Spaces for Civil Society Action in Tehran, Iran (Human Rights Watch Iran 2015; Human Rights Watch 2012; Peterson 2010)

Creating Space (s) for Civil Society in Tehran, Iran

Women negotiating the ‘Red Line’ of Civil Society Action in Tehran

M.Sc. Thesis Jette Swinkels Wageningen University March 2016

Newsha.2015. Exhibition in a ‘private’ gallery in Tehran, Iran1

Jette Swinkels M.Sc. thesis report International Development Studies Wageningen University Specialization: Disaster Studies March 2016 Thesis code: SDC-80733 Supervisors: Bram Jansen and Joost Jongerden

1 For security reasons the names of persons and organizations who participated in this study are changed. Names in this thesis report are all pseudonyms. 2

Abstract

This thesis explores the relation between civil society practices and space in Iran. Generally, in the academic literature the public sphere is related to the development of a civil society in a country. Research fails to look at the public sphere and at civil society as something that is socially constructed by the practices and activities of people. Therefore, this study focusses on spaces that people create by their practices and activities. In this research, civil society as well as space is understood as socially constructed, alive and as constantly negotiated in a certain spatial context. The research is conducted in Tehran, Iran, and by means of ethnographic research methods it discovers how women by their practices and activities create spaces for civil society action in Iran. Inspired on the spatial triad offered by Lefebvre and the Civic Driven Change framework of Biekart and Fowler, it looks at spaces of everyday life of women and how these influence the creation of spaces for civil society action. It found that women by their practices and activities create different spaces for civil society, and that on the same time civil society emerges from these spaces. Thus, it found that civil society creates its own space for social action. In Tehran, civil society does not only emerges from public spaces but also out of created spaces for civil society action in private and hybrid spaces. Moreover, it found that in Tehran public spaces for civil society action are ordered by red lines, presented by the authorities in Iran. These red lines order spaces of civil society action, but are on the same time negotiated, resisted and challenged by civil society action. Space (s) for civil society are thus on the same time conceived, lived and perceived. This research will contribute to the understanding of the creation of space for civil society in Tehran, Iran. Keywords: civil society, space, public, private, Islamic Republic Iran

Preface The purpose of this research was to explore how women create and negotiate spaces for civil society in the capital of Iran, Tehran.

It may sound like a cliché, but doing fieldwork in Tehran, Iran, was one of the most inspiring, scary and rewarding things I have ever done in my life. I owe a lot to the people I met during my field research. People who wanted to talk to me, share their visions of society and who had the patience to explain me everything I wanted to know. I deeply respect the women and men I have met who have the courage, energy and determination to, day in day out, try to improve the situation for the people in Iran. Furthermore, I would like to thank Dr. Bram Jansen and Dr. Joost Jongerden who supported me during the fieldwork and supervised me in the writing process.

In the first week of my fieldwork I visited the Ebrat museum. The Ebrat museum is a former prison, in which the Shah, the monarch of Iran tortured its (in most cases) Islamic dissidents. The museum is now open for the public to see this horrors. The museum was full of visuals, including, martyrs methods, blood on the floor and puppets of dead prisoners. Above the wall of the entrance of the former prison cells there was written: ‘Freedom is never free’. I asked the tour guide, a former detainee, of the prison, where this sentence stood for. He told me it stood for all the brave people, including the current leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei, who revolted against the brutal practices of the Shah against religious people. For him the sentence stood for the freedom these people had to give up to attain more freedom.

Ebrat means lesson from the past. However, for me this felt like an enormous contradiction. Isn’t the government - that this tour guide clearly supported -does not do the same thing towards the opposition? And, why have people not learned from the past? During my fieldwork and the time I was writing my thesis, these questions kept going through my mind. Maybe the people who wrote this on the wall were right; does freedom even exists at all? And, if freedom does not exists where do people then fight for? Is it all worth it? The price that people in Iran have to pay for a bit more freedom is very high – on a daily basis Iranians are arrested or sometimes even executed by authorities in their struggle for more freedom and their activities for what they believe to be a better and more ‘free’ society (Human Rights Watch 2015).

In Tehran, the lack of freedom is visible and you can feel it constantly, everywhere you go. Every time when you walk in the streets or when you have to wear a hijab, see the vans of the morality police, when you want to party, when you need to call an alcohol dealer to get some beer or wine and when you go to a ‘private’ gallery to look at artwork.

To experience the lack of freedom and to talk with people who fight for a more just and inclusive society showed me that one should never give up the hope for a more free society. Even if it goes very slow and

the change is little, people continue in their activities and push back against the restrictions set by the authorities.

Freedom or the lack of it, is conceptual hard to define, it could mean something totally different for any person in a given society. The way I understand it, freedom means a society in which everyone experiences freedom to live the way they want without taking someone else’s freedom. For me this would be an ideal society; to live and let live. This sometimes feels like a utopian future, especially in Iran. For now, I hold on to what Sarah, my host in Iran and an inspiring artist told me:

‘Freedom is in the mind, and the mind is never bound to the borders of a society’ (Sarah 2015).

In my mind I am back in Tehran. As I walk on the street; my hair blows in the wind and the afternoon sun is burning in my face and on my uncovered shoulders and legs. On the background the Mosque calls for prayers. When I arrive on Vanak Square, it is crowded, not with cars but with people. They are laughing, drinking, playing games and discussing politics on one of the many bars around the square. A woman and a man are making music in the middle of the square, heaps of people have gathered around them and are enjoying their beautiful voices. I take a sip of my cold beer and cheer with Sarah and her friends on all the beautiful things the world has to offer.

Jette Swinkels

March 2016

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... 3 Preface ...... 4 Glossary of Terms ...... 8 1. Introduction ...... 9 1.1 Aim, Objectives and Research questions ...... 11 1.2 Outline of the Thesis ...... 12 2. Methodology and Methods of Data Collection...... 13 2.1 Research Approach ...... 13 2.2 Choice of, and Gaining Access to, the Research Field ...... 14 2.2.1 The Research Field ...... 14 2.2.2 Research Population and Method of Sampling ...... 15 2.2.3 Gaining Access ...... 16 2.3 Research Techniques ...... 18 2.3.1 Observations ...... 18 2.3.2 Semi-structured interviews ...... 19 2.3.3 Descriptions ...... 21 2.4 Data Analysis ...... 21 2.5 Research Evaluation ...... 22 2.5.1 Reliability ...... 22 2.5.2 Fidelity ...... 22 2.5.3 Generalization and Representativeness of data ...... 24 2.5.4 Research Limitations ...... 24 2.5.5 Reflection on the Fieldwork ...... 25 2.6 Ethics ...... 26 3. Conceptual Framework ...... 29 3.1 Civil Society ...... 29 3.2 Space ...... 31 3.3 Civic Driven Change approach ...... 34 4. Civil Society in the Islamic Republic of Iran ...... 35 4.1 The Political System and Political contestation in Iran ...... 35 4.2 Political contestation: Hard-liners versus Moderates on Civil Society ...... 37 4.3 The NGO and Press Law ...... 39 5. Organization of Civil Society by Women ...... 41 5.1 Registered Organizations ...... 42 5.1.1 Description of a Registered Organization ...... 43

5.1.2 Reflection on Registered Organizations ...... 45 5.2 Unregistered Organizations ...... 48 5.2.1 Description of an Unregistered Organization ...... 48 .2.2 Reflection on Unregistered Organizations ...... 51 5.3 Faith Based Organizations ...... 53 5.3.1 Description of a Faith Based Organization ...... 53 5.3.2 Reflection on Faith Based Organizations ...... 57 5.4 The ‘Other’ category; State Authorities ...... 58 5.4.1 Description of a meeting with the State Authority ...... 58 5.4.2 Reflection on State Authorities ...... 60 Conclusion ...... 61 6. Spaces of Civil Society Action ...... 62 6.1 Description of Spaces of Civil Society Action; Invited and Created Spaces ...... 62 6.1.1 Helping Children and Women Empowerment ...... 62 6.1.2 The Artist Collective; Worshipping Art instead of Praying on Friday morning ...... 65 6.2 Reflection on different Spaces of Civil Society Action ...... 68 6.2.1 Institutional ‘invited’ Spaces of Civil Society Action ...... 71 6.2.2 Created Spaces for Civil Society Action ...... 74 Conclusion ...... 77 7. Motivations of Women to Create Civil Society ...... 78 7.1 Vision on Future Spaces; Gender Equality and Freedom from Religion in Public ...... 78 7.2 Reflection on the Visions of Future Spaces; the Civic Energy and Agency Unravelled ...... 80 7.3. How to create the Imagined Future Spaces; Revolt or Peaceful Change? ...... 82 Conclusion ...... 85 Negotiating Spaces for Participation in Civil Society: A Conclusion ...... 87 8.1 Summary of the Main Research Findings ...... 87 8.2 The Production of Spaces of Civil Society Action; the Ordering ‘Red Line’ ...... 90 8.3 The Public Sphere and the Development of Civil Society ...... 92 A Conclusion ...... 93 References ...... 95 Appendix 1: Interview guide Semi-structured Interviews ...... 98

Glossary of Terms

Civil Society A sphere of social interaction between economy and state, composed above all of the intimate sphere (especially the family), the sphere of associations (especially voluntary organizations), social movements and forms of public communications.

Civic Energy Energy that all citizens potentially possess to promote common interest as a member of a community or a social group, while at the same time respecting differences within the community or group and towards others

Spaces of Participation Space in which citizen participation takes place. Participation may be defined as a process in which ordinary people take part – whether on a voluntary or obligatory basis and whether acting alone or as part of a group – with the goal of influencing a decision, involving significant choices that will affect their community. Such participation may or may not take place within an institutional framework.

Social Action Organized individual or group behaviour towards social change.

Public Sphere Discursive space; in which people can come together to exchange views, to discuss, to participate and to be heard by others. In this sphere societal problems can be identified, aiming to influence political action. It is the sphere between the state and the private sphere of family life and economic relations.

Public spaces Spaces concerning the people as a whole; open to or shared by all the people of an area or country, but often related to government or involved in the affairs of the community. In these spaces people can congregate, socialize and organize in relatively unregulated ways.

Private spaces Space of the home and the workplace; belonging to or for the use of one particular person or group of people only.

1. Introduction

‘’Civil Society can best be described as the bewildering arena of the good, the bad, and the outright bizarre’’ (Carothers 1999, 16).

‘Civil society is the oxygen of democracy. Civil society acts as a catalyst for social progress and

economic growth. It plays a critical role in keeping government accountable, and helps represent the

diverse interests of the population, including its most vulnerable groups’

(Ban Ki-Moon United Nations 15-09-2015)

In 2015 the theme of the international day of democracy was space for civil society. Secretary- General Ban Ki-moon of the United Nations (UN) pledged in this speech for more space for civil society and for the protection of civil society actors, as according to him civil society is: ‘the oxygen of democracy’. Furthermore, he stated that: ‘the hallmark of successful and stable democracies is the presence of a strong and freely operating civil society’2. This speech, is in line with language used in the 1980’s and 1990’s, when a neo-liberal discourse of civil society dominated the debate. Civil society was often understood as a pre-condition for the successful democratization of states (Carothers 1999; Calhoun, 2003, p.271; Kaldor 2003). According to this line of thinking: ‘a vivid and strong civil society will lead the way to more freedom, the promotion of human rights, liberalization and eventually to the transition from an authoritarian state to a democratic market regime’ (Kamel Al-Sayyid in Aarts and Cavatorta 2013, p.207). In the academic literature, this neo-liberal discourse of civil society is criticized for being too ambiguous, narrow and normative. Firstly, because it mainly focusses on the spread of ‘civil’ neo-liberal ideals such as a privatized democracy and individual human rights. Civil society was understood as the third sector that not only restrained the state but also provides a substitute of many of the functions previously performed by the state (Kaldor 2012, 9). Moreover, civil society organization were understood as: ‘Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) fighting for the good’. Whereas, it overlooked the: ‘un-civic’ parts of civil society such as oligarchic elites, terrorisms, cartels, traffickers and other groups predisposed to violence (Carothers 1999). It ignored that these groups can drive socio- political processes in society as well as ‘civil’ groups (Biekart and Fowler 2012). Secondly, the neo-liberal understanding associates civil society with the formation of a particular type of political authority. Civil society is in most of the literature related to the privatized ‘democratization’ of society and the state. Hence, civil society is used to describe a normative goal; the

2 http://www.un.org/en/events/democracyday/ 9

spread of a western type of society to the rest of the world (Kaldor 2013, p, 11). Despite these critiques on the neo-liberal discourse of civil society, it is this understanding that dominates in the current debates that evolve around space for civil society. While a variety of definitions of the term civil society have been suggested, this thesis will use the definition offered by Cohen and Arato (1994), who define civil society as:

‘A sphere of social interaction between economy and state, composed above all of the intimate sphere (especially the family), the sphere of associations (especially voluntary organizations) social movements and forms of public communications’.

In other words, civil society is the social sphere, in which citizens, linked by perceived common interests and collective activity, come together. This social sphere, in which citizens create and shape civil society, is often related or used interchangeable with the public sphere. As an example, for Arendt (1990) civil society describes the citizen’s discursive and spatial right to; ‘access the public realm’ and ‘the capacity to act publicly’. Arendt (1990) understand civil society as the empowerment of people in their capacity as citizens through the establishment of a public space. In this public space citizens can be seen and heard by others in society. Moreover, in this space there is freedom in politics instead of freedom from politics (Arendt 1990 in Jongerden 2015, p.6; Calhoun 2011). Understanding democratization of society in this way implies a different way of thinking about civil society. It requires an understanding that goes beyond the individual neo-liberalism and capitalist understandings of society. This would include different forms of self-governing and self-organization of citizens outside the realm of the state and would include new public spheres in which citizen’s actively organize themselves and operate around issues that are of the perceived interest for the common (Arendt 1990 in Jongerden 2015).

The ‘Pushback phenomenon’; the Shrinking Space for Civil Society As stated, the current debates about civil society often evolves around space for civil society, more specifically, around the shrinking space for civil society (Carothers and Brechenmacher 2014; Van der Borgh and Terwindt 2012; ACT Alliances 2011). In the last decade an increasing amount of governments install pressure mechanisms to restrict the space for civil society organizations to act (Van der Borgh and Terwindt 2012). Carothers and Brechenmacher (2014) refer to this as the ‘push back phenomena’ of civil society (Carothers and Brechenmacher 2014). These pressure mechanisms consist of different restrictive policies and actions and effect different types of societal organizations (Carothers and Brechenmacher 2014; ACT Alliance 2011). The restrictions mostly aim at limiting the activities of international NGOs, for example by establishing laws that prevent them from working in the country (e.g. by delaying visa applications) or restrict international funding for domestic NGOs. Furthermore, societal organizations face non-legal measures against them such as physical harassments, stigmatisation and intimidation (Van der Borgh and Terwindt

2012). The restrictions aim to constrain the possibilities for different individuals and groups to meet, to differentiate, and to be heard by others in public. As mentioned before, one of the explanations for the shrinking space for civil society organizations is related to the way civil society is used to describe democratization processes of states. This interpretation of civil society has led to the understanding of civil society as threat to the political sovereign authority of countries; civil society became understood as a western intervention imposing western agendas in different non-western contexts (Aarts and Cavatorta 2012; Carothers and Brechenmacher 2014; ACT alliance). Despite these consequences, the debates that evolve around space for civil society fails to leave this understanding of civil society behind. In these debates civil society is once again understood as ‘NGOs fighting for the good’ (mostly focusing on space for democracy and human rights support) and uses the ‘democratization’ narrative of civil society. In the literature little attention is paid to the fact that civil society is actively created, shaped and interpreted in different ways by multiple actors in different societies, or that space in itself is socially constructed, alive and constantly (re) produced (Merrifield 2006). Therefore, to fully understand space for civil society; one needs to investigate how space for civil society is grounded in the society and how civil society as well as space is negotiated by actors who inhabit these spaces. It needs to focus on how citizens understand their civil society action, respond to the arguable shrinking space for civil society and how this response shapes and leads to new spaces for civil society action (Van der Borgh and Terwindt 2012).

1.1 Aim, Objectives and Research questions All around the world, civil society organizations face pressure of authorities. This study is conducted in the Islamic Republic of Iran, were, in recent years, different organizations have reported on restrictions and assaults on civil society organizations. Human Rights Watch reported that, especially, the situation for human rights activist, journalist, women and ethnic minority groups was alarming, many of them were arrested and had to flee the country (Human Rights Watch 2012). Despite restrictions on civil society, people continue their activities in different civil society organizations (Aarts and Cavatorta 2012). The aim of this research, therefore, is to understand how citizens shape and create their own spaces of civil society action. Doing so, it aims to understand how civil society is actively created and grounded in its spatial context. This study will explore how women, in the arguable restricted space for civil society, negotiate, shape and create spaces for civil society action in Tehran, Iran (Human Rights Watch Iran 2015; Human Rights Watch 2012; Peterson 2010). In addition, it explores how spaces of civil society action are tied and ordered by an ambiguous ‘red line’. Informants regularly referred to this red line when they identified activities as unaccepted. This study will try to understand the dynamics behind the red line and its consequences on spaces for civil society action. Moreover, it tries to

understand how civil society organizations negotiate and ‘push-back’ this red line. Therefore, this study shed new light on the current debate on space for civil society. To meet these objectives the following research question has been formulated: How do women create spaces for civil society action in Tehran, Iran? To answer this main question; the Trialectic of spatiality offered by Lefebvre (Lefebvre in Soja 1996) and the Civic Driven Change framework of Biekart and Fowler (2012), will be used as an analytical tool. Doing so, this study provides an analysis on the production of space for civil society action in Tehran, Iran. To answer the main research question the following sub-questions are formulated and answered in the research:

1. How do women create civil society in Tehran, Iran? This sub-question focuses on how women organize themselves in Tehran. It argues that women by their organization actively create civil society. It shows around what themes women are organized, in what activities they are engaged and how this relates to public and private spaces. This question is answered based on data gained from semi-structured interviews, personal conversations and observations during the fieldwork.

2. What spaces of social action do women create as civil society in Tehran, Iran? This sub-question focusses on spaces of social action of women. It tries to understand where women organize themselves for civil society action. It on the spaces women have created as well as on the more institutionalized spaces in which women are invited. This question is answered based on data gained from semi-structured interviews, personal conversations and observations.

3. What drives women to create civil society in Tehran, Iran? This sub-question focuses on the visions of women regarding future spaces of civil society action. It tries to understand why women create civil society by elaborating on the civic energy and agency of women. This question is answered based on data gathered from semi-structured interviews, personal conversations and observations.

1.2 Outline of the Thesis This thesis starts by presenting the methodological approach and methods of data gathering that were used during this research. Chapter 3, presents the main academic debates about Civil Society, Space and Civic Driven Change. Chapter 4 elaborates on civil society in the context of the Islamic Republic of Iran. It presents the political system of Iran, the development of (space for) civil society in its recent history and the legal space for people to associate and participate. Chapter 5, 6 and 7 present the data and observations of the fieldwork with the use of descriptions of different civil society organizations. These chapters all cover one of the sub-questions. Chapter 5 and 6 present descriptions of different societal organizations and chapter 7 presents visions of individuals concerning future spaces of civil

society action inspired by the Civic Driven Change framework. The concluding chapter answers the main research question, presents the summary of the findings and discusses the main findings and the implications of these findings for the current academic debates.

2. Methodology and Methods of Data Collection This chapter elaborates on the methodological approach and methods of data collection that were used during this research. The chapter starts with a clarification of the research approach and an explanation of my entry to the field. Hereafter the used sampling strategies are explained. Subsequently, the data collection methods are discussed as well as the methods of data-analysis. In the final section of this chapter attention is paid to the reliability and fidelity of the research and to ethics in the field.

2.1 Research Approach This research is an ethnographic research and used ethnographic research methods to collect and analyze data. Ethnographic research is a methodology to; ‘describe, interpret and explain behaviour and perspectives of people in a given social situation’ (Erikson 1995). It mainly aims at abandoning: ‘the natural attitude that takes social conventions and everyday behaviour for granted as normal or obvious’’ (Gobo 2008, p.12). During the fieldwork I tried to get an understanding on how my informants perceived civil society and their participation, by focusing on the opinions, feelings and experiences that were captured in their stories and actions participating in a societal organization and in daily life. The perceptions of informants were studied by using ethnographic methods. This gave me the opportunity to get to know my informants in their social worlds, which contributes to the understanding of the way they operate in civil society. Since I am using an interpretative research paradigm this implies that there is no objective social reality, but instead multiple realities (Gobo 2008). These realities are formed by my informants and interpreted by myself as researcher. Consequently, the social reality in this thesis is created by the informants and by me, when I interpreted the research findings. Since the researcher is the main research instrument when collecting, analysing and interpreting the data, obtaining objectivity is not a goal of this study. However, in an interpretative study the reflexivity is of importance in order to provide a reliable presentation of the research findings. Reflexivity is critically thinking about the choices you made as researcher during the research, and how these choices affect the research results (Gobo 2008). This means for me, as a woman with a Western background, that these characteristics have influenced the collection, analyses and interpretation of the data. The first phase of the research – the exploratory phase – was dedicated to getting to know the context. During this phase important places in Tehran were identified, field notes were scribbled down on the initial experiences and feelings. Furthermore, the first informal meeting with two informants took place. During this meeting I felt how important it was to get to know my informants, as these women

explained that the topic of my research was considered to be political and therefore sensitive. Paragraph 2.3 and 2.5.4 how I dealt with security during the research. Paragraph 2.2.3 will go more in-depth on how I gained access to the different informants. During the in-depth phase of the research the semi-structured interviews and observations were conducted. During the interviews I was always open about the topic and aims of the research. The observations in public spaces such as squares, parks and streets were covert. When I observed in semi- public and private spaces my observations were overt. For instance, when I observed in meetings of organizations or groups I was open about my identity and the purpose of me being there and the aim of my study. In most cases I used my phone during the observations to draft thin notes and when I came home I wrote the observational notes. In the wrap-up phase –the last two weeks of the fieldwork - I reflected on the data and tried to fill in remaining gaps. In this phase I conducted the last two interviews.

2.2 Choice of, and Gaining Access to, the Research Field The reason this study has been conducted in Iran has a substantive nature. As mentioned in the introduction, civil society organization in Iran face constant pressure from the authorities. As Iranian authorities securitize and dominate public spaces based on Sharia laws, people who do not share these ideas such as atheists or people with a different religion, are therefore excluded to publicly express their opinion and views. Therefore, Iran is an interesting case to study how different groups shape these spaces and actively create their own spaces for social action. This paragraph elaborates on the choice of the research field, research population and how I gained access to informants with different backgrounds and to different societal organizations.

