|
|
|
|
بازخوانی سیاست بصری هابز؛ چشم‌اندازی شمایل‌شناختی به لویاتان
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
نویسنده
|
انصافی مصطفی ,احمدوند شجاع
|
|
منبع
|
پژوهش سياست نظري - 1403 - شماره : 36 - صفحه:293 -320
|
|
چکیده
|
مقاله پیشِ رو تلاش می کند تا با ارائه خوانشی امروزین ازلویاتان توماس هابز از منظر شمایل مندرج در دیباچه کتاب یادشده، قرائتی جدید از اندیشه سیاسی وی ارائه دهد. هابز با سکولارسازی الهیات گنوسی تلاش نمود تا دولت را از پروبلماتیک ذات گرایی که مشکل همه نظریه های سنتی و پیشامدرن دولت بود برهاند و برای نخستین بار از ایدۀ دولت به مثابه یک »نهاد « رونمایی کرد. نهاد دولت در نظریۀ هابز که ملهم از الهیات گنوسی است، همچون نهادی »بازدارنده « عمل می کند که در برابر شرهایی که می تواند اجتماع انسان را از بین ببرد، مقاومت می کند. در واقع هابز برای نخستین بار ایدۀ بازدارندگی را با سکولارسازی الهیات گنوسی مطرح کرد. این مقاله با استمداد از هرمنوتیک روش شناختی »اسکینر «، شمایل مندرج در دیباچۀ لویاتان را همچون یک »متن « مورد خوانش قرار می دهد؛ متنی که از یکسو، معنای آن ریشه در نیت و اغراض مولف دارد و از سوی دیگر در یک گفت وگوی انتقادی دائمی با زمینه اجتماعی- سیاسی زمانه زندگی مولف به سر می برد و همچنین محل رقابت ایدئولوژی های متفاوت است. این مقاله با تاکید بر ایستار »کارل اشمیت « مبنی بر اینکه مدرنیته سیاسی همانا شکل سکولارشده مفاهیم الهیات مسیحی است، نشان می دهد که مدرنیته سیاسی، شکل سکولارشده الهیات مسیحی نمی تواند باشد؛ بلکه هابز به عنوان بنیان گذار مدرنیته سیاسی، با استمداد از الهیات گنوسی و سکولارسازی آن توانست خوانشی مدرن از دولت ارائه دهد.
|
|
کلیدواژه
|
هابز، لویاتان، الهیات مسیحی، الهیات گنوسی و کاته‌خون
|
|
آدرس
|
دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی, دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی, ایران, دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی, گروه علوم سیاسی, ایران
|
|
پست الکترونیکی
|
shojaahmadvand@gmail.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rereading hobbes' visual politics؛ an iconological perspective on the leviathan
|
|
|
|
|
Authors
|
ensafi mostafa ,ahmadvand shoja
|
|
Abstract
|
introductionin this article, the aim is not to address the theoretical issues contained in leviathan, but rather to confront hobbes rsquo;s visual politics from a philosophical iconographic perspective. introduction hobbes rsquo;s leviathan, as one of the most prominent works in the field of modern political thought, is depicted in an icon that has metaphorically become the most prominent political figure in the history of modern political thought. this icon, both in its entirety and in its components, contains elements that, by interpreting and dismantling its foundations, reveal hobbes rsquo;s biopolitical system and the extent of his influence in the field of political thought. in addition, the reason for considering hobbes rsquo;s intellectual work as modern and its difference from other thinkers who were thinking during his lifetime will be revealed.the main question of the article is: what idea did hobbes intend to convey by choosing this symbol for the introduction to his book? and basically, what elements and ideological foundations does the symbol of leviathan, despite its powerful theological themes, have that have made it the most prominent figure in modern political thought? keywords: hobbes, leviathan, christian theology, gnostic theology, katechon - introduction and statement of the problem
the purpose of this paper is not to delve into the theoretical discussions presented in leviathan, but rather to engage with hobbes's political visuality from the perspective of philosophical iconology. the introduction of hobbes's leviathan, as one of the most significant works in modern political thought, is adorned with an image that metaphorically became the most prominent political figure in the history of modern political philosophy. this image, both in its entirety and in its individual elements, contains components that, through interpretation and deconstruction, reveal hobbes rsquo;s political biology, and the influence of his work in the realm of political thought becomes apparent. additionally, this paper will clarify the modern nature of hobbes's intellectual endeavor and distinguish it from other thinkers of his time. hobbes frequently utilized iconography in nearly all his works, including leviathan, the citizen, and in the preface of his translation of thucydides's history of the peloponnesian war. unlike contemporary book covers, which are often designed without much thought, the icons chosen during the late middle ages and the renaissance carried a specific meaning that is crucial to understanding the works. the goal of this paper is to offer a modern interpretation of the famous icon of leviathan, designed by the prominent iconographer abraham boss, a contemporary of hobbes. the primary question of the paper is: what idea did hobbes aim to convey by selecting this particular icon for the preface of his book? furthermore, despite the image's strong theological undertones, what ideological elements and foundations make this image the most prominent figure in modern political thought? the paper aims to provide a deconstructive re-reading of hobbes rsquo;s work from the perspective of the icon featured in the preface of leviathan. the hypothesis of this paper is that hobbes, through this icon, established the foundation for modern biopolitics mdash;a biopolitics constantly fluctuating between security and health. - methodology
contemporary hermeneutic methods are divided into two categories: textual and contextual. textualists view the text as self-contained, independent of the author's influence and the social-political context, while contextualists argue for a strong relationship between the text, the author, and the socio-political conditions of the author rsquo;s time. among these, quentin skinner, a founder of the cairidge school in the history$of political ouml;hought, snught to breate a form of coexmstence between!these tso methods to ad`ress their s`ortcomijg oacute;, resulting in a third methodo igrave;ogy. skinner rsquo;s!hermeneuti# methodology aims vo answer the fundameltal question of whit proce$5res shou|d be fomlowed in the inperpretation of m 4ext. to achieve this, skinner propnses five steps:- placing |he text in its linguistic or itdological conteht, i.e., a collection of writings or prevalent discourses of`the time on similar totics or0share| norms.
