. (2011). John Locke: The Thought of Liberalism and Political Theology, Political and International Approaches, spring, No. 25, 22 89-108. Hamidi, Somayeh. (2015). Theological Narrative of the Political Matter, Research on Theoretical Politics, Papiz and winter, No. 18, 25-48. Heydari, Ali and Kavandi, R. (2016). Political Theology and the Matter of Exception, Research on Political Science, Volume 14, No. 1, Serial. 26, pp. 33-49. Hobbes, T. (1998). On the Citizen, Uk: Cambridge University of Press. Hobbes. (2005). Leviathan, Trans by Bashiriyeh, Tehran: Nei. Hosseini, S.R. (2010). The Corona Pandemic Crisis and the Necessity of Moral Reproduction of Human Freedom in Political Theology, Contemporary Political Essays, vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 97-114. Hughes. (2022). Troubled Minds, Trans by Sabzeh-Aray, Tehran: Andishe Aghah. Jahangiri, S; Fadaei, M. (2021). The Metaphor of Sexual Matter in Kabbalistic Political Theology, Ma’rifat Adian, Bahar, No. 46, pp. 89-104. Kahn, P. (2012). Political Theology: Four New Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty, New York, Columbia university press. Kalhir. (2018). The Social History of Death, Trans by Deliri, Tehran: Qoghnous. Kant, I. (2002). Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone, Trans by Dareh-Bidi, Tehran: Naqsh-e-Negar. Kelsen, H. (1924). The conseption of the state and social pschology, international Journal of pschoanalysis, no. 5, pp. 1-38. Kelsen, H. (1973, b), State-form and World-outlook, In Essays in legal and Moral Philosophy, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 95-113. Kelsen, H. (2007). Sovereignty, in Normativity and Norms, Stanlry Paulson and Bonnie Paulson, Oxford University Press, pp. 525-536. Kelsen, H. (1973 a). God and The State, In Essays in legal and Moral Philosophy, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 61-82. Losonczi and et al. (2012). The Future of Political Theology: Religious and Theological Perspectives, London: Routledge. Malaeke, Hassan. (2013). Political Theology: A Framework for Understanding the Mutual Relations between Religion and Politics, Political Science Research Journal, Volume 8, No. 4, pp. 97-123. Malinowski. (2013). Sexual Instinct and Its Repression in Primitive Societies, Trans by Salisi, Tehran: Nei. Mayer. (2014). what is Political Theology? In the Concept of the Political Matter, Trans by Jirani and Namazi, Tehran: Qoghnous, pp. 178-196. Miroslava, M (2015). Patria Potestas or Murder in the Family, Belgrade Law Review, Year LXIII, No. 3, pp.5-17 Moghimi, Sh. (2019). the Political Theology of the Idea of Citizenship in Contemporary Iran, Contemporary Political Essays, Autumn, Year 10, Issue 3, pp. 103-130. Moghimi, Sh. (2021). Theology of Liberal Democracy and Modern Political Science, Theoretical Political Science Research, Fall and Winter, No. 30, pp. 279-306. Nazari and Azarfam. (2023). The Concept of Legitimacy and Its Place in the Schmitt-Levitt-Bloomberg Debate, Politics Quarterly, Volume 53, No. 4, pp. 838-819. Nazari, A.A. (2015). A Critical Rereading of the Concept of the Political in the Eyes of Carl Schmitt, Politics Quarterly, Volume 45, No. 4, pp. 991-1014. Nicholas and Treggiar. (2016). Patria Potestas, in Oxford Classical Dictionary. Nietzsche. (2005). On Death and the Death-Thinkers, trans by Dariush Ashouri, Arghanun, No. 26-27, pp. 123-144. Nietzsche. (2017). The Will to Power, Trans by Hoshyar, Tehran: Farzan Publishing House. Nyquist, M. (2013). Arbitrary Rule, Slavery and Tyranny and The Power of life and Death, U.S.A: Chicago University prees. Rucquoi. (2019). Auctoritas, Potestas: Concepts of power in Medieval Spain, in Ideology in the middle Ages, Cambridge University press. Saller, P. (1994). Patriarchy, Property and Death in the Roman Family, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Santangelo. (2013). Priestly Auctoritas in the Romen Republic, Classical Quarterly, 63.2, pp. 743-764. Schmidt, C. (2014b). The Concept of Political, Trans by Jirani and Namazi, Tehran: Qoghnous. Schmidt, C. (2015b). Political Theology: Four Chapters on Sovereignty, trans by Khedive, Tehran: Rakhdad Nou. Schmidt, C. (2015a). The Age of Neutralization and Depoliticization, in The Concept of Political, trans by Yashar Jirani and Rasoul Namazi, Tehran: Qoghnous Publications, pp. 99-118. Shanks, A. (2010). Hegel's political theology, in Hegel's Political Theology, Cambridge University Press. Shaw, D. (2001). Raising and Killing Children: Two Roman Myths, in Mnemosne, Vol. Liv, Fasc. 1, Netherlands: Leiden. Sinaian, M. (2021). Political Theology: What it is and the Limits of a Problem, Javidan Kherad, No. 40, Fall and Winter, pp. 119-146. Smith, R. (2010). Death-Drive: Freudian Hauntings in Literature and Art, UK: Edinburgh Unversity Press. Suganami, H. (2007). Understanding sovereignty through Kelsen/Schmitt, Review of International Studies, 33, pp. 511–530. Taghizadeh, A. (2023). The Plan of Political Theology, Critical Textual Research Journal, fall 2012, No. 113, pp. 127-146. Taubes, J. (2019). The Political Theology of Paul, Trans by Ebrahimi, Tehran: Daman. Tillich, P. (2007). The Theology of Culture, Trans by Farhadpour and Pakzad, Tehran: Tarh No. Vatter, M. (2020). Carl Schmitt and Sovereignty, In Divine Democracy: Political Theology after Carl Schmitt, Oxford University Press, pp. 21-66. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 76 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 54 |
||
سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب