Iranian popular culture and political culture
New York Times' reporter Michael Slackman wrote recently about the continuing struggle to create an Iranian political culture. For comparative purposes, this example offers a wonderful case to hold up to Chinese and Russian examples.Molding the Ideal Islamic Citizen
"In Iran, pleasure-loving Persian culture and traditions blend and conflict with the teachings of Shiite Islam, as well as more than a dozen other ethnic and tribal heritages...
"Such flexibility is one way the government shapes, or is shaped by, society’s attitudes and behavior. These days, however, its use is an exception. The current government has become far better known for employing the opposite strategy: insisting that society and individuals bend to its demands and to its chosen definition of what it is to be a citizen of Iran.
"In fact, both tools remain part of a larger goal: securing the Islamic Republic by remolding people’s own definitions of themselves. In that way, the strategy resembles the failed effort in the Soviet Union to build a national identity — the New Soviet Man...
"Since 1979, the clerics of Iran have tried to forge a new national identity based primarily on a marriage of Shiite Islamic teachings with a revolutionary ideology. Initially, some leaders tried to dilute the pre-Islamic Zoroastrian traditions. But that effort proved impossible and has largely been abandoned.
"Other Iranian governments since the 1979 revolution have also tried to adapt to the realities of modernity, but those efforts did not last. President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani tried to open the state-controlled economy, and President Mohammad Khatami tried to ease the strict controls on dress, public behavior and free speech.
"Both those efforts have been rolled back. Rather than rest comfortably on the reality that the Islamic Republic and its institutions have survived for three decades, hard-line leaders still seem to be afraid that the system is vulnerable. And so their struggle continues.
"'From one president to another the whole orientation of the country changes,' said a prominent political scientist in Tehran who, in the current climate of fear, agreed to speak only if he remained anonymous. 'Why? Because we do not have a consensus on who we are or where we are going.'...
"For the generation born after the revolution, religion has been mandatory, no longer revolutionary. Before then, a woman wore an Islamic covering or hijab, for example, as an act of rebellion. For this generation, the head scarf is an obligation, and taking it off is viewed as a challenge to the state..."
Labels: change, Iran, political culture
posted by Ken Wedding @ 7:06 AM
3 Comments:
This is a great suggestion. I'm going to use it in class today to reinforce an article by Mark Juergensmeyer ("The New Religious State").
See also:
Mark Juergensmeyer, Director, Orfalea Center for Global and International Studies and Professor, Global and International Studies; Sociology; and Religious Studes, University of California, Santa Barbara
Find Articles page for Mark Juergensmeyer.
I missed it at the time, but Miguel Centellas referred to this post in his blog, Pronto with some more detailed info about what his students were reading.
Nations, states, civilizations
September 14, 2007
Tags: comparative politics Iran teaching
I’m constantly glad I’ve signed up for the Teaching Comparative Politics blog newsletter. Today it linked to a story in the New York Times about Iran’s attempts at “Molding the Ideal Islamic Citizen.” They suggest using it to make comparisons w/ similar efforts to create “new” citizens in the Soviet Union & China. But I have other ideas.
The article will fit perfectly w/ today’s discussion. Students were assigned three articles to read from Essential Readings in Comparative Politics:
Samuel Huntington (1993), “The Clash of Civilizations”—which argues that the world is now divided into “civilizations” (Western-Christian, Islamic, Hindu, etc.) as the fault lines of political conflict.
Amartya Sen (2002), “Civilizational Imprisonments: How to Misunderstand Everybody in the World”—which argues that Huntington is reductionist: civilizations are more complex than many realize & individuals can hold multiple identities.
Mark Juergensmeyer (1995), “The New Religious State”—which argues that “theocratic” states (in particular Islamic ones, but he mentions others) are similar to “secular” nation-states (if we accept that nationalism is a “secular religion”).
Last week they read about states & the historical-institutional development of modern states. This week they’ve been reading about nations, society, and political culture. Today was set aside for “in class discussion”—particularly as Huntington & Sen clearly hold conflicting views. The Times piece will (I hope) make the Juergensmeyer article more salient.
Post a Comment
<< Home