Farzin Vahdat - review of Danny Postel's Reading Legitimation Crisis in Iran

In Persian there is a piece of proverbial wisdom that praises a statement, a report, an analysis, or even a book, for being brief—and thereby beneficial. To a person who is not getting to the point, Iranians politely plead to be “brief and beneficial.” Danny Postel’s book, Reading Legitimation Crisis in Tehran, does a good deal of justice to this Persian wisdom by succinctly broaching very important issues about the current political struggle in Iran and the attitude of western progressive forces to it.

At the very outset Postel’s book poses four essential and interrelated questions and then attempts to respond to them. Firstly, why are progressive forces in the U.S. and the west in general are so confused and silent about the clamor for political and social change that is currently taking place in Iran? Secondly, why in the contemporary Iranian intellectual and political activism scenes it is “liberalism” and not Marxism, or one of its more contemporary successors such as post-colonial discourse, that enjoys currency? Thirdly, how can we explain the rich and vibrant political and philosophical discourse that is developing in Iran and what lessons this development has for the western progressive forces? And finally, what sense can we make of Michel Foucault’s views of the Islamic revolution of late 1970s in Iran?

Postel mentions three barriers of language, geographical distance and the relative small number of Iranians in the US, as a partial explanation of the first question. But these are relatively less important. The core reasons for the American and western leftists’ being reluctant to embrace the cause of Iranians who are trying to bring about change in their country lies somewhere else. The essential reason for this reluctance is that American progressives are used to advocate those causes that are fighting the Empire and their local lackeys. The Left in the US has developed what Postel calls a “tunnel vision” that deems only the political and social movements that are fighting right wing oppressors who are supported by the United States, worthy of embracing—such as those in Central America in the 1980s. The Iranian dissidents are fighting a government that is a “sworn enemy” of the Empire.

What is more, the oppositional forces in Iran, are not couching their opposition in discourses such as Marxism, post-structuralism, post-colonialism, subaltern studies and different mixtures of these. The Iranian progressive forces have by and large adopted western liberal-democratic discourse and its past and contemporary gurus to advance their cause. These are very significant issues that have prevented the western progressive forces, if not opposing Iranians seeking change in their country, at least being aloof to them and their fierce struggle in recent years. For the far left in the west, liberalism is a tool of imperialism and embodiment of Eurocentrism. Why should they support a cause that utilizes a discourse that they deem to be at the core of what they are struggling against? The Iranian reformists are then the friends of my enemy, and therefore, if not my enemy, they are not my friend either.

Thus, Postel embarks on a valiant attempt to expose the fallacies that are lurking in this type of analysis. First, he argues, “liberalism” in the context of contemporary Iran, is quite revolutionary. The quest for human rights, women’s rights, civil liberties, pluralism, religious toleration, freedom of expression and multi-party democracy, are indeed nothing but a radical attempt to bring about liberation to majority of Iranians who have been in bondage to various forms of tyranny for centuries. Secondly, Postel correctly points out, Iranian reformers are quite sophisticated when it comes to their understanding of the west. They are aware and critical of Western domination and the hegemonic aspects of its discourse, but they are sophisticated enough to distinguish western imperialism from the empancipatory discourses and institutions that happen to have been developed in the west. Moreover, it is quite significant that Iranian dissidents who come to west, for the most part, have not been seduced by the neocons. On this issue it is important to note that Postel’s book is somewhat too sanguine and generous. A very important exception to this general trend is the book Reading Lolita in Tehran, and some exile activist who have indeed bitten the bait of the neocons.

In a similar vein, Postel shows the ironical situation of the western left vis-à-vis Iran. Their very anti-imperialism is a form of imperialism in that it ignores and tarnishes the efforts of Iranian reformists to bring about change in their society. And Postel provides a very enlightening example: in a talk by Shirin Ebadi, a western leftist activist attempts to muzzle Ebadi saying that her criticism of abuses of human rights in Iran plays into the hands of the neocons and their desire to launch an attack on Iran.

A section of Postel’s book focuses on why certain discourses are attractive to Iranian students, activists, reformist, and intellectuals and certain other discourses are not. What Iranians at this point are attracted to are Kant, Hegel, the Frankfurt School thinkers, Habermas, Hannah Arendt, Karl Popper, Isaiah Berlin, just to mention a few. Marxism, post-colonial discourse, post-structuralism, post-modernism, Foucault, Derrida (with the exception of certain aspects of their work) do not generate much interest in Iran. Marxism, in Iranian’s experience, like many other parts of the world, has brought mostly dogmatism, tyranny and Soviet and Soviet-style domination for Iran. The post-colonial discourse doesn’t make much sense in Iran’s context either (but Postel treats this issue rather in passing and in my view this very important question deserves much more elaborate treatment). Post-colonial discourse emanates mostly from the historical experience of the sub-continent and as a whole is alien to the Islamic world for various reasons. Post-colonialism is an attempt to fashion an identity for those parts of the world which were savagely colonized by the west and has to oppose the west for existential reasons. But Iran, and many parts of the Islamic world have not shared this experience. The west for Iranians is not all negative, and they appreciate its emancipatory aspects. Iranians are very interested in the notion of human subjectivity and agency which constitute the very foundation of modernity and democracy. In contrast to many parts of the formerly colonized parts of the world, Iran as a Muslim country has a very strong sense of subjectivity and agency built into its very metaphysical foundations. Post-colonial discourse, which in its attempts to deconstruct the west undermines the notion of human subjectivity, is very alien to Iran’s metaphysical foundations. I wish Postel would have elaborate somewhat more on this issue in this book.

But Postel addresses an issue that is close to this question in his treatment of Foucault and his misunderstanding of Iran. Foucault went to Iran during the height of revolution and myopically saw what he wanted to see to corroborate his anti-humanist theories. Foucault quixotically viewed Iranian revolution as the revolution against modernity that he would have loved to see take place in the west. But as he mistook the Shah’s regimes as the embodiment of modernity he misunderstood the Islamic revolution as the anti-modern revolution of our time. He did not realize that Iranian revolution was in fact the proto-modernist revolution of Islamic puritanical Protestantism. Unfortunately Postel makes the same mistake that Foucault made in regarding Iranian revolution as anti-modern, of course Foucault celebrated it while Postel laments it. Because of the very fact that Iranian Islamic revolutionary discourse of the 1960s and 70s which created the Islamic Republic of the 80s subscribed to a form of indirect human subjectivity and agency, mediated by the Subjectivity and Agency of God, it is nothing but the beginning of modernity in the Iran and in fact in the Islamic world. This is an important issue that needs to be recognized.

Another important issue that needs to be addressed in a book such as Postel’s which attempts defends certain notions of liberalism is to distinguish between different shades of liberalism. One may think of categories such as “bourgeois liberalism” and “democratic liberalism,” the first and foremost seeing liberty in terms of freedom of to engage in economic activity without any restraint, while the second places more emphasis on different types of rights.

On the whole I think this is very timely book that addresses a crucial question in our time, namely, the solidarity and sympathy that the progressive forces in the west and the United States can extend to their counterparts in Iran. The progressive forces, the NGO’s and intellectuals can do much more that just opposing a war in Iran; they can and should actively get involved in supporting the reforms in Iran. Postel’s plea in this direction is quite helpful and persuasive. We can fruitfully compare the current situation of Iran to that of the last years of Soviet time and the failure of the progressive forces in the west to support the movement of the people in the Soviet societies and the disastrous consequences thereof. Hence the importance of Postel’s warning and plea.

Farzin Vahdat is a sociologist interested in critical theory and the development of modernity in the West and the Middle East. He teaches sociology at Vassar College and is the author of God and Juggernaut: Iran’s Intellectual Encounter with Modernity. He is currently co-editing a book on the future of the reform movement in Iran.

He did not realize that [the] Iranian revolution was in fact the proto-modernist revolution of Islamic puritanical Protestantism.

As a true believer in freedom of religion, this is the most important interpretation of the Iranian Revolution proposed in the world today. It legitimizes the will of the Iranian people while simultaneously adopting an interpretation of Islam that is compatible with neighboring monotheistic religions. If this interpretation is accepted by a majority of American liberals and a majority of confident conservative Christians, Islam will finally have an opportunity to compete peacefully in the realm of theological ideas. In other words, God will be revealed to mankind trough the free market of ideas, not the theocratic domination of Islam that exists today. Indeed, freedom to choose is the only legitimate path to salvation in the kingdom of the divine.

