Shahrvand — February 24, 2011
 |
| Dr. Alireza Asgharzadeh |
Today, I will begin my remarks as someone who advocates for the use of new, progressive, and advanced terminology in the discourse of the struggles of the peoples of Iran, as well as all progressive movements. One of these terms is the concept of 'anti-racist struggle,' which I have tried, to the best of my ability, to incorporate into the literature of resistance in Iran, and especially in Azerbaijan, along with the discourse and action against racism.
For this reason, I would like to take this opportunity to briefly elaborate on the necessity of strengthening anti-racist discourse and action among the peoples of Iran. To this end, I will present my remarks under four essential sections:
1. A simple definition of race and racism.
2. The position and importance of anti-racist discourse on a global scale.
3. The position and importance of anti-racist discourse within Iran.
4. The position and importance of anti-racist discourse at the local level (among non-Persian peoples).
I will begin my remarks with a simple and concise definition of race and racism.
Language, Ethnicity, Race, and Identity
In general, race is defined in relation to the physiological characteristics of humans, such as skin color, hair color, facial features, body shape, and so on.
Ethnicity, on the other hand, is defined in relation to the cultural characteristics of humans, such as language, religion, customs, traditions, and more.
Racism is the abhorrent phenomenon that manifests through the humiliation, denial, or disrespect of any of the components of both race and ethnicity. In fact, in contemporary academic literature, race and ethnicity are increasingly used simultaneously and as a single term: race/ethnicity.
For example, language is one of the prominent and powerful characteristics of ethnicity. At the same time, the humiliation and prohibition of people's languages is one of the most heinous and savage forms of racism. In other words, racism can stem from humiliations and physiological discriminations, such as skin color, and it can also arise from humiliations and discriminations related to ethnicity and culture, such as language, customs, and so on.
From Ferdinand de Saussure's linguistic studies, we know that definitions are formed in a "relational" context and have relational positions. That is, identities—whether concerning individuals or objects—are defined in relation to one another or to others. For example, a woman is defined both linguistically and conceptually in relation to a man; black is defined in relation to white, sister in relation to brother, and so on. We also know that Claude Lévi-Strauss applied Saussure's linguistic observations regarding identity categories in an academic manner in his anthropological and sociological studies, elucidating how "relational positions" shape social customs and both collective and individual identities. Just as Saussure demonstrated that, for example, black is defined in relation to white, night in relation to day, and the moon in relation to the sun, Lévi-Strauss showed how a family is defined in relation to other families, and how clans, tribes, and ethnic groups are defined and described in relation to other clans, tribes, and ethnic groups. The overall conclusion drawn in sociology from the observations of Saussure and Lévi-Strauss is that:
1. Identities have a relational aspect; that is, they are defined in relation to one another.
2. Identities are defined within society and by humans. In other words, identities are not immutable, definitive, or eternal phenomena; rather, they are social-political structures that are constructed within society and by individuals based on linguistic and cultural mechanisms and processes.
Postmodern, post-structuralist, and post-colonial perspectives have added a fundamental dimension to the discussion of "social construction": power relations. Thinkers like Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, and others, despite having a positive view of the foundational observations of Saussure and Lévi-Strauss regarding the social and relational nature of identities, have shown that identity definitions are not only inseparable from the power relations inherent in society and culture; they have a direct and close relationship with power. This means that while, for example, night is defined in relation to day, mourning in relation to celebration, and a black person in relation to a white person, these definitions are formed through processes and mechanisms intertwined with power relations. For instance, in analyzing categories of gender identity, we see that femininity is defined from a subordinate position in relation to masculinity, and blackness is defined from a negative perspective in relation to whiteness. What is the reason for this? The reason lies in the existence of power relations within the processes and mechanisms that explain, define, and describe identities. The dominant groups in society—those that have the power to define, explain, and interpret identities—are the groups that control language and linguistic mechanisms and determine the parameters of discourse. These groups always define themselves from a superior position and others from a subordinate one because they possess the capacity and power to do so.
Let us examine the discussions more specifically with an example from Iranian society:
Like most societies, Iran is a community where its inhabitants possess diverse national and ethnic identities: for example, Arabs, Persians, Turks, Kurds, Baluchs, Turkmens, Lors, and others. Ethnic groups, nationalities, and nations residing in Iran use various and distinct identity categories to express their differentiation and uniqueness from one another. We know that the act of classifying and categorizing identities is a natural phenomenon inherent in the nature and structure of language. However, when the element of power intervenes in the explanation and definition of identities, the issue transcends a linguistic category and enters the realm of social inequalities. In the specific case of Iran, the rampant interventions of the ruling group in the domain of language and culture regarding how diverse identity categories and their diverse ethnic/national identities, sexual/gender identities, etc., are defined and understood have taken on an aggressive form of extreme racism, sexism, and xenophobia, especially over the past eighty years. For instance, the definition of the sexual identity of women and sexual minorities in Iran has been shaped by parameters and limits set by dominant gender and sexual groups. Accordingly, the definitions of non-Persian ethnic identities have been constructed in the dominant Iranian literature and culture—that is, in the Persian language and culture—and are influenced by power relations in Iran. The Persian ethnic group, due to its obvious economic, political, linguistic, and cultural hegemony, has regarded its identity as pure, sacred, universal, and equivalent to the entirety of Iran and Iranianness. To the extent possible, it has dehumanized the identities of the ethnic groups under its dominance, even reducing some ethnic identities to the level of animal identities, and has partially succeeded in establishing these animal identities in place of human identities: for example, the animal identity of "donkey" for Turks and "dog" for Arabs.