2.2.1 The Research Field The data was gathered in Tehran, the capital of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Tehran is the biggest and most populated and ethnical diverse city in Iran and has an estimated population of 8 million people. Tehran is chosen as the research field because of the practical reason that I knew someone who was living there and who was willing to help me with the study. This made it easier to start up the research and gain access to informants and civil society organizations in the field. Figure 2.1 and figure 2.2 show the map of Iran.

Figure 2.1: Map of the research field (reprinted from: Google Maps 2015) Figure 2.2. Map of Tehran – overwritten with ‘Do something’ (photo by author)

2.2.2 Research Population and Method of Sampling The research population of this study are women who are active in different civil society organizations. These groups and organizations vary in their degree of autonomy, formality and power. The main reason why women were chosen as research population was access. Because of the segregation of women and men in social and physical settings, it was easier to get access to women than to men. Especially in public spaces. For me, as a women, I was able to enter ‘women only spaces’ in public and private spaces. By choosing women as research population enabled me to provide a fuller description of different spaces in which civil society action took place. This research used interpretative research methods, it has threatened the informants as social agents who hold power to shape their own life but who are on the same time also part of a structure (Long 2000). Therefore, gender is neither seen as essence nor as an illusion. Gender is in this thesis understood as one of the social realities that make up the social life of actors; it shapes the individual as well as the collective identity (Long 2000). The sample consists out of 27 women in total. 24 of them were engaged in various civil society organizations, 3 women of the sample worked for state authorities. Even though, a general consensus is lacking whether religious institutions and groups are part of civil society or belong to the private spheres of life (Ossewaarde 2006). This study includes women who volunteered for faith based organizations. As an example, Ossewaarde (2006) does include churches as part of Western civil societies. According to Ossewaarde (2006), the formation of independent churches is the basis of a civil society; as it indicates reformation of religion out of the nation state. Contrary, in Iran religion is part of the nation state; mosques are part of state institutions and clerics hold important positions in the government. Therefore, mosques do not belong to Iranian civil society but belong to the state. However, in this thesis a distinction has been made between mosques and faith based organizations, which are based on religious

motives but work more or less independent from the Mosques. Furthermore, because this research is inspired by the Civic Driven Change framework of Biekart and Fowler (2012) it aims to include actors who collectively work on civic issues independent from the sector (State, Market, Civil Society). Therefore, also voices of women who work for the state are included. By including these different voices, I aims to provide a comprehensive picture on how women are active and involved in all sorts of social activities and societal organizations. To select informants for the semi- structured interviews the technique of snowball sampling was used. Snowball sampling involves using the help of informants to identify additional informants who may be included into the study (Erikson 1995). The main disadvantage of the snowball method is that the researcher becomes dependent for the sample on the informants. The next paragraph will elaborate on how access was gained during the fieldwork.

2.2.3 Gaining Access In preparation for the fieldwork contact was established with Amid, a 25 year old Iranian man, who was, at that time working for an international organization in The Netherlands. Before leaving for Iran we had many conversations about the country. Amid introduced me to his sister, Newsha, a 29 year old women, who at the time of the fieldwork was living in Tehran (currently she lives abroad). Newsha invited me to stay with her in her apartment in Central Tehran. She lived there alone which is quite unusual for an Iranian women. Living with Newsha and getting to know her friends and family by eating with them, accompany them to parties, the cinema, cafes, diners and openings of galleries, provided me with an insight into the daily life of Iranians. In the first week of my fieldwork, Newsha put me in touch with two of her mother’s friends, who both had a history of activism and worked for different NGOs. The women recently started an organization which supported social entrepreneurs. Newsha’s parents organized a diner with them to introduce me. The woman barely spoke English but I was able to introduce myself and my research. After this diner the women invited me to visit their exhibition that was held a week later. During this exhibition I arranged an interview with them at their workplace, they also allowed me to observe at the exhibition and at their work place. Through them I was able to make contact with different organizations. Access to the three faith based organizations was obtained with the help from an Iranian family, who were contacted through colleagues of the researcher’s father. This family treated me like a daughter. This family could be considered representative of a ‘normal’ middle class family in Iran. The family consisted of Mahmood, Zina and their two children, and they lived in a small two bedroom apartment in the West of Tehran. Their daughter, Forugh, (19), studied accountancy and her brother, Sinai (12) went to high school. Mahmood owned a small mechanism shop and Zina worked as a teacher in elementary school. Religion appeared to play an important role in their life: Mahmood prayed three times a day and both Mahmood and Zina were active as volunteers in the local mosque. Furthermore, there were multiple religious symbols in their apartment. Mahmood and Zina introduced me to others

as ‘family’. I was invited to join them on their family holiday in the North of Iran, to celebrate the end of the Ramadan. As their English was limited, I had to rely on Forugh, who explained and translated most of the situations and conversations. The family wanted to help me with everything, including my research. It was difficult to explain the purpose of my research to them. They were not familiar with terms like ‘NGO’ and ‘civil society’. They introduced me to women active in faith- based organizations. They referred to them as charities. This family did not seem to know the risks of doing research in Iran. For instance, Forugh once said: ‘you are just interested in what people do. That is no problem. You are not a spy’. I had to tell them more than once that it is not allowed to conduct research in Iran without a permit and I therefore preferred that they introduced me as a student interested in Iranian culture instead of a ‘researcher’. Once their efforts of helping me with my research almost got me into problems. See paragraph 5.4. Besides this incident getting to know this family provided me with valuable insights about the relations between men and women in the private sphere, religion and how it is to grow up as a young woman in Tehran. For instance, hanging out with Forugh and her friends, all 19 year old girls, taught me that the appearances of women are constant subject of conversation and tension. Spending time with these girls constantly meant looking and commenting on the way other women dressed and acted. The appearances of men were almost never topic of conversation. Conversations about men were mostly about the car he drove or the work he did. Women who, in the girls their opinion, were dressed slutty were called ‘Tigers’. These woman were wearing different layers of make-up, had big styled hair, wore tight clothes and obviously underwent plastic surgery. Often these women wore a bandage around their nose to show they had undergone a nose job. When Forugh and her friends saw a women who was dressed like this, they often started to make a sound of a tiger or started to laugh. On my question what they did not like about the way these women were dressed Forugh’s cousin, a 23 years old women, responded: ‘women who are dressed like that create a problem for us and for themselves. They show too much of themselves. That is dangerous’. For them, the problem with women being dressed this way was that these women attracted the attention of men. Once, Forugh told me that if men got used to women dressed like this they would never like ‘normal women’ like them. It seems as if the ‘tigers’ for them crossed a red line. As a side note: Forugh and her friends also underwent plastic surgery and a normal day out with them meant shopping for clothes, make- up and going to the beauty salon. In comparison, Newsha and her friends also regularly made comments on the appearances of women. They commented on women who were dressed too, what they referred to, fashionable. Newsha said that these type of women could only be found in shopping malls, in hip coffee shops and on Instagram accounts such as the ‘#Rich kids of Tehran’. On this Instagram account young rich people in Iran share pictures of themselves at swimming pools, parties and in front of Lamborghinis. Newsha said that these women are Iranian upper-class and that they are completely upset by looks and not on their own identity. Newsha later reflected on her own statement that it was stupid of her to think like this. She told me, ‘It is something that authorities, this system does to us. We become like this. Constantly

criticizing other women. I should not care about how they dress. Sadly I do’. This statement clearly shows the struggles Newsha has with her own way of thinking in relation to the appearances of women. Interestingly, I have never heard Newsha or Forugh commented on women who wore a chador. At Forugh’s parents I met a young religious woman (32), who was wearing a chador. We got into a conversation about her love life. She told me about her struggles finding a husband, because of her appearances. This woman believed that her chador was the reason she had not found a husband yet. She told me that men do not want a woman that looked like her. She said, ‘they want a woman who wears make-up and is dressed differently than me. They think they are more fun’. This woman felt discriminated and judged for her choice to wear a chador. The comments of these different women show the struggles that have emerged because of the obligatory Islamic dress codes for women and the constant negotiation of the dress code in public. Not only by the power holders in the country, but also among the people. It illustrates that the society also presents red lines, even though, they do not have the legal authority to impose them. To live with Newsha felt like a different reality compared to the way Forugh and her family and friends lived. When visiting art exhibitions, nice cafes and coffee shops with Newsha it was easy to lose sight of the different co-existing realities in Tehran. The lifestyles of these families sometimes seemed to be miles apart. Through these contacts I was able to experience the daily lives of people with different backgrounds and from different parts of society, including: artists, religious people, social workers and political and social activists.

2.3 Research Techniques Qualitative methods were used during the three different phases of the research; the exploratory phase, in-depth phase, and wrap-up phase. As mentioned, the qualitative methods that were used in this study were observations and semi-structured interviews. Each paragraph of this section will elaborate on these different methods.

2.3.1 Observations The first source of information was observations, in order to, not only, study discursive spaces for civil society but also the physical spaces in which these discursive spaces are negotiated. According to Spradley (1980) doing ethnographic research always means observing and participating in a social situation. This social situation primary exists out of three elements: a place, actors and activities. When using Informant observation as a technique the researcher is always located in a place, with actors and a set of activities. These activities, at first, just seems a stream of behaviour but remaining in the situation this behaviour becomes a pattern and eventually it can be linked together and can be called an event (Spradley 1980). Thus, while observing, I constantly tried to be conscious of the place, actors and activities in order to be fully aware of the situation and observe patterns of cultural rules.

I mainly used observation techniques to discover how and where women organized themselves and the physical spaces in which their activities took place. As argued by Gobo (2008) social practices are always situated practices and take place in an organized situation (a space) with an array of both resources for action and constraints, thus considering the context also means observing the physical space. In the first weeks a better understanding of the context was established by exploring the city and places were activities related to civil society action took place. Walking around, talking to as many people as possible and analysing documents. In this phase I got information about themes such as customs, gender roles and relations, religion, and the political system. The information I gathered was necessary to get a better understanding of the research field. Furthermore, participant observations were conducted in different spaces where participation took place. I observed in public spaces such as streets and squares and semi –private/public places such as a community centre, offices of NGO’s, galleries, and group meetings. Lastly, I observed in private spaces such as people living spaces. These private spaces were often used for activities for organizations. Soon I noticed that the distinction between private and public spaces cannot easily be made in Tehran, as most spaces contain both private and public characteristics. Observations in semi-public and private spaces were participatory because a good relation was established with the actors; I stayed there for a period of time and often it became personal. When I observed in public spaces such as bridges, public transportation and squares in Tehran, the observations were covert. I observed from a distance without much interaction. By observing how people use and express themselves in these spaces led to more insights about Iranian society. When in the field thin descriptions were jotted in my phone, and after the observations I wrote observational field notes. In these field notes I tried to give a thick description of the actors, activities and places, in order to give meaning to these actions in the broader context.

2.3.2 Semi-structured interviews The second source of information were in-depth, semi-structured interviews. These interviews were conducted with the use of an interview guide that included a list of topics and questions. By using semi- structured interview techniques it gave me and the informant the freedom to change and to speak more deeply about certain topics. In order to analyse the data, the design of the topic list and questionnaires were based on the analytical framework of both Lefebvre and Biekart and Fowler. Appendix 1 of this thesis presents the interview guide. The interviews were always based on open consent and mutual trust. In almost all cases, an informal meeting with the informant had taken place in which I had an informal conversation with the potential informant. In this conversation I explored whether the informant could be trusted. Though, the focus on the meeting was for the informant to get to know me. In this meeting I introduced myself and explained my study. In most cases they already knew about the research and they were willing to

participate, as I was always introduced to the informant by another person. Nevertheless, two women did not wanted to participate after having the informal meeting. The first person told me she did not want to participate because she was worried that the name of the organization would come out, she was afraid it would bring the organization into trouble. The second person told me that the director of the organization she worked for did not want her to participate. The informants of this study were divided into three groups based on the type of societal organization they were active in. It distinguishes; registered organizations, unregistered groups and faith-based organizations. In order to obtain further in-depth information on civil society and the relation with the state and their vision on civil society one interview is conducted with two women working for the State Welfare Organization and an attempt was made to interview a woman who works for the municipal of Tehran. Gaining access to these informants and what could and could not be said in these interviews is used as data for this study. Most interviews were conducted in offices of the organizations. Because of security concerns two interviews were conducted in houses of the informants. One interview was conducted in a café and one interview was conducted at my apartment. All the interviews were recorded and immediately after the interviews transcribed in verbatim. Names and organizations were erased. The names of interviewees and organizations that are used in the thesis are fictive. I used an email account to store the transcribed interviews and erased the recorded interviews for the safety of the informants and for myself. Table 2.1 below shows the background of the informants.

30 27

20 17

15 12

10 8 7 5 4 5 3 3 2

0 Registered Unregistered Faith based State authorities Total

Organizations Informants

Table 2.1: Background of the informants

2.3.3 Descriptions In order to highlight the multiple realities of women who are engaged in civil society organizations, most of the fieldwork data is presented in the form of descriptions. Inspired by Becker (1996), an attempt is made to present an accurate description of different types of civil society organizations and the spaces these organizations use for civil society action in Tehran, Iran. By providing descriptions of the relevant activities and places in which women participate or have created, this study tries to show the actors point of view on space for civil society. Chapter 5 presents the three different types of civil society organizations, being; registered, unregistered and faith based organizations. In addition, it describes meetings with the state authorities. Chapter 6 provides a description of how women use different spaces of civil society action, namely; the institutional invited spaces and the created spaces of participation. Chapter 7 describes a vision of a women on future spaces, in order to highlight the motivation of women who are engaged in civil society action. The descriptions are followed by reflections. These reflections show how spaces in Iran are socially constructed, hybrid and constantly negotiated by actors engaged in these different organizations and spaces. These descriptions should not be interpreted as essentialist of certain types of civil society organizations. On the contrary, the descriptions show the ambiguity and hybridity of spaces of civil society action. Moreover, it shows the blurred lines between different types of organizations and the multiple realities of women engaged in civil society in Tehran, Iran.

2.4 Data Analysis The analysis of the data was done according the different phases in the study. The twenty- one semi- structured interviews that were conducted in the in-depth phase were all recorded and transcribed verbatim in Word and analysed using codes based upon findings from the data related to the analytical dimensions of Lefebvre and Biekart and Fowler in order to get a better overview of in the gathered interview data. I made field notes on data which I was unable to record, such as data gathered from informal conversations and observations. These data were analysed afterwards. Firstly, dimensions were added to the data that are based upon the different parts of the analytical framework. For instance, the data were coded according the dimensions of space; lived, perceived and conceived spaces. Subsequently, the dimensions were divided into data-driven sub- dimensions (factors). These factors are part of the dimensions and can be related to direct quotes. In the wrap-up phase I reflected on the data and tried to fill in remaining gaps. One gap that I identified was the view of the state about civil society action and their role in the production of civil society. With help of an informant I was able to arrange an interview with two employees of the State Welfare Organization. This interview is used in order to get a better understanding of the relation between the state and the civil society.

2.5 Research Evaluation The following section will evaluate on the methodological elements of this research. As a researcher you take actions and make choices in the field that influence the data. Also, the personal status and characters of the researcher influences the results as the researcher is the primary research instrument (Gobo 2008). Therefore it is important to reflect on the choices I made during the research, and how these choices affected the research results (Gobo 2008). Paragraph 2.5.5 I will reflect on how the research has influenced me when I was in the research field, and how this has possible influenced the data.

2.5.1 Reliability Reliability implies the consistency of a research. Gobo (2008) describes reliability as the precision of the instrument or method used for measurement. Reliably questions, reliable respondents and reliable data are thus characterized by consistency. As explained, this research is of interpretative origin and is focused on the personal accounts of informants, while looking for patterns in social life. These daily routines or patterns of thought and behaviour are repeated in various contexts by various people. This search for patterns is not only the first step in making sense of the data, but also increases the reliability of the work. Thus, although the data is obtained and constructed by the researcher as main research instrument, this does not make the work unreliable. The reliability is obtained by the search of patterns of thoughts and behaviour of the informants.

2.5.2 Fidelity Validity is known as the correspondence between a researcher’s account and the phenomenon observed. Validity is achieved by researchers by producing an accurate representation of the setting (Gobo 2008). However, in ethnographic research, since the ontological belief is that a stable social reality does not exist, but is continually re-created, the concept of internal validity cannot be applied in the same manner (Gobo 2008). To overcome this problem, Gobo (2008) plies to abandon the concept of validity and replace it with ‘fidelity of data’ and with ‘fidelity of interpretations’. The term fidelity refers here to the degree of discrepancy between the researcher’s interpretation and the social phenomenon to which the researcher refer (Gobo 2008, 282). This implies that the researcher constantly needs to reflect on the data and the interpretation of the data with her informants. This would increase the authenticity and plausibility of results (Gobo 2008, 269). Firstly, by making use of different research methods and different sources I increased the fidelity of the research. By using both semi-structured interviews and observations resulted in an opportunity to see whether the found results obtained corresponds with the perceived realities of the informants. Secondly, I got to know my informants personally and saw them regularly, I used these moments as opportunities to reflect on my interpretation of the data. This decreased the discrepancy between my interpretation, the interpretation of the informant and the social phenomenon to which I refer.

Since I, as researcher, was the main research instrument of this qualitative research my identity and personal characteristics influenced the field research process and might also affected unintentionally the answers of interviewees. The first bias that might have occurred is related to my nationality and gender. Especially, the fact that I am woman have influenced the study. For example, in some situations I found it difficult not to show my frustrations wearing the obligatory hijab and long clothes. To be obliged to wear these clothes impacted me in ways I could not have imagined beforehand. Walking on the streets and women and men making comments about my ‘bad’ Hijab or being caught by the ‘morality police’ influenced me and my perception on Iranian society. The fragment below from my observational notes illustrate this;

‘I notice that when I am in public places I constantly look around to see faces of other women to see if I am in the right department of the bus or the metro or if I do not do anything stupid. I constantly compare myself with other women; I look at how they wear their hijab and the length of their manteaux. Yesterday, I saw a women wearing a manteaux just below her bum. For a second I thought it was way too short. A second later, I hated this thought. Because, who am I to care? I do not want to think and look at women like this’. (Field notes author 13-06-2015)

These personal characters, however, also positively influenced the results as I could speak freely with my female informants and I gained unique access to private and public spaces where only women were allowed, such as the ‘women’s only’ metro and bus compartment, the swimming pool and women groups. By being in these places I got a better understanding of daily life of Iranian women and how they maneuver between private and public spaces and express themselves differently in these spaces. Also interviewees might have been more willing to share their thoughts and ideas with me because of my sexes. Another bias that might have occurred is caused by working with translators. Since I was unable to speak Farsi and most of the informants could not speak English, I made use of translators during the semi-structured interviews. Although I am convinced that they were doing their utmost best, I sometimes felt that I was missing information, or that some information was not presented perfectly. For instance, during semi-structured interviews some of my questions were followed by lengthy discussions between informants and sometimes even between the informant and the translator. However, when providing the translation the translator tended to explain to me in a few sentences what the outcome of the discussion was, while for the research it was more important to understand the discussion that led to the final answer. By asking the same question in a different way I tried to understand the discussions that led to the answers of informants. I worked with two translators, Newsha and Emad, who both understood the aim of the research and were active in civil society. When I was working with Emad he tended to direct the interview. When

I asked the informants a question at times he answered the question for them. Several times I explained him that I wanted to grasp the perception of the informants and that it was really important that the informants answered the question instead of him. However, this remained difficult. Therefore, I tried to conduct most of the interviews with Newsha. When observing, not speaking the local language also caused a bias. As I could not understand were people talked about I missed out a lot of interesting information. To decrease this bias I often asked were people talked about and asked for information on what I saw around me in the physical spaces. For instance, I asked people about the meaning of posters and paintings in the streets.

2.5.3 Generalization and Representativeness of data Generalization refers to the transferability of a study. The question that needs to be asked is whether the conclusions and relations can be generalized to other people, places and time (Gobo 2008). Considering that this qualitative research is focused on a very specific subject, I choose to base my findings upon the interpretive findings from a small sample of respondents. Above all, this relatively small sample provided me with the opportunity to go more in-depth. This has as implication that the transferability of the obtained results to another group is expected to be low. However, I do not believe that the level of generalization will make the results of this research completely non-transferable. Instead, I believe that when the context would be comparable, the findings can be used or applied on other countries. For instance on: North and South -Sudan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia (Carothers 2014) Representativeness refers to the construction of the sample, whether it is representative for the broader population. I believe that the sample, although I could not always influence it, is a representative sample of women being active in civil society, because it includes women who are active in a wide range of organizations such as faith based organizations, social organizations and organizations aliened to the government.

2.5.4 Research Limitations Several limitations regarding the scope of the results and the access to informants need to be mentioned. Firstly, mainly due to the sensitivity of the subject I did not have the freedom to talk openly about certain topics such as politics, the revolution, the green movement, homosexuality or prostitution. I never addressed these topics directly, only after these topics were addressed by informants I responded and asked question about it. Another limitation is that the opportunity to include counter voices such as state or national officials was limited. Also official data about the work of NGOs in Iran could not be accessed. Furthermore, the study would have been more interesting when voices from different sectors such as the media or the business sector where included. This might have provided a more comprehensive picture of space for civil society. Another limitation lies in the fact that, because of security reasons, I was unable to freely contact organizations or people. I always needed to be careful and could not just walk in an office. Therefore, I

was dependent of the recommendations of others to get a sample of informants (snowball sampling). This method of sampling was time consuming and limited the amount of informants and organizations. However, in my opinion this was the best and only suited method for the sensitive topic I was studying.