Now, whether we want to admit it in the West or not, the spread of Islam is stymied by small minded fanatics that take measure of their earthly power before writing their sermons for Friday prayers. These dictatorial and fascist individuals are an obstacle between mankind and God, as God is understood by true Muslims.

I've met true Muslims who are honest and hard working. I've listened to their interpretation of Allah and their familial narratives. Please believe me when I tell you that these are brave advocates of Allah who know the evils of the men who speak as illegitimate representatives of Allah today. Whenever I've asked why they don't preach their own version of Islam and open their own mosque, they show an utter lack of spiritual self esteem. It's as if they have been spiritually eviscerated by the people who propose to lead Muslims today. True Muslims deserve nothing less than the full rhetorical support from people like me and you, who believe in Freedom of Religion. Ultimately it doesn't matter if you're a true Christian, or an unwaivering atheist, you should have no problem letting the theological chips fall where they may.

If this interpretation [Iranian revolution was the proto-modernist revolution of Islamic puritanical Protestantism] is accepted by a majority of American liberals and a majority of confident conservative Christians, Islam will finally have an opportunity to compete peacefully in the realm of theological ideas.

I understood most of your post, but I'm puzzled by this part. How could it be necessary or possible for Americans and the West seemingly to call forth the movements that settle the paroxysms of Islam? Won't the reformation of Islam announce itself over time?

humint: If this interpretation [Iranian revolution was the proto-modernist revolution of Islamic puritanical Protestantism] is accepted by a majority of American liberals and a majority of confident conservative Christians, Islam will finally have an opportunity to compete peacefully in the realm of theological ideas.

NutCrackerBoy: I understood most of your post, but I'm puzzled by this part. How could it be necessary or possible for Americans and the West seemingly to call forth the movements that settle the paroxysms of Islam? Won't the reformation of Islam announce itself over time?

That part of my comment has several underlying presumptions that do need further clarification. Thanks for pointing it out. I think that many non-Muslims like myself are watching the war going on inside Islam with a sense of fear and dread. I have serious questions like: how many Americans will be slaughtered by suicide bombers before it's over? Are a few fanatics capable of setting back the U.S. economy and limiting opportunities for Americans at home and abroad? How am I supposed to differentiate Muslims who are prepared to do me and my country harm from those that intend to live in peace?

The answers to these questions depend on ones interpretation of what is happening inside Islam. If this interpretation is indeed happening naturally, and I believe it is, then it is in the interest of non-Muslims to recognize it is happening and embrace it. In other words, I think accepting this interpretation will make Muslims more approachable to non-Muslims. I also think this interpretation will make prosecuting the Global War on Terror more successful. Right now, the dominant interpretation appears to be [The purpose of the Iranian Revolution was to create an Islamist Empire. Muslims essentially agree with each other. Some are more passive than others but Islamists and Muslim Terrorists are an enduring phenomenon]. If this is the correct interpretation, Muslims are not approachable and there really is no solution to the problems within Islam that non-Muslims are having to deal with today.

No more than it did Christianity. It still took a lengthy period of "religious wars" ~ but in the end the primary problems were set on the path to resolution in the Treaty of Westphalia.

I don't think any of us can afford these little "wars", and at the moment the civil authorities in the Islamic countries are ill prepared to sign onto anything comparable to the Treaty of Westphalia.

One way to short circuit the proces is to, of course, convert the people in the Islam-dominated countries simultaneously with the destruction of the existing civl, religious and military authorities in those countries ~ kind of like was done in the end stages of the Reconquista in Spain.

The dominant interpretation appears to be [The purpose of the Iranian Revolution was to create an Islamist Empire. Muslims essentially agree with each other. Some are more passive than others but Islamists and Muslim Terrorists are an enduring phenomenon]. If this is correct ... Muslims are not approachable and there really is no solution to the problems within Islam that non-Muslims are having to deal with today.

I see. Well, no doubt for some time to come violent upheavals "there" will continue along with isolationist thinking "here". And then time will tell.

I've long "known" that the hope lay in breakthroughs by the Iranian freedom fighters. And I have posted on forums that include progressives exhorting them to get on board with groups like Amnesty International to pressure the hell out of the current regime in Iran re human rights. Especially after reading Natan Sharansky. It seems that would be a tipping point. Frustrating that the future depends so much on what the Left does!

Then I saw this piece which hints tantalizingly of movement in that direction by the progressives.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.