فصلنامه نقد ادبی (Aug 2022)
Lack of Theoretical foundations in the Fields of Persian Language and Literature
Abstract
The new fields of Persian language and literature have fundamental drawbacks besides their benefits. The lack of theoretical foundations in defining these fields is the most important drawback. The lack of specific, methodical theoretical foundations has caused the involvement of some unconscious presuppositions in the targeting and definition of these fields and their curriculums. In this article, by reviewing some of the subfields, these non-methodical foundations and their blind spots have been discussed. The most important of these items are (1) traditional and theme-oriented view of classification and definitions, (2) lack of problematic and methodical view in the definition of subfields and curricula, (3) reductionism in selecting the texts and subjects because of superficial focusing on localization, and (4) lack of interdisciplinary approach. These drawbacks are in close relation to each other. The greatest impact of these drawbacks is the lack of research findings in the academic literature. In this paper, we have focused attention on the interdisciplinary approach for methodological and research expansion of the field of Persian language and literature. Extended Abstract The most important of these blind spots are: traditional and theme-oriented view of classification and definitions; lack of problematic and methodical view in the definition of subfields and curricula; reductionism in selecting the texts and subjects because of superficial focusing on localization; lack of interdisciplinary approach. The view based on a common and conventional understanding of literature, literary works, the meaning of texts, genre classifications, and the like has determined the formation of most of these areas. It has also influenced the definition of teaching. In addition, the tendency toward localization has, first, made it difficult to use the critical view, and second, with directional and non-academic definitions, has removed many texts from the topics covered in postgraduate courses. By marginalizing the importance of theoretical foundations, problem thinking, and the critical view, these features have led to a shift away from research-based approaches in new fields. The explicit or implicit avoidance of addressing new topics in courses and curricula has resulted in papers and dissertations that benefit from new approaches being written independently of course topics, without taking advantage of the courses passed and official intentions of the field. The lack of theoretical foundations in the definition of these areas and the recourse to some non-specialized foundations and presuppositions has led to the fact that the objectives introduced in the formation of most of these areas have non-literary motives (ideological, social, religious, mystical, etc.). Some of the aspects of non-methodological planning and lack of theoretical and problem-oriented foundations in the course headings: a topic-oriented approach (in the traditional sense) to texts, a non-methodological approach to theories and their transformation into fixed patterns for implementation and adaptation to texts, a non-methodological approach to research methods and their transformation into historiography, literary history, and bibliography. However, an important point overlooked by planners is to use the capacity of interdisciplinarity to develop the field of literature instead of using intradisciplinary, text- and topic-oriented divisions based on the conventional criteria of literary types. Because of its problem-oriented and innovative nature, interdisciplinarity helps to open new perspectives on academic literature. By highlighting new topics, interdisciplinarians also contribute their methodology. For this reason, they contribute to the development of literary research without analyzing and categorizing literary texts by drawing perspectives and approaches. The purpose of this article is to remind that there is a lack of adequate theoretical foundations in new areas of Persian language and literature and that the presentation of corrective proposals requires a separate article as an independent writing topic. It seems that in order to solve the existing problems, instead of relying on the current criteria, one can rely on criteria such as interdisciplinarity, diversity of approaches (instead of diversity of texts and conventional genres) and even historical divisions related to intellectual and linguistic developments in defining new areas and literary topics in class preparation. All this will lead to the desired result if any action towards introducing the subjects of literature or attempting to design new areas is based on firm and sound theoretical foundations and far from conventional understanding. Using the experience of other countries' in developing academic literature is also a measure to revise and reform the fields of Persian language and literature. These reforms will help expand the frontiers of literary knowledge and strengthen research and critical faculties rather than relying on local, political and ideological affiliations.
