سامانه پشتیبانی خدمات اطلاعات

  اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات162
تعداد شماره‌ها6,623
تعداد مقالات71,544
تعداد مشاهده مقاله126,895,569
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله99,943,088
قاجار, صونا. (1402). ریشه‌های بحث از سوژه در ساختارگرایی تکوینی. , 53(4), 735-709. doi: 10.22059/jpq.2024.243621.1007157
صونا قاجار. "ریشه‌های بحث از سوژه در ساختارگرایی تکوینی". , 53, 4, 1402, 735-709. doi: 10.22059/jpq.2024.243621.1007157
قاجار, صونا. (1402). 'ریشه‌های بحث از سوژه در ساختارگرایی تکوینی', , 53(4), pp. 735-709. doi: 10.22059/jpq.2024.243621.1007157
قاجار, صونا. ریشه‌های بحث از سوژه در ساختارگرایی تکوینی. , 1402; 53(4): 735-709. doi: 10.22059/jpq.2024.243621.1007157

ریشه‌های بحث از سوژه در ساختارگرایی تکوینی

فصلنامه سیاست
مقاله 4، دوره 53، شماره 4، اسفند 1402، صفحه 735-709    اصل مقاله (475.14 K)
نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jpq.2024.243621.1007157
نویسنده
صونا قاجار*
استادیار، مطالعات تاریخی انقلاب اسلامی، مرکز اسناد انقلاب اسلامی، تهران، ایران
چکیده
‌هدف اصلی این مقاله تلاش برای فهم چگونگی حدود عاملیت سوژه در نظریه‌ ساختارگرایی تکوینی است که در جامعه‌شناسی و نقد ادبی از سوی لوسین گلدمن مطرح شد و یکی از نظریه‌های کاربردی در این زمینه به‌شمار می‌آید. مقاله با بهره‌گیری از روش تحلیل متون در پی پاسخگویی به پرسش درباره نقش سوژه از حیث تأثیرگذاری یا تأثیرپذیری در نسبت با ساختار از دیدگاه ساختارگرایی تکوینی است. در فرضیه پژوهشی استدلال می‌شود که سوژه‌ ساختارگرایی تکوینی، در قامت فاعل فرافردی با فاصله گرفتن تدریجی ناگزیر از عاملیت مطلق و تابعیت ساختاری غیرکنشمند، به رابطه دیالکتیکی تکوینی با ساختار رسیده و در جریان شکل‌گیری آگاهی طبقاتی و تجلیات عینی آن، در چرخه پی‌در‌پی بازآفرینی و بازبینی، همواره در حال تکوین و دگرگونی است. یافته‌های این پژوهش نشان می‌دهند که در فاصله‌ ساختارگرایی تا پساساختارگرایی، میدان دیالکتیک ساختارگرایی تکوینی با تلفیق نظریه جامعه‌شناختی لوکاچ و نظریه روان‌شناختی پیاژه و با بهره‌گیری از اندیشه‌های افرادی همچون هگل، فروید و نیچه به‌دنبال یافتن راهی میانه برای رهایی سوژه در عین پذیرش تأثیر محدودیت‌های ساختاری است؛ و با افزودن مفهوم تکوین به نظریه ساختارگرایی در تلاش برای به تصویر کشیدن رابطه‌ سوژه و ساختار و محصولات عینی این رابطه است که در نظریه گلدمن به‌طور ویژه، بر آفرینش ادبی تأکید شده است.
کلیدواژه‌ها
پساساختارگرایی؛ عاملیت سوژه؛ دیالکتیک؛ لوسین گلدمن؛ نظریه ساختارگرایی تکوینی
عنوان مقاله [English]
Roots of the “Subject” in Genetic Structuralism
نویسندگان [English]
Sona Qajar
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Islamic Revolution Studies Research Group, Islamic Revolution Document Center, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]
The main purpose of this paper is to investigate the position and role of the subject—in terms of influencing or being influenced—in relation to the structure from the perspective of genetic structuralism that was proposed in the field of sociology and literary criticism by a Romanian philosopher and sociologist Lucien Goldmann. His theory of genetic structuralism has been widely applied in the sociology of literature. Using the basic elements of structuralist theory and at the same time understanding its weaknesses, Goldmann tried to save this theory from stagnation, inflexibility and inefficiency in explaining historical changes and developments by applying the theory of historical evolution in structuralism that increases its ability to explain social phenomena. By adding the concept of “genesis” to structuralist theory, an attempt is made to understand the dynamics of subject-structure and objective products of this relation. In Goldmann's theory, among these objective manifestations, literary creation is particularly emphasized.