2.5.5 Reflection on the Fieldwork

‘If the government knows you are researching and this meeting would be formal, something bad would happen for you. You even would go to jail’ (Employee State Welfare Organization, Interview 20)

‘We are not allowed to talk about politics with foreigners, and in Iran everything what is social is considered political’ (Director unregistered organization, Interview 12)

‘The government knows everything. They know you are sitting here. They follow everything’ (Volunteer for two civic organizations, Interview 23)

The above statements were made by informants when I interviewed them. Often they warned me for the possible consequences of doing research for me and not for themselves. In most cases they still wanted to talk to me. However, for some, it was a reason not to be participate in this study. These warnings influenced me during my fieldwork. It made me question whether by doing this research I was crossing a line. It was difficult not being able to freely contact people or organizations to talk about my study, because of the possible alignment with the authorities. Sometimes these warnings made me feel scared and suspicious during my fieldwork. I think this also made me more careful as I would have been in a different context, because I never knew when I crossed a line. In Iran, it is difficult to know whether you are careful enough. In my opinion it is part of the system; care people with threats to hold them in order. A lot of people told me one is supposed to feel where the lines lie, as Newsha put it: ‘when you are living in this country, you know where the red line is. It is something what you need to feel’. This ‘red line’ was mentioned by several informants when they referred to activities as ‘unaccepted’. This red line will come back in the rest of this thesis. It is an ambiguous line, both real and imagined at the same time. It is shaped by laws, symbols and actions; the morality police, Basij, cultural norms and by the latest arrests of five journalists. Trying to understand space for civil society is trying to understand this ‘red line’. In a way this was a mission impossible as this line was by my informants addressed as something more felt than real. However, I think that in the process of my fieldwork I understood it better. Living in Iran and trying to define and understand the red line, but not cross it, was a balancing act between my own values and accepting different laws, norms and even oppression. For example, dressing too conservative (meaning covering my whole hair under my headscarf or wearing a black

coat), always led to questions and jokes about me converting to Islam. It felt as if some people did not appreciate me dressing this way. Sometimes, it was the other way around, twice, I encountered the morality police because of the way I was dressed. These encounters showed me the face of oppression and offered me insights on the way state authorities operate in Iran. Another dimension that changed me in relation to the research is the fact that I, as a woman, was not free to express how I wanted in public. My appearance often led to discussions. As a foreigner I and the way I was dressed was often the subject of discussion. Frequently people told me that I was dressed too conservative. I often felt torn between adapting and showing resistance. In a way I was negotiating space and manoeuvring between different realities as well. Seeing pictures of myself or my reflection in windows wearing a veil and manteaux, and that becoming ‘normal’ was difficult. Navigating between what others expected of me and wearing something in which I felt comfortable was a negotiation. Being dressed ‘conservative’ felt sometimes easier than wearing more daring outfits. Dressed more ‘conservative’ meant that you do not constantly need to check whether clothes are still in place, and people did not stare at me (they often thought I was Iranian). However it also felt as If I was not supporting the women who tried to change the rules on the dress code and that I was betraying on the feminist in me. Also conversations with Reza made me conscious on my appearances and the constant struggle on the way a women should be dressed in Iran. Reza (32), Newsha’s boyfriend, is a photographer and has a strong and negative opinion towards the authorities of Iran and the Islam. When I was, in his opinion, dressed conservative he stated: ‘Do you want to become a Muslim?’ Go to your room and wear your hijab the whole time’. It changed the research as I, on the one side, got access to spaces only women were allowed in, but I also experienced the downside of it. Tehran’s public spaces seems to be dominated by men, where women need to be covered up in order not to distract or offend them. I had to accept the gender segregation in places such as restaurants, cafes and in public transportation. In time this dazzled and frustrated me. It will never become normal to wear a hijab with temperatures above 40 degrees, men who do not shake hands with me because I am a woman, encounters with the ‘morality’ police and men making denigrating noises on the streets when they thought I was not dressed ‘properly’. All these dimensions have influenced my reality on Iranian society and, therefore, also impacted the collecting and analyses of the data of the research. Picture 2.3 and picture 2.4 below display the daily struggles of doing fieldwork in Tehran, Iran.

2.6 Ethics Within qualitative research codes of conduct are formulated to regulate the relations between the researcher and the people in the field in order to avoid the researcher harming the respondents, but instead taking into account their need and interests (Hilhorst and Jansen 2005). Hilhorst and Jansen (2005) argue that research should be based upon informed consent and should take the privacy of respondents into account. Moreover, the researcher should not deceive informants about the research’s

aim. At all times during the research I respected this code of conduct. I always explained the purpose of me being there and if possible elaborated on the aim of the research. In some cases the security situation did not allow it to be fully open about the aim of the research. In those cases I was always as open as possible or decided not to continue. The semi-structured interviews were fully confidential and I always asked permission for using a recording device. In order to secure safety for the informants names of informants and organizations are left out of the report or changed. In my opinion, another dimension of being ethical means not ‘using’ people merely for the purpose of the research, by for example pushing them to participate in an interview. In the Iranian culture saying no is seen as impolite. This is part of Iranian cultural rules on how to behave towards others, also known as Ta’arof. The lonely Planet states on Ta’arof: ‘Ta’arof is the Iranian system of courtesy, which can be a minefield if unknown, but for travellers it means you will be treated with politeness wherever you go’ (Lonely Planet Iran 2015, 289). Ta’arof can be described as a system of formalised politeness. It is a model of social interaction, in which every Iranian knows its place. As an outsider it is sometimes difficult to determine whether people do or say things because of Ta’arof or because they mean it. As an example, during my fieldwork everyone I met wanted to help me or said to know someone who could help me. However, along the way I noticed that some people just said it out of politeness. This is something that I learnt in the process. In order not to push people to take part in the study I decided to ask people three times, in line of the rules of Ta’arof. If people after three times still wanted to help me they were not just being polite. On this way I tried to respect the cultural rules of Iran and to be flexible, instead of pushing people to do something for the benefit of my study.

This chapter has described the methods used in this research, elaborated on the reliability, fidelity and ethical aspects of the research and provided a personal reflection on the fieldwork. The next chapter presents the conceptual framework of this study.

Picture 2.4: Daily struggles; am I dressed appropriate? Picture 2.3: It is all about perception; dressed too ‘conservative’ or ‘appropriate’? (photo by author)

3. Conceptual Framework This chapter presents the main theoretical concepts used in this thesis. The three central concepts within this study are: Civil society, Space and Civic Driven Change. The chapter starts with a summary of the discussion between scholars on civil society, in particular on the relation between civil society and the public sphere. The second paragraph explains the multidimensionality of the concept of space when using this concept in analysing civil society. The third paragraph explains the Civic Driven Change framework of Biekart and Fowler (2012) and how this framework can be related to space.

3.1 Civil Society As mentioned in the introduction, a general consensus on the term civil society is lacking. This study uses the definition suggested by Cohen and Arato (1994), who define civil society as;

‘A sphere of social interaction, between economy and state, composed above all of the intimate sphere (especially the family), the sphere of associations (especially voluntary organizations) social movements and forms of public communications’ (Cohen and Arato 1994, 4).

In other words, civil society describes a social realm, consisting out of different types of non- profit organizations, movements and individuals organized and linked by common interests and collective activity, who are separated from state institutions. Together with political parties and independent media, they ensure that hierarchies and abuses of power are checked and countered if necessary (Keane 2009). In the literature, civil society is often related or even used interchangeable with the ‘public sphere’ (Calhoun 2003). The public sphere can be defined as the ‘discursive space where private people come together as a public’. A public sphere emerges through the relations and interactions between people in this sphere. It describes ‘that which is common’ and is understood as ‘the sphere between the state and society’ (Habermas 1996, 355; Arendt 1958). In contrast, the private sphere is the domain in which individuals or groups of people enjoy a degree of authority, free of interventions from governmental or other institutions (Calhoun 1993). In order for so-called ‘private people’ to act publicly and organize themselves, they are in need of legitimate spaces of participation in the public sphere. Ideally, the public sphere is freely accessible for citizens and serve ‘a process of open discussion and public debate’ (Arendt 1990). Citizens should be able to freely organize themselves and act publicly in this sphere. Moreover, people should be able to get access to the information they need in order to form an opinion about public issues. Independent media and newspapers are seen of great importance to establish a space for public discussion, as it increased the communication possibilities, public discussion and access to knowledge for a lot of people on public issues. Moreover, as argued by Arendt (1990) the public sphere should serve citizens in their right to: ‘participate, to be heard, to debate, to exchange views and to make decisions publicly’ (Arendt in Jongerden 2015).

However, the openness of the public sphere is more an ideal than a reality. In most publics there are many forms of exclusion, such as the exclusion of refugees, women, or a state religion which may exclude non-believers from public life (Calhoun 2011; Habermas 1996). In response, besides this public space, those who are excluded often organize and form their own organization and use different types of media. As for example, in recent years the forms of public discussion changed drastically with the increasing access to internet and the rise of social media. New virtual public spaces have been created by people, such as on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. These new public spaces transcend the national borders and exists besides the traditional public spaces such as streets or cafés. These virtual public spaces are being used by different actors with different agendas; thus, become part of the arena of the public sphere. According to Calhoun (2011), these spaces are ‘public counter spheres’. He argues that these spaces ‘challenge the apparent neutrality of more mainstream publics and reveal that hegemonic public culture reflects power relations’ (Calhoun 2011, 14). Calhoun (2011) argues that all individual and collective organization that evolves around these public spheres and counter public spheres is civil society. Hence, civil society arises out of the public and counter public spheres (Calhoun 2011). However, this study will argue that civil society not only arises out of the public and counter public spheres but that these spheres also arise from civil society action. Hence civil society creates spaces of social action in which people can come together, be heard and express themselves. Besides civil society’s existence also the function of civil society is often related to the public sphere. One of the functions ascribed to civil society is that civil society organizations can form a mediating space, or a bridge, between the private and the public sphere. The idea behind this, is that civil society organizations bring issues, previously designated to the private sphere, to the public. Private issues are by civil society organizations, in amplified form, brought in the open (Habermas 1996, 367). Therefore, civil society serve as ‘the soil that nourishes public spheres unique to the common interests of particular civil society groups’ (Calhoun 2003). What these issues are and what actions need to follow on, are determined by the public (Arendt 1990, in Jongerden 2015). Thus, the public determines around what issues citizens organize themselves and how they organize. In addition, the public is vital in evaluating to what extent civil society organizations do in fact serve the public good (Calhoun 2011). It is important to note that the public sphere and civil society cannot be used interchangeable. Public spheres are made possible by citizens’ participation and organizations that are formed in support of certain public issues. On the same time, civil society arises out of the public sphere and its function would change without a (free and open) public sphere. Thus, civil society organizations are in need of a public sphere but on the same time civil society organizations create and shape the public sphere. Civil society organizations can open up and create new public spheres by their activities. This shows the dynamic relation between civil society and the public sphere; they interact, influence and shape each other

This study expands the idea of Calhoun (2011) but argues that civil society not only emerges out of the public sphere and the so called ‘counter public spheres’ but also around activities in more private spheres. In addition, it argues that civil society also creates these spheres. Therefore, it questions the function destined to civil society as bridge between the state and the public. Furthermore, it problematize the distinction between private and public spheres in relation to civil society. Civil society is in this study understood as a space on itself. Civil society is, as space, actively created and socially constructed by activities of people in different spaces. This study focusses on different forms of self- governing and self-organizations of citizens outside the realm of the state and the market. It includes ‘new’ public spheres created by citizens, such as virtual and independent spaces.

3.2 Space Space is a central concept in this study. This research explores how, where and why women participate and create certain spaces. Space is an important analytical tool if it comes to examining the strength and influence of civil society. Ali Fathollah-Netjah stresses that ‘’space is an area in which actors can create and organize counter-hegemonic projects and challenge state authority’’ (Ali Fathollah-Netjah in Aarts 2013, 44). Space is a social product, it is not simply physically ‘there’, but it is a dynamic, humanly constructed means of control, and hence of domination, of power relations (Lefebvre in Gaventa 2005, 11). According to Gaventa (2005, 11) spaces are “opportunities, moments, and channels where citizens can act to potentially affect policies, discourses, decisions and relationships which affect their life and interests”. In these spaces citizens’ action takes place. These spaces are the ‘Spaces of Participation’. Gavanta (2005) proposes a continuum of spaces, ranging from: closed, invited to created spaces of participation. Closed spaces are the spaces in which decision- making takes place. These spaces are only accessible for policy makers and powerholders and are closed for citizens (Gavanta 2005). Invited spaces are the decision-making spaces in which citizens are invited in, by different authorities. In these spaces citizens can, from within the official boundaries, try to change the power relations and influence decision making. Lastly, created spaces are the spaces in which citizens seek to change power relations from outside the boundaries of official decision-making spaces. These spaces are created by less powerful actors from or against the authorities. Other thinkers have used different terminologies for these spaces and added other spaces to this continuum. For instance, Soja (2006) argues that created spaces are ‘third spaces’ in which actors reject the hegemonic space of authorities. In these ‘third spaces’ otherness against the ‘hegemonic’ power prevails. These are the counter hegemonic spheres. In addition, created spaces are by Cornwell (2002) identified as non-institutionalized spaces of participation, as they are not officially destined for citizens to participate in. According to Gavanta (2005) it is the task of civil society to challenge the spaces of participation. He states that civil society should try to open these closed spaces and move from one space to the other. This study uses the terminology offered by both Cornwell (2002) and Gavanta (2005) to identify the production of spaces of civil society action. In this study the terminology ‘spaces for social action’

is used instead of ‘spaces for participation’. Participation implies a political involvement in policy and decision making. However, this study has focused on the practices and activities of women part of different societal organization. This study did not focus on political participation or on how activities influenced policies. From now one, the term social action will be used to describe organized actions of individuals or groups towards social change. One of the most influential academics in the literature of the production of spaces is Henry Lefebvre. He understands space as socially constructed, alive and as an integral aspect of social practices. Spaces are both a result and a precondition of the production of society (Schmid 2008; Merrifield 2006). Therefore, to understand how activities produce (space for) civil society it is important to understand in which spatial ground civil society occurs and who produced this space. To expose space and its production Lefebvre offers a dialectic three-dimensional analysis of spatial production. The spatial triad of Lefebvre exists out of three interrelated moments that blur into each other: Spatial practices, Representations of space and Spaces of representations (Merrifield 2006). In the spatial triad Lefebvre brings the thinking, the doing and the feelings together. Representations of space refer to the conceptualized space. It refers to the space as it is constructed and understood by planners and bureaucrats. It is a space full of jargon, signs and plans used by different agents. This is the conceived space, in which ideology, power and knowledge lurks. It is tied to signs, codes and relations. Spaces of representation refer to the space of experience and imagination, what is lived. This dimension denotes the world as it is experienced by human beings occupying spaces in the practice of their everyday life. These spaces are more felt than thought. It is imagined, something not yet obtained (future ideas) and in the heart (Schmid 2008). Spatial practices refer to the material, physical existing order of the state/capitalism. This is the space in which the power between the two modalities is somehow balanced. It is the perceived space, which consists both out of the conceived and the lived. These are the routes and networks; the pathways and the connections. It is the material and the visible. Spatial practices structure everyday lived experiences and also produce and reproduce conceived spaces. These three modalities form a triad of interrelated moments in the production of space and can only be understood in relation to each other. Space is thus at once perceived, conceived and lived, each with its equal value. As Merrifield (2015) explains: ‘together these processes constitute a societies space’. This space will never be finished as it is always (re) produced by activities of people who inhabit these spaces. Thus, space can be understood as a medium and as an outcome of human activity (Schmid 2008). In an introduction on Lefebvre’s work on The Production of Space, Merrifield (2006) argues that there is always an ordering dominating power in the construction of space in a given society. Merrifield (2006) states that: ‘Lefebvre has been around enough to know that lived experience invariably gets crushed and vanquished by the conceived, by a conceived abstract space, by an objectified abstraction’ (Merrifield 2006, 111). Thus, this abstract space is the product of what is conceived (Merrifield 2006). This ordering power shapes the spaces of everyday experiences. Moreover, this

abstract ordering power will always win as it ‘tends to sweep everybody along, moulding people and places in its image, incorporating peripheries as it peripheralizes centres, being at once deft and brutal, forging unity out of fragmentation.homogenizing other spaces’ (Merrifield 2006, 112). However, Merrifield (2006) claims that Lefebvre only elaborates on these homogenizing powers to discover what counter-powers might at the same time be at work, what power inhabitants of these spaces possess, and what spaces they might be capable to create instead (Merrifield 2006). Merrifield (2006) argues that in The Production of Space Lefebvre first discusses at length the way abstract space constrains and dominates, in order to sketch the contours of the differential space. These differential spaces run counter to and beyond the abstract space. In these differential spaces ‘the right to difference’ prevails, which means a ‘prioritization of the lived over the conceived’ (Merrifield 2006, 115). Inspired by the framework offered by Lefebvre on the moments of production of space, this study tries to understand the (re) production of space for civil society action in Tehran. It focusses on everyday practices of Iranian women (lived spaces) and how these practices are related to how spaces are conceived by (state) authorities and how they operate in the material space and are shaped by the doing (spatial practices). In this thesis the conceived space is understood as the space in which state authorities and other power holders (such as clerics and conservatives) determine the hegemonic discourse. In these spaces the official rules and norms predominate. It will argue that created spaces of social action are the differential spaces in which ‘otherness’ or the lived prevails against the ordering powers of the authorities. This ordering power is what informants refer to as the ‘red line’. This red line is negotiated and pushed back by practices of women in different spaces of civil society action (in both institutional and created spaces), while on the same time the red line constrains and dominates. Figure 3.1 shows the spatial triad of Lefebvre.

Figure 3.1: Spatial triad of Lefebvre (source: www.dailykos.com)

3.3 Civic Driven Change approach To overcome the analytical problems of civil society Biekart and Fowler (2012) offer a Civic Driven Change (CDC) approach. The CDC approach can be used to explore politics and policy changes from an actor-oriented perspective. It examines the origens, expressions and combining of civic energy with a sorting and filtering through socio-political processes and power to shape collective action and institutional responses to complex problems in society (Biekart and Fowler 2012). The heart of the CDC framework is civic energy. According to Biekart and Fowler (2012) civic energy is ‘energy that all citizens potentially possess to promote common interest as a member of a community or a social group while at the same time respecting differences within the community or group and towards others’ (Biekart and Fowler 2012, 5). CDC starts from the premise that civil energy exists in every community and is the basis for every individual to work for the common and achieve communal goals that otherwise could not be met. Individuals and groups are driven by an imagination about the future and pro-social change. It implies that citizens always seek for ways to make society work better for more people. ‘Civic’ means that the type of action involves two core values: a concern for the whole (depending on scale) and respects for the many differences between people (Biekart and Folwer 2012). Politics is in this perspective, the way power is ‘held, distributed and applied’ to manage forces towards an imagined future for society. Every individual has civil agency and hold the power to shape society. People’s day to day decisions and agency can sustain or change power relations in significant ways and can alter socio-political change. CDC is domain driven. A domain is understood as a social arena and can be seen as a substansive theme or desired future which holds society’s attention and attracts civil agency from four sectors, namely: Government, Political system, Market and Civil Society (Biekart and Folwer 2012). The sectors are interlinked by socio-political forces, processes and goals. None of the sectors are considered more ‘civic’ than the other nor does one of the sectors hold more power. Much activity happens in overlapping, blend areas, which are overarching the sectors. Informed and driven by an imagined future, domains supersede and selectively combine sectors. In all domains change can be at stake (Biekart and Fowler 2012). In this study the framework of Biekart and Fowler (2012) will be related to the concept of the lived spaces of Lefebvre. Lived spaces are the ‘spaces of experiences of everyday life’ of people who inhabit spaces. The lived describes the experiences, feelings and meaning people attach to spaces of everyday life. Both theories imply that every person in society has the capacity and the power to transform and give meaning to the spaces of everyday life. The framework of Biekart and Fowler and Lefebvres spatial triad offer ways to look beyond the Marxist idea that stystems only opress people and enables the focus on human agency whithout ignoring the power of systems and structures. This study shows how women perceive their spaces of everyday life (a space of possibilities, created and shaped

by inhabitans of certain spaces) as well as it tries to understand the ordering power of authorities in these spaces. In this research the concepts of civic energy, agency and the imagined future will be used in order to understand what motivates women to ‘push back’ the ordering powers of society and create spaces of civil society action in Tehran, Iran. Figure 3.2 shows the Civic Driven Change framework of Biekart and Fowler (2012).

Figure 3.2: Civic-Driven-Change framework (Biekart and Fowler 2012)

4. Civil Society in the Islamic Republic of Iran This chapter presents the development of state-civil society relations in Iran. The first paragraph presents the political system of Iran. The second paragraph elaborates on political contestation between different political parties and relates this to the development of state-civil society relations. The last paragraph elaborates on the NGO and Press Laws.

4.1 The Political System and Political contestation in Iran The Islamic Republic of Iran is ruled by the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is appointed for life in 1989, after the death of the founder of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Khomeini. Ayatollah Khomeini gained power over the country after the revolution in 1979, which led to the fall of the monarch of Iran, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. He reformed Iran into the Islamic Republic. Since, the political system of Iran can best be described as a constitutional theocracy (The economist 2014). The political system of Iran is diffuse and complex; it has autocratic, democratic and theocratic elements. The system consists out of several institutions, which can be divided into elected and unelected

institutions. However, all institutions are controlled by the powerful conservative supreme leader. His role is based on the ideas of Ayatollah Khomeini, who positioned the supreme leader (himself) at the top of Iran's political power structure. The supreme leader appoints the head of the judiciary, six of the members of the Guardian Council, the commanders of all the armed forces, Friday prayer leaders and the head of radio and TV. He also confirms the president’s election. See figure 4.1. The head of the executive branch, which is the elected part of the system, is the president. He, as a woman cannot be elected, is directly elected by Iranian citizens for four years and can serve no more than two consecutive terms. It is imported to highlight that the presidential candidates are assessed by the Guardian Council. During the previous elections the Guardian Council disqualified hundreds of candidates. Many of them were women and/or reformist. The constitution describes the president as the second-highest ranking official in the country. However, in practise, presidential powers are limited by the clerics and conservatives in Iran's power structure, and by the authority of the supreme leader. It is the supreme leader, not the president, who controls the armed forces and makes decisions on security, defence and major foreign policy issues. Nevertheless, the power of the supreme leader is somehow countered by the president and parliament. The members of parliament are elected by popular vote every four years. Of a total population of 79 million people, around 55 million – all those over 18 - are eligible to vote. The parliament consists out of 290 members. Parliament has the power to introduce and pass laws as well as to dismiss and prosecute ministers or the president. During the time of the research, of its 290 members, only nine seats were held by women3. These women were by some informants included in this study considered to be ‘more conservative’ than the men who hold a seat in parliament. As one interviewee put it: ‘these women are part of the system. We need normal women to run for parliament’. This woman considered herself to be ‘too liberal’ to run for parliament. She identified herself as a feminist. Therefore, she was sure that the Guardian Council would disqualify her election. Together with other societal organizations she tried to motivate and empower less conservative, ‘normal’ women to run for parliament (Personal conversation with an NGO employee, 03-07-2015). Iran’s constitution and domestic law does not designate any direct role for the supreme leader, the parliament is independent. However, the supreme leader influences the law-making process. For instance, the members of the Guardian Council, who have the power to approve or reject parliament resolutions if inconsistent with the constitution and Islamic law, are directly or indirectly selected by the supreme leader. Thus, by approving or rejecting a law the opinion of the supreme leader is always considered. Furthermore, the supreme leader is the head of the armed forces, he appoints the head of judiciary and appoints the members of the expediency council. The role and enormous power of the supreme leader of Iran shows the autocratic elements of the political system (BBC news; the economist 2014).

