Javan Online - June 16, 2019
 |
| Seyed Javad Miri, sociologist |
Interview with Dr. Seyed Javad Miri on the Importance of and Opposition to the Book Mother Tongue in the Discourse of Social Sciences
The second edition of the book Mother Tongue in the Discourse of Social Sciences continues to face significant controversy, with some people trying, contrary to academic principles, to label the book as an expression of the author’s pan-Turkist views instead of engaging with it through scholarly critique. In this interview, the author, Dr. Seyed Javad Miri, discusses the importance of the book and responds to some of the criticisms.
Culture and Art Desk of Javan Online: A year after the first edition of Mother Tongue in the Discourse of Social Sciences was published, disputes over the book are ongoing. Certain groups are striving to prevent its prominence and dissemination in every possible way. This book is a collection of articles and speeches about the mother tongue and its relationship with the official language. It seeks to convey to its audience the importance of this subject and to position it as an academic topic in the minds of Iranian scholars. Therefore, we arranged an interview with the author, Dr. Seyed Javad Miri, a faculty member of the Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies, to examine the significance of the book and the reasons behind the negative reactions toward it.
The full interview follows:
 |
| Mother Tongue in the Discourse of Social Sciences by Seyed Javad Miri |
Dr., it seems the main reason for the inappropriate reactions you’ve faced around the publication and seminar on your book Mother Tongue in the Discourse of Social Sciences is a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of language. If one sees language merely as a tool for communication, and not—as Foucault puts it—as constitutive of identity and even as a mechanism of power and a gateway to knowledge, it’s natural they won’t grasp the importance of the mother tongue as the first language between mother and child, which shapes the child’s world and identity.
If you look at it that way, it assumes opponents of the mother tongue discourse have some understanding of the issue—but I doubt that. The Institute for Humanities is one of the largest research centers in the country, yet even there some professors lack a proper grasp of the matter. In Sweden, there’s a department dedicated to the Swedish language, and in the same university, languages like Russian and even minority languages like Sami—which Swedes don’t even consider part of their Viking or Scandinavian heritage—are also studied. But why shouldn’t the languages of Iran’s ethnic groups be academically and systematically discussed in our own universities? What would be wrong with studying Balochi, Georgian, Armenian, and the other languages spoken across our country? Why do we, despite having a linguistics institute, allow the study of our own languages to take place only abroad? Nowadays, if someone wants to research Gilaki mythology, they have to go to Swedish universities, collaborate with Swedish professors, and write in their language—then we wait for a Persian translation. We’re not talking about building airplanes, where one might say we lack the technology—this just takes understanding! We have languages spoken by communities who even have their own parliamentary representatives. For example, the Assyrians or the Aramaic language: Aramaic is a key language for understanding the civilizations of the past five to six thousand years and has influenced the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism (first), Christianity, and Islam. Even Al-Farabi’s philosophy teacher was Aramaic. This language is present in Iran, so why shouldn’t it be taught here and only be studied in Europe?
That’s why I believe we haven’t yet reached the point Foucault talks about—we still look at language with a tribal mentality. This is exactly where the importance of Mother Tongue in the Discourse of Social Sciences becomes clear. In this book, I’ve tried to show that language, as a topic, has never been included in the discourse of Iranian social sciences. Yes, Chomsky’s and Wittgenstein’s discussions have been translated, but they haven’t been integrated into the intellectual horizon of Iranian academia. We talk about Wittgenstein’s language games and Chomsky’s universal grammar, but when it comes to discussing the historical evolution of Turkish or any other language, some people immediately raise security concerns, saying it threatens national security or creates division. What does that mean? Academics should turn security issues into academic discussions—not the other way around, turning academic matters into security threats. Just last week, the Deputy Minister of Science inaugurated a lab for Persian documents and manuscripts at our linguistics faculty, which is a great step; but why don’t they do the same for Armenian, Kurdish, Georgian, etc.? These languages are part of our civilizational heritage. Much of Iran’s ancient history is documented in Armenian or Georgian, and many Iranian epics, myths, and stories are in Turkish and Kurdish. If someone tries to establish an institute to study these, does that make them a pan-Turkist? In my view, such negative reactions come from minds that are not academic.
Many believe that rather than a concern for the mother tongue, you have pan-Turkist inclinations. Yet, as noted in several articles within your book, it is explicitly stated by scholars that ignoring and marginalizing mother tongues leads ethnic groups towards conflict.