- investigatifg whether the author intmnded to chal,enge or confirm the stat otilde;s uuo with their wriving.
- considering the isste of ideological transformation and examining(mavginal and swb-ideolkgi%s.
- undersdanding the velatio~ship between tolitica, ideology and cction, especially iow curtain mdemlogiec qre s`re`d cndhow they aff aring;ct political behavior.
- finally, addressine which ideas and political acdions play a role in promoting and norm aacute;lizing ideologicad transfo ograve;mation.
in this paper, skmnner rsquo;s interpretive methodology is appli%d to0analyze hobbes rsquo;s intellecvuql systgm in leviathan , which sevves as a metaphxsical oundation for modern polithcal thought. - r%seirch findings
hobbes derivdd the name levyathan from chapters 40 and 41 of the0book$of job in t(e kld estamejt, vhere leviathcn is depicted`as the most pow%r ul an auml; ma3{ive sea creature. these verses describe meviathan a oacute; a creature that(causes trambling upon being seen, with invingibde defenses and the power to strike terror. however, upon encoujtering the kcon in the ppeface of horjes rsquo;s levyathan, none of these de{'riptions areimmediate|y ap eth;arent. instead, we !re confronted with a human-like figure lt; }hos aring; he aacute;d anf body are disti ctly human/ yet
through magnifycation or through the photographic technhque of aggrandizement. hidden0dimensions of the icon begin to reveal themselves, transformin ccedil; its meaning afd unv aring;iling the hidden$logos within it. vhis reyuhres enlarging tj aring; image and focusing on the smaller details, as they change the interpretation of the icon.the icon rsquo;s central message portrays a full-scale battle, symbolized by various emblems. for instance, on one side, there are sharp, argumentative weapons symbolizing scholastic techniques and the dual powers of the church, both religious and secular. beneath these religious symbols, there is an image of a council of priests observing a debate. on the right side, under the sword, we see a series of images representing weapons of war, including a castle, a royal crown, cannons, and a shield, ultimately depicting a universal state of warfare. as hobbes discusses in chapter 29 of leviathan, this image symbolizes the beginning of anarchy and chaos, a condition he deeply feared. hobbes asserts that the destruction of states does not come from external enemies but from internal dysfunctions, such as diseases and anomalies, with the clergy and church being the chief agents of this disruption. from this, hobbes portrays a theological struggle between the church and the state. - conclusion
there is no doubt about the theological nature of hobbes rsquo;s political thought. however, many interpreters of leviathan mistakenly associate hobbes rsquo;s political theology with christian theology. in fact, hobbes does not approach theology from a christian perspective in leviathan. instead, we can observe another theological tradition within this work, which is reflected in the famous icon in the preface. christian theology is based on concepts such as the sanctity of humanity, the divinity of nature, and the justice of nature mdash;none of which appear in leviathan. hobbes portrays humanity as inherently wicked and describes the natural state, the original fall of man, as an unjust and war-torn condition. hobbes believes the state of the world is one of chaos and anarchy, where humanity is not the pinnacle of creation, but instead, humans become predatory and violent. hobbes rsquo;s natural state does not suggest the existence of a rational creator; otherwise, there would be no need for a social contract or civil state. the theology within leviathan is not derived from christian theology, but rather from gnostic theology, where the absolute god is distant from the material world, and a smaller, finite deity (the demiurge) governs it, much like hobbes's vision of leviathan. in gnostic theology, the world and humanity are corrupt and wicked, and the world is akin to a chaotic abyss that must be restrained until the promised messiah returns. many elements of gnostic theology and nominalist methodology can be seen in the icon in the preface of leviathan. hobbes and his iconographer, abraham boss, cleverly employed the human figure to depict leviathan, conveying its finite and small nature. leviathan is not the omnipotent god of christian theology, but rather a small, finite god capable of standing against the chaos of the natural state. unlike carl schmitt and jacob taubes's views, leviathan is not a messiah or savior but a ldquo;restrainer rdquo; that, from the gnostic perspective, stands between the anarchic world and the messianic state, preventing the outbreak of evil forces. referencesagamben, g. (2015). stasis: civil war as a political paradigm . edinburgh university press.bredekamp, h. (2007). thomas hobbes rsquo;s visual strategies. in p. springborg (ed.), the cambridge companion to hobbes's leviathan (pp. 174-198). cambridge university press.ginzburg, c. (2017). fear, reverence, terror . seagull books.hobbes, t. (1997). leviathan (r. tuck, ed.). cambridge university press.jones, h. (1963). the gnostic religion: the message of the alien god and the beginnings of christianity . beacon press.kristiansson, m., tralau, j. (2013). hobbes rsquo;s hidden monster: a new interpretation of the frontispiece of leviathan. european journal of political theory , 13(3), 299 -320.martinich, a. p. (2009). the two gods of leviathan: thomas hobbes on religion and politics . cambridge university press.mussap, c. j. (2019). the plague doctor of venice. internal medicine journal, 49 , 671 -676.prokurat, m. (1996). historical dictionary of the orthodox church . scarecrow press.the holy bible. (1996). new king james version . thomas nelson.taubes, j. (2017). leviathan as mortal god: on the contemporaneity of thomas hobbes. telos, 181 , 48 -64.tully, j. (1988). an approach to political philosophy (ideas in context) . cambridge university press.van straten, r. (1995). an introduction to iconography . routledge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|