|تعداد مشاهده مقاله||104,963,212|
|تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله||82,035,992|
صورتبندی میدان تولید ادبی ایران (مطالعه موردی محمد حجازی و صادق هدایت)
|جامعه شناسی هنر و ادبیات|
|مقاله 7، دوره 4، شماره 1، خرداد 1391، صفحه 5-29 اصل مقاله (425.99 K)|
|شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jsal.2012.29539|
|یوسف اباذری1؛ رضا تسلیمی طهرانی2|
|1عضو هیئت علمی گروه جامعهشناسی دانشگاه تهران|
|2دانشجوی دکتری جامعهشناسی نظری فرهنگی دانشگاه تهران|
|مطالعه حاضر با استفاده از نظریه پیر بوردیو درباره عمل و روش تحقیق مبتنی بر ساختارگرایی تکوینی به منظور ایضاح میدان ادبیات ایران (1320-1300) به مطالعه دو نویسنده نام آشنای این دوره یعنی محمد حجازی و صادق هدایت پرداخته است. در این بررسی موقعیتهای اجتماعی، منش و آثار (هما و بوف کور) نویسندگان فوق بررسی شده و تفاوت موقعیتهای آنها در میدان ادبیات مورد تحلیل قرار گرفته است. در نتیجه، تحقیق حاضر ضمن تشخیص موقعیت تحت سلطه حجازی و موقعیت مسلط هدایت در میدان تولید ادبی ایران با بازخوانی «هما» و «بوف کور»، همتایی موجود میان جهان ادب و جهان اثر را به نمایش گذاشته است.|
|سرمایه اقتصادی؛ سرمایه فرهنگی؛ میدان ادبیات؛ میدان قدرت؛ مسیر زندگی؛ منش|
|عنوان مقاله [English]|
|Formulation of Literary Production Field in Iran (The cases of Mohammad Hejazi and Sadegh Hedayat)|
|Yousef Abazari1؛ Reza Taslimi Tehrani2|
|This paper aims to study and formulate the field of literature in Iran during 1921 and 1941. For this purpose, the authors have focused on two key writers of this period, Mohammad Hejazi and Sadegh Hedayat. Analyzing the social positions, habitus and literary works of these writers can help us to have a clear picture of the mentioned period. It also can show dominant poles in the literary field in Iran. We have used Pierre Bourdieu’s “Practice Theory” as our theoretical framework and his “genetic structuralism” as our methodology.|
Mohammad Hejazi was born in a middle-class bourgeois family. He served as a senator for several periods and deputy of prime minister for some years. Thus he had politically a high position in the period under study. Also, as a novelist, he wrote about rich families, especially bourgeois girls. Despite this, he did not have any valuable capital that would bring him a remarkable position in the literary field. His position was located in the dominated pole and in the bourgeois literature position. In addition, when studying his habitus, one would face an optimistic and conservative person. In short, there is a homology between his positions in the fields of power and literature and his habitus. In one of Hejazi’s novels titled Homa, one can find a homology between the writer’s positions in the fields of power and literature and his habitus with hero’s positions in the power and action fields of story and his habitus.
Like Hejazi, Sadegh Hedayat was also born in a middle-class bourgeois family. But his position in his family as the younger son let him to pursue his own way. Actually he never held any important politiposition. He never got married and finally committed suicide. Thus he had no political position. But Hedayet is a famous writer because he wrote some valuable novels. He had important cultural capitals. He never wrote for others; rather he used to write for himself. Thus Hedayat had a main position in the dominant pole of literary field. Furthermore, when considering his habitus, one would face a pessimistic, disobedient, independent character. In short, there is a homology between Hedayat’s positions in the fields of power and literature and his habitus.
In Hedayat’s famous novel, Boofe koor, one can find a homology between writer’s positions in the fields of power and literature and his habitus with hero’s positions in the power and action fields of story and his habitus.
According to our study, Hejazi and Hedayat have had opposite positions in the fields of power and literature and have opposite habitus. In other words, these two famous writers had opposite social trajectories.
In addition, we can trace these oppositions in writers’ novels. Heroes have opposite positions in each story and have opposite habitus.
At last, we have to consider that all characteristics of Hedayat and Hejazi have to be understood in relation to their social positions and habitus rather than their own special life histories.
|Cultural Capital, Economic Capital, Field of literature, Field of power, habitus, Social Trajectory|
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 2,828
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 2,539