3 http://www.ifes.org/sites/default/files/2016_ifes_iran_parliamentary_elections_faq_final.pdf 36

Figure 4.1: Iran’s political system (source: bbc.com)

4.2 Political contestation: Hard-liners versus Moderates on Civil Society The political system of Iran may be summarized as a contest between the conservatives, moderates and reformist for the social and political order of the country (Arjomand 2000). In most cases, the power balance seems to be in favor of the conservatives. The conservatives are the so called ‘hard-liners’, who want Iran to be ruled based on the strict interpretation of the Islamic Sharia law. Contrary, reformist want more democratic elements integrated in the system, such as the promotion of citizens’ engagement and civil society. The moderates are positioned in the middle of the political spectrum. A clear example that highlights the differences is that the reformist want the supreme leader to be chosen by the people. Whereas, the conservatives consider the supreme leader to be holy and therefore they want the Assembly of Experts to ‘discover’ him. The hard-liners have more political legitimacy; they control the Basij (the morality police) and the Revolutionary guards (Asayesh et Al. 2011). Despite these differences, all political parties and members of parliament are Muslim. Otherwise, they will not meet the criteria of the Guardian Council. This political contestation became visible when in 1997, Mohammed Khatami, a reformist, was elected President of Iran. This period, 1997 – 2005, is known as the ‘reform-are’ of Iranian politics (Peterson 2010; Asayesh et Al. 2011). It was the first time since the revolution in 1979 that attempts were made towards reforms and political development. Khatami’s rhetoric was that of Islamic democracy, citizens’ participation and civil society. Khatami announced that: ‘the first step in political development is participation’. He installed different village and city councils to promote citizen’s participation and he promised more room for political engagement and civil society. The number of

voluntary associations, labor groups, NGOs including human rights groups, independent media and journalists rise drastically during the first years of his administration. However, soon it became evident that Khatami’s attempts for reform were countered by conservatives, who were related to the supreme leader. The conservatives launched counter-offensives against the reformists and prominent civil society actors. This led, for instance, to restrictions on pro-reform newspapers and publications, to the arrest of journalist and to the decline of many independent newspapers. Khatami was unable to stop these offenses or to make the promised reforms. His power to install new laws was blocked by the guardian council and by the clerically controlled judiciary. Khatami’s time as president shows the enormous power of the conservatives in Iranian governmental institutions (Asayesh et Al. 2011; Human Rights Watch 2012). In 2005 the conservative hard-liner, Mahmoud Ahmajinidad, won the presidential elections. President Ahmajinidad, further consolidated the backlash against activists and civil society groups (Scott-Peterson 2010; Asayesh et Al. 2011). The attitude towards civil society shifted from what Human Rights Watch entitled as ‘the cautious encouragement’ of NGOs under Khatami’s presidency, to one of suspicion and open hostility (Human Rights Watch 2012). The Ahmadinejad administration applied a “security framework” towards NGOs, accusing them of being tools of foreign agendas and fighting a proxy war against the Islamic Republic of Iran (Human Rights Watch 2012; Scott-Peterson 2010). Prominent Iranian activists were imprisoned and international organizations who supported civil society organizations inside Iran were banned (HIVOS 2008; Human Rights Watch 2012). In 2009, Ahmadinejad got elected for his second term as president. However, his re-election was questioned by the people. Hundreds of thousands of people gathered in the streets to protest against the outcome; known as the Green Movement. Twitter and Facebook were used to show the discontent towards the regime. By twittering with #WhereIsMyVote the movement gained international attention and reached a broad public. According to the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad the protesters were terrorists. They stated that the protest was imposed by Western and Zionist states through civil society organizations and the internet. The protests were seen as protests against the system. Soon the Iranian authorities used force against the protesters. Many of them got arrested or killed (Peterson 2010, 534). The demand for freedom and fair elections led to the further crackdown on civil society. In 2011 a law was installed that only allowed civil society organizations to work on charity causes. This law also made prosecution against people active in these organizations easier and led to the financial stop towards civic organizations (Rivetti 2013, 196). Especially, organizations active on political empowerment and human rights were in danger. Many of whom had to flee the country for their security (Human Rights Watch 2012)4.

4 https://www.hrw.org/report/2012/12/13/why-they-left/stories-iranian-activists-exile 38

In 2013, Hassan Rouhani, a moderate, was elected President of Iran. Women included in this study were slightly positive on the current situation for civil society organizations. They often compared it to the time when Ahmajinidad was president. As one interviewee put it: ‘the situation has improved. Before if you wanted to talk about the leader in these places [café] you had to leave some words or lower your voice in public. Nowadays everyone is talking about it [laughs]’ (volunteer for two civic organizations and PhD student, Interview 23). Another informant told me: ‘since Rouhani government everything is a little easier. A little, not very. I think it is going to be better’ (co-founder of registered organization, Interview 17). On the contrary, Reporters without borders reported that the overall situation regarding freedom of information has not improved since Rouhani gained power. They reported a new wave of arrests on journalist and argued that the Rouhani administration has a role ‘as a silent accomplice’ (Reporters without borders 2015). In addition, conservatives continue to counter processes of reform. This is clearly visible in the public, on issues such as gender segregation and on the enforcement of the Islamic dress code. As an example, President Rouhani plied for the relaxation on the enforcement on the Islamic dress codes for women. He forbid the police to arrest women, because of, what he refers to as a ‘bad’ hijab. He stated that it was not the task of the police to enforce Islam. However, the next day, the supreme leader publicly responded on this statement. He told the public that it was police’s first priority to enforce Islamic laws (The Guardian 2015). Furthermore, last year the police announced that they will apply a stricter enforcement on the Islamic dress code of women in cars. Women who were not wearing their hijab properly risked fines or the impoundment of their car. Since, more than 40000 cars got impounded5. These examples demonstrate the control of conservatives and clerics on different state institutions and demonstrate the constant contestation over power within the system. The next paragraph will, in order to better understand the space for civil society organizations to operate, highlight some of the constitutions and laws relating to civil society.

4.3 The NGO and Press Law

‘The Iranian street is like a sleeping elephant: this enormous reservoir of energy and will for political, cultural, and social reform that is not being tapped into right now’

(Peterson 2010, 249)

In principle, the Iranian constitution serves freedom of association. However, association is only free in so far the objectives of the organization does not contradict the ‘fundamental principles of Islam’, based on the Sharia. Associations are obliged to request for an ‘activity license’ and register themselves as group. Besides that the objectives and activities of an organization need to be in line with the

5 http://www.thenational.ae/world/middle-east/iran-impounds-more-than-40000-cars-for-hijab-offences 39

principles of the Islam, they also need to meet a set of institutional and procedural criteria to receive this license. For instance, the founding body must consist out of at least five members, who all need to have the Iranian nationality, activities schemes need to be send and approved by three different governmental institutions and at all times they need to provide access to supervisory authorities (Princeton University). Another law which arguable restrict the space for civil society organizations to operate are the regulations on foreign funding. The law says that: ‘the organization is obliged before receiving help from foreign sources to declare the details about the donor, the level of aid, and its nature to the relevant supervisory authorities as explained’. The organizations need to present these details to the Ministries of Intelligence, to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran. These institutions have to agree with the request before the organization is allowed to receive the funding. The process of funding is long, difficult and time consuming. Therefore, most of the NGO’s in Iran do not receive funding from foreign donors (Aarts and Cavatorta 2012). In addition, article 27 of the constitution grants ‘peaceful assembly’ but it limits this right to “public gatherings and marches’’. The article states that public gatherings and marches are not part of the ‘fundamental principles of Islam”. People and associations who want to hold a public gathering need a permit. These permits are routinely denied to activists and civic groups. Women’s rights advocates claim particular discrimination. They reported that the process was oppressive and unreliably. Furthermore, discussions at universities as well as gatherings at concerts and other cultural events are regularly attacked by governmental forces (Human Rights Watch 2012). Besides the NGO laws, there are also laws that fall under the Islamic Penal Code, which are used to criminalize, oppress and punish people for political expression and association on grounds that the ‘national security is being threatened (Human Rights Watch 2012). For instance, Article 498 of the Security Laws, criminalizes the establishment of any group that aims to “disrupt national security”; Article 500, sets a sentence of three months to one year of imprisonment for anyone found guilty of “in any way advertising against the order of the Islamic Republic of Iran or advertising for the benefit of groups or institutions against the order”. And, Article 610, designates “gathering or colluding against the domestic or international security of the nation or commissioning such acts” as a crime punishable from two to five years of imprisonment (Human Rights Watch 2012). Human Rights Watch reported that one of the main problems with the constitution and laws is the use of undefined terms, like ‘immoral’ and “national security’. The same can be said about the NGO law, which constantly refers to ‘Islamic values’. These examples demonstrate the ambiguity of the law, which gives space for the enforcers of the law to freely interpret it. However it also gives space for people to differently interpreted or disobey the law. In Iran it is by law not allowed to: walk hand in hand, talk about politics in public, drink alcohol, homosexuality, party, use drugs, have a dog, reveal hair as a woman, live on your own, live together without being married, have sex before marriage, use Facebook, Twitter or other forms of social media, watch Western movies, listen to female singers, listen to Western music, listen to loud music, dance in

public or to organize gatherings in the streets. Despite that these things are not allowed people constantly do it. And everybody seems to know (personal observations). As elaborated on in the conceptual chapter, free media and access to information is seen as crucial to the development of a civil society. However, free speech is severely limited in Iran and the media is predominantly state-controlled. Reporters without borders (2016) stated that 37 journalist and citizen- journalist are currently imprisoned. Therefore, Iran has the dubious honour to make it to the top five biggest journalist prisoner’s providers. The country ranked 173 out of 180 countries in the 2015 Reporters without Borders press freedom index (Reporters without border 2016). Restrictions on the press are integrated in Iran’s constitution, which declares that: ‘the media should be used as a forum for a healthy encounter of different ideas, but must strictly refrain from diffusion and propagation of destructive and anti-Islamic practice’’. In the line with the constitution, the press law – article 6, states that: ‘the press is free, except for items which undermine Islam’s bases and commandments, and public and private rights’. For instance, it is forbidden to publish articles that: ‘violate Islamic values or what can harm the bases of the Islamic Republic, insult the true religion of Islam and its sanctities, insults to the office of the supreme leader and the recognized Sources of Emulation and abusing actual or legal figures who are respected under sharia law even if by publishing photographs or cartoons’. Breaking these laws carries a punishment of one to five years or in some cases even the death penalty (Human Rights Watch 2012). This laws show that the Islam forms the bases for all laws in the counter, however, is not written what precisely constitute these Islamic values. This leaves room for different interpretations and negotiation of these laws. Besides restrictions on the press, Iran also blocks several social media websites, including, Facebook, WhatsApp, international news pages, Twitter and YouTube. In response, Iranians use different proxy servers to access blocked websites. It almost seems a sport among young people to bypass the internet censors of the authorities on the virtual space. Young people often talked about new or better servers they had installed or heard about. Everyone seemed to be capable to bypass restrictions on the virtual spaces (personal observations).

5. Organization of Civil Society by Women This chapter shows, that women, by organizing themselves around different issues and activities in certain spaces actively shape and create civil society. Civil society is not just merely there, it is, as space, actively negotiated and socially constructed. This chapter is divided into four sections, each of which presents the findings and analyses related to the first research question: how do women organize civil society in Tehran, Iran? The organizations included in this study are classified in the following types of organizations: registered, unregistered and faith based organizations. Because of the spaces they use and the motivation of women who are organized along religion will be highlighted in a separate category and referred to as faith based organizations. In addition, the last paragraph presents a description on state authorities in Tehran (the municipality of Tehran and the State Welfare Organization). This system of

classification is helpful to understand how women organized themselves and to show the dynamics between different actors in civil society and the state. I will, nevertheless, argue that this classification is not elusive and does not justify the multiple realities on the ground. Women who participate in civil society as well as women who participate in the other sectors (through the state and the market), negotiate and manoeuvre between different organizations and spaces of social action. Nevertheless, the classification of the different types of organizations is useful as a starting point to demonstrate how practices and activities of women cross the real and imagined boundaries between the different types of organizations. It shows the dynamic process between civil society and space. Each paragraph will start with an introduction of the form of organization, followed with a description and reflection on one case that was analysed. The chapter ends with a conclusion on the different ways of organization.

5.1 Registered Organizations The first type of organization consists of women who are engaged in licensed organizations. These organizations are institutionalized and are by means of a license aligned to the government. In Iran organizations need to be officially registered and need to have a special activity licence to work as an NGO. Currently there are more than 10.000 registered NGOs in Iran (Rivetti 2015). Being registered as an NGO is restrained in several ways, for instance, by restrictive and complicated laws for establishing an organization as shown in chapter 4.3 (Aarts and Cavatorta 2012). Registered organizations are by Aarts and Cavatorta (2013) referred to as Government Organized Non-Governmental Organizations, or GONGOs. They argue that in Iran NGOs are all aligned and under control of the state authorities, therefore these NGOs are unable to work independent from the authorities (Aarts and Cavatorta 2013). This view was echoed by one informant who is active in different civil organizations in Tehran:

‘There are not many NGOs in Iran because they are not free. If government looks at them [NGOs] they do not look at them as non-governmental but want them as part of the government. They do see them as their enemy as their opposition’’ (PhD student and volunteer for two societal organizations, Interview 23).

In this study, instead of NGO or GONGO, the term registered organization is used. The term NGO implies that the organization is non-profit and non-governmental, and the term GONGO implies that the government has organized the NGO and plays a big part in the organizations activities. However, the results of this study showed that some registered organizations worked completely independent from the state authorities. They did not receive any forms of funding from the government. Others did receive funding from the Iranian government and/or a place to work. Moreover, the results showed that women who work for the State Welfare Organizations also had their own registered NGO. Thus, this shows that the relation between civil society organizations and the government is diffuse and complex.

Another interesting point is that, all of the informants of this study who were active in a registered organization stated to have a ‘private’ agenda. These women, even though they had their organization registered, were also engaged in activities that they understood as ‘unaccepted’. Thus, this shows that the term registered organizations better covers the gamut of organizations and people engaged in NGOs. The organizations have in common that they are all voluntary non-profit organizations, driven by a certain civic interest. The following paragraph provides an in-depth description of a registered organization.

5.1.1 Description of a Registered Organization On Thursday morning the 18th of June I went for the first time to Arezoo (which means desire in Persian). Several persons in Iran and a contact in The Netherlands told me about this organization. Arezoo is one of the bigger and known registered organizations in Iran. Their primary aim is to educate and empower young underprivileged girls (official webpage organization; personal conversations). These girls often were abused or faced domestic violence. The centre offers the girls a three year study program for personal development. Newsha, who did an art project with the girls from the centre had brought me in touch with Vera. Vera is the external relation manager of the organization. Vera was willing to meet me at one of the location of the centre, in the south of central Tehran. The management and administration of the organization was located in there. The other two locations, she told me, were safe houses for girls who are in need of extra protection. From the outside the centre appeared to be a ‘normal’ apartment in Tehran. The building was high and grey. The windows had bars in front of it and the curtains were closed. No one could see from the outside what was happening in the inside. There was no sign that indicated the centre was inside the building. I called Vera to tell her I was almost there, she told me that I could just open the door. I was welcomed at the reception. After saying my name the man at the reception walked with me to the office of the director and managers of the organization. The office was located on the upper floor. I immediately noticed the enormous contrast with the outside. Inside the apartment was colourful. It felt like a combination of a school and an art centre. Girls were walking around in the hallways laughing and chatting to each other. Some girls were sitting behind computers and were checking Facebook. In the central hall hung a huge poster portraying the well-known American picture of a woman with a rolled up sleeve, showing her muscle, and the slogan: ‘Yes, We can do it’. The walls were covered with art work and pictures of the girls on what seemed to be daytrips and holidays. Later Vera told me that art was a big part of the program, most of the classes of the girls focussed on creative skills such as pottery, photography and painting. Vera told me that all the art work in the centre told a different story of the traumatized history of the girls. The boardroom had an oval table in the middle of the room. Four women and one man were seated behind the table. They welcomed me and told me that they just had a staff meeting. The women and the man were dressed very colourful. The director of the centre wore a green manteaux, which hung

open. Her curls danced on her head, in the room the women did not wore their hijabs or headscarves even though there was a man present. The man was not a family member, but the women still did not wore their headscarves. Vera, already worked for twelve years for the organization. She spoke with an English accent that was almost flawless. Later she told me she had studied in the United Kingdom. Vera and I took a seat separate from the others at the corner of the table. We talked about the organization and on what I was doing in Iran. Vera said she would link me to the program director of the organization (who was currently out of the country) to arrange interviews. Vera said that I first needed to talk to the program director as they could not do anything without her consent. The program director was currently in the USA where she worked one part of the year. During this conversation I mentioned the name of a Dutch NGO that had told me about Arezoo and that they worked together. Vera ignored this statement. When we, after the conversation, walked outside the office, Vera told me: ‘it is not safe to mention the name of the organization and that you are aligned to them in here’. This statement made me feel uncomfortable, because it made me question my estimation on the situation in the boardroom. I thought it was a private setting and I could speak openly. There were not that many people in the room and judged on what they were dressed and the way they introduced themselves, I thought I could speak freely. However, apparently I had made a poor judgment on the situation. The boardroom was more public than I thought. I told Vera that I was not aligned to them and thanked her for the warning. After this introduction Vera gave me a tour in the centre. During the tour Vera emphasized on the feeling the centre wanted to create for the girls: ‘we want to create a place where the girls feel at home. From the outside it seems like a normal school and the walls seem like normal school walls, however, what we are doing here and try to create is not a normal school’. ‘The girls need to smell the smell of food every day, they are not used to this from their homes’. Hence, they wanted to create a place that felt more private. A few times during the tour Vera mentioned that goods were sponsored from foreign countries, including: a football table from a foreign embassy, computers from an International NGO and a carpet made by a Dutch artist. In time I learned how often visitors from abroad came to the centre. For instance, when I observed in a dance class, one of the girls asked me why all the foreign people came to visit the centre. Another girl proudly told me that she had a friend from the Netherlands. She said: ‘last week they visited us, they came by bike’. In the dining room I noticed a map of the globe with pins in it. One of the girls told me it represented people who had visited the centre. I also met one of the ‘Angels’. Angels are girls from the Iranian diaspora, who are volunteering for the centre. Vera told me that the centre had some foundations abroad to raise money for the centre. She said that they have a special licence to receive money from abroad (different than the activity licence to work as an NGO in Iran). According to the program director they were even the only organization who had a special license to receive money from abroad (Skype interview program director). This shows the visibility and the publicity of the organization.

Vera highlighted the different ethnic backgrounds of the girls in the centre. According to Vera 30% of the girls came from Afghanistan, the others were Uzbeks or Iranians. In her opinion the organization did not discriminate based on background: ‘we do not discriminate, they are also welcome here, they have just been threatened terrible at home, and for us it does not matter. We help them.’ Talking to the girls of the centre ethnicity also appeared to be an important issue. When I participated in a theatre class one of the Afghan girls told me that she was not as beautiful as the other girls because she came from Afghanistan and therefore she had a strange nose. Another girl (Iranian) started out of nowhere to identify the girls who came from Afghanistan. It is interesting that the girl highlighted her nose, as it is very Iranian to do so. Iran is one of the countries that per capita has the highest rate of nose surgeries in the world6. Interestingly, both Vera as the programme director mentioned the ‘private’ agenda of the centre. The program director told me: ‘it is better not to draw to much attention to what we are actually doing such as awareness raising and teach the girls about rights and empowerment (Program director, skype interview 8).This may show that some of the activities of the centre, besides what was visible and public, were also more private. Another fragment of the interview with the program director illustrates this: ‘Because the nature of this work is around women, if you are too loud about it, then the government will not be happy about it. The director is not shy about her work or herself. They [refers to the government] know she is present and that she is non confirming and non-traditional. And they know we have an impact. Because the juridical system and the State Welfare Organization, all these places refer girls to us. But all the time their emphasizes is on vocational training; English and computer, and not on the other stuff. But in our eyes the emphasizes is not on this, but on the other stuff. This stuff is great but it is just one component. It is not everything’’ (Program director, skype interview 8). I visited the centre several times and interviewed Vera and the program director and I observed and participated in classes of the girls. However, it always felt a little bit uncomfortable being there. I think this feeling came from my inability to estimate what I could and could not say, and to whom. It was difficult to have in- depth conversations with other employees besides Vera. When I talked to other staff members they were not really open for a conversation. This might have something to do with the private agenda of the organization, or that they often receive foreign visitors (Interview 4 & 8).