Genetic structuralism sees literary creation as the product of the transcendental agent, which is represented in this form by its author. The meaningful structure of a literary creation is dialectically related to the mental structure of this transcendental actor, which is in a dialectical relationship with the political, social and economic structure and is constantly evolving and changing in the persistent cycle of construction-deconstruction. For Goldmann, structures have no idealistic or neo-Kantian element, and it is human being who acts collectively and along class lines in order to create or change these structures. Therefore, the structures have a non-historical and subsequently non-functional character, and there is no need for metaphysical levels to analyze them.
In the research hypothesis, it is argued that the subject of genetic structuralism, as a transcendental agent with inevitable gradual distancing from  the  absolute  agency and non-active structural subordination, hast reached a dialectical relation with structure and in the course of the formation of class consciousness and its objective manifestations, in a successive cycle of construction-deconstruction is always evolving and changing. In an attempt to understand human and social phenomena in general and cultural creations in particular, Goldmann borrows certain macro-analytic categories (such as wholeness, worldview, form, transcendental agent, possible consciousness, and object consciousness) from Georg Lukács and combines them with a series of anthropological and positivistic categories derived from Piaget (such as meaningful structure, function, the process of construction and deconstruction, the epistemological loop of subject and object, and equilibrium).
The author uses the method of textual analysis for hypothesis testing. The most notable work of a critical theorist, Georg Lukács (i.e., Theory of the Novel and History and Class Consciousness) as well as Goldmann's books and essays (i.e., the Hidden God, and The Human Sciences & Philosophy, Lukács and Heidegger) are examined. The findings show that in the transition from structuralism to poststructuralism, the dialectical field of genetic structuralism combines Lukacs's sociological theory with Piaget's psychological theory, using the legacy of thinkers such as Hegel and Freud, Nietzsche, etc. and seek to find a middle ground to liberate the subject while accepting the influence of structural constraints.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
Dialectics, Lucien Goldman, Post-structuralism, Subject’s Agency, Theory of Genetic Structuralism
مراجع

References

  1. Ahmadi, B. (1995). Haghighat and zibāi, Truth and Beauty, Tehran: Markaz.[In Persian]
  2. Ardestani, A. (2015). "Sākhtār'garāi and masaleh-ye maeʿnā dar oloom-e ensāni, Structuralism and the Problem of Meaning in the Humanities," Siyāsat, Quarterly Journal of Politics of Tarbiat Modares University, 5: 5-17. Available at: https://ensani.ir/file/ download/ article/20161213114046-10070-15.pdf (Accessed 23 February 2022). [In Persian]
  3. Bagheri, K; Khosravi, Z. (2006). "Maʿrefat’shenāsi-ye genetic (takvini) dar didgāh-e piyājeh, Genetic ‘Developmental’ Epistemology in Piaget's View," Hekmat and falsafeh, Wisdom and Philosophy) 5: 7-22, . [In Persian]
  4. Bakhshaish, R. (2001). "Nazariyeh'hā’i dar bāb-e ensān, Theories about Man)," Ravesh’shenāsi-ye oloom-e ensāni, Methodology of Humanities, 7, 28: 153-186. Available at: https://method.rihu.ac.ir/ article_835.html (Accessed 23 February 2022). [In Persian]
  5. Bashirieh, H. (1993). "Tārikh-e andhishe'hā and jonbesh'hā-ye siyāsi dar gharn-e bistom, Marxism exsistensiālist, History of Political Thoughts and Movements in the Twentieth Century, Existential Marxism," Ettela'at-e siyāsī and eghtesādī (Political and Economic Information Journal) 76 & 77: 10-16. Available at: https://ensani.ir/fa/ article/102494 (Accessed 23 February 2022). [In Persian]
