“Bersiv”ên Mîxaîl Baxtîn

“Bersiv”ên Mîxaîl Baxtîn

UMRAN ARAN

Puxte: Li gor teorîsyenê rûs Mîxaîl Baxtîn her gotin, her kelam, her gotar ji bo gotin û kelam û gotarine din bersivek in. Her gotin bersiva gotina berî xwe ye û gotina piştî xwe bi xwe re tîne. Heger bersiveke berî wê tunebe jî, gotin bersivekê texmîn dike û xwe saz dike, bi heman awayî hewl dide gotina piştî xwe jî texmîn bike. Ev yek wek teorîsyenê diyalogê di teoriya Baxtîn de cihekî girîng digire. Ev nivîsar angaşt dike ku di bingeha xebatên Baxtîn de jî ev motîvasyon heye û wî xebatên xwe wek bersivên aşkere an nepen rexsandine. Em ê di vê çarçoveyê de li ser hin xebatên wî bisekinin bê ka ji bo çi nivîskar an saziyê bersivek in. Anku em ê li hin diyalogên Baxtîn ên ligel hin kes û saziyan binerin, di ber vê yekê re em ê diyalogên kurt bi kurdî û romana kurdî re dayinin.

Peyvên sereke: Baxtîn, bersiv, diyalog, ziman, roman.

Mîxaîl Mîxaîlovîç Baxtîn di 16ê Mijdara 1895an de li bajarokê Orelê yê li başûrê Moskowê wek kurê malbateke kevne-arîstokrat ji dayik bû. Ji zaroktiya xwe de li malê dersên zimên wergirtin. Îro dihê zanîn ku Baxtîn dereceya miqabilî lîsansê wernegirtiye û li gor hin kesan bi dîplomaya birayê xwe serî li doktorayê daye. Di bihara 1918an de, Baxtîn, wek gelekên din, ji ber kaosa piştî şoreşa jinişkave, berê xwe da herêmên gundewar ku xwarin û sotemenî li wan gumrehtir bûn. Pêşî çû Nevelê û dûre Vitebska nêzî wê. Li her duyan jî tavilê bû endamê komeke biçûk a entelektuelan ku bi coş û xiroş xwe davêtin nav gengeşe, ders, mîtîng û nivîsîna manîfestoyan ku taybetiya jiyana wê serdema awarte bû. Niha ev koma entelektuelan wek “Derdora Baxtîn” [Bakhtin Circle] dihê binavkirin. Baxtîn di 1929an de bi îdiaya mensûbê cemeeteke dînî ya qedexe ye, şeş salan mehkûmî sirgûna li Kazakîstanê bû. Baxtîn di vê maweyê de mamostetî kir û hin ji xebatên xwe yên herî girîng ên derbarê romanê de nivîsîn. Di sala 1938an de ji ber nexweşiya îltîhaba kejiyê hestiyan lingê wî yê rastê hat jêkirin. Di 7ê Adara 1975an de Baxtîn ji ber amfîzemiyê koça dawî kir ku vê nexweşiyê di salên wî yên dawî de gelekî azar da wî. Gelek hevalên Baxtîn an winda bûn an jî hatin înfazkirin. Baxtîn di serdemên pir dijwar de jiya.

Dentith dibêje ku heger kesek di serdemên ecêb de jiyabe ew Mîxaîl Baxtîn e ku di dema Şoreşa Rûs a 1917an bîst û du salî bû û lewma Şoreş û Şerê Sivîl ê piştî wê, kelecana salên 1920î, sepandina Stalînîzmê, tesfiyeyên salên 1930î, dagirkirina Almanan a Sowyetê, qerisîna çandî ya salên Şerê Sar, firehiya Xrûşçev û kesadiya salên Breznev, Baxtîn ev hemû buhurandin. Xebatên Baxtîn bi kûrahî ji vê dîroka awarte mutesîr bûn, ji ber vê yekê di navbera salên 1929-1960î de çapkirina wan negengaz bû.1

