تحولات سياستگذاري در تياتر ايران(1368 تا 1388 شمسي)

A Study of the Types of Theatrical Policies Applied by the States of Iran (from 1989 to 2009)

هدف از تحقيق حاضر عبارت است از شناسايي انواع سياست هاي هنري اتخاذي از سوي دولت هاي ايران مابين سال هاي 1368 (آغاز دوره اول رياست جمهوري اكبر هاشمي رفسنجاني) تا 1388 (پايان دوره اول رياست جمهوري محمود احمدي-نژاد) در حوزه تياتر. به اين منظور كليه مصوبات دولت ها طي اين سال ها، كه در عنوان يا متن آن ها كلمات تياتر، نمايش، نمايشي و هنرهاي نمايشي آمده است (22مورد)، شناسايي شده و تمامي آن ها مورد تحليل محتوا قرار گرفته اند. مقوله-بندي اين پژوهش بر اساس مدلي انجام شده كه سياست هاي هنري را در چهار طبقه: تسهيل گر ، حامي ، معمار و مهندس تقسيم بندي كرده است. با ارتقا و بومي سازي مدل، مقولات به واسطه شاخص هاي نحوه سرمايه گذاري، ابزار، تحرك سياسي و هدف شناسايي شده اند (99 مورد شاخص در كل 22 مصوبه). نتايج تحقيق نشان مي دهد كه در روند بيست ساله مورد بررسي، دولت ها در مصوبات مربوط به تياتر به ترتيب اقدام به سياست گزاري از نوع معمار (36/35%)، حامي (31/31%)، مهندس (18/18%) و تسهيل گر (15/15%) نموده اند. همچنين دولت ها در مصوبات مربوط به حوزه تياتر به ترتيب از شاخص هاي ابزار (4/40%)، هدف (35/34%)، نحوه سرمايه گذاري (22/22%) و تحرك سياسي (03/3%) استفاده كرده اند. ضمن اينكه اولويت دولت ها در به كارگيري انواع سياست ها و شاخص ها با يكديگر تفاوت داشته است.

The aim of this paper is to determine the different types of theatrical policies applied by the states of Iran within the years 198 9(the start of the first presidency of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjan) to 2009 (the end of the first presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadi Nejad). The method of this research is content analysis. The cabinet approvals within these years which either in their titles or in their texts, the words theatre, performance, performing and performing arts are appeared, were identified. Totally 22 approvals were found. A content analysis checklist was made based on the Chartrand and McCaughey model which has classified the arts policies in four roles: facilitator, patron, architect and engineer. These four roles are designed for indicating the degree of the state intervention in art and cultural domain and each of them are identified by some indicators. To promote and localize the model by using the literature of the arts and cultural policies, the indicators of funding mechanism, tool, policy dynamic and goal were defined for each role. Totally 99 indicators of all types were found in the 22 approvals. The findings revealed that in the investigated twenty-year process, the state has used all types of arts policies in theatre: architect (35.36%), patron (31.31%), engineer (18.18%) and facilitator (15.15%). Various states in four years intervals, have been different in their using the types of arts policies. The tool indicator (40.4%) and goal indicator (34.35%) have had a higher frequency than the funding mechanism indicator (22.22%) and the policy dynamic indicator (3.03%) has had the lowest frequency. The arts policies indicators used by the states in theatre approvals has been in this order (from the high frequency to the low frequency): 1-the architect goal (social welfare and national culture), 2-the patron tool (awards, grants, prizes), 3-the architect funding mechanism (department and ministry of culture) and the engineer tool (official justification and endorsement, recipe, control), 4-the facilitator tool (tax expenditures and incentives), 5-the patron goal (aesthetic, professional and International standards), 6-the patron funding mechanism (arts councils), 7-the architect tool (welfare for artists such as insurance, official employment, income security for the artists), 8-the engineer funding mechanism (state and government ownership of artistic means of production), the patron policy dynamic (evolutionary) and the engineer goal (political education and ideological propaganda), 9-the facilitator funding mechanism (private individual, corporate and organizations) and the facilitator goal (economic). The policy dynamic of three types of facilitator (taste changes), architect (revolutionary) and engineer (revisionary) has not been used by the states. In addition, different states have not been the same in the priority rating of using different types of arts policies and indicators.