  6. Bashirieh, H. (2004). Andhisheh'hā-ye mārxisti, dar tārikh-e andisheh-hā-ye siyāsi dar gharn-e bistom, History of Political Thought in the Twentieth Century, Volume One of Marxist Thought, and Tehran: Ney. [In Persian]
  7. Basil, E. (1999). "Oropāiyān khod rā chegoneh me'binand? How do Europeans See Themselves? Culture, Belief and Writing," Trans. Lily Mostafavi Kashani. Nāmeh-ye farhang (Letter of Culture) 232: 220-237. Available at: https://ensani.ir/fa/article/265974 (Accessed 23 February 2022). [In Persian]
  8. Caller, J. (2000). Ferdinand de Saussure, Trans. Cyrus Safavid. Tehran: Hermes. [In Persian]
  9. Cohen, Mitchell. (1994). The Wager of Lucien Goldmann. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  10. Colinicus, A. (2005). Mārxism and falsafeh, Marxism and Philosophy, Trans. Akbar Masoom Beigi. Tehran: Digar. [In Persian]
  11. Damish, H. (2007). “Freud and Kant,” trans. Shahriar Waqfipour, Majaleh-ye zibā’shenāsi, Journal of Aesthetics, 17: 171-178. Available at: https://ensani.ir/fa/article/4327 (Accessed 23 February 2022). [In Persian]
  12. Dehbashi, M (2005). "Tahlil and arzyābi-ye naghd-e Hegel bar Kant, Kant's Critique of Hegel's Analysis," Hekmat and falsafeh, Wisdom and Philosophy, 1, 1: 6-16, <DOI:10.22054/wph.2005.6655>. [In Persian]
  13. Goldmann, L. (1969). The Human Sciences & Philosophy, trans. (from French) Hayden V. White and Robert Anchor. London: Jonathan Cape.
  14. Goldmann, L. (1977). Lukács and Heidegger: Towards a New Philosophy, trans. William Q. Boelhower. London: Routledge & K. Paul.
  15. Goldmann, L. (1978). Falsafeh and oloom-e ensāni, Philosophy and Humanities, Trans. Asad Pourpiranfar. Tehran: Jāvidān [In Persian]
  16. Goldmann, L. (1980). Essays on Method in the Sociology of Literature, trans. William Q. Boelhower. Louis, MO: Telos Press.
  17. Goldmann, L. (1990). Naghd-e takvini, Developmental Criticism, trans. Mohammad Taghi Ghiasi. Tehran: Bozorgmehr. [In Persian]
  18. Goldmann, L. (2002). Ensān chist? Kānt and falsafeh-ye moʿāser, what is a Human Being? Kant and Contemporary Philosophy, Trans. Parviz Babaei. Tehran: Negāh. [In Persian]
  19. Goldmann, L. (2012). Lukács and Heidegger, trans. Mohammad Zare. Tehran: Hekmat. [In Persian]
  20. Goldmann, L. (2016). The Hidden God: A Study of Tragic Vision in the Pensées of Pascal and the Tragedies of Racine, trans. Philip Thody. London & New York: Verso.
  21. Howarth, D. (2007). “Saussure, sākhtār'garāi va nezām'hā-ye namādin, Saussure, Structuralism and Symbolic Systems,” Trans. Nezam Bahrami Kamil. Rasāneh (Media) 72: 187-195. Available at: https://qjmn.farhang.gov.ir/article_78230.html (Accessed 23 February 2022). [In Persian]
  22. Janbaz, O; Aliakbarmesgari, A (2013). "Paydayesh-e sojeh-ye ejtemāʿi dar andisheh-ye Hegel, The Origin of the Social Subject in Hegel's thought," Gharb'shenāsi-ye bonyādi, Fundamental Western Studies) 1: 23-42 Available at: https://occidentstudy.ihcs.ac.ir/article_814. html (Accessed 23 February 2022). [In Persian]
  23. Johnson, P. (2008). Heidegger, trans. Bijan Abdolkarimi. Tehran: Elm. [In Persian]
  24. Kamalinejad, M. (1996). “Husserl and tāʿsis-e padidār'shenāsi, Husserl and the Establishment of Phenomenology,” Kayhān-e andisheh, Kayhan Andisheh, 68: 49-60. Available at: https://ensani. ir/fa/article/105951 (Accessed 23 February 2022). [In Persian]
  25. Koffman, W. (2006). Goethe, Kant and Hegel, trans. Farinoldin Radmeh and Abutorab Sohrab. Tehran: [In Persian]
  26. Kolakovsky, L. (2007). Jariyān'hā-ye asli dar Marxism, Main Currents in Marxism, Trans. Abbas Milani. Tehran: Agāh, Vol. 2. [In Persian]
