سؤال يبحث في أسباب تربّع جائزة نوبل على عرش الجوائز رغم مرور 124 سنة على تأسيسها ورغم وجود العديد من الجوائز التي تفوق نوبل قيمة وشمولية ووجاهة. فلا تزال جائزة نوبل تثير مع كل موسم من مواسمها جدلاً واسعاً وتشعل المعارك الإعلامية والفكرية والثقافية في أكثر من ساحة وعلى أكثر من صعيد، بجانب أنها الجائزة الأكثر جاذبية للسياسيين والأدباء والذين يسيل لعابهم كل عام للفوز بها والظفر بتتويج مسيرتهم باسمها ووهج حضورها.
يمكننا أن نفهم هذا البريق واللمعان اللذَين تتمتع بهما جائزة نوبل لو أنها لا تزال الجائزة الوحيدة في العالم كما بدأت مطلع القرن الماضي، كما يمكننا أن نتفهم بريق ولمعان جائزة نوبل لو أنها الجائزة الأكثر شمولية لمجالات العلوم والقضايا الحيوية في العالم، أو أنها الجائزة الأكثر قيمة مالية بين الجوائز العالمية.
ولأن جائزة نوبل ليست الوحيدة في العالم حالياً وهي بالتأكيد ليست الأشمل للعلوم والمجالات والقضايا العالمية الحيوية، كما أنها بالتأكيد ليست الأعلى قيمة مادية بين بعض نظيراتها الجوائز العالمية، نطرح سؤالاً: لماذا إذاً تحظى بهذا الاهتمام والجدل الواسع في الأوساط الإعلامية والثقافية والفكرية والسياسية، ولماذا تشكّل كل هذه الجاذبية للسياسيين والأدباء والمثقفين؟
يرى البعض أن سبب الاهتمام العالمي بهذه الجائزة هو نتيجة طبيعية لأقدميتها الزمنية 1901 والتي أسّست لثقافة الجوائز العالمية ما جعلها مرجعاً لكل الجوائز، وهو ما جعل اسمها رمزاً لعلامة تلقائية مرجعية لكل الجوائز العالمية المماثلة.
بينما يربط البعض بين هذه الجائزة والفترة الاستعمارية التي تأسست خلالها جائزة نوبل والخلفية لمؤسسها والذي أراد من الجائزة أن تكفّر عن دوره في الدمار الذي تسبّبت به اكتشافاته للعالم ومن هنا تأتي أهمية هذه الجائزة.
رغم أنني لا أختلف كثيراً مع ما تقدّم من تفسيرات لأسباب أهمية جائزة نوبل وإثارتها للجدل، إلا أنني أعطي أهمية أكثر وأكبر لنوعية الفائزين بهذه الجائزة. مؤكد أن لهذه الجائزة معايير لكن من الواضح أن لها أجندات كذلك. فهناك الكثير من الانتقادات والاتهامات لهذه الجائزة بعدم الموضوعية وعدم الحياد خاصة في جائزة السلام وجائزة الآداب.
فقد وجهت لنوبل انتقادات واسعة بسبب فوز مناحم بيغن وإسحاق رابين وشمعون بيريز رؤساء الوزارة في الكيان المحتل لفلسطين.
غير أن هذا النوع من الفائزين غير المتوقعين والبعيدين كل البعد عن الفوز، هم مصدر الجدل، وقد يكون أحد أهداف اختيارهم، هو إثارة الجدل حولهم في الإعلام وفي الأوساط السياسية.
هناك خيط رفيع بين أهداف الإعلام بشكل عام وأهداف الجوائز بمجملها، رغم أن بعض الجوائز العالمية المرموقة والرصينة لا تحبذ أن تجاري الإعلام بكل إثاراته وجدلياته ومحتوياته، لكن السؤال مشروع ومطلوب حول الأسباب التي تحول دون أن تتربع جائزة بحجم وأهمية وجدية ورصانة جائزة الملك فيصل عالمياً؟ هل هو الإعلام أم هو تاريخ التأسيس؟ أم هي موضوعات الجائزة الأكاديمية نوعاً ما؟
عبداللطيف الضويحي
جائزة نوبل.. لماذا الصخب وكيف تصدّرت الجوائز؟
14 أكتوبر 2025 - 00:00
|
آخر تحديث 14 أكتوبر 2025 - 00:00
تابع قناة عكاظ على الواتساب
A question explores the reasons behind the Nobel Prize reigning supreme among awards, despite being established 124 years ago and the existence of many other prizes that surpass it in value, comprehensiveness, and prestige. The Nobel Prize continues to spark widespread debate with each season, igniting media, intellectual, and cultural battles across various arenas and on multiple fronts. Additionally, it remains the most attractive award for politicians and writers, who yearn each year to win it and crown their careers with its name and the glow of its presence.