Piştî di salên 60î de wergerên yekem ên berhemên Baxtîn li îngilîzî hatin kirin, Baxtîn wek edebiyatnasekî derket pêş. Xebatên Baxtîn di gelek biyavên cuda de belav dibin. “Ne tenê di vekolînên edebî de, herwiha di felsefe, semiyotîk, xebatên çandî, antropolojî, xebatên femînîst û postkolonyal, Marksîzm, etîk û xebatên rûs-slavîk de jî ji ramanên Baxtîn sûd dihê wergirtin.”2 Îro ev çarçove firehtir bûye û ji xebatên sînemayê, heta yên dînî û yên perwerdehiyê, psîkîyatriyê û hwd. bikaranîna teoriyên Baxtîn mewzûbehs e. Rêbaza wî ya xebatê û eleqedariyên wî bixwe, rê li ber vê yekê vedikin. Bi periyodîzasyona ku Brandist kiriye di salên 1919-1926an de li ser etîk û estetîkê; di salên 1927-1929an de li ser zimên û watadarkirinê; di salên 1934-1941ê de wek janrekî li ser romanê û dîroka wê; di salên 1940-1963an de bi amajeyên bo Rabelais, Goethe, Gogol û Dostoyevskî, li ser edebiyat û çanda populer; di salên 1963-1975an de jî li ser metodolojiyê xebitiye Mîxaîl Baxtîn.3 Weku dihê dîtin Baxtîn di gelek waran de xwedî zanîn bû. Li gor Holquist, ev yek ji wê yekê diqewime ku “Baxtîn aydî tradisyonekê bû ku Spitzer, Curtius, Aeurbach û hinekî piştî wan René Wellek jê dihatin, ku evên han alimên mezin bûn û derbarê şaristaniya Rojavayê de xwedî zanînên hûrgulî bûn.”4 Ji ber vê skalaya fireh a xebatên wî Brandîst wisa dinivîse: “Heçku Baxtîn ji bo her kesî tiştekî pêşkêş dike. Rexneya lîberal a humanîst, felsefeya îdealîst, Marksîzm, antî-Marksîzm, teoriya post-kolonyal û gelek nerînên din, di doza xwe de alîkariyê ji Baxtîn dixwazin.”5 Ligel vê yekê dîsa di navenda hemû xebatên Baxtîn de têgihîştineke zimanî û diyalog heye.

Em dikarin bibêjin ku di bingeha temamê ramana Baxtîn de çemka “diyalog”ê heye. “Diyalog mifteyeke sereke ye ji bo faraziyeyên ku di temamê kariyera wî de rêberiya xebata Baxtîn kirin: diyalog bi awayekî ji awayan di temamê defterên wî de heye, ji yên ciwaniya wî heta yên mirina wî ya di 80 saliya wî de.”6 Ji ber vê yekê ye ku tevî ku Baxtîn bixwe tu carî çemka “diyalojîzm”ê zikir nekiriye, îro gelek Baxtînnasên xuyanî teoriya wî, wek diyalojîzmê û wî jî wek fîlozofê diyalojîzmê bi nav dikin. Li gor Baxtîn her kelamek7 [utterance/sözce], çi gotinek be, çi ramanek be, çi metnek be û çi jî axaftineke rojane be dengek e ku berê xwe dide kesine din. Heger kesek bi tena serê xwe jî bimîne, xwe bi xwe jî bipeyive, dîsa rev ji vê yekê tuneye. Wê di dengê wî de raman û îdeolojiyên cuda hevdu bibersivînin, an jî ew kes dê bersivên muhtemel ên muxetabekî, xwe bi xwe biafirîne û bersivên xwe yên muhtemel bide wan. Li cem Baxtîn her gotinek bersivek e; “berê her gotinê li bersivekê ye û nikare ji karîgeriya kûr a gotina bersivende [answering] rizgar bibe, a ku ew wê texmîn dike.”8 Gotin yekser xwe arasteyî bersivekê dike, bersivekê provoke dike, wê texmîn dike û xwe bi vê rehendê saz dike.

