۴

معضلات ازدواج‌های خاندان سلطنتی بريتانيا و مدرنيته

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

 خانواده‌ی سلطنتی بريتانيا قرن‌هاست که با اين معضل اساسی دست به گريبان است که ازدواج‌های خاندان سلطنتی ناچار بايد از صافی قواعد و مقررات بسيار سخت‌گيرانه‌ی مذهبی عبور کند. در قرن پانزدهم و شانزدهم ميلادی هنری هشتم پادشاه انگلستان از همسر خود فرزندی نداشت و او را به همسری نمی‌خواست. از طرفی طلاق دادن اين زن و اختيار کردن همسری تازه همگی منوط به رأی و تصميم کليسا بود. نهايتاً پادشاه همسر خود را طلاق داد و به زنی که مدت‌ها رابطه داشت عقد ازدواج بست و او را ملکه اعلام نمود. در خلال اين ماجرا، سر تامس مور گردن زده شد و شاه خود را رييس کليسای انگلستان اعلام کرد و راه خود را از پاپ جدا کرد. جريانات پروتستانتيزم هم البته هم‌زمان در حال شکل‌گيری و تأثير‌گذاری بودند. به هر تقدير، با وجود اين‌که امروز نظام دينی انگلستان از پاپ تبعيت نمی‌کند، معضل ازدواج کردن خاندان سلطنتی کماکان باقی است و به عنوان مثال هنوز پرنس چارلز نمی‌تواند بدون رأی ملکه با کاميلا پارکر ازدواج کند. اين ماجرا بارها به رسانه‌ها کشيده شده است. قاعده اين است که مادر پادشاه آينده‌ی انگلستان بايد (قبل از ازدواج) باکره باشد! از آن‌جا که بريتانيا قانون اساسی مکتوب و نوشته‌شده‌ای ندارد (حتی بر خلاف کشوری مثل ايران!)، همه چيز به رأی ملکه باز می‌گردد که او هم به اين سادگی نمی‌تواند به ازدواج اين دو تن بدهد. مذهب، حتی در کشوری مثل بريتانيا،‌ رکنی مهم در شکل دادن به تصميمات سياسی کشور است. حتی نخست وزير اين کشور نمی‌تواند کاتوليک باشد! اين خلاصه را از اين جهت نوشتم که در بحث‌هايی که بر سر مدرنيته پيش می‌آيد به اين نکته توجه داشته باشيم که موانع و محدوديت‌های دينی، صرف‌نظر از درست يا غلط بودن يا معقول و نامعقول بودن‌شان، حتی در کشوری که از پيامدها و نتايج مدرنيته بهره‌ی وافری می‌برد، به قوت و قدرت حضور دارد. پس آن‌چه که در کشورهای جهان سوم مانع پای‌گرفتن مدرنيته می‌شود، دين نيست. دين می‌تواند نقش مثبت يا منفی خود را ايفا کند، اما جهت‌گیری کلی سياست يک کشور منوط به وجود يا عدم دين نيست. اين آدميان  سياست‌مداران هستند که سياست را شکل می‌دهند با تفسيری که از سياست و دين می‌کنند. کشورهای جهان سوم برای رسيدن به مدرنيته از حذف دين هيچ طرفی نخواهند بست. البته جزييات ماجرا در جهان اسلام، در يهوديت و مسيحيت تفاوت‌های فراوانی دارد. آن‌چه که می‌خواستم بر آن تأکيد ورزم اين است که مدرنيته برای رشد و گسترش، بر اعدام دين يا سنت متکی نيست. شواهد نقض خلاف آن هم فراوان است. يک کشور می‌تواند مدرن باشد و فرهنگ سنتی و دين خود را نيز حفظ کند. مدرنيته تضادی اساسی با دين ندارد. با اعتقاد من کسانی که مدرنيته و عقلانيت [بخوانيد روشنفکری] را در تضاد و منافات قطعی و آشتی‌ناپذيری با سنت و دين می‌بينند، متکلمانی هستند که به شيوه‌ای جزمی و ايدئولوژيک در مقام دفاع از مدرنيته برخاسته‌اند که حتی به باور من در اين هم بايد ترديد کرد. مدرنيته با جزميت و ايدئولوژی‌گرايي سازگاری ندارد. نمی‌توان مدرن بود و حق عمل به فرايض دينی را از گروهی سلب کرد (چنان که افراطيون فرانسوی در باب حجاب می‌کنند).

