عنوان مقاله [English]
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 inter-subjective 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 each-otherness regarding the meaning that the main invigorator of antagonist identities in inter-subjectivity 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 spontaneous-ness of the inter-subjectivity.
استاوراکاکیس، یانیس. (1392). لاکان و امر سیاسی.ترجمه محمد علی جعفری. تهران: ققنوس.
اشمیت، کارل. (1392). مفهوم امر سیاسی.ترجمه سهیل صفاری. چاپ اول. تهران: نشر نگاه معاصر.
اشمیت، کارل. (1390). الهیات سیاسی. ترجمه لیلا چمنخواه. چاپ اول. تهران: نشر نگاه معاصر.
رشیدیان، عبدالکریم. (1384). هوسرل در متن آثارش. تهران: نشر نی.
زهاوی، دان. (1392). مفهوم امر سیاسی در پدیدارشناسی هوسرل.ترجمه مهدی صاحبکار و ایمان واقفی. ویراستار علمی علی نجاتغلامی. چاپ اول. تهران: نشر روزبهان.
سایمونز، جان. (1390). فوکو و امرسیاسی. ترجمه کاوه حسینزاده. تهران: رخ داد نو.
موفه، شانتال. (1391). دربارهی امر سیاسی.ترجمه منصور انصاری. تهران: رخداد نو.
موفه، شانتال. (1392). بازگشت به امر سیاسی. ترجمه عارف اقوامی مقدم. تهران: رخداد نو.
یگر، ورنر. (1376). پایدیا. محمد حسن لطفی. دوره 3جلدی. تهران: خوارزمی.
Schmitt, Carl / Gottfried, Paul Edward. (1992). Politics and Theory. New York: GreenwoodPress. The Review of Austrian Economics. Vol. 6, No. 1.117-120
Anthony, Mark. (2003). Laclau or Mouffe? Splitting the Difference. Wenman Philosophy Social Criticism.
Barrett, Michèle. (1991). Ideology, Politics, and Hegemony: FromGramsci to Laclau and Mouffe, Michigan Quarterly Review. 30, PP. 231-58.
Bredekamp, Horst. (1999). “From Walter Benjamin to Carl Schmitt, via Thomas Hobbes”. Critical Inquiry. Vol. 25. No. 2. Angelus Novus: Perspectives on Walter Benjamin. (Winter). PP. 247-266.
Crowder, George. (2006). “Chantal Mouff’S Agonistic Democracy”. Refereed Paper Presented to the Australasian Political Studies Association Conference University of Newcastle 25-27 September.
Goldstein, Philip. (2005). Post-Marxist Theory: An Introduction. State University of New York.
Hellenbroich, Anno / Elisabeth. (2006). “Carl Schmitt’s Hobbesian State”. National EIR February 10.
Laclau/ Mouffe, Ernesto/ Chantal. (1985). Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics, Verso.
Marramao, Giacomo. (2000). “the Exile of the Nomos: For a Critical Profile of Carl Schmitt”. Cardozo Law Review.Vol. 21. NO. 5-6: 1567-1588.
Mufe, Cahntal. (1997). “Carl Schmitt and the Paradox of Liberal Democracy”. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence. Volume X, Nos. 1. (January).
Norris, Andrew. (2005). “A Mine That Explodes Silently: Carl Schmitt in Weimar and After”. Political Theory. Vol. 33, No. 6 (Dec). PP. 887-898.
W. Gray, Phillip. (2007). “Political Theology and the Theology of Politics: Carl Schmitt and Medieval Christian”. Political Thought, Humanitas. Volume XX, Nos. 1 and 2.