آزادی و مسئولیت فردی در مواجهه با دیگری؛ واکاوی دیدگاه سارتر، فروید و یونگ در سینمای معاصر ایران (نمونه موردی کاراکتر نادر در فیلم جدایی نادر از سیمین) (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
این پژوهش با اتخاذ رویکردی میان رشته ای در بررسی نظریات سارتر، فروید و یونگ، به تحلیل ابعاد آزادی و مسئولیت فردی در مواجهه با دیگران در سینمای معاصر ایران، از جنبه های فلسفی و روان شناختی می پردازد. نمونه موردی فیلم جدایی نادر از سیمین به کارگردانی اصغر فرهادی است. مقاله پیشِ رو سعی دارد رفتارها و انتخاب های شخصیت های این فیلم را ضمن واکاوی اندیشه سارتر پیرامون مسئولیت و آزادی فردی، بر اساس نظریات فروید و یونگ تحلیل نماید. بنا بر دیدگاه سارتر، آزادی وجودی در جهت انتخاب های مستقل و پذیرش مسئولیت فردی در رویارویی با «دیگری» مورد بحث قرار می گیرد. فروید بر اهمیت تأثیر نیروهای ناخودآگاه، امیال سرکوب شده و مکانیسم های دفاعی در شکل گیری انتخاب های به ظاهر آگاهانه تأکید دارد، درحالی که یونگ با استناد به مفاهیم ناخودآگاه جمعی، آرکی تایپ ها و فرایند فردیت یابی، ابعاد فرهنگی و نمادین هویت را مورد بررسی قرار می دهد. این پژوهش ضمن تحلیل تطبیقی و مفهومی، در تلاش است با هدف ارزیابی نقاط تلاقی و تضاد میان این دیدگاه ها، نشان دهد چگونه تعامل میان آزادی و مسئولیت های درونی، به انتخاب های فردی در این فیلم که ماحصل پیچیدگی میان خودآگاه و ناخودآگاه، به همراه تنش های اجتماعی و فرهنگی است، جهت می بخشد. درنتیجه این یافته ها، می تواند زمینه ساز بررسی دقیق و تلفیقی از ابعاد مختلف آزادی و مسئولیت فردی در مواجهه با دیگری در بستر سینمای معاصر ایران باشد تا با ارائه ساختاری نوین به تحلیل آثار هنری کمک نماید و بستر گفت وگوی میان رشته ای در حوزه های فلسفه، روان شناسی و هنر را فراهم آورد.Freedom and Individual Responsibility in Encountering the Other; An Examination of the Perspectives of Sartre, Freud, and Jung in Contemporary Iranian Cinema (Case Study: The Character of Nader in Asghar Farhadi’s A Separation)
This study explores the intricate relationship between freedom and individual responsibility in the context of human confrontation with the Other, using Asghar Farhadi’s critically acclaimed film “A Separation” as its primary case study. By employing a tripartite theoretical framework—existential philosophy as articulated by Jean-Paul Sartre, Freudian psychoanalysis, and Jungian analytical psychology—the research seeks to shed light on the psychological, philosophical, and cultural forces that shape human action and ethical decision-making in moments of crisis. Each of these theoretical traditions offers a unique lens to examine the conscious and unconscious layers of the human psyche and their interplay within socio-cultural structures.From an existentialist standpoint, Sartre’s philosophy places a radical emphasis on human freedom and the inescapable responsibility that accompanies it. According to Sartre, human beings are “condemned to be free,” meaning that every action, even inaction or refusal to choose, constitutes a form of choice. No external condition—be it social, cultural, or psychological—can fully relieve the individual of responsibility for their decisions. Sartre differentiates among three modes of being: être-en-soi (being-in-itself), which characterizes unconscious existence devoid of reflection, such as objects; être-pour-soi (being-for-itself), representing conscious beings capable of self-reflection and transcendence; and être-pour-autrui (being-for-others), wherein the self becomes objectified under the gaze and judgment of others. It is in this last mode—being-for-others—that the challenge to authentic existence becomes acute, as the individual is constantly confronted with the threat of self-alienation due to the expectations and evaluations of the Other.In “A Separation,” the central character Nader’s decision to remain in Iran to care for his ailing father rather than emigrate with his wife, Simin, can initially be interpreted as an act of autonomous agency, a manifestation of existential freedom. However, Sartrean analysis reveals that Nader simultaneously evades the full implications of his choice. He does not transparently acknowledge the responsibility he bears for the breakdown of his marriage, and instead rationalizes his decision through familial obligation. This is indicative of mauvaise foi or “bad faith”—a mechanism through which individuals deceive themselves to avoid the anxiety of freedom and the burden of accountability.In contrast, Freudian psychoanalysis reconfigures the concept of freedom by demonstrating how much of human behavior is driven not by conscious deliberation, but by the dynamic and often conflicting forces of the unconscious. Freud’s tripartite model of the psyche—the id, ego, and superego—offers a systematic account of internal psychological conflict. The id operates according to the pleasure principle, seeking immediate satisfaction of instinctual drives, while the superego functions as the internalized voice of societal and parental norms. The ego, positioned between these two forces, strives to maintain balance by adhering to the reality principle. It negotiates external demands and internal impulses, often resorting to defense mechanisms such as repression, projection, and denial.In the context of “A Separation,” Nader’s behavior reveals several of these Freudian dynamics. His sense of guilt, anxiety over his father’s decline, and defensiveness in the face of Razieh’s accusations suggest that unconscious conflict plays a substantial role in his decision-making process. While he claims moral and rational motives, his emotional volatility