5.1.2 Reflection on Registered Organizations This description shows that it is difficult to make a clear distinction between private and public spaces and activities. During the interviews and personal conversations with the staff members, the distinction between the private and the public came back. The women talked about a ‘private’ agenda and ‘private’ activities. However, it also raised the question to what extent the agenda of the organization was really

6 http://www.vice.com/read/shes-so-najoor-0000467-v21n10 45

private. For instance, the organization promoted women’s rights and shared stories of the girls, who faced domestic violence and sexual abuse, on their webpage and Facebook pages. Earlier, these issues were by the program manager defined as unaccepted to work on in Iran. Even though, these webpages and Facebook are blocked by the authorities, most people inside Iran can still access them. Hence, these spaces can still be considered public spaces. In addition, the statement of Vera on the presence and visibility of the work of the organization shows that Arezoo assumes that the government knows about their so called ‘private’ agenda. The state authorities not only know but also send girls to the centre. This was echoed by different informants. For instance, by the director of a centre for HIV/Aids addicted women. Even though this organizations faced problems with the authorities, they sent clients to the organizations. The women who work for the state authorities told me about the collaboration with NGO’s and charities: ‘it is a low level collaboration. It is kind of a private activity, not a public one. There is not a macro policy in working together. It is completely unorganized, it is very messy’ (Interview 20). This shows the interesting and complex dynamics between the state and civil society. Moreover, it shows that the distinction between what is private and what is public is ambiguous in Iran. Therefore these spaces can be seen as hybrid spaces. The main themes and activities of the registered organizations that were included in this study, concentrate on: children, education, women and poverty elevation. The organizations explained to me that these themes were more accepted by the government. Contrary to these topics; women empowerment, homosexuality, the promotion of Human Rights, domestic violence, sexual abuse, prostitution and HIV/AIDS, are considered to be a no-go in Iran by the organizations. These topics are not only considered to be a no-go because of the government, but also by the ‘broader society’. A few informants told me that people in Iran were not willing to give money to these kind of issues (Interview 1, 7 &17). As one informant stated: people in this country do not think they need to help these women who are addicted or sex workers. They say they are worth nothing. People do not give them anything, not even for God sake’ (Interview 17). This informant is the director of an organization working for (ex) female prostitutes and women infected with HIV/Aids. In line with this statement also Vera told me: ‘in this society it is more common to give money to visible things like cancer. People discriminate the girls, they are seen as runaways [criminals] from the police but these girls just had bad luck’ (Interview 4). And, another informant said: ‘the social idea about women who have divorced their husband is not good. We have to work on changing this mind set’ (unregistered organization, interview 12). These statements demonstrates that not only state authorities, and their watchdogs, determine around what themes people can publicly organize themselves, but that also the social factors (customs, norms and religion) are of importance in the production of civil society. Thus, the socio-political environment in Tehran determines how women organize civil society, around what themes and where these activities can take place. The analyses of the different organizations, show that it can be seen as a decisive choice for organizations to register. As one informant stated: ‘it is about two years that we are trying to get the

license from governmental agencies in Iran. And thank God we achieved that licence. It was so hard’ (Co-founder Khorshid, Interview 22). This informant is the director and initiator of a registered organization that provides day-care and education for children from poor families. The woman told me that, in order to, receive the license they had to change the main aim of the program. Before they applied for the licence, they (the initiator and a friend) tried to help women with drug addictions and raise awareness about domestic violence in the poorest area of the city (Co –founder Khorshid, Interview 9). Half a year after they obtained the license the organization received a workplace from the municipality of Tehran. This place is vested in the State Welfare Institute in the east of Tehran, in this institute, multiple civil organizations are located. In that place, they come together to collaborate and hold expert meetings with each other on the program and activities and with State institutions, like the State Welfare Organization and the Municipality. This example shows that when an organization receives an activity license to officially work as an NGO they might be able to engage in more public and institutionalized spaces of participation. Institutionalized spaces are spaces in which authorities invite citizens to participate (Cornwell 2002). These spaces are institutionalized by the state, which means that the participation happens on terms set by them. This is shown, for instance, by the fact that; two out of the five licensed organizations stated that they had to change their aim in order to receive the license. This may indicate that organizations only receive a license when they do (or claim to) what is accepted by the authorities. Interestingly, another registered organization first helped children from poor families but changed it to work on women who were drugs addicted and often worked in the prostitution. The informant told me that they were, at the beginning, supported by the state authorities to do so. However, recently, they had to change their program because they did not receive the financial or social support from the government. As the informant said: ‘for 9 years it was really hard, the money the State Welfare office was supposed to give us was very small, and we had to ask them any time because they did not pay’ (Interview 17). However, this women also stated that when they told the government that they stopped their work they told them not to do it. The results demonstrate that, organizations who are registered and invited into these spaces of participation, can challenge and negotiate the boundaries of these spaces. They ‘push back’ the red lines set by the authorities. For example, when I asked an informant about ‘if and how they could influence politics’, she responded:

‘We hold some conferences with other NGOs and we wrote letters to newspapers, articles and magazines and we wrote letters to parliament and to the president. We gain some result. But every time we have concerns about continuing our works. Every time they can close our NGO. Especially when Ahmajinidad was president it was so bad’

This quote illustrates that women who are active in registered organizations negotiate spaces to make their aims more publicly. They do this by, for example, writing letters to parliament and

newspapers and by mobilizing their network to participate in politics. This shows that women who participate in these invited spaces negotiate and move in and out of these spaces (Cornwell 2002). However, these spaces are also limited and tied to what is understood as acceptable and to what is not (the discursive and ambiguous redline). At the same time, this space is a result of these negotiations and constantly changes. Hence there is a constant tension between those who invite and those who are invited. The next chapter, chapter 6, will go more in- depth on the different spaces of citizens’ participation.

5.2 Unregistered Organizations The second type of organizations are the unregistered organizations. These organizations do not have an activity license to officially work as an NGO in Iran. The following unregistered organizations are included in this study: an artist collective, a school for Afghan children, two social entrepreneurs businesses, two social organizations and the feminist group. What these organizations have in common is that they work outside the institutional domains. Cornwell (2002) labels these spaces in which groups as ‘independent’ spaces of participation. According to Cornwell (2002), these spaces of participation exist out of people who think alike. The spaces exists because people chose to be part of them. In most cases driven by a passion to change something in society. The formation of these groups always involves an act of identification with the group. Cornwell argues that these spaces of participation are in a way also restricted as ‘they are only open for those who share a particular identity’ (Cornwall 2002). The next paragraph will describe Roya (which means vision/dream), a social business which support women to become social entrepreneurs. The clients of the organization live under difficult economic conditions, often they face domestic violence and abuse of their husbands. Roya aims to empower these women to become financial independent from their husbands by learning those skills such as, sewing, knitting and selling.

5.2.1 Description of an Unregistered Organization As introduced in the method section I met two of the three initiators of Roya the first time during a diner at Newsha’s parents’ house. During the diner the women invited me to an exhibition of their products a week later. Four times a year they hold an exhibition to promote their organization and to sell the products that are all made by their clients. The exhibition was held in an apartment in central Tehran, one of the directors welcomed us (me and Newsha) and introduced me to one of the clients of the organizations. The exhibition was held in the basement of the apartment, in what seemed to be a very fancy garage. The director told me the apartment was of a friend, who allowed them to use the basement for the exhibition. In the room there stood a table full of knitted goods made by the clients. For example, scarves, bread baskets and hats and two clothes racks. To me the manteaux’s looked ‘hip and fashionable’.

Among Newsha’s friends (almost all artists), it was fashionable to wear an oversized manteaux and to let it hang open. When I wore the manteaux like this it annoyed me, because I was constantly aware whether the manteaux did not hung too open. The way women wear their manteaux can be seen as part of the constant negotiation on the dress code of women in public. Leaving the manteaux open may be seen as a form of protest. I looked at the manteaux’s and I wanted to fit one, but I was not sure whether it was appropriate to do so. As I needed to undress. The director clearly saw me struggling and laughed. According to her it was not a problem to try the manteaux on and she helped me undress. When I took of my manteaux I felt very conscious about myself. I felt naked; even though I was still wearing a t-shirt with sleeves. It was the first time since I was in Iran that I was taking clothes off, instead of putting more clothes on, in a place that for me felt kind of public. For me it was unclear who could enter the room or who the other people in the room were. That afternoon I stayed at the exhibition to observe. I sat behind the counter in the corner of the room. From eleven until five o’clock thirteen women and one man visited the exhibition. All of whom seemed to know the director in person. When they entered the room they kissed the director on the cheeks and started a conversation. The women who visited the exhibition all took their headscarf off and six women fitted one of the manteaux’s. When the man (a non-family member) entered the room, the women did not seem to be bothered about not wearing their headscarves. The next time I met the women it was in the workplace of the women, which was located in a private apartment in central Tehran. The women told me they invested their own money to rent the place. The apartment was on the third floor of the building. It was not clear from the outside what activities were going on inside. After Newsha and I walked in the room, one of the directors immediately told us to take off our scarf. The directors and the clients were also not wearing their headscarves. Besides the directors there were seven other women in the apartment. The apartment consisted out of two rooms; the first room had a kitchen and a big table in the middle, and the other room was used for sewing. The whole place felt very peaceful. The women told me that in total they helped twenty women. In the apartment there was space for 15 women and 5 women were working from their homes. Besides the clients, who they pay salary for the clothes they make, the women make use of a whole network of people who voluntary assist them. Newsha and amid, for instance, helped them to set up a Facebook page and assist them with other promotion activities. Six women were working in the other room behind a sewing machine. They were knitting clothes for the new collection. Another woman was sitting behind the computer, she was the designer of the clothes and worked as a volunteer for the organization. When I asked the women if I could take a picture of the workplace the clients of the organization insisted on putting their scarves on. One of the directors laughed and said that the women [referring to her clients] do not want to upset men seeing their pictures in the Netherlands.

After the formal interview with the directors a conversation followed about their background and history of social activities; from being social workers, to political activists to what they refer to as social entrepreneurs. The women told me that they were active in the revolution in 1979 in revolts against the regime of the Shah. ‘We never expected that it would turn out like this’, one of the woman said. Her husband got executed for his activities in the revolution and she was detained in prison for a couple of months. She told me they revolted against the Shah during the revolution but that after Khomeini gained power they were not welcome any longer because of their political point of view. She stated: ‘after the revolution we were seen as a treat. Everyone who is different is not accepted in this country’. Nevertheless, the women continued their activities as social workers working for different NGOs. In 2006 the women were one of the frontrunners in the One Million Signature campaign. A campaign which fought for equal rights among men and women. The women were also active in 2009 during the Green Movement. For these activities, one of the woman was arrested as ‘political prisoner’ and was detained in Evin prison7. The other two women left the country, one of them came back to Iran and the other woman stayed in Europa. The women talked about these incidences with what seemed to be a certain sarcasm. They laughed and made jokes about their situation.

‘Everything we do is political but we call it social [Laughs]’. ‘If I want that women have divorce rights or talking to you is political. In this country there are no boundaries. In your country it is clear what social work is, here you need to be careful’.

The women claimed that for them the most important thing at the moment was to stay independent, for themselves and for their clients. As one of the woman said:

‘One the short time it is good [to receive funding] but on the long time it can give problems. If you accept help then you will be related with the government. If we accept funding we should obey their rules. So is it very important for us to follow our own rules and be independent. So we do not accept funding’.

The other woman responded on this statement with: yes, and that is lots of fun [laughs]’ (Interview 12). These women seem to have suffered from their activities. This view got confirmed when I met the daughter of one of the woman. Zara, a young woman in the end of the twenties, told me about how difficult it was for her and her mother during her mums’ activities in the Green Movement. Zara studied in Sweden at that time. Zara told me she was scared knowing her mother was on the frontline of

7 Evin prison is a prison located in Tehran, and is known because of wing 350. This prison wing is full of political prisoners, intellectuals and Human Rights activists. The prison is therefore also referred to as ‘Evin University’ (https://www.hrw.org, HRW report 2012)

the protests and not knowing whether her mother was safe. Because of security reasons her mother left Iran and came to Sweden to stay at Zara’s place for a couple of months. This was a difficult time for both of them. Living with her mother in a small apartment and not knowing whether her mother was ever able to go back to Iran put an enormous pressure on their lives and their relationship. She stated, ‘I did not want to think like that, because I felt obliged to my mother to make the best out of it, but it was difficult’. The young woman was struggling with her ambitions and place in the society. She told me: ‘my mum is doing all this great stuff and I am just living my life’ (Personal conversation daughter of one of the initiators of Roya).

5.2.2 Reflection on Unregistered Organizations The description shows that these women experienced major setbacks in their life, because of their social and political activities. However, this did not stop them from being active on women issues. These women adapted their activities and their way of working, but continued. As one of the women stated: ‘we now know what we are doing’. They adapted strategies to cope with the ‘push-backs’ they experienced. The other unregistered organizations included in this study, organized around the following themes: women empowerment, gender equality, HIV/AIDS, drug related problems and prostitution. The activities ranged from organizing exhibitions, providing sewing lessons, awareness raising on women equality by radio broadcasting, providing vocational training and training on human rights. It can be suggested that by forming these groups’ women already showed resistance against the conceived order of the authorities. They took specific and deliberate action to create their own spaces of social action. The analysis of Roya and other unregistered groups included in this study showed that the women make use and mobilize their own network of friends for funding and awareness raising. For instance, by showing other women that they should not accept sexual violence, to eat health and to teach them how to knit and sell clothes in order for them to become independent. As Zarayda, part of the feminist group, explains it:

‘Actually, I say to my friend and my friend knows her friend. We can get a network of women to come together’ and ‘We cannot use the newspaper or the official websites in public but we can use these groups [Viber/Black box]. ‘We have a viber group’ (Interview 5).

The analyses shows that through their network of ‘friends’ the women tried to create impact and raise awareness for issues such as prostitution and drugs. Disregarding their position as unregistered organization some organizations used public spaces for their activities. Mainly in order to raise money. I observed one of the organizations collecting money in a park during Ramadan and another unregistered group was collecting money in a bazaar. In addition, one unregistered organizations exhibited their

clients work in order to raise money. This took place in a public gallery. However, when I visited this exhibition it was clear that even though it took place in public, they were not able to promote the exhibition too publicly. An artist who volunteered for the organization told me, after I asked her how she promoted the exhibition: ‘we could not do much in the media because this place has some problems with the government, because they [the government] says we do not have these problems. They say we do not have addicted women are prostitutes. They do not want to show that. So we tried to use all our connections, and because we are artist we have lots of connections’. When I asked her if there were any posters or other visuals on the place she told me ‘yes there was a poster. The name was one it but we cannot not say what is exactly happening in that place. We had to change it to be able to have the exhibition’ (Interview 1). This shows that the informants, even though, they used the public sphere, had to be aware whether they not became too visible. Two out of seven unregistered organizations included in this study wanted to register their organization as a company. It may be seen as a way to escape the label of a ‘political’ organization and to earn money to sustain as an organization. Also the feminist group, wanted to get a licence, however, their application was rejected. Anna, who is part of the group stated that: ‘the Iranian government does not concern about women, they think if women go to society, if they empower, they will corrupt society’. On the question why they wanted to have a license she told me ‘that makes it easier to work’. In her opinion it was not possible for the feminist group to change something for women, because: ‘we cannot go public. Not just this NGO, all NGOs’. It can be suggested that these women think that, by getting a license, they can move from the more differentiated or private spaces of participation to the institutionalized public spaces. In that way they might be able to reach a broader public, have better access to resources and create more public attention (Anna, Interview 7). Interestingly, for some unregistered organizations it worked the other way around. They did not register as NGO because they wanted to remain independent. As one of the directors of Roya describes it:

‘We want to be independent. In Iran many NGO activity focusses on activity on children and women, or for disease for cancer. As beginning, the three of us, we think [Roya] bases on autonomy, and financial independence. NGOs offer help to women but just on education for women. And therefore, when the government close an NGO down all activity stops, thus they cannot continue earning money or have a life. It all stops. It is important for us that women are not dependent on the NGO. This part is very important for me and my friends. We think we have a lasting activity. For the longer term. The effect should continue. It is just supported by us. That is very important for us, to be independent’ (Interview 12).

It is questionable whether they would have received a license on the first place, because of the aim of the organization. Nevertheless, it was a decisive choice to be active on these themes and in these

activities. The women also decisively not accept funding or resources from abroad. They told me that the German Embassy was interested in supporting them. She said: ‘we did not accept it because government will question about it. On short time it is good but on long time it can give problems. If you accept help from abroad you will be related to the government’ (Interview 12). This clearly shows that out of fear of the consequences these women do not register the organization. Getting a license means entering the space of authorities and being visible to them. These women, after multiple negative experiences, decisively choose to stay in more private spaces of participation. Often informants made negative comments about their relation with the state authorities. A few women explained that they faced treats from the authorities because of their activities. Some of the informants had gone to jail for their activities. They explained that authorities had labelled their activities as ‘political’. As one woman, who started a school for children without a permanent resident card, told me: 'we have lots of problems with the government. Sometimes they arrest me. Because I have confidence about my work and I am not hesitant to talk about it. I like my work and I am proud of it’ (Interview 2). Weekly, this woman received a letter from the authorities in which they threaten her to close the school. In the past, authorities had already closed the school for a period of time. She was scared that the authorities would close the school again. This statement is in line with the statement of Vera in paragraph 5.1.2. Both of the women had the ‘confidence’ to talk about their work. This may be the reason why this woman was arrested and constantly faces threats. It demonstrates that if the work of these women becomes too visible, and thus too public, they will experience problems with the authorities.

5.3 Faith Based Organizations Another form of organization are women who are organized alongside the countries state religion, the Islam. These are the faith based organizations. Faith based organization are in the literature defined as ‘any organization that derives inspiration and guidance for its activities from the teachings and principles of the faith or from a particular interpretation or school of thought within that faith (Ferris, 2011). It is mainly the motivations, missions, inspiration and guidance coming from religious and/or spiritual traditions that make organisations ‘faith-based’. In this study three faith based organizations are included. One of the faith based organizations had a license to work as an NGO in Iran, the other two organizations were not registered. These organizations are included in this category because the main aim, mission and motivations of the women who volunteered for these organizations were primarily based on faith. A description of the registered faith based organization, Imam Ali, will be provided in the next paragraph.

5.3.1 Description of a Faith Based Organization On Saturday morning, the 11th of June, I went with Forugh to Imam Ali (Interview 14). The name of the organization already indicates the religious foundation of the organization as it refers to the first Iman of Muslims (In Shia religion Imam Ali is seen as the first and the most important Iman of the twelve

Imams). The organization, Iman Ali, is active in the whole of Tehran. They are community based and work together with local mosques. The local chapters of the organization are run by women. The activities of the women consist out of; raising money, collecting food and clothes, giving (religious) lectures and providing support to ill people. All women participated in the organization on a voluntary basis. Zina, the mother of Forugh, brought me in touch with one of the local chapters of the organization. Two of her friends were volunteers for the organization and Zina helped them whenever she could. The chapter was located in the West of Tehran, in one of the poorer areas of the city. The entrance was besides the mosque. Forugh told me that this was one of the most important mosques of the country. On the right side you could enter the mosque and on the left the organization. Before we entered the building I quickly caught a glimpse of the inside of the mosque. This started to become a familiar picture; the huge images of the Ayatollahs located above the doors, mosaics on the wall, gold and silver flashing everywhere and green lights shining from the domes of martyrs. Different from the other organizations, we could enter the building without someone stopping us. At other organizations there was most often a gate or a fence that needed to be opened before one could enter. We walked up the stairs and put out our shoes before we entered the room. The room was covered with carpet and there stood two big couches in the right corner. I felt overwhelmed by what I saw in the room. The room, which was small, was packed with women. There were plastic bags with clothes and different fabrics lying on the floor and in the left corner of the room two women were sitting behind a sewing machine making clothes. The women welcomed us, and immediately brought tea and dates. There were twelve women in the room. I had no idea whom I could talk to or what was happening precisely. For instance, I observed one woman collecting money among the other women. She putted the money in an envelope. Forugh introduced me to Nargus, who was her mother’s friend. We sat down on chairs in the corner of the room where I conducted the interview. Nargus apologised for the noise and mess in the room. She told me it was this noisy because it was the first time after Ramadan the group came together. In the month of Ramadan they had been busy with their own families and with doing activities for the mosques. Moreover, it was a joyful day because they were preparing a wedding. The women acted very familiar to each other. Nargus told me that the group also came together outside the charity. She said that they went on holidays together to Mashhad (Iran’s most holy city) and to the north of Iran to relax. During the interview another woman joined the conversation and commented on the answers of Nargus. Nargus told me she was responsible for funding and research on the families who wanted to receive aid. She told me that her job was to check whether people were eligible to receive it, ‘I see if people really need the help or not. We want to know whether they are really poor. We need to be sure’. On my question if they were also engaged in side activities such as awareness raising it was clear that they did not understood me. For them the main task was collecting money and goods. After me rephrasing the question, Nargus responded: ‘no, we just help the brides’. At first I did not understood what she meant

with ‘brides’. It was just after some time that I realized that the focus of the local chapter of the charity was to help women to get married. When I asked them what the reason was behind this focus, Nargus told me: ‘we just want women to be married’. She asked me if I was married, when I told her I was not, Nargus said she felt sorry for me and tried to make me feel better by saying that I could easily find an Iranian man. The women mentioned a few times they were doing it for the brides. It seemed to be very important for them. As she pointed out: ‘we know how important it is for a family that their daughters are getting married. And when a boy and a girl are poor they are unable to do so’. For these women the problem of poverty is that girls and boys are unable to get married. Which according to the women leads to disruptions in society and to unwanted sexual behaviour. This focus on women, and in particular on brides, showed that the women in the organization perceived the girls mostly as future wives; as caretakers of the family bound to the private domain. Whereas men were seen as caretakers of their family and economic life. After the interview the two women proudly showed me everything they had made and had collected for the wedding that took place the day after. The woman said to me: ‘it is all for the bride’. And the other woman stated: ‘we have to arrange this for our women’. We went to three other rooms. In one of the rooms they collected food and goods for the dowry. One room was full of blankets and matrasses and the other room had a table with boxes of food and a closet full of cups. They emphasized that the matrasses were important because it was the duty of women to provide them for their first night as a married couple. The same goes for the first new born baby; women needed to provide the goods that were necessary for the first born child. Proudly they told me that all the goods for the newlyweds were brand new. The goods for the other families was second hand. This shows how important they thought the wedding was. In the last room there stood a big refrigerator. Nargus proudly told me that during Ramadan they killed twelve sheep’s for poor families and stored it in that refrigerator. When we came back in the central room a different woman, who appeared to be a religious singer on ceremonies, had arrived. Clearly, she was seen as one of the most important persons in the charity. Nargus and the other woman had already mentioned the singer and how good she was. Luckily, the focus of attention shifted from me towards her. The woman had positioned herself in the middle of the room and she started singing after I entered the room. The other women were clapping and yelling. After she finished they passed an envelope around and put money in the envelope. Nargus told me it was tradition to give money after someone sang a religious song. With pride the woman told me that she had collected most of the money; singing for rich families during Ramadan yielded her 15 million Tomans (around 4500 euros). Later that morning it became even more crowded; different women walked in to bring clothes or to pick up bags of clothes. The women who came in to pick up goods, the clients, were all wearing a chador. The women who were part of the charity were in most cases ‘just’ wearing hijabs or headscarves, four of them were not wearing them in the room. Their headscarf hung on their shoulders. Not one men

entered the room that day. When I asked if men were also part of the charity, Nargus responded; ‘No, they just help with carrying the heavy stuff. The rest is all done by women’ (Interview 14). Every last Thursday of the month the group shared the food, goods and money, collected for the (registered) families in need. On the last Thursday of June I went there with Zina and Forugh. After the chaotic situation during the interview I was surprised to see how organized this event went. In front of the mosque, in the street (it was in a dead end) they had installed tables with goods on it. Three women of the charity were standing behind two tables were they had put boxes and bags full of food. I saw spaghetti, candy, cookies and different sauces. Women (often with children) were waiting in line to pick up a bag or box full of food. After they received their food package they received a stamp on a card. A volunteer of the organization told me they had to do it like this because: ‘there are a lot of families and otherwise we do not know who already received food’. The event roughly took three hours, in front of the line the women were negotiating on who would get what and I observed people swop food. Overall, it felt a bit surreal; a long line of women waiting to get a food package completely dressed in black chadors. Picture 5.3 and 5.4 below show volunteers and some of the collected goods of Iman Ali.

Picture 5.3: Faith Based Organization; volunteers sewing clothes (photo Picture 5.4: Mattresses collected for the newlyweds by author) (photo by author)

5.3.2 Reflection on Faith Based Organizations This description illustrates the public dimension of the organization. The main activities happened in public spaces. The organization was located besides the mosque and their presence was visible. There was an entrance sign and the organization was open to access. Also in general, the presence of faith based organizations was more visible than the other organizations in public. The organizations were all located centrally in the communities. Especially during the Ramadan the activities of the mosques and religious based organizations was very visible. Every day, volunteers from the mosques provided food and drinks to people who needed it. Mahmood, the father of Forugh, who is a religious man, went every night to the mosque to prepare food and share it among the people in the community. During Ramadan, his wife helped the charity Iman Ali. To celebrate the end of the Ramadan I joined this family to their family house in a small village in the North of Iran. They proudly told me that they took care of the family who lived next door. The man, who was old and sick, could not take care of his much younger wife and his little son. Every time the family went to their holiday house they gave the family food and money. They also took care of their neighbour’s son during these days. The boy was seen as part of the family. They told me they were obliged to help people who needed it, one day it would be paid back. The analysis of the organizations showed the clear relation between the organizations, religion and the mosques. The main source of funding came from mosques and the network of the organizations were based on mosques. Mosques helped the organizations identify the families and send families to the

organizations. As one informant told me: ‘it is the same as in your churches, they send the poor families to the people organizations’ (Unregistered organization, interview 18). Part of an explanation of this relation or existence of these groups can lie in gender segregation in the country and in particular in religion. The mosques are obliged to help people but the Imam, clerics and mullahs in the country are men. Therefore, they might not be able to help women with certain issues. Therefore, the women are sent to these women organizations. All informants who volunteered in these organizations argued that they were ‘people based’. In all cases, the informants reported that they were not related to the government. As one interviewee put it: ‘we are people based, we just do it ourselves’ (unregistered faith based organization, Interview 3). Nargus said: ‘we have a licence, but we do what the Quran says’ (Registered faith based organization, interview 15). With this statement Nargus may wanted to highlight that the relation with the organization and religion was stronger and more important than the relation with the government. Contrary to women engaged in the other organizations, these women did not criticize the government. One informant told me: ‘this country is not as your country, Iran is much bigger. Therefore the government cannot take care of everyone’’ (Interview 3). This may show that this informant did not perceive it as task of the government to take care for its citizens, it was up to God. In addition, the workplace was full of religious symbols; the Islamic dress codes were strictly followed, Qurans were lying on the table, images of the ayatollahs and religious prayers were hanging on the walls of the rooms. The main aim of the faith based organizations included in his study was to help people who were underprivileged. The activities included: collecting food, clothes, money and goods. Activities also unfolded around their religion, such as organizing religious prayers for sick people. In one of the other faith based organization, every day, more than five-hundred women come together to listen to religious lectures, raise money and volunteer for the organization.

5.4 The ‘Other’ category; State Authorities In order to provide insight into the relation and dynamics between civil society and the state, this section describes encounters I had with employees of state institutions in Tehran, Iran. The next section describes an attempt of an interview with a policy maker at the town hall of Tehran.

5.4.1 Description of a meeting with the State Authority

Interview or interrogation at the Town Hall? In the morning of the 24th of June Forugh called me to let me know that she had arranged an appointment for me with a friend of her father later that afternoon. This friend, a woman who according to Forugh’s father had studied Anthropology, was currently working for an organization, by Forugh referred to as ‘were you are interested in’. Before the phone call Forugh had mentioned this ‘friend’ of her father a few times. I already had asked Forugh and her father what this woman was doing precisely and for what

kind of organization she was working. However, they were unable to explain it and the only thing they told me was that she did the same thing as I was doing or in which I was interested in. When Forugh called me to set up the appointment I was tired of asking so I just decided to go along with it. Hence, that afternoon, without knowing where I was going exactly, I took a taxi with Forugh to the office of the woman. In the taxi I asked Forugh again where this women was working and what she was doing precisely. Forugh told me that she did not know the name in English. After we drove along, she told me that the woman worked for the city. At that moment I realized where we were going. I asked Forugh if she worked as a policy maker at the municipal. After translating it in her phone she confirmed my thought. My heartbeat raised and I started to sweat. The day before I applied for a new visa, which was an unpleasant first encounter with state officials in Iran. I had explain to three men (two armed soldiers and a public administrator) what I was doing as a woman alone in Iran. It felt as an interrogation and I was relieved that I made it out of the office without too many problems. I told Forugh that I did not want to go to the municipality as it was not smart for me to go to there. I explained her that it could be dangerous for me and for her, because I was not officially allowed to do research. She told me it was not a problem, ‘the woman is good. She is a friend of my dad. It is really no problem’. I tried to convince Forugh that we should not go there, but I also felt uncomfortable doing so, as they arranged it for me and the woman was a family friend. So at that moment I decided to just go along with it and trust the opinion and their ability to judge the situation of Forugh and her family. After passing a security check post with armed police we walked into the building. The building was huge and static. Forugh asked at the reception the location of the office of her father’s friend. The man behind the reception did not ask us questions. Inside the building armed policemen were standing. Pictures of Khomeini and Khamenei prominently hung above the doors and there were religious verses hanging on the wall. The woman shared her office with five others, with four woman and one man. The women were all wearing chadors. When we entered the office and I saw the other people sitting there I asked Forugh if she could ask if it was possible to sit in a room separately from the rest. Forugh ignored this. The woman told us to take a chair and sit down. She introduced herself and asked me in English what I was doing in Iran. I introduced myself and told her I was interested in how women participated in social activities in Iran. After I was finished, she started to talk in Farsi to Forugh. I noticed that she did not look at me but only looked at Forugh. It did not feel right. After some time, she looked at me and said: ‘in here we only teach people how to be good citizens in the city’. After saying that, she started to talk in Farsi again to Forugh. Forugh looked at me and told me that we were going. Without asking any questions we left the office. Forugh immediately started cursing: ‘I cannot believe this, this is so stupid. I hate these kind of places and the people who work here. It is so stupid’. Forugh told me that the woman had told her that without a research permit I was not allowed to be in Iran asking these questions, especially not in official places.

This incidence worried me and I asked Forugh if it would cause me problems. She told me it would not, because the woman was a friend of her father and she was a good person. The woman had told Forugh that she would tell her co-workers that Forugh was a family friend and came to ask her some questions for her study. She would introduce me as a friend of her from the Netherlands who just came along. In less than an hour after we left the town hall the woman called Forugh. The woman told Forugh that she wanted to help me, but that she had to do it privately. If I would send her an email with what I wanted to know then she would help me. I kindly rejected the offer. Even though, Forugh told me it was ‘no problem’, it did not feel safe to do so. After this incidence I lost the trust on the abilities of Forugh to judge these situations. That afternoon it felt as if we almost had crossed the red line.

5.4.2 Reflection on State Authorities The description of the meeting at the Town Hall shows that in this case, the place where the conversation took place, determined how the situation evolved. Not what we did or what we said. I met the woman in a public space, at a state institution. In this space the woman was not free to talk, especially not because she was in the presence of her colleagues. However, the phone call of the woman indicated that she was willing to help me, if we did it more ‘privately’. It was not possible for her to do so at the municipality itself. In this particular situation, the woman had to present the red line, because probably it was not safe for me, and for her, if we would have conducted the interview at her office. It was too visible. Clearly, for Forugh and her family it was not considered to be a problem. This incident really surprised them and they were offended that the woman acted like this towards their guest. The family was surprised, because they knew the women from a private setting (as a family friend) and they could probably not image her rejecting a request of them to help me out. I assume that if they had invited the woman at their house, the situation would have been very different and I could have interviewed the woman without problems. Hence, the reason why this situation evolved like this was because of the space where it took place. Besides the described experience at the municipal I was able to conduct an interview at the State Welfare Organization. The nature of this interview was different; the women were helpful and seemed to be open about their activities. They even gave their opinion on the government. The main difference between the two interviews was the place where the interview was conducted. The interview at the State Welfare Organization was conducted at one of the offices of the woman, which she did not had to share. Therefore, we were able to talk freely. Remarkably, both of the women told me that they had started their own registered NGO. According to them: ‘most people who work for the State Welfare Organization also have an NGO. Because we can. We have the license to have an NGO parallel of this job’ (Interview 20).Interestingly, the employees of the State Welfare Organization told me it was easy to get the activity license, contrary to other informants, who almost all stated that it was very difficult to get the license.

This may suggest that, in line with Rivetti (2012), the Iranian state is by means of NGOs entangled with civil society. Rivetti (2012) claims that this is a tool of the state to control and shape civil society (Rivetti 2012). This correlates with the statement of one of the employees of the State Welfare Organization, after I asked them how they decided which organization receives a licence, she responded: ‘most are co-workers’. On the other side, it can also be argued that these women wanted to do everything in their power to contribute to society. One of the woman responded after I asked her why she started an NGO: ‘because I just like it. It feels good to do something for another person. You can always do more’. Their intentions to start an NGO sounded sincere. What this definitely shows is that the distinction between the state and civil society is diffuse and that these women also took part in the creation of civil society. During the interview with the employees of the State Welfare, the concepts private and public were mentioned a few times. The women described the relation between state authorities and civil society as ‘private’. On response on the question ‘if the State Welfare Organization works together with NGOs’ the interviewees said: ‘it is a low level collaboration. It is kind of a private activity. Not a public one’. The interviewee referred to this as ‘outsourcing’. ‘We do outsourcing. We outsource some tasks to the NGOs. However due to corruption, the state outsource it to organizations who are not eligible to do these tasks. The quality is not first priority’. In terms of the situation of the country the women also talked in private/public distinction, one of the woman stated: ‘all social issues are denied. The government hide them. For example they say we do not have sex workers or child labour. When everything is hidden you cannot solve them [problems]’. Hence, instead of publicly solve problems or aware the public on the problems in society, the Iranian government chose to keep these problems private. It almost seems as if the government makes it the task of NGOs to solve these problems without becoming too visible or too public. ‘’They [the government] never want to empower people, for example women, they do not make them entrepreneurs or teach them how to manage money or to run a business. It is not a treatment they offer. They offer opium’ (Interview 20). Later in the interview she highlighted that: ‘I do not have any limitations about speaking about politicians. Even in here. But what can I say? They just think about themselves’ (Interview 20). By saying this it seemed as if this woman wanted to show that she was free to talk about these issues, even in the institutionalized domain of the authorities. In her opinion, this did not make a difference. To further investigate the relation and dynamics between the state and civil society organizations, chapter seven will, inspired on the framework of Biekart and Fowler, focus on what drives women to engage in civil society action.

Conclusion The above descriptions and reflections on the different types of organizations show that women by organizing themselves in different groups, around different issues and activities, create spaces for civil society action. Moreover, it showed that these spaces for civil society action are hybrid spaces; private spaces with public characteristics or public spaces with private characteristics. This can be explained

because of the restrictions on certain activities in certain public spaces in Tehran. Under certain circumstances private spaces turned public and vice versa. Overall, the results indicate that having a license and being aligned to the government does not determine the benefits in terms of support and funding an organizations receives from the state authorities. As halve of the organizations with a license received funding and the other halve did not. Nor does it reflect the political point of view of the organization. However, it does reflect how and where women could be active. Working for a registered organization gives women the possibility to move within hegemonic, institutional spaces as well as in independent differentiated spaces of civil society. On the other side, being registered makes organizations more visible than unregistered organizations. This visibility restricts these organizations to be public on certain activities and sometimes force them to navigate to different spaces for certain activities. Whereas, being organized in an unregistered organization means operating in spaces that are less public and less visible to the authorities. To summarize, the distinction between the state and civil society and between public and private spaces are blurred, complex and ambiguous. The different practices and activities of women in a multitude of spaces, create hybrid spaces of civil society action. Women active in all these different organizations in these diversity of spaces together create civil society.

6. Spaces of Civil Society Action This chapter answers the second research question: what spaces of social action do women create as civil society in Tehran, Iran? It explores the different spaces of social action created by women who are engaged in different civil society organizations. The chapter starts with a description of two organizations and focusses on the physical spaces women have created and participated in. These particular organizations are chosen because the women engaged in these organizations clearly make use of different spaces of social action. The first sub-paragraph describes a registered organization, the organization takes care of abandoned children and work on women empowerment, among others by facilitating a women’s group. The second sub-paragraph describes the unregistered artist collective, who created their independent space of social action to express themselves in. The second paragraph will reflect on these cases and will highlight the differences between the spaces and how this relates to civil society practices.

6.1 Description of Spaces of Civil Society Action; Invited and Created Spaces

6.1.1 Helping Children and Women Empowerment The directors of Roya brought me in touch with Zarayda, who they said to know because of her activities concerning women equality in Iran. Zarayda (32) comes from a small town in the North of Tehran and works as a public relation officer for the organization. When I called her to organize an interview she

proposed to meet me at the office of the organization. The organization, Payam (which means message in Persian) is a registered organization and has as main aim to help children without parents who could take care of them. The organization provides them a place to live, food and education. The organization started as a shelter for girls, from, what Zarayda referred to ‘bad families’. The shelter was part of the municipal. Thirteen years ago the municipal wanted to close the shelter and that’s when the current director took over. As Zarayda states: ‘the director was a volunteer at the shelter and she decided to create this NGO. She started to attract some girls from the street’ The organization is located in central Tehran, south on Valiasr street. Valiasr’ street runs from the north of Tehran to the south. The farer south you go the poorer the city becomes. On a Saturday morning I had the first meeting with Zarayda. When I arrived in the street I rung the bell of a building with a blue gate with a sun and smiling children painted on it, assuming I was at the right address. However, nobody opened. When I called Zarayda to ask her to open the door, she told me I that I had to be next-door. Next-door Payam was located. At that apartment there was no sign that indicated that an organization was inside. The building next-door had an orange wired fence. Something I would not expect for an organization that houses young children. This made me wonder if the organization had something to hide and whether they were active on other issues than house vesting children. The office was located on the third floor of the apartment and was very organized. The central hall had a reception, several desks were women where working behind and two separate offices. Later there appeared to be another room, used for facilitating the woman’s group. On the second floor of the apartment, the twelve children lived, age ranging from 3-12 years. Zarayda said that the children that lived in that place came from ‘underprivileged’ families. She stated: ‘the children that stay here do not have parents or the parents are in prison, mostly because their parents are addicts’. When I asked Zarayda if they also housed children with other nationalities than Iranian, Zarayda told me that all the children were Iranian. They were not allowed by the state authorities to help children from Afghanistan or other nationalities. Interestingly, because Arezoo (see chapter 5) was able to help girls from Afghanistan. Another contrast to Arezoo was that this organization did not receive money from international donors and that they emphasized that they did not want to receive funding as Zarayda said: ‘if we get it [money from international donors], then the government thinks we are a spy’ (Interview 5). The interview with Zarayda was conducted in one of the offices of the organization. The interview immediately led to women’s issues in Iran. Zarayda studied gender studies and spoke passionately about the situation of women in Iran. She was motivated to change the, in her opinion, unequal situation between men and women in Iran. After the interview Zarayda took me downstairs to meet the children. The room was colourful, and contrary to the office, one big chaos. Children were running around and toys were scattered all around the apartment. I stayed with the children for a while. During lunch I noticed that the children ate their food from placemats with an UNICEF logo on it. Also, I observed a poster from UNICEF on the wall. When I asked Zarayda about the relation between the organization and UNICEF, she told me she did not know. She stated that the organization just received

money from the State Welfare Organization and had no direct contact with UNICEF. The signs of foreign funding in the psychical space seemed to be a contradiction to the statement Zarayda had earlier made about not being able to receive funds from abroad. This may demonstrate that by not being open about the relation to the UN this organization can remain their status as registered organization and receive funding from the UN and the Iranian government. It may be part of the negotiations between the state and the registered organizations. More research is needed to determine the precise reason. A week later I conducted an interview with Anna, a journalist, who recently started to work for Payam. The women magazine she worked for was shut down by the government. She was a friend of Zarayda, and therefore she could start working for this organization. Just as Zarayda, Anna spoke very passionate about women issues in Iran. Besides her work for this organization she was part of a feminist group. Anna said that the activities of the feminist group were more ‘private’, she told me: ‘we gather in houses and some other private places, we invite women to come. It is not in public. Because maybe we get some problems from the government if we do it in public’ (Interview 7). Getting to know these women learned me how unequal the situation between men and women is in Iran, and how passionate these women were to change something about this situation. Both of the women were very critical towards the government and did not seem to have much hope that the situation would change in recent times. I visited the organization every once in the two weeks to join the woman’s group, which was facilitated by the organization and took place in one of the rooms of the organization. This group consists out of eight women, who come together to discuss gender issues. The women, age ranging from 26-60, had different backgrounds. For instance, one of the woman worked for an oil company, two of them were housewives and another woman was the director of a registered organization. Anna or Zarayda facilitated the meetings. I attended the group four times and conducted interviews with one other woman who was part of the group. During the meetings a wide range of topics were discussed, including: marriage, the revolution, relationships, drugs problems, weddings and politics. The group used a booklet from UN Women. I was a bit surprised on the material that was used, it consisted very technical terms on gender, such as gender empowerment and gender mainstreaming. These terms were explained by the facilitators. During the meetings a theme that frequently came back was the situation for NGOs in the country. According to the women the situation was better now than a few years ago, they stressed that when Ahmajinidad was the president the situation was very bad. However, they said that the situation was not as good as when Khatami was president. During one of these discussions one of the woman said that in the past people could have a voice and talk about public issues. She stated: ‘we need to go back to that time’. Another woman, Bita (Interview 22; director of Khorshid) said that they [NGOs] have the power to change the situation and that it was possible to go back to that time. She said that, ‘If people gather they can change things, even parliament. We as NGO’s are strong, we have the power to change things. Strengthening the people and give power to parliament. We can gather and influence the people,

we can create organic movements and pressure the parliament’. Zarayda disagreed with her, and responded: ‘there is no unity among the people, so they cannot unify. Parliament does not allow it, and parliament is not diverse so it will not allow change’. According to Zarayda the only way to influence parliament is to encourage ‘liberal open minded’ people to talk to ‘normal’ people to go to parliament. She said: ‘we can empower them and they can go to parliament. They, the common people, are not seen as a threat’ (woman’s group 16-07-2015) This discussion may show that Zarayda identified herself as being too liberal to enter politics. Both of the women see it as their duty to ‘empower’ women. The women highlighted that by coming together as civil society organizations they can create change. This view came back during other discussions in the group. For instance, when they talked about how to stop laws entering parliament. As one woman said: ‘a few years ago there was a law which was not good for the children, we tried with other NGOs and some media to change this law. Together we wrote a letter. The government accepted our letter, so that was good’ (Personal conversations and observations during the woman group).

6.1.2 The Artist Collective; Worshipping Art instead of Praying on Friday morning

‘We call it an open studio, but it is Shirin’s’ private studio. We invite friends, and friends of friends. All this work cannot be portrayed in other places.

(Personal conversation with Newsha)

The artist collective are, as individuals and as collective, engaged in different art projects. These projects are for a greater or lesser extent are related to societal issues. For instance, for their last project the collective received funding from a Dutch NGO, because of the perceived social impact this project would have. The collective is led by Shirin (53), who with all her energy, creativity and positivity was an inspiration for the other younger artists. Besides Shirin, the collective consisted out of five other artists (two men and three women). The project that was running when I was in Iran had as aim to close the gaps between different groups in society. They referred to the different groups as ‘religious people’, ‘intellectuals’ and the ‘common’ people. Together with, religious women, a woman with a handicap and two Afghan women. For this particular art project the artist collective worked for a period of four months in an old apartment in the south-west of Tehran. The artists referred to the place as a ‘time-worn, abandoned house’. They apartment was a private apartment bought by Shirin, they called it the ‘open’ studio. Newsha told me that the studio was open for everyone who wanted to participate. When I asked Newsha how someone could let them know that they wanted to join the collective, or work in their studio. Newsha explained that they always knew the person beforehand, often through others. Newsha and her boyfriend (Reza) are part of the collective and, as I was living with Newsha, I got to know the artists very personal. I joined them to different galleries, markets, diners and parties.

Almost weekly, mostly on Fridays (which is the Iranian holiday), Newsha went to art galleries with her friends to meet other artists. The galleries appeared to be places were mostly young people come together to hang out and discuss art. In the galleries different rules seemed to apply. For instance, people expressed different than people regularly do in the streets of Tehran. Among others, I saw people with tattoos, colourful manteaux’s, men and women hugging and kissing each other and blond, green and red locks of hair appearing from under the headscarves. One of Newsha’s friends joked that instead of going to the mosque on Friday’s young people went to art galleries. The artists often talked about who had visited the exhibition and on the owners of the galleries in which the exhibition was held. It appeared to be of great importance to know the owners of the galleries, because they decided whether the artwork of the artist would be portrayed in galleries. Another important subject of conversation was on how open the owners of the galleries were and how much risk they were willing to take. Most of the recent work of the collective could not be portrayed in public galleries, because it contained direct sexual and political images. However, Newsha told me that a few individual pieces could be sold. Sometimes even the pieces that were considered sexual or political. The buyers of these art pieces stored them until they can be shown in public. On my question on how people know if their art work could be shown in public, Newsha responded:

‘The boundary is not an obvious one. When you live here, you will just know it. There are some special issues for example if your art contains sexual elements you cannot show it in public. Or if it contains a political message. When you live here, you just get it. But some are really obvious as sexual and political issues, if you refer to this directly it would be forbidden to show it in public. So you have to find a place, a private place and invite the guests that you know are safe. So you should just manage it in this way’

At the end of July, after months of work, the collective hold the exhibition in the apartment that they had transformed in a house full of artwork. For five days the apartment was open for visitors. It was not promoted on social media nor with flyers or posters. Outside the apartment there was no sign that indicated that the work of the artists was inside. The people who visited the exhibition knew about the exhibition, by their network. One of the other artists told me: ‘we all know a lot of people’ (personal conversation with a photographer). Inside, the artists had created a space free from the authorities and the hegemonic ruling order. Most of the work was not suited to be sold or portrayed in public, because most of the work could be considered political or sexual. For instance, one of the art pieces showed the downfall of an important soldier. It ridiculed the way soldiers and leaders of the country were portrayed as heroes all around the city. Consequently, the artist played with the religious and political ideology of the country. Another example is the portrait of Ayatollah Khomeini above the door at the entrance (as obligatory in Iran) but

next to his portrait a dog was painted on the wall full of blood and without legs or head. Newsha had painted the dog and told me it symbolized the stupidity of the prohibition of dogs in public spaces. This painting can also be seen as a symbol of resistance against the authorities. Several articles have been written on the keeping or walking of dogs in public, as a symbol of resistance against the authorities in Iran8. On the question whether they feared that the government knows about the exhibition, one of the artists responded: ‘maybe the government knows but it is not important for them. We do not fear them’. In line with this statement Newsha later told me: ‘they know everything. You cannot be completely hidden, they would know about it. And we all know that they know. They are powerful in gathering information. But sometimes they just do not bother. They choose what is more threatening. Sometimes after one or twice they act. But I do not know what their exact policies are on this, but I do know that they know’. In addition Newsha told me: I do not like complaining about our government and not doing anything. You can do things here [in Iran] but you need to create your own space (Interview 24). This demonstrates that, even though, the artist assume the government knows about their activities they nevertheless continue and create their own spaces to portray their work in. Furthermore, it shows that the artist were still able to act in this perceived ‘unaccepted’ way, in this particular space. A likely explanation is that the government allows these activities as long as it is does not become a direct threat to their power. As long as the activities are not too visible or too public it is ‘neglected’ by the authorities. Asking the artists whether it was a problem that they were unable to sell most of their work or show it in other galleries, the artists told me this was not important for them. They wanted to express themselves and share their vision of society. The artist had created their own differential space inside this private apartment. See picture 1.1 on the cover and picture 6.1 and 6.2 below.

