منبر به ‌مثابه پلتفرم: عاملیت انسانی در برابر مرجعیت الگوریتمی

گودرزی, محسن

doi:10.22034/acmj.2026.591910.1009

منبر به ‌مثابه پلتفرم: عاملیت انسانی در برابر مرجعیت الگوریتمی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

محسن گودرزی

استادیار گروه علوم اجتماعی دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی دانشگاه اصفهان

10.22034/acmj.2026.591910.1009

چکیده

پژوهش حاضر منبر را به‌مثابه پلتفرمی رسانه‌ای در تقابل با منطق الگوریتمی پلتفرم‌های دیجیتال واکاوی می‌کند. پیشینه پژوهشی موجود در این زمینه عمدتاً از سه زاویه هویتی، سیاسی-اجتماعی و مواجهه با رسانه‌های مدرن به پدیده منبر نگریسته و بیشتر به دنبال توصیف آن بوده است. یافته‌های حاصل از سنتز نظریه‌های شفاهیت، امکان‌بخشی و مرجعیت، سه مؤلفه‌ی بنیادین را آشکار می‌سازد: نخست، شفاهیت زنده و اجرایی که بازخورد آنی و هم‌سازی مخاطب را ممکن می‌کند؛ دوم، امکانات کنشی برآمده از معماری مکانی-قدسی منبر که مشارکت را در قالب آئین‌هایی از پیش ‌تعیین‌شده سازمان می‌دهد؛ و سوم و مهم‌تر، مرجعیتی آشکارا شخصی، پاسخ‌گو و نام‌دار که در نقطه‌ی مقابل مرجعیت غیرشخصی، خنثی‌نما و غیرقابل‌بازخواست الگوریتم‌ها قرار می‌گیرد. بر این اساس، توصیه‌ رایج «هم‌گرایی» با رسانه‌های جمعی به‌چالش کشیده و استدلال می‌شود که بقای منبر نه در تقلید از منطق الگوریتم، بلکه در تعمیق «عاملیت انسانی پاسخ‌گو» برای بازتولید همبستگی اجتماعی و گفت‌وگوی زنده با آحاد جامعه خصوصاً گروه‌های حاشیه‌ای و اقلیت معنا می‌یابد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

منبر

ارتباطات شفاهی

امکانات پلتفرم

مرجعیت پلتفرم

عاملیت انسانی

عاملیت الگوریتمی

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

Minbar as a Platform: Human Agency versus Algorithmic Authority

نویسنده English

Mohsen Goudarzi

Faculty Member, Social Sciences Department, University of Isfahan, Iran

چکیده English

This study aims to fill the theoretical gap in the existing literature on the minbar by examining this phenomenon as a media platform in contrast to the algorithmic logic of contemporary digital platforms. The findings, derived from a synthesis of theories of orality, affordance, and authority, reveal three fundamental components. First, live and performative orality facilitates real-time feedback and audience engagement. Second, the action possibilities afforded by the minbar's spatial-sacred architecture organize participation through predetermined ritualistic forms. Third, and most importantly, the minbar embodies an explicitly personal, accountable, and named authority, standing in direct opposition to the impersonal, ostensibly neutral, and unaccountable authority of algorithms. Consequently, the prevalent recommendation of "convergence" with mass media is challenged. It is argued that the survival of the minbar does not lie in imitating algorithmic logic, but rather in deepening "accountable human agency" to reproduce social solidarity and foster live dialogue with all segments of society, particularly marginalized groups and minorities.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Minbar

Oral Communication

Platform Affordances

Platform Authority

Human Agency

Algorithmic Agency

· ابن‌الدین حمیدی، م. (۱۳۹۰). بررسی تحولات رسانه‌های دینی و تأثیر آن بر باورهای دینی مردم ایران. فصلنامۀ پاسداری فرهنگی انقلاب اسلامی، ۲۹‑۵۰.

· حسینی، س. (۱۳۸۸). نگاهی به رسانۀ منبر. علوم قرآن و حدیث، ۱۰۱‑۱۰۵.

· حسینی، س. (۱۴۰۲). نقش منبر به‌مثابۀ هویت رسانه‌ای حوزه در قرن اخیر. دوفصلنامۀ دین و رسانه، ۴۹‑۶۵.

· رضوانی، ع. (۱۳۹۷). نقش و جایگاه منبر در افغانستان. معارف اسلامی و تبلیغ و ارتباطات، ۹۲‑۱۰۳.

