فروپاشی دولت های نوبنیاد: تحلیل استعاره «بهیموت» در نظریه سیاسی هابز (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
هدف این مقاله تحلیل نحوه فروپاشی دولت های تازه تأسیس شده در دوران مدرن از نظر هابز است. این امر مستلزم واکاوی استعاره هابز از فروپاشی آن هم از منظر شناختی، یعنی «بهیموت» است. اگرچه استعاره لویاتان دلالت بر تأسیس دارد نه فروپاشی، اما در نزد هابز، استعاره بهیموت واجد معانی دوگانه «فروپاشی» و «سقوط» است: اولی دلالت بر امر «ذهنی» و دومی دلالت بر امر «حقوقی» دارد. منشأ این استعاره در کتاب ایوب و خنوخ حاکی از اهمیت و معنای «سیاسی-شناختی» آن است. هابز بر این نظر بود که اساس دولت مدرن ریشه در «حرکت فیزیکی» دارد، که وقتی «باور» به حرکت از بین برود، دیگر آن وجود نخواهد داشت. وقوع این امر در وضع مدنی، نشان از فروپاشی دولت، یعنی قبل از سقوط و انحلال قانونی آن، دارد. سقوط و انحلال به معنای از دست دادن حاکمیت سیاسی و حق اعمال آن است. در این خصوص، هابز دو نوع باور سیاسی فروپاشی را شناسایی می کند: یکی باور «رستگاری» توسط اسکو لاستیک های مذهبی و دیگری، باور «رهایی» توسط قدرت طلبان مجلس. باور اول خواهان تمرد از قدرت سیاسی، به دلیل فقدان اعتبار شرعی بود و باور دوم نیز خواهان رهایی مردم مظلوم و منکوب از قدرت سلطنت، به دلیل فقدان اعتبار مردمی بود. اما راه حل هابز، باور «رهسپاری» (سرسپردگی) به قدرت مطلق بود و هدفش این که افراد را از طریق آموزش «ترس» به جای اقناع، مطیع قدرت عمومی دولت کند. این رویکرد به دنبال جلوگیری از فروپاشی دولت های تازه تأسیس و تضمین تداوم و بقای آن هاست. در مقابل، آنچه اهمیت دارد وجه شناختی باور است. اگر باور به ترس در میان سوژه های سیاسی از بین برود، آنگاه دولت در حیات ذهنی خود فروپاشیده است، حتی اگر در قلمرو فیزیکی خود از طریق نیروی قانون و اقتدار تداوم داشته باشد.The Collapse of Newly Established States: Analyzing the Behemoth Metaphor in Hobbes’s Political Theory
Introduction
Behemoth is one of Hobbes’s most important and final works. Its significance for research lies not in its references to historical events or the links between its arguments and historical materials. Instead, its value stems from addressing a fundamental question: what causes the collapse and downfall of newly established states? Centered around that same Hobbesian concern, the present study aimed to understand the conditions under which newly established states fail, and the factors that lead to their downfall. A central assumption of the study is that collapse is fundamentally a cognitive phenomenon. In the realm of political knowledge, the issues of collapse and fall are as vital as those of establishment and continuity. This idea also resonates within the Iranian intellectual tradition, particularly in Siasatnameh by Khajeh Nizam al-Mulk. Hobbes is a fitting figure for this research, not only for his insights as a thinker of the New Testament, but also for recognizing that the collapse of newly established states—what we might now call in the modern context artificial persons characterized by political sovereignty—is a defining problem of the modern age. This age has seen repeated regressions into the state of nature, civil war, and national disintegration. For Hobbes, the breakdown of the state involves two dimensions: the legal aspect, addressed in Leviathan, which concerns the moment of the establishment of the state; and the mental or psychological aspect as discussed in Behemoth, which relates to the continuity of power. Before Hobbes, Machiavelli had tackled a similar issue in Discourses, using the decline of the ancient Roman as a historical case. In contrast, Hobbes philosophically examined the collapse of state authority in the context of 17th-century England, particularly during the reign of Charles I. He developed a more expansive theory of state collapse in newly established states and offered an innovative solution that went beyond Machiavelli’s emphasis on brute force.
Materials and Methods
This research adopted a cognitive psychology approach to analyze Hobbes’s thought. This method is chosen because alternative approaches—such as Quentin Skinner’s hermeneutic intentionalism, John Donne’s biographical method, or Strauss’s reading between the lines—do not adequately address mental and psychological metaphors. These approaches primarily focus on political concepts, often overlooking the significance of psychological factors. Gardner (2017) suggests that the cognitive approach seeks to illustrate how mentalities within a political society evolve. He argues that individuals’ mindsets can shift in response to various empirical conditions. One such condition is exposure to environments where diverse beliefs and convictions—often at odds with one’s own—are presented. Another is the experience of trauma, which can profoundly alter a person’s outlook on their surroundings. In addition, encounters with enlightened or influential figures can prompt shifts in perspective. These changes may occur suddenly, such as a rapid shift in religious belief, or gradually over time (Gardner, 2017, p. 101). Ultimately, metaphors play a crucial role in explaining these changes—whether they are the metaphors used by thinkers to interpret the world or those through which ordinary people perceive politics.
Results and Discussion
According to Carl Schmitt, the metaphor of leviathan in Hobbes’s political theory suggests that just as the establishment of the modern state is rooted in political matters, so is the collapse of newly founded states dependent on political and cognitive factors. On the one hand, behemoth serves as a metaphor within a religious context, illustrating the relationship between the Creator and the creature, as well as the dynamics between limited and unlimited power. On the other hand, this concept carries an additional metaphorical significance, implying that collapse, unlike a simple fall, is primarily a mental phenomenon influenced by human cognitive beliefs. Accordingly, the demise of a state should be understood in terms of its mental dimensions, rather than its natural aspect—defined as the end of political power. Hobbes argued that beliefs such as the desire for power and self-interest have led individuals to conflict with one another, prompting a regression to a more primitive state and creating challenges for newly established states. The historical expression of these dual beliefs is evident in the concepts of salvation and liberation. The first belief highlights the issue of sin, positing that the path to salvation involves seeking forgiveness and pardon, which, over time, has undermined the authority of the ruling prince. Conversely, the second belief addresses oppression, suggesting that liberation can be achieved through popular rule—emphasizing the necessity of eradicating tyranny by invoking historical references and contemporary events. In the context of Hobbes’s cognitive framework presented in this work, the notion of departure emerges as a fundamental belief. He contends that realizing and maintaining security depends on creating political fear and instilling a sense of political subordination. This approach is arguably more problematic than the previously mentioned beliefs. According to Hobbes, this educational endeavor should aim to purge the populace of these two rebellious beliefs, fostering obedience and compliance with the ruler’s mandates. The ultimate goal of this education is to cultivate a politically constructed individual—a subject entirely submissive and perceived as the foundation of the prince’s power.
تبلیغات