8 http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/nov/02/dogs-iran-symbol-rebellion http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/06/iran-dog-owners-40-lashes-pets-islam 67

Picture 6.2: Private exhibition of the artist collective (photo by author)

Picture 6.1: Public art exhibition (photo from official

Instagram account of the gallery)

6.2 Reflection on different Spaces of Civil Society Action

‘What is public is very vague here; a house is private and streets and squares are public. The car is more private than public but dependent on where you drive. In busy places it is more public than when you drive in a quiet place. When you drive in quiet places you can kiss your lover or do not worry about you hijab. Of course you can talk about everything in your car, but on the streets you need to be more careful. A balcony or a rooftop is more private than public, but not completely. On a balcony you do not have to wear your scarf but you cannot wear your bikini. A low rooftop is not suitable to hold a party but parties are hold on a high one’ (Personal conversation with Newsha)

This quote clearly illustrates the ambiguity between private and public spaces in Tehran, Iran. It shows that the public becomes more private when people are not visible for state authorities. Moreover, it shows that the private can become public when people become too visible in these spaces.

This paragraph will reflect on the spaces of social action used and created by women who are active in different civil society organizations. It links the results of this study to theories about spaces of participation offered by Gavanta (2006), Lefebvre, Soja (1996) and Cornwall (2002). As introduced in the conceptual chapter of this study, Cornwall (2002) distinguishes spaces of participation based on whether they are institutionalized or non-institutionalized. Institutional spaces of participation are those spaces that are officially destined for citizens’ participation such as town council meetings. The institutional space is what Lefebvre (in Soja, 1996) refers to as the conceived spaces by authorities and can be seen as invited spaces of participation (Gaventa). Contrary to these spaces, non- institutionalized spaces are the created spaces of social action by citizens. In these spaces people reject and resist the hegemonic power (Soja 1996; Cornwall 2002, 3). In these spaces the feelings and experiences of everyday life wins over the thinking and doing. In this study I argue that the Iranian authorities constrain space for civil society by restricting certain activities around certain issues in certain public spaces. Spaces in which policies are shaped happen in closed spaces. These spaces are only open for ‘elites’ who make decisions for the people without the involvement of the people. Therefore, in order to be involved, participate and possibly even influence policies regarding social issues; people need to create their own spaces outside the institutionalized domain. In Tehran, these independent spaces of social action are created in private spaces. A recurrent theme in the interviews was a sense amongst interviewees that they were unable to act freely in public spaces. The following comment illustrates this: ‘by these days if you have any gathering outside you will be punished’ (Interview 10). And another informant explains: ‘we will just gather in NGO’s or in our houses. 8 years ago [refers to the One Million signatures campaign] we went to the streets but that was not so good, it was a danger for me and for the other women. One of my friends was arrested and others had to leave the country. I do not want this to happen again’ (Public relation employee at registered organization and part of the feminist group Interview 5). The restrictions and boundaries on certain activities in public spaces also became visible for myself during the fieldwork. For example, when I visited the museum about the Iran-Iraq war. I had a private tour from a male guide. After the tour I offered the man my hand, because I wanted to shake his hand to thank him for the tour. He rejected my hand and said: ‘sorry madam, but they are watching. It is a public space and there are cameras. Outside I would have kissed it’. In most public spaces men and women do shake hands or even walk hand in hand, and on the way this man behaved towards me I estimated that he would not have personal objective with shaking my hand, as for instance a very religious men would have. I knew the museum was public, but the space in which we were felt private; at that moment me and the guide where the only people in the room. However, I made a wrong estimation of the situation. The cameras made us visible for the authorities and it made the space too public. If the guide would have shaken my hands he might have gotten into problems. Later I received a text message from the tour guide, in which he excused himself for not shaking my hand and invited me to have dinner at his house.

This shows that in public spaces people constantly need to be aware whether lines are not crossed. This line, was by some informants referred to as the ‘red line’. For instance Eva, who will be further introduced in chapter 7, a women rights defender told me: ‘to criticize Islam is completely out of the red line’ (Eva, Interview 10). And, another interviewee said regarding gender: if I would ask the government to work together with them on gender issues they would tell me ‘no no no, you go go go’. It is completely out of the red line’ (Interview 19). This red line is not the same as the law. The red line is not only determined by laws from official authorities, but also by social attitudes towards certain groups or problems in society. As for example the following quote illustrates: ‘the social idea about women who had a divorce is not good. We work to change this mind-set but religion plays a big part’ (Interview 12). Hence, the red line is shaped by the political and the social environment in which one moves. Therefore, it constantly changes dependent on the spaces in which one acts. The red line becomes visible, for instance, when one focusses on the Islamic dress codes for women. The dress code changed moving from one place to the other in the city. In the southern areas of Tehran most women were completely covered in black, they wore chadors. Contrary to the north of the city where most women wore colourful and fashionable manteaux’ and wore their head scarves on the back of their heads. This shows how ambiguous and dynamic the lines are. The circumstances in the spaces in which one acts determine how visible the lines are, and where the line lies. However, this line is also negotiated by activities of people in these spaces. The following observations, on encounters with the morality police, will exemplify this. ‘Certain times it is better not to come here’ Forugh tells me, when we exit one of the biggest shopping malls in the west of Tehran. ‘The morality police controls this square and they are always standing here at 6 o’clock at the central exit of the mall. That’s why we took the other exit today’’. Forugh thought her manteaux was too short. She said: ‘I think they would arrest me’. When we walked on the bridge to cross the square, I, indeed, saw the green and white van of the morality police standing at the exit of the shopping mall. They were waiting to stop and arrest women and girls who were not dressed according to the Islamic dress codes. Forugh told me about her encounters with the morality police. She told me that once she had to sit in the van because of wearing lipstick, she was released after she took the make- up off her face. Forugh explained: ‘they did not took me because I do not care about them, I am not scared of them. I do what I want and wear the clothes that I want’’. I looked at her and saw a young woman struggling with what to wear and how to express herself, somehow, I did not believe her statement. Another woman told me about the morality police: ‘if you see them from a far just put your headscarf back on. Just strategies you know, we are used to this. It is not North- Korea’. In time I learned how to recognize the morality police and how to avoid them. They could be recognized by their clothes, the women were dressed in complete chador with a green line and often wore a black sun cap with a sign of the Basij. They are always with two; a man and a woman, and they come with a green and white van. Iranians refer to them as the ‘people’ police. Most of the times they can be found on the same places during certain times, mostly at busy squares and streets.

During my fieldwork I twice had an encounter with the morality police. The first time the morality police stopped me was at the tomb of Imam Khomeini. In this place, which is considered to be holy, everyone was dressed in complete chadors. Even though I was dressed properly, I wore a black manteaux and a grey hijab. In this particular context I stood out, as the other women were completely dressed in a chador. However, in this particular outfit they would have never stopped me in other places in Tehran. The police led me go immediately after they realized I was a tourist and I could not understand their language and they could not speak English. The second time happened at Vanak square. This time my manteaux was indeed a bit short. The police came to me with four; two men and two women. At first, one of the woman started to talk to me in Farsi. I did not understand her but recognized on her costume that she was morality police. In English I told them that I could not understand Farsi. Marit, a 24 year old Iranian student, I was with, start to talk in Farsi with them. A discussion between the three women followed. The men did not intermingle in the conversation, however, a man that passed by on the street made a comment. Marit later said that he told the police to ‘leave us alone’. Marit explained to the police that I was a tourist and that I had just arrived in Iran and was not aware of the customs. She would make sure that it would not happen again. After this comment, the police started about the manteaux of Marit, they claimed that it was too tight and not long enough. They said that she, as an Iranian, should know better. After Marit apologized and told them that it would never happen again they left. Marit did not understand why they approached us. She told me: ‘normally they just take ‘flashy girls’. You know the girls who wear a lot of make-up and tight clothes but at this time a day [around 7 in the evening] they have to achieve their quota. When I told Newsha and Forugh about this, they both seemed to be surprised that it happened, because I was a foreigner. Forugh said: ‘they cannot do this to you. You are not a Muslim’.

6.2.1 Institutional ‘invited’ Spaces of Civil Society Action The description of Payam shows that the space this registered organization used is partially shaped by authorities and partially by the people who inhabit the space. The organization make use of, what can be seen as an institutional space for civil society action. State authorities provided the (physical) space for the organization and determined the main theme and activities around which the women could organize themselves. State authorities hold the power by determining the conditions for the registered organizations to work. However, the description also showed that the space that officially was destined as an orphan home was also used to mobilise women to promote gender equality and political participation. This shows that the actors who inhabit and use the space hold agency to express and act against it. The following statement clearly illustrates this: ‘when we want to hold an event against the government we try to bring the NGOs together’ (Interview 8). Later, this woman explained that she gathered with other NGOs to discuss issues on children’s rights. They used these opportunities to connect to other organizations and mobilize a movement to write letters to parliament. Even though this women worked in a place provided by state authorities, on terms set by them, she still acted against

these restrictions. In addition, the description shows that Payam literarily had created a different physical space inside the apartment for the woman’s group to gather. This group was not illegal but the content of the discussion can be considered to cross the lines. Both women interviewed were feminists, and even though they used different spaces for these activities, it can be assumed that they influenced the woman’s group with these views. A second example of an organization who used more institutional spaces for civil society action is Khorshid (which means shining sun). Khorshid is a registered organization that provides day-care and education for children that come from poor families. I got to know the director, Bita, through the woman’s group and was invited to one of the meetings of the organization. Bita explained that it took them two years to get the license, and that she, in order to receive it, had to change the main aim of the organization (Interview 22). The organization was located at the Social Welfare Institute, which is an institute that vested different NGOs. Everyone who attended (15 women and 2 men) was somehow involved in education, for instance; administrators, teachers and NGOs. This meeting was the most ‘official’ meeting I entered when I was in Iran. During the meeting they made use of an agenda and they presented policy documents. Almost all women wore a chador. The director of the organization made use of the institutional space provided by the Social Welfare institute in order to receive funding, attention and information for her organization. When I asked Bita whether she thought she could influence policies she stated:

‘Yes, now we can. There was a time in Iran we could not. Now we can communicate to people who are close to the government. There, however, is no unity, as in your country. There are good and bad [refers to politicians]. Some parts of the system are not willing to change. We try to talk to the people who want to help citizens. We use these people and these powers to do, to change. We link and talk to the government to change things. Change their vision on society, because they do not know society and the problems they are in society. We, as NGO’s in Iran, try to introduce these social issues to them. That is our responsibility’ (Interview 22).

This demonstrates that this particular registered organization could enter the institutional domain. It seems as if this organization had more access too administrators because of where they were localized. The women were able to talk with politicians and policy makers. This particular organization tried to function as bridge between the state and the public. They perceived it as their duty to ‘introduce social issues’ to the authorities. However, when I asked Bita if she felt free to talk to authorities and politicians, she responded: ‘we have some security issues. We are not free to give information to you. We know that in this time of Rouhani it is better. We can come here and speak to you’. At this moment in the interview Bita presented a red line on a topic, on which she could not talk about. This seems to be a contradiction to the previous statement. The interview, on suggestion of the informant, took place in a café. Thus in public. This may

be the reason that the informant reacted this way; the conversation became too private to talk about in a public space. One can question how powerful the actors are who participate in these more official and institutional spaces, because these spaces are made available by the powerful. As stated by Cornwall, this may lead to spaces that are: discursively bounded to permit only limited citizen influence, colonising interaction and stifling dissent. Spaces fostered as a way of amplifying marginalised voices may end up being filled with gatekeepers, who speak for but not with them’ (Cornwall 2002). In other words, it can lead to spaces that are simply reproducing perspectives of the hegemonic power. The results, however, showed that in the cases included in this study, women who were invited in these official spaces also manoeuvred around it and acted against it. As the following quote of a woman who leaded a project on awareness raising on HIV/AIDS illustrates: ‘in schools they do not allow us [to explain how to use condoms] but sometimes we still do [laughs] but here is a red line because of religion’ (Interview 17). This shows that even though the informant considered providing sexual education on schools as a red line, she still tried to do so. This shows that this women keeps negotiating the line, even though, she knows crossed it. Also the description of Arezoo (chapter 5.1) showed that different spaces for civil society action outside the institutional spaces were created. These women even worked from geographical different places and made use of virtual spaces to raise awareness for certain issues and funding. Both the director and program manager worked from abroad. From abroad they handled their social media. This gave this organization the possibility to raise awareness and express more freely on topics that were not considered to be free or accepted in Iran such as sexual abuse on children. This shows that spaces of participation intersect between global and local actors and are stretched beyond the boundaries of the nation state. These new virtual spaces go beyond what Cornwall states to be, ‘instrumental forms of participation’, but are created spaces of social action by and for citizens (Cornwall 2002). Most women included in this study used some sort of social media for their organization. Inside Iran, virtual spaces seemed to be used to inform an existing network about their activities and to promote their products and exhibitions online to reach to the public. Multiple informants stated that the media needed to be handled with precaution, what made that sometimes the effect that could be created was not created. A few women told me not to use media at all, because of security reasons. The results suggests that virtual spaces that were handled from outside Iran could be used more provocative. For instance, Arezoo used these virtual spaces to aware the public about issues such as prostitution, sexual violence and abuse against women. And for instance, the Facebook page My Stealthy Freedom is administrated from abroad but women (and men) in Iran upload pictures on it to raise attention for the obligatory hijab. These virtual spaces are both created and invited spaces of social action. One informant active on this Facebook webpage told me that in response of this webpage the government put banners with a quote from the webpage above important highways in the north of the

city and ridiculed the quote. According to the informant this shows that the authorities are aware of these activities and that they know it has impact. She stated: ‘they care about this, and they are affected by it. Now they make television shows to promote hijab, because of this webpage’ (Interview 23). This is a good illustration on how state authorities react on these created virtual spaces in the physical public space. This can be seen as the negotiation between the state and the public on spaces of participation. Making fun of the online participation can be seen as a way to push back the virtual spaces. Doing so, the government seems to show the public that they know about these created virtual spaces. In summary, the description of Payam and other registered organizations show that places, even though institutionalized and invited by the powerful can still, by being filled with those with alternative visions, be transformed. Moreover, women create their own independent spaces of social action.

6.2.2 Created Spaces for Civil Society Action The description of the artist collective shows that spaces of social action can also be created by the practices of people outside of the institutional policy arena (Gavanta 2006). The space that was created by the artist collective can be seen as a created space of participation. The exhibition portrayed art which in public galleries was prohibited, as the content would be labelled as political. In this case the content of the work determined where the work could portrayed. In this place people came together to discuss art, society and politics and different rules were in order. For example men and women touched and kissed each other, women did not wear a hijab and Western music was played. People clearly expressed different in this place compared to the public sphere or in official places of which registered organizations make use off. In this place a ‘collective resistance’ was prevailing against the hegemonic order in society. It was the right to difference that prevailed here against the homogenizations and the control of the state over spaces (Soja 1996). Cornwall (2002) argues that these forms of organizations and groups exists because people chose to be part of them. It consists out of people who think alike, driven by a passion to change something in society. According to Cornwall (2002) the creation of these places always involves an act of identification, placing oneself within the group and against a certain group. Therefore, Cornwall argues, that these spaces are in a way also restricted. They are only open for those who share a particular identity. The place for the exhibition that was created by the artist clearly shows this. Even though they referred to it as an ‘open’ studio, it was only open for certain people. Inside this space, the people all knew each other and thought alike. They referred to themselves as ‘artists’ or ‘intellectuals’ and they often identified themselves with being ‘open’ or ‘open-minded people’. The results show that invitation to these created spaces happen through people’s network of ‘friends’. This shows that who created the space determines whose invited, who has access and how the invited should act in this space. Hence, different groups in society restrict different spaces of social action. As stated in the introduction of this paragraph, often these independent spaces were created in private spaces. Besides the artist collective also the feminist group came together in private. On a

monthly bases this group came together at someone’s home to discuss feminism activity in Iran. Anna, who is part of this group stated about their activities:

‘We come together, but in our homes, not in public. That is not possible. We come together to talk about our plans, for example if we want to organize a lecture somewhere. Unfortunately, it is difficult holding public events’ (Anna, Interview 7).

The gathering of this group in public is prohibited by the state authorities. Hence, by forming this group and by gathering the women (and one man) already showed resistance to the power of the authorities. Interestingly, they also use the radio to broadcast their ideas about gender equality and freedom. Anne said, ‘Not radio that is official, we just talk and upload it. On this radio women share their experience about for example sexual abuse’ Moreover, the group also created an internet webpage to show the effect of domestic violence on women. This webpage is blocked in Iran, but can be accessed if people make use of filters. This demonstrates that this group created their own spaces of social action in private spaces and created new virtual spaces to reach to the public. In these virtual spaces the group could discuss and express themselves on issues, which they could not express freely on in public. Another interesting point that came back in the results is that informants often referred to streets and squares in Tehran as ‘political’. This may illustrate that in Tehran what is seen as public is closely related to what is seen as political. Moreover, the political is closely related to what is ‘unaccepted’. As for instance, the statement of a woman working for a research department of a registered organization shows:

‘Yes, they still think it is political, but we are not. We are non-political, non-governmental and non-profit. We should refuse all the excuses as we are not against anything. We just want a positive influence on society’ (Volunteer registered organization, Interview 6).

This statement demonstrates that this informant wanted to depoliticize her organization in order to be active in public as an organization. In Iran, public spaces seems to be politicized, certain practices and activities are restricted in these spaces. In contrast to Cornwell (2002), who suggests that in most cases initial depoliticized spaces become politicized. The Iranian the government constantly enlarge, securitize and further politicize public spaces as push back to social action. An example is the increasing control on the obligatory hijab in cars. As push back, the Iranian public seems to further privatize their private domain by sometimes literally close the curtains. However, on the same time the reversed happened; private spaces were used for public activities. This shows the constant negotiation and tension between what is public and what is private and between what is political and what is non- political. Another example of this tension and ambiguity I clearly observed during the happenings around the signing of the Nuclear Deal. In the weeks before the Nuclear Deal was signed I noticed that different

types of public advertisement on the negotiations appeared. Billboards and posters appeared, which presented the Iranian delegate, foreign minister Mohammed Javad Zarif and his administrators, around the nuclear symbol. Besides the symbol there was a quotation from the Supreme Leader Khamenei saying that Iran ‘would not give in to international pressure’. The public was clearly informed and prepared on the deal and the changing dynamics between Iran and the outside world. The day the deal was signed I asked Newsha if people were going to celebrate it and where. She responded that people were definitely going out and gather that night. She, however, did not think it was because of the deal, but just because it was possible. She told me that when a lot of people go out, the police cannot do anything against it. Newsha told me that she did not care about the deal, because she suspected that there was a catch. Her boyfriend responded: ‘when our government does something there is always a trick, they just care about themselves’. During an interview, an informant echoed these fears: ‘a few years ago I saw this government kill their own people. They do not care about us, thus this deal is in their benefit not in ours’. Because I wanted to see the ‘celebration’ I asked Newsha and Reza where it was held and how they know. Newsha responded, ‘we just know, we have some squares and streets’. She referred to these places as ‘political’. These places here important during the revolution and other protests and people just know that if there is something going on, people gather in these places. Important squares where people gather are; Vanak, Englebab and Tarisj. Several other times during my fieldwork people referred to these squares as ‘political’. That night the four of us (me, Newsha, Reza and a friend of the couple) drove to Vanak square. After a few metres we got stuck in a traffic yam. The street was full of people and cars. People were waving different types of colourful flags, singing and dancing. Reza opened the roof of the car and stood up: he yelled and song the national anthem. He pulled me up, so the both of us were standing in the open roof in the car. I did not know how to behave and was overwhelmed by everything that I saw around me. After we got closer to the square, we parked the car and walked to the square. The side where we entered the square was closed off by police with vans. So we walked around it and entered the square from the other side. We found a place in the middle of the square where we could observe everything that happened. People danced on the music that came from the cars that drove by. Others screamed: ‘Free Hussein’ and ‘Free Karroubi’. Both were former presidential candidates, who are under house arrest since the last elections. That night all sorts of people came together in this public space, to show their needs, whether it was showing their alignment to the supreme leader, the government, the deal, or to protest against it. That night, those people, decided to come together to express themselves: ‘to scream, to dance, to celebrate, to show anger and to be heard’. Another visible example of the negotiation takes place in popular cafes, theatres and galleries in Tehran. These places are known as places where young people, with different ideas than the power holders of the country about society come together. In these spaces the Islamic dress codes are often stretched. Therefore, the authorities often close these places. In response to this certain coffee shops hung a sign on the window with a women in hijab. It meant that the hijab was obligatory inside. That

the hijab was obligatory was not strange, as it is in all public places, however, what was strange was that this sign only hung in popular ‘hip’ places in the Northern part of the city. The sign could mostly only be found in places where the rules were not completely followed. According to a manager of one of the popular coffee shop in North-Tehran they had to hang the sign on the door to show the authorities that they accept the obligatory hijab in the fear of being closed. The sign of the women in the veil demonstrates the negotiation between the public and the authorities on these spaces. It illustrates that these places are both regulated by laws and symbols in which the power of the state is captured as well as the response and resistance of people who counter this hegemonic power. The interventions of the authorities is what seems to be a reminder of authorities that these spaces are not autonomous spaces. In terms of Lefebvre, in these cafes the ‘conceived, lived and perceived’ or the ‘thinking, feeling and doing’ comes together. What is visible in these spaces is the perceived (Soja 1996, 68). They contain real and imagined spaces simultaneously. The participation of women in these places is influenced by the ‘red line’.

