بررسی تطبیقی مؤلفه‌های عینیت‌گرایی در شعر یدالله رویایی و لوییس زوکوفسکی

1. Introduction
Modern poetry of Iran has been influenced by the avant-garde movements of the early twentieth century such as Symbolism and Surrealism. However, Louis Zukofsky’s impact on modern Persian poetry has not yet been scrutinized. This research conducts a comparative analysis between Yadollah Royaee’s “espacementale” poetry and Zukofsky’s “Objectivist” poetry. “Espacementalisme” was a poetic movement pioneered by Royaee in the 1960s, evolving within the revolutionary “New Poetry” of Iran. Espacementalisme both acknowledged and challenged the New Poetry as its aficionados such as Parviz Eslampour, Behran Ardebili, Mahmoud Shojaee, Houshang Chalangi, Bijan Elahi, and Fereidoun Rahnama, published, for the first time in Iran and a là European avant-garde movements, a manifesto. They wanted to experience a pristine poetic ambience, different from their predecessors’ like Forough Farrokhzad, Mehdi Akhavan Sales, Ahmad Shamlou, Nima Youshij, and Sohrab Sepehri. Espacementalisme, as the “most abstract movement in contemporary Persian poetry” (Fatemi, 1389: 30), is not representational; it immaterializes reality via language. Royaee himself asserts: “My job is to discover the new potentiality of/in words” (1379: 50). By hinging his poetry on language of perception and perception of language, he forays at one the most experimental poetic forms in Iran. The point is Royaee’s venture into language experimentation bears a striking resemblance to the Objectivist poetry of America in the 1930s, mastered by Zukofsky. It was Zukofsky who cast doubt on the “imagistic” tradition in poetry practiced by William Carlos William. In this regard, Royaee’s infatuation with the artistic movements of the early twentieth century Europe, particularly Surrealism, has already been the target of scrutiny. However, his bond with objectivism is an arena yet to be explored. Accordingly, the present research conducts a comparative analysis of Royaee’s and Zukofsky’s poetry as both can be nominated as radically language-oriented poetic fads in the 1960s of Iran and 1930s of America. 
     
2. Methodology
This research is carried out by using an analytical-descriptive method and library resources. The selected poems by Royaee and Zukofsky are compared on the basis of Objectivist tenets including “particularism”, “matter of language”, and “direction of perception”. These concepts pave the way for reaching a new definition of politics in the poets’ oeuvre.
 
3. Discussion
Particularism, in the Objectivist agenda of Zukofsky, pertains to the poet’s “eye for the particles” (Dembo, 1972: 82) as he disavows cultural generalizations. For Zukofsky, such a view should also be implemented in the field of language; language should be dissected into its component parts as a loophole from the bondage of meaning, grand narratives, and macro signified(s). The poet should thus take refuge in the “matter of language”, in sounds, syllables, and letters. Such an approach is remarkably put in motion in his poetry collection, A, which is composed of twenty-four pieces. The title itself bears witness to his panache for microscopying the basic units of language. In a similar vein, Royaee’s poetry hovers around the particles of language rather than sense-making sentences. However, the difference lies in the fact that he seeks the matter of language in the repetition of familiarized, used-up words. In each act of repetition, he changes the grammatical function of the words and directs the reader’s attention to the sheer physical presence of the words on the page. The next Objectivist tentacle in Royaee and Zukofsky is direction of perception, or role of politics in poetry. In Zukofsky’s objectivism, each and every language particle has the potential to direct the mind to a marginalized, uncovered socio-political horizon. This means that he inaugurates a direction for the particles to arrive at a particular political perception, or better to say, awareness. Among the most enduring directions of perception in Zukofsky’s poetry, parochial historiography stands out; through disembodied voices, blurry images, and broken words, he depicts the working class condition in America as a historical moment that has always been pushed to the sidelines. The matter of language, thence, insinuates the materiality of American culture. If modernists like T. S. Eliot and Ezra Pound covet for the grand narratives of mythology and history, Zukofsky narrates the micro-histories and personal anecdotes of his hometown in Kentucky. His poems, thus, verge on a hazy autobiography as they radically personalize American-ness in a sharp contrast to the impersonal, modernist gesture of Eliot in The Wasteland and Pound in Cantos. Regarding Royaee’s direction of perception, critics have speculated that his poetry gravitates toward “the white margin” of mysticism, or his poems are inherently “uncommitted” (Shiri, 1388: 87). Apparently, Royaee’s poetry is devoid of the political aura of his predecessors, particularly, Youshij. However, he mobilizes the idea of politics through the event or matter of language. In his view, politics is not pinioned to cliché concepts such as freedom, equality, democracy, and justice; being-in-language and experiencing language as “a means without end”, in Giorgio Agamben’s words, can be a new political praxis. In this respect, Royaee comingles politics with ontology and language, while Zukofsky remains loyal to the dominant political terminology of the west. Unlike Zukofsky’s parochialism, Royaee’s poems remain subjectless, without signaling any token of spatio-temporality. This unravels Royaee’s idiosyncratic politics of poetry and poetry of politics founded on the bedrock of anti-dialecticism and anti-utilitarianism.
 
 
 
4. Conclusion
This research was a comparative analysis of Royaee’s espacementalisme and Zukofsky’s Objectivism from the angle of particularism and direction of perception. The matter of language is a hallmark in their poetry as they both attempt to reveal the constructiveness of reality via materiality of words by autopsying the units and particles of language like syllables and letters. The major difference between Royaee and Zukofsky surfaces in their views toward politics and perceptional direction; Zukofsky is at pains to revive the personal and the intimate in his poems by protesting against the dominant and impersonal political discourse of America, whereas Royaee does away with common political debates and dogmas. His politics lies in without-end-ness, potentiality, and resistance against references and presuppositions imposed by power and culture.