· کولیوند، ز. (۱۳۹۲). رسانه‌ای به قدمت اسلام؛ کارکرد منبر در انقلاب اسلامی. زمانه، ۵۳.

· مدنی مبارکه، س. (۱۳۸۹). حضور رسانۀ منبر در رادیو و تلویزیون. دوفصلنامۀ دین و رسانه، ۱۱‑۳۹.

· ویسبورد، س. (۱۴۰۰). ارتباطات: یک پسارشته. (م. گودرزی، مترجم). تهران: پژوهشگاه فرهنگ، هنر و ارتباطات.

· Aazam, Z. (2005). The social logic of the mosque: A building and urban spatial investigation. In Proceedings of the 5th International Space Syntax Symposium. Cardiff University, UK.

· Adnan, N. A., Shahminan, R. N. R., & Ahmad, F. (2022). Golden ratio assessments of aesthetic value and proportion on existing Minbar at the state Mosques in Johore. Environment, 134‑144.

· Al‑Zaman, M. S. (2020). Religious communication in digital public sphere. Journal Panellation, 29‑42.

· Argyle, M. (2013). Bodily communication (2nd ed.). Routledge.

· Bier, C. (2019). The Aleppo Minbar: Symmetry and Islamic aesthetics: Art and science. The Journal of the International Society for the Interdisciplinary Study of Symmetry, 70‑73.

· Bolle, K. W. (Ed.). (1987). Secrecy in religions (Vol. 49). Brill Archive.

· Boyd, d. (2026). Social media is now parasocial media. Social media + Society, 12(2).

· Bucher, T. (2017). The algorithmic imaginary: exploring the ordinary affects of Facebook algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 30‑44.

· Campbell, H. A. (2007). Who's got the power? Religious authority and the internet. Journal of Computer‑Mediated Communication, 1043‑1062.

· Campbell, H. A. (2012). Understanding the relationship between religious practice online and offline in a networked society. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 64‑93.

· Chikhaoui, N., & Casewit, F. J. (2004). The minbar: Symbol of verticality and elevation. Sacred Web: A Journal of Tradition and Modernity, 91‑107.

· Civetta, P. (2008). Khutbah/Community: Islam, preaching, and congregational identity. Ecumenica, 23‑37.

· Cotter, K. (2019). Playing the visibility game: How digital influencers and algorithms negotiate influence on Instagram. New Media & Society, 895‑913.

· Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2019). The costs of connection: How data is colonizing human life and appropriating it for capitalism. Stanford University Press.

· Craig, R. T. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 119‑161.

· Cummins, S., & Stille, M. (2021). Religious emotions and emotions in religion: The case of sermons. Journal of Religious History, 3‑24.

· Ebrahimi, M., & Yusoff, K. (2018). The impact of cultural diversity on mosques in Malaysia. Asian Culture and History, 45‑57.

· Elder‑Vass, D. (2008). Searching for realism, structure and agency in actor network theory. The British Journal of Sociology, 455‑473.

· Elder‑Vass, D. (2015). Disassembling actor‑network theory. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 100‑121.

· Eslami, M., Rickman, A., Vaccaro, K., Aleyasen, A., Vuong, A., Karahalios, K., Hamilton, K., & Sandvig, C. (2015). "I always assumed that I wasn't really that close to [her]": Reasoning about invisible algorithms in news feeds. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 153‑162.

· Evans, S. K., Pearce, K. E., Vitak, J., & Treem, J. W. (2017). Explicating affordances: A conceptual framework for understanding affordances in communication research. Journal of Computer‑Mediated Communication, 35‑52.

· Fathi, A. (1979). The role of the Islamic pulpit. Journal of Communication, pp 102–106.

· Fathi, A. (1981). The Islamic pulpit as a medium of political communication. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 163‑172.

· Finlay, L. (2002a). Negotiating the swamp: The opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice. Qualitative Research, 209‑230.

· Finlay, L. (2002b). “Outing” the researcher: The provenance, process, and practice of reflexivity. Qualitative Health Research, 531‑545.

· Finnegan, R. (2003). Oral traditions and the verbal arts: A guide to research practices. Routledge.

· Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.

· Gillespie, T. (2010). The politics of platforms. New Media & Society, 347‑364.

· Gillespie, T. (2014). The relevance of algorithms. In T. Gillespie, P. J. Boczkowski, & K. A. Foot (Eds.), Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society (pp 167‑194). MIT Press.

