سكوت يا اجتناب اجرايي دريدا؛ تاملي انتقادي بر فاصله نظري تياتر آرتو و بِكت

Derrida’s Silence or Performative Avoidance: a Reflection on Theoretical Distance of Antonin Artaud and Samuel Beketts’ Theatre

چكيده مقاله حاضر با تكيه بر پاره اي از مهم ترين گفتارهاي دريدا، به قرايت تازه اي از اشارات تياتري او در فاصله نظري ميان آراي آنتونن آرتو و سامويل بكت پرداخته است. پيمايش دقيق گفتارهاي دريدا درباره تياتر و يافتن پاسخي قانع كننده براي اين پرسش كه تا چه اندازه مي توان از نقد او بر زيباي يشناسي تياتر مدرن به عنوان رويكردي معتبر براي مواجهه با ديگرآثار نمايشي استفاده كرد، در اولويت پژوهشي اين نوشته قرار دارد. رويكرد غالب تحقيق از پَساساختگرايي تاثير مي پذيرد و مطالب آن حوزه اي از مطالعات ميا نرشته اي فلسفه و تياتر را دربر مي گيرد. مقاله حاضر با استناد به شواهد معتبر كتابخان هاي و سنجش داده هاي زبا نشناختيِ مستخرج از نمونه آثار اصل و ترجمه انگليسي گفتارهاي دريدا، سعي دارد ضمن آسي بشناسيِ اعتبار استنادهاي علمي به دريدا و نيز رعايت بي طرفي كامل در مواجهه با محتواي گفتار او، به دريافت تازه اي از دكنستراكسيون و كاربردش در تياتر دست يابد. در نهايت، گزاره هايي مطرح م يشوند كه حاكي از لزوم بازنگري پژوهشگران تياتر ايران در نحوه قرايت دريدا، اعتماد به گفتارهاي تياتري او و سپس مقايس هاش با سامويل بكت و حدود كاربرديِ پروژه دكنستراكسيون وي خواهد بود.

Abstract This paper aims to deal with some of the most important ideas of Jacques Derrida on theatre in terms of the existing philosophical gap between Antonin Artaud and Samuel Beckett. Assessing Derrida’s notions on theatre studies lead to find an exact reasonable solution for this main question that how his critical views on aesthetics of modern theatre might been employed today as recognized approaches to face with dramatic artworks; and the mentioned issue is actually in priority of this research. The leading approach of this paper is based upon post-structuralism and it covers a range of interdisciplinary records concerned with philosophy and theatre. The fundamental style of collecting and processing the linguistic signs as well as the philosophical facts, follow a descriptive-analytical method that is common in qualitative researches. Referring on many reliable library facts and assessing several linguistic data which are extracted from Derrida’s original contributions and his translated texts in English, this study attempts to lead any possible reader to a new reception of his key technical term, Deconstruction, and its all engaged and related meanings in theatre. It is pre-supposed that Derrida’s perspective on “Theatre of Cruelty and the enclosure of Representation”, in a general sense, could not be simply conceived as his theatrical standpoint but rather, it is a philosophical chance for him to avoid his own real positions on the nature of performance. Beckett, furthermore, has a secret absence in his contributions on modern theatre and literature. Meanwhile, his perspectives on literature and philosophy which are often associated with a branch of poststructuralist studies would act as the starting point of propounding a theoretical challenge for the present study. Artaud and Beckett as two prominent theatre practitioners of modern era are in their own selves typical of a paradox in terms of their performative attitudes and techniques. Deconstruction, as a new philosophical approach to literary texts and signs, could be applied for theatre studies. Re-exploring the matter that whether Derrida and his philosophical teachings are naturally applicable in contemporary challenges of theatre and doing a critical reflection on measuring the interpretability of dramatic artworks based on his view points, are among the main purposes of the study. On the other hand, it intends to present reliable judgments on Derrida’s terminology and the manner which they are broadly used in Iranian academic papers and discourses. The limits of its verifiability, accessibility as well as the accuracy of his critical point of views on theatre would be examined. In conclusion, some new propositions on deconstruction there will be propounded which emphasize on the importance of Iranian scholars to reconsider their conventional views on Derrida and his late neologism.