Ji bo ku diyalojîzma Baxtîn bi kurtasî bişayesîne Todorov dibêje “tu kelamek tuneye bêyî têkiliyên bi kelamên din re û ev e tişta esasî.”9 Lewma tu gotina nêtar tuneye, her gotin bi mebest û cextkirinên kesên din ve tije ye û gava ku kesek gotinekê dike aydî xwe, mebestên wî û yên kesên din di wê de pev diçin anku dikevin diyalogekê. Hin gotin zû bi zû wataya nû li xwe napejirînin, hin jê tu carî napejirînin û hin jê bi hêsanî dipejirînin. Hin komên civakî mohra xwe li hin gotinan dixin, wan ji bo kes û komên din biyanî dikin û di nav demê de jargonekê pêk tînin. Bi vî awayî di zimên de “tebeqeyîbûn” pêk dihê. Di vê kontekstê di zimên de wek yên navendkêş [centripetal] û yên navendrev [centrifugal] du hêzên sereke hene. Yên navendkêş di xizmeta desthilatekê de ne û dixwazin yekdengî û yekzimaniyê pêk bînin; yên navendrev jî hewl didin ji vê navendkirinê birevin, pê re muzakereyê bikin an jî wê têk bibin. Heger em ji bo vê yekê ji edebiyata kurdî mînakekê bidin, em dikarin behsa karîgeriya zimanê tirkî li ser kurdî bikin. Ji ber ku tirkî zimanê serdest e, bivênevê ji hêla sentaksê û qalibên axaftinê ve karîgeriyê li kurdî dike, romannûsên kurd jî hewl didin ji vê yekê birevin. Li vir hêza otorîter a navendkêş tirkî ye û hêza navendrev jî kurdî ye. Her du ziman di şiûra nivîskaran de dikevin gengeşe û pevçûnê, û carinan hêza navendkêş bi ser dikeve. Lewma gelek caran li nav civata xwînerên kurdî behsa “bandora tirkî” dihê kirin û hin nivîskar jî di çapên nû yên pirtûkên xwe de zimanê xwe diguherin an di ber çavan re derbas dikin, sererast dikin.10 Heger em di çarçoveya jiyana rojane de anku axaftinê de lê binerin, em dibînin ku hêza navendrev bi aliyê berevajî de dixebite. Tirkî wek zimanê desthilatê serweriya xwe pêk tîne û dibe zimanê axaftinê yê hin kurdan an jî hin bajarên kurdan. Li hember vê yekê, vê carê hevoksaziya kurdî xwe di zimanê tirkîaxêvên kurd de dide der. Yanî gava ku zimanê kelamê bi kurdî be, tirkî xwe di nav re derdixe; lê gava ku tirkî be kurdî xwe di nav re derdixe. Ev rewş nimûneyeke baş e ji bo ramana Baxtîn ku zimên wek meydana milmilaneya hêzên navendkêş û yên navendrev dibîne.

Helbet watardarkirina kelamê/gotinê ne pêvajoyeke stabîl û sekan e. Ji bilî peyivende [speaking] û wergir, cih û dema gotinê, şert û mercên ew tê de dihê gotin, hemû konteksta wê karîgeriyê li watadarkirina wê dike. Bi vê nerînê, tu gotin dubare nabe, her gotinek rengvedana pêgeha xwe ya civakî ya taybet e. Di vê têgihîştinê de dihê dîtin ku ziman û watadarkirin, wek pêvajoyeke dînamîk kar dike. Pêkhatina watayê di encama têkiliyeke diyalojîk de ye û wata nav-bikerane [inter-subjective/ özneler arası] ye. Julia Kristeva vê ramana Baxtîn bi modela Saussure re kombîne kir û terma “intertextuality” [nav-metnî/ metinler arasılık] darêşt11 ku ji salên 1960î bi vir ve, di vekolînên edebî û çandî de ramaneke zal e.

Herweku me got di ramana Baxtîn de her kelamek bersivek e û bersivekê texmîn dike. Xebatên Baxtîn bixwe wek nimûneyên vê yekê ne. Baxtîn, gelek caran an hîç navan nade an jî di derekê du deran tenê de navê muxetabê xwe didirkîne û bi wan re dikeve polemîkan/ diyalogan. Bi Saussure re, bi Teşeparêzan re, bi Binyadgeran re, bi Marksîstan re, bi feraseta fermî ya rejîmê re dikeve nîqaşan anku bersivan dide wan.

Bo nimûne bi tenê carekê navê Saussure hildide, lê belê nerîna wî ya zimên bi temamî dijberî ya Saussure ye. Di destpêka sedsala bîstem de gava ku piştî mirina wî, nîşeyên Ferdinand de Saussure wek pirtûk bi navê Dersên Zimannasiya Giştî hatin weşandin, di biyavê zimannasiyê de şoreşek pêk hat ku vê yekê dê rê li ber Binyatgeriyê jî vekira. Beriya Saussure xebatên li ser zimên bi rêbaza dîakronîk dihatin kirin. Yanî guherîn û kawdanên zimanekî yên bi dirêjiya dîroka wî dihatin vekolan. Her çi Saussure e, wî ziman di demek diyar de kir mijara vekolîna xwe, yanî bi rêbazeke sînkronîk nêzikî lê kir. Li gor wî ziman pergaleke serbixwe û besî-xwe bû.12 Saussure zimên ji çarçoveya dîrokî û civakî derdixe û wek pergaleke razber nêzikiyê lê dike. Saussure zimên dike du beş: langue (ziman) û parole (gotin). Ya yekem amajeyê wek pergaleke qaîdeyan bi zimên dike ku çi cara axêverek bi wî zimanî dipeyive serî li wan dide. Herçi bikaranînên takane ne, yanî her kelameke xweser nimûneyeke paroleyê ye. Li gor Saussureyê ku zimannasiya wî li ser binyata giştî ya zimên hûr dibe, ji ber bêdawîtiya guherbariyê [variability] ne guncaw e ku parole bibe objeya vekolînê. Lewma ew li ser kelamên takane nasekine, ji bo wî tişta girîng sîstema zimên e.