Antonio Gramsci, in his discussion of "hegemony," has shown how the political-military and economic aspects of power are intertwined with cultural and linguistic aspects, operating through civil society, educational systems, formal and informal literature, and public media to establish and reinforce the identity of the ruling group as a dominant, natural, normal, and flawless identity.
Like all ethnic groups and ruling factions, another manifestation of the hegemony of the Persian ethnic group in Iran is the "invisibility" of this ruling group. Who has not heard the following statements repeatedly:
“Isn't the Persian also an ethnicity?!”
“Who said there is an ethnicity or a people called Persians? We are all Iranians! The Persian language is the product of the efforts of all Iranian ethnicities and belongs to no specific ethnic group…”
“We do not have an ethnicity called Persians in Iran…”
“What does it mean to be Persian, and what characteristics does being Persian entail?”
Michel Foucault provides an interesting example in analyzing the invisible and visible aspects of power, using the metaphor of watchtowers in modern prisons.
The one sitting in the watchtower sees everyone, but is himself invisible! However, his power has such a grip on the soul and psyche of the prisoner that the condemned individual—without seeing the ruler and the warden—automatically obeys his orders! The warden, in fact, governs the soul and body of the prisoner through invisible threads of power. This is because power must be visible but not identifiable. Power engraves its might and grandeur in advance in the physical structure of the prison, in the shape of walls, watchtowers, and solitary cells, in the faces of the officers, wardens, and various interrogators, and also in the misery and helplessness of countless condemned individuals. As Foucault puts it, even if someone is not present in the watchtower, the condemned feels the presence and existence of power with every fiber of his being.
The tale of the invisibility of the Persian ethnic group is also a story. The one who is controlled does not see the controller. The one who is under surveillance is unable to identify the observer. The one who is defined does not see the one who defines and does not know his identity. Sometimes he envisions him as the central government and sometimes in the guise of the "superior Aryan race." Occasionally, he refers to him as the "Tehran government," and more often recognizes him as the "nation of Iran." The ruler’s power lies in his invisibility. This is because invisibility strengthens assimilation while simultaneously dismantling the factors of unity and elements of resistance. How can one resist something that is unseen, against a power that allegedly does not exist?
The field of critical whiteness studies is a relatively new academic area that has emerged from the heart of anti-racist practice and theory and is represented by white scholars and researchers in Western academic circles and the Global North. The thinkers and challengers in this field have conducted valuable research on topics such as deconstructing power structures and the privilege of whiteness, the invisibility of color and white power, and the necessity of anti-racist struggle in academic domains and society at large.
Friends have surely noticed that in North America, all of us—meaning everyone coming from Asia, Africa, and South America, in addition to the indigenous peoples of this continent—are considered “people of color.” However, the white Christian of European descent does not fall within this vast category of people of color. Why? Because the white European, due to the hellish power and hegemony he has wielded on this colonized continent, has concealed his color, his skin color—which is the color of power and privilege—while being visible, transparent, and apparent; in other words, whiteness has been presented as a global symbol of humanity, universalism, and normality. Everyone is a person of color; however, white is not considered a color at all. The field of critical whiteness studies critiques and exposes the visible and invisible power structures and mechanisms of white individuals, demonstrating that “white” is indeed a color like all other colors, neither superior nor inferior. White Christians of European descent must also regard white as a color among colors and consider themselves as part of an ethnic group, neither more nor less.
Similarly, non-Persian ethnic intellectuals have long tried to convey that Persians are also members of an ethnic group and, like other ethnicities residing in Iran, must define their identity transparently and clarify the limitations and status of the Persian ethnicity in relation to non-Persian ethnicities.
Despite the remarkable and increasing successes of practical and theoretical anti-racist efforts globally, anti-racist theory has not achieved much success among Iranian intellectuals and is, outside of non-Persian ethnic intellectual circles, hardly even discussed. How can one justify such alienation and animosity toward the achievements of modern and contemporary social and human sciences?
I personally believe that as long as progressive Iranian intellectuals do not engage in a comprehensive critique of racism, they will be unable to have any positive understanding or interpretation of the achievements of modern and postmodern social sciences from the West. From a global perspective, anti-racist theory and practice have not only successfully entered Western academia, but they have also further strengthened their leading position in fieldwork and street activism. The meaning of “racism,” as an inhumane, backward, and undemocratic act and thought, has entered the discursive culture and activist movements in public spheres to the extent that ordinary people, including school students, are aware of the ugliness and inhumanity of racist thoughts and actions. Extensive sociological studies have revealed the hidden and overt mechanisms of this malignant phenomenon, analyzing its various forms, from scientific racism to cultural, linguistic, biological, systemic, and even democratic racism.