در اين زمينه سخن بسيار است و به تفاريق ديدگاه خود را روشن‌تر بيان خواهم کرد. چنان‌که صاحب سيبستان خواسته بود، تعريف خود را هم از مدرنيته، سنت و اسلام ارايه خواهم کرد تا موضعی روشن و آشکار داشته باشم.

  1. علی says:

    سلام داريوش عزيز
    با مقدمه خوبي فتح باب كرده اي داستان رابطه مدرنيته و سنت را و جايگاه دين و نقش بازدارندگي يا تسهيل كندگي آن در روند مدرنيزاسيون جوامع و نظامهاي حكومتي را.
    برايت آرزوي موفقيت دارم در اين راه پر فراز و نشيب .
    قطعا مي توان از اين يادداشتها و تضارب آرايي كه در پي آن رخ خواهد نمود بهره گرفت براي ارتقاي دانشمان و نوع نگرش به اين مقوله.
    برقرار باشي و خدا نگه دارت

  2. مهدی says:

    در واقع ملکه در بريتانيا شبيه ولی فقيه است در ايران. يعنی هم رياست دينی دارد چون رئيس کليسا ست و هم رياست سياسی دارد. منتهی او مثل يک فقيه مشروطه می ماند که سلطنت در اختيار اوست و تداوم سياسی و هويت ملی و دينی با او تضمين می شود اما حکومت نمی کند و حکومت در دست نخست وزير است – در ايران رئيس جمهور اين جایگاه را پر می کند. فراموش نکنيم که در جريان محاکمه يکی از خوانسالاران سابق دربار، ملکه دخالت کرد و به دستگاه قضايی فرمان داد که پرونده را جمع کنند! – به دستگاه قضايی در يک جامعه مدرن. او از قدرت مطلقه برخوردار است گرچه از آن خيلی محدود استفاده می کند.
    دوستار،
    مهدی