Lê belê li cem Baxtîn û derdora wî ziman bi temamî tiştekî civakî û îdeolojî-hilgir e.13 Lewma Baxtîn dibêje: “Em zimên wek pergaleke kategoriyên razber ên gramerî wernagirin, lê bêtir wek îdeolojî-tije, wek nerîneke li cîhanê, heta wek qinyateke şênber dibînin…”14 Di dîtina Saussurean de vekolînên zimanî wek navxweyî û derekî dibin du par. “Zimannasiya navxweyî li ser têkiliyên formel ên navbera yekeyên sîstemekê hûr dibe; zimannasiya derekî li ser têkiliyên navbera ziman û nijad, ziman û dîroka siyasî, ziman û mueseseyan hwd. hûr dibe.”15 Ku ev para duyem ji bo têgi- hîştina Saussurean ne hêjayî dîtinê ye. Li gor Crowley, nêzikbûna Baxtîn dikare valahiya navbera her du paran bigire an jî şaşiya vê dupariyê nîşan bide. Bingeha vê fikrê jî ew e ku ji bo Baxtîn hemû formên gotarê -ji yekeyên herî biçûk heta bi zimanê neteweyî û jê bi wê de- bi gengeşeyên civakî û dîrokî tije ne. Hêzên navendkêş û yên navendrev hertim di têkoşînê de ne di wê de. Li gor Crowley “ji hêla dîroka zimên ve ev yek prensîbeke şoreşgerane ye, ji ber ku berê wê lê ye ku polarîzasyona hişk a berjewendiyan dekonstrukte bike…”16

Di karîgeriya ramana Saussure de “li Rûsyayê di navbera salên 1915 û 1930î de bizaveke rexneya edebî ya bi navê teşeparêzî (formalîzm) derketiye.”17 Teşeparêzan metnên edebî li derveyî konsteksteke civakî û dîrokî dixwendin. Ji bo wan tişta girîng hin qaîdeyên nav metnê bûn. Ji destpêka nivîsînên xwe heta yên dawiyê, Baxtîn bi vê ramanê razî nebûye. Baxtîn hem li dij teşeparêzan hem jî li dij Marksîstan bû. Hevoka destpêkê ya nivîsara bi navê “Gotar di Romanê de” ku 1934an di salên sirgûnê de hatibû nivîsîn, îtiraza Baxtîn ya li dij van her du nêzîkbûnên dijber derdibire:

Ramana sereke ya vê nivîsarê ew e ku vekolîna hunera edebiyatê dikare û divê bikare qutbûna navbera nêzîkbûneke “formel” a razber û yeke vî çendî razber a “îdeolojîk” ji holê rake. Form û naverok di gotarê de yek in piştî ku em têbigihîjin ku gotara peyvkî diyardeyeke civakî ye ji îmajên deng heta kenarên wataya razber bi temamî civakî ye.18

Esasen Baxtîn bi heman helwesta rexnekerane nêzî Binyatgeran jî dibe. Di sala 1970yî de kovareke rûs fikrên Baxtîn ên derbarê rewşa zanista edebiyatê de jê dipirse. Di nav nivîsara wî ya bersiva vê pirsê de, Baxtîn wisa dibêje: “Berî her tiştî divê zanista edebî têkiliyên nêziktir dayîne ligel dîroka çandê. Edebiyat beşekî jêcudanebar ê çandê ye û li derveyî konteksta yekpare ya temamê çanda serdemekê nabe ku bihê famkirin.” Weku dihê dîtin Baxtîn bi riwangeheke şimûldar li edebiyatê dinere. Li aliyê din pûteyê bi xwendinên saf îdeolojîk ên wek Marksîst jî nade. Lewma hema di hevoka piştî vêya de wisa dinivîse: Divê ji para mayî ya çandê neyê qutkirin û nabe ku bi hokarên sosyo-ekonomîk ve bihê girêdan.19 Helbet Baxtîn angaşt nake ku divê bi temamî ev hokar bihên paşguhkirin, lê belê bawer dike ku ev hokar ancaq di nav tevahiya çandê de û peywendîdarî wê, karîgeriyê li edebiyatê bikin. Weku dihê dîtin Baxtîn ne bi Teşeparêzan û Binyatgeran re ye û ne jî bi Marksîstan re. Ji ber ku xeta yekem metnê bi temamî ji çandê qut dike û xeta duyem metnê tenê wek daneyekê dibîne. Ya yekem bi tenê li edebîbûnê digere, ya duyem edebîbûnê bi temamî paşguh dike.

Temama xebata Baxtîn a li ser edebiyatê nîşan dide bê ew vê yekê çawa pêk tîne. Li aliyekî wê ji civak û dîrokê, ji deng û zimanên civakî û dîrokî qut nake; li aliyê din jî diyar dike ku gava ku ev deng û zimanên civakî dikevin edebiyatê dibin objeya xebateke hunerî û bi awayekî taybet deng û reng vedidin.

Diyalogên Baxtîn ên ligel raman û teoriyên din, bersivên wî yên bo wan bi vî çendî namînin helbet. Tew heger kesên ku ew bersivê dide wan bi awayekî, parçeyekî rejîma Stalînîst bûna binavkirin nemimkun dibû. Li vir em dikarin bibêjin hin caran fikarên siyasî karîger bûne. Di vê mijarê de Booth angaşteke balkêş bi pêş dixe ku wek îdeologê diyalogê ji bo Baxtîn teqez para rastiyê tê de xuya ye. Li gor wî Baxtîn bi piranî bi qestî dijminên xwe -materyalîstên zanistî, pozîtîvîst, Marksîstên naîf- bi nav nake; ji ber ku binavkirin, rîska têkbirina diyaloga çaverêkirî tîne bi xwe re.20

Yek ji wan kesan ku Baxtîn bersivê dide wan Georg Lukacs e. Lukacs di 1920an de pirtûkeke bi navê Teoriya Romanê21 nivîsî ku yek ji nêzîkbûnên ewil bû ku ji bo romanê teoriyeke tekûz derdixist pêş. Li gor Lukacs zayîna romanê teqabulî qutbûneke radîkal a di şiûra mirov de dike. Ev qutbûn, derbasbûna ji tecrûbeya yekpare -ku modela wê Yewnana berê ye- ber bi tecrûbeya parçebûyî ya cîhana modern e. Di serdemên epîk de, anku di serdemên yakpare de di navbera jiyanê û gewherê de valahî tuneye, jiyan jixweber watadar e. Lê belê di serdemên modern de mirov û siruşt, jiyan û gewher, laş û ruh, jiyan û huner, mirov û xweda ji hev qetiyane. Lewma lehengê epîkê ne takekes e, temaya wê ne qedereke şexsî ye; qedera civatekê ye. Lê belê lehengê romanê berhema biyanîbûna ji cîhana derekî ye. Ji ber vê yekê lehengê romanê li cîhana yekpare ya winda ya di texeyula xwe de digere. Lewma roman ji bo Lukacs wek formekî lêgerînê ye. Ji ber vê yekê Perwerdeya Hestyarî ya Flaubert an jî Don Kîşota Cervantes di pîramîda Lukacs de cihekî girîng digire. Lê belê Dostoyevskî di vê pîramîdê de cih nagire. Ji ber ku lehengên Dostoyevskî nakevin nav şablona Lukacs, li gor wî berhemên Dostoyevskî ne roman in:

Tiştên Dostoyevskî nivîsî, ne roman in û dûrbîniya afirîner a di berhemên wî de xuyabûyî, çi wek pesendkirin çi jî wek redkirinekê, ne bi Romantîzma Ewrûpayê ya sedsala nozdehem, ne jî bi gelek karvedanên romantîk ên din re eleqedar nîn bû. Ew aydî cîhana nû ye. Homeros an jî Danteyê cîhana nû ye… bi tenê destpêkek e an jî ji zû de temambûnek e, ancaq analîzeke teşeyî ya berhemên wî vê yekê nîşan bide.22

Wek şîrovekerê dîrokî-felsefî, Lukacsê wê demê, bi cudabûna Dostoyevskî derdixe, lê nizane bê wê wî di ku de bi cih bike. Bersiva vê yekê dê ji Baxtîn bihata.

Esasen teoriya Lukacs bi tenê hin tîpên romanê pênase dikir. Bo nimûne heger em ji riwangeha wî li romana kurdî binerin, ji romanên Bextiyar Elî Apê min Cemşîd Xan ku Hertim bê ew li ber xwe Dibir, Qesra Balindeyen Xemgîn û Êvara Perwaneyê; Santiago de Compestelaya Ferhad Pîrbal dikevin şablona wî, lê belê Mîrnameya Jan Dost ku taybetiyên pirdengiyê dihewîne an jî Aporîaya H. Kovan Baqî ku taybetiyên romana karnavalesk dihewîne, nakevin nav vê şablonê. Weku dihê dîtin ji romanên kurdî yên lehengên wan li pey nasnameyê an jî li pey “welatê winda” dikevin şablona Lukacs. Lê belê teoriya Baxtîn nerîneke şimûldar pêşkêş dike.

Pirtûka Baxtîn a bi navê Pirsgirêkên Poetîkaya Dostoyeskî di1929an de hat weşandin. Di vê pirtûkê de Dostoyevskî wek afirînerê romana pirdeng dihat hesibandin. Pirdengî di esasê xwe de derbarê têkiliya nivîskar-leheng û leheng-leheng de ye. Li gor vê têgihîştinê, di romanên pirdeng de, leheng ne tenê objeya nivîskar in; ew jî xwedî gotin in, bi xwe-şiûr û gotara xwe di romanê de dihên nimandin. Ji bo nivîskêr, leheng ne “ew” e, ne “ez” e jî; lê belê “tu”yekî bi temamî rewa ye, yanî “ez”eke din a serbixwe ye (“tu heyî”).”23 Di romaneke pirdeng de, wek romaneke monolojîk wata û hukmên nîhaî yên aydî nivîskar tunene anku roman “vekirî” ye. Di versiyona 1929an de Dostoyevskî bêhempa bû; lê belê di ya 1965an de di nav tradisyonekê de hat bicihkirin ku nûnerê herî baş derket pêş vê carê.

Em dikarin bibêjin ku Baxtîn di vê berhemê de bersivê dide sê aliyan. Yek jê ew in ku berê derbarê Dostoyesvkî de nivîsîne. Baxtîn di beşa serî de bi wan re dikeve polemîkan û angaşt dike ku wan Dostoyevskî fam nekiriye. Gava ku vê yekê dike bi jêgirtinên dûdirêj, hewl dide bi awayekî heqdeyane wan binimîne anku dengê wan tam bibihîzîne. Baxtîn bi awayekî bersivê dide rejîma Stalînîst jî. Di serdemeke wisa de ku tu dengên cuda nedihat pejirandin û dihatin tepisandin, ne tesadufî ye ku Baxtîn derbarê pirdengiyê de dinivîse. Di serdemekê de ku tu rastiyên alternatîf nedihat pejirandin û hebûna kesî nedihat pejirandin, şîara “tu heyî” ne belasebeb e. Bi me aliyê sêyem ku Baxtîn bersivê didiyê Lukacs e. Di riwangeha Lukacs de tu wataya berhemên Dostoyevskî tunebû, lewma jî di pîramîda wî de cih negirtibû. Lê belê di pîramîda Baxtîn de ew li lûtkeyê ye.

Baxtîn bersivê dide Komîserê Ronakbûnê Anatolî Lûnaçarskî û feraseta edebiyatê ya fermî ya Sowyetê jî. 1935an de metnekî axaftinê yê Lûnaçarskî hat çapkirin. Lûnaçarskî tê de angaşt dike ku karnaval dikare dijberiya mirovan a ji bo şoreşê nerm bike û bi awayekî wek subapa ewlehiyê kar bike.24 Karnavala ku Baxtîn di pirtûka Rabelais û Cîhana Wî de raber dike, berevajî vê dîtinê ye. Di karnavalê de hiyerarşî dihên şikenandin û ji her çîn û tebeqeya civakê mirov yeksan dibin. Kral dihên bêtackirin, rahîb dibin mijara tinazpêkirinê, pîrozî û normên civakî dihên binpêkirin. Nirxên ku wek aydî para jor a bedenê, wek aydî aqil û dil dihên pejirandin, bi îfrazatên para jêr a bedenê dihên bêîtîbarkirin û rajêrkirin. Tu serokê karnavalê û tu sehneya karnavalê tuneye; her kes bi heman awayî bikerê wê û her der mekanê wê ye. Ji meydana bajaran diherike nav malan û heta cihê mahrem. Herçend kral û rahîban xwe wisa nîşan didan weku ew destûra vê yekê dikin, lê belê karnaval hêzek bû ku berî wan hebû û wan nikarîbû rê li ber bigirtana. Dîsa di vê çarçoveyê de çemka “Realîzma Grotesk” a Baxtîn berevajî “Realîzma Civakî” ye ku poetîkaya fermî ya Sowyetê bû. Weku dihê dîtin, li cem Baxtîn karnaval ji subapa ewlehiyê dûr e û hêza gel e ku rê li ber nayê girtin. Weku hin vekoleran jî amaje pê kiriye, Baxtîn dîtineke gel a îdealîzekirî derdixe pêş da ku hinekî tîrên poetîka û polîtîkaya Stalînîst ji xwe dûr bixe. Lê dîsa jî pirtûka ku wek teza doktorayê hatibû nivîsandin, ji ber van hêmanên wê yên dijber ancaq di 1965an de hat çapkirin û ev çapkirin jî zêde hêsan nebû.

Di vê pirtûkê de jî û di nivîsarên sereke yên wek “Ji Pêşdîroka Gotara Romanî,” “Epîk û Roman” û “Formên Demê û Kronotop di Romanê de” de Baxtîn her girîngiya “ken” dupat dike. Di serdemeke wisa de ku bi tenê cidiyeteke gebsoyî ya sar tê de serdest bû, ev dupatkirina ken bixwe bersiveke herî mezin e. Li gor wî ken yek ji wan hokaran e ku rê li ber derketina romanê vekiriye, ji ber ku mesafeya epîk têk biriye. Li gor Baxtîn ken di warê tunekirina pêşmercê bêtirsiyê de hokareke jiyanî ye, ku ne ji vî pêşmercî be ne gengaz e mirov bi awayekî realîst nêzî cîhanê bibe. Di serdemeke wisa tije xof û gef de ev gotinên Baxtîn watadar in, evên ku taybetiyeke epîstomolojîk li ken bar dike:

Tişta ku herî pir karîgeri li mirovên Serdema Navîn kir zafera ken a li dij tirsê bû. Vî kenî hem zora xofa ji desthilatên mirovî û hem jî ya ji yên îlahî dibir. Tirsa ji tebîetê, ji hêzên nepen, ji jiyana piştî mirinê, ji dojehê bi vî kenî dihat têkbirin. Bi saya vê zaferê ken şiûra mirov zelal kir û derbarê cîhanê de riwangeheke nuh dayê. Ev heqîqet kurtedem bû, tirs û fikarên jiyana rojane li dû wê dihatin, lê belê ji van kurtedeman heqîqeteke din a nefermî hilbû; heqîqeteke derbarê cîhanê û însên de ku şiûra nû ya Ronesansê amade dikir.25

1 Simon Dentith, Bakhtinian Thought: An introductory reader, weş. Routledge, Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005, r. 4.

2 Pam Morris, The Bakhtin Reader: Selected Writings of Bakhtin, Medvedev and Voloshinov, weş. Arnold, London, 1994, r. 1.

3 Graig Brandist, Bahtin ve Çevresi, wer. Cem Soydemir, weş. Doğu Batı, Ankara, 2011, r. 29-30.

4 Michael Holquist, “Introduction”, M. M. Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination, wer. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist, weş. University of Texas Press, Austin, 1981, r. xvii.

5 Brandist, h.b., r. 14.

6 Michael Holquist, Dialogism: Bakhtin and his world, Taylor & Francis e-Library, London and New York, 2002, r. 15.

7 Di nivîsara xwe “Pirsgirêkên Janrên Axaftinê” de, Baxtîn diyar dike ku hevok yekeyeke zimên e; lê belê kelam, yekeyeke danûstandinê [communication] ye. (M.M. Bakhtin, “The Problem of Speech Genres”, Speech Genres and Other Late Essays, weş. University Of Texas, Austin, 1999, r. 73.)

8 M. M. Bakhtin, “Discourse in the Novel”, The Dialogic Imagination, wer. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist, weş. University of Texas Press, Austin, 1981, r. 280.

9 Tzvetan Todorov, Mikhail Bakhtin: The Dialogical Principle, wer. Wlad Godzich, weş. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, London, ç. 7., 1998, r. 60.

10 Du nimûneyên vê yekê Saturna Remezan Alan û Nameyek ji Xwedê reya Ciwanmerd Kulek e.

11 Graham Allen, Intertextuality, weş. Routledge, Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2006, r. 11.

12 Berna Moran, Edebiyat Kuramları ve Eleştiri, weş. İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul, 2009, r. 186-7.

13 Hevalê Baxtîn, Voloşînov, di Marksîzm û Felsefeya Zimên de bi awayekî sîstematîk û berfireh nêzîkbûna Saussurean rexne dike. Piraniya pisporên Baxtîn qanih bûne ku ev pirtûk û du pirtûkên Medvedev, di eslê xwe de aydî Baxtîn in, lewma gava ku meseleyê nîqaş dikin wan jî dixin navê. Ji bo pirtûka navhatî bnr. V. N. Voloşinov, Marksizm ve Dil Felsefesi, wer. Mehmet Küçük, weş. Ayrıntı, 2001.

14 M. M. Bakhtin, “Discourse in the Novel”, The Dialogic Imagination, wer. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist, weş. University of Texas Press, Austin, 1981, r. 271.

15 Tony Crowley, “Bakhtin and the history of the language”, di nav: Bakhtin and Cultural The- ory, ed. Ken Hirschkop and David Shepherd, weş. Manchester University Press, New York, 2001, r. 177.

16 Crowley, h.g., r. 179.

17 Tzvetan Todorov, Yazın Kuramı. Rus Biçimcilerinin Metinleri, wer. Mehmet Rifat- Sema Rifat, weş. Yapı Kredi Yayınları, İstanbul, 2010.

18 M. M. Bakhtin, “Discourse in the Novel”, The Dialogic Imagination, wer. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist, weş. University of Texas Press, Austin, 1981, r. 259.

19 M.M. Bakhtin, “Response to a Question from Novy Mir Editorial Staff”, Speech Genres and Other Late Essays, weş. University Of Texas, Austin, 1999, r. 2.

20 Wayne C. Booth, “Sunuş”, Dostoyevski Poetikasının Sorunları, wer. Cem Soydemir, weş. Metis, İstanbul, 2004, r. 22.

21 Georg Lukacs, Roman Kuramı, wer. Cem Soydemir, weş. Metis Yayınları, İstanbul, 2007.

22 Lukacs, Roman Kuramı, r. 153.

23 M. Bahtin, Dostoyevski Poetikasının Sorunları, wer. Cem Soydemir, weş. Metis, İstanbul, 2004, r. 117.

24 Michael Holquist, “Prologue”, Mikhail Bakhtin, Rabelais and His World, wer. Helene Is- wolsky, weş. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1984, r. xviii.

25 Mikhail Bakhtin, Rabelais and His World, wer. Helene Iswolsky, weş. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1984, r. 90-91.

ÇAVKANÎ

Allen, Graham: Intertextuality, weş. Routledge, Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2006.

Bahtin, Mihail M.: Dostoyevski Poetikasının Sorunları, wer. Cem Soydemir, weş. Metis, İstanbul, 2004.

Bakhtin, M.M.: Speech Genres and Other Late Essays, weş. University Of Texas, Austin, 1999.

Bakhtin, M.M.: The Dialogic Imagination, wer. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist, weş. University of Texas Press, Austin, 1981.

Bakhtin, Mikhail: Rabelais and His World, wer. Helene Iswolsky, weş. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1984.

Booth, Wayne C.: “Sunuş”, Mihail M. Bahtin, Dostoyevski Poetikasının Sorunları, wer. Cem Soydemir, weş. Metis, İstanbul, 2004, 7-24.

Brandist, Graig: Bahtin ve Çevresi, wer. Cem Soydemir, weş. Doğu Batı, Ankara, 2011.

Crowley, Tony: “Bakhtin and the history of the language”, di nav: Bakhtin and Cultural Theory, ed. Ken Hirschkop and David Shepherd, weş. Manchester University Press, New York, 2001, r. 177-200.

Dentith, Simon: Bakhtinian Thought: An introductory reader, weş. Routledge, Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005.

Holquist, Michael: “Introduction”, M. M. Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination, wer. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist, weş. University of Texas Press, Austin, 1981, r. xv-xxxiii.

Holquist, Michael: “Prologue”, Mikhail Bakhtin, Rabelais and His World, wer. Helene Iswolsky, weş. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1984, r. xiii-xxiii.

Holquist, Michael: Dialogism: Bakhtin and his world, Taylor & Francis e-Library, London and New York, 2002.

Lukacs, Georg: Roman Kuramı, wer. Cem Soydemir, weş. Metis Yayınları, İstanbul, 2007. Michael Holquist, “Prologue”, Mikhail Bakhtin, Rabelais and His World, wer. Helene Iswolsky, weş. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1984, r. xiii-xxiii.

Moran, Berna: Edebiyat Kuramları ve Eleştiri, weş. İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul, 2009.

Morris, Pam: The Bakhtin Reader: Selected Writings of Bakhtin, Medvedev and Voloshinov, weş. Arnold, London, 1994.

Todorov, Tzvetan: Mikhail Bakhtin: The Dialogical Principle, wer. Wlad Godzich, weş. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, London, ç. 7., 1998.

Todorov, Tzvetan: Yazın Kuramı. Rus Biçimcilerinin Metinleri, wer. Mehmet Rifat-Sema Rifat, weş. Yapı Kredi Yayınları, İstanbul, 2010.

“Bersiv”ên Mîxaîl Baxtîn

Vejandina Zimanê Îbranî

Nûrealîzma Îtalî, Yilmaz Guney û Hêvî

Tehlîlek di Peywenda Teorîya Monomîtê de li ser Çîroka “Meymûn Xanim û Mîrze Memûd”

Leave A Reply Cancel Reply

“Bersiv”ên Mîxaîl Baxtîn

Related Posts

Vejandina Zimanê Îbranî

Nûrealîzma Îtalî, Yilmaz Guney û Hêvî

Tehlîlek di Peywenda Teorîya Monomîtê de li ser Çîroka “Meymûn Xanim û Mîrze Memûd”

Leave A Reply Cancel Reply