Book Review: Foucault and Iranian Revolution

FOUCAULT AND THE IRANIAN REVOLUTION: GENDER AND SEDUCTIONS OF ISLAMISM
Janet Afary and Kevin B. Anderson
The University of Chicago Press
Chicago and London 2005
Janet Afary is associate professor in the departments of history and women’s studies at
Purdue University. She is the author of The Iranian Constitutional Revolution, 1906–1911, and president of the International Society for Iranian Studies (2004–2006). Kevin B.
Anderson is associate professor of political science and sociology at Purdue University and the author of Lenin, Hegel, and Western Marxism: A Critical Study.
With a brief introduction, the book is divided into two parts. Part 1 is titled “Foucault’s Discourse: On Pinnacles and Pitfalls”, includes two chapters , “The paradoxical World of Foucault: the modern and traditional social orders” and “ Procession, passion plays and rites of penance: Foucault, Shiism and early Christian rituals. Part 2, titled “Foucault’s writings on the Iranian Revolution and After” includes 3 chapters , “The Visits to Iran and the Controversies with Atoussa H and Maxime Rodinson”, “Debating the Outcome of the Revolution ,Especially on Women’s Rights” and “Foucault, Gender, and Male Homo-sexualities in Mediterranean and Muslim Societies”

INTRODUCTION:

The authors begin by stating that in 1978-97, in the course of the massive revolution with several million participants, the Iranian people toppled the regime of Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlavi which had pursued an authoritarian programme of economic and cultural modernization. The militant Islamist faction led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and his religious articulations had dominated this uprising, where he gained the support of secular nationalist ,liberals, leftists and so on. The Islamist controlled slogans and demonstrations and made many secular women also into donning the chador(veil) as an expression of solidarity with the traditional Muslims. This Islamist struggle was seen as the re-enactment of the Battle of Karbala(680CE), which Shiite Muslims mark annually in the month of Muharram by commemorating the martyrdom of Imam Hussein(grandson of Muhammad). Here Khomeini personified the innocent Hussein and Shah stood for Yazid.
It was at this moment at Foucault visited Iran, twice, in 1978 (His first-hand experience of any revolution in his lifetime)as a special correspondent of the leading Italian newspaper, Corriere della sera, and spoke enthusiastically and uncritically about the revolution and the notion of Islamic Republic. Foucault’s concept of authenticity,an artist who risked their life dangerously and flirted with death, origination and sites of creativity, pushing the limits of rationality and defence of irrationality- all such transgressive powers he located in the revolutionary figure of Khomeini and millions who risked their lives for the cause of an Islamist state. He believed that end of colonialism by the 1960s had brought western ideas and thoughts into a crisis.During 1978, Foucault had remarked that this “the end of the era of Western philosophy”.
He saw in Iran, then, as an area of birth of ideas-a new Muslim style of politics, beginning of a new form of timelss “political spirituality”. Foucault understood that Iran was witnessing a singular kind of revolution, around a sharply different concept, very much away from the hazards of modernity. Islam, for him, was simply not a religion but an entire way of life,an adherence to a history and a civilisation and had a good chance to become a huge power keg for millions of people. Such an enormous power of new discourse of militant Islamism was a political and cultural break from Western order and also Soviet Union.He also acknowledged the deployment of instruments of modernity such as cassettes, broadcast radios to galvanise the revolutionary movement along with traditional religious discourses actually help overthrow the Pahlavis. He was fascinated by the Shiite myths of martyrdom and rituals of penitence of the revolutionary movements.
The Iranian experience raises some questions about Foucault’s overall approach to critique of modernity and his problems with feminsim led to several attacks from every directions, specially after Khomeini’s regime executed homosexuals and several women had to protest for their rights as against compulsive veiling.
There might have been certain errors by Foucault on Iran. His interest in the revolution could also be because of his search for alternate forms of non-western modernity that could rejoin spirituality and politics and thus his rejection of any other alternative to the Shah’s regime, such as liberal, nationalist or democratic.
Attempts to bracket out Foucault's writings on Iran as "miscalculations," or even "not Foucauldian," remind one of what Foucault himself had criticized in his well-known 1969 essay, "What Is an Author?" When we include certain works in an author's career and exclude others that were written in "a different style," or were "inferior," we create a stylistic unity and a theoretical coherence, he wrote. We do so, he added, by privileging certain writings as authentic and excluding others that do not fit our view of what the author ought to be: "The author is therefore the ideological figure by which one marks the manner in which we fear the proliferation of meaning”.

