Taking responsibility for one's words

[chronicle_moderator]

A leading light in Iranian studies has attacked the author of the best-selling memoir Reading Lolita in Tehran for allegedly reinforcing stereotypes that could be used to justify a U.S. invasion of Iran. Almost a decade ago, critics of an absurdist novel about the Holocaust by Joseph Skibell, A Blessing on the Moon, worried about its potential to discourage moral outrage at the Nazis' slaughter of Jews. What is the political responsibility of writers? Should memoirists be held to different standards than fiction writers?
Read A Collision of Prose ... and  Peeking Under the Cover

[pyshnov]

For some years now I have studied with great admiration the Moslem art. And, as many others, I am looking with horror at the war waged against Moslem peoples by the West. I have read the recommended articles about Nafisi's book and Dabashi's interpretation of Nafisi's "literature" - "Reading Lolita in Tehran".

Of course, Nafisi's "literature" is a political propaganda. The article "A Collision of Prose and Politics" says: "She [Nafisi] believes that "something is lost when you talk about a work of art [sic!] in this [political] manner.", but then the article says: "..she [Nafisi] argues that the best path to discovering her politics and principles is through her writing." So, Nafisi tried to say that "Reading Lolita in Tehran" is literature, but then she betrayed the meaning of her "literature".

The most telling part of the Nafisi story is her ties with the top, really top, neoconservatives who pushed America into the war, although her political goals are clearly leftist. This is not about Nafisi, but it tells us what are the true goals of neoconservatives: killing off the conservative, religious part of the population in Moslem countries and resurrecting the "progressive" regime that Soviet communists failed to establish permanently in Afghanistan. Also, of course, it's no longer a secret that the Western troops on the conquered ground are followed by the squadrons of Western feminists teaching "social progress".

The Nafsi's part of this war is to arouse broad sexual interests in the population, getting the women "hot" and, therefore, obedient to the people and corporations supplying the pleasures. Her model is the West where the population is practically held by their sex organs. Lolita is just for the start. Television and Hollywood have more.

Moslem civilization was very different. They never had social revolutions or social problems. They had no "social justice" in mind. Justice was administered locally by clerics and according to the morality of Koran for the last fourteen hundred years with no "social progress" needed. Up to this time, crime has been practically absent. The core values of this civilization were: first - Faith and morality, and second - creation and production of the heavenly beauty by human hands. Their libraries had hundreds of thousands, some, indeed, millions of volumes.

Now, the West, the American ideology, can not stand this. Bagdad Museum was looted, the books written by hand - burned. The challenge of a mere idea that civilization is not a mass production of junk is unbearable to the "progressive" corporate "culture". The Left and the fake neoconservatism are united in the desire not to allow any "diversity" in Asia. Women, the Moslem women and girls who were making a large part of the product of this civilization, the carpets, rugs, embroidery, all of heavenly beauty and quality, these women are being given Lolita!!

Well, now, I think, you know why Lolita and what kind of "social responsibility" the authors of the "literature" of "change" have to bear. By the way, Moslems always had a somewhat erotic literature and had little or no censorship of it, because it was a beautiful literature, glorifying the beauty and wisdom of women. It was never degrading a woman to a position of an animal, a female. It was not a communist literature demanding a freedom for the animal side of human nature.

[jonesey]

I am looking with horror at the war waged against Moslem peoples by the West.

This quote by the above poster tells all that you need to know about his position.  The fact that he goes on to defend fundamentalist Muslim religious actions only serves to further illustrate his outlook.

I won't even get into his comments on "feminists" making Muslim's "hot and bothered" in an effort to control the population.  Or the fact that he sees no social problems in Muslim countries.  When a religious, fascist government controls everything that you do, with the death penalty for the slightest infractions, people are afraid to have any social change.  I'm glad that he thinks the ultimate expression allowed for women is to weave rugs (and do what their men say, and walk several steps behind the men, and have no say in their own lives, and get beat down if they look at someone the wrong way). 

Although, it appears that some countries are letting women do more; we've seen an increase in female suicide bombers, which, evidently, in some fundamentalist Muslim societies, is the highest honor one can achieve.

I know this has "Troll" written all over it, but I couldn't let this garbage go without comment.

[navydad]

I don't know about "Reading Lolita in Tehran," but pyshnov needs to read some history. "Moslem civilization was very different. They never had social revolutions or social problems." It's hard to know where to start with a comment of such breathtaking ignorance. Some reading of current events is in order, also. " ...the true goals of neoconservatives: killing off the conservative, religious part of the population in Moslem countries and resurrecting the "progressive" regime that Soviet communists failed to establish permanently in Afghanistan. Also, of course, it's no longer a secret that the Western troops on the conquered ground are followed by the squadrons of Western feminists teaching "social progress"." I'm sure the neocons who got us into this mess in the Middle East would be very surprised to find out that they are trying to recreate a failed Soviet Communist fantasy regime. And please identify one of the "squadrons of Western feminists" on the "conquered ground" in the Middle East. Leaving aside the fact that there is very little ground that American and British forces actually have conquered, I'm curious where these "squadrons" are. Embedded with some Army Reserve unit, no doubt.

I've noticed that these discussions have been drawing fewer and fewer postings lately. I wonder why.

[pyshnov]

jonesey:  "religious, fascist government" existed for 1400 years? So, Moslems invented fascism?
"religious, fascist government controls everything you do" No, their great traditions do. You have got to understand that all the rest of their laws and lifestile that you noted are not the result of force but of traditions that worked for fifty generations. A fascist government would be the one that MAKES CHANGE VIOLATING TRADITIONS.
You mentioned "death penalty for the slightest infractions". How much better is to have hundreds of times more crime because there is no deterrent, no moral, religious deterrent and no punishment as deterrent? You tell me, how many of your cherished females are in US jails? How many are killed in robbery attempts? How many killed their children and husbands? Why you can not understand a different strategy in society?
You mentioned women suicide bombers. How else they can react to the killing of their men? They were not making nuclear weapons, just rugs and stuff. Now they make this heroic act. You should probably know that I am Russian. There were many Russians who in WWII put grenades under their shirts and threw themselves under German tanks. How do you think we call them?
You definitely must get down to earth from your supremacist grounds. There are other peoples and you must respect their right to live their own lives. 

navydad:  Yes, they never had social revolutions or social problems. You say: "I'm curious where these "squadrons" are." Well, I don't know their names but I see them every week or more often on Canadian television "working for change" with Afghani women. It's ridiculous but for the last month or so the only reason for killing Afghani people that television gives is the Moslem traditions related to the position of women in family and society. All other reasons not mentioned anymore, not "terrorism" for sure. The public probably had looked at the problem who is the aggressor here, who is fighting WHERE. I think may be one day the public will talk about its findings on this issue and you will see more discussions.

[dark_globe]

Very clear analysis of Islamic society and western motivations, pyshnov.

[pyshnov]

Wow, dark_globe, it cannot be that you think exactly the same, there are probably some differences and this would be a constructive discussion if you find something you disagree with, etc. and write.

[dark_globe]

Well, I think that the attempt to force western consumer culture on the Islamic world goes beyond sex, of course. An excellent, if at times excessive, analysis of the drive by the west to turn the Islamic world into a consumer culture is Postmodernism and the Other: The New Imperialism of Western Culture by Ziauddin Sardar.

Your reply to the person who made the "death penalty for the slightest infractions" is well taken, although for most of the Islamic world this was never the case, nor is it currently except in the United States' good ally, Saudi Arabia. There are in fact four schools (madhhabs) of Islamic jurisprudence, and the ultra-conservative Hanbali madhhab is the only one that regularly meted out such draconian penalties. Wahhabism, essentially a puritanical version of the Hanbali madhhab, is not only the official Islam of Saudi Arabia but the only one allowed. It was with the help of Great Britian and the United States that the Saudis were able to establish Wahhabism as a form of totalitarian control; FDR once praised Wahhabism's stabilizing effect on the Arabian peninsula.

As for the squadrons you mention, I have seen some reports, but more than that I have encountered proponents of this strategy at academic conferences. When I was once presenting some options for dealing with certain ethnic groups that included codifying their local customs to give them a sense of self-governance, one of these people virtually denounced me, stating that these people adhered to aspects of Islamic law that were anti-feminist. I agreed but tried to point out that the most important goal at present was ensure that these people were not pushed into the camp of the most radical anti-western elements, and her strategy was certain to do it. She was implacable, refusing even to discuss the issue with me, and literally stormed out. I later found out she is an advisor for the US government on precisely these issues. There is without a doubt a faction in the left that is determined to abolish all the traditions of the Islamic peoples, assuming that since weaponry is superior their values must be intrinsically superior as well.

[dentontrask]

Mr. Dabashi, professor of Iranian studies at Columbia University, has no Iranian counterpart. Perhaps he could cite a professor of American studies at Tehran University?

Before you claim that this is not the point, consider that it is exactly the point. Mr. Dabashi has his Orientalist pulpit, from which he can launch ridiculous attacks and be respected for it. That would be impossible in Iran.

Read Nafisi's book. You will find no prop for American imperialism. Instead you will find a sad account of life under theological oppression, buoyed here and there by contact with great literature. In fact, the more you look at the Iran of Nafisi's book, the less you would wish any violence on a population that has been so roundly abused. You would cultivate their desire to overthrow the Mullah oppressors themselves, and resist any American intervention which might polarize the population.

The Mullah leadership of Iran controls the illegal drug trade and a sizable trade in human slaves. They put death contracts on writers like Rushdie, and routinely fund terrorist groups all over the Middle East. That an apologist like Dabashi would rush to condemn a small book that tells big truths is to be expected; that educated Westerners would make an issue of his silly argument speaks more to our own lack of confidence and self-loathing.

Disagree? Tell it to the professor of American studies at Tehran University.

[pyshnov]

Thank you, dark_globe! Thank you for details that we never hear. The media completely stripped the image of Arabic and Persian culture of everything that can give it respect. Even those who oppose it use only a generic term "demonizing", but we need the concrete details!

It's interesting that British imperialism (19 century!) was much more humane and actually brought to the West some knowledge of Asia. (Which made possible for William Morris to flood industry with his devoid of any beauty and soul interpretations of Islamic ornament.) At these, gentler times it was even possible to achieve independence by non-violent protest!

[pirouz]

On The Politics of Iran Get Personal (October 13, 2006)

Dear Chronicle Editor,

Thank you for your recent article on the lively debate between the two American scholars of Iranian heritage. Despite the apparent divergence between the two scholars; namely, Nafisi and Dabashi, there is, nonetheless, a common theme convergent by both sides, i.e., to advocate for Iran and the plights of Iranians with the effective use of “the pen is mightier than the sword.”  Moreover, the meritorious outcome of their discourse has now brought the rhetoric on Iran as in the public media to a more objective platform in the academe.

The dilemma, as encapsulated in the article, has led to an on-going dichotomy in the Iranian American community of nearly one million. As an American of Iranian ancestry, I also continue to empathize dearly with the aspirations of nearly seventy million Iranians for an independent home-grown democracy anchored on freedom, justice and security. Notwithstanding that however, I have a hard time accepting the presumptuous notion of external elements who espouse disability in that sensitive region of the world by covert or overt military means or the so called “smart sanctions” that would only give more pretexts to the hard-liners there to quench dissent. I opine that the above ideals of Iranian people could only come to fruition through sustainable educational enhancement and socio-cultural and economic reforms from within. Let us remind ourselves that Iran, a country in the making for several millennia with her rich cultural history, multi-ethnicity, and multifaceted contributions to world civilization, is currently commemorating the centennial anniversary of its 1906 constitution. Hence, the notion of struggle for freedom in Iran is not a new phenomenon that can now all of sudden be imported from, and imposed on by the outsiders, especially that the outcome of such hegemonic interventions is self-evident on either side of Iran; namely, in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

Let us also remember that Iranians in the South(-west) Asia are the only people, who irrespective of political rhetoric by elements within their government, remain pro-western, and have on numerous occasions like their spontaneous mass candle vigil congregation expressed their sympathetic empathy post September 11 with the US people. Finally, so long as the lingering tension between the US administration and the government of Iran is not equitably resolved through direct, face-to-face negotiation and people-to-people cultural and educational exchanges, the aspiration of Iranian-Americans, thousands of whom are currently serving as professors and scholars in the US will remain impeded at best.

David N. Rahni, PH.D.
Professor of Chemistry & Adjunct Professor,
Environmental Law & Dermatology (NYMC)
PACE UNIVERSITY, New York U.S.A.   

[dark_globe]

Merci for this post. Your observations echo those of an Iranian friend of mine who was able to emigrate just before the Revolution. I wish more Americans could understand the psyche of the Iranian people; I'm sorry to say many don't even realize the Iranians are not Arabs.

[basilratbane]

What is the difference between Moslem and Muslim?

[dark_globe]

What is the difference between Moslem and Muslim?

"Muslim" more correctly reflects the Arabic pronunciation of the word, and so is generally preferred by Muslims when they refer to one another. However, no Muslim would take offense if you called him/her a "Moslem."

[twofish]

Mr. Dabashi, professor of Iranian studies at Columbia University, has no Iranian counterpart. Perhaps he could cite a professor of American studies at Tehran University?

Maybe he can't, but I can.

Dr. Seyyed Mohammed Marandi

http://inaes.ut.ac.ir/Static/American/Marandi.htm

who is head of the Department of North American Studies at the Institute of North American and European Studies at the University of Tehran

http://inaes.ut.ac.ir/Home/index.php

It really does not look good when you make an assertion that can be disproved in five seconds by typing "american studies tehran university" into google.