بررسی و تحلیل سرگذشت بهرام چوبین، در بستر تاریخ و شاهنامه براساس ناهم‌گونیِ رفتاریِ «خود و دیگری»، ازمنظرِ نشانه‌شناسی فرهنگی

نشانه‌شناسی فرهنگی یکی از مهم‌ترین رویکردهای علم نشانه‌شناسی است. یوری لوتمان از بنیانگذاران نشانه‌شناسی فرهنگی است که فرهنگ و روابط بینافرهنگی را مبتنی بر شیوة تعامل «خود» و «دیگری» در چارچوبِ سپهرِ نشانه‌ای مشخصی تعریف می‌کند. برپایة این الگو، نویسندگان این مقاله در بخش نخست، با توجه به آگاهی‌های تاریخی و روایت شاهنامه، تحلیل رابطة بهرام چوبین را با هرمز و خسروپرویز مدّنظر قرار می‌دهند؛ سپس انواع رابطه‌های این افراد را از منظر «خود/ دیگری» و «مرکز/ حاشیه» با تکیه بر نشانه‌شناسی فرهنگی بررسی می‌کنند. در بخش دوم نیز با تبیین نقشِ هژمونیک برخی از کهن‌الگوها و اسطوره‌های تاریخی در دیگری‌سازی از بهرام چوبین، به نتیجة مفروض دست می‌یابند. یافته‌های این پژوهش نشان می‌دهد که با توجه به سپهرِ نشانه‌ای روزگار ساسانیان و روایت شاهنامه از عملکرد بهرام چوبین و هرمز، بهرام به‌علت پیروزی‌اش در جنگ با ساوه شاه و به‌سبب پاسداری از ایران و فاداری‌اش به هرمز در مقامِ «خودی/ مرکزی» شناسایی شده است؛ هرمز نیز به‌علت سابقة رفتارِ ناپسندش با اشراف و بهرام، از مقام «خودی/ مرکزی» خارج شده و در مقام «دیگری/ حاشیه» قرار گرفته است؛ اما از زمانی که بهرام چوبین عزم تسخیر پادشاهی را جزم می‌کند، این روند برعکس می‌شود؛ زیرا خواسته‌ای مغایر با سپهرِ نشانه‌ای دستگاه مرکزی و مغایر با تودة مردم و خویشاوندانش داشته است و این امر بهرام را از مقامِ «دیگریِ آرمانی» به «دیگری/ حاشیه» تنزل می‌دهد؛ ضمنِ اینکه هم‌زمان با قیام بهرام چوبین علیه دستگاهِ مرکزی، نقشِ برخی از کهن‌الگوها و اسطوره‌های تاریخی نیز در تثبیت نقشِ بهرام چوبین در مقامِ دیگریِ نافرهنگی بسیار موثر بوده است. روش پژوهش در این مقاله، ضمن استناد به تاریخ و شاهنامه و مستندات کتابخانه‌ای، مبتنی بر توصیف و تحلیل رابطه‌ها و حادثه‌های مربوط به شخصیت‌های یادشده در بالا بوده است.

Analysis of Bahram Chobin̕s Biography in the Context of History and Shahnameh, Based on the Behavioral Heterogeneity of ‘Self and Other’ from the Perspective of Cultural Semiotics

