بررسی پدیدارشناسانۀ حیوان‌آزاری در مراسم ورزاجنگ

“Varzajang”, has long been a source of entertainment for some people, but its main core is “war”, and the issue of different generations, i.e. "human-animal interaction", remains. Considering that the existing social reality is not separate from the experiential background of the people involved in it, and the natural views make the continuation of the phenomenon stand out, according to some researchers, it is called social cohesion and economic function, and Varzajang actors want its continuation under the title of preserving the native game, and defend the tradition, using the phenomenological method with focusing on the direct approach, tried to answer this question, what is the intention of these actors in different generations to be in the mentioned position? The result of this study indicates that the proponents and opponents face "phantom pain" And the only possibility to get rid of the mentioned dangers is to embrace “with” the world in which we are thrown.
Keywords: Varzajang, bullfighting, animal abuse, phenomenology, animal rights
 
Introduction
The phenomenon of “Varzajang” in the north of Iran is the fighting of two bulls. This event in its first instance, a show was among the entertainments of the native people, but little by little it became an opportunity to represent the rule of the kings in the celebrations. In the last few centuries, with the change of generational relations, this show has become a platform for gambling.
Since this social reality is not separated from the experience of the people involved in it, relying on the most central presupposition of modernity, which is the necessity of rationality, we seek to investigate the situation of the people of Gilan and provide the possibility of questioning about animal abuse and animal rights among Varzajang activists. In this regard, by choosing a lived experience among the described social group, we discussed the natural attitudes among the supporters of this group. The question is, what is the intention of these activists to be in the described position? Therefore, in this research, we have in mind the reduction of harm (to humans or animals) and the reduction of evil.
Materials & Methods
The first experience
A man said: “In the past, bulls were free in autumn, they easily went to pasture and sometimes they returned home after a few months; there was always a possibility of a fight between the bulls. These wars were far from our interference, but to prevent untimely wars, we tried to limit the fighting of the bulls so that the bulls would recognize one of them as the superior bull. Therefore, we were watching the bullfight”.
The second experience
One day, I went to see a family who supported their living expenses by breeding bulls. According to the belief of most fans of Varzajang, the bull wants to go to war! For them, an animal is not just a living being; it is a part of their life that they can talk to, love, even dance, and play with animals.
I asked someone, why do you send an animal that you raised with love to be killed on the battlefield?  He said: “First of all, we don't want them to be injured, but many people in our city sent their children to the war in Syria for their belief! Didn't they love their children?! All this, I fight for the comfort of the animal; Let him fight for me once”.
Contrary to Gholami's (1390) account of the animal war, my experience represented the death of one of the bulls on the battlefield. No gambling loser was worried about a bull who fought to the end! Betting winners don't care about animals and promise each other a barbecue. Here, all the five freedoms of Singer (2015) around the welfare of animals apply, but no one thinks for a moment about killing animals. Although some Varzajang activists know that animals suffer from physical and non-physical injuries, no one wants to admit cruelty to animals.
Classification of bullfighters
According to the definition of animal abuse, Varzajang activists can be divided into several categories:
1) They are not aware of their animal abuse or do not admit it.
2) They admit to animal cruelty to some extent, but they are engaged in it.
3) Animal cruelty is not relevant for them.
4) To some extent, they admit to the animal cruelty of others, but they consider themselves spectators!
Discussion and conclusion
At present, the varzajang relying on tradition without critical thinking continues. Even Bromberger (2017), expresses hope that this play will be held in Iran without a ban! In other words, on the one hand, Gholami (1390), Mousavi (1386), Jamali (1401), not only did not mention the rights of animals, but they sought to open a way to hold a truth called native traditions. On the other hand, many studies related to animal rights in Iran have used religious discourse to oppose the suffering of animals. According to Blumenberg, we are witnessing “Phantom Pain”. Based on this concept, those who have a limb amputated cannot cope with the loss of the limb and for a long time think that the empty place of this limb hurts. Blumenberg considers a challenge of the modern era to be the problem that some people still speak in the language of theology (Kroll, 1400). Therefore, dealing with this issue in an independent framework is felt as a modern necessity as the ideal of the rule of wisdom for the individual and social well-being of Iranian citizens, because a large number of Iranian researchers are still facing Phantom Pain and are trying to solve the problems of the modern world with traditional means. Not only the researchers but also the people involved in the Varzajang ceremony are facing Phantom Pain; in the sense that they cannot cope with the loss of a missing limb (animal as an instrument) in the modern world