|
|
|
 |
Search published articles |
 |
|
Showing 2 results for Self
Seyyed Morteza Hashemi , Ashraf Khosravi,
Volume 18, Issue 69 (12-2010)
Abstract
One of the dynamic branches of contemporary literary criticism is psychological criticism which, in turn, has several subdivisions. One such subdivision is based on Carl Gustav Jung's viewpoint. Hermann Hesse's works can be well criticized and analyzed through Jung's psychological point of view because his ideas and thoughts are in many ways similar to those of Jung. They were in close contact and communicated with each other. Both of them were interested in symbols and icons, as well as commenting and analyzing them. Hesse was as introvert as Jung was; he paid attention to psychological facts and social aspects are meager in his works. Hesse and Jung liked East mysticism including Indian Gnosticism. India was a link which joined Jung and Hesse. Indians live in the world of symbols; influencing on symbols, being influenced by them, although they didn't like to comment on them. Symbols are favorite subjects for Jung and Hesse and their dominance in Hesse's works provide an appropriate field for a critical analysis from Jung's point of view. An investigation of symbols and archetypical criticism of literary works, especially those works arising from the soul, is a suitable method for exploring the hidden meaning in exterior and surface-structural layers. These analyses may reveal common facts in human soul as well. In this article, the researchers attempt to criticize the Hermann Hesse's "Siddhartha"story based on archetypical approach.Archetypes such as dream, journey, hero, water, river and passing it ,anima, tree and old wiseman are within important symbols which are assembled harmoniously in this story. They represent human effort in his individual and self-realization process. These symbols will be examined in details here in this article.
Ghodsieh Rezvāniān, Souren Sattārzādeh,
Volume 32, Issue 96 (4-2024)
Abstract
The issue of the “subject” is the most important factor in the distinction between classical and modern literature. The word “I” is often general and abstract in classical literature, while in contemporary literature, following modern philosophy, it is an individualized and concrete “I” or, in other words, an active subject. Perhaps the most obvious manifestation of this paradigm shift - especially in poetry - can be seen in the type of encounter with the “subject”. Contemporary poetry, from its most superficial romantic facet to its most complex philosophical aspect, expresses a self-sufficient subject whose origin is human centrality. Ahmad Shamlou is one of the poets whose poetry subject is “I”. This research deals with the hermeneutics of “self/subject” in his poetry using qualitative content analysis and critical reading of the collection of Shamlou's poems along with selecting indicative examples. Since this “I/self/subject” has been subjected to turmoil and transformations during his six decades of writing poetry, the theoretical framework of the discussion is also based on these developments and deals with both the philosophical subject which emphasizes individual thought and consciousness and to a subject that is a social construct. Hence, the theoretical framework of the study is based on a triangulation of Michel Foucault’s discussions about the hermeneutics of the self and governing oneself and others; the theory of symbolic interactionism, which deals with the individual and social “self”; existentialism that focuses on freedom, choice, and responsibility; and ultimately Althusser’s perspective on the subject i.e., subject with s (small letter) and subject with S (capital letter). "I" in Shamlou's political poetry is an ideological pseudo-subject (subject) due to his attachment to the Toudeh party, whereas in his philosophical poetry, it is the result of knowledge and awareness based on his own lived experience, and reflection on existence, human, life, and death, as the supreme subject (Subject).
|
|