AbstractCultural Semiotics is one of the most important approaches to semiotics. Yuri Lutman is one of the founders of cultural semiotics, which defines culture and intercultural relationships based on how ‘Self’ and ‘Other’ interact within the sphere of a specific Semiosphere. Based on this model, in the first part of the present study, considering the historical awareness and narration of Shahnameh, the analysis of Bahram Choobin’s relationship with Hormoz and Khosro Parviz is conducted. The research method in this study, while citing history and Shahnameh and library documents, has been based on describing and analyzing the relationships and incidents related to the abovementioned personalities. The study examines the types of relationships among the three mentioned persons from the perspective of ‘Self/Other’ and ‘Center/Margin’ based on cultural semiotics. In the second part, the study has reached the supposed result by explaining the hegemonic role of some archetypes and historical Myths in ‘Othering’ by Bahram Choobin, The findings of this study show that according to the Semiosphere of the Sassanid era and the Shahnameh narrative of the actions of Bahram Choobin and Hormoz, Bahram has been identified as ‘Self’ and ‘Central’ due to his victory in the war with Saveh Shah, protection of Iran, and his loyalty to Hormoz. Hormoz has been removed from the position of ‘Self’ and ‘Central’ and has been placed in the position of ‘Other/Marginal’ due to its history of illtreatment with Ashraf and Bahram. But Bahram Choobin has been determined to conquer the kingdom and has a desire that is contrary to the Semiosphere of the central government, the masses of people and his relatives. This degrades him from the position of the ‘Ideal Other’ to the ‘Other/Marginal’; therefore, the trend is reversed. At the same time with the uprising of Bahram Choobin against the central government, the role of some archetypes and historical myths has been very effective in emphasizing the role of Bahram Choobin in the Otherness nonculture position.IntroductionCultural Semiotics does not consider culture to be static. ‘Culture Self­’, in relation to another’s culture, is constantly repairing ‘Self’ and perhaps creating new ideas. The pattern that members of a cultural community have of their culture is reflected in the relationships between their cultures rather than in a single culture (Shahbazi, 2014, p. 40). Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh examines all the kings and heroes and their performance based on the approach of the ancient Iranians in the two cosmic systems of good and evil. According to the main sources of Shahnameh such as Khodainameh Bahram Choobin’s actions have been interpreted from the Sassanid’s Semiosphere point of view and he has been introduced as a person whose actions fluctuate in both aspects of good and evil and confuses the Semiosphere of the cultural Self and the ‘Other noncultural Self’. In general, this study seeks to answer two research questions: 1) Who are considered ‘Self’ and, on the contrary, who are the ‘Other’ or &Others’ among the existing actors in the story of Bahram Choobin? 2) According to the approach of cultural semiotics, what is the role and process of mythical and historical archetypes in the ‘Othering’ of Bahram Choobin?Materials and MethodsThe theory of Cultural Semiotics is one of the best theories available for understanding the cultural codes and determining the discourse signs in each era. Using this theory, the current study examines the types of bipolar relations between ‘self’ and ‘other’ in the story of Bahram Choobin and the discourse of the Sassanid era. Then, it identifies some mythological and historical archetypes for the study of Bahram Choobin’s character in the position of ‘Other’ in the second period of his life.Discussion of Results and ConclusionsThe study first tried to give a specific definition of the Semiosphere in the time of Hormoz and Khosrow Parviz and interpreted the performance of Bahram Choobin according to the approach of cultural semiotics (self and other). During the Sassanid era, although some kings had absolute power to carry out their orders, in most cases, according to the theory of the ideal prince, they could be reprimanded the punishment of Hormoz is one of these cases. Considering Bahram Choobin’s previous victories in the war against Saveh Shah and his indirect role in the overthrow of Hormoz, he was in the position of ‘Ideal Other’ in Shahnameh and other historical sources. But after the Sassanid era, the claim of descent as the main need of royal power gradually gave way to the characteristics of skill and ability. In such an atmosphere, Bahram Choobin tried to show his merit and essence with these functions­. On the other hand, the support of the people gave him the opportunity to reach higher positions of power. But when he asked for the monarchy, it was a step beyond an officer and a warlord who, in a normbreaking manner, confronted him with rigid social traditions and beliefs. Thus, after claiming the monarchy, he leaves the Semiosphere­ of the ‘Self/Central’ and becomes a distant ‘Other’.                                                                               Myths play an important role in political culture. They may even be much more important as the foundations of national identity. In epic texts, myths have been used again in a certain historical period to evoke a sense of national glory. Bahram Choobin has dual faces in sources such as Khodainameh and Shahnameh, and the role of Sassanid priests is prominent in this regard. As a result, as long as he is willing to obey an authoritarian king like Hormoz with heroic strength and courage against enemies and protection of Iran, some mythical and heroic archetypes such as: ‘the small number of Bahram Choobin’s troops against the armies of the Turks’, ‘Dragon Flag’, ‘prayer to God before the war’, etc. are considered to describe the performance of Bahram according to the internal order or the socalled Cosmos. But Bahram Choobin does not follow the hierarchy of kings and turns from a loyal general to a claimant to the throne and considers himself the reviver of the Parthian kingdom. Mythological and historical archetypes, which are hidden and active in the cultural Semiosphere and collective memory of Iranians, reduce him from a transcended model to a threatening, primitive, and savage element.