نسبت «خود» و «دیگری» در اندیشة سیاسی «جواد طباطبایی»
محورهای موضوعی : نظریه‌ها، روش‌شناسی‌ها و رویکردهای جدید در علوم سیاسی
فاطمه بختیار
1
,
سیدخدایار مرتضوی
2
,
سیدمحسن علوی پور
3
1 - دانش‌آموخته دکتری علوم سیاسی، واحد تهران جنوب، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران
2 - استادیار، گروه علوم سیاسی و روابط بین‌الملل، واحد تهران جنوب، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران
3 - دانشیار گروه علوم سیاسی، پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی، ایران
کلید واژه: گسست و پیوست, «خود», «دیگری», سنت و مدرنیته.,
چکیده مقاله :
نسبت «خودِ» سنتی ایرانی و «دیگریِ» مدرن غربی در اندیشة سیاسی «جواد طباطبایی»، مسئله این مقاله است. نظریۀ «شانتال موفه» به عنوان چارچوب نظری انتخاب شده و بر مبنای آن به این مسئله نگریسته و ابعاد آن بررسی شده است. یافتههای این مقاله، نخست نشان می‌دهد که طباطبایی، مفروضات خود را بر اصل «گسست» استوار مینماید و همانند بلومنبرگ آلمانی، ضمنِ اصالت بخشیدن به مدرنیته و اجتنابناپذیری آن، قائل به نظریة «گسست» است. دوم اینکه وی نسبت «خود» و «دیگری» را از منظر مواجهۀ میان سنت و مدرنیته پیگیری مینماید و برخلافِ هواداران سنت، تجدد را در تضاد و تقابل با «سنت» قرار نمیدهد. همچنین برخلاف هوادارانِ تجددِ غربی، عصر سنت را سپریشده و مانع پیشرفت و توسعه نمیداند. از منظر وی، تداوم تاریخی و ارتباط با دنیای جدید، نه با سنت‌گریزی و سنتپذیریِ مقلدانه و نه با پذیرش بی‌کم‌و‌کاست مدرنیتة غربی، بلکه با احیای امکانات خردگرایانة سنت در پیوند با مفاهیم دنیای جدید ممکن میگردد. طباطبایی، فهم منطق سنت را در پرتو الزامات دنیای جدید پی میگیرد و بدینسان برخلاف طرفداران سنت و تجدد، از غیریتسازی «خود» و «دیگری» میان این دو پرهیز مینماید.
The relationship between the traditional Iranian "Self" and the modern Western "Other" in the political thought of JavadTabatabai is the central issue of this article. Chantal Mouffe's theory has been selected as the theoretical framework, and based on it; this issue and its dimensions are examined. The findings indicated that Tabatabai bases his assumptions on the principle of "Rupture" and, like the German Blumenberg, while giving originality to modernity and its inevitability, adheres to the theory of "Rupture." Then, he pursues the relationship between "Self" and "Other" from the perspective of the encounter between tradition and modernity, and unlike the proponents of tradition, he does not place modernity in contradiction and opposition to "Tradition." Also, unlike the proponents of Western modernity, he does not consider the age of tradition to be over and an obstacle to progress and development. From his point of view, historical continuity and connection with the new world are possible not through tradition-avoidance and imitative tradition-acceptance, nor through the uncritical acceptance of Western modernity, but through the revival of the rational possibilities of tradition in connection with the concepts of the new world. Tabatabai understands the logic of tradition in light of the requirements of the new world, and thus, unlike the proponents of tradition and modernity, he avoids other making the "Self" and "Other" between the two.
Keywords: Rupture and Continuity, "Self," "Other," Tradition and Modernity.
Introduction
Examining Sayyid JavadTabatabaei's thought on the subject of the Self and the Other reveals that he initially emphasizes and focuses on the discussion of tradition and modernity. Within this framework, he strives to understand the meaning, concept, and relationship between the two. In contemporary political literature, there are two general viewpoints: One emphasizes the connection between modernity and tradition, believing that modernity has theological roots; the other posits a separation between modernity and tradition, arguing that modernity has emerged in clear opposition to the world of tradition. Schmitt and Blumenberg are respectively examples and representatives of these two approaches.