CHAPTER 1

The author here states that both Foucault and Islamist wing in Iran were searching for a new form of political spirituality as a counter discourse to a thoroughly materialistic world, both clung to idealised notions of premodern social orders, both were disdainful to modern liberal judicial systems and both admired individuals who risked death in attempts to reach a more authentic existence.The author states that Foucauldian grand narrative priviledges not modernity but pre-modern traditional social orders.
Foucault’s evaluation about modern power being more pervasive, in every depth of society and knowledge not being independent of power, new technologies of power creating docile utilitarian bodies, micro levels of power creating local resistance to prevent homogeneity. Enlightenment which has discovered liberties had also discovered disciplines and controlling mechanisms that operated in factory, schools, military,asylums and prison. From physical torment, modernity replaced it with psychological torment. All this was done to make individuals adhere to society’s established codes of normality and proper morality. Such disciplinary practices of modern societies were more subtle and more insidious. Authors feel that Foucault preferred and assumed a pristine, idyllic East as against a rational West but because of Foucault’s subjectless historiography and idealized East and admiration for the Orient, it reproduces androcentric patterns of discourse. Foucault was also fascinated by intuitions and silence as a cultural ethos, specially East. Silence was especially valued in the Eastern discourse on sex and Foucault stated that those who wished to unveil such silences simply re-produced modern western attitudes towards sexuality. In modern western technologies, sex enabled the bourgeoisie to affirm itself. Also modernity brought about the new norm of monogamous heterosexual marriages based on love and affection. Foucault’s one-sided critique of modernity and his minimizing of harsh and confining disciplinary practices of the premodern world-including those that shackled women’s sexuality explains his problematic relationship to the issue of women’s rights.the discourse on sexuality had developed into a scientific discourse in the West, whereas,in the East, it shaped around methods that intensified pleasure ,mysticism, mysteries hence constituting sexuality as an art. Also, given Foucault’s reading of Christainity, Foucault’s interest in the Iranian Revolution was more than just journalistic curiosity.

Also Foucault was also fond of the concept of self-mastery which led to mastery over others. Not only Khomeini’s ascetic appeal but also how he could collectively exploit the religious sentiment of guilt of the people through personal expressions of repentence (self- flagellation) and outward political acts of revolutionary self-sacrifice was appreciated by Foucault. Author thinks Khomeini was the personification of Nietzsche’s “will to power”, a ruthless political figure with saintly self-mastery, who dared to think the unthinkable and convinced millions of others to risk their lives.

CHAPTER 2

In this chapter, author focuses on the motifs of pain and suffering from injustice, as well as rituals that glorify martyrdom, rituals of penitence- the incident of Karbala and the festival of Muharram which is the core of Shiite religious identity. The Shiite rituals of mourning plays a crucial psychological role, preparation of the body of young men to take self-induced attacks to suffer the pain of Hussein, stage shows, theatres groups and plays are organised all over to perform the incident and resurrect the imagery of Karbala and viewers gathered shed tears profusely witnessing the horrific incident acted out on the stage. Many scholars have argued about the authenticity of the incident of martyrdom and how such theatre groups, in a way, re-invent tradition. All this fascinated Foucault as this different path towards life and death, martyrdom as a priviledge, re-fashioning of self, festive and public manifestations of rituals of mourning and their healing power, a dramatic self-renunciation was preferable than Christian and Western modern methods of verbal confessions by a sinner to the priest. In Shiism, no authority came between the man and his God.

