Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ﻣﺼﺎﺣﺒﻪ ﺑﺎ
ﺭﻓﻴﻖ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻧﭙﻮﺭ
ﻃﺎﻟﺒﻲ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻨﻜﻪ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺴﺘﻪ ﺗﺎ ﺣﺪﻱ ﻭﻇﻴﻔﻪﻱ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻭﺭﻩﻱ
ﺳﺘﻤﺸﺎﻫﻲ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﺑﺪﻫﺪ ،ﺩﻭ ﺳﻮﺁﻝ ﻣﺸﺨﺺ ﺩﺍﺭﻡ :ﺍﻭﻝ ﺍﻳﻨﻜﻪ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺷﻤﺎ ﺑﻪ
ﭼﻪ ﻣﻌﻨﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﺍﻳﻨﻜﻪ ،ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻌﻨﻲ ﻭ ﻫﺪﻑ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ،ﺍﻳﻦ ﺣﺮﻛﺖ ﺗﺎ ﭼﻪ
ﺣﺪ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺴﺘﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻫﺪﻓﺶ ﺑﺮﺳﺪ.
ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻧﭙﻮﺭ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻲ ﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﻭﻗﺘﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﺣﺮﻑ ﻣﻴﺰﻧﻴﻢ ،ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺑﺪﺍﻧﻴﻢ ﭼﻴﺰﻱ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮﺵ ﻫﺴﺖ
ﻛﻪ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺑﭙﺬﻳﺮﺩ .ﻭ ﻣﺎ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺍﻳﻨﻜﻪ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖﻛﻨﻴﻢ ،ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺁﻥ ﭼﻴﺰ ﺭﺍ
ﺑﺸﻨﺎﺳﻴﻢ .ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻤﻮﺩﻫﺎﻳﺶ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺘﺶ ﭘﻲﺑﺒﺮﻳﻢ ﻭ ﺑﺎﺯ ﺍﺯ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺖ ﺣﺪﻱ ﺍﺯ
ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺖ ﻣﺠﺪﺩﺍ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻤﻮﺩ ﻣﺮﺍﺟﻌﻪ ﻛﻨﻴﻢ ﻭ ﻣﺠﺪﺩﺍ ﻫﻤﻴﻨﻄﻮﺭ ﺑﺮﮔﺮﺩﻳﻢ ﺗﺎ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻤﺎﻥ ﻛﺎﻣﻞ
ﺑﺸﻮﺩ .ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻫﻨ ِﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﺩﺭ ﭘﻮﻳﺶ ﺧﻮﺩ ﻋﻤﻴﻖﺗﺮ ﻭ ﮔﺴﺘﺮﺩﻩﺗﺮ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ.
ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﻳﻦ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﺍﺯ ﻳﻚ ﺳﻄﺢ ﻧﺎﺯﻝ ﺍﻧﻌﻜﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻋﺘﺮﺍﺿﻲ ﺗﺎ ﻋﻤﻴﻖﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﺍﺷﻜﺎﻝ
ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ـ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﺧﻮﺩ ،ﭘﻴﺶﻣﻲﺭﻭﺩ .ﻭﻗﺘﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ ﭼﻴﺰﻱ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ ،ﺑﻪ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ
ﺍﻳﻨﻜﻪ ﺁﻥ ﭼﻴﺰ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﭼﻘﺪﺭ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻪ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ ،ﻫﻨﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﻫﻢ ﻣﻲﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﺑﻪ
ﻫﻤﺎﻥ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﮔﺴﺘﺮﺵ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻳﻲ ﭘﻴﺪﺍ ﻛﻨﺪ .ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺍﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ -
ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪ ،ﻭ ﺍﮔﺮ ﻋﻤﻴﻖﺗﺮ ﺑﮕﻮﻳﻢ ،ﺍﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻃﺒﻘﺎﺗﻲ ﮔﺴﺘﺮﺵ ﻣﻴﻴﺎﺑﺪ .ﺍﮔﺮ ﻫﻨﺮ
ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﺭﺍ ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺩﺭﻭﻥ ﺧﺮﺩﻩﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﺯﻱ ﻭ ﺭﻭﺷﻨﻔﻜﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺑﻲ ﻭ ﺣﺘﻲ ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺴﻴﺴﺖ
ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺑﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﺷﺮﺍﻳﻂ ﻛﻞ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻉ ﻫﻨﻮﺯ ﭘﺎﻳﮕﺎﻩ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻳﻲ ﻛﺴﺐ ﻧﻜﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ ،ﺑﺒﻴﻨﻴﻢ،
ﺍﻳﻦ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻋﺼﺮ ﺧﻮﺩﺵ ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻱ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺑﻮﺩ .ﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺘﻲ ﺭﺍ
ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﺯ ﺑﺤﺮﺍﻥﻫﺎﻱ ﻋﻈﻴﻢ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ـ ﭼﻪ ﭘﻴﺮﻭﺯ ﺑﺸﻮﻧﺪ ﻭ ﭼﻪ ﻧﺸﻮﻧﺪ ـ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﻧﻤﻲﺗﻮﺍﻥ
ﻣﻄﺮﺣﺶ ﻛﺮﺩ .ﻫﻨﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ،ﺍﺯ ﺩﻳﺪﮔﺎﻩ ﭘﺮﻭﻟﺘﺮﻱ ،ﻫﻨﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺘﻲ ﻋﻘﺐﻣﺎﻧﺪﻩ ﻭ ﺍﺯ ﺩﻳﺪﮔﺎﻩ
ﺧﺮﺩﻩ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﺯﻱ ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺑﻲ ،ﭘﺮﺑﺎﺭ ﻭ ﺍﺭﺯﻧﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ .ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﺑﻌﺎﺩ ﻋﻠﻤﻲ -ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻫﻨﺮ
ﻧﻤﻲﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﺁﻥ ﭼﻴﺰﻱ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ ﻛﻪ ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺴﻴﺴﺖﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺑﻲ ،ﺣﺘﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ،ﺍﻧﺘﻈﺎﺭﺵ ﺭﺍ
ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻨﺪ .ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﻳﺪﮔﺎﻩ ﻫﻨﻮﺯ ﺳﺎﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﻧﭙﺬﻳﺮﻓﺘﻪ .ﺑﺎ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﻳﺪﮔﺎﻩ ﺗﻨﻬﺎ
ﺟﺮﻗﻪﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﻭ ﺳﻨﮓﭘﺎﻳﻪﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﻣﻲﺗﻮﺍﻧﻴﻢ ﺩﺭ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻭ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﺟﺴﺘﺠﻮﻛﻨﻴﻢ .ﻭﻗﺘﻲ ﻣﻲﮔﻮﻳﻢ
ﻫﻨﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻭﺭﻩﻱ ﺳﺘﻤﺸﺎﻫﻲ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﺧﺮﺩﻩ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﻳﻲ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ ،ﻫﺮﮔﺰ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ
ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ ﻛﻪ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮﻱ ﺍﺯ ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺰﻡ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺧﻮﺩ ﻧﺪﺍﺷﺘﻪ ،ﺍﻣﺎ ﺣﺘﻲ ﺍﮔﺮ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ
ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺴﺘﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺩﺭﻭﻥ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﺩﻳﺪﻩﻣﻲﺷﺪ ،ﺩﺭ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ ﺑﺎ ﻣﺴﺎﻳﻞ ﻣﺒﺎﺭﺯﻩﻱ ﻃﺒﻘﺎﺗﻲ
ﻧﺒﻮﺩﻩ ﺑﻠﻜﻪ ﻣﺠﺮﺩ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻣﻲﻛﺮﺩ ﻭ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﺍﻳﻨﻜﻪ ﻣﻲﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺑﺎ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺧﺮﺩﻩﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﻳﻲ
ﺯﻳﺴﺘﻲ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺐ ﺑﺸﻮﺩ ،ﺑُﻌﺪ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﻲ ﻭ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮﺩ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﻲ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺯﺩﺳﺖﻣﻲﺩﻫﺪ ﻭ ﺗﻀﻌﻴﻒ
ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ .ﻭ ﺑﺪﻳﻦ ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﺷﺎﻳﺪ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﭘﺬﻳﺮﺵ ﺧﺮﺩﻩ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﺯﻱ ﻗﺮﺍﺭﻣﻲﮔﻴﺮﺩ ،ﭼﻮﻥ
ﺧﺮﺩﻩ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﺯﻱ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺴﻢ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ ﺑﺎ ﻣﺴﺎﻳﻞ ﻃﺒﻘﺎﺗﻲ ﺩﺭﻳﺎﻓﺖﻧﻤﻲﻛﻨﺪ.
ﺍﮔﺮ ﺍﻳﻨﻄﻮﺭ ﺁﻧﺮﺍ ﺩﺭﻳﺎﻓﺖﻣﻲﻛﺮﺩ ،ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﺎ ﺩﺭ ﭼﺸﻢﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯ ﺧﻮﺩﺵ ﺁﻧﺮﺍ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻔﻊ ﺧﻮﺩ
ﻧﻤﻲﺩﺍﻧﺴﺖ .ﺑﺎ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺣﺎﻝ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻴﻢ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪﺍﻧﻲ ﺭﺍ ﻛﻪ ﺳﺮﺍﭘﺎ ﻣﺪﺍﻓﻊ ﺗﻔﻜﺮ ﺧﺮﺩﻩ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﺯﻱ
ﺑﻮﺩﻧﺪ ،ﺍﻣﺎ ﺍﺯ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﻫﻢ ﻛﻪ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺴﺘﻲ ﺩﺍﺷﺖ ،ﺩﻓﺎﻉﻣﻲﻛﺮﺩﻧﺪ .ﺍﻳﻦ ﺑﻪ ﺁﻥ ﻣﻌﻨﻲ
ﻧﻴﺴﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺩﻓﺎﻉﻣﻲﻛﺮﺩﻧﺪ ،ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻱ ﺍﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺴﺘﻲ ﺑﻮﺩﻧﺪ ﺑﻠﻜﻪ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ
ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺰﻡ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺣﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺎﻓﺖ ﻃﺒﻘﺎﺗﻲ ﻭ ﺯﻳﺒﺎﻳﻲ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻧﻪﻱ ﺧﻮﺩﺷﺎﻥ ﻣﻲﻓﻬﻤﻴﺪﻧﺪ .ﻣﺎ
ﻧﺎﮔﺰﻳﺮﻳﻢ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺍﻳﻨﻜﻪ ﺑﺘﻮﺍﻧﻴﻢ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎ ﺧﻮﺍﻧﻨﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻳﻲﺗﺮ ﻣﻄﺮﺡﻛﻨﻴﻢ،
ﺖ ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺏ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻃﻴﺖ ﻣﻲﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺳﺎﺩﻩﺗﺮ ﻛﻨﻴﻢ .ﻣﺎ ﻣﻲﺩﺍﻧﻴﻢ ﻛﻪ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣ ِ
ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪﻱ ﻣﺎ ،ﺑﺎ ﻭﻳﮋﮔﻲﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻋﺼﺮ ،ﻣﻄﺮﺡ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ .ﻫﻨﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻃﻪ ﺭﺍ ﺍﮔﺮ ﺍﺯ
ﺖ
ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺷﻌﺮ ﺁﻥ ﻭ ﺷﻴﻮﻩﻱ ﻧﻮﺷﺘﺎﺭﻱ ﺁﻥ ) ﺍﺯ ﺟﻤﻠﻪ ﺩﻫﺨﺪﺍ ﺍﺭﺯﻧﺪﻩﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﭼﻬﺮﻩﻱ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣ ِ
ﺁﻥ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ ( ﻭ ﭘﻮﺳﺘﺮﻫﺎ ،ﻳﺎ ﻛﺎﺭﻳﻜﺎﺗﻮﺭﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺩﺳﺖ ﻫﺴﺖ ﺍﺭﺯﻳﺎﺑﻲ
ﻛﻨﻴﻢ ،ﻣﻲﺑﻴﻨﻴﻢ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﺳﺨﺖ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻳﻲ ﻭ ﺩﺭﻋﻴﻦﺣﺎﻝ ﺩﻭﺭ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﻫﻨﺮ
ﻭ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﺑﻮﺩ .ﺍﻳﻦ ﺑﺤﺮﺍﻥ ﻭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﮔﺴﺴﺖ ﺍﺯ ﺍﺭﺯﺵﻫﺎﻱ ﻛﻼﺳﻴﻚ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻭ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ
ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪﻱ ﺭﻭﺍﺑﻂ ﻓﺌﻮﺩﺍﻟﻲ ﻭ ﺷﻜﻞﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪﻱ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﺯﻱ ﺗﺠﺎﺭﻱ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺒﻲ ﺑﺎ
ﺭﻭﺍﺑﻂ ﻓﺌﻮﺩﺍﻟﻲ ،ﻣﻴﺘﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﺗﺒﻴﻴﻦ ﺷﻮﺩ .ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺗﻨﺪﺭﻭﻳﻲ ﻫﻢ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ﺯﻣﻴﻨﻪ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻴﻢ ﻛﻪ ﺗﺠﻠﻲ
ﺁﺭﻣﺎﻧﺨﻮﺍﻫﻲ ﻳﻚ ﻗﺸﺮ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﻲ ﺑﻮﺩﻧﺪ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻛﺴﺮﻭﻱ .ﺑﺎ ﺗﻤﺎﻣﻲ ﻋﻈﻤﺘﻲ ﻛﻪ ﻛﺎﺭﻫﺎﻳﺶ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ،
ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺯﻣﻴﻨﻪ ﺑﺮﺿﺪ ﺍﺭﺯﺵﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻫﻢ ﻗﻴﺎﻡﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ ،ﺻﺮﻓﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻻﻳﻞ ﺷﻴﻔﺘﮕﻲﺍﺵ
ﺑﻪ ﻣﺴﺎﻳﻞ ﺭﻭﺯ ﻭ ﻣﺴﺎﻳﻞ ﺣﺎﺩ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﻭ ﺍﺭﺯﺵﻫﺎﻱ ﻭﻳﮋﻩﻱ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻭ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺗﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺘﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﺩﺭ
ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﻧﻔﻮﺫ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ.
ﻃﺎﻟﺒﻲ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﺭﺯﺵﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺷﻤﺎ ﭼﮕﻮﻧﻪ ﺗﻌﺒﻴﺮﻣﻲﻛﻨﻴﺪ؟
ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻧﭙﻮﺭ ﺍﻳﻨﻄﻮﺭ ﺟﻤﻌﺒﻨﺪﻱﻣﻲﻛﻨﻴﻢ ﻛﻪ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻃﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺩﻳﺪﮔﺎﻩ ﺍﺭﺯﺵﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲـﻫﻨﺮﻱ
ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺮﺩﻡ ،ﻻﺯﻡ ،ﺿﺮﻭﺭﻱ ،ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ،ﺍﻣﺎ ﻛﻢﺑُﻌﺪ ﻭ ﺳﺨﺖ ﻧﺎﺯﻝ ﺍﺳﺖ .ﺩﺭ ﺗﺒﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻳﻦ
ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﮔﻔﺖ ﺗﻤﺎﻡ ﻫﻨﺮﻫﺎ ﺍﺭﺯﺵﻫﺎﻱ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﻃﻲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﺯ ﺩﺭﻭﻥ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻳﻲ
ﻛﺴﺐﻣﻲﻛﻨﻨﺪ .ﭼﻮﻥ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺮﺩﻡ ﻣﻨﺒﻊ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﻋﻈﻴﻢ ﻭ ﺍﺭﺯﺵﻫﺎﻱ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ،
ﭼﻮﻥ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺮﺩﻡ ﺣﺘﻲ ﺷﻌﺮﻣﻲﮔﻮﻳﻨﺪ ،ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲﻣﻲﻛﻨﻨﺪ ،ﺗﺂﺗﺮ ﺑﺎﺯﻱﻣﻲﻛﻨﻨﺪ .ﭼﻮﻥ
ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺮﺩﻡ ﺳﺎﻳﻪﺑﺎﺯﻱﻣﻲﻛﻨﻨﺪ .ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺷﻜﻞ ﻛﺎﻣﻼ ﺧﺎﻡ ﻭ ﺍﺑﺘﺪﺍﻳﻴﺶ ﺭﺍ ﺗﺪﺍﻋﻲ
ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻨﺪ .ﻣﺎ ﻣﻨﺒﻊ ﻋﻈﻴﻢ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻳﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺮﺩﻡ ﻣﻲﺩﺍﻧﻴﻢ .ﺍﮔﺮ ﭼﻪ ﺟﻤﻌﺒﻨﺪﻱ
ﺍﻛﺘﺴﺎﺏ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻻﻳﻞ ﻭﻳﮋﻩﻱ ﭘﺎﻳﮕﺎﻩ ﺍﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻴﺮﻭﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺩﺭﻭﻥ ﺧﺮﺩﻩ
ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﺯﻱ ﺑﻠﻨﺪ ﻣﻴﺸﻮﻧﺪ ،ﺑﺎﺯﮔﺸﺖﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ .ﺣﺘﻲ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﻳﻲ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺍﻭﻟﻴﻪﻱ ﺧﻮﺩﺵ ﺭﺍ
ﺍﺯ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﻏﺎﺭﺕﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ .ﻣﺎ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺑﺎ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻋﻠﻤﻲ ـ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ،ﺗﻤﺎﻡ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﻫﻨﺮ
ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﻟﻮﺙﺷﺪﻩ ،ﺩﺯﺩﻱﺷﺪﻩ ،ﺁﺭﺍﻳﺶﺷﺪﻩ ،ﺗﻤﺎﻡ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻟﻌﺎﺏﻫﺎ ،ﻭ ﺯﺷﺘﻲﻫﺎﻱ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﺯﻱ
ﺭﺍ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ ﺳﻠﺐﻛﻨﻴﻢ ﻭ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺧﺎﻟﺺ ﺁﻧﺮﺍ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺳﺖﺁﻭﻳﺰ ﺭﻭﺍﺑﻂ ﺳﺮﻣﺎﻳﻪﺩﺍﺭﺍﻧﻪ ﺷﺪﻩ،
ﻧﺠﺎﺕ ﺑﺪﻫﻴﻢ .ﻭ ﻫﻢ ﺩﻭﺑﺎﺭﻩ ﺁﻧﺮﺍ ﺑﺮﮔﺮﺩﺍﻧﻴﻢ ﺑﻪ ﺩﺭﻭﻥ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ.
ﺷﻤﺎ ﻣﺸﺨﺼﺎ ﺍﺯ ﺩﻫﺨﺪﺍ ﻧﺎﻡﺑﺮﺩﻳﺪ .ﺩﻫﺨﺪﺍ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺮﺧﻮﺭﺩ ﺑﺎ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺗﻮﺩﻩ ﭼﮕﻮﻧﻪ ﺍﺭﺯﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﻃﺎﻟﺒﻲ
ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻴﺪ؟
ﺩﻫﺨﺪﺍ ﺗﻤﺎﻡ ﺍﺭﺯﺵﻫﺎﻱ ﺑﻴﺎﻧﻲ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺯ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﻭ ﺍﺯ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﻭ ﺑﻪ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻧﭙﻮﺭ
ﺑﺮﮔﺮﺩﺍﻧﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ.
ﺍﮔﺮ ﻣﺎ ﺑﺨﻮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﺑﻪ ﺷﻜﻞ ﻣﺸﺨﺺﺗﺮ ﻭ ﺩﻗﻴﻖﺗﺮ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺑﺤﺚ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺩﺍﻣﻪ ﺑﺪﻫﻴﻢ ،ﻟﻄﻔﺎ ﺑﮕﻮﻳﻴﺪ ﻃﺎﻟﺒﻲ
ﺍﺩﺍﻣﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺣﺮﻛﺖ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﭼﻪ ﺷﻜﻠﻲ ﺗﺎﺑﻪﺣﺎﻝ ﺩﻳﺪﻩ ﺍﻳﺪ؟
ﺍﮔﺮ ﺑﺨﻮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﻓﺮﻭﺩ ﺑﻴﺎﻳﻴﻢ ﺭﻭﻱ ﭼﻬﺮﻩﻫﺎ... ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻧﭙﻮﺭ
ﺭﻭﻱ ﻛﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﺣﺘﻲ ... ﻃﺎﻟﺒﻲ
ﺭﻭﻱ ﻛﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﺣﺘﻲ ،ﺑﺤﺚ ﺑﻪ ﺩﺭﺍﺯﺍ ﻣﻲﻛﺸﺪ .ﻣﻦ ﭼﻨﺪ ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪ ﻣﻲﺩﻫﻢ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺗﺒﻴﻴﻦ ﻓﻜﺮﻱ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻧﭙﻮﺭ
ﺧﻮﺩﻡ .ﻭ ﺍﮔﺮ ﻣﺎ ﺑﺨﻮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﻣﻘﻮﻟﻪﻱ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﻫﺨﺪﺍ ﺭﺍ ﺩﻧﺒﺎﻝﻛﻨﻴﻢ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺑﺒﻴﻨﻴﻢ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﻣﻌﺎﺻﺮ
ﭼﻪ ﻛﺴﻲ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻘﺶ ﺭﺍ ﺍﻳﻔﺎﻛﺮﺩﻩ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﭼﻪ ﺍﺑﻌﺎﺩﻱ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﭼﻪ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻳﻲ ،ﺧﻮﺍﻩ ﻧﺎﺧﻮﺍﻩ
ﺑﺮﻣﻲﮔﺮﺩﻳﻢ ﺑﻪ ﻳﻚ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺧﺎﺹ ،ﻣﺜﻞ ﮔﺰﺍﺭﺵ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻲ ﻣﺜﻼ ...
ﻣﻨﻈﻮﺭ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻼ ﻭ ﻋﻤﺪﺗﺎ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﻪﻳﻴﺴﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﺪﺕ ﺑﻪ ﺩﺳﺖ ﺁﻣﺪﻩ. ﻃﺎﻟﺒﻲ
ﻣﻲﺧﻮﺍﻫﻴﺪ ﺑﺒﻴﻨﻴﺪ ﭼﻪ ﻛﺴﺎﻧﻲ ﺣﺎﺻﻞ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﻪﻫﺎ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ؟ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻧﭙﻮﺭ
ﻭ ﻳﺎ ﺍﻳﻨﻜﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﻪﻫﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺍﺭﮔﺎﻧﻴﻚ ﺑﺎ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻛﺠﺎ ﺭﺳﻴﺪﻩ. ﻃﺎﻟﺒﻲ
ﺑﺒﻴﻨﻴﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﻪ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺯ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺷﺮﻭﻉ ﻧﻜﺮﺩﻡ ﺗﺎ ﺑﺨﻮﺍﻫﻢ ﺭﻭﻱ ﺻﺮﻑ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻣﺘﻤﺮﻛﺰ ﺷﻮﻡ. ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻧﭙﻮﺭ
ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺍﮔﺮ ﺑﺨﻮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﺭﻭﻱ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﺴﺎﻳﻞ ﻣﺘﻤﺮﻛﺰ ﺑﺸﻮﻳﻢ ﺑﺤﺚ ﺑﻪ ﺩﺭﺍﺯﺍ ﻣﻲﻛﺸﺪ .ﻣﺎ
ﺑﻼﻓﺎﺻﻠﻪ ﻫﺪﺍﻳﺖ ،ﺟﻤﺎﻟﺰﺍﺩﻩ ﻭ ﺑﺰﺭﮒ ﻋﻠﻮﻱ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺍﺭﻳﻢ .ﻭ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﺎ ﺍﻳﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﺩﺍﻣﻪﺩﻫﻨﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﻫﻤﺎﻥ
ﺯﺑﺎﻥﻫﺎ ،ﻫﻤﺎﻥ ﺍﺭﺯﺵﻫﺎ ﻭ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺒﺎﺕ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ .ﻭ ﺣﺎﻝ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﺭﺯﺵﻫﺎ ﺗﺎ ﭼﻪ ﭘﺎﻳﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻭﻳﮋﮔﻲ
ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﻭﻓﺎﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﺳﺖ ،ﺑﻴﻚ ﻧﻘﺪ ﻋﻠﻤﻲ ـ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﺍﺣﺘﻴﺎﺝ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ.
ﺁﻳﺎ ﻣﺎ ﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﻣﻨﺘﻘﺪﻳﻨﻲ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﻳﻢ؟ ﻃﺎﻟﺒﻲ
ﻣﺎ ﻧﺎﻗﺪﺍﻥ ﺟﺎﻣﻊ ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭ ﻛﻢ ﺩﺍﺭﻳﻢ .ﻧﺎﻗﺪﺍﻥ ﻣﺎ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺟﺎﻣﻊ ﻫﻨﺮﻫﺎ ﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ .ﻧﺎﻗﺪﺍﻥ ﻣﺎ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻧﭙﻮﺭ
ﺭﻭﺍﻧﺸﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ،ﺭﻭﺍﻧﺸﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺭﺍ ،ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ،ﺩﻗﻴﻘﺎ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ
ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺭﺍﻫﻨﻤﺎﻱ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪ ﺩﺭ ﺟﻬﺖ ﺣﺮﻛﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺳﻮﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺰﻡ ،ﺑﻪ ﺳﻮﻱ ﻫﻨﺮ
ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺑﻲ ﻭ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ .ﻭ ﭼﻮﻥ ﻣﺎ ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪﻱ ﺍﺭﺯﺷﻤﻨﺪﻱ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﻳﻢ ،ﻣﻲﺗﻮﺍﻧﻴﻢ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻨﺘﻘﺪﻳﻦ
ﺑﺰﺭﮒ ﻭ ﺷﻜﻮﻫﻤﻨﺪﻱ ﭼﻮﻥ ﺑﻠﻴﻨﺴﻜﻲ ﺑﻬﺮﻩ ﺑﮕﻴﺮﻳﻢ .ﻭ ﺍﻟﺒﺘﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺣﻔﻆ ﺗﻤﺎﻡ ﻣﻮﺍﺿﻊ
ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺑﻴﻤﺎﻥ ﺍﺯ ﻟﻮﻛﺎﭺ ،ﭘﻠﺨﺎﻧﻒ ،ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩﻛﻨﻴﻢ .ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﻟﻨﻴﻦ ﻫﻢ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭﻩﻱ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻭ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ
ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ .ﻭ ﻫﻤﻴﻨﻄﻮﺭ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﻣﺎﺋﻮ ﺩﺭ ﺯﻣﻴﻨﻪﻱ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻭ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﻭ ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺏ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮕﻲ.
ﺍﮔﺮ ﭼﻪ ﻣﺴﺎﻳﻞ ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺏ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮕﻲ ﻋﻼﻣﺖ ﺳﻮﺁﻟﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺟﺮﻳﺎﻥ ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺏ ﭼﻴﻦ ﻭ ﺗﺪﺍﻭﻡ ﺁﻥ ﺑﻪ
ﺟﺎﻱ ﮔﺬﺍﺷﺖ ﻭﻟﻲ ﺩﺭﻫﺮﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﻭ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﺁﻥ ﺟﺎﻱ ﻣﺴﺎﻟﻪﻱ ﻭﻳﮋﻩﻳﻲ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ ﻭ
ﻣﺨﺼﻮﺻﺎ ﻣﻲﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺭﺍﻫﻨﻤﺎﻱ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪﺍﻥ ﻭ ﻧﺎﻗﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺭﺍﻩ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ.
ﺁﻗﺎﻱ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻧﭙﻮﺭ ،ﻫﻨﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻃﻴﺖ ﺭﺍ ،ﻭ ﺣﺘﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﭼﮕﻮﻧﮕﻲ ﺍﺩﺍﻣﻪﻱ ﺁﻥﺭﺍ، ﻋﺸﻘﻲ
ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﻋﺎﻡ ﻣﻄﺮﺡﻣﻲﻛﻨﻴﺪ .ﻭ ﻛﻤﺘﺮ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻮﺍﺭﺩ ﻣﺸﺨﺺ ﺁﻥ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩﻣﻲﻛﻨﻴﺪ .ﻣﺮﺩﻡ
ﺍﻣﺎ ﺑﺎ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻫﻨﺮﻫﺎ ﺍﺯ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﺧﺎﺻﻲ ﺑﺮﺧﻮﺭﺩﻣﻲﻛﻨﻨﺪ .ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺁﻧﻜﻪ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺖ ﻋﺎﻡ ﻫﻨﺮ
ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻣﺮﺩﻡ ﺑﻬﺘﺮ ﺭﻭﺷﻦ ﺷﻮﺩ ،ﺍﮔﺮ ﺍﺯ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﻫﻨﺮﻫﺎﻱ ﺧﺎﺹ ) ﺷﻌﺮ ،ﺗﺂﺗﺮ ،ﻗﺼﻪ ﻭ
(...ﻭ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪﺍﻥ ﺧﺎﺹ ،ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﺴﺎﻳﻞ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲﻛﻨﻴﺪ ،ﻣﻄﻠﺐ ﮔﻮﻳﺎﺗﺮ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ .ﻭ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﻲﻫﺎ ﻭ
ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺎﻳﻲ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﺩﺭ ﭘﻴﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﻣﺮﺩﻡ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﻲ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ.
ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻧﭙﻮﺭ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺸﻜﻮﻛﻢ ﻛﻪ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺸﻨﺎﺳﻨﺪ .ﺯﻳﺮﺍ ﺳﻴﺴﺘﻢ ﺳﺘﻤﺸﺎﻫﻲ ﻧﻤﻲﮔﺬﺍﺷﺖ
ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪﺍﻥ ﻭﻇﺎﻳﻒ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﺩﻫﻨﺪ .ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﻳﻜﺒﺎﺭ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﺩﺭ ﺩﺭﻭﻥ ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺏ ﻫﻨﺮ
ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻃﻪ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﻲ ﺑﺸﻮﺩ .ﻭ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻃﺶ ﺑﺎ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺧﻔﻘﺎﻥ ﭘﻬﻠﻮﻱ ﺗﺒﻴﻴﻦ ﺷﻮﺩ ﻭ ﺑﺎﺯ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ
ﻫﻨﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﺁﻥ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺑﺎ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ ﭘﺲ ﺍﺯ ﻗﻴﺎﻡ ﻣﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺷﻮﺩ .ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﮔﺮ ﺍﻣﺮﻭﺯ
ﺑﺨﻮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﺯ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﺻﺤﺒﺖﻛﻨﻴﻢ ،ﺍﺑﺘﺪﺍ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎ ﮔﺬﺷﺘﻪ ﺁﺷﻨﺎ ﻛﻨﻴﻢ .ﺍﺑﺘﺪﺍ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ
ﺑﺎ ﺗﺠﺪﻳﺪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻋﻈﻴﻤﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺭﻭﺍﺑﻂ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﻭ ﺍﺭﺯﺵﻫﺎﻱ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﺑﺪﻫﻴﻢ .ﺍﺑﺘﺪﺍ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ
ﻫﻨﺮ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺑﺎﺯﺑﻴﻨﻲ ﻗﺮﺍﺭﺩﻫﻴﻢ .ﻭ ﺑﻴﺎﻳﻴﻢ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﻳﻲ ﻭ ﺧﺮﺩﻩﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﻳﻲ ﻫﻨﺮ
ﺭﺍ ـ ﺍﻟﺒﺘﻪ ﺁﻥ ﻗﺴﻤﺖ ﺍﺯ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺧﺮﺩﻩ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﻳﻲ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻳﺴﺘﺎ ﺷﺪﻩ ـ ﺍﺯ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ
ﮔﺬﺷﺘﻪﻱ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪ ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚﻛﻨﻴﻢ ،ﺗﺎ ﺁﻥ ﺍﺭﺯﺵﻫﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺁﻳﻨﺪﻩ ﺟﺎﺭﻱ ﺑﺸﻮﺩ .ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ
ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﻣﻴﺘﻮﺍﻧﻴﻢ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﺑﺮﻗﺮﺍﺭﻛﻨﻴﻢ .ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﮔﺮ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻴﺎﻳﻴﻢ ﺭﻭﻱ ﻧﺴﻴﻢ ﺷﻤﺎﻝ
ﺗﻮﻗﻒﻛﻨﻴﻢ ﻭ ﻳﺎ ﺭﻭﻱ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﺁﺧﻮﻧﺪﺯﺍﺩﻩ ،ﻣﻲﺑﻴﻨﻴﻢ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﺩﺭ ﺩﺳﺘﺮﺱ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﻧﺒﻮﺩﻩ ﻭ
ﻓﺮﺍﻣﻮﺵ ﺷﺪﻩ .ﺷﺎﻳﺪ ﺑﻌﻀﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺍﺑﻴﺎﺕ ،ﺑﻌﻀﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺷﻜﻞﻫﺎﻱ ﻛﺎﺭﻳﻜﺎﺗﻮﺭﻱ ،ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ
ﺯﺑﺎﻧﻲ ﻧﻘﻞ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ .ﻭﻟﻲ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺟﺮﻳﺎﻥ ﻫﺮﮔﺰ ﺁﮔﺎﻫﺎﻧﻪ ﻧﺒﻮﺩﻩ ﻭ ﺍﺯ ﻃﺮﻑ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪﺍﻥ ﻛﻤﻜﻲ
ﺩﺭ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻧﺪﻥ ﺁﻥ ﻧﺸﺪﻩ ﻭ ﺍﻣﺮﻭﺯ ﺟﺎﺩﺍﺭﺩ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺣﺮﻛﺖ ﺻﻮﺭﺕﺑﮕﻴﺮﺩ ﺗﺎ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺮﺩﻡ
ﺑﺪﺍﻧﻨﺪ ﻛﻪ ﻣﺎ ﺭﺍﺟﻊ ﺑﻪ ﭼﻪﭼﻴﺰ ﺻﺤﺒﺖﻣﻲﻛﻨﻴﻢ .ﺍﻳﻦ ﺣﺮﻛﺖ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺑﺸﻮﺩ ﺗﺎ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺮﺩ ِﻡ
ﻣﺎ ﭼﺸﻢﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯﻱ ﺍﺯ ﮔﺬﺷﺘﻪ ،ﺣﺎﻝ ﻭ ﺁﻳﻨﺪﻩ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺯﻣﻴﻨﻪ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ.
ﺖ ﻣﺎ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻃﻲ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺎ ﻋﻘﻴﺪﻩﻱ ﺷﻤﺎ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻘﻢ .ﮔﻔﺘﻴﺪ ﻣﺸﻜﻮﻛﻢ ﻛﻪ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣ ِ ﻋﺸﻘﻲ
ﺑﺎﺷﺪ .ﺑﻠﻪ .ﻭ ﺍﺻﻼ ﺩﺭﺳﺖﺗﺮ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺻﺮﺍﺣﺘﺎ ﺑﮕﻮﻳﻴﻢ ﻫﻴﭻ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻃﻲ ﻧﺪﺍﺷﺘﻪ .ﺟﺰ ﺍﻟﺒﺘﻪ ﺩﺭ
ﺑﻌﻀﻲ ﺯﻣﻴﻨﻪﻫﺎ .ﻫﻨﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺨﺶ ﺳﻴﻨﻤﺎ ،ﻋﻠﻴﺮﻏﻢ ﺗﻤﺎﻡ ﺍﻧﺤﺮﺍﻓﺎﺕ ﺧﺮﺩﻩ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﻳﻲ،
ﺑﺎ ﻣﺮﺩﻡ ﺗﻤﺎﺱ ﻧﺰﺩﻳﻚ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ .ﮔﻔﺘﻴﺪ ﻛﻪ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﭘﺎﻳﮕﺎﻩ ﺧﺮﺩﻩ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﻳﻲ
ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ...
ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻧﭙﻮﺭ ﺩﺭﺳﺖ ﺍﺳﺖ .ﭘﺎﻳﮕﺎﻩ ﺍﻣﺎ ﻧﻪ ﺧﻮﺍﺳﺘﮕﺎﻩ ،ﭼﻮﻥ ﺧﺎﺳﺘﮕﺎﻫﺶ ﻣﻲﺗﻮﺍﻧﺴﺖ ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺴﺘﻲ ﻫﻢ
ﺑﺎﺷﺪ .ﻭﻟﻲ ﺍﺯ ﭘﺎﻳﮕﺎﻩ ﺧﺮﺩﻩ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﻳﻲ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﺷﺪﻩ.
ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺑﻴﺴﺖﻭﭘﻨﺞ ﺳﺎﻝ ﺍﺧﻴﺮ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﺷﺮﺍﻳﻂ ﺍﺧﺘﻨﺎﻕ ﻭ ﺳﺎﻧﺴﻮﺭ ،ﺍﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻋﺸﻘﻲ
ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﺑﺎ ﻣﺮﺩﻡ ﻧﺒﻮﺩ ﻭ ﺍﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺗﻐﺬﻳﻪﻱ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺴﺎﻳﻞ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﻲ ﻣﺮﺩﻡ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻧﺪﺍﺷﺘﻪ .ﻫﻨﺮ
ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﭼﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺷﻜﻞ ﻭ ﭼﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﺍ ،ﺑﻪ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺧﻠﻘﻲ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﺧﻮﺩ ﻧﺰﺩﻳﻚ
ﻧﺸﺪ .ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﺰﻭﻝ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪﺍﻥ ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺴﻴﺴﺖ ﻭ ﺩﻣﻮﻛﺮﺍﺕ ﺑﻪ ﻳﻚ ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯﻩ ﺳﻬﻴﻢ ﺑﻮﺩﻧﺪ.
ﻧﻤﻲﮔﻮﻳﻢ ﺭﻭﻱ ﭼﻬﺮﻩﻫﺎ ﻭ ﻫﻨﺮﻫﺎﻱ ﺧﺎﺹ ﻣﻜﺚ ﻛﻨﻴﻢ ،ﺗﺎ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎﻱ ﻛﺜﻴﺮ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺸﻨﺎﺳﻨﺪ
ﻭﻟﻲ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪﺍﻥ ﻣﺎ ،ﭼﻪ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪﺍﻥ ﮔﺬﺷﺘﻪ ،ﻭ ﭼﻪ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪﺍﻧﻲ ﻛﻪ ﭘﺲ ﺍﺯ ﻗﻴﺎﻡ ﺭﺷﺪ
ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻨﺪ ،ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺑﺎﺯﺩﻳﺪ ﺩﻗﻴﻘﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﮔﺬﺷﺘﻪ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﻴﻢ .ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﻣﺎ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺑﺒﻴﻨﻴﻢ ﻛﻪ
ﺍﺳﺎﺳﺎ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻫﻨﺮﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺩﻭﺭ ﺭﻳﺨﺖ ﻳﺎ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮﻱ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺣﻔﻆﻛﺮﺩ .ﻣﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻫﻨﺮ
ﺩﻭﺭﻩﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺍﺭﻳﻢ ﻛﻪ ﻛﻞ ﺁﻥ ﺩﻭﺭﻩﻫﺎ ﺍﺯ ﻟﺤﺎﻅ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﻣﺘﺮﻭﻙ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﻧﺪ .ﻣﺜﻼ ﺷﻌﺮ ﺩﺭ
ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﻗﺎﺟﺎﺭﻳﻪ .ﻫﻨﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ۲۵ﺳﺎﻝ ﺍﺧﻴﺮ ﺭﺍ ﻣﺸﺨﺺﺗﺮ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﻲﻛﻨﻴﺪ .ﭼﻪ ﻗﺴﻤﺖﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﺍﺯ
ﺁﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﻧﮕﻪﺩﺍﺷﺖ ﻭ ﭼﻪ ﻗﺴﻤﺖﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺩﻭﺭ ﺭﻳﺨﺖ ﻭ ﻳﺎ ﺷﺎﻳﺪ ﺍﺳﺎﺳﺎ ﻫﻤﻪ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ
ﺩﻭﺭ ﺭﻳﺨﺖ؟
ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻧﭙﻮﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻃﻴﺖ ﻭ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻃﻴﺖ ﺣﺮﻑﺯﺩﻡ .ﺩﻗﻴﻘﺎ ﺑﻪﺍﻳﻦﺩﻟﻴﻞﻛﻪ ﺑﻪﺍﻳﻨﺠﺎ ﺑﺮﺳﻢ.
ﺳﻌﻲﻣﻴﻜﻨﻢ ﺳﺮﻳﻊﺗﺮ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺳﻮﺁﻝ ﺑﺮﺳﻢ .ﺩﺳﺘﺎﻭﺭﺩﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺏ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻃﻴﺖ ﺩﺳﺘﺨﻮﺵ
ﻣﻄﺎﻣﻊ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﺯﻱ ﺗﺠﺎﺭﻱ ﻭ ﻫﻤﭽﻨﻴﻦ ﻓﺌﻮﺩﺍﻟﻴﺰﻡ ﺑﺎﺯﻣﺎﻧﺪﻩ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺐ ﻣﺤﻤﺪﺭﺿﺎﺷﺎﻫﻲ
ﻗﺮﺍﺭﻣﻲﮔﻴﺮﺩ .ﺑﺎ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮﺍﺗﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺣﺘﻲ ﺩﺭ ﻫﻤﺎﻥ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﻧﻴﻢﺑﻨﺪ ﻣﻲﺩﻫﻨﺪ ،ﻣﻲﺑﻴﻨﻴﻢ ﻛﻪ
ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻃﻪﻱ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻋﻪ ﺑﺎﻻﺧﺮﻩ ﻣُﻬﺮ ﺧﻮﺩﺵ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﻫﻤﺎﻥ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﺯﺩﻩ ﺑﻮﺩ .ﻫﻨﺮ ﻭ
ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﻫﻢ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺭﻫﮕﺬﺭ ﻣﻨﺰﻭﻱ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ ﻭ ﺧﻔﻘﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ﺣﺎﻛﻢﻣﻲﮔﺮﺩﺩ .ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﺎ ﺭﻭﻧﺪ
ﻣﺒﺎﺭﺯﻩﻱ ﻃﺒﻘﺎﺗﻲ ﺍﺩﺍﻣﻪ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﻭ ﺍﮔﺮ ﺗﻀﺎﺩﻫﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺮﻫﻪﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﻛﻤﺘﺮ ﻋﻤﻞﻣﻲﻛﺮﺩﻧﺪ،
ﻣﺎ ﻧﻤﻲﺗﻮﺍﻧﻴﻢ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺭﺍ ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﺑﺮ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺑﺪﺍﻧﻴﻢ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻭ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﻫﻢ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﺒﺎﺭﺯﻩ ﺗﺎﺑﻊ ﺻﺮﻓﺎ
ﻧﻤﻮﺩ ﺗﻀﺎﺩﻫﺎﻱ ﻃﺒﻘﺎﺗﻲ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ ﺑﻠﻜﻪ ﻗﻮﻳﺘﺮ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻤﻮﺩﻫﺎ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻣﻲﻛﺮﺩﻩ ﻳﺎ ﺑﻬﺘﺮ ﺑﮕﻮﻳﻢ ﺑﻪ
ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻗﻮﻳﺘﺮﻳﻦ ﻧﻤﻮﺩ ،ﺧﻮﺩﺵ ﺭﺍ ﻧﺸﺎﻥﻣﻲﺩﺍﺩ .ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﻣﺎ ﺗﺤﻮﻝ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺴﺘﻲ ﺭﺍ
ﺩﺍﺭﻳﻢ ،ﺍﮔﺮ ﭼﻪ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﺭﺯﺵﻫﺎﻱ ﺯﻳﺒﺎﻳﻲﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻧﻪﻱ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺩﺭ ﻛﺎﺩﺭ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﺯﻱ ﻭ ﻳﺎ
ﺧﺮﺩﻩﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﺯﻱ ﻗﺮﺍﺭﻣﻲﮔﻴﺮﺩ ﻭﻟﻲ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻤﺎﻡ ﻗﺪﺭﺕ ﺍﻳﻦ ﭘﻮﺳﺘﻪﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﻣﻲﺷﻜﻨﺪ ،ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ ﻋﺒﻮﺭ
ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ ﻭ ﺍﮔﺮ ﭼﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺩﺭﻭﻥ ﻳﻚ ﺳﻴﺴﺘﻢ ﻣﺸﺨﺺ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻳﻲ ﻭ ﻋﺎﻡ ﻧﻤﻲﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺑﮕﻴﺮﺩ
ﻭﻟﻲ ﺩﺭ ﻫﺮ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺁﻥ ﭘﻮﺳﺘﻪﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺷﻜﺴﺘﻪ ﻭ ﺑﺨﺸﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺍﺭﺯﺵﻫﺎﻱ ﺁﻥ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺭﺍ ﺣﻔﻆ
ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ .ﻧﻴﻤﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺯ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪﻱ ﺧﻮﺩﻣﺎﻥ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﺑﺰﻧﻴﻢ .ﻣﻲﺩﺍﻧﻴﻢ ﻛﻪ ﺧﻔﻘﺎﻥ ﻭ ﺩﻳﻜﺘﺎﺗﻮﺭﻱ
ﺭﺿﺎﺷﺎﻩ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﺟﻨﮓ ﺟﻬﺎﻧﻲ ﻛﻪ ﭘﻴﺶﺁﻣﺪ ،ﺑﻪ ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﻣﺒﺎﺭﺯﻩﻱ ﺧﻠﻘﻬﺎ ،ﺑﻪ ﻭﻳﮋﻩ ﻣﺒﺎﺭﺯﻩﻱ
ﺍﺭﺩﻭﮔﺎﻩ ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺴﻢ ﺑﺎ ﻓﺎﺷﻴﺰﻡ ،ﺷﺮﺍﻳﻄﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺟﻬﺎﻥ ﭘﻴﺶﺁﻭﺭﺩ ﻛﻪ ﺩﻳﻜﺘﺎﺗﻮﺭﻱﻫﺎ ﻭ
ﺣﺎﻛﻤﻴﺖﻫﺎﻱ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻊ ﻧﻤﻲﺗﻮﺍﻧﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﺗﻤﺎﻡ ﺣﺎﻛﻤﻴﺖ ﻭﻳﮋﻩ ﻭ ﻣﻄﻠﻖ
ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺭﻭﻱ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪ ﺑﮕﺴﺘﺮﺍﻧﻨﺪ .ﺩﺭ ﻳﻚ ﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﻓﻀﺎﻳﻲ ﻣﺎ ﻣﻲﺑﻴﻨﻴﻢ ﻛﻪ ﻧﻴﺮﻭﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺘﺮﻗﻲ ﻭ
ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺑﻲ ﻭ ﺣﺘﻲ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺰﻡ ﺩﺭ ﺩﺭﻭﻥ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺭﺷﺪ ﻭ ﭘﻮﻳﺎﻳﻲ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺍﺩﺍﻣﻪ ﻣﻲﺩﻫﻨﺪ.
ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪﻱ ﻣﺎ ﺍﺯ ﺳﺎﻝ ۱۳۲۰ﺩﺭ ﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﻭﺍﺭﺩ ﻳﻚ ﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﻪﻳﻲ ﺷﺪ ﻭ ﻣﺎ ﻣﻲﺩﺍﻧﻴﻢ ﻛﻪ
ﻓﻲﺍﻟﻤﺜﻞ ﻧﻤﻮﺩ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺣﺰﺏ ﺗﻮﺩﻩ ﭘﻴﺪﺍﻛﺮﺩ .ﺣﺰﺏ ﺗﻮﺩﻩ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻳﻚ ﺣﺰﺏ
ﺿﺪ ﻓﺎﺷﻴﺴﺘﻲ ﺑﻮﺩ ،ﻧﻪ ﻳﻚ ﺣﺰﺏ ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺴﺘﻲ ،ﻭ ﺩﻗﻴﻘﺎ ﻣﻲﺩﺍﻧﻴﻢ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ﻣﻘﻄﻊ ﺍﺳﺘﺎﻟﻴﻦ
ﻣﺤﻮﺭ ﻣﺒﺎﺭﺯﺍﺕ ﻛﻤﻮﻧﻴﺴﺘﻲ ﺟﻬﺎﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮ ﺿﺪ ﻓﺎﺷﻴﺴﻢ ﺳﺎﺯﻣﺎﻧﺪﻫﻲﻣﻲﻛﺮﺩ .ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﻫﻤﻴﻦ
ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺑﻮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﺣﺰﺏ ﺗﻮﺩﻩ ﺩﺭ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪ ﻣﺎ ﭘﺎ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻴﺪﺍﻥ ﮔﺬﺍﺷﺖ .ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ﺷﺮﺍﻳﻂ ﺍﮔﺮ ﭼﻪ ﻣﺎ
ﺟﺰﻭ ﻛﺸﻮﺭﻫﺎﻱ ـ ﻇﺎﻫﺮﺍ ـ ﺑﻲﻃﺮﻑ ﺑﻮﺩﻳﻢ ﻭﻟﻲ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪﻱ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻛﻤﻚﻛﺮﺩ
ﻛﻪ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪ ﻣﺎ ﻣﺘﻤﺎﻳﻞ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺘﻔﻘﻴﻦ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻛﻨﺪ .ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺑﻮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﺎ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺑﻲ ﻭ
ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺴﺘﻲ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻭ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﻫﻢ ﺷﻜﻮﻓﺎ ﺷﺪ .ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﻄﻊ ﻣﺎ ﻧﻴﻤﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻴﻢ ﻭ ﺑﺎﺯ ﻫﺪﺍﻳﺖ
ﺭﺍ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻴﻢ ،ﻭ ﺑﺰﺭﮒ ﻋﻠﻮﻱ ﺭﺍ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻳﻨﻬﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﭼﻬﺮﻩﻫﺎﻱ ﺩﺭﺧﺸﺎﻥ ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺑﻲ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ
ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﺁﻥ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ ﺑﻮﺩﻧﺪ .ﺍﻟﺒﺘﻪ ﻫﺪﺍﻳﺖ ﺁﺛﺎﺭﺵ ﺑﺎ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﻭﻳﮋﻩﻳﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺯﻳﺒﺎﻳﻲ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ
ﺧﺮﺩﻩ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﺯﻱ ﺑﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺑﻮﺩ .ﻭﻟﻲ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻉ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮕﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺑﻪ ﺟﺎ ﮔﺬﺍﺷﺖ
ﻳﻚ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻔﻊ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺮﺩﻡ ﺑﻮﺩ .ﻣﺎ ﻧﻤﻲﺗﻮﺍﻧﻴﻢ ﻫﺪﺍﻳﺖ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺻﺮﻑ
ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻲ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺑﻮﻑ ﻛﻮﺭ ﻛﻪ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪﻱ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﺯﻱ ﺁﻥﺭﺍ ﻋﹶﻠﻤَﺶ ﻛﺮﺩ ﻭ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻗﻠﻪ
ﺍﺩﺭﺍﻛﺎﺕ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﻣﻄﺮﺡ ﻛﺮﺩ ﺑﻪ ﺁﻥ ﺗﻜﻴﻪ ﻛﻨﻴﻢ ﻭ ﺯﻳﺮ ﺳﻮﺁﻝ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺑﺪﻫﻴﻢ .ﻣﺎ ﻧﻤﻲﺗﻮﺍﻧﻴﻢ
ﻫﺪﺍﻳﺖ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪﻱ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺎ ﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭﻫﺎﻱ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺧﺮﺩﻩ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﺯﻱ ﺩﺭ ﻳﻚ ﺳﻴﺴﺘﻢ
ﻣﺠﺮﺩ ﻭ ﺍﻧﺘﺰﺍﻋﻲ ﻣﺴﺎﻳﻞ ﺧﻮﺩﺵ ﺭﺍ ﻣﻄﺮﺡ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ،ﻣﻬﺮ ﺑﺎﻃﻞ ﺑﺰﻧﻴﻢ .ﻫﻤﺎﻧﻄﻮﺭ ﻛﻪ ﮔﻔﺘﻴﻢ
ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪﻱ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﻫﺪﺍﻳﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻔﻊ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺮﺩﻡ ﺍﺳﺖ .ﺣﺘﻲ ﺁﺛﺎﺭﻱ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺣﺎﺟﻲﺁﻗﺎ ﻛﻪ
ﺣﺎﻛﻤﻴﺖ ﻭ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻃﺎﺕ ﺣﺎﻛﻤﻴﺖ ﻭ ﻧﻬﺎﺩﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﺭﺍ ﻣﻄﺮﺡ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ ﺩﺭ ﺷﺮﺍﻳﻂ ﺍﻣﺮﻭﺯ
ﻫﻢ ﺍﺯ ﻛﺘﺎﺏﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﻤﻨﻮﻋﻪ ﺑﻮﺩ .ﺍﻟﺒﺘﻪ ﺩﺭ ﭘﺎﺭﻩﻳﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﺩﻳﮕﺮﺵ ﺑﺎ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻳﻨﻜﻪ ﺍﺭﺯﺵﻫﺎﻱ
ﺍﺳﺘﺎﺗﻴﻜﻲ ﺧﻮﺩﺵ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺯ ﻳﻚ ﻧﻮﻉ ﺑﻴﻨﺶ ﻣﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻜﻲ ﻭ ﻣﺠﺮﺩ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺎﺩﻩ ﻛﺴﺐ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ ﻭﻟﻲ
ﺩﺭ ﻋﻴﻦ ﺣﺎﻝ ﺑﺮ ﺿﺪ ﺑﻴﻨﺶ ﻣﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻜﻲ ﻫﻢ ﺑﺮ ﻣﻲﺧﻴﺰﺩ .ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻓﺴﺎﻧﻪﻱ ﺁﻓﺮﻳﻨﺶ .ﺑﺎ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺣﺎﻝ
ﻫﺪﺍﻳﺖ ﺟﺰﺀ ﭼﻬﺮﻩﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﻣﺎﺳﺖ ﺩﺭ ﭘﺎﻳﮕﺎﻩ ﺧﺮﺩﻩ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﺯﻱ .ﻭ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﮔﻔﺖ
ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﺍﻭ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺰﻡ ﺿﻌﻴﻒ ﺍﺳﺖ.
ﮔﻔﺘﻴﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺗﻨﺎﻗﻀﻲ ﺩﺭ ﻛﺎﺭﻫﺎﻱ ﻫﺪﺍﻳﺖ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ .ﺍﺯ ﺳﻮﻳﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺷﻜﻞ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﻣﺘﺄﺛﺮ ﺍﺯ ﻋﺸﻘﻲ
ﺯﻳﺒﺎﻳﻲ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﻳﻲ ﻏﺮﺑﻲ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﻋﻴﻦ ﺣﺎﻝ ﺭﻭﻳﻜﺮﺩ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺴﺎﻳﻞ ﺯﺣﻤﺘﻜﺸﺎﻥ
ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ .ﺍﻳﻦ ﺗﻀﺎﺩ ﺩﺭ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﻫﺪﺍﻳﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺳﻨﺘﺰﻱ ﺧﺘﻢ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻉ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻔﻊ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ
ﺑﻮﺩﻩ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻋﻘﻴﺪﻩ ﺷﻤﺎﺳﺖ .ﻣﻦ ﺍﻣﺎ ﻫﺪﺍﻳﺖ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺷﻜﻠﻲ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﻣﻲﺑﻴﻨﻢ .ﻫﺪﺍﻳﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻃﺒﻘﻪﻱ
ﻲ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﻳﻲ ،ﺗﻤﺎﺱ ﻣﺮﻓﻪ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪﻱ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺗﻌﻠﻖ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ ﺑﺎ ﻏﺮﺏ ،ﻭ ﺑﺎﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓ ﻏﺮﺑ ِ
ﻱ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺯ ﻏﺮﺏ ﻣﻲﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ .ﻫﺪﺍﻳﺖ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻧﺰﺩﻳﻚ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ .ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﻣﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﻭﻟﻴﻪﻱ ﺗﻔﻜﺮ ﻫﻨﺮ ِ
ﻏﺎﻟﺐ ﻣﻌﺘﻘﺪ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻮﻋﻲ ﻣﺎﺩﻱﮔﺮﺍﻳﻲ ﻧﻴﻬﻠﻴﺴﺘﻲ ﺳﺖ .ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺧﺎﻃﺮ ﺩﺭ ﭼﺸﻤﺪﻳﺪ ﻫﺪﺍﻳﺖ
ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪﺍﻧﻲ ﺍﺭﺝ ﻣﻲﻳﺎﻓﺘﻨﺪ ،ﻛﻪ ﺑﻴﺎﻧﮕﺮ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮕﻲ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﻳﻲ ،ﭼﻪ ﺁﮔﺎﻩ ﻭ ﭼﻪ
ﻧﺎﺁﮔﺎﻩ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ .ﻫﺪﺍﻳﺖ ﺩﺭ ﺁﺛﺎﺭﺵ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻔﻲ ﻣﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻚ ﻣﻲﺭﺳﺪ .ﺍﻣﺎ ﺑﺎ ﻧﻔﻲ ﻣﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻚ ﺑﻪ
ﺍﺧﻼﻕ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﺍﻣﻴﺪﺑﺨﺸﻲ ﻧﻤﻲﺭﺳﻴﺪﻩ .ﻭ ﻳﺎ ﺍﻳﻨﻜﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺎﺩﻱﮔﺮﺍﻳﻲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ
ﻋﻤﻠﻲﺍﺵ ﻧﺰﺩﻳﻚ ﻧﻤﻲﺷﺪﻩ .ﻫﺪﺍﻳﺖ ﺣﺘﻲ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪﺍﻧﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﭘﺎﺱ ﻣﻲﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ،ﻭ ﺍﺯ
ﺁﻧﺎﻥ ﻣﺘﺄﺛﺮ ﻣﻲﺷﺪﻩ ،ﻛﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﺯﻱ ﻏﺮﺑﻲ ،ﻣﻬﺮ ﺗﺎﻳﻴﺪ ﺧﻮﺭﺩﻩ ﺑﻮﺩﻧﺪ .ﺍﻟﺒﺘﻪ
ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﺯﻱ ﻏﺮﺑﻲ ﻭﺟﻮﻫﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪﻱ ﺁﻧﺎﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺗﺎﻳﻴﺪ ﻣﻲﻛﺮﺩﻧﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺟﻨﺒﻪﻫﺎﻱ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺪﻩﻳﻲ
ﺑﺮﺧﻮﺭﺩﺍﺭ ﻧﺒﻮﺩﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ .ﻣﺜﻞ ﺧﻴﺎﻡ .ﻋﺼﻴﺎﻥ ﺧﻴﺎﻡ ﺑﺮ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺧﺎﻡﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻲ ﻗﺸﺮﻱ ﺯﻣﺎﻧﻪ ،ﻛﻪ
ﺑﻮﺳﻴﻠﻪﻱ ﻗﺪﺭﺗﻤﻨﺪﺍﻥ ،ﺍﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺩﺳﺖﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺳﻌﺎﺩﺕ ،ﺑﻪ ﺟﻬﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﻗﻲ ﺣﻮﺍﻟﺖ
ﻣﻲﺩﺍﺩﻧﺪ ﻭ ﺍﺯ ﻟﺬﺕﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺎﺩﻱ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺟﻬﺎﻧﻲ ﺑﺮ ﺣﺬﺭﺷﺎﻥ ﻣﻲﺩﺍﺷﺘﻨﺪ .ﺍﻳﻦ ﻋﺼﻴﺎﻥ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ
ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭ ﻣﺘﺮﻗﻲ ﺑﻮﺩ ،ﺩﺭ ﭼﺸﻤﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻨﺘﻘﺪﻳﻦ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﻳﻲ ﺧﻴﺎﻡ ﻳﺎ ﺍﺻﻼ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺍﻋﺘﻨﺎ
ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﻧﻤﻲﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ،ﻳﺎ ﺍﻳﻨﻜﻪ ﻛﻤﺘﺮ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺍﻋﺘﻨﺎ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﻣﻲﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ .ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ ﻧﺎﺍﻣﻴﺪﻱ ﻭﻳﺄﺱ ﻭ ﺯﻧﺪﮔﻲ
ﺍﭘﻴﻜﻮﺭﻱ ﻭ ﻟﺬﺕ ﻃﻠﺒﺎﻧﻪ ﺍﺷﻌﺎﺭ ﺧﻴﺎﻡ ،ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﭘﻮﺳﺘﻪﻱ ﻇﺎﻫﺮﻱ ﺍﺷﻌﺎﺭﺵ ﺟﺮﻳﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ،
ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﻣﻨﺘﻘﺪﻳﻦ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﻣﻲﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ .ﻫﺪﺍﻳﺖ ﻫﻢ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺕ ﻏﺎﻟﺐ ،ﺍﻳﻦ ﺑﺨﺶ ﺍﺯ
ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ ﺧﻴﺎﻡ ﺭﺍ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﻣﻲﺩﺍﺩ .ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪﻱ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﻫﺪﺍﻳﺖ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻭ ﺑﺨﺶ
ﻣﻲﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﻛﺮﺩ .ﺁﺛﺎﺭﻱ ﻛﻪ ﻧﮕﺮﺵ ﻓﺮﺩﻱ ﻫﺪﺍﻳﺖ ،ﻭ ﺍﺻﻮﻻ ”ﻣﻦ“ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﻩ ﺭﺍ ﮔﺰﺍﺭﺵ
ﻣﻲﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺑﻮﻑ ﻛﻮﺭ ﻭ ﻳﺎ ﺳﻪ ﻗﻄﺮﻩ ﺧﻮﻥ ﻭ ﻳﺎ ﺑﻦ ﺑﺴﺖ ﻭ ...ﺍﻳﻦ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﺩﺭ ﻋﻴﻦ ﺣﺎﻝ
ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﻳﻲﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﺍﺳﻠﻮﺏ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺳﺮﻱ ﻛﺎﺭﻫﺎﻱ ﻫﺪﺍﻳﺖ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ،ﻭ ﻧﻴﺰ ﭼﻮﻥ ﻧﮕﺮﺵ ﻓﺮﺩﻱ
ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﻩ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﻣﻲﻛﺮﺩﻩ ،ﺍﺯ ﻣﻠﻤﻮﺱﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﻭ ﺟﺎﻧﺪﺍﺭﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﺍﻭ ﻣﺤﺴﻮﺏ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ .ﺍﺯ
ﺳﻮﻳﻲ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﻫﺪﺍﻳﺖ ﺁﺛﺎﺭﻱ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ ﻛﻪ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﻀﻤﻮﻥ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺴﺎﻳﻞ ﺯﺣﻤﺘﻜﺸﺎﻥ ﻭ ﻣﺮﺩﻡ
ﻛﻮﭼﻪ ﺑﺎﺯﺍﺭ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ .ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻗﺒﻴﻞ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﮔﺮﭼﻪ ﻫﺪﺍﻳﺖ ﺩﺭ ﺗﻮﺻﻴﻒ ﺟﺰﻳﻴﺎﺕ ﺯﻧﺪﮔﻲ ،ﺍﺯ
ﺟﻤﻠﻪ ﺭﻓﺘﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﻭ ﮔﻮﻳﺶﻫﺎ ،ﺑﻈﺎﻫﺮ ﺯﻧﺪﮔﻲ ﺭﺍ ﭼﻨﺎﻧﻜﻪ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﻣﻲﺩﺍﺩ ،ﺍﻣﺎ ﺩﻳﺪﮔﺎﻩ
ﻧﻴﻬﻠﻴﺴﺘﻲ ﻭ ﻭﺍﺯﺩﻩﻱ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺯﻧﺪﮔﻲ ﻛﺎﺭﺍﻛﺘﺮﻫﺎﻳﺶ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺯﻧﺪﮔﻲ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﻲ ﻧﻤﻲﺗﻮﺍﻧﺴﺘﻪ
ﺍﻧﺪ ﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ ﺗﺤﻤﻴﻞ ﻣﻲﻛﺮﺩﻩ .ﻓﺮﺟﺎﻡ ﺯﻧﺪﮔﻲ ﺯﺣﻤﺘﻜﺸﺎﻥ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﻫﺪﺍﻳﺖ ﺟﺰ ﺑﻌﻀﻲ ﺍﺯ
ﺍﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﻫﺎ ،ﻣﺜﻼ ﺣﺎﺟﻲ ﺁﻗﺎ ﻛﻪ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﻛﺮﺩﻳﺪ ،ﻳﺎ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺮﮒ ﺧﺘﻢ ﻣﻲﺷﺪﻩ ﻳﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺧﻮﺩﻛﺸﻲ ﻭ ﻳﺎ
ﺑﻪ ﭼﺸﻢ ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯﻱ ﺧﺎﻛﺴﺘﺮﻱ ﺍﺯ ﻫﺴﺘﻲ .ﺑﻪ ﺍﻋﺘﻘﺎﺩ ﻣﻦ ﺳﻤﺖ ﻭ ﺳﻮﻳﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺯﺣﻤﺘﻜﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ
ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﻫﺪﺍﻳﺖ ﺩﺍﺭﻧﺪ ،ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺎﻧﮕﺮ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﻲ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ ،ﺑﻠﻜﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺭﻭﺡ ﻣﻨﺰﻭﻱ ﻫﺪﺍﻳﺖ
ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻛﺎﻟﺒﺪ ﺯﺣﻤﺘﻜﺸﺎﻥ ،ﻫﺮ ﭼﻨﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻛﺎﻟﺒﺪ ﺑﻈﺎﻫﺮ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﻲ ﺑﻨﻈﺮ ﻣﻲﺭﺳﺪ،
ﺟﺎﺭﻱ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ .ﺧﻼﺻﻪ ﻛﻨﻢ ،ﺑﻪ ﺍﻋﺘﻘﺎﺩ ﻣﻦ ،ﺩﺭ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﻫﺪﺍﻳﺖ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻡ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻳﻲ ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭ
ﺭﻧﮓ ﺑﺎﺧﺘﻪ ﻭ ﻧﺎﻣﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﺳﺖ.
ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻧﭙﻮﺭ ﺑﺨﺸﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺻﺤﺒﺖﻫﺎﻱ ﺷﻤﺎ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻫﻢ ﻫﺴﺖ .ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺴﺘﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺷﻜﻞ
ﻣﺸﺨﺼﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﻫﺪﺍﻳﺖ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﺩ .ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻳﻲ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻔﻊ ﺯﺣﻤﺘﻜﺸﺎﻥ ﺍﻣﺎ ﻫﺴﺖ.
ﭼﻮﻥ ﻭﻗﺘﻲ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺴﺘﻲ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻴﻢ ﺩﻗﻴﻘﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺁﺭﻣﺎﻥ ﻃﺒﻘﻪﻱ ﻛﺎﺭﮔﺮ
ﻣﻲﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻴﻢ ﻭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﺭ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﻧﻴﻤﺎ ﺩﺳﺘﻜﻢ ﻣﺜﻼ ﺩﺭ ﻭﺟﻪ ﻋﺎﻣﺶ ﺩﺭ ﻧﺎﻗﻮﺱ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﭘﻴﺪﺍ
ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ ،ﻫﺪﺍﻳﺖ ﻧﻪ .ﺍﻣﺎ ﺍﻳﻨﻜﻪ ﺑﮕﻮﻳﻴﻢ ﻫﺪﺍﻳﺖ ﺯﺣﻤﺘﻜﺸﺎﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺯ ﺩﻳﺪﮔﺎﻩ ﺧﻮﺩﺵ ﻧﮕﺎﻩ
ﻣﻲﻛﺮﺩ ﻧﻤﻴﺘﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﺩﺭﺳﺖ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ .ﻛﻢ ﻧﻴﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﻫﺪﺍﻳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺯﻧﺪﮔﻲ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻲ ﺯﺣﻤﺘﻜﺸﺎﻥ ﺭﺍ
ﺗﺼﻮﻳﺮ ﻣﻲﻛﺮﺩﻧﺪ .ﮔﻮﻳﺶ ﺯﺣﻤﺘﻜﺸﺎﻥ ،ﻛﺎﺭﺍﻛﺘﺮﺷﺎﻥ ،ﺍﺷﻴﺎ ﻣﺎﺩﻱ ﭘﻴﺮﺍﻣﻮﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ
ﺯﻳﺎﺩﻱ ﺍﺯ ﻫﺪﺍﻳﺖ ﺑﺪﺭﺳﺘﻲ ﻣﺘﺠﻠﻲ ﻭ ﻣﺘﺒﻠﻮﺭ ﺍﺳﺖ .ﺍﻣﺎ ﭘﺎﻳﺎﻥﺑﻨﺪﻱ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﺍﺯ ﻫﻤﺎﻥ
ﺩﻳﺪﮔﺎﻩ ﺧﺮﺩﻩ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﺯﻱ ﻭﺍﺯﺩﻩ ﻭ ﻣﻨﺰﻭﻱ ﺑﺮﺧﻮﺭﺩﺍﺭﻧﺪ .ﺍﻟﺒﺘﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﭘﺎﻳﺎﻥﺑﻨﺪﻱ ﺩﺭ ﻫﻤﻪ ﺟﺎ
ﻣﻄﻠﻖ ﻧﻴﺴﺘﻨﺪ .ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﻫﺪﺍﻳﺖ ﻫﻢ ﺑﻪ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻉ ﻣﻲﭘﺮﺩﺍﺧﺖ ،ﻫﻢ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻉ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓ
ﺩﺭﻭﻧﺶ ﺍﺯ ﻛﻮﺩﻛﻲ .ﺗﺎﺗﻤﺎﻣﻲ ﺗﺠﻠﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓ ﺩﺭ ﺭﺷﺪ ﻓﺮﺩﻱ ﺧﻮﺩﺵ ﻭ ﺍﻳﻨﻜﻪ
ﭼﻄﻮﺭ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺑﺎ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺯﻧﺪﮔﻲ ﻛﻨﺎﺭ ﺑﻴﺎﻳﺪ .ﻫﺪﺍﻳﺖ ﺍﺯ ﺗﻨﺎﻗﺾ ﺳﺮﺷﺎﺭ ﺍﺳﺖ .ﻫﺪﺍﻳﺖ ﺑﺎ
ﺧﻮﺩﻛﺸﻲ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺩﺭ ﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺖ ﺣﺮﻛﺖ ﺻﺎﺩﻗﺎﻧﻪ ﺧﻮﺩﺵ ﺭﺍ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻛﻞ ﺯﻳﺴﺖ
ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻓﺮﺩﻱ ﺧﻮﺩﺵ ﻣﺎﺩﻳﺖ ﺑﺨﺸﻴﺪ .ﺍﻳﻦ ﺳﺨﻦ ﺑﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﻌﻨﺎ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ ﻛﻪ ﻫﺮ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪﻱ
ﺧﻮﺩﻛﺸﻲ ﻛﻨﺪ ﺻﺎﺩﻕ ﺍﺳﺖ ،ﻫﺮﮔﺰ .ﻭﻟﻲ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪﻱ ﻣﺤﺼﻮﻟﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻭ ﺍﺯ ﺯﻳﺴﺖ ﺧﻮﺩﺵ
ﺑﻪ ﻧﻔﻊ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﺑﺎﻗﻲ ﮔﺬﺍﺷﺖ ،ﺩﻗﻴﻘﺎ ﺑﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻭ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﻧﻤﻲﺗﻮﺍﻧﺴﺘﻪ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ
ﺯﺣﻤﺘﻜﺸﺎﻥ ﻭ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺯﻧﺪﮔﻲ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻣﻔﻴﺪ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ .ﺳﺮﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﺯﻱ ،ﻭ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓ
ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﺯﻱ ،ﺩﺭ ﺩﺭﻭﻥ ﻫﺪﺍﻳﺖ ،ﻫﺪﺍﻳﺖ ﺭﺍ ﻛﺸﺖ ،ﻫﺪﺍﻳﺖ ﻭﺟﻪ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﻧﻜﺸﺖ،
ﻭﺟﻪ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﺻﺎﺩﻕ ﻫﺪﺍﻳﺖ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ .ﺩﺭ ﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﻭﺟﻪ ﻏﻴﺮ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ،ﺭﻭﺍﻧﭙﻮﻳﺶ ﻭ
ﺟﻨﻮﻥ ﺁﻣﻴﺰ ﻫﺪﺍﻳﺖ ﺍﻭ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻔﻊ ﻭﺟﻪ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ ﻫﻨﺮﻳﺶ ،ﻧﺎﺑﻮﺩ ﻛﺮﺩ.
ﻃﺎﻟﺒﻲ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺰﻡ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﻧﻴﻤﺎ ﭼﮕﻮﻧﻪ ﻣﻲﺑﻴﻨﻴﺪ؟
ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻧﭙﻮﺭ ﺩﺭ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﻧﻴﻤﺎ ،ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺰﻡ ﻣﻮﺝ ﻣﻲﺯﻧﺪ .ﻧﻴﻤﺎ ﺍﻭﻟﻴﻦ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪ ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺴﻴﺴﺖ ـ ﻟﻨﻴﻨﻴﺴﺖ
ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﺳﺖ .ﺩﺭ ﺍﺷﻌﺎﺭ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ ﺍﻭﻟﻴﻪ ﺯﻧﺪﮔﻲ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﻧﻴﻤﺎ ﻛﻪ ﺟﻮﺍﻧﻲ ﭘﺮﺷﻮﺭ ﻭ ﭘﺮﺍﺳﺘﻌﺪﺍﺩ ﺑﻮﺩ،
ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﻣﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻜﻲ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ .ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﺯ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺑﺮﺍﺩﺭﺵ ﻻﺭﺑﻦ }ﻻﺩﺑﻦ{ ـ ﻛﻪ ﻣﻲﺩﺍﻧﻴﻢ ﺍﺯ
ﺍﻋﻀﺎﻱ ﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﺣﺰﺏ ﻋﺪﺍﻟﺖ ﺑﻮﺩ ـ ﺑﺎ ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺴﻴﺴﻢ ـ ﻟﻨﻴﻨﻴﺴﻢ ﺁﺷﻨﺎ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ .ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺑﻪ
ﺷﺪﺕ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﻣﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻜﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺁﺛﺎﺭﺵ ﺭﻧﮓ ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺯﺩ .ﻧﻴﻤﺎ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺩﺭ ﻓﻜﺮ ﺷﻜﻞ ﻧﺒﻮﺩ ،ﺑﻠﻜﻪ
ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪﻱ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﻭ ﺍﺩﺭﺍﻛﺎﺕ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ـ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ،ﻧﺎﮔﺰﻳﺮ ﺑﻪ ﺳﻮﻱ ﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﺷﻜﻠﻲ
ﺭﺍﻧﺪﻩ ﺷﺪ .ﻣﺎ ﺍﻓﺮﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺭﺍ ﻫﻢ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪﻱ ﺧﻠﻘﻲ ﻧﺎﻡ ﺑﺒﺮﻳﻢ .ﺑﻪ ﻭﻳﮋﻩ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺷﻌﺎﺭ
ﮔﻴﻠﻜﻴﺶ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻫﻴﭻ ﻭﺟﻪ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﻗﻴﺎﺱ ﺑﺎ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪﺍﻥ ﻣﺮﺩﻡﮔﺮﺍﻱ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻧﺴﻴﻢ ﺷﻤﺎﻝ
ﻧﻴﺴﺖ .ﭼﻮﻥ ﺍﻭ ﺍﺭﺯﺵﻫﺎﻱ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺩﺭﻭﻥ ﺍﺭﺯﺷﻬﺎﻱ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻭ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﻲ ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﻭ ﺑﻪ
ﻧﻮﻋﻲ ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻱ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﻤﺎﻥ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﺍﺳﺖ .ﻣﺎ ﻣﻲﺑﻴﻨﻴﻢ ﻛﻪ ﻳﻚ ﻋﻜﺲﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞﻃﺒﻴﻌﻲ ﺩﺭ ﻫﻨﺮ
ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﺩﻭﺭﻩﻱ ﺧﻔﻘﺎﻥ ﭘﻬﻠﻮﻱ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻃﻴﺖ ﭘﻴﺶ ﻣﻲﺁﻳﺪ .ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ
ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﺩﻭ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﻣﺸﺨﺼﺎ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ :ﺍﻭﻝ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺩﻳﻜﺘﺎﺗﻮﺭﻱ ﺍﺳﺖ .ﺑﻮﻳﮋﻩ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﺯ
ﺳﺎﻝﻫﺎﻱ ،۳۲ﺍﻳﻦ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺩﺭ ﺭﺍﻧﺪﻥ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﺍﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺘﺮﻗﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺳﻤﺖ ﻗﺎﻟﺐﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺒﻬﻢ ﻧﻘﺶ ﺍﻳﻔﺎ
ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ .ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺩﻭﻡ ﺗﻤﺎﻳﻞ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪ ﺩﺭ ﻓﺎﺻﻠﻪﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﺍﺯ ﺳﻄﺢ ﻧﺎﺯﻝ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺷﻌﺎﺭ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ
ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻃﻴﺖ ﺍﺳﺖ .ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﻭ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻭ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺟﻬﺘﻲ ﻣﻲﺑﺮﻧﺪ ﻛﻪ ﻓﺮﻡ ﺑﺎ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﺍ ﺩﺭ
ﻋﻴﻦ ﺁﻧﻜﻪ ﺍﺯ ﻳﻚ ﺩﻳﺪﮔﺎﻩ ﻫﻤﺨﻮﺍﻧﻲ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ ﺍﺯ ﻳﻚ ﺩﻳﺪﮔﺎﻩ ﻧﺎﻫﻤﺨﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﺳﺖ .ﻋﻨﺼﺮ
ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺴﻢ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺑﻪ ﺩﺭﻭﻥ ﺍﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﻭﺍﺭﻳﺰ ﺑﺸﻮﺩ .ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺍﺯ ﺯﻳﺒﺎﻳﻲ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ
ﻭﻳﮋﻩﻳﻲﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﻪﻱ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺑﮕﻴﺮﺩ .ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻚ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﻲ
ﺑﻴﻦ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻭ ﺗﻮﺩﻩ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﺩﻳﺪ .ﺩﺭ ﻏﻴﺮ ﺍﻳﻨﺼﻮﺭﺕ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻫﻤﺎﻥ ﺳﺮﻧﻮﺷﺘﻲ ﺭﺍ ﭘﻴﺪﺍ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ ﻛﻪ
ﺷﻌﺮ ﻧﻴﻤﺎ ﭘﻴﺪﺍ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ﺑﻮﺩ .ﺍﻳﻦ ﺑﻪ ﺁﻥ ﻣﻌﻨﻲ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺭﺯﺵﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻧﻴﻤﺎ ﺷﻚ
ﻛﻨﻴﻢ .ﺑﻠﻜﻪ ﺍﺷﻌﺎﺭ ﻧﻴﻤﺎ ﺭﺍ ﻧﺎﻗﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺴﻴﺴﺖ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪ ﻣﻲﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺍﺭﺯﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺩﻫﻨﺪ ،ﺗﺎ
ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺴﺘﻲ ﺷﻌﺮﺵ ﺑﻪ ﺁﻳﻨﺪﻩ ﻭﺍﺭﻳﺰ ﺷﻮﺩ .ﻭ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻭ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﺧﻠﻘﻲ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺁﺑﻴﺎﺭﻱ
ﻛﻨﺪ .ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻨﺠﺎ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻳﻚ ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﻝ ﺳﺎﺩﻩﻱ ﺷﻜﻞ ﻭ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﺍﻱ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﻧﻴﻤﺎ ﻣﻨﻈﻮﺭ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ .ﺑﻠﻜﻪ
ﺭﻫﻨﻤﻮﺩﻱﺳﺖ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺖ ﺗﺠﻠﻲ ﺁﺭﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻳﻲ .ﻧﻴﻤﺎ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪﻳﺴﺖ ﺑﺎ ﺧﺎﺳﺘﮕﺎﻩ
ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺴﺘﻲ .ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﺍﺷﻌﺎﺭ ﻧﻴﻤﺎ ﻣﻲﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﺑﺮ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﻳﻲ ،ﻛﻪ ﻣﻨﻜﺮ ﺗﺒﻴﻴﻦ ﻣﺴﺎﻳﻞ
ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪﺍﻥ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﺳﺖ ،ﻣﻬﺮ ﺑﺎﻃﻞ ﺑﺰﻧﺪ.
ﻣﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪﻱ ﺑﺎ ﭼﺸﻢ ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯﻫﺎﻱ ﮔﺴﺘﺮﺩﻩﻱ ﻧﻴﻤﺎ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﻳﻢ .ﻭ ﻳﺎ ﻛﻤﺘﺮ ﺩﺍﺭﻳﻢ .ﻧﻴﻤﺎ
ﻧﻤﺎﻳﻨﺪﻩﻱ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻭ ﻣﺒﺎﺭﺯ ﺍﺳﺖ .ﺍﻣﺎ ﺑﺪﻟﻴﻞ ﺩﺭﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﺑﺎ ﺩﻭ ﻋﺎﺭﺿﻪﻱ ﺗﺤﻤﻴﻠﻲ ﻫﻨﺮ
ﻭ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ )ﺩﻳﻜﺘﺎﺗﻮﺭﻱ ﺍﺯ ﺳﻮﻳﻲ ،ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺷﻌﺎﺭﻱ ﺍﺯ ﺳﻮﻳﻲ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ(
ﻧﺎﺭﺳﺎﻳﻲﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ .ﻣﻨﻈﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺒﺘﻪ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻧﻴﻤﺎ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ .ﺍﻣﺎ ﻓﻀﺎ ﺳﺎﺯﻱ ،ﻧﻤﻮﺩﻫﺎﻱ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ،
ﺷﻴﻔﺘﮕﻲ ﺑﻴﺶ ﺍﺯ ﺣﺪ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺼﺎﻭﻳﺮ ﭘﻴﭽﻴﺪﻩ ،ﺑﺎﻋﺚ ﺷﺪ ﻧﻴﻤﺎ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪﻱ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻳﻲ ﺑﺮﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﻧﻜﻨﺪ .ﺍﻣﺎ
ﻧﻴﻤﺎ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺴﺖ ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪﺍﻥ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﺑﺪﺭﻭﻥ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪ ﺭﺍﻩ ﺑﺒﺮﺩ .ﺷﺎﻋﺮﺍﻥ ﻣﺒﺎﺭﺯ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﺑﻪ
ﻧﻴﻤﺎ ﺭﺟﻌﺖ ﻣﻲﻛﺮﺩﻧﺪ .ﺷﻌﺮ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺑﺎ ﻧﻴﻤﺎ ﺷﺮﻭﻉ ﻧﻤﻲﺷﺪ ،ﻭﻟﻲ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻴﻤﺎ ﺧﺘﻢ ﻣﻲﮔﺮﺩﻳﺪ .ﻭ
ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﺸﺎﻧﻪﻱ ﺷﻜﻮﻩ ﻧﻴﻤﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺯﻣﻴﻨﻪﻱ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﺍﺳﺖ .ﺍﻟﺒﺘﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺫﻛﺮ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻜﺘﻪ ﻛﻪ ﺩﻳﺪﮔﺎﻩ
ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﺩﻱ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻴﻤﺎ ﻣﻲﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﻫﻤﻮﺍﺭﻩ ﺣﻔﻆ ﺷﻮﺩ.
ﺷﻤﺎ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺁﻓﺮﻳﻨﻲ ﺧﺮﺩﻩ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﺯﻱ ،ﻭ ﻳﺎ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺘﻲ ﻛﻪ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﺎﺭ ﭘﻮﺳﺘﻪﻱ ﺗﻨﮓ ﻋﺸﻘﻲ
ﺧﺮﺩﻩ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﻳﻲ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ ،ﺗﺎ ﭼﻪ ﭘﺎﻳﻪ ﺍﻫﻤﻴﺖ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﻗﺎﻳﻞ ﻫﺴﺘﻴﺪ؟
ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻧﭙﻮﺭ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﺩﺭ ﻫﺎﻟﻪﻳﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻭ ﺗﺼﺎﻭﻳﺮ ﻭﻳﮋﻩ ،ﺻﺮﻓﺎ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻳﻚ ﻗﻠﻤﺮﻭ ﺭﻭﺷﻨﻔﻜﺮﻱ
ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﺩﺭﻙ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ .ﻭ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺩﺭ ﺩﺭﻭﻥ ﺭﻭﺷﻨﻔﻜﺮﺍﻥ ،ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﭘﻴﺸﮕﺎﻣﺎﻥ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ
ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻳﻲ ،ﺗﺠﻠﻲ ﭘﻴﺪﺍ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ .ﻣﺒﺎﺭﺯﺍﺕ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﺠﻮﻳﺎﻥ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﺯ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺐ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻭ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ
ﻧﺎﭘﺬﻳﺮ ﺑﻮﺩ .ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺑﻲﮔﺮﻱ ﺧﺮﺩﻩ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﻳﻲ ،ﺍﺯ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ،ﻭ ﺩﺭ
ﺟﻨﺒﺶ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﺠﻮﻳﻲ ﻧﻤﻮﺩ ﻣﺎﺩﻱ ﭘﻴﺪﺍ ﻣﻲﻧﻤﻮﺩ .ﻧﻴﺮﻭﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺒﺎﺭﺯ ﻣﺎ ﻋﻤﺪﺗﺎ ﺍﺯ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻭ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ
ﺷﺮﻭﻉ ﻛﺮﺩﻧﺪ ﺯﻳﺮﺍ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﭼﻬﺎﺭﭼﻮﺏ ﺳﻴﺴﺘﻢ ﭘﻠﻴﺴﻲ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﻛﻼﺳﻴﻚ ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺴﻴﺴﺖ ـ
ﻟﻨﻴﻨﻴﺴﺖ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻧﺪﺍﺷﺖ .ﺩﺭ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ ﻧﻴﺮﻭﻫﺎﻱ ﺁﮔﺎﻩ ﺧﺮﺩﻩ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﺯﻱ ﺍﻭﻟﻴﻦ ﮔﺎﻡﻫﺎﻱ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ
ﺩﺭ ﻋﺮﺻﻪﻱ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻭ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﺑﺮﻣﻲﺩﺍﺷﺘﻨﺪ .ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺭﻭ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﻧﻘﺶ ﻣﻬﻤﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻳﻔﺎ
ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ .ﺍﺯ ﺳﺎﻝ ۱۳۲۰ﺑﻪ ﺑﻌﺪ ،ﺩﺭ ﻳﻚ ﺩﻫﻪ ،ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﭘﺎﻳﻪﻳﻲ ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺴﻴﺴﺖ ـ ﻟﻨﻴﻨﻴﺴﺘﻲ ﺩﺭ
ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺷﺖ .ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺑﻲ ﺟﻬﺎﻥ ﻫﻢ ﺩﺭ ﻋﺮﺻﻪﻱ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓ ﻣﺎ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﭘﻴﺪﺍ
ﻛﺮﺩﻧﺪ .ﺍﻳﻦ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ،ﭘﺎﻳﻪﻳﻲ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺁﻭﺭﺩﻧﺪ .ﻭ ﺁﻧﺮﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺁﻳﻨﺪﻩ ﻣﻨﺘﻘﻞ
ﻛﺮﺩﻧﺪ ،ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺍﻳﻨﻜﻪ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﭘﺎﻳﻪﻳﻲ )ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺴﻴﺴﺘﻲ( ﺑﻪ ﻫﻤﺮﺍﻩ ﺁﻥ
ﺣﺮﻛﺖ ﻛﻨﺪ .ﺩﺭ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ،ﻣﺎ ﺁﺛﺎﺭﻱ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻴﻢ ﻛﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﺮﻏﻢ ﺁﻧﻜﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺻﺮﺍﺣﺖ
ﻛﺎﻓﻲ ﺑﺮﺧﻮﺭﺩﺍﺭ ﻧﺒﻮﺩﻧﺪ ،ﻛﻪ ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺻﺮﺍﺣﺖ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺍﺭﺩﻱ ﺑﺎﻋﺚ ﺍﻧﺤﺮﺍﻑ ﻣﻲﺷﺪ
ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﻧﻘﺶ ﺍﺷﺎﻋﻪﻱ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓ ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺑﻲ ﻭ ﻋﻠﻤﻲ ﺭﺍ ،ﺑﺪﺭﺳﺘﻲ ﺍﻳﻔﺎ ﻛﻨﻨﺪ .ﻭ ﺗﺒﻠﻮﺭ ﻣﺎﺩﻱ
ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺟﻨﺒﺶ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﺠﻮﻳﻲ ﺑﺪﺳﺖ ﺑﻴﺎﻭﺭﻧﺪ .ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻲﺑﻴﻨﻴﻢ ﻛﻪ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ،ﺑﺎ
ﻫﻤﻪﻱ ﻣﺤﺪﻭﺩﻳﺖﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﻧﻘﺶ ﻭﻳﮋﻩﻱ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺍﻳﻔﺎ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ.
ﭼﻪ ﻣﺤﺪﻭﺩﻳﺖﻫﺎﻳﻲ؟ ﻋﺸﻘﻲ
ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻧﭙﻮﺭ ﻛﻤﺒﻮﺩ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺯﻳﺴﺘﻲ .ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﻓﻘﺪﺍﻥ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺐ ﻣﺎﺩﻩﻱ ﺣﺎﺿﺮ ﺩﺭ ﺯﻳﺴﺖ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋ ِ
ﻲ
ﺯﺣﻤﺘﻜﺸﺎﻥ ،ﺑﻪ ﻭﻳﮋﻩ ﻛﺎﺭﮔﺮﺍﻥ ،ﺑﺎ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺫﻫﻨﻲ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻳﻲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ،ﺧﻮﺭﺷﻴﺪ ،ﺳﺘﺎﺭﻩ،
ﺭﻭﺩﺧﺎﻧﻪ ،ﻭ ﺑﻄﻮﺭ ﻛﻠﻲ ،ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺖ ﺟﺎﻳﮕﺰﻳﻦ ﺗﻤﺎﻡ ﺍﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﻭ ﻣﻮﺍﺩ ﺣﺎﺿﺮ ﺩﺭ ﺯﻳﺴﺖ
ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﺯﺣﻤﺘﻜﺸﺎﻥ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ .ﻣﺜﻼ ﺍﺯ ﺷﺨﻢ ،ﺍﺯ ﻣﺰﺭﻋﻪ ،ﺍﺯ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻛﺸﺖ ،ﺍﺯ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ
ﺭﻭﺳﺘﺎﻳﻴﺎﻥ ،ﺩﺭ ﻛﻞ ﺍﺯ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺷﻌﺮ ﺍﺛﺮﻱ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ .ﻣﺎ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﻤﺎﻥ ﻭﻳﮋﻩﻱ ﺣﺘﻲ ﻳﻚ
ﺧﻴﺶ ﺭﺍ ﻧﻤﻲﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻴﻢ .ﻧﻤﻲﺩﺍﻧﺴﺘﻴﻢ ﻛﻪ ﭼﻄﻮﺭ ﺑﺬﺭ ﻣﻲﭘﺎﺷﻨﺪ .ﻧﻤﻲﺩﺍﻧﺴﺘﻴﻢ ﻛﻪ ﻛﺎﺭﮔﺮ
ﻛﺪﺍﻡ ﭘﻴﭻ ﺭﺍ ﻣﻴﭽﺮﺧﺎﻧﺪ .ﻛﺪﺍﻡ ﺭﻭﻏﻦ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﻣﻲﺩﺍﺭﺩ .ﻣﺎ ﺑﻲﺍﻃﻼﻉ ﺑﻮﺩﻳﻢ .ﻭ ﻫﻨﻮﺯ ﻫﻢ
ﺑﻲﺍﻃﻼﻉ ﻫﺴﺘﻴﻢ .ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺍﻋﺘﻘﺎﺩ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪﺍﻥ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺯﺣﻤﺘﻜﺸﺎﻥ ،ﻳﻚ ﺍﻋﺘﻘﺎﺩ ﺁﺭﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﻭ
ﻣﺠﺮﺩ ﻭ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﻪ ﻧﺸﺪﻩ ﺩﺭ ﻋﺮﺻﻪﻱ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺑﻮﺩ .ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﻳﻦ ﻗﺎﺩﺭ ﻧﺒﻮﺩﻧﺪ ﺩﺭ ﺩﺭﻭﻥ ﺯﻧﺪﮔﻲ
ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﭘﻴﺪﺍ ﻛﻨﻨﺪ .ﻫﻴﭻ ﭼﻴﺰ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ ﺍﺯ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﻴﺖ ﺯﻧﺪﮔﻲ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ،ﻧﻤﻲﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﺑﻪ ﺭﺷﺪ
ﻫﻨﺮ ﻭ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺑﻲ ﻭ ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺴﺘﻲ ،ﻛﻤﻚ ﻛﻨﺪ .ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺟﻬﺖ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪﺍﻥ ﻣﺎ ﻛﻪ ﺩﭼﺎﺭ
ﺧﻼﺀ ﺑﻮﺩﻧﺪ ،ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﺯ ﺟﻨﺒﺶ ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺑﻲ ﺍﺧﻴﺮ ،ﺩﭼﺎﺭ ﺑﺤﺮﺍﻥ ﺷﺪﻧﺪ .ﺑﺤﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﺧﻴﺮ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪﻱ
ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ،ﺭﻳﺸﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺠﺮﺩ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻲ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﮔﺬﺷﺘﻪ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ .ﺣﺎﻻ ﻛﻪ ﺗﺎ ﺣﺪﻭﺩﻱ ﺍﻧﺮﮊﻱﻫﺎ
ﺁﺯﺍﺩ ﺷﺪﻩ ،ﺣﺎﻻ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﻧﺮﮊﻱﻫﺎﻱ ﺭﻫﺎ ﺷﺪﻩ ،ﻣﻲﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻭ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻳﻲ ﻣﺎ ﺭﺍ
ﭘﺎﻳﻪﺭﻳﺰﻱ ﻛﻨﺪ ،ﻣﻲﺑﻴﻨﻴﻢ ﻛﻪ ﻫﻴﭻ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺯﻧﺪﮔﻲ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﻳﻢ .ﻭ ﺗﺎ ﻭﻗﺘﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ
ﺯﻧﺪﮔﻲ ،ﻫﻤﮕﺎﻡ ﻭ ﻫﻤﺪﻭﺵ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﻣﻄﻠﻊ ﻧﺸﻮﻳﻢ ،ﺍﺯ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓ ﻭ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺑﻲ ﻭ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺎ
ﺯﻧﺪﮔﻲ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ،ﺩﺭ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪ ﻣﺎ ﺧﺒﺮ ﻭ ﻧﺸﺎﻧﻲ ﻧﺨﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺑﻮﺩ .ﻫﻨﻮﺯ ﻛﻪ ﻫﻨﻮﺯ ﺍﺳﺖ ،ﺣﺘﻲ ﭘﺲ
ﺍﺯ ﻗﻴﺎﻡ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ،ﻣﺎ ﻣﻲﺧﻮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﺁﺭﻣﺎﻥ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﻟﻔﺎﻓﻪﻱ ﺗﺼﺎﻭﻳﺮ ﻭ ﺳﻴﺴﺘﻢﺑﻨﺪﻱﻫﺎﻱ
ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﺧﺮﺩﻩ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﻳﻲ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ ﻭﻳﮋﻩﻱ ﺳﺘﻤﺸﺎﻫﻲ ﺑﭙﻴﭽﺎﻧﻴﻢ .ﻭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﺭ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺖ ،ﻛﻪ ﺣﺮﻛﺘﻲ
ﺑﺮ ﺿﺪ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻫﺴﺖ ،ﻫﻨﺮ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺧﻮﺩﺵ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﻛﺸﺖ .ﺧﺎﻣﻮﺷﻲ ﺷﻮﺭ ﺩﺭﻭﻥ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪﺍﻥ،
ﺣﺎﻟﺖ ﭘﺎﺳﻴﻮ ﺑﻮﺩﻥ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺟﻨﺒﺶ ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺑﻲ ﻭ ﺗﺪﺍﻭﻡ ﺁﻥ ،ﻭﺍﻛﻨﺶﻫﺎﻱ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺑﺨﻮﺩﻱ
ﺑﻲﺭﻣﻖ ،ﺍﺷﺘﻴﺎﻕ ﻛﺴﺐ ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﻃﺒﻘﺎﺗﻲ ﺍﻣﺎ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﻣﺎﺩﻱ ﺩﺭ ﻋﺮﺻﻪﻱ ﻛﺸﺎﻛﺸﻬﺎﻱ
ﻃﺒﻘﺎﺗﻲ ـ ﺑﺎﻋﺚ ﺷﺪﻩ ﻛﻪ ﺍﮔﺮ ﭼﻪ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪ ﺩﺭ ﺩﺭﻭﻥ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪ ﻗﺪﻡ ﺑﺮﻣﻲﺩﺍﺭﺩ ،ﺍﻣﺎ ﺍﺯ ﺩﺭﻭﻥ ﺑﺎ
ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪ ﭘﻴﻮﻧﺪﻱ ﻧﺪﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ .ﺗﺎ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪﺍﻥ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺕ ﻳﻚ ﻣﻮﺝ ﻋﻈﻴﻢ ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺑﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺟﻬﺖ
ﻋﻤﻞ ﻧﻜﻨﻨﺪ ،ﻛﻮﺷﺶﻫﺎﻱ ﻓﺮﺩﻱ ﺑﻪ ﭘﻴﺮﻭﺯﻱ ﻫﻤﺴﻨﮓ ﭘﻴﺮﻭﺯﻱ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﻧﺨﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺭﺳﻴﺪ .ﺍﻳﻦ
ﻣﺸﻜﻞ ﺭﺍ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪﺍﻥ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺑﺪﻫﻨﺪ .ﻋﻮﺽ ﺍﻳﻨﻜﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺑﻲﺷﻌﻮﺭﻱ ﺩﺭﻭﻥ ﺗﻦ
ﺩﺭ ﺩﻫﻨﺪ ،ﺑﻪ ﺿﺪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺑﻲﺷﻌﻮﺭﻱ ،ﺑﺎ ﺗﻜﻴﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﻋﺼﻴﺎﻥ ﻛﻨﻨﺪ .ﺑﺮ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺧﺎﻣﻮﺷﻲ ﺷﻮﺭ
ﺩﺭﻭﻥ ﺑﺸﻮﺭﻧﺪ .ﭼﻮﻥ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺧﺎﻣﻮﺷﻲ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻱ ﺍﻋﺪﺍﻡ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪ ﺩﺭ ﺧﻮﺩﺵ ﺍﺳﺖ .ﻭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺧﻄﺮ
ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺕ ﺟﺪﻱ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪﻱ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﻣﺎ ﺭﺍ ﻓﺮﺍﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ .ﺍﻟﺒﺘﻪ ﺍﺯ ﻃﺮﻑ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﺍﻣﻴﺪ ﻋﻈﻴﻤﻲ ﺩﺭ
ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻇﺎﻫﺮ ﺷﺪﻩ .ﻫﻨﺮ ﻧﻴﺮﻭﻫﺎﻱ ﺟﻮﺍﻥ ﺭﻫﺎ ﺷﺪﻩ ﭘﺲ ﺍﺯ ﻗﻴﺎﻡ .ﻣﺎ ﺍﻣﺮﻭﺯ ﺑﻪ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ
ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪﺍﻥ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﻧﻤﻲﻛﻨﻴﻢ .ﺑﻪ ﺍﻧﺒﻮﻩ ﺁﺛﺎﺭﻱ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺩﺭﻭﻥ ﻏﻠﻴﺎﻥ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﺟﻨﺒﺶ ﺑﻮﺟﻮﺩ
ﺁﻣﺪﻩ ،ﻭ ﭘﺮﺗﺎﺏ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺑﻪ ﺩﺭﻭﻥ ﺟﻨﺒﺶ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪ ،ﺑﻲﺗﻮﺟﻬﻴﻢ .ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪﺍﻥ ﺭﺳﻤﻴﺖ
ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪﻱ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪ ،ﺑﻪ ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﺷﻮﺭ ﺩﺭﻭﻥ ،ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﻧﻤﻲﻛﻨﻨﺪ .ﻭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﺭ
ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺖ ﻳﻚ ﺧﻴﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺳﻮﻱ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪﺍﻥ ﺭﺳﻤﻴﺖ ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪﻱ ﻣﺎﺳﺖ .ﻭﻗﺘﻲ
ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪﺍﻥ ﺟﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﺪﺳﺖ ﻣﺴﺌﻮﻻﻥ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﻣﻲﺍﻓﺘﺪ ،ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺘﺎ ﻓﻘﻂ ﭼﺎﭖ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ .ﺍﻳﻦ
ﻣﺴﺌﻮﻻﻥ ﺻﺮﻓﺎ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻮﺿﻌﻲ ﻓﺮﺻﺖ ﻃﻠﺒﺎﻧﻪ ،ﺑﺎ ﭼﺎﭖ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪﺍﻥ ﺟﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﻲﺧﻮﺍﻫﻨﺪ
ﻛﻤﺒﻮﺩﻱ ﺭﺍ ﻛﻪ ﺧﻮﺩ ﻧﻤﻲﺗﻮﺍﻧﻨﺪ ﭘﺎﺳﺦ ﺑﺪﻫﻨﺪ ،ﭘﺮ ﻛﻨﻨﺪ .ﺍﻳﻦ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﺍﮔﺮ ﭼﻪ ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻱ
ﺍﺭﺯﺵﻫﺎﻱ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ ،ﺍﮔﺮ ﭼﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺩﻳﺪﮔﺎﻩ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ،
ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﺩﻱ ﻓﻘﻂ ﭼﺎﭖ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ .ﻭ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻨﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﻧﻪ ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺍﻋﺘﻼ ﻧﻤﻲﺩﻫﺪ،
ﺑﻠﻜﻪ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﻲ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ ،ﻛﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺍﺭﺯﺵﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﻫﻨﺮ
ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻳﻲ ،ﺍﺯ ﺁﺭﻣﺎﻥﮔﺮﺍﻳﻲ ﺁﻳﻨﺪﻩ ﻭ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺒﺶ ﺑﺎ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺑﺪﻭﺭ ﺍﻓﺘﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ .ﻭ
ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻳﻨﻄﻮﺭ ﻭﺍﻧﻤﻮﺩ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﮔﻮﻳﺎ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﻭ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻫﻤﻴﻦﻫﺎﺳﺖ ﻭ ﻣﺠﺪﺩﺍ
ﺑﺤﺮﺍﻥ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻭ ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺏ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻃﻴﺖ ،ﺍﻟﺒﺘﻪ ﻧﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ﺣﺪ ﺍﺯ ﻧﺎﺯﻝ ﺑﻮﺩﻥ ،ﺩﺍﻣﻨﮕﻴﺮ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻭ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ
ﺍﻣﺮﻭﺯ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺷﺪ .ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺟﻠﻮﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﺍﺯ ﺑﺤﺮﺍﻥ ،ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪﺍﻥ ﻣﺎ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺗﺠﻬﻴﺰ
ﻛﻨﻨﺪ .ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﺴﺌﻠﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﻣﻄﺮﺡ ﺷﺪ ،ﻭ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺑﻪ ﻓﺮﺍﻣﻮﺷﻲ ﺳﭙﺮﺩﻩ ﺷﺪ.
ﺭﺳﻮﻻﻥ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﻣﻲﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺭﺍ ﻛﻪ ﻋﺎﻡ ﻫﻢ ﻫﺴﺖ ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﺑﺪﻫﻨﺪ .ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺑﺤﺮﺍﻥ ﺭﺍ
ﺍﺯ ﺩﻳﺪﮔﺎﻩﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺘﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺑﺪﻫﻨﺪ .ﺗﺎ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻭ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﻛﻪ ﻣﻲﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ
ﭘﻴﺸﺂﻫﻨﮓ ﺧﻮﺍﺳﺘﻬﺎﻱ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﻭ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﺑﺸﻮﺩ ،ﺍﺭﺯﺵﻫﺎﻱ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﻲ ﺧﻮﺩﺵ ﺭﺍ
ﭘﻴﺪﺍﻛﻨﺪ.
ﻃﺎﻟﺒﻲ ﺷﻤﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺴﺘﻲ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﻛﺮﺩﻳﺪ .ﺁﻳﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻋﺘﻘﺎﺩ ﺷﻤﺎ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ
ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺴﺘﻲ ﺩﺭ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻱ ﺳﻤﺖﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺴﺘﻲ ﻫﻢ ﻫﺴﺖ ﻳﺎ ﻧﻪ؟
ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﻃﺒﻘﺎﺗﻲ ﻫﻢ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ ﻳﺎ ﻧﻪ؟ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﺟﺎ ﺑﮕﻮﻳﻢ ﻛﻪ ﻭﻗﺘﻲ ﺷﻤﺎ
ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺴﺘﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﻧﻴﻤﺎ ﻭ ﺍﻓﺮﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻴﺪ ،ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﺑﺪﻫﻴﺪ ﻛﻪ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ
ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺴﺘﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﻭ ﺷﺎﻋﺮ ﭼﻪ ﺗﻔﺎﻭﺗﻬﺎﻳﻲ ﺑﺎ ﻫﻢ ﺩﺍﺭﻧﺪ؟
ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻧﭙﻮﺭ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺴﺘﻲ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﭼﺸﻢ ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯ ﺑﺮ ﻋﺮﺻﻪﻱ ﻣﺒﺎﺭﺯﻩ ﻃﺒﻘﺎﺗﻲ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﻲ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﺩ .ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺩﻳﺪ
ﻛﻪ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺗﺎ ﭼﻪ ﺣﺪﻱ ﺑﺎ ﺯﻧﺪﮔﻲ ﺯﺣﻤﺘﻜﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻃﻲ ﺍﺭﮔﺎﻧﻴﻚ ﻣﺮﺑﻮﻁ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ .ﻋﻨﺼﺮ
ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺴﻢ ﺣﺘﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﻧﻴﻤﺎ ،ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﺩﺭﻳﺎﻱ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺴﺘﻲ ﻫﺴﺖ .ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺕ
ﻣﺠﺮﺩ ﻭ ﻋﺎﻡ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ .ﭘﺎﻳﮕﺎﻩ ﺧﺎﺹ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﭘﻴﺪﺍ ﻧﻤﻲﻛﻨﺪ .ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻋﺎﻡ ﺑﻪ ﺧﺎﺹ ﻭ
ﺍﺯ ﺧﺎﺹ ﺑﻪ ﻋﺎﻡ ﺑﺮﻧﻤﻲﮔﺮﺩﺩ .ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺴﺘﻲ ﻭﻗﺘﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻭﺟﻪ ﻣﺠﺮﺩ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺑﺎﻗﻲ
ﺑﻤﺎﻧﺪ ،ﺑﺎ ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺴﻢ ﺗﺨﻴﻠﻲ ﭘﻬﻠﻮ ﻣﻲﺯﻧﺪ .ﺍﮔﺮ ﭼﻪ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺏ ﺍﻛﺘﺒﺮ ،۱۹۱۷ﻭﻗﺘﻲ
ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓ ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺴﺘﻲ ﺑﻪ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻭ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﺟﻬﺎﻥ ﺭﺍﻩ ﭘﻴﺪﺍ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ ،ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻭ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﻣﺎ
ﻫﻢ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ ﺗﻐﺬﻳﻪ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ .ﻧﻤﻲﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺴﺘﻲ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﻣﺎ ﺑﺎ ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺴﻢ ﺗﺨﻴﻠﻲ
ﻫﻤﺴﻨﮓ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ .ﻭﻟﻲ ﺑﻪ ﻫﺮ ﺣﺎﻝ ﻭﺟﻮﻫﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻧﺮﺍ ﺣﻔﻆ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ .ﺑﻪ ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﺍﻳﻨﻜﻪ ﺭﻭﻱ ﺧﺎﺹ
ﭘﻴﺎﺩﻩ ﻧﻤﻲﺷﻮﺩ .ﺍﻟﺒﺘﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺣﺮﻑ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺕ ﻏﺎﻟﺐ ﻣﻲﮔﻮﻳﻢ .ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺍﺭﺩﻱ ﻫﻢ ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪﻫﺎﻳﻲ
ﺩﺍﺭﻳﻢ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻭﺟﻮﻩ ﺧﺎﺹ ﭘﻴﺎﺩﻩ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ .ﻣﺜﻞ ﺷﺐ ﭘﺎﻱ ﻧﻴﻤﺎ.
ﻃﺎﻟﺒﻲ ﭼﻪ ﺗﻔﺎﻭﺗﻲ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺴﺘﻲ ﺍﺷﻌﺎﺭ ﻧﻴﻤﺎ ﻭ ﺍﻓﺮﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﻣﻲﺑﻴﻨﻴﺪ؟
ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻧﭙﻮﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺭﻭﻱ ﺍﺷﻌﺎﺭ ﺍﻓﺮﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺎﺕ ﮔﺴﺘﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﻱ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﻡ .ﭘﺎﺭﻩﻳﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺁﺛﺎﺭﺵ ﺭﺍ ﺧﻮﺍﻧﺪﻡ .ﻭ
ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪ ﭘﺎﺭﻩﻳﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﮔﻴﻠﻜﻴﺶ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺯ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺭﻓﻘﺎﻱ ﮔﻴﻼﻧﻲ ﺷﻨﻴﺪﻡ .ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻤﻲﺗﻮﺍﻧﻢ
ﺍﻳﻨﻄﻮﺭ ﻛﻪ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻴﻤﺎ ﺣﺮﻑ ﻣﻲﺯﻧﻢ ،ﺭﺍﺟﻊ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻓﺮﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺳﺨﻦ ﺑﮕﻮﻳﻢ .ﻭ ﭼﮕﻮﻧﮕﻲ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ
ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺴﺘﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺷﺎﻋﺮ ﺍﺭﺯﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﻛﻨﻢ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺑﮕﻮﻳﻢ ﻛﻪ ﺷﻌﺮ ﺍﻓﺮﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺎ
ﺯﻧﺪﮔﻲ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﺗﻤﺎﺱ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮﻱ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ ﺍﻣﺎ ﺍﺯ ﺍﺭﺯﺵﻫﺎﻱ ﻭﻳﮋﻩﻱ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﺑﻲﻧﺼﻴﺐ ﺍﺳﺖ .ﻳﺎ
ﻛﻤﺘﺮ ﺍﺯ ﺍﺭﺯﺵﻫﺎﻱ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﺑﺮﺧﻮﺭﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﺳﺖ .ﺣﺘﻤﺎ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺳﻮﺁﻝ ﭘﻴﺶ ﻣﻲﺁﻳﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺁﻳﺎ
ﺍﺭﺯﺷﻬﺎﻱ ﺯﻳﺒﺎﻳﻲ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﻳﻲ ﻳﺎ ﺧﺮﺩﻩ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﻳﻲ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ؟ ﻣﺴﻠﻤﺎ ﻧﻪ.
ﻣﻦ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻳﻲ ﺷﻌﺮ ﻧﻴﻤﺎ ﻣﻲﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻢ .ﺑﺎﺯ ﻫﻢ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻢ ﺑﻪ ﺷﻌﺮ ﺷﺐ ﭘﺎﻱ ﻧﻴﻤﺎ.
ﻃﺎﻟﺒﻲ ﺿﻤﻦ ﺻﺤﺒﺖﻫﺎﻳﺘﺎﻥ ﮔﻔﺘﻴﺪ ﻛﻪ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺁﻥ ﺩﺳﺘﺎﻭﺭﺩﻫﺎﻱ ﭘﻮﻳﺎﻳﻲ ﻛﻪ ﻣﻲﺑﺎﻳﺪ
ﺑﺮﺳﺪ ،ﻧﺮﺳﻴﺪﻩ ﻭ ﮔﻔﺘﻴﺪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻛﻤﺒﻮﺩ ﻧﺎﺷﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﻪ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ .ﺩﺭ ﺻﻮﺭﺗﻲ ﻛﻪ ،ﻫﻤﺎﻧﻄﻮﺭ
ﻛﻪ ﺧﻮﺩﺗﺎﻥ ﻫﻢ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﻛﺮﺩﻳﺪ ،ﻣﺎ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﻪ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻏﺎﺯ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻃﻴﺖ ﺷﺮﻭﻉ ﻛﺮﺩﻳﻢ .ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﻭ
ﻣﺴﺌﻠﻪ ﺭﺍ ﭼﮕﻮﻧﻪ ﺍﺯ ﻫﻢ ﺟﺪﺍ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻴﺪ؟ ﺩﺭ ﻳﻚ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﻣﺸﺨﺺ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﺧﻼﺀ ﻣﻲﺑﻴﻨﻴﺪ ،ﻳﺎ
ﻋﺪﻡ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﻪ ،ﻛﺪﺍﻣﻴﻚ؟
ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻧﭙﻮﺭ ﻫﺮ ﺩﻭ .ﺗﺠﺮﺑﻪ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻃﻴﺖ ،ﺗﺠﺮﺑﻪ ﻣﺎﻗﺒﻞ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﻧﺪﺍﺷﺘﻪ .ﻣﮕﺮ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺕ ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭ
ﻛﻼﺳﻴﻚ .ﺍﺯ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﻪﻱ ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﻝ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓ ﺍﺯ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﻧﺴﻞ ﭘﻴﺶ ﺍﺯ ﺧﻮﺩ ﻣﺤﺮﻭﻡ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ .ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﻳﻦ
ﻫﻨﺮ ﻭ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻃﻴﺖ ﻧﻤﻲﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﻣﻠﻤﻮﺱ ﻭ ﻫﻤﻪ ﺟﺎﻧﺒﻪﻳﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺩﺭﻭﻥ
ﺯﻧﺪﮔﻲ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﺩﺳﺖ ﺑﺰﻧﺪ .ﻭﻗﺘﻲ ﻫﻢ ﻛﻪ ﻣﻲﺁﻳﺪ ﺯﻧﺪﮔﻲ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﻣﻨﻌﻜﺲ ﻛﻨﺪ ،ﻣﺜﻞ
ﺩﻭﺭﺑﻴﻦ ﻋﻜﺎﺳﻲ ،ﻧﻤﻲﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﻳﻚ ﺳﺎﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﻣﻨﺴﺠﻢ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪﻱ ﻣﺎﺩﻱ ﺩﺭ
ﻧﻈﺮ ﺑﮕﻴﺮﺩ .ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﻏﻮﺭ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺭﺯﺷﻬﺎﻱ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﻧﻤﻲﻛﻨﺪ .ﺟﻤﻊ ﺑﻨﺪﻱ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ
ﻧﺪﺍﺭﺩ .ﺧﻄﻮﻁ ﻭﻳﮋﻩ ﺁﻧﺮﺍ ﻧﻤﻲﺷﻨﺎﺳﺪ .ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﻣﻘﺪﺍﺭ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﻪ ﻫﻢ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻭ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ
ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻃﻴﺖ ﺷﺪﻩ ،ﺳﻴﺴﺘﻢ ﺩﻳﻜﺘﺎﺗﻮﺭﻱ ،ﺑﻮﻳﮋﻩ ﺩﻳﻜﺘﺎﺗﻮﺭﻱ ﻣﺤﻤﺪﺭﺿﺎﺷﺎﻫﻲ ،ﺍﺯ ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﻝ ﺁﻥ ﺑﻪ
ﺩﻭﺭﻩﻫﺎﻱ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺟﻠﻮﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ،ﻭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺑﺎﻋﺚ ﺷﺪﻩ ﻛﻪ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻭ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺧﻔﻘﺎﻥ ،ﺍﺯ
ﮔﺬﺷﺘﻪ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺑﺒﺮﺩ .ﺩﺭ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ ﻧﺘﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﺍﺯ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺯﺣﻤﺘﻜﺸﺎﻥ ﻃﻲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺩﺭﻙ ﺩﺭﺳﺘﻲ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ
ﺑﺎﺷﺪ .ﺭﻭﻱ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﺻﻞ ﻣﻲﺑﻴﻨﻴﻢ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻨﺠﺎ ﻫﻢ ﺧﻼﺀ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﻱ ﺍﻳﺠﺎﺩ ﺷﺪﻩ .ﺍﻟﺒﺘﻪ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺮ
ﺩﺭﻙ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺑﻲ ﻭ ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺴﺘﻲ ﻗﻮﻱﺗﺮ ﺷﺪﻩ ،ﺭﻭﻱ ﭘﺎﻳﮕﺎﻩ ﻃﺒﻘﺎﺗﻲ ﻓﺮﻭﺩ ﺁﻣﺪﻩ .ﺍﻣﺎ
ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺎﻃﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ .ﺑﺨﺸﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺯﻳﺒﺎﻳﻲﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻳﻲ ﺭﺍ ،ﺑﺎ ﺍﺭﺯﺵﻫﺎﻱ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﻳﻲ ﻭ
ﺧﺮﺩﻩﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﻳﻲ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺐ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ .ﻭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺁﺷﻔﺘﮕﻲ ﺍﻳﺠﺎﺩ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ .ﺧﻮﺩﺵ ﻣﺎﻧﻊ ﺧﻮﺩﺵ ﺷﺪﻩ
ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻋﺒﻮﺭ ﺑﺪﺭﻭﻥﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺮﺩﻡ .ﺍﻟﺒﺘﻪ ﻳﻚ ﭼﻴﺰ ﻳﺎﺩﻣﺎﻥ ﻧﺮﻭﺩ ،ﻭ ﺁﻧﻬﻢ ﺩﺭ ﺻﺪ ﺑﻴﺴﻮﺍﺩﺍﻥ
ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﺳﺖ .ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﺴﺌﻠﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺩﻳﺪﮔﺎﻩ ﺩﻳﮕﺮﻱ ﻣﻲﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺑﮕﻴﺮﺩ.
ﺑﻲﺳﻮﺍﺩﻱ ﻳﻚ ﺩﻳﻮﺍﺭ ﺁﻫﻨﻴﻦ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺮﺩﻡ ﻣﻲﺳﺎﺯﺩ.
ﮔﻔﺘﻴﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻥ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻃﻴﺖ ﻫﻨﺮﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ ﻛﻪ ﺟﻨﺒﻪﻱ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺍﻣﺎ ﻓﺎﻗﺪ ﻋﺸﻘﻲ
ﺍﺭﺯﺵﻫﺎﻱ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ .ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﻮﻟﻪ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ ﺑﺎﺯ ﻛﻨﻴﺪ .ﭼﻪ ﻧﻮﻉ ﺍﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻋﺘﻘﺎﺩ ﺷﻤﺎ
ﻣﻲﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺪﺭﺳﺘﻲ ﻣﻨﺘﻘﻞ ﻛﻨﺪ .ﺍﺭﺯﺵ ﻭﻳﮋﻩ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﻛﺪﺍﻡ
ﺍﺳﺖ؟ ﭼﻮﻥ ﻛﻪ ﮔﻔﺘﻴﺪ ﻣﻨﻈﻮﺭﺗﺎﻥ ﺍﺯ ﺍﺭﺯﺵﻫﺎﻱ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ،ﺯﻳﺒﺎﻳﻲﻫﺎﻱ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﻳﻲ ﻭ ﻳﺎ ﺧﺮﺩﻩ
ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﻳﻲ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ .ﺑﺨﺼﻮﺹ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺑﺎ ﺷﻌﺮ ﻧﻴﻤﺎ ﻭ ﺍﻓﺮﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ
ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﺑﺪﻫﻴﺪ .ﭼﺮﺍ ﻧﻴﻤﺎ ﺑﻪ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺍﻓﺮﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮﻱ ﺑﺮﺧﻮﺭﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﺳﺖ؟
ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻧﭙﻮﺭ ﮔﻔﺘﻴﻢ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺴﻢ ﻭ ﺁﺭﻣﺎﻥ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﻲ ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺴﻢ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺐ ﺑﺎ ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺑﻲﮔﺮﻱ ﺧﺮﺩﻩ
ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﻳﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺷﻌﺎﺭ ﻧﻴﻤﺎ ﻣﻮﺝ ﻣﻲﺯﻧﺪ .ﻭ ﮔﻔﺘﻴﻢ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪﻱ ﺑﻴﻨﺶ ﻧﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﻚ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪ
ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺒﻲ ﺳﺖ .ﺩﺭ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﻧﻴﻤﺎ ﺯﻳﺒﺎﻳﻲ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﻓﺌﻮﺩﺍﻟﻴﺴﻢ ،ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﻳﻲ ،ﺧﺮﺩﻩ
ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﻳﻲ ،ﻭ ﺁﺭﻣﺎﻥ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﻲ ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺴﻢ ﺗﻠﻔﻴﻖ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ .ﺍﻳﻦ ﭼﻨﺪﮔﺎﻧﮕﻲ ﻣﺎﻧﻊ ﮔﺴﺘﺮﺵ
ﻣﺤﺘﻮﺍﻱ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﻧﻴﻤﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺩﺭﻭﻥ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ .ﺩﺭ ﺍﻓﺮﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺍﻣﺎ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻉ ﺑﻴﻨﺶ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻔﻊ
ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺑﻲﮔﺮﻱ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺁﺭﻣﺎﻥ ﺗﻮﺩﻩ ﻛﻨﺎﺭ ﻣﻲﺁﻳﺪ .ﻭﻟﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯﻩﻱ ﻧﻴﻤﺎ ﺍﺯ ﺳﻄﺢ ﻧﻤﻲﮔﺬﺭﺩ ﻭ
ﺑﻪ ﺳﻄﻮﺡ ﻋﺎﻟﻲ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﺩﺳﺖ ﻧﻤﻲﻳﺎﺑﺪ .ﭼﻮﻥ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺴﻢ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺷﻌﺎﺭﺵ ﻧﺎﮔﺰﻳﺮ ﺍﺳﺖ
ﻫﻤﺎﻫﻨﮕﻲ ﭘﻴﺪﺍ ﻛﻨﺪ ﺑﺎ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﻪ ﺷﺪﻩﻱ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﻳﻲ ﻭ ﺧﺮﺩﻩﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﻳﻲ .ﻛﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ
ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﺭﻳﺸﻪﻫﺎﻳﺶ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺯ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻋﻮﺍﻡ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ .ﻭ ﻫﺰﺍﺭ ﺯﺭﻕ ﻭ ﺑﺮﻕ ﻭ ﺁﺭﺍﻳﺶ ﺑﻪ ﺁﻥ
ﺩﺍﺩﻩ .ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺘﻪ ﻣﺒﺤﺚ ﺩﻳﮕﺮﻳﺴﺖ .ﻣﺎ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺳﺘﺨﻮﺵ ﺗﻔﻨﻦ
ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﻳﻲ ﻭ ﺧﺮﺩﻩ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﻳﻲ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺩﺭﻭﻥ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﻳﻲ ﻧﺠﺎﺕ ﺑﺪﻫﻴﻢ .ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓ ﻣﺜﻞ
ﺍﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻧﻤﻲﻛﻨﺪ .ﺍﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺏ ﺑﻪ ﺗﻤﺎﻣﻲ ﻛﻨﺎﺭ ﻣﻲﺯﻧﺪ ،ﻭﻟﻲ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓ ﺭﺍ ﻧﻪ .ﻭ ﻳﺎ
ﺩﺭ ﺁﺳﺘﺎﻧﻪﻱ ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺏ ،ﻭ ﺑﻪ ﺁﺳﺎﻧﻲ ﻧﻪ .ﺩﺭ ﺩﺭﻭﻥ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻭ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ
ﺟﺎﺭﻳﺴﺖ .ﺍﻣﺎ ﺳﺮﻣﺎﻳﻪ ﺩﺍﺭﻱ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻔﻊ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺑﻬﺮﻩ ﺑﺮﺩﺍﺭﻱ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ .ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻨﺠﺎ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻪ
ﻣﻨﺘﻘﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺴﻴﺴﺖ ﻣﺘﺮﻗﻲ ﺍﺣﺘﻴﺎﺝ ﺩﺍﺭﻳﻢ ،ﺗﺎ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓ ﻭ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺯ ﭼﻨﮕﺎﻝ
ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﺯﻱ ﺳﺘﻤﮕﺮ ﻧﺠﺎﺕ ﺑﺪﻫﻨﺪ .ﻧﻴﻤﺎ ﺍﺯ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ ﺍﺯ
ﺍﻓﺮﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺮﺧﻮﺭﺩﺍﺭ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ .ﺍﻣﺎ ﭘﻴﭽﻴﺪﮔﻲﻫﺎﻱ ﺻﻮﺭﻱ ﻣﺎﻧﻊ ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﻝ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺑﻪ ﺁﻳﻨﺪﻩ
ﻣﻲﺷﻮﻧﺪ .ﺍﻣﺎ ﺳﺮﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﻣﻨﺘﻘﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺴﻴﺴﺖ ﻧﻴﻤﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺁﻳﻨﺪﻩ ﺟﺎﺭﻱ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﻨﺪ ﻛﺮﺩ ،ﺍﻻﻥ،
ﻫﻨﻮﺯ ﻛﻪ ﻫﻨﻮﺯ ﺍﺳﺖ .ﺳﺪ ﻋﻈﻴﻤﻲ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺴﺘﻲ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻧﻴﻤﺎ ،ﻭ ﺍﺻﻮﻻ ﻫﻨﺮ
ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ،ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ .ﺍﻳﻦ ﺳﺪ ﺭﺍ ﻣﻨﺘﻘﺪﻳﻦ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺑﺸﻜﻨﻨﺪ .ﻭ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﻣﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﺭﺯﺵﻫﺎ
ﭘﻴﻮﻧﺪ ﺑﺪﻫﻨﺪ .ﺍﻳﻦ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻱ ﻳﻚ ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﻝ ﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﻜﻲ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ .ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﻝ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺐ ﺍﺳﺖ .ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﻝ
ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺩﺭﻙ ﺳﻴﺴﺘﻢﺑﻨﺪﻱ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ،ﻭ ﺁﺭﻣﺎﻥ ﻭ ﺧﻮﺍﺳﺖ ﺯﻧﺪﮔﻲ ﺯﺣﻤﺘﻜﺸﺎﻥ ﺍﺳﺖ.