In this context, Sayyid Javad Tabatabaei, while acknowledging the separation of modernity from ancient tradition, believes that modern understanding is only possible through understanding tradition. Accordingly, the main issue of this article is to explain the relationship between the Self (Iranian tradition) and the Other (Western modernity) in Tabatabaei's thought, based on his works. Generally, relying on those who believe in the separation between tradition and modernity in Iran, three approaches have emerged: Absolute rejection of tradition and complete acceptance of modernity; complete acceptance of tradition and absolute rejection of modernity; and the inevitability of modernity and the possibility of understanding it through tradition.
Tabatabaei belongs to the third approach and, based on this approach, establishes a specific relationship between the traditional Iranian "Self" and the modern Western "Other." This, on the one hand, distinguishes him from native thinkers such as Jalal Al Ahmad and Ali Shariati, who advocated the slogan of "Return to Self," and on the other hand, differentiates him from the absolute acceptance of modernity by other secular and Western-oriented Iranian thinkers who considered tradition an obstacle to Iran's progress. Based on this introduction, and clearly, the main question of the article is:
"What is the relationship between the traditional Iranian "Self" and the modern Western "Other" in JavadTabatabaei's political thought?"
It is obvious that the relationship between Self and Other, as one of the most important issues in the history of political thought, encompasses various topics and a diverse range of ethnic, gender, racial, religious, and identity dualities, etc. Therefore, with the aim of narrowing the scope of research, the relationship between the Self and the Other in Tabatabaei's views is examined solely from the perspective of tradition and modernity.
Theoretical Framework
In this research, documentary method was used for data collection, and analytical and interpretive methods were used for reasoning the information. The research approach is based on examining the dichotomy of self-other and tradition-modernity. While examining different types of encounters with the other, Mouffe's agonistic model was used as the criterion for conformity.
In her book "On the Political," Chantal Mouffe outlines one of the most important possible relationships between "Self" and "Other" in the political realm. In the same book, she formulates different types of encounters with the "Other" in three aspects: Antagonistic, post-political, and agonistic. The antagonistic relationship is full of monologue and, likewise, boundless violence. In fact, post-political and antagonistic encounters start from different origins, but both ultimately lead to violence. According to Mouffe, the post-political encounter falls within the liberal paradigm. In this type of encounter, the attempt is made to resolve conflicts through dialogue and lead to "Mutual Understanding" or even "Consensus." However, Mouffe seriously criticizes this view and considers the post-political relationship to be a non-political relationship, one that, even if applied in the political arena, will lead to serious troubles for society. Finally, by mentioning these two types of post-political and antagonistic encounters of the relationship between self and other, Mouffe arrives at her desired third type, which is possible and desirable, entitled the "Agonistic" encounter.
Attention to superficial interpretations and the stances of critics and opponents of Tabatabai's thought seems to be a kind of antagonistic conflict in his thought, where the identity of this approach is formed on distinction, opposition, and contradiction; although the dichotomy of tradition and modernity itself is the origin of many antagonistic conflicts, which cannot be denied. By examining Tabatabai's attitude towards the self (tradition) and the other (modernity) more deeply, the absence of conflict with this historical dichotomy is inferred. From his point of view, there is no contradiction in accepting tradition and modernity. Modernity is a continuation of the path of tradition, and modern understanding is only possible through understanding tradition. Therefore, Tabatabai's thought aligns with the agonistic encounter. The goal in this type of encounter is not to resolve conflict and contention, and it is not necessarily the case that the parties ultimately reach an agreement.
Rather, the goal is to manage this conflict through political and democratic mechanisms. Conflicts are not denied, but resolved through legal and political mechanisms.
Conclusion
The relationship between self and other is a very important one for understanding the history of thought. Given its importance, this article attempts to trace this relationship in the political thought of JavadTabatabai, as one of the Iranian writers.
The encounter between self and other, from Mouffe's perspective, is multifaceted. "Agonistic encounter" considers conflict as the engine of societal movement, and the goal in this type of encounter is not to resolve the conflict, nor is it intended that the parties necessarily reach an agreement in the end; rather, the goal is to control this conflict and manage it through political and democratic mechanisms. This type of encounter with the other is in line with Tabatabai's approach. Among the positive points that Mouffe mentions is the acceptance of conflict as a reality in the political sphere and that in agonism, the conflict and opposition of the parties in the realm of politics cannot be eliminated. With this reasoning, regarding the dichotomy of tradition (self) and modernity (other), thinkers adhere to two ideas: the idea of rupture and the idea of continuity between tradition and modernity.
