Criteria of legitimacy and acceptability of theater in Iranian society during the years (1260-1300 AD) - the practical title of the role of Khan Amo in the Bezengah theater of constitutionalism

Academic Thesis in Dramatic Literature Master's Degree

Abstract

    This research deals with the formation of Iran's modern theater field through Bourdieu's sociological lens. It also examines the criteria of legitimacy and acceptability of this new field of establishment. The social atmosphere of Iranian society has fixed and traditional institutions before constitutionalism and modernity. Under the domination of customary and Sharia-based ruling discourses, the variety of worldviews is limited. Diversity and innovation in art also, because the traditional institutionalized structures of society are closed and self-sufficient, and the current modern art in the Western world has no place in the traditional structure of Iranian art. The occurrence of modernity means the opening of new fields for the creation of new arts such as novel and new theater. The creation of these arts requires the establishment of new fields of cultural production, which leads these new arts to legitimization. In this research, the legitimacy criteria of modern art such as theater is studied based on the analysis of the evolution and transformation of the Iranian theater field based on the theory of Pierre Bourdieu. Based on this, with the rules that shape the independent field of theater art and its relationship with other social fields, the criteria of legitimacy in the field, outside the field and the criteria derived from the conflict logic of the actors of modern Iranian theater art have been extracted. In this research, the historical period of the beginning of modern Iranian theater from 1260 to 1300 AD is considered as a time point, and the relationship between individual actors and performance groups with the newly established structure of Iran's modern theater field has been investigated. Keywords: legitimacy, Iranian theater, constitutional theater, Bourdieu, social space, field. Introduction

At the end of the 13th solar century, Iran is going through a turbulent period, which is called the "constitutional period". In this period of time, Iran suddenly finds itself a loser in the face of modern achievements and witnesses the eruption of a wave called modernity. Modernity or modernity is first of all a social change, and social change is a change of thought among the people of the society. The diversity and plurality of tastes with the advent of modernity had consequences for the Iranian subject, and such consequences can be traced in the change of "previous cultural proportions, social perceptions, the basis of beliefs and values". The occurrence and emergence of such changes in cultural developments at the levels of social structure and intellectual construction creates changes in nature and form. As in the intellectual level of these changes, the thought of post-constitutional intellectuals is engaged in criticizing or defending modernity.

But the presence of modernity in the Middle East and especially in Islamic countries was not an overnight and sudden phenomenon, but native modernization had been proposed in Iran three centuries earlier. (cf. Zarshanas, 1383, vol.1)

Apart from creating a new chapter in the political history of Iran, the constitutional era also left a significant impact on the culture and art of this country. The constitutional uprising transformed even the common and illiterate people. The traveling of Iranians in the form of delegations to Farang, as well as the presence of disaffected Iranian intellectuals in Europe, made more and more Iranians familiar with the different dimensions of the new western civilization. The results of these trips are printed in the printing house, newspaper, Dar al-Funun, Dar al-Talif, Dar al-Tarmeh and so on. It had a huge impact on the evolution of Iran. The occurrence of such influences caused the body of art in general and the performing arts in particular to undergo content and form expansions. Until the arrival of modernity, the traditional Iranian drama was performed in the forms of spiritual bath, black game, ta'ziyeh, imitation, and after being influenced by the modernity of Iranian drama, it was not spared from the series of changes and developments. The form and content of the show was influenced by western texts and was called Tayatar from then on. The play was also formed as a literary type from this time.

What is important is the entry of one of the manifestations of modernity, a phenomenon of western nature called theater into Iran and its transformation into modern Iranian theater.

The present research is the result of examining the contexts, criteria of legitimacy and acceptability of the emergence and development of modern Iranian theater, as well as examining the emergence of the theater artist on the traditional background of Iranian society, and based on this, based on theoretical opinions in the sociology of art, to draft concepts It has been discussed that it is necessary to say that the concepts raised in this research are inseparable, both theoretical and experimental.

    The research is about a topic that is located in a specific time and place, that is, Iran from 1260 to 1300 AD and the main support of this research is based on Pierre Bourdieu's point of view, and an attempt has been made to test the sociological method of "formative structuralism" in this field.

1) Why are the works of great playwrights of the constitutional period (such as Mirza Fateh Ali Akhundzadeh, Mirza Agha Tabrizi, etc.) on the stage today? don't they go Even though the texts related to the writers of the past centuries of the world (such as Shakespeare, Chekhov, Ibsen, etc.) are performed many times on the stage of Iran's theater today.

2) Why are the playwrights of the constitutional period absent from today's Iranian theater field?

3) Why does today's actor adapt from writers such as Ibsen, Shakespeare and other greats of the world's dramatic literature, but with rereading or inspiration? Is there no luck in taking the works of the intellectual playwrights of the constitutional period? 4) How can we obtain the criteria for judging the works, situations, thoughts and actions of the theater of the constitutional period? Now the product of two years of research is presented in the following chapters. In the first chapter, in addition to proposing hypotheses and questions, the goals of this research and the background of the subject, and the development and explanation of the implementation methods and techniques of this thesis have been discussed. In the second chapter, the theoretical framework of the research is defined. About modern Iranian theater and the concepts of legitimacy and acceptability, as well as Bourdieu's sociological theories, and at the end, the concept of legitimacy and legitimate culture from Bourdieu's point of view is explained. In the third chapter, instead of only examining the works produced at that time, we go a step further and explain the tendencies of the actors in the theater field by examining the contexts. In this passage, the political, social and cultural background of the Iranian society at the time of the introduction of the theater is explained. In the fourth chapter, the relationships and rules in the modern Iranian theater field are stated, then the relationship between the theater field and the new civil society, the relationship between the theater field and the old traditions, and the relationship between the theater field and the artistic society of its time are discussed. In the fifth chapter, the four basic elements of the theater field (actor, effect, consumer and tool) are explained. The sixth chapter is the chapter of taking and concluding the topics of the previous chapters. That is, trying to explain the criteria of acceptability and legitimacy of theater in the constitutional period. Of course, let's not forget that the criteria for judging the legitimacy and acceptability of theater in that period have meaning and examples for the same time, and also the legitimacy that is discussed about theater today cannot be attributed to the theater of that period. The importance of observing such a point is actually one of the advantages of scientific work, and on the other hand, as Jean de Vigneault suggests:

Artistic creation, with all the forms it takes, can never be limited to the understanding we currently have, just as it cannot be limited only to some of its elements that are arbitrarily selected from some past periods. More precisely, imagination cannot be separated from the general influences that were active at the time of the creation of the work of art, because it is impossible to separate imagination from social reality. Only through the analysis of all the social symbols that are crystallized in the work of art, it is possible to understand how rooted the work of art is in the society. (De Vigneault, 1379:74)

Chapter One

General Research

1-1- Statement of the problem

The most important and fundamental feature of what happened in the second half of the 13th solar century (1250 AD) and was called literary and artistic modernism was the discovery of new literary and artistic definitions and genres. Genres such as novel, short story, new poetry, criticism and of course plays and modern Iranian theater. These titles found their place almost simultaneously and of course gradually. However, the discovery of these definitions was formed under the influence of new views and dealing with new ideas abroad in the field of art.

Modern Iranian theater or European-style theater in Iran is the birthplace of modernity. It is the birth of new thought. Before it is a work of art, it is a work of criticism of the society that talks about the shortcomings of the times. An emerging art form that arrived in Iran with the storm of modernity.