We can understand the luster and shine that the Nobel Prize enjoys if it were still the only award in the world, as it was at the beginning of the last century. We can also comprehend the allure of the Nobel Prize if it were the most comprehensive award for scientific fields and vital global issues, or if it were the highest in financial value among global awards.
Since the Nobel Prize is not the only award in the world today, and it is certainly not the most comprehensive for sciences and vital global issues, nor is it the highest in monetary value among some of its global counterparts, we pose the question: Why then does it receive such attention and widespread debate in media, cultural, intellectual, and political circles, and why does it create such attraction for politicians, writers, and intellectuals?
Some believe that the global interest in this award is a natural result of its historical significance since 1901, which established a culture of global awards, making it a reference for all awards and turning its name into a symbol of an automatic reference point for similar global awards.
Meanwhile, others link this prize to the colonial period during which the Nobel Prize was established and the background of its founder, who wanted the award to atone for the destruction caused by his discoveries in the world, and this is where the importance of this prize comes from.
While I do not disagree much with the interpretations presented regarding the reasons for the importance of the Nobel Prize and the controversy it generates, I place greater emphasis on the quality of the winners of this award. It is certain that this prize has criteria, but it is clear that it also has agendas. There are many criticisms and accusations directed at this prize regarding its lack of objectivity and neutrality, especially in the Peace Prize and the Literature Prize.
The Nobel Prize has faced widespread criticism due to the victories of Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Rabin, and Shimon Peres, former prime ministers of the occupying entity of Palestine.
However, this type of unexpected winners, who are far removed from the notion of deserving to win, is a source of controversy, and one of the possible objectives of their selection may be to provoke debate about them in the media and political circles.
There is a thin line between the objectives of the media in general and the objectives of awards as a whole. Although some prestigious and reputable global awards prefer not to engage with the media in all its excitements, controversies, and contents, the question remains valid and necessary regarding the reasons that prevent an award of the size, importance, seriousness, and credibility of the King Faisal Prize from being globally recognized? Is it the media, the history of its establishment, or the somewhat academic nature of the award topics?
We can understand the luster and shine that the Nobel Prize enjoys if it were still the only award in the world, as it was at the beginning of the last century. We can also comprehend the allure of the Nobel Prize if it were the most comprehensive award for scientific fields and vital global issues, or if it were the highest in financial value among global awards.
Since the Nobel Prize is not the only award in the world today, and it is certainly not the most comprehensive for sciences and vital global issues, nor is it the highest in monetary value among some of its global counterparts, we pose the question: Why then does it receive such attention and widespread debate in media, cultural, intellectual, and political circles, and why does it create such attraction for politicians, writers, and intellectuals?
Some believe that the global interest in this award is a natural result of its historical significance since 1901, which established a culture of global awards, making it a reference for all awards and turning its name into a symbol of an automatic reference point for similar global awards.
Meanwhile, others link this prize to the colonial period during which the Nobel Prize was established and the background of its founder, who wanted the award to atone for the destruction caused by his discoveries in the world, and this is where the importance of this prize comes from.
While I do not disagree much with the interpretations presented regarding the reasons for the importance of the Nobel Prize and the controversy it generates, I place greater emphasis on the quality of the winners of this award. It is certain that this prize has criteria, but it is clear that it also has agendas. There are many criticisms and accusations directed at this prize regarding its lack of objectivity and neutrality, especially in the Peace Prize and the Literature Prize.
The Nobel Prize has faced widespread criticism due to the victories of Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Rabin, and Shimon Peres, former prime ministers of the occupying entity of Palestine.
However, this type of unexpected winners, who are far removed from the notion of deserving to win, is a source of controversy, and one of the possible objectives of their selection may be to provoke debate about them in the media and political circles.
There is a thin line between the objectives of the media in general and the objectives of awards as a whole. Although some prestigious and reputable global awards prefer not to engage with the media in all its excitements, controversies, and contents, the question remains valid and necessary regarding the reasons that prevent an award of the size, importance, seriousness, and credibility of the King Faisal Prize from being globally recognized? Is it the media, the history of its establishment, or the somewhat academic nature of the award topics?


