The Fine Art of Hiding What You Mean to Say - Iranian 101: A Lesson for Americans

The Pernicious NY Times ^ | August 6, 2006 | MICHAEL SLACKMAN

[neverdem]

TEHRAN

IT is certainly unfair to accuse all Iranians of being liars. The label is judgmental and reeks of stereotype. The more appropriate way to phrase the Iranian view toward honesty, the way many Iranians themselves describe it, is to say that being direct and telling the truth are not prized principles in Iran.

Often, just the opposite is true. People are expected to give false praise and insincere promise. They are expected to tell you what you want to hear to avoid conflict, or to offer hope when there is none.

There is a social principle in Iran called taarof, a concept that describes the practice of insincerity — of inviting people to dinner when you don’t really want their company, for example. Iranians understand such practices as manners and are not offended by them.

But taarof is just one aspect of a whole framework for communication that can put Iranian words in a completely different context from the one Americans are familiar with.

“You have to guess if people are sincere, you are never sure,” said Nasser Hadian, a political science professor at the University of Tehran. “Symbolism and vagueness are inherent in our language.”

This way of communicating is suddenly essential for Americans to understand. Increasingly, it appears that the road to peace, and war, runs through Tehran. And so hearing what Iranians are really saying, not what Americans think they are saying, has become a priority. Iran has outsized influence with Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. It has profound influence with the newly empowered Shiites of Iraq. And it is locked in its own fight with the United Nations Security Council over its ambition to develop nuclear technology.

And yet, understanding each other — forget about agreeing — is complicated from the start.

“Speech has a...,”

[rlmorel]

Traditionally, one of America's distinguishing characteristics is that we were blunt and to the point.

We say what we mean, and we mean what we say. This is often interpreted for rudeness, and so in those cultures, it may well be.

But it is also what has made America great. We don't pussyfoot around with diplomacy, we get stuff done, whether in the business arena or the military arena.

We WANT to say what we mean, and not hide it. Other cultures...your mileage may vary...:)

[USNBandit]

They are expected to tell you what you want to hear to avoid conflict, or to offer hope when there is none.

So when the heads of the Iranian government say that Israel should be bombed into a nuclear slag heap, what are they trying to say?

[I see my hands]

"it is certainly unfair to accuse all Iranians of being liar"

I'd say so. The statement omits naming all middle easterners as the liars they are.

[sionnsar]

Comment?

[ancient_geezer]

The more appropriate way to phrase the Iranian view toward honesty, the way many Iranians themselves describe it, is to say that being direct and telling the truth are not prized principles in Iran.

Ahhhh!!!

Iranian = UN diplomat.

If it quacks like a duck ...

[Aquinasfan]

"Say 'yes' when you mean 'yes,' and 'no' when you mean 'no.' Anything else is from the devil." --Jesus

[expatpat]

You see, 'nuanced' is SO important......

[nuconvert]

Don't have time to say much now, but this article is a mixture of truth and bs. IOW, your typical NY Times article.

[Publius6961]

IT is certainly unfair to accuse all Iranians of being liars. The label is judgmental and reeks of stereotype.

Well, that's one person's opinion.
I have no problem whatsoever with the concept of "judgmental", and the value of "stereotyping" does not bother me in the least.

First of all, I am not likely ever to have direct or even indirect contact with all Iranians, particularly those in Iran; indeed, the only real basis for any judgement at all is what is publicly uttered by their leaders and random quotes from forums and blogs. Thus, I must make whatever judgement I think is appropriate from that. That, and what appears in the national and world press.

Being judgemental is the homage reason pays to experience. Any rational human being who is not judgemental is insane. Lacking personal, first hand experience is not a prerequisite to being able to weigh good vs evil, benefit vs damage, good intentions vs bad. Aside from the spoken word, perhaps more valuable is the role that actions play in the determination of whether being intensely judgmental in a negative way towards a group or a country is justified. For Iran, since 1979, I have no problem categorizing them, nor feel in the slightest apologetic for judging them as uniformly bad.

On to "stereotyping". Stereotyping is the mechanism humans rely on to categorize potential predator from prey in all social interactions, personal, societal and international. Human nature tends towards evil whenever it has the ability and the opportunity to do so, and it is up to the potential victims to deal with it as best they can. Stereotyping is thus not only a good thing, it is an essential survival mechanism.

Criticizing either is a demonstration of the triumph of Political Correctness over serious thought and, untimately, the opening needed for evil to triumph.

Did I mention that I reject this article in total? No matter what follows, the basic premise ignores 6000 years of human actions and history.

[etcetera]

This whole article can be boiled down this: Middle Easterners will lie to your face without a second thought.

[gandalftb]

Interesting, confirms my own experience. My college room-mate was Persian and I got to know many Persians. Of course we played a lot of poker, which they were all well versed in and loved to play, along with many Arab students.

The Persians, as a group, were open and obvious cheats. The Arabs knew what they were doing and we Westerners soon got wise and all Farsi was banned at the tables, by common agreement.

Every other game I played in, soon had the same rules.

Persians are very likeable people. My next door neighbor is from Tehran, but I find that he changes stories around, unnessarily, constantly.

I conclude that they just like to engage in practice-realities until some future version gets them the most advantage.