However, authors have argued that this selective reading of Shiism and abstraction made of Islam never made Foucault question the fact that a group of clerics and intellectuals have adopted their own particular reading of Shiism in the course of the revolution.

CHAPTER 3

The authors begin the chapter by an interview with Bani-Sadr, Focuault’s friend who had claimed that Foucault’s primary interest in the revolution was because of the conditions that emanated a spontaneous revolutionary movement outside traditional political parties and also on the discourse of subjection of resistance which now displaced subjection of power. Western corruption that had infiltrated Shiite Muslim culture with the advent of 1906-11 constitutional monarchy and the Shah’s modernization from above were almost paralyzed by end of 1978.
Foucault said that with the given monstrosity of industrial capitalism and totalitarian capitalism, Iranian revolutionaries aimed to create a society that was the absolute ‘other’ in relation to the modern western world based on Islamic teachings. Also the clerics organised grass-root councils and associations which worked effectively to help the poor and needy, which were better than the Shah’s regime. Foucault’s objection was not only Reza Shah’s programme of limited modernization and corruption but also the very principle of modernization itself. He even brushed aside moderate notions of Islamist Republic and had no intention of restoring 1906-7 Constitution. Khomeini’s political struggle and this force was termed as irreducible by Foucault.Authors’ feel that Foucault did not view the danger of a clerical authoritarianism in his idea of Islam utopia and nowhere did he question Khomeinism. Foucault’s debate with Atoussa H, an Iranian feminist who had attacked Foucault for his uncritical stand for Islamist government and women’s rights was dismissed by Foucault stating that all forms of Islam cannot be merged together and termed as fanatical.
Global potential of this movement and expression of a totally unified movement, understandable beyond politics, vehement rejection of any kind of secular notions, silencing of women’s issues, excessive stress on religion,an alternative for European modernity was under heavy criticisms.

CHAPTER 4

By Feb,1979, Khomeini who was now addressed as the ‘imam’, started with his tyrannical rule and various modes of controlling the media, television, outlawing the monarchy, majlis, and senate, controlled leftist,liberal parties and he established his revolutionary council. Censorship had returned, limits of freedom imposed on women,minorities were discriminated, homosexuals were hanged,library books were all cleansed, women’s rights were restricted and were ordered to veil and so on. During feminist protests in Iran, Foucault remained silent as his earlier writings on Iran was now severely under feminist attack. Kate Millet, a French feminist who supported the Iranian women at this time pointed out the contradictions and varied character of Iranian revolution as against Foucault,who had seen it as a singular event and an “absolute collective will”. Even Simon de Beauvoir supported the cause of these brave Iranian women. These movements , where women, homosexuals , minorities fought against the repressive nature of the state, many scholars attacked Foucault for his belief in this regime but Foucault mostly chose to be non-responsive and also constantly stress on the uniqueness and profundity of the events in Iranian revolution. From Marx, Foucault quoted that religion was a spirit of a world without spirit, because in Iran religion would guide guarantee and promise them something that would radically change their subjectivity.
Though briefly he had stated about the chauvinistic attitude and religious nationalist myths about the revolution, Foucault had argued forcibly that events in Iran could not be grasped through traditional, especially Marxist categories as for Iranains, their regime of truth was totally different from others. And inducing religion into politics does not mean a government run by the clerics. Foucault also wished that westerners were interfering a lot more than required in telling what Iranians should do. Maxime Rodinson had criticised Foucault’s lack of knowledge concerning Islamic world and Iran and also the fact that he being a philosopher in training (based on more conceptual constructs than reality) led to such miscalculations on his part. But authors feel that just philosophical perspective was not the main problem of Foucault’s take on Iran.