· Gillespie, T. (2018). Regulation of and by platforms. In J. Burgess, A. Marwick, & T. Poell (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social media (pp 254‑278). SAGE Publications.

· Hirschheim, R. (2008). Some guidelines for the critical reviewing of conceptual papers. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 21.

· Howarth, T. (2005). The Twelver Shi'a as a Muslim minority in India: Pulpit of tears. Routledge.

· Hutchby, I. (2001). Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology, 441‑456.

· Imamuddin, S. M. (1984). Mosque as a centre of education in the early Middle Ages. Islamic Studies, 159‑170.

· Ingold, T. (2018). Back to the future with the theory of affordances. Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 39‑44.

· Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches. AMS Review, 18‑26.

· Jones, L. G. (2012). The power of oratory in the medieval Muslim world. In M. Cook, N. Haider, I. Rabb, & A. Sayeed (Eds.), Law and tradition in classical Islamic thought (pp 249‑266). Palgrave Macmillan.

· Karimitar, A. (2019). Mourning rituals and their psychological meanings in Iranian culture [Master's thesis, Washington State University].

· Karizat, N., Delmonaco, D., Eslami, M., & Andalibi, N. (2021). Algorithmic folk theories and identity: How TikTok users co‑produce knowledge of identity and engage in algorithmic resistance. Proceedings of the ACM on Human‑Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW2), 1‑44.

· Kühn, M. (2023). The epigraphical program of Mamluk minbars: Religious and Quranic inscriptions emphasizing minbars as a site for preaching. Journal of Material Cultures in the Muslim World, 35‑77.

· Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor‑network‑theory. Oxford University Press.

· Lawrence, B. B. (2008). Review essay: Introducing Islam or reviling Muslims? Contemporary Islam, 85‑89.

· MacInnes, D. J. (2011). A framework for conceptual contributions in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 136‑154.

· Malmström, H. (2016). Engaging the congregation: The place of meta discourse in contemporary preaching. Applied Linguistics, 561‑582.

· McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. McGraw‑Hill.

· Mengual, M. P. (2023). Designing physical interaction platforms. Springer Fachmedien.

· Mostafa, H. (2016). The early mosque revisited: Introduction of the minbar and maqsura. Muqarnas, 1‑16.

· Musahadi. (2016). The role of mosque and khutba in socio‑economic development in Indonesia. Global Journal Al‑Thaqafah, 55‑66.

· Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. Basic Books.

· Okhuysen, G., & Bonardi, J. P. (2011). The challenges of building theory by combining lenses. Academy of Management Review, 6‑11.

· Omer, S. (2010). Some lessons from Prophet Muhammad (SAW) in architecture: The Prophet’s Mosque in Madinah. Intellectual Discourse, 115‑140.

· Ong, W. J., & Hartley, J. (2013). Orality and literacy (2nd ed.). Routledge.

· Peters, J. D. (1999). Speaking into the air: A history of the idea of communication. University of Chicago Press.

· Retsö, J. (2020). The framework of Islamic rhetoric: The ritual of the khuṭba and its origin. In S. Stjernholm & E. Özdalga (Eds.), Muslim preaching in the Middle East and beyond: Historical and contemporary case studies (pp. 19‑29). Edinburgh University Press.

· Rock‑Singer, A. (2016). Prayer and the Islamic revival: A timely challenge. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 48(2), 293‑312.

· Sheikhbagloo, O., & Mohamadzadeh, M. (2019). The development flow of wooden minbars in Iran. Persian Cultural Heritage, 57‑65.

· Shirky, C. (2009, November). A speculative post on the idea of algorithmic authority [Blog post]. http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/11/a-speculative-post-on-the-idea-of-algorithmic-authority/

· Sreberny‑Mohammadi, A. (1990). Small media for a big revolution: Iran. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 341‑371.

· van Dijck, J., Poell, T., & De Waal, M. (2018). The platform society: Public values in a connective world. Oxford University Press.

· Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (G. Roth & C. Wittich, Eds.). University of California Press. (Original work published 1922)

· Ytre‑Arne, B., & Moe, H. (2021). Folk theories of algorithms: Understanding digital irritation. Media, Culture & Society, 807‑824.

· Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. Public Affairs.

· Zwemer, S. M. (1933). The pulpit in Islam. The Muslim World, 217‑229.