AN IRANIAN DEFITION OF FEMINISM

Marziyeh Morteza Langeroodi

Gender inequality Iran has diverse and deep historical and psychological roots. According to male dominated historical accounts, pre-modern Iranian society was a hierarchical and class divided society. Rights were determined based on wealth and tribal power within the existing socio-economic divisions.

Within the Iranian imperial system, the emperor or the king (shah) was regarded as the most powerful, able and knowledgeable tribal member who had subjugated other tribes. The socio-political structure of the empire was a hierarchical and highly stratified, and the rights enjoyed by its subjects depended on their place within this hierarchical structure.

Within the tribal system, given the absence of a modern notion of individual rights and individual identity, both rights and identity were defined collectively. An individual’s rights and interests were equated with the rights and interests of his/her tribe, and a person expelled from a tribe or not belonging to the tribe, could have no claims to any rights. Further, within such an hierarchical imperial system, a minority group of people who possessed wealth and power enjoyed all rights and privileges, while the mass of the population were deprived and dispossessed.

With the introduction of the idea of modernity into Iran, around the turn of the 20th century, and Iranians’ relative awakening, the ideological bases of the divine rights of despotic kings came under question. The ideas of justice, rule of law, equality and freedom entered popular discourse for the first time.

The Constitutional Movement (1906-1911) seriously challenged the legitimacy of the divine rule of despotic king. The Constitutionalists rejected the despotic system of rule, and demanded rule of law, equality before the law and equal access to the country’s resources by its citizens.

According to provision number 8 of section ‘Rights of the Nation’ of Iran’s first ever Constitution, enacted in 1285 (1906), all Iranian citizens were deemed equal before the law, while according to provision number 9 of section ‘Rights of the Monarch’, the monarch was obliged to abide by the laws prescribed by the Constitution.

We may therefore argue that the debates over equality of individuals date back to the Constitutional Movement period. The ultimate objective of this equality is the removal of arbitrary divisions imposed by an oppressive system of power and wealth, and that all human beings, by the simple fact of being human, must be respected and treated equally, irrespective of whether they are men or women, rich or poor, black or white, religious or atheist.

The long standing struggles in Iran for equality and justice clearly indicate the extent to which Iranians have suffered socio-economic injustice. After the Constitution Revolution, and following the spread of modern thought in the Iranian society, the concept of power-based right was replaced by the concept of need-based right.

The conviction that individuals’ rights derive from his/her needs was a new and modern idea. For this idea to materialise, some prerequisite has to be met. The first prerequisite is freedom, which is beyond the scope of this paper, but we need to acknowledge the relationship between freedom and human needs.

All human begins have certain primary or basic needs: the need for food and shelter and for basic necessities of daily life. Once these basic needs are satisfied, new needs emerge. The difference between human beings and animals lies in this fact; the need to create new needs. Once men’s primary needs are satisfied, they can begin thinking, seeking knowledge, making life choices, and try to transcend life limits. Therefore, as long as inequality between individuals, in terms of their ability to satisfy their basic needs and to enjoy their basic human rights, persists, gender inequity will also continue to persist.

Women

After the Constitution Revolution, women, for the first time and within a relatively short time, were able to participate in the society and public life, and to raise the question of their individual rights.

Traditional values and mores have made women believe in their inferiority, weakness and subjugated position, as if power and ability somehow diminish feminine attractiveness. Traditional men do not like assertive, cultured, realistic and brave women, and find themselves threatened in their presence.

Iranian women soon found out that in order to gain extra rights, certain basic equality of opportunity must become institutionalised. They realised that merely enjoying some rudimentary rights is not sufficient for the realisation of their full potential and aspirations – although all that the traditional male-dominated Iranian society expects of women is to eat, drink and reproduce under the shadows of the dominant males. Certainly most Iranian women have now passed this stage and recognise financial independence, and a distinct and independent sense of identity of their own, as a basic necessity. If rights are not taken seriously or respected, the result would be crisis, both for women and society.