  3. Sahand says:

    Dear Mr. Dariush: Thank you for this short but informative piece. Also I am not too familiar with voodoo part of British culture, but I have seen some very wired part of it. The decaying custom of their kingdom is a cancer tumor, which they want to cure but cannot do it easily. Tony Blair supposed to. sort of smooth this dilemma and makes the tumor more acceptable, but when he chose George Bush as his mentor, he just took wrong courses. The British hierarchy reminds me of the Cast system in India, also it is called the world’s largest democracy, but still the cast system is in place and there is no way any member of lover cast could rise to the position of higher cast. The thing which I could not understand, is that “ if they believe that the mother of the king must be a virgin, where they think the king should came from? I would appreciate if you elaborate on this issue.
    On issue of modernity, in my opinion — when we Iranian talks about it, most probably we are talking about “ post modernity” – may be I am mistaken— If I am right at this issue, I should say that, I hate this “post modernity”. I am not sure whether or not you have watched the Lion King movie. In this movie when Mufasa, the king was killed, the hyenas were dancing around with vicious vice singing “ king is dead, king is dead.” As is as Dostoevsky had said, “ If God is dead, every thing is allowed.” This post modernity is a very fertile soil for our worse than animal instincts to flourish. Also we may define modernity with Renaissance etc, but actually modernity was there when our ancestors acquired language, hundreds of thousand years ago. It was just laid buried because the condition did not allow for it’s flourishing. Professor Micheal Gazzanica — The Director of the Center for Neurobiology at the University of California, Davis– in his book “ Nature’s Mind” talks about two very controversy phenomena “ selection versus instruction” in evolutionary theory. This debate did start with Cell biologists. For the “selections” the absolute truth is that all we do in life is discover what is already built into our brains. While the environment may shape the way in which any given organism develops, It shapes it only as as preexisting capacities in that organism allow. Ever since Charles Darwin, the message from biology has been that “ selection “is at work, not instruction. The view that animals adapt to new environments because individual animals modify their body physiology through instructions was replaced with the knowledge that animals that already posses the needed physiology are selected for, and that they will fit into new environment and survive. The list of example for selection includes the work of French Noble laureates Jacques Mond, who in the mid-1950’s showed that so-called adoptive enzymes are in fact induced by preexisting genes. Also, the Nobel laureates Slavador Luria and Max Delbruck demonstrated in 1943 that bacteria do not adopt and change because of the presence of anti bacterial agents; rather the process is once again selective and in it, preexisting bacterial alternatives simply blossom. He goes on by saying that Socrates was right when he said “ all learning consists of being remind of what is pre existing in the brain” and John Locke was wrong when he said “ the brain is a piece of blank paper upon which experience is writhen.”
    Also, I disagree with professor Gazzaniga on his too much emphasis on the biological aspect of the mind rather that the symbolic aspect of it, but I do agree with this part of his statement.
    So a healthy society is not the one that lets every thing to come out, but canalize the energy in the direction of postponement and sublimation. The result of this so-called post modernist is the fact of “ American life style” which is nothing but: having fun” and “ be happy “ at any cost. Off course it benefits pharmaceutical companies to sell their medicine for making people “ happy”. Today even children as young as 8 year old are prescribed all sort of medication just to calm him or her down. This so called “post modernity “ culture has turned what great anthropologist Claude Levi –Strauss called “ table manner” to these days “ feeding our children” while watching their “ DVD movies.” This cultures had turned the most trained American female soldier to a Sadist in Abu Gahrib prison, regardless of whether or not her superior were aware what was happening. This “ post modernity” culture has turned the adults to the state of infants, which cannot postpone their gravitation. According to Freud “ the postponement of gravitation is the hallmark of maturity.” In a book titled “ Behavioral Genetics: The Clash of Culture and Biology” edited by Ronald A. Carson and Mark A. Rothstein they recite from psychologist Walter Mischel ‘s experiment. Walter Mischel had experimenters tell individuals four-year olds in preschool: “ If you wait until after I run an errand (which took about 15 minutes), you can have two marshmallows, but if you can’t wait, you can have one and only one marshmallow now.” A third of the children grabbed the marshmallow right away, the others waited. When the tested children were evaluated as they were graduating from high school, those who had waited turned out to be substantially superior as students than those who did not. At age four, the ability to delay gravitation was twice a powerful a predicator of future SAT scores that was IQ.
    In a society which in, the parents “ feed their children” — we only feed the animals but eat with other human— in front of TV, while themselves watching their more than 100 channels HDTV, no wonder why when they grow up, they not only have no respect for their parents but also to any body else. No wonder why sex has replaced the love, which takes a lot of energy to sustain. Unlike the radical feminist’s view that women are sex object in the east— which I do not disagree– women in these so called civilized societies are almost the same but in different way. That is true that women have gain lots of power in these society but woman as a sex object is all over. Vast majority of Western men sees the women, as a sex object and the only parts, which they see in the women, is their vagina. The whole womanhood is reduced to a single organ. What else we should expect when every thing in the TV— which is almost most Western man spends his time with – is nothing except to sell the idea that sex is everything. A couple weeks ago, when the designer of one of our product came from Germany, first thing he did was that, he touched his beer belly and said “ not to many women” I must say that he was around 60 and was involved in electronic design for more than 30 years. When I asked him about Heidegger, Nietzsche, he said had never heard of them.
    I wonder why the Iranian intellectuals always want to choose either Eastern , o r Western way of life? Is this road having an option of only turning a left or right turn? Or there can be the third or even the forth way? Post modernity is not the only solution, taking into account the cultural background of our society.

  4. majid says:

    من هم با شما موافقم . اين كه در يك كشور چيزهايي هست كه از دينشان هم حتي جداست . مثلا هيچ وقت معناي شرافت در ذهن يك دختر غربي با يك دختر ايراني يكي نمي شود . يا حتي برداشتهاي سياسي يا اجتماعي . شايد به فرهنگها بستگي پيدا مي كند . شايد نه . اين را نمي دانم . اما يك چيز هايي هست !!!

|