From the perspective of academic research, a critical study and understanding of the history of Western modernism, from the Enlightenment era to classical and new liberalism, is impossible without grasping the phenomenon of racism and its place in the thoughts of many classical and modern Western thinkers—from Adam Smith to Kant, David Hume, Spencer, and Max Weber. Similarly, a thorough study of concepts such as Eurocentrism, Western colonialism, and imperialism cannot be conducted without a proper understanding of the ideological and psychological aspects of scientific racism, which have always been at the center of these movements. Moreover, in the specific case of Iran, Western racism has directly influenced the formation of Iranian racism through both Hitler’s Aryanism and Orientalist studies. For the sake of sociological and scientific analysis of the political, social, and cultural issues in Iran, Iranian intellectuals and researchers will have to carefully study the phenomenon of racism and its impacts.
From the perspective of Iran and its issues, the use of the term "racism" and adherence to anti-racist thought and action, especially among students and intellectuals of non-Persian ethnicities, are increasing day by day. This growing and commendable trend should be strengthened so that the anti-racist movement of the peoples reaches its destination, free from ethnic hatred and animosity.
Alongside the strengthening of anti-racist discourse and action throughout Iran, enhancing this issue at the local level, especially in relations among non-Persian ethnicities, is of utmost importance. Particularly, when it comes to the relationship between two neighboring and brotherly peoples, the Kurds and the Azerbaijanis [Turks], the necessity of reinforcing anti-racist thought and action becomes even more urgent. Since I myself am from Azerbaijan and have been active against anti-Turk racism for many years, I would like to provide an example from the common discourses among Azerbaijani activists. One of the fortunately less popular yet noisy currents on the fringes of the Azerbaijani movement consists of opportunistic and anti-democratic individuals. The few members of this current, influenced by extremist and racist movements in Turkey, constantly stoke the flames of ethnic hatred and eagerly await an ethnic war between Turks and Kurds. These individuals attempt in every way possible to push honest, progressive, and anti-racist individuals out of the social and activist scene in Azerbaijan. One common racist tactic employed by these opportunists is the fabrication of Kurdish genealogies for Turkish activists. I myself am among the so-called "perpetual victims" of this type of genealogy fabrication. A few months ago, a friend told me that a person known as "Asghar Qatl" absurdly wove a tale on his Facebook page to convince his followers that my late mother was supposedly Kurdish. According to that same educated friend, this individual couldn't even convince his own followers. A question that was repeatedly asked of him on Facebook was: "Let’s assume Asghar's father is Kurdish, so what? Is a Kurd not a human?"
My intention in providing this example was to illustrate the depth of the tragedy of ethnic hatred among certain opportunistic elements. I also wanted to show that Azerbaijani youth have reached a level of intellectual growth and democratic transformation where they no longer fall for the tricks of "Asghar Qatl" and "Shaban Bi Makh." This positive intellectual transformation is the result of the anti-racist work and activism of Azerbaijani students and intellectuals. And we are still at the beginning of our journey…
We know that the youth of the Middle East are currently engaged in a valiant struggle to establish their dignity and human rights. They have reached a level of political and social consciousness where they consider having lifetime rulers an insult to their humanity. Similarly, the people and youth of Iran view living under the yoke of a medieval fundamentalist government as a disgrace and are fighting for the preservation of their dignity and humanity. Among them, the activists of non-Persian ethnicities, in addition to their anti-government and anti-Velayat-e-Faqih struggles, consider the prohibition of their mother tongue in educational institutions as a disgrace; they view such prohibition and oppression as an affront to their human dignity and have risen to achieve humane and dignified living conditions. It is the responsibility of intellectuals and thinkers residing in the capital and central regions to demonstrate their commitment to democratic principles and human rights by strengthening anti-racist discourse and action.
Is it not possible to believe that Azerbaijani youth are tired of the shame of illiteracy in their mother tongue and want to read and write in their native language in the 21st century? Has the time not come for the multitude of democratic pretenders and faux intellectuals to stop imposing their own ethnic language on others and, for the first time, expose and challenge the horrific linguistic, cultural, and ethnic racism in Iran?
The enduring unity of all Iranians against the Islamic totalitarian regime will only be possible if Persian intellectuals and activists recognize and even join the anti-racist movement that has begun and matured among non-Persian ethnicities. One fundamental manifestation of anti-racist awareness for Persian intellectuals is the critique of the cultural/language hegemony of Persians in Iran and the effort to formalize the national and natural languages of non-Persian ethnicities. The principle of equal rights for non-Persian ethnicities with Persians is a democratic and progressive principle. Anyone who does not believe in this basic principle of human rights cannot expect their slogans and messages regarding democracy and human rights to be taken seriously. Anti-racist struggles have at least a five-hundred-year history globally and are recognized worldwide as democratic and human rights efforts. As activists of non-Persian ethnicities, it is our duty to transform anti-racist discourse and action into the dominant narrative of the struggles of the peoples in Iran.
Link to the original text: https://shahrvand.com/archives/12742