Another reason for gender inequity is the educational system and the resultant psychological make up of both men and women. Women are traditionally raised to view their physical differences with men as a sign of inferiority; they seek explanation for this inferiority, which ultimately leads to socio-economic inequality, in terms of God, nature’s blind force and even fate. An intelligent, aware and rational human being does not tolerate inequality. Inequality is not the same as difference!

Feminism and its relationship with the current Iranian society

My definition of feminism is a native and Iranian definition. In order not to entangle myself in the same web which Western feminists have, by dividing society into two separate compartments made up of men and women, and then defending one against another, I distinguish between sex and gender, see biological differences as natural and accept them as a fact. But I consider limiting women to biologically-determined roles, and granting unequal values and worth to individuals based on sex and biology, against reason and rationality which define men and women’s relations today.

Therefore the kind of feminism which I have in mind is derived from a non-oppressive outlook. This feminism is against oppression and suppression through the means of culture, religion, arts and politics.

I am one of those feminists who, despite respecting the unique and independent female identity, do not believe in the separation of men and women, counterposing one against another, taking women to be superior and providing women with the same domineering power that is generally held to be a male attribute. Rather, I define ‘power’ in terms of creative rationality and production and discovery of existing local realities. I believe such a power will be able to control the discrimination, injustices and the unequal relationships which exist between men and women, men and men and women and women.

Iranian feminist thought is at its infantile stage and, at present, due to absence of freedom of expression and lack of free access to the mass media, is unable to ascertain itself. It is deprived of its place within the public sphere and of the opportunity to criticise, to engage and thus to develop and flourish. In terms of exchange of ideas and experience, Iranian feminism is isolated and peripheral. In so far as there is a circulation of ideas, it takes place within the elitist confines of intellectual discourse rather than at the level of the larger society.

Lack of awareness amongst masses of people about what constitutes ‘feminism’ has resulted in the spread of vulgar views of feminism that reduce feminist thought to one that sees relations between men and women as necessarily antagonistic and yet dependent. Feminists are thus mocked and ridiculed without them having the opportunity to respond and to express their opinions.

And, on the other hand, religious authorities try to portray feminist ideas as against religious and social mores, and suppress their spread. Under these circumstances, the dialogue between feminism and Iranian society is limited to exposing the injustices and inequalities women suffer in Iran.

Feminists believe that there must be a logical and rational relationship between women’s identity and women’s rights. Obviously feminism, like many other schools of thought, is based on a scientific, rational and modern outlook. Such an outlook would find itself in serious conflict with traditions derived from the Sharia or customs and practices which dominate a society like Iran’s. There can be no avoiding these conflicts, and neither should we try to avoid them. Because challenges often help one grow and develop. But not every single woman’s rights activist is necessarily feminist.

The fact is that the relationship between feminists and the larger society remains limited and vulnerable. I see the real strategy based on a feminist outlook, approach and programs for ascertaining women’s identity as well as based on the development of models of human relations free from injustice and discrimination. In the last analysis, women’s main duty, whether they are feminist or not, is to illuminate those aspects of existence, that under the pressures of anger and destructiveness, are hidden in shadows.

Notes from the translator

It seems that, sometimes, we are as much misinformed about the ‘West’ as the ‘West’ is about us in its popular imagination. Misunderstandings and stereotypes are mutual.

-Ms Morteza Langeroodi ‘s view of Western feminists seems to be somehow misguided and, I am afraid, rather simplistic. ‘Western feminism’ is not a single homogeneous trend or movement. It is made up of various and sometimes conflicting approaches and opinions. Some radical feminists, in the early days of feminism, may have advocated superiority of women and been hostile and antagonistic towards men in general, but they were generally a small minority and no serious feminist would today argue this.

-Ms Morteza Langeroodi argues for a ‘native’ and ‘Iranian’ feminism, but it is not clear what exactly the features or peculiarities of this native and Iranian feminism are and how it differs from other types and kinds of feminism. Perhaps she has in mind feminism in the context of Iranian conditions, but what are those conditions? I think we should be very careful not to undermine the universality of women’s oppression.

translated by Minoo Ardalan