[Publius6961]

Reading the entire article is educational, but not much help. The basic premise is a non-starter, that Iran somehow is entitled, due to its cultural primitiveness, to advantages modern societies may not claim. In other words, advanced cultures owe less advanced ones.
That will never work; can never work.
It would be both tedious and useless to try to respond to each iteration of the same thought, but perhaps this paragraph typifies the drift:

Perhaps more important, such diplomats and Iranians themselves said, Americans need to understand Iran’s approach to interpersonal communications in order to understand the complexities Iranians face in dealing with each other. Analyst after analyst said that after centuries of cloaking their true feelings, Iranians are often unsure whom they can trust when dealing with each other, let alone foreigners.

What this paragraph suggests is that Iran is not ready to join the commonwealth of modern civilized nations.
Expecting the superior culture to yield precisely because it is superior is non-sensical. That can only make sense in the mind of a muslim.

Iran, like all other muslim countries, deems itself superior and destined to rule, and acts accordingly in all things, social and political. Just as Islam itself does.
It is not equal to dar al Harb, but always superior; in theory if not in reality.

To summarize, in the vernacular, when dealing with cockroaches one can not negotiate; Why would anyone want to? It then follows that pretending that they are superior, or even equal, is a lot to ask, whether they are wallowing in their third world hellholes, or pretending to be equal on the world stage.

Their expectation that the rest of the world must change because "muslims generally, and Iran specifically, don't know better", is a delusional hope.

One nuke, or a hundred, can't change that.

[ApplegateRanch]

“It doesn’t mean people are lying,” he said. “They are just dealing with you with a different character.”

No.

It is lying to call it not lying.

Satan has always spoken with lies, and they are his children, born with forked tongues.

And, screw accommodating them; let them adapt to us for once. Most streets are two way, so the lying liars need to learn how to tell the truth, if they ever want to be believed.

[LibreOuMort]

There are certainly enough LIARS around in this world that we don't need to emphasize one kind to the exclusion of others. Has anyone here ever told "little white lie?" You know, the kind you tell when somebody asks your opinion of what s/he is wearing (and you are in public)? We Americans certainly don't tell the truth ALL THE TIME, do we?

I can think of instances when and where it would not be wise to say exactly what is on our minds. People are weird. They react unexpectedly to comments we make, even in passing.

Anecdotal Evidence:Last month, when doing my job in a local supermarket, I was talking to the Meat Manager about a missing display item that I had installed in his store. Other stores with simliar displays had experienced theft of the display items by customers - yes, don't act so shocked.

[American customers steal display items from stores all the time because they like them and want them for themselves, a friend, a relative, a child....you "catch my drift?" Regardless of the fact that the attached tag reads "ITEM NOT FOR SALE", custoners make off with thousands of dollars of merchandising product each week in this country. The cost to my employer is outrageous. The cost to me in this case, was quite nearly my job. ]

A Middle Aged Caucasian American Female customer overheard my remark to the Meat Manager and butted in very offensively. She reared back, spat out an accusing statement in my direction and when I turned around to defend myself she took down my name from my badge and proceeded toward the back of the meat counter chasing the Meat Manager demanding he give her the number for my employer's office headquarters. He refused so she pulled out her cell phone and began loudly making remarks about how I was rude to a customer and that I had accused her of stealing and that she would be reporting my behavior to the CEO!

I left the store, called my boss and told him what had happened. He asked for an email write-up of the incident so he could forward it to "corporate" with his defense of me as his recruit. I was in fear for several days over this "affair" because I thought the missing item would be blamed on me and I would be fired. It turned out the customer was all bluster and no muster, but I lost sleep over this.

Just goes to show: better watch what you say, to whom you say it and whom is listening. You never know what it might cost you. I learned from this that Americans are not only rude and obnoxious, but downright belligerent and hostile when confronted with their lies. Americans often act like they think they own the whole damn world and that is offensive to me. I am an American, but sometimes I am not proud to be one!

Iranians I know would never act like this woman - never in a million years. They have way too much to lose.

[knuthom]

“It is up to America to understand us, because it is stronger,” said Mr. Leylaz, the political analyst.

I think he has it backwards.

[Publius6961]

BUMP!

[FARS]

There is a Persian expression that best describes and answers your question. It says "speak to the door the wall will hear" - meaning you address the door so that you obliquely or indirectly pass on what you want the wall to hear and understand.

In ancient, sphosticated cultures - like Irnian, the Chinese or Japanese to be direct is to be rude as it provides no wiggle room for the other party to avoid what you say and thus being obliged to react to it.

In a slow moving world of centuries ago, we did not have the rush we adopt now, so this was not only fine but the many ways to be indirect, sometimes even using poetry created on the spot, or attributions to famous or sometimes preferably less known writers, were an entertainment and a test of wits.

The remnants of this still exist in slower societies in different parts of the world.

Oblique references are wht set me off like a rocket when I got reports from Iran via Alan Peters AntiMullah that Ahmadi-Nejad has stated "he would make an announcement in the next few days after which the world of Islam would not have to worry about Israel's nuclear weapons or capability ever again".

In the oblique style of conversation this immediately could mean he was gong to nuke Israel. And YES he does have four nukes on missiles already so this caused me and many others huge alarm and worry.

Perfect example of "indirect speech", which in reality can be interpreted in several ways - thus leaving both the speaker and the listener "wiggle room". In this instance much too serious to ignore. In fact he strted the Hezbollah attacks not long afterward. And that is not over.

I am still concerned that we shall wake up one morning and discover the lunatic has irradiated Israel.

The above should provide you some focus for your question.