  27. Lukács, (1971). History and Class Consciousness, trans. Rodney Livingstone. London: Merlin Press.
  28. Lukács, (1999). Tārikh and āgāhi-ye tabaghāti, History and Class Awareness, Trans. Mohammad Jafar Pooyandeh. Tehran: Tajrobeh. [In Persian]
  29. Lukács, (2002). Nazarieh-ye romān, The Theory of Novel, Trans. Hassan Mortazavi. Tehran: Ghesseh. [In Persian]
  30. Moeini Alamdari, J. (2001). “Chisti-ye goftemān-e pasā'sākhtār'garā, what is Post-Structuralist Discourse in Politics,” Majalehʼi dāneshkadehʼi hoghogh and olom-e siyāsī, The Journal of the Faculty of Law and Political Science, 51:197-222. Available at: https://jflps.ut.ac.ir/article_12651.html (Accessed 23 February 2022). [In Persian]
  31. Piaget, J. (1994). "Mafāhim-e bonyāni-ye sakht'garāei, Fundamental Concepts of Constructivism," trans. Seyyed Ali Mortazavian. Organon 4: 27-36. Available at: https://ensani.ir/fa/article/64255 (Accessed 23 February 2022). [In Persian]
  32. Pooyandeh, M. (1997). Jāmeʿeh, farhang, adabiyāt, Society, Culture, and Literature: Lucien Goldmann, Tehran: Cheshmeh. [In Persian]
  33. Poster, M. (1975). Existential Marxism in Post War France from Sartre to Althusser. Princeton, NJ: Princton University Press.
  34. Sartre, J. (1979). Existānsiālism and esālat-e bashar, Existentialism and Human Originality, Trans. Mostafa Rahimi. Tehran: Morvarid. [In Persian]
  35. Sobhanian, K; Karbasizadeh Isfahani, (2013). “Nieche and naghd-e aghl-e mahz, Nietzsche and the Critique of Pure Reason,” Gharb'shenāsi-ye bonyādi, Fundamental Western Studies, 1: 63-80. Available at: http://ensani.ir/file/download/ article/ 20140406144345-9741-39.pdf (Accessed 23 February 2022). [In Persian]
  36. Sofren, P. (1997). Zartosht-e nieche, Zarathustra Nietzsche, Explanation of the Preface of Such a Saying of Zarathustra, Trans. Behrouz Safdari. Tehran: Fekr-e-Emrooz. [In Persian]
  37. Solomon, R.K. (1994). “Husserl and vāpas tāftan be falsafeh-ye Estela’ī, Husserl and Return to Transcendental Philosophy,” Trans. Mohammad Saeed Hanaei Kashani. Kayhān Andisheh, Kayhan Andisheh, 55: 93-99. Available at: https://ensani.ir/fa/article/103006 (Accessed 23 February 2022). [In Persian]
  38. Solomon, R. (2000). Falsafeh-ye oropiā'i: az nimeh-ye dovom-e gharn-e hejdahom tā vāpasin daheh-ye gharn-e bistom, toloeʿ va ofol-e khod, European Philosophy: From the Second Half of the Eighteenth Century to the Last Decade of the Twentieth Century, its Rise and Fall, Trans. Mohammad Saeed Hanaei Kashani. Tehran: Qasideh. [In Persian]
  39. Stuart, D. (2004). "Sākhtār'garāi va pasā'sākhtār'garāi, Structuralism and Poststructuralism," Trans. Abolfazl Sajedi. Ravesh’shenāsi-ye oloom-e ensāni, Methodology of Humanities, 39: 154-185. Available at: http://ensani.ir/fa/article/47779 (Accessed 23 February 2022). [In Persian]
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 479
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 452





سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب