سياست و بازنمايي*

Politics and Representation*

تاريخ عكاسي ايران، تافته اي جدابافته از تاريخ اين سرزمين نيست. توجه به زمينه‌ي سياسي كه نقش تعيين‌كننده‌اي در روند تاريخي ايران داشته و زمينه‌ي اجتماعي كه معمولاٌ قطب مخالفي براي سياست بوده است؛ مي‌تواند منظر مناسبي را براي بازخواني آن فراهم آورد. بنابراين، ضرورت پژوهشي انتقادي در بخشي از اين تاريخ ايجاب مي‌شود. براي اين منظور، از دريچه ي «گفتمان»، به تاريخ عكاسي ايران نگاه مي شود. هدف از اين پژوهش، تبارشناسي گفتمان عكاسي در دوره‌ي پهلوي و بررسي نقش «ايديولوژيك» عكاسي در آن است. همچنين سعي مي‌شود به بسترسازي اين گفتمان براي روابط قدرت و به تبع آن سوژه و ابژه سازي ها پرداخته شود. پرسش اين است كه چه گفتماني و چگونه در دوره‌ي پهلوي صورت‌بندي شده است؟ و اين گفتمان چه ارتباطي با قدرت دارد؟ چارچوب مفهومي و روش اين تحقيق را انديشه هاي ميشل فوكو تشكيل مي دهد. نگارندگان در روندي تاريخي‌، ثابت مي كنند كه گفتماني «اجتماعي» با تحولات گوناگون ساختاري، آن هم بيشتر در حوزه‌ي «سياست»، در اين برهه از تاريخ عكاسي شكل‌گرفته و غالب آمده است. آن چه كه مهم است، فرآيندي است كه طي آن، سياست عقلاني تر شده و پشت امر اجتماعي مي نشيند تا هژمونيك شود. همچنين «هويت»، برساخته‌ي مهمي است كه به آن پرداخته خواهد شد.

The history of Iranian photography is not isolated from the other aspects of the history of this country. In spite of its noticeable importance of this history in understanding the developmental process and orientations of Iranian photography, it has been really neglected in the conducted studies, to date. Most of the existing documented studies include chronological historical records of the early decades and aesthetic-philosophical researches in the recent decades; and very few studies have dealt with the social and political history of photography in Iran. Moreover, it can be said that there are a few researches in the Iranian photography considering various aspects of its historical background with a clear conceptual framework and a recognized perspective. For sure considering the “politics” context that has had a determinative role in historic procedure of Iran and “social” context that has been an opposite polarity of politics can make appropriate view to read out this history; therefore, a qualitative and critical analysis study on part of history of Iranian photography, at probing the basic socio-political structures in a concrete documented -and not abstract- manner, is necessitated. For this goal, history of Iranian photography, in Pahlavi period, is seen from window of “discourse” and “discourse analysis”. Conceptual and methodological framework of this paper is based on “Michel Foucault`s” ideas. So the purpose of this article is “genealogy” of photographic discourse in Pahlavi era and also survey on “Ideological” role of photography in that period. It is also tries to proceed to plat of this discourse for “power relations”, “subjectification”, and “objectification” naturally. The main question is “What discourse and how is it formulated in this period? And also what is the relationship of this discourse and power”? Author in a historical process, from the Qajar to Pahlavi era, proves that “social discourse” With a variety of structural changes, which are more in the scope of “politics”, at this period of the history of Iranian photography, has been formed and dominated. This was because of a modern government with a modern political procedure that tried to implicitly obtain its follower`s approval. What is important in this procedure is the process during which the “politics” becomes more “rational” and “hegemonic” as sitting behind the social issues in that period. Photography was able to play ideological role in this process for political issues as representational media by the means of promotional, personal and personnel practices. Photography was also the best media to represent middle and burgess class which had formed in that period and had attracted special attention of the new government to itself. “Identity”, is an important construction that will be noted as well, the identity presented in the human face and facial expressions in "photographs"; and this is what making human the “subject” and “object” of the existing power relations in the fabric of society- the society in which social issues, besides its cultural, economic, and the other components have undergone specific rotations turning them from a particular simplicity into a certain level of complexity.