and tendency to lash out indicate that deeper, unprocessed psychological tensions—possibly stemming from helplessness, suppressed anger, and guilt—are at work. Freud would interpret these outbursts and lapses in self-awareness not as moral failings, but as symptomatic expressions of repressed drives that the ego fails to integrate adequately.Complementing both Sartre and Freud, Carl Gustav Jung’s analytical psychology introduces a third dimension: the role of mythic structures, symbols, and cultural archetypes in shaping identity and behavior. Jung critiques Freud’s overemphasis on personal neuroses and instead underscores the importance of the collective unconscious—a reservoir of shared human experience and imagery manifested through archetypes. For Jung, the self is not merely a product of personal memory or conscious will but is deeply embedded in a symbolic universe that precedes individual awareness. Key archetypes include the persona (the social mask), the shadow (the repressed, darker aspects of the self), the anima/animus (gendered inner counterparts), and the self as the psychic totality striving for individuation and wholeness.In “A Separation,” Jungian analysis reveals the powerful presence of these archetypal dynamics. Nader’s struggle to define himself as a dutiful son, honest man, and responsible father unfolds through confrontation with several archetypes. The shadow emerges in his suppressed rage, his inability to empathize with Razieh, and his confrontation with social shame. The hero archetype is activated when he takes charge in crises, while the wise old man is reflected in the physical and symbolic presence of his ailing father, whose deterioration mirrors Nader’s internal struggle with moral decay and emotional detachment. Simin, too, could be interpreted through Jungian terms as representing the anima—a challenge to Nader’s rigid and reason-driven self-image, offering emotional depth and intuition he resists integrating.What unites these three frameworks—despite their distinct ontological assumptions—is a shared concern with the limits and conditions of human freedom. Sartre insists on conscious responsibility but omits the weight of the unconscious. Freud lays bare the hidden impulses and conflicts that distort rationality and self-knowledge. Jung integrates both dimensions but adds a cultural and symbolic depth that highlights the role of inherited patterns and collective values. The convergence of these approaches provides a more holistic understanding of the film’s characters and their psychological complexity.Indeed, the central research question—how freedom and responsibility are shaped and constrained by the interplay of conscious and unconscious forces, personal neuroses, cultural archetypes, and social expectations—is best answered by this interdisciplinary synthesis. While Sartre emphasizes the weight of personal choice in moral conflict, Freud reveals how those choices may be influenced, even undermined, by internal conflicts and unresolved childhood dynamics. Jung, in turn, interprets such conflicts as moments of archetypal emergence, where the individual confronts collective images and myths that give meaning (and limitation) to personal agency.The implications of this analysis extend beyond the specific characters of “A Separation.” On a broader level, the film becomes a microcosm of Iranian society—one in which individuals struggle to reconcile personal freedom with collective expectations, where ethical decisions are entangled in historical, familial, and symbolic structures. The emotional realism of Farhadi’s cinema, often praised for its moral ambiguity and psychological depth, gains new dimensions when approached through this tripartite theoretical lens. Each framework highlights different facets of the same experience: Sartre focuses on ethical action, Freud on internal conflict, and Jung on symbolic resonance. Together, they reveal that human decisions, especially in ethically ambiguous situations, are never reducible to rational choice alone.In conclusion, this article argues that an interdisciplinary approach, combining existentialism, psychoanalysis, and analytical psychology, allows for a more nuanced and comprehensive reading of human behavior and moral conflict in cinematic narratives. By analyzing “A Separation” through these lenses, the study illustrates that freedom is not a purely conscious or individualistic attribute. It is constantly negotiated within a web of psychological tensions and cultural narratives. Sartre’s model, while powerful in its ethical rigor, must be tempered by Freud’s insights into the unconscious and Jung’s symbolic and collective dimension. Freedom, then, is neither absolute nor illusory; it is conditional, layered, and always situated in a context that includes the Other, both external and internal.Such an interdisciplinary framework not only enriches the interpretation of Farhadi’s cinema but also offers a valuable methodology for the critical analysis of contemporary Iranian artistic productions. It encourages deeper reflection on the moral, psychological, and cultural foundations of human identity and reaffirms the relevance of classical theoretical paradigms in the reading of modern cinematic texts. This approach invites viewers, critics, and scholars alike to reconsider the very foundations of agency, choice, and responsibility in the realm of aesthetics, ethics, and the human condition.
تبلیغات