The findings indicated that Tabatabai bases his assumptions on the principle of "Rupture" and, like Blumenberg, while giving originality to modernity and its inevitability, adheres to the theory of "Rupture." In general, relying on the opinion of those who believe in a rupture between tradition and modernity in Iran, three approaches have emerged, which are: Absolute rejection of tradition and complete acceptance of modernity, complete acceptance of tradition and absolute rejection of modernity, and the inevitability of modernity and the possibility of understanding it through the channel of tradition. Tabatabai belongs to the third approach and, based on this approach, establishes a special relationship between the traditional Iranian "Self" and the modern Western "Other."
Tabatabai attempts to provide a philosophical explanation for this issue through a framework of concepts and categories commensurate with the materials and resources of Iranian history, and for such a purpose, he undertakes the formulation of the "Iranshahri" theory. In this sense, Iranshahri, as the history of Iranian literature and culture, possessed such potential that, on the one hand, Iranians, aware of their national identity, constructed "Otherness" by contrasting this Iranshahri heritage with the Caliphate system. On the other hand, in the early centuries, the "Awareness" of Iranshahri, in "Otherness" to the dominance of the Arab "Other," reflected upon the "Self" and, by combining Islamic spiritual thought with its ancient content, returned to the "Self," thereby paving the way for the political independence of Iran.
On the other hand, Tabatabai also examines the relationship between the "self" and the "other" through the lens of the opposition between tradition and modernity. Contrary to traditionalists, he does not perceive modernity as being in conflict with tradition; nor does he, like proponents of Western modernity, consider the era of tradition to be a bygone period that hinders progress and development. Rather, he argues that although the rigidity of tradition over the course of centuries has led to the loss of some of its rational potential, the rationalist dimensions of tradition still persist. However, he emphasizes that this potential cannot be realized solely through the internal resources of tradition itself. Instead, such rational capacities can only be unlocked through the concepts and categories of the modern world. In this way, Tabatabai approaches the logic of tradition in light of the imperatives of the modern world and thereby avoids the binary opposition of "self" and "other" between tradition and modernity, unlike both traditionalists and modernists.
References
Erman, E. (2009). What is wrong with agonistic pluralism? Reflections on conflict in democratic theory. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 35(9), 1059–1072. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453709343385
Joodi, B., et al. (2018). [Theoretical dispute between Carl Löwith and Hans Blumenberg: The modern era as the secularization of eschatology or secularization through eschatology]. Fundamental West Studies, 9(2), 25-50. (In Persian)
Joodi, B., et al. (2020). [Carl Löwith’s idea on the theological foundations of Enlightenment historical-political thought in the context of the German anti-Enlightenment tradition and its critics]. Research in Theoretical Politics Quarterly, 28, 109-137. (In Persian)
Khaleqi Damghani, A., et al. (2017). [A study on the concept of tradition in the thought of Javad Tabatabai]. Politics Quarterly, 47(4), 891-907. (In Persian)
Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (2001). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics (2nd ed.). Verso.
Mouffe, C. (1999). The democratic paradox. Verso.
Nazari, A. A. (2015). [A critical rereading of the concept of the political in Carl Schmitt’s theory]. Politics Quarterly, 45(4), 991-1014. (In Persian)
Pourzaki, G. (2021). [Encountering the other: Mouffe or Habermas?]. Theoretical Politics Biannual, 29, 337-372. (In Persian)
Sandell, M. (2018). Morality in politics (A. Khakbaz, Trans.). Farhang Nashr-e Now. (In Persian)
Schmitt, C. (2018). Leviathan in the state theory of Thomas Hobbes: Meaning and failure of a political symbol (S. Moghimi Zanjani, Trans.). Rozegar-e Now. (In Persian)
Sternhell, Z. (2010). The anti-Enlightenment tradition (D. Maisel, Trans.). Yale University Press.
