سياست، پايديا و دولت؛ امر سياسي و بنيان بيناذهني آن

Politics, Paidea and the State: The Political and Its Inter-Subjectiv Foundtion

يكي از مهم‌ترين مسائلي كه در ارتباط با مفهوم دولت در طول قرن‌هاي متمادي مورد بررسي فيلسوفان و نظريه‌پردازان سياست بوده‌ را بايد در نسبت ميان مسئله تربيت و سياست جستجو كرد. مسئله‌اي كه به يك عبارت، گره‌گاه اوليه‌ نظريه‌پردازي درباره سياست در يونان باستان بوده‌ و هنوز اهميّت زيادي را در پرداختن به دولت و مسائل مربوط به آن به‌خود اختصاص مي‌دهد؛ تا جايي‌كه هر پرسشي از چيستي دولت، سياست و مفاهيمي كه اين دو با خود ايجاب مي‌كنند، پرسشي است درباره كيفيات مربوط به تربيت در يك جامعه سياسي. يا به بيان روشن‌تر، هر شكلي از سلطه سياسي نسبت مستقيمي با ادعاهاي مربوط به دخالت‌گري دولت در فرآيندهاي آموزشي موجود در يك جامعه دارد. ما مقاله‌يِ خود را با توضيحي درباره چيستي سياست و هم‌چنين نسبتي كه سياست با هر كدام از ما به‌عنوان اصلي‌ترين موضوعات خودش برقرار مي‌كند آغاز خواهيم كرد. بعد از آن سعي مي‌كنيم تا توضيحاتي درباره چگونگي شكل گرفتن چيزي به‌نام جماعت در وراي دولت، به‌عنوان يك بستر متشكل از مردماني كه به‌نحوي خودانگيخته گرد هم آمده‌اند و ماجراي دخالت‌گري سياست در جهت‌دار كردن اين باهم بودگي خودانگيخته در راستاي فراخواني ويژه حاكمان ارائه دهم. در بخش پاياني نشان مي‌دهيم كه چرا تربيت را بايد مهم‌ترين عامل توجيه كننده اشكال مختلف اقتدار سياسي و عاملي اساسي در ادعاهاي دخالت‌گرانه‌ي دولت در زندگي روزمره مردم به‌حساب ‌آورد. براي آغاز كار بايد اين مسئله را مورد تاكيد مجدد قرار دهيم كه از نظر نويسنده اين نوشتار، نسبتي مشخص ميان سياست و تربيت وجود دارد كه مطالعه در آن در واقع مطالعه‌اي درباب ريشه‌هاي شكل‌گيري مفهوم سياست در يك جماعت خواهد بود.

For centuries one of the most important issues studied by philosophers and political theorists relating to the concept of state should be investigated in relation with the matter of education and politics. This issue has been, in a way, the first theoretical conjuncture regarding the politics in the ancient Greek, and studying state and related issued is still of much importance this is up to the point which every question regarding the quiddity of state, politics, and concepts where these notions necessitate is the question on the qualities related to the education in a political society. In another words, every form of political dominance is directly related to the claims regarding state’s intervention in existing educational procedures in a society. I begin this article by an explanation on the quiddity of politics and also the relationship of politics to each one of us as its main subjects. Accordingly, I will try to explain the way what is known as community beyond the state is formed, as bedrock consisted of, in a way, spontaneous people, and the intervention of politics to orient this spontaneous being togetherness regarding authorities special recalling. At the end of this article, I will explain that why we should consider education as the most justifying factor of different forms of political authority, and a main factor in interventionist claims of the state in public daily life. This article is a discussion on political ontology which investigates the way ontological coordinates of politics take shape. The latter claim should be studied in relation to which relationship the authors of this article make between the meaning and politics. In a more accurate way for us, and regarding Edmund Husserl’s literature, meaning is politics objectivity. A space where everything in it, everything becomes political, is at last the meaning. It’s the very point where the study of power becomes a subordinate study. In order to explain this issue, we have provided a detailed discussion on political ontology of Carl Schmitt, Chantal Mouffe and Jacques Lacan. We hope this study can identify motif (origins) of the concept of the political, and after the conclusion it can show how education, fantasy in Zizek’s reading of Lacan, can provide the bedrock for special horizontal facilities in order to uncover the world, meaning in Husserl’s words, and through which it provides the antagonism (in Schmitt and Mouffe’s words). Through the use of possibility of shaping an intersubjective and spontaneous understanding through the reductive actions of pure egos to the world (Husserl), we were interested to show that there is a form of being among eachotherness regarding the meaning that the main invigorator of antagonist identities in intersubjectivity is imaginable without state’s intervention and politics. In this regard we’ve tried to consider the politics an objective issue (in a Hegelian sense) that takes the place of an external intervener confronting the reductive spontaneousness of the intersubjectivity.