Why is it that whenever we mention mother tongue, people assume we’re only referring to Turkish? Persian is also a mother tongue. For someone born in Isfahan, their mother tongue is close to the standard Persian used in Iran, so Persian itself can be discussed as a mother tongue. The mother tongue has nothing to do with division; it is a cognitive and epistemic issue that must be addressed across various educational levels. For example, because I am involved with autism and my second son has autism, I understand firsthand how critical the concept of the mother tongue is in cognitive development—why does conceptualization through language not occur for some children? These examples and related issues have nothing to do with politics. I’ve never suggested making the mother tongue the official language. I have explained before that we must distinguish and identify four categories when discussing language: mother tongue, national language (different in pre- and post-constitutional periods), official language, and lingua franca. A single language might encompass all four categories, but other languages may not be official or lingua franca. By the way, my scope is not limited to the languages currently in Iran, but includes the broader cultural continent of Iran (stretching from Central Asia to Eurasia, the Indian subcontinent, even the Balkans and China). When we talk about a national language, some assume there must be only one—this is incorrect. The main argument of my book is that languages like Turkish and Kurdish are also national languages. Persian is the official language by convention for state and formal correspondence. But if we erase other languages in the name of Persian, it will be dangerous for various reasons. Those accusing me of being against national interests are themselves, through their approach of suppressing other mother tongues, harming national interests. Their policies practically erase ethnic groups who are part of this nation and whose cultures are Iranian. Look at these ethnic communities’ religious literature—take the rich creative works around Ashura, which have played a crucial role in promoting religion. According to those who insist that Persian alone is the national language, we’d have to discard all these poems and creative pieces simply because they’re not in Persian, even though they have greatly deepened the influence of Shiism.
What you said mainly points to political implications of neglecting mother tongues, but from a social perspective too, isn’t it true that ignoring the importance of the mother tongue seriously harms identity? In your book, there’s even an article quoting an Education Ministry official who says one of the main reasons for student underachievement is the conflict between their mother tongue and the standard language.
During the second Pahlavi era, social and policy conditions emerged that Jalal Al-e Ahmad discussed in his book On the Service and Treason of Intellectuals. These policies severely damaged Iran’s internal cultural diversity. During the drafting of Article 15 of the Constitution after the Revolution, these issues were explicitly raised—records and audio of those sessions exist today. They stressed the need for the recognition and academic study of mother tongues, specifying that every relevant institution, including the Ministry of Education, must take concrete steps on this issue. If we truly want to advance the country scientifically, this is not the way to do it. I really don’t understand why key institutions like the Ministry of Education lack nuanced social understanding and take such dogmatic stances. Even here at the Institute, instead of appreciating this book—not because it’s mine, but because it features 17 or 18 prominent professors—they chose to first frame the book launch as a security threat, cancel the seminar, and label me a pan-Turkist. Frankly, security and intelligence agencies themselves handle matters far more culturally than these supposed academics. Here in this very institute, the harshest security-oriented reactions come from its own professors. I keep saying: we researchers are paid from public funds to study issues scientifically and academically. Instead of labeling, let’s sit down, engage in intersubjective discussions, and frame issues logically and precisely. Look, if you want to do something and I ask, “What’s your reasoning?” you can’t just say, “It’s in my head.” In science, you have to make your reasoning public and intersubjective so everyone can understand and critique it. Without intersubjectivity, discussions don’t mature, resulting only in conflict and division. We as researchers must present logical frameworks for issues instead of resolving them with labels. They’ve called me everything: spy, infiltrator, Westoxicated, etc.—yet not once have they sat down to critically read this book.
In your view, what is the root of these attitudes?
Unfortunately, in recent years some individuals have entered key organizations who don’t believe in the grand narrative of Islam as an overarching political framework. They hold extremist pan-Iranianist, fascist, and nationalist tendencies. As Professor Fakouhi points out in his article in this book, they represent a “Neo-Pan-Iranianism,” whose roots trace back to figures like Davoud Monshizadeh, founder of SUMKA (the Iranian National Socialist Workers Party). Monshizadeh so strongly believed in Nazism that he was shot in the leg during the Allied invasion of Germany, returned to Iran, but when he was not welcomed, moved to Sweden, where he died in 1989. This ideology has now resurfaced and even appears, consciously or unconsciously, in many publications. For instance, look at the set of journals run by Mr. Ghoochani, who is also a presidential media advisor. He has turned these journals into mouthpieces for a kind of fascism. Someone who calls himself a liberal one day, a leftist another, and a conservative the next, is now using state funds—resources meant to promote political Islam—to propagate fascism!
If there’s insufficient attention to the mother tongue and its harms are ignored, what will happen to Iranian identity?
Someone once said that if everyone in a group thinks alike, it means no one is really thinking. If diversity is eliminated, and we pursue societal uniformity like in modernity, the result is dictatorship—everything reduced to a single perspective. Remember, languages are not just alphabets; each language encompasses a worldview, a whole universe within it. Eradicating languages means eradicating humanity. In Iran, since the mother tongue has become a broad social and national demand, and is now considered part of people’s citizenship rights, it cannot simply be erased. I have previously said that in the 2021 elections, social demands around identity could emerge powerfully—so ignoring them could deeply alienate ethnic groups. Some claim my arguments don’t fit the Iranian context, but we have a successful indigenous model: Armenian-language schools, operating for 110 years without Armenians seeking separation or failing to learn Persian. Interestingly, those who have worked on nationality and identity over the past century were neither Shiite nor Islamic in outlook, nor did they have a democratic perspective; rather, they were influenced by the modern Western meta-narrative.
Tags: mother tongue, social sciences, Seyed Javad Miri, Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies
Link to the original interview in Farsi on Javan Online: