تجدد ادبی در عصر مشروطه و مسئله میراث ادبی کلاسیک (تحلیل از منظر نظریه جامعه کوتاه‌مدت

With the occurrence of the Constitutional Revolution, the discussion on the necessity of cultural transformation and the revitalization of literary renovation flourished. One of the important aspects of this discussion was determining the relationship between ancient Iranian literature and the new situation. The modernists of this era viewed literary tradition as sterile and stagnant, seeking to destroy it instead of attempting to reinterpret it. On the other hand, traditionalists took a worshipful approach to tradition, condemning any critique of classical tradition. In this article, after providing a historical overview, the critical aspects of the modernist approach to classical tradition are listed. These aspects include the outdated language, elitism, narrow and regional perspectives, inability to address the requirements and needs of the new world, justifying authoritarian power, neglecting the social function of literature, and non-revolutionary and accommodative nature. Subsequently, this destructive perspective is analyzed from the perspective of short-term society theory. This analysis reveals that the merciless critique of the modernists is an expression of their disregard for the necessity of capital accumulation, while also highlighting the absence of the concept of critique and its vital role in cultural development and progress. Furthermore, these critics paid no attention to the nature of the authoritarian government, for which no alternative was conceivable, and they were oblivious to the key role of power institutions in the cultural life of society.

Extended Abstract

Introduction

One of the questions that emerged alongside the Constitutional Revolution in the cultural scene of Iran was the discussion on the necessity of renewal. One important aspect of this debate was determining the relationship between ancient Iranian literature and the new context. A significant group of modernists believed that the ancient literary tradition was stagnant and that preserving it was futile. On the other hand, traditionalists adopted a reverential perspective that rejected any criticism of classical tradition.

Questions: In the sociological analysis of the conflict between reformists and traditionalists in the Constitutional Era, we will seek answers to the following questions. 1- What are the main criticisms of the modernist movement towards classical tradition? 2- What are the main characteristics of this conflict from the perspective of the short-term society theory?

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework of this research is the theory of short-term society, which tries to explain the relationship between the state and the nation and other social aspects from the perspective of historical sociology. Based on the comparative study of Iranian and European tradition, this theory points out the important differences between these two cultures. Although this theory has not been formulated specifically in the field of literature, but considering the capacities that exist in this theory and also due to the deep connection between literature and politics in Iranian society, it can be used in this interdisciplinary research.

The main criticisms towards classical tradition

The main chapters of the critique of modernists on classical tradition can be summarized as follows: 1- outdated language. 2- elitist and anti-populist literature. 3- having limited and local concerns. 4- vulnerability to new paradigms. 5- disregard for the social role of literature. 6- enhancement of authoritarianism.

Analysis from the perspective of theory

The analysis of this subject from the perspective of the short-term society theory demonstrates the following aspects: 1- The destruction of tradition and the problem of capital accumulation deficiency: The radical modernists failed to acknowledge that renewal could only be logical if it first embraced a peaceful coexistence with tradition and gradually constructed a new aesthetic system. 2- Lack of the concept of critique. 3- Disregard for the nature of authoritarian governance. 4- Neglect of the economic dependence of literature on power institutions.