…so says a senior Education Ministry official:
“Expansion of 12 disciplines in the social sciences like law, women’s studies, human rights, management, sociology, philosophy….psychology and political sciences will be reviewed,” Abolfazl Hassani was quoted as saying in the Arman newspaper.
“These sciences’ contents are based on Western culture. The review will be the intention of making them compatible with Islamic teachings.”
The Ayatollah added:
“Many disciplines in the humanities are based on principles founded on materialism disbelieving the divine Islamic teachings,” Khamenei said in a speech reported by state media.
“Thus such teachings…will lead to the dissemination of doubt in the foundations of religious teachings.”
I have no doubt that this will only serve to elevate Iranian social science to new heights. I mean, it isn’t like doubt is fundamental to the scientific enterprise or anything…
[via The Monkey Cage]
I don't subscribe to New Left Review but I get the table of contents via e-mail, and the Sept/Oct issue contains a review of a book called Iran's Intellectual Revolution. I suspect this review may offer a somewhat different picture of the situation than that available at The Monkey Cage. (Not to dis The Monkey Cage, just saying…)
LFC: based on the description of the book I suspect it would reflect the story above. The story isn't meant to say that Iran is anti-intellectual or anti-science, rather the current regime is. And that regime is pushing back against the wave of intellectual modernization that has been taking place for the last few decades. The Ayatollah's comments reflect this–there is great fear in the open examination and contestation of ideas as it can lead to a further weakening of the regime's power.
I think the Iranian regime is correct to interrogate the intellectual origins of these disciplines, because they do have a genealogy despite their pretensions to universalism. However, I think Ayatollah Khameni may be missing the potential benefits of these disciplines by focusing only on the danger they pose to the Islamic Republic. As Bruce Cummings once incisively noted, “Recourse to brute force … is a far less effective method of influencing students than teaching them political science.” A useful lesson for any regime… ;)
Vikash: The regime shouldn't be interrogating anything. That is a job for practitioners of the discipline. The regime isn't going to conduct an analysis to strip the discipline of cultural bias and make it more objective, they are going to do it to make sure that it doesn't run counter to Sharia law. The point is to allow qualified individuals to openly debate the merits of “western” research and make corrections where necessary. What the regime is scared of is open debate and analysis, not biased science.
Interesting that Iran is exempting physical sciences from the charge of Westernism and materialism…
Bill, I agree with some of what you are saying here, but because you are a positivist and I am not we may be talking past each other.
I agree that the regime is concerned that the disciplines do not advocate positions and arguments which run counter to the Shariat. The issue isn't anti-intellectualism on the part of the Iranian regime's judiciary (Ahmedinejad is a different case and branch of that government). The issue at stake is judicial sovereignty which is the foundational principle for the regime. Any regime would act to protect the core basis of its sovereignty.
You argue that only practitioners of the discipline should be granted the authority to interrogate a discipline. This assumes that the current Western relationship between the state and intellectuals is the optimal one (and I happen to agree that it is for Western liberal societies) but there would be severe consequences for a regime like Iran if it adopted such a framework.
You state that the regime is scared of open debate and analysis. I think such a comment needs to be placed into context. While the principle of wilayat al-faqih restricts freedom in Iran, the political situation is complex and elections (however flawed) are the basis for forming the government. There are clear competing factions with articulated ideologies.
The Iranian regime is a phenomenon of modernization; this is a republican regime. The regime creates separate spheres of knowledge and practice but does so in a manner which is different from what is common in liberal societies. Glossing over some of these distinctions may resonate politically in the US, but limits our ability
to understand the dynamics within the Iranian regime.
I don't know if I can be so easily categorized as a positivist (I'd fancy myself more of a methodological pragmatist with a lean towards positivism), but ok.
We agree that the threat is to the regime's foundational authority. I am making a value-judgment here–namely that the state has no business dictating the principles and acceptable knowledge of a discipline. And yes, it has implications for a regime like Iran, but that is my entire point. Yes, there is limited political competition and openness but we've seen a shift away from that the past few years (a reaction to shifts in the populace more willing to challenge the foundations of the state). I see this as part and parcel of that shift.
I don't think there is a great confusion as to why the regime is doing this–I completely understand, I just disagree with it vehemently.