ﻣﻴﮕﻮﻳﻴﺪ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺁﻧﻜﻪ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻱ ﺍﺭﺯﺵﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻳﻲ ﺑﺸﻮﺩ ،ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪ ﻣﻲﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺑﺎ ﻋﺸﻘﻲ
ﻣﺴﺎﻳﻞ ﺯﻧﺪﮔﻲ ﺯﺣﻤﺘﻜﺸﺎﻥ ﺁﺷﻨﺎ ﺷﻮﺩ .ﺍﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﺩﺍﺭﺩ ﻭ ﺍﺯ ﺁﺭﺍﻳﺶﻫﺎﻱ
ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﻳﻲ ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﻧﺠﺎﺕ ﺑﺪﻫﺪ .ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺁﻧﻜﻪ ﭼﮕﻮﻧﮕﻲ ﺁﺭﺍﻳﺶ ﺍﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﻣﺮﺩﻡ ﺑﻮﺳﻴﻠﻪ
ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﺯﻱ ﺭﻭﺷﻦ ﺷﻮﺩ ،ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺯﻣﻴﻨﻪ ﻣﺜﺎﻟﻲ ﻣﻲﺯﻧﻢ ـ ﺳﻨﺖ ﺳﻴﺎﻩ ﺑﺎﺯﻱ ﺩﺭ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺶ،
ﻳﻜﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺍﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻣﺮﺩﻣﻲ ﺳﺖ .ﻫﻨﺮ ﺧﻮﺍﺹ ﻭ ﻳﺎ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﻳﻲ ﻣﻲﺁﻳﺪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺷﻜﻞ ﺭﺍ
ﻣﻲﮔﻴﺮﺩ ،ﺩﮔﺮﮔﻮﻥ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ ،ﺑﻪ ﺿﺪ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺗﺒﺪﻳﻞ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ ،ﺑﺎ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﻳﻲ ﺗﻠﻔﻴﻖ
ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ ،ﻭ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﻣﻲﺑﺮﺩ .ﻭ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﻣﺮﺩﻡ ﺭﺍ ﻓﺮﻳﺐ ﻣﻲﺩﻫﺪ .ﭘﺲ ﻳﻜﻲ
ﺍﺯ ﺍﻧﮕﺎﺭﻩﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻣﺮﺩﻣﻲ ﻣﻲﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺭﻭﻱ ﺁﻥ ﺍﻧﮕﺸﺖ ﺑﮕﺬﺍﺭﻳﻢ ،ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻦ ﺷﻜﻞﻫﺎﻱ
ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﻣﺮﺩﻣﻲ ،ﺍﻣﺘﺰﺍﺝ ﺁﻥ ﺑﺎ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﻲ ﺧﻠﻘﻲ ،ﻭ ﺑﺮﺩﻥ ﺁﻥ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎﺳﺖ .ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ
ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻭ ﺗﻮﺩﻩ ﺑﻬﺘﺮ ﺍﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﻣﻲﭘﺬﻳﺮﺩ .ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﻧﮕﺎﺭﻩ ،ﻣﻦ ﻓﻜﺮ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻢ
ﻛﻪ ﺍﻓﺮﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺗﻮﺩﻩ ﺍﻱ ﻧﺰﺩﻳﻜﺘﺮ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺗﺎ ﻧﻴﻤﺎ .ﺩﺭ ﺣﺎﻟﻴﻜﻪ ﻧﻴﻤﺎ ﺑﻴﻚ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ ﺷﺎﻋﺮ
ﺷﺎﻋﺮﺍﻥ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﺳﺖ ﺗﺎ ﺷﺎﻋﺮ ﻣﺮﺩﻡ.
ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻧﭙﻮﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺣﺮﻑ ﺩﺭﺳﺘﻪ .ﻭﻟﻲ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻱ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﺍﺭﺯﺵﻫﺎﻱ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻳﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺷﻌﺮ ﺍﻓﺮﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ.
ﺩﺭ ﺷﻌﺮ ﺍﻓﺮﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺸﻜﻠﻲ ﺧﻼﻳﻲ ﻫﺴﺖ .ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﻛﻨﻢ ﺑﻪ ﺷﻌﺮ:
ﺩﻳﺪﻱ ﺍﻓﺘﺎﺩ ﺩﻣﺖ ﻻﻱ ﺗﻠﻪ ﺍﻱ ﺷﻐﺎﻝ ﺗﻦ ﮔﻨﺪﻩ ﺧﭙﻠﻪ
ﺍﻳﻦ ﺷﻌﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﺘﻪ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﺑُﺮﺩ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ .ﻳﻚ ﺳﻠﺴﻠﻪ ﺗﺼﻮﻳﺮﻫﺎﻱ ﻃﻨﺰﺁﻣﻴﺰ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ
ﺷﻌﺮ ﺟﺮﻳﺎﻥ ﭘﻴﺪﺍ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ .ﺍﻣﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻫﺮ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺷﻌﺮ ﺑﺎ ﺷﻌﺮ ﭘﺮﻭﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺎﻳﻲ ،ﺑﺎ ﺷﻌﺮ
ﺯﺣﻤﺘﻜﺸﺎﻥ ﻣﺘﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﺍﺳﺖ .ﺍﻳﻦ ﺷﻌﺮ ﺭﺍ ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﻪ ﻛﻨﻴﻢ ﺑﺎ ﺷﻌﺮﻱ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻴﻤﺎ .ﻣﺜﻼ ﻣﺎﻧﻠﻲ .ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ
ﺷﻌﺮ ﺑﺮﺧﻮﺭﺩﻱ ﻫﺴﺖ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﺻﻴﺎﺩ ،ﻛﻪ ﺗﺠﻠﻲ ﺯﺣﻤﺘﻜﺸﺎﻥ ﺍﺳﺖ ،ﺑﺎ ﭘﺮﻱ ﺩﺭﻳﺎﻳﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺗﺠﺴﻢ
ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺴﻢ ﺁﺭﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﻧﻴﻤﺎﺳﺖ .ﺻﻴﺎﺩ ﺑﻪ ﭘﺮﻱ ﺩﺭﻳﺎﻳﻲ ﻣﻲﮔﻮﻳﺪ :ﻣﻦ ﺍﺻﻼ ﻫﻤﻴﺸﻪ ﺑﺪﺑﺨﺘﻢ.
ﻫﻤﻴﺸﻪ ﻛﺎﺭ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻢ .ﻫﻴﭻ ﭼﻴﺰ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺧﻮﺭﺩﻥ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﻡ .ﺗﻮ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻲﭘﺮﺳﻲ ﺗﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺳﻔﻴﺪﺗﺮ
ﺍﺳﺖ ﻳﺎ ﺗﻦ ﺯﻥ ﻣﻦ؟ ﻣﻦ ﭼﻄﻮﺭ ﻣﻲﺗﻮﺍﻧﻢ ﺑﺮﺍﻳﺖ ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﺑﺪﻫﻢ ،ﻭﻗﺘﻲ ﻫﻴﭻ ﭼﻴﺰ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ
ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﻪ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﻡ؟ ﺑﻌﺪ ﭘﺮﻱ ﺩﺭﻳﺎﻳﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻭ ﻣﻴﮕﻮﻳﺪ:
ﭼﺮﺍ ﺩﺭﻭﻍ ﻣﻲﮔﻮﻳﻲ .ﭘﺲ ﭼﺮﺍ ﻭﻗﺘﻲ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻤﺎﻡ ﻋﺸﻘﺖ ﺯﻧﺖ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻏﻮﺵ ﻣﻲﮔﻴﺮﻱ،
ﻣﻴﮕﻮﻳﻲ ﺗﻨﺖ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻣﺎﺭﻣﺎﻫﻲ ﻣﻲﻣﺎﻧﺪ؟ ﭘﺲ ﭼﺮﺍ ﺩﻳﻮﺍﺭﺕ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎ ﮔﻞ ﺳﻔﻴﺪ ﻛﻮﻫﻲ ﺭﻧﮓ
ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻲ؟ ﭘﺲ ﭼﺮﺍ ﻣﻲﮔﻮﻳﻲ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻳﺎﺳﻤﻨﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺯﻧﻢ ﻛﻨﺎﺭ ﺑﺎﻏﭽﻪ ﺩﻳﻮﺍﺭﺕ ﻛﺎﺷﺘﻪ ،ﻗﺸﻨﮕﻪ.
ﭘﺮﻱ ﺩﺭﻳﺎﻳﻲ ،ﺑﺎ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺴﻢ ﺁﺭﻣﺎﻧﻲ ،ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺍﻣﻴﺪ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺯ ﺯﻧﺪﮔﻲ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﻛﺸﻒ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ،
ﺑﻌﺪ ﺑﻪ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﻳﺎﺩﺁﻭﺭﻱ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ .ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺩﺭ ﺳﺮﺗﺎﺳﺮ ﺍﺷﻌﺎﺭ ﻧﻴﻤﺎ ﻣﻮﺝ ﻣﻲﺯﻧﺪ .ﺍﻣﺎ ﺩﺭ
ﺟﺎﻫﺎﻳﻲ ،ﺑﻪ ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺐ ﺑﺎ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺯﻳﺒﺎﻳﻲ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﻳﻲ ﻭ ﺧﺮﺩﻩ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﻳﻲ ،ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪ
ﻏﻴﺮ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﻋﺒﻮﺭﻱ ﺑﺪﺳﺖ ﻣﻲﺩﻫﻨﺪ .ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻗﺖ ﺩﺭ ﺯﻧﺪﮔﻲ ﺗﻮﺩﻩ ،ﺩﺭ ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭﻱ ﺍﺯ
ﺍﺷﻌﺎﺭ ﻧﻴﻤﺎﺳﺖ .ﻣﻲﺩﺍﻧﻴﻢ ﻛﻪ ﻧﻴﻤﺎ ﻣﺎﻝ ﺷﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﺳﺖ .ﺯﻧﺪﮔﻲ ﺻﻴﺎﺩﺍﻥ ﺭﺍ ﻣﻲﺷﻨﺎﺳﺪ .ﺩﺭ
ﻛﻠﺒﻪﻱ ﺻﻴﺎﺩﺍﻥ ﻧﺸﺴﺘﻪ .ﭘﻨﺠﺮﻩ ﺻﻴﺎﺩﺍﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺩﻳﺪﻩ .ﮔﻞ ﺭﺍ ﻛﻨﺎﺭ ﭘﻨﺠﺮﻩ ﺩﻳﺪﻩ .ﻣﺤﺎﻝ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻣﺎ
ﺩﺭ ﺯﻧﺪﮔﻲ ﺷﻬﺮﻱ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ،ﺑﺘﻮﺍﻧﻴﻢ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺧﻠﻘﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺷﻌﺮ
ﻣﻨﻌﻜﺲ ﻛﻨﻴﻢ .ﻣﺎ ﻣﻲﮔﻮﻳﻴﻢ ﺧﻮﺭﺷﻴﺪ ﺯﻳﺒﺎﺗﺮﺍﺳﺖ ﻳﺎ ﻧﻤﻲﺩﺍﻧﻢ ﺳﺘﺎﺭﻩﻫﺎ .ﻫﻤﻴﺸﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻭﺟﻪ
ﻣﺠﺮﺩ ﻣﺴﺌﻠﻪ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻴﻢ .ﻫﻤﻴﺸﻪ ﺍﺯ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺖ ﺍﻟﻬﺎﻡ ﻣﻲﮔﻴﺮﻳﻢ .ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﻲ ﻛﻪ ﻳﺎ ﻣﻄﻠﻘﺎ
ﺯﻳﺒﺎﺳﺖ ﻳﺎ ﺯﺷﺖ .ﺧﻮﺭﺷﻴﺪ ﻫﻤﻴﺸﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺷﻌﺮ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻭﺟﻬﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺁﺭﻣﺎﻥﺧﻮﺍﻫﻲ ﻣﻄﺮﺡ
ﺍﺳﺖ .ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﻣﺎ ﻧﻤﻲﺗﻮﺍﻧﻴﻢ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺴﻢ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺧﻮﺭﺷﻴﺪ ،ﺧﻮﺭﺷﻴﺪﻱ ﻛﻪ ﺧﻮﺩﺵ
ﻫﺴﺖ ،ﺑﺒﻴﻨﻴﻢ .ﻳﻚ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺑﺠﺎﻱ ﺧﻮﺭﺷﻴﺪ ﻣﻲﻧﺸﺎﻧﻴﻢ .ﺍﻳﻦ ﺧﻮﺭﺷﻴﺪ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﺧﻮﺭﺷﻴﺪ ﻣﺮﺩﻡ
ﻧﻴﺴﺖ .ﺧﻮﺭﺷﻴﺪ ﻣﺎﺳﺖ .ﺧﻮﺭﺷﻴﺪ ﺧﻔﻘﺎﻧﻪ .ﺧﻮﺭﺷﻴﺪ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﺧﻮﺭﺷﻴﺪﻱ ﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ
ﻛﻮﻳﺮ ﻣﻲﺗﺎﺑﺪ .ﺧﻮﺭﺷﻴﺪ ﺁﻧﺠﺎ ﻳﻚ ﺳﻠﺴﻠﻪ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮﺩ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ .ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮﺩ ﺧﻮﺭﺷﻴﺪ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ
ﺯﻧﺪﮔﻲ ﻳﻚ ﺑﻠﻮﭺ ﺗﺼﻮﻳﺮ ﻛﺮﺩ .ﻣﺎ ﻗﺎﺩﺭ ﻧﻴﺴﺘﻴﻢ .ﭼﻮﻥ ﺑﻠﻮﭼﺴﺘﺎﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺯ ﺩﺭﻭﻥ ﻧﻤﻲﺷﻨﺎﺳﻴﻢ.
ﺯﻳﺮﺍ ﺳﻴﺴﺘﻢ ﺩﻳﻜﺘﺎﺗﻮﺭﻱ ﻣﺎﻧﻊ ﻣﻲﺷﺪ .ﺩﺭﺧﺖ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺧﻮﺩﺵ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ ﺩﺭ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻭ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ.
ﺭﻭﺩﺧﺎﻧﻪ ،ﭘﺮﻧﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺧﻮﺩﺷﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ .ﻣﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﭘﺮﻧﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﻭﻳﮋﻩﻳﻲ ﺩﺍﺭﻳﻢ .ﭘﺮﻧﺪﮔﺎﻧﻲ
ﻛﻪ ﺍﺯ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺖ ﺧﻮﺩ ﻋﺎﺭﻱ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﻧﺪ .ﻫﻨﺮ ﻭ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﻣﻲﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺑﺎ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺯﻳﺴﺘﻲ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ،ﺑﺎ
ﻳﻚ ﺍﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ـ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﭘﻴﻮﻧﺪ ﺑﺨﻮﺭﺩ .ﺍﮔﺮ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﺴﺌﻠﻪ ﺍﻳﺠﺎﺩ ﻧﺸﻮﺩ ،ﻛﻪ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺑﺸﻮﺩ،
ﺩﺭ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻭ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﺗﺤﻮﻟﻲ ﻫﻤﺴﻨﮓ ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺏ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﻧﻤﻲﭘﺬﻳﺮﺩ .ﺑﻪ ﺍﺷﻌﺎﺭ ﺷﺎﻋﺮﺍﻥ ﺭﺳﻤﻴﺖ
ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺏ ﻧﮕﺎﻩ ﺑﻜﻨﻴﺪ ،ﻣﻲﺑﻴﻨﻴﻢ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﻫﻤﺎﻥ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ .ﻣﺎ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ
ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪﻱ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﻱ ﺍﺯ ﺯﻧﺪﮔﻲ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﺭﺩ ﻛﻨﻴﻢ.
ﺍﺯ ﺳﺨﻨﺎﻥ ﺷﻤﺎ ﺑﺮﻣﻲﺁﻳﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺷﻤﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﺎﺭﻩﮔﺮﺍﻳﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻳﻚ ﻭﺟﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺯﻳﺒﺎﻳﻲ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﻋﺸﻘﻲ
ﺭﺩ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻴﺪ ﻭﻗﺘﻲ ﻣﻲﮔﻮﻳﻴﺪ ﺩﺭﺧﺖ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺩﺭﺧﺖ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ .ﺍﻣﺎ...
ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻧﭙﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺒﺘﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺣﺮﻑ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻱ ﻧﻔﻲ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﺎﺭﻩﮔﺮﺍﻳﻲ ﺩﺭ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ .ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﻫﻢ ﺩﺭ ﺯﻧﺪﮔﻲ
ﺍﺳﺘﻌﺎﺭﻩ ﺑﻜﺎﺭ ﻣﻲﮔﻴﺮﻧﺪ .ﺍﻣﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﺎﺭﻩﮔﺮﺍﻳﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﻣﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻛﺎﺩﺭ ﺗﻨﮓ ﺍﻧﻌﻜﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺧﺮﺩﻩ
ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﻳﻲ ،ﺩﺭ ﻛﻢ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﻲ ﻭ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺖ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ،ﻣﺤﺼﻮﺭ ﺑﻮﺩ .ﻧﻴﻤﺎ ﻫﻢ
ﺍﺳﺘﻌﺎﺭﻩ ﺑﻜﺎﺭ ﻣﻲﺑﺮﺩ .ﻭﻗﺘﻲ ﻛﻪ ﻣﺜﻼ ﺻﻴﺎﺩ ﺑﻪ ﺯﻧﺶ ﻣﻲﮔﻮﻳﺪ ،ﺗﻨﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺎﺭ ﻣﺎﻫﻲ ﻣﻲﻣﺎﻧﺪ.
ﺍﻳﻦ ﻳﻚ ﻧﻮﻉ ﺭﺟﻌﺖ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﺎﺭﻱ ﺳﺖ .ﺻﻴﺎﺩ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺎﺭﻣﺎﻫﻲ ﻧﻮﻋﻲ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﺎﺭﻩﻱ ﭘﺎﻙ ﻋﺎﺷﻘﺎﻧﻪ
ﻣﻲﺑﻴﻨﺪ .ﭼﻮﻥ ﺗﻮﺭﺵ ﺧﺸﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ ،ﺳﺎﺣﻞ ﺧﺸﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ ،ﻗﺎﻳﻘﺶ ﺧﺸﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ ،ﺩﺭﻳﺎ ﺧﺸﻦ
ﺍﺳﺖ ،ﻃﻮﻓﺎﻥ ﺧﺸﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ ،ﺩﺭ ﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ ﺗﻤﺎﻡ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺧﺸﻮﻧﺖﻫﺎ ﻳﻚ ﻣﺎﺭﻣﺎﻫﻲ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ ﻛﻪ
ﻧﺮﻣﻲ ﺧﻮﺩﺵ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻴﺎﺩ ﻣﻨﺘﻘﻞ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ .ﺑﻨﺎ ﺑﺮ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﺎﺭﻩﻫﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺩﺭﻭﻥ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﻭﺳﻴﻌﺎ
ﻋﻤﻞ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻨﺪ .ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﺎﺭﻩ ﺍﺻﻼ ﻣﺎﺩﻩ ﺩﺭ ﺫﻫﻦ ﻣﻨﻌﻜﺲ ﻧﻤﻲﺷﻮﺩ.
ﺩﺭ ﺩﺍﺳﺘﺎﻥﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺤﻤﻮﺩ ﺩﻭﻟﺖ ﺁﺑﺎﺩﻱ ،ﺍﺳﺘﻌﺎﺭﻩﮔﺮﺍﻳﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺷﻜﻞ ﻣﺮﺩﻣﻲ ﺁﻥ ،ﻓﺮﺍﻭﺍﻥ ﺩﻳﺪﻩ ﻋﺸﻘﻲ
ﻣﻲ ﺷﻮﺩ...
ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻧﭙﻮﺭ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺭﻭﺍﺑﻂ ﺩﺭ ﻛﺎﺭ ﺩﻭﻟﺖ ﺁﺑﺎﺩﻱ ﺣﻔﻆ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ .ﭘﺲ ﻣﻨﻈﻮﺭ ﻣﺎ ﺣﺬﻑ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﺎﺭﻩ
ﻧﻴﺴﺖ .ﺑﻠﻜﻪ ﺩﺭﻙ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﺎﺭﻩ ﺯﻳﺴﺖ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎﺳﺖ .ﻧﺰﺩﻳﻚ ﺷﺪﻥ ﺑﻪ ﺑﻴﻨﺶ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎﺳﺖ ،ﺑﺪﻭﻥ
ﺁﻧﻜﻪ ﺗﺴﻠﻴﻢ ﺻﺮﻑ ﺁﻥ ﺑﺸﻮﻳﻢ .ﺑﺪﻟﻴﻞ ﺍﻳﻨﻜﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺑﻴﻨﺶ ﺍﺯ ﺍﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﻪ
ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﺑﺮﺧﻮﺭﺩﺍﺭ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ .ﺍﺳﺘﻌﺎﺭﻩﮔﺮﺍﻳﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﻭﺟﻪ ﻣﺮﺩﻣﻲ ،ﻣﻲﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺑﺎ ﻣﺜﺎﻝﻫﺎﻱ ﻓﺮﺍﻭﺍﻥ
ﻫﻤﺮﺍﻩ ﻛﺮﺩ ،ﺗﺎ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻣﺎ ﻣﺸﺨﺺﺗﺮ ﺷﻮﺩ .ﻣﺜﻼ ﭼﺮﺍ ﻣﺮﺩﻡ ﭼﺎﻱ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺳﺘﻜﺎﻥ ﺷﻴﺸﻪﻳﻲ
ﻣﻲﻧﻮﺷﻨﺪ؟ ﺩﺭﺳﺖ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺳﺮﻣﺎﻳﻪﺩﺍﺭﻱ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺷﻴﻲ ﺭﺍ ﻣﻲﺳﺎﺯﺩ ،ﻭﻟﻲ ﺗﻘﺎﺿﺎ،
ﺯﻳﺒﺎﻳﻲﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ،ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺗﺤﻮﻝ ﺍﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﻧﻘﺶ ﭘﻴﺪﺍ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ .ﺍﻳﻨﻬﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺍﺯ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻭ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ
ﺑﻴﺮﻭﻥ ﻛﺸﻴﺪ ،ﻫﻤﭽﻨﺎﻧﻜﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺑﻴﺮﻭﻥ ﻛﺸﻴﺪ .ﻣﺮﺩﻡ ﺗﻮﻱ ﺍﺳﺘﻜﺎﻥ ﺷﻴﺸﻪﻳﻲ ﭼﺎﻱ
ﻣﻲﻧﻮﺷﻨﺪ ،ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺁﻧﻜﻪ ﺷﻴﺸﻪ ﺭﻧﮓ ﭼﺎﻱ ﺭﺍ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﻣﻲﺩﻫﺪ .ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺁﻧﻜﻪ ﺭﻧﮓ ﭼﺎﻱ ﻫﻤﺎﻧﻨﺪ
ﺭﻧﮓ ﺧﻮﺭﺷﻴﺪ ﺍﺳﺖ .ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺁﻧﻜﻪ ﻧﻮﺭ ﺩﺭ ﺯﻧﺪﮔﻲ ﻣﺮﺩﻡ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ .ﭼﺮﺍ ﻣﺮﺩﻡ
ﻣﻲﮔﻮﻳﻨﺪ ﭘﻨﺠﺮﻩﻱ ﺭﻭ ﺑﻪ ﺁﻓﺘﺎﺏ؟ ﭼﺮﺍ ﺯﺣﻤﺘﻜﺸﺎﻥ ﻣﺎ ،ﺑﺮﺧﻼﻑ ﺍﺩﻋﺎﻱ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﺯﻱ
ﻛﺜﻴﻒ ،ﻛﻪ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺁﻟﻮﺩﻩ ﻭ ﻛﺜﻴﻒ ﻣﻲﭘﻨﺪﺍﺭﺩ ،ﺗﻤﻴﺰﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﺁﺩﻡﻫﺎ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ .ﻳﻚ ﻣﻼﻓﻪ ﺳﻔﻴﺪ
ﺭﺍ ﺯﻥ ﻛﺎﺭﮔﺮ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﻳﺪ ،ﻭ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺗﻤﻴﺰ ﺭﻭﻱ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪﻱ ﺭﺧﺘﺨﻮﺍﺏﻫﺎﻳﺶ ﻣﻲﻛﺸﺪ .ﺍﮔﺮ ﭼﻪ
ﺁﻥ ﻣﻼﻓﻪ ﭼﻨﺪ ﻭﺻﻠﻪ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ .ﺍﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﻳﻚ ﺯﻳﺴﺖ ﺯﻳﺒﺎ ﻭ ﻋﺎﺩﻱ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺯ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺍﻧﺪ ،ﺑﻌﺪ
ﻣﺘﻬﻤﺸﺎﻥ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻨﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺯﻳﺒﺎﻳﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭﻙ ﻧﻤﻲﻛﻨﻨﺪ .ﺍﮔﺮ ﺑﮕﺬﺍﺭﻧﺪ ،ﺯﺣﻤﺘﻜﺸﺎﻥ ﻣﺎ ،ﺯﻳﺒﺎﺗﺮﻳﻦ
ﺯﻧﺪﮔﻲ ﺭﺍ ﻣﻲﺳﺎﺯﻧﺪ .ﺭﻧﮓ ﻭ ﻟﻌﺎﺏ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﺯﻱ ﺗﻤﺎﻡ ﺍﺭﺯﺷﻬﺎﻱ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻲ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺑﺎ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺖ ﺭﺍ
ﺍﺯ ﺯﻳﺒﺎﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﺳﻠﺐ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ.
ﺯﻳﺒﺎﻳﻲﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺗﻮﺩﻩ ﻣﺮﺩﻡ ،ﺟﻨﺒﻪ ﺗﺰﻳﻴﻨﻲ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﺩ .ﺑﻠﻜﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺯﻧﺪﮔﻲ ﺗﻮﻟﻴﺪﻱ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﻧﻘﺶ ﺍﻳﻔﺎ ﻋﺸﻘﻲ
ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ .ﻳﻜﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺧﻮﺍﻧﻨﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﮔﻴﻠﻜﻲ ،ﻋﺎﺷﻮﺭﭘﻮﺭ ،ﺗﺮﺍﻧﻪﻳﻲ ﻣﻲﺧﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﺑﻨﺎﻡ ﭘﺎﭺ ﻟﻴﻠﻲ .ﺍﻳﻦ
ﺧﻮﺍﻧﻨﺪﻩ ﺍﺯ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﻧﮕﺮﺵ ﻳﻚ ﺭﻭﺳﺘﺎﻳﻲ ،ﺯﻥ ﺯﻳﺒﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﭘﺎﭺ ﻟﻴﻠﻲ ﺳﺮﺍﻍ ﻣﻲﮔﻴﺮﺩ .ﭘﺎﭺ ﺭﺍ
ﮔﻴﻼﻧﻲﻫﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺯﻧﻲ ﻣﻲﮔﻮﻳﻨﺪ ﻛﻪ ﭼﺎﻕ ﻭ ﭘﺮ ﺯﻭﺭ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ .ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺭﻭﺳﺘﺎﻳﻲ ﺯﻧﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺯﻳﺒﺎ ﻣﻲﺑﻴﻨﺪ
ﻛﻪ ﻛﺎﺭﺁﻳﻲ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ .ﺩﺭ ﺩﺍﺳﺘﺎﻥﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺤﻤﻮﺩ ﺩﻭﻟﺖ ﺁﺑﺎﺩﻱ ﻫﻢ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﺎﺭﻩﻫﺎ ﺑﺪﻳﻦ ﮔﻮﻧﻪ
ﺑﻜﺎﺭ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﻧﺪ.
ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻧﭙﻮﺭ ﻛﺎﻣﻼ ﺩﺭﺳﺖ ﺍﺳﺖ .ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﻋﻴﻦ ﺣﺎﻝ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺻﺮﻓﺎ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻱ ﺯﻳﺒﺎﻳﻲ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ .ﺍﺻﻼ
ﭘﺎﻱ ﭼﺎﻕ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮﺵ ﺯﻳﺒﺎﺳﺖ .ﭘﺎﻱ ﻻﻏﺮ ﻣﺮﺩﻧﻲ ﺑﺮﺍﻳﺶ ﺯﻳﺒﺎﻳﻲ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﺩ ﻣﮕﺮ ﺁﻧﻜﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺩﺭﻭﻥ
ﻣﺤﺮﻭﻣﻴﺖﻫﺎ ﺑﻪ ﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﻭﺿﻌﻲ ﺗﻦ ﺑﺪﻫﺪ .ﺍﻣﺎ ﺍﮔﺮ ﺣﻖ ﺍﻧﺘﺨﺎﺏ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ ،ﺁﻥ ﻧﻮﻉ ﺯﻳﺒﺎﻳﻲ
ﺭﺍ ﺍﻧﺘﺨﺎﺏ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ ،ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺯﻳﺴﺖ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻭ ﺗﻮﻟﻴﺪ ﻣﺎﺩﻳﺶ ،ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮﺵ ﺯﻳﺒﺎﺳﺖ.
ﺍﻳﻦ ﺯﻳﺒﺎﻳﻲﻫﺎ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻭ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺑﮕﻴﺮﺩ .ﻣﺜﻼ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺯﺣﻤﺘﻜﺸﺎﻥ
ﮔﻠﮕﻮﻧﮕﻲﻱ ﭼﻬﺮﻩ ،ﻧﺸﺎﻧﻪ ﻛﺎﺭ ﻭ ﺣﺮﻛﺖ ﺍﺳﺖ .ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﻣﻬﺘﺎﺑﻲ ﺯﺭﺩﻧﺒﻮ ،ﻛﻪ ﺩﺧﺘﺮﺍﻥ
ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﺯﻱ ﻭ ﺧﺮﺩﻩ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﺯﻱ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺷﻜﻞ ﻣﻲﺁﺭﺍﻳﻨﺪ ،ﻭ ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺮﺩﻩﻫﺎ
ﻣﻲﺷﻮﻧﺪ ،ﮔﺮﭼﻪ ﻳﻚ ﺳﻠﺴﻠﻪ ﺟﺎﺫﺑﻪﻱ ﻛﺎﺫﺏ ﺍﻳﺠﺎﺩ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ ﺍﻣﺎ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﺯﻳﺒﺎﻳﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻮﺳﻴﻠﻪ
ﺧﺮﺩﻩ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﺯﻱ ﺍﻋﻼﻡ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ .ﻭ ﺑﻴﻨﺶ ﺯﻳﺒﺎﻳﻲﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺯ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﻭﺳﺎﻳﻞ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ
ﺟﻤﻌﻲ ،ﺑﻪ ﺳﻤﺖ ﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﺯﻳﺒﺎﻳﻲﻫﺎﻱ ﻛﺎﺫﺑﻲ ﺳﻮﻕ ﻣﻲﺩﻫﺪ .ﻭ ﻣﺮﺩﻡ ﺭﺍ ﻣﺴﺦ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ .ﺍﻣﺎ ﺑﻪ
ﻫﺮ ﺣﺎﻝ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﻧﺤﻄﺎﻁ ﺯﻳﺒﺎﻳﻲ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻣﺪﺕ ﻣﺤﺪﻭﺩﻱ ﻗﺪﺭﺕ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ .ﻭ ﺗﺎ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺖ ﻧﻤﻲﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ
ﺩﻳﺪ ﺯﻳﺒﺎﻳﻲﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻧﻪﻱ ﻣﺮﺩﻡ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻧﺤﺮﺍﻑ ﺑﻜﺸﺎﻧﺪ .ﺩﺧﺘﺮﺍﻥ ﺯﺣﻤﺘﻜﺶ ﻣﺎ ﮔﻠﺪﻭﺯﻱ
ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻨﺪ .ﭘﺎﺭﭼﻪ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﻣﻲﺩﺍﺭﻧﺪ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﮔﻞﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻪ ﻣﻲﺷﻨﺎﺳﻨﺪ ﺯﻳﻨﺖ ﻣﻲﺩﻫﻨﺪ .ﺁﻳﺎ
ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻋﻤﻴﻖ ﺍﺯ ﺯﻳﺒﺎﻳﻲﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺩﺭ ﻭﺟﻪ ﺧﺎﻣﺶ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ .ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ .ﺍﮔﺮ ﺍﻳﻦ
ﻣﺴﺌﻠﻪ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﻛﻨﻴﻢ ،ﻛﻪ ﺁﻳﺎ ﺣﻴﺎﻁ ﺧﺎﻧﻪﻱ ﺁﻥ ﺩﺧﺘﺮ ﮔﻠﺪﻭﺯ ﮔﻞ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﺩ .ﺗﻤﺎﻡ ﺍﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﻭ
ﺭﻭﺍﺑﻂ ﺭﻭﺳﺘﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺿﺪ ﺯﻳﺒﺎﻳﻲ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻲ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻛﺮﺩﻧﺪ ،ﺗﺎ ﺍﻭ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻄﺮﻑ ﻳﻚ ﺯﻳﺒﺎﻳﻲ ﻣﺼﻨﻮﻋﻲ،
ﻛﻪ ﺧﺎﻃﺮﻩﻱ ﺯﻳﺒﺎﻳﻲ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻭ ﺯﻧﺪﻩ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ ،ﺑﺒﺮﻧﺪ .ﺍﻣﺎ ﺍﮔﺮ ﺯﻧﺪﮔﻲ ﻃﺒﻘﺎﺗﻲ ﭘﺎﻳﺎﻥ
ﺑﭙﺬﻳﺮﺩ ،ﻭ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪ ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺴﺘﻲ ﻓﺮﺍ ﺑﺮﺳﺪ ،ﻭ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪ ﺳﻮﺳﻴﺎﻟﻴﺴﺘﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪ ﻛﻤﻮﻧﻴﺴﺘﻲ
ﺗﺒﺪﻳﻞ ﺷﻮﺩ ،ﺗﻤﺎﻡ ﺍﺭﺯﺵﻫﺎﻱ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺧﻮﺩﺷﺎﻥ ﺭﺟﻌﺖ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﻨﺪ ﻛﺮﺩ .ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﻧﮕﻬﺪﺍﺷﺘﻦ
ﮔﻠﺪﺍﻥ ﺗﻮﻱ ﺍﺗﺎﻕ ﻟﺰﻭﻣﻲ ﻧﺨﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺩﺍﺷﺖ .ﻧﮕﻬﺪﺍﺷﺘﻦ ﮔﻠﺪﺍﻥ ﺗﻮﻱ ﺍﺗﺎﻕ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻱ ﻧﺪﺍﺷﺘﻦ
ﺣﻴﺎﻁ ﻭ ﺑﺎﻏﭽﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ .ﺧﺮﺩﻩ ﺑﻮﺭﮊﻭﺍﺯﻱ ﺍﻟﺒﺘﻪ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺗﺤﻤﻴﻠﻲ ﮔﻞﻫﺎﻱ ﺑﺎﻏﭽﻪ ﺭﺍ ﺗﻮﻱ ﺍﺗﺎﻕ
ﻧﮕﻪﻣﻲﺩﺍﺭﺩ .ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺁﻧﻜﻪ ﻟﻴﺎﻗﺖ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﺩ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻓﻀﺎﻱ ﺁﺯﺍﺩ ﺣﺮﻛﺖ ﻛﻨﺪ .ﻭﻟﻲ ﺗﻮﺩﻩﻱ ﻣﺮﺩﻡ
ﻣﻲﺗﻮﺍﻧﻨﺪ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺤﻴﻄﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺗﻤﺎﻡ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺖ ﺭﺍ ﺣﺎﺿﺮ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ .ﺩﺭ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪ
ﻛﻤﻮﻧﻴﺴﺘﻲ ﻫﻤﻪ ﭼﻴﺰ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺕ ﺳﺎﻟﻢ ﺑﻪ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺖ ﺧﻮﺩﺵ ﺭﺟﻌﺖ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ .ﺭﻓﺘﻦ ﺑﻄﺮﻑ ﻳﻚ
ﺷﺎﺧﻪ ﮔﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﺘﻪ ﻧﺸﺎﻧﻪ ﺗﺠﺪﻳﺪ ﺑﻬﺎﺭ ﻫﺴﺖ .ﺍﻣﺎ ﻭﻗﺘﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺧﺎﻧﻪ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻃﺮﺍﻑ ،ﻛﻼ ﺩﺭ ﻫﻤﻪ
ﺟﺎ ،ﺑﻬﺎﺭ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﭘﻴﺪﺍ ﻛﻨﺪ ،ﺟﺴﺘﺠﻮﻱ ﮔﻞ ﺑﻲ ﻣﻌﻨﻲ ﺳﺖ .ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻨﺠﺎ ﺟﺴﺘﺠﻮﻱ ﻳﻚ ﺷﺎﺧﻪ
ﮔﻞ ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﺯﺣﻤﺘﻜﺶ ،ﺑﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﮔﻞ ﺑﻪ ﻫﻨﮕﺎﻡ ﺑﻬﺎﺭ ﺩﺭ ﺟﺎﻱ ﺩﻳﮕﺮﻱ ﻣﻲﺷﻜﻔﺪ،
ﻧﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺧﺎﻧﻪ ﺯﺣﻤﺘﻜﺶ .ﻣﻲﺑﻴﻨﻴﻢ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻫﻤﻪ ﺟﺎ ﻭ ﻫﻤﻪ ﭼﻴﺰ ،ﺣﺘﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺳﻨﺖﻫﺎ ﻭ
ﺍﺳﻄﻮﺭﻩﻫﺎ ،ﻣﻬﺮ ﻃﺒﻘﺎﺗﻲ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ.
ﺩﺭ ﺟﻮ ﺍﺧﺘﻨﺎﻕ ﺭﮊﻳﻢ ﺳﺎﺑﻖ ،ﺍﺳﺘﻌﺎﺭﻩ ﺩﺭ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻭ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﻣﻌﻤﻮﻻ ﺩﺭ ﻭﺟﻪ ﺗﺠﺮﻳﺪﻳﺶ ﺑﻜﺎﺭ ﻋﺸﻘﻲ
ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﻣﻲﺷﺪ .ﺍﻣﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻋﻴﻦ ﺣﺎﻝ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪﺍﻧﻲ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻴﻢ ﭼﻮﻥ ﻣﺤﻤﻮﺩ ﺩﻭﻟﺖ ﺁﺑﺎﺩﻱ ،ﻛﻪ ﺍﺯ
ﺍﺳﺘﻌﺎﺭﻩ ﺑﺪﻳﻦ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﻧﻤﻲﻛﺮﺩﻧﺪ .ﭼﻪ ﺷﺮﺍﻳﻄﻲ ﭼﻬﺮﻩﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﺍﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﻳﻲ ﭼﻮﻥ
ﻣﺤﻤﻮﺩ ﺩﻭﻟﺖﺁﺑﺎﺩﻱ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺁﻭﺭﺩ .ﺍﮔﺮ ﭼﺸﻢ ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﻭ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﮔﺬﺷﺘﻪ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ،
ﻫﻨﺮ ﺭﺍ ﺩﭼﺎﺭ ﺗﺠﺮﻳﺪﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻲ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ﺑﻮﺩ ،ﭼﻪ ﺯﻣﻴﻨﻪﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﺍﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺭﺷﺪ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪﺍﻧﻲ ﭼﻮﻥ
ﻣﺤﻤﻮﺩ ﺩﻭﻟﺖ ﺁﺑﺎﺩﻱ ﺭﺍ ﻓﺮﺍﻫﻢ ﺁﻭﺭﺩ؟
ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻧﭙﻮﺭ ﺟﺎﺯﻩ ﺑﺪﻫﻴﺪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﺴﺌﻠﻪ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺖ ﺩﻫﻪﻱ ﭘﻨﺠﺎﻩ ـ ﺩﺭ ﻧﺸﺴﺘﻲ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﭘﺎﺳﺦ
ﺑﺪﻫﻴﻢ.