Tabatabai, J. (2003). [One cannot think without tradition]. Baztab-e Andisheh Journal, 43, 13-19. (In Persian)
Tabatabai, J. (2007). The Tabriz School and the foundations of modernism (2nd ed.). Sotoudeh. (In Persian)
Tabatabai, J. (2008). The old and new dispute: From the Renaissance to the French Revolution (1st ed.). Sales. (In Persian)
Tabatabai, J. (2018). [The heart of Iranshahr]. Siyasatnameh Journal, 3(10), 18. (In Persian)
Tabatabai, J. (2019a). [Separation of tradition from text?]. Siyasatnameh Journal, 3(12), 111. (In Persian)
Tabatabai, J. (2019b). Nation, state, and the rule of law (2nd ed.). Minou-ye Kherad. (In Persian)
Wallace, R. M. (1999). Translator’s introduction. In The legitimacy of the modern age (R. M. Wallace, Trans.). MIT Press.
اشمیت، کارل (1397) لویاتان در نظریة دولت تامس هابز، معنا و شکست یک نماد سیاسی، ترجمه شروین مقیمی زنجانی، تهران، روزگار نو.
---------- (1390) الهیات سیاسی، ترجمة لیلا چمن¬خواه، تهران، نگاه معاصر.
پورزکی، گیتی (1400) «مواجهه با دیگری: موفه یا هابرماس»، دوفصلنامه سیاست نظری، شماره 29، بهار و تابستان، صص 337-372.
جودی، بهنام و دیگران (1399) «ایدة کارل لویت دربارة مبانی الهیاتی اندیشة تاریخی- سیاسی روشنگری در بستر سنت ضد روشنگری آلمانی و منتقدان آن»، تهران، فصلنامه پژوهش سیاست نظری، شمارة 28، صص 109-137.
---------------- (1397) «جدال نظری کارل لویت و هانس بلومنبرگ: دوران جدید به‌مثابة دنیوی¬ شدن آخرت‌اندیشی یا دنیوی¬ شدن از راه آخرت¬اندیشی»، غرب‌شناسی بنیادی، سال نهم، شمارة دوم، صص 25-50.
خالقی دامغانی، احمد و دیگران (1396) «پژوهشی درخصوص مفهوم سنت در اندیشة جواد طباطبایی»، فصلنامة سیاست، دورة چهل¬وهفتم، شمارة 4، صص 891-907.
ریستر، برتولد (1394) کارل لُویت، کاوشی نقادانه در باب تاریخی¬گری، ترجمه زانیار ابراهیمی، تهران، فلات.
سندل، مایکل (1397) اخلاق در سیاست، ترجمه افشین خاکباز، تهران، فرهنگ نشر نو.
طباطبایی، جواد (1382) «بدون سنت نمی¬توان اندیشید»، نشریة بازتاب اندیشه، شمارة 43، صص 13-19.
------------ (1386الف) مکتب تبریز و مبانی تجددخواهی، چاپ دوم، تبریز، ستوده.
------------ (1386ب) نظریة حکومت قانون در ایران، تهران، ستوده.
------------ (1387) جدال قدیم و جدید؛ از نوزایش تا انقلاب فرانسه، تهران، ثالث.
------------ (1397) «دلِ ایران¬شهر»، مجله سیاست¬نامه، سال سوم، شمارة 10، ص 18.
------------ (1398) «جدایی سنت از نص؟»، مجله سیاست¬نامه، سال سوم، شمارة 12، صص 111.
لویت، کارل (1396) معنا در تاریخ، ترجمة سعید حاجی ناصری و زانیار ابراهیمی، تهران، علمی و فرهنگی.
نظری، علی¬اشرف (1394) «بازخوانی انتقادی مفهوم امر سیاسی در نظریه کارل اشمیت»، فصلنامه سیاست، دورة چهل¬وپنجم، شماره 4، زمستان، صص 991-1014.
Erman, Eva (2009) What is wrong with agonistic pluralism?: Reflections on conflict in democratic theory https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453709343385.
Laclau, Ernesto and Chantal Mouffe (2001) Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics, 2nd edition (London: Verso).
Moufee, Chanta (1999) Democratic Paradox, (London: Verso).
Sternhell, Zeev (2010) “The Anti-Enlightenment Tradition”, Translated by David Maisel, Yale University.
Wallace, Robert M (1999) “Translator’s Introduction in The Legitimacy of the Modern Age”, translated by Robert M. Wallace, MIT Press.
