|
Origin of Narrating in Iraq-Iran War – Part 2
 |
The meaning of narrator, narration and narrating
In recent years, vast discussions have been posed in Iran about the essence of narrating and its methods and the affinity of literature and history realms under the influence of phenomenology philosophy and methods of interpretations and hermeneutics. At the same time, the concept of “narrator” is influenced by concepts of religious jurisprudence and tradition. However, the concept of “narrator, narration and narrating” seems coherent in recent theories of narration. Apart from diverse and vast notable discussions in this field, I will concisely refer to the concept of narrator, narration and narrating, based on my brief and scattered studies and experiences.
In this review, influenced by Ricoeur(1) theory of dialogue, I presume that “incidents based history” and “human based memory and story” are both kinds of narration. Ricoeur believes the history will turns into sociology if it is separated from narration. History claims to report what has really happened. In this way, it is separated from story. Besides, you can always find a real experience behind a story report, which the narration is inspired from. Hence, the story tells the reality, but in a different way from history.
1. The present discussions about Iraq-Iran war are posed in two different realms of literature, with a cultural and reminiscence outlook, and historiography, along with descriptions and analysis of military-political events. I believe all the present dialogues and passages in different realms with different methods and stances, means “war narration”. Since the direct speeches and writings of participants in an incident and its eyewitnesses and quotations from them, implies an overall look that has been experienced and apprehended individually and collectively which is now written and narrated for others.
2. Since the narrator narrates, the concept of narrator is definable with regards to another subject not independently. But this question still remains that what is narrated? The realization of an event in a specified time and place and also its internal experiences and apprehending, indicates the realization of an overall looking subject. So, narrator is someone who informs others about something, or report, describes, interpret or analyze it. Clearly the methods and techniques used will be changed depending on the subjects and conditions. Yet, it is news-virtual implications in speech and writing in regard to war incidents that is the index and distinctive of the concept of narrator, not the approaches, methods, techniques and tools applied.
3. Narration is the narrator’s speeches or writings about the incidents context. Although narration is a speech about an accident, it is not the incident itself, because it is resulted indirectly. Therefore narration is about an overall looking incident, which is understood and comprehended by narrator(s) and finally quoted or written for others.
4. Upon this definition “narrating” is referred to perpetual and expert endeavors of those who talk or write about what they have done or seen, or about what some other people have told or written. Narrating is explainable along with the concept of “narrator” with a difference that it turns into a specialized work during talking or writing.
5. Based on what was told above, when the war commanders talk or write about their thoughts or measures, they are narrators of war incidents and also those who beside them have witnessed the events in garrisons, are considered narrators of war too, even if they are not expertly involved in writing the history of those events. All those who have experienced war as combatants in war scenes or in provision parts, and have talked or written about that in forms of reminiscence, are also “narrators of war incidents”. Dimensions and scope of speeches or writings and their subjects and authenticity is related to war narration, which needs more expert investigations about its essence.
Note:
1- Paul Ricœur (French: [ʁikœʁ]; 27 February 1913 – 20 May 2005) was a French philosopher best known for combining phenomenological description with hermeneutics. As such, his thought is within the same tradition as other major hermeneutic phenomenologists, Martin Heidegger and Hans-Georg Gadamer. In 2000, he was awarded the Kyoto Prize in Arts and Philosophy for having “revolutionized the methods of hermeneutic phenomenology, expanding the study of textual interpretation to include the broad yet concrete domains of mythology, biblical exegesis, psychoanalysis, theory of metaphor, and narrative theory.”
Mohammad Doroodian
Translator: Asghar Aboutorabi
Source: Mohammad Doroodian Weblog
|