However after this Iran episode till his death in 1984, Foucault had presented a sharp critique of any radical or global solutions as from his experience such imaginations could actually obstruct reality and return back to severe forms of traditionalism. Authors belief that such nuanced notions might have come because of his not so happy experience and outcome with the Iran episode.

CHAPTER 5

Here the authors focus on the fact that Foucault’s concept of Orient was not geographical rather it included the Greco-Roman world as well as the modern Middle East and North Africa and both had a continuity of male homosexual relations. Explorations of his idealized notions of ethics of love and such positions on gender and sexuality comes into conflict with the aspirations of gay and lesbian rights movement in the region. Foucault was actually excited about the fact that homoeroticism was prevelant in the Arab Mediterranean and his impression formed that homosexual men enjoyed more freedom here than in France. Foucault was of the opinion that in Greco Roman world reciprocal and true love existed between men and it was only with the advent of modernity that sexuality was established as a moral domain and sex came to be equated with sin and evil. Also institution of marriage between husband and wife was the reason which led to lack of reciprocity. Authors question his selective reading of Greco Roman texts did not even lead him to question classical discourses. Also in this particular case on homosexuality in Greco Roman world, Foucault did not seem to have a problem with the whole power exhibited by a small elite group, whereby a wealthy old man enjoyed the company of a not so well to do young boy to please his sexual appetite. What Foucault addressed as aesthetics of existence can very well be formulated in the micro levels of power that operates in every relations in society. Also sex could be many a times be used as a political weapon in such cases.

Feminists, particularily also had problems with such stands because here the wife or women gets totally neglected out of the ethics of love if her husband pursues another man for his pleasure. Also, Foucault does not talk about female homosexuality.
Quran strictly prohibits male homosexuality and severe punishment and harsh penalties are applicable in their societies. Though certain Persian poets, literary works during Abbasid and Safavid era, Pashtun culture had the practice of male love. With modernity, a sense of shame regarding homosexuality cropped up. But covert homosexuality continues to be practised. Khomeini’s manual had condemned such sexual transgressions. However if some man committed the sin there was a process of cleansing himself or ritual of purifications through ablution, observing penitence, fasting, giving alms etc. Here the impression is that Islam is more tolerant of status defined, covert homosexualities but demanding rights based on homosexualities is completely unacceptable in Islamic societies. There was also the idea against the Pahlavi regime of corrupting the moral society by such sexual transgressions.

The authors end their last chapter by stating that Foucault’s Orientalist impressions of the Muslim world, his selective reading and representation of Greco-Roman texts, and his hostility to modernity and its technologies of the body, led him to prefer the more traditional Islamic/Mediterranean culture to the modern culture of the West. Perhaps he hoped that the revival of traditional culture in Iran under an Islamist government could lead to a less restrictive counter discourse on bodies and sexualities. This may have happened, at least to an extent, with traditional, covert, same-sex relationships.

CONCLUSION:

The book provides a lucid argument of Foucault’s loopholes in the Iranian episode pointing at the knowledge/power dimension, ethics of love, gender issues, homosexuality. Each chapter in some manner stemmed out as a critique on Foucault’s idealization of Islamist government, though also in certain areas we have substantial authors and examples in Foucault’s favour. Personally, I had issues with author’s indulgence in too many issues altogether in one book vis-à-vis the Iranian context.
Also, questioning Foucault as a philosopher after the tyrannical theocratic rule of Islamist regime started raises a question to my mind that clearly Foucault did not see such consequences. His entire attempt to go beyond strict and clear cut dimensions of liberal or leftist politics to view the Iranian episode went in vain because mostly his critiques stemmed from these two spectrums. His notion of “political spirituality” is a vision, that to my mind, has not been explored very well in this book and it went beyond constructs of modernity, in the Iranian case. Whether it turned out to be reality or not is not my question here, but what this kind of spirituality he meant and to what extent it is even feasible, could be a matter of interest.