Conclusion In summary, linking the results of the fieldwork to the theories on the production of space, has shown how political and securitized public spaces are in Tehran. It described the institutionalized invited spaces in which registered civil society action can take place. Moreover, it described the created independent spaces for civil society action. These spaces are created by women themselves, and in these spaces they are free to express themselves and to act in. These places can be found in private spaces. These spaces are the chosen spaces for struggle, in which women show resistance to the hegemonic conceived order and the red lining of the state authorities and their watchdogs. These spaces are linked to the ‘underground’ side of social life. The actors who engage in these spaces make strategic use of public or virtual spaces in order to create and enlarge their spaces of social action. For instance, when it was Ramadan multiple unregistered organizations used the public space to raise money. This shows that women constantly make use of multiple spaces of participation. These spaces are negotiated and are the individual and collective reactions on the restrictions on public spaces. These created spaces do, by no means stand on their own, these places are, as explained by Lefebvre, not only lived but also conceived and perceived spaces at the same time.

7. Motivations of Women to Create Civil Society This chapter answers the third research question: what drives women to create civil society? Inspired by the Civic Driven Change framework of Biekart and Fowler (2012) it explores why women want to organize themselves around certain public issues and to what imagined future spaces women move to. As explained in the methodological chapter of this thesis, the Civic Driven Change framework (CDC) starts with the premise that civic action in society comes from civic energy of citizens independent from the sector, State, Market or Civil Society, in which they are active (Biekart and Fowler 2012). Biekart and Fowler (2012) argue that citizens always ‘seek for ways to make society work better for more people’ (Biekart and Fowler 2012, 12). They describe this as civic energy. Civic energy is ‘the ‘energy that all citizens potentially possess to promote common interest as a member of a community or a social group while at the same time respecting differences within the community or group and towards others’ (Biekart and Fowler 2012, 5). Civic agency is the agency of citizens to bring pro-societal change. According to Biekart and Fowler every individual has, driven by an imagined futere, the power to shape society. People’s day to day decisions and agency can sustain or change power relations in significant ways and can alter socio-political change. Politics is the way power is ‘held, distributed and applied’ to manage forces towards the imagined future of society (Biekart and Fowler 2012). According to Dunmire (2011) this imagined future of society is always a political space. The future is, by politicians and powerholders, always presented as something that needs to be obtained or presented as a threat for which citizens need to be protected. Therefore, these future imagined spaces become a way to legitimize political actions and policies (Dunmire 2011). According to Dunmire (2011) presenting a future image to the public is one of the most important tools for politicians to change attitudes and behaviour of citizens. She argues that these future spaces are ‘utopian spaces’ as they are more imagined than real. These imagined utopian spaces nevertheless influence the current spaces of civil society action, because they shape the current practices and actions of people (Dunmire 2011). The next paragraph describes the visions on future spaces of Eva, a researcher and women rights activist, in Tehran. Thereafter, it presents why women want to be engaged in civil action, by presenting the civic energy and civic agency of women, and how this relates to spaces of everyday life. The last paragraph presents how women want to create future spaces of civil society action.

7.1 Vision on Future Spaces; Gender Equality and Freedom from Religion in Public

‘I have to be here, my problem is here. There is no choice, it is obligatory that I am here. But these days, day by day I am more fed up by this situation. I think in the end I will decide to go abroad because I am really under pressure.’ (Eva, Interview 10)

I first met Eva, a 29 year old woman, during an expert meeting of Khorshid at the Social Welfare institute (see chapter 6.1.2). I immediately noticed Eva because of her critical questions and comments on the project proposal of Khorshid. Among others, she asked the directors whether they had thought on how the wanted to select the girls, and how they thought to monitor the project. Moreover, she was one of the few women who did not wore a chador. At the end of the meeting Eva came to me and said she would like to talk to me in private and that she was interested to hear my perspectives on Iranian women. Eva proposed to meet at her parents’ house in a suburb of Tehran. She told me that in recent years she was involved in a few research projects as an assistant researcher. She had done research on gender issues in different countries. One year ago she had to return to Iran because of personal problems of her parents. However, not only her parents were a reason to return, but also because what she called ‘her problem’. Eva stated that her problem was the unequal position of women in Iran. Since she was back in Iran she lives at her parents’ house and works as a teacher on a high school. ‘I am under pressure because of my occupation. That’s why I selected teaching because I cannot do anything else’. Doing research in Iran is impossible because of the government. They will control you’, she stated. On my question about what kind of future Eva wanted, she responded: ‘I want a free country with a democracy’. For Eva a free country meant a country in which religion was separated from the state and from public life. She brought up the meeting where me and Eva met, and said: ‘the meeting where I have met you was Muslim based, and I do not think that it is good. In the end they will push their ideas’ (Interview 10). According to Eva the major problem of the country, and for women in particular, was that the government was religious and based on the Islam, ‘Islam has a deep effect on women. Islam makes some rules to limit the freedoms for women. For example the Islam gives the right to the husband to hit his wife’. According to Eva, the fact that the Iranian government is religious leads to the maintenance of the unequal position of women in society. She said, ‘you cannot see how deep it is. The rest is modern; the cities, the car’s and the way people look, but this is not the case of the women. Traditions are really slowly to change’. For Eva, a free society meant to be liberated of the compulsory hijab, ‘It is a nonsense thing, it makes me feel vomiting’. I met Eva a few times, in which she always talked with great passion about gender issues. In time I saw that what she has been through left some mental marks on her. Several times, Eva mentioned that she stood under severe pressure of the government because of her activities. Eva thought that the authorities followed her everywhere she goes and know everything she does. She constantly smoked in order to stay calm, she told me she started the habit when she was in jail. The visions of Eva on society did not only disconnect with the visions of the authorities, she also stressed that other people in society had problems with these ideas. As she told me: I’m really under pressure, either from the authorities or the people’. Eva broke the society down in two groups; ‘the common people’ and the ‘traditional’ people. As she put it: ‘the common people are so different than the government, they are completely modern’. The other people are traditional and are living with the

stereotypes’. In addition, she said, ‘I want women to have an independent identity in Iran, but lots of women do not want to be like that. They do not want to work. They just want to flash the credit card of their husband’. According to Eva, people in society had these ideas because of the educational system and the patriarchal system in Iran. Both systems keep the, what she referred to as, ‘stereotypes’ in order. The stereotypes that were presented to women and to men were completely different and learned men and women how to behave according to their perceived gender roles. The stereotype that was presented to a woman was that she needed to take care of her family and the household, whereas the man was told to be the protector of his wife and children. He should earn the money to supply for the needs of his family. According to Eva, these stereotypes were based to maintain the unequal power structure. It was Eva’s vision to break this circle and to live in a society that is free, equal and inclusive. Currently, the only way Eva could contribute to this was to aware women on their rights and on the inequalities in the system. She had to do this privately, one by one, and by going to meetings of different organizations. She said, ‘I try to help my people, it makes me calm. It is my deep favourite. I try to do it. It is my purpose in life. It is okay if I can just make the situation a little better’ (Interview 10).

Recently, I received a message from Eva that she has been granted a scholarship for a PhD position abroad. Soon she will leave Iran.

7.2 Reflection on the Visions of Future Spaces; the Civic Energy and Agency Unravelled The vision of Eva on the future shows the distortion between the imagined future spaces of Eva and the imagined future spaces of the authorities. According to Eva, equality among women and men cannot be obtained when the government is theocratic and based on the Islam. Eva wants a future in which religion does not play a role in the public sphere. In Eva’s imagined public sphere women and men are not segregated, women do not have to wear a hijab and do not have to sit in different compartment in public transport. In addition, also private spaces, which according to Eva are dominated by a patriarchal system, needed to be changed. This vision on the future is conflicting with the vision of the authorities and the way they conceive public and private spaces in Iran; the authorities want to remain an Islamic State and want to maintain gender segregation and the Islamic dress codes in public. This is, for instance, shown in the way Iranian authorities enforce laws in public and by the discussions in Iranian parliament, which often evolve around gender segregation. For instance, Newsha told me that in parliament every year the discussions around the separation of women and men at the universities in Tehran returned. Iranian hardliners want to separate men and women at the universities, contrary to the reformist and moderates. Recently Newsha went back to her university; she told me that she was upset to see that some spaces were further segregated. Some places were made ‘women only’ and the cafeteria was segregated. It also had a

separate entrance where women were checked if they were dressed according to the Islamic dress code. Newsha believed it was because: ‘probably to get more money and raise in esteem of the government and the higher officials’. This shows how the vision of the hardliners gets translated into public spaces, and their power over public institutions. The same debates also evolve around work places. For instance, an important Imam spread the following vision on the discussion on gender segregation at work places: ‘we are an Islamic system and have a religious dignity and we should not let unrelated men and women intermingle [in the workplace] more than they spend time with their family members’9. These debates illustrate that authorities present the interaction between men and women in public spaces as a threat for society and for family life, this clearly shows that, in line with Dunmire (2011), the imagined future is used as a tool for politicians to allow certain actions. It allows the Iranian authorities to restrict activities in public spaces and to enforce laws that restrict individual freedoms and civil society action. In almost all cases informants appeared to have a vision of the future that contradicts the future ideas of the authorities and their watchdogs. The women strove for gender equality, inclusion, freedom of expression in public spaces and for the separation of religion and state. As for instance one informant stated that: ‘Islam has an approach that discriminate women. That came to our law. Women cannot change this law as our government is religious. Religion is so difficult. They do not like to change’ (Zarayda, Interview 5). These contradictions between imagined future spaces lead to tensions between societal organizations and the authorities. As one informant put it: ‘everything is always a challenge for us. You do not have any time to live for yourself. Whenever I go home or go to bed, I think what more can I do for them [her clients]. But we are doing our best’ (Interview 17). Later the woman commented: ‘it is in my inside, a love a passion that is in me. Some people want to be a lawyer but I like this life you know. Trying to help people who do not have anyone who takes care of them’ (Interview 17). This shows that the restriction on current spaces for civil society action contributes to the energy of this woman to change something in society. The everyday experiences of this woman made her feel responsible to solve issues she encountered in society. In her opinion the government was reluctant towards these problems. This shows that the gap between what women, based on their everyday experiences, perceive that needs to happen in society, and how the authorities perceive it, and creates tensions. These tensions bring different women in Tehran together in different groups and spaces to achieve certain common goals and to change society for what they believe is best for society. Women show a personal motivation to use this civic energy for particular issues such as gender inequality, poverty and a lack of freedom of expression. This energy can be related to the way women experience their space for social action. The women perceived a lack of freedom and exclusion in public, but they were all willing to ‘push back’ these restriction and change this. Also the following quote illustrates this: ‘whenever I think I cannot do anything in Iran anymore I will leave. Now I think I can

9 https://www.iranhumanrights.org/2014/09/gender-segregation/ 81

do something for my people and my country. When I think I am not useful anymore I will leave Iran. And live for myself’ (Co-founder of Khorshid, Interview 9).This woman perceived it as her task to change something in society. Besides the motivation for a perceived pro-societal change, the motivation of the women was also tight to a personal identification with certain issues. This identification made them create certain groups and spaces for action. For example, facing discrimination as an Afghan women in Iran, seemed to be an important motivation to start to teach undocumented Afghan children who had no right on education. Or one woman who was helping single mothers, because she, as a child of divorced parents, had seen her mother struggle as a single woman in Iran. This woman wanted to create a different future for other single women. Most of the women were somehow engaged in groups that were related to gender issues. Just as Eva, experiencing inequality in daily life as a women, was a reason to initiate or volunteer for societal organizations related to gender issues.

7.3. How to create the Imagined Future Spaces; Revolt or Peaceful Change? As previously explained the Civic Driven Change framework starts with the premise that change in society is driven by citizens’ civic energy based on a domain. A domain is understood as a social arena and can be seen as a substansive theme or desired future which holds society’s attention and attracts civil agency from the four sectors. According to Biekart and Fowler (2012) every citizen holds power to drive and influence processes of societal change independent of the sector in which they are active. The previous chapters have already shown that, in line with Biekart and Fowler (2012), for instance on ‘gender issues’, women from all different sectors pay attention to it and try to change the situation for women. One can however question whether this attention leads to the desired equal position of women and men in Iran, because visions on future spaces do not seems to correlate between different societal groups as the previous paragraph has shown. Moreover, due to restrictions and the securitization of the public sphere women included in this study did not seem to experience much space to contribute to processes of change. Women expressed to encounter many difficulties in their activities to change something in society. As one woman said: ‘we do not get any support and they [refers to state authorities] do not want that we are active. Iran is not a good location for children and especially not for women. So we should try and try and try to gain some result’ (Public relation employee at registered organization and part of the feminist group Interview 5). This view was echoed by another interviewee who said: ‘we lost the challenge, we told them [refers to her clients] we cannot do it anymore. It was very hard’. After years of trying this woman recently had to change the main activities of her work, because of a lack of funding and support from authorities. However, independent of these setbacks she remained positive and kept trying, as the following statement illustrates: ‘I always get my way [laughs]’. This demonstrate that, even though, this woman is sceptical and realistic about changing society she still tries. This woman was driven with an enormous amount of energy and power (Interview 17).

A few informants showed to have this same realistic optimism. Also the following statement from a 24 year old woman who volunteers for a registered organization illustrates this: ‘we need fundamental changes but it is not something we can do. It must be something from upper levels and upper positions. We can do our best but it is not enough. We go forward. We work with what we have and we focus on other things like environmental stuff and later we focus on social sectors’. Other informants echoed this view. For instance Anna, who was introduced in chapter 6.2.2, said: the Iranian government does not concern about women. They think that if women go to society, if they empower, they will corrupt society. But we must try and only we can do this. So we must try very hard. If we try hard, maybe we can change the government but it will be a long way and take a long time. We must try to be stronger’ (Anna, Interview 7). This statement of Anna does not only demonstrates frustrations towards the government on their policies towards women, but it also demonstrates the motivation to contribute to what she perceived was a better future. Remarkably, in line with this statement, also one of the women who work for the State Welfare Organization demonstrated to experience this negative feeling of the government towards women. When I asked her what she could do to change the situation, she told me: ‘nothing at all. We cannot do anything to change the situation. We have limited options because we are under the roof of the government. Our government is dictatorship, it is not a republic. In a republic people can make decisions. Ours is religious’. Thus, her being part of a governmental organization did not gave this woman the feeling of more agency and space to contribute to change. This woman related the problems of society to the connection between state and religion. On the question whether she thought the situation would improve, the woman responded: ‘no I do not think so. But I hope [laughs]. Maybe the next generation. I have two girls and I plan to send them to Poland. It will be difficult for me, but their future must be better. I do not want them to get married here’ (Interview 20). Another informant who, as a lawyer for different registered and unregistered organizations, helps women who face legal problems, commented on the question: ‘changing the rule is completely helpless unless the government will change. This is very important. We are completely disappointed to change the rule of Iran’ (Interview 11). Later she said: these are heavy subject and it makes me sick and frustrated. Why do we have this society and waste our time on these things that are useless if the people just believed Human Rights it would be solved. (Interview 11). This woman helped other women to get a divorce from her husband, because in Iran it is very difficult for a woman to do so. The informant experienced a lot of ‘push back’ for doing her work. Not only from the authorities but also from the (ex) husband of the woman and of the family of the woman. This woman was very eager to change something for women and their unequal position towards men in the society, but felt disillusioned and disappointed doing so. A minority of informants were more hopeful and positive about the future. As Bita said during a meeting of the woman’s group: ‘more and more people gather in these kinds of groups [refers to the woman group]. It is part of society that is organized. So it can be effective for change. It is not individually any more, people exchange views. They come together and discuss things and see different

views. There are a lot of these groups. So absolutely they can change society’. In line with this interviewee also the directors of Roya, who were introduced in chapter 5.2, said to be hopeful for the future. According to them the situation over the last years had improved. On the question whether it is going to be even better one of the women responded: ‘we hope, I hope, and I think. With the help of technology and social media, people know now what is happening in society. People are now more conscious’. She commented that ‘many people think there is no place to work on these issues here [Iran]. This is not true, it is possible, there are spaces to work here, and there are many needs here. If you want to work here, you can, just start and make a change’. Women who were part of religious groups responded different on this question. When these women were asked about their future aspirations one woman responded: ‘if God wants equality and less poverty he will create it.’ Another informant responded: ‘That is up to God’. Later she commented ‘God helps us. He donates something and then we gather it’ (Interview 3). One of the women wished for a bigger place for the organization, ‘we are hoping that God helps us as much so people do not feel poor but rich. We just hope we can get that much money so that people do not have to rely on us. Until they do not have enough we will help them. We can be happy if no one is in poverty anymore’ (Interview 15). These results suggest that in contrast to the other women included in this study their spaces of everyday life and their imagined future spaces were strongly based on religion. God will create the future space and they can only hope it is the future they want it be. Interestingly, when informants were asked about a solution for problems in society often the conversations led to revolution. As one woman stated: ‘to change the society a revolution is necessary’ (Interview 11). Others informants echoed this view, as one woman said after I asked her the same question: ‘a Revolution, but a peaceful one. We do not want war. People are tired of prison and fights. We want change but without violence’ (Interview 12). And another informant argued: ‘a Revolution [laughs]. Another one. After living here you will understand. For example get married with an Iranian man then you will understand’ (State Welfare Organization, Interview 20). This woman meant by a revolution as the revolution in 1979, where the complete government system was changed. This time the revolution, however, should lead to the separation between state and religion. In contrast, ‘revolution’ was not only mentioned as the way to obtain change but also as something which should not happen, as Bita, one of the directors of Khorshid stated: ‘we do not want a revolution’. She commented ‘we want it [change] gradually; not suddenly like shouting on the streets- we want change. We just want to continue without fighting them [conservatives]. We do not want to get rid of religion. We just want change without costs. We don’t want war as in Syria. We do not want to die, or something bad to happen. We just want to stay alive and see the future and contribute towards a better future. We want different groups to live together in peace, with human rights’ (Interview 22). This statement demonstrates that Bita wants fundamental change, but on a peaceful manner. In cooperation with state authorities and by keeping the current systems in order. In line with this informant, another informant said: ‘the government is a problem but not the first problem. We think culture is. In Iran

culture comes before laws. Culture is more important than laws. Thus we first need to change that and then the government and the law will change’. When asked how the interviewee thought to do it, she commented: we need to practise democracy, peace and human rights. This needs practise. It cannot happen suddenly’ (Interview 21). These visions on how to obtain change contradict to the other women who stated that ‘fundamental change’ was necessary. This shows that women desire a different future than the imagined future spaces presented to them by the authorities, however the perceptions on how obtain this future differs. In general, the imagined future of women represent a space in which there is freedom of expression in public, gender equality and a society in which different groups can live together and are represented in politics. Overall, the above statements demonstrate that women were not satisfied with the current space for civil society action. Many of them expressed difficulties, challenges and setbacks in doing their civil activities. Some women were more optimistic and hopeful on the future than others, but almost all interviewees expressed that a revolutionary change was necessary to obtain the future they desired. At the same time informants expressed that the current situation for civil society was better than when Ahmajinidad was president, as described in chapter 4.2 and 5.1.2. It seems as if the space for civil society broadened in recent years. For instance, informants told me that some public spaces such as cafes and the streets, could now be used to come together and discuss politics, which would have been unthinkable under Ahmajinidad’ presidency they told me. Spaces had become more hybrid. Private spaces could be used for public meetings, such as the woman’s group. However, not all women were positive on the perceived increased space for civil society action. Some women expressed doubts whether this was not just a temporary situation, as under Khatami’s presidency. Statements as ‘they do not let democratic society grow’ and ‘we do not believe the government anymore, everything is always in their benefit’, illustrate this. These women had already experienced that spaces for civil society action opened before, but closed again. One informant told me that she disbelieved the intentions of the authorities. In her opinion it had something to do with the problematic economic situation in the country. This woman believed that, because of this, authorities do not want to cause any more problems in society, which they would if they further restrict spaces for civil action. Moreover, she said that the authorities benefitted from the civil society activities as they deal with societal issues. She believed that, when the economic situation has stabilized, the authorities will push back again. This shows the different realities that exists among the informants included in this study and the ambiguity on spaces for civil society.

Conclusion In summary, the women included in this study experienced social and political push backs because of their civil society action. Nevertheless, these women continue their activities driven by civil energy for a certain perceived pro-societal change. This civil energy was driven by struggles, fears, hopes and tensions in their spaces of everyday life. But also by hope and dreams to improve the social situation in

Iran to change the future course society is heading. There is a distortion between visions of different actors in society and the authorities on these current and future spaces. This illustrates that different ideas in society exists on what is a ‘better’ society or what is ‘best’ for society. This distortion is part of the challenge of civil society organizations and seems to be the root for tensions between the authorities and different types of civil society organizations. This distortion is part of the motivation for women to resist and negotiate spaces and create their own spaces for civil society action. Doing so, these women do not only shape the current spaces of everyday life, but they also shape future spaces. Even though women were slightly positive on the current space for civil society action, nevertheless, they believed that in order to change the course society is heading fundamental change is necessary.

Negotiating Spaces for Participation in Civil Society: A Conclusion This research has shown that women by their activities create civil society in Tehran, Iran. It demonstrated how women perceive and respond to the restricted space for civil society action in the Islamic Republic of Iran. This chapter starts by summarizing the findings of the sub-questions, followed with a discussion on the main results in relation to the current academic debates on civil society. The chapter ends with providing the answer on the main question: How do women create spaces for civil society action in Tehran, Iran?

8.1 Summary of the Main Research Findings The first research question explored how women organize civil society in Tehran, Iran. Based on the literature and on the data gathered during the fieldwork, the following types of organizations, in which women have organized themselves, were distinguished: Registered, Unregistered and Faith Based Organizations. In addition, it added a fourth category, namely; the State Authorities. The results of this study showed that women who worked for state authorities also actively took part in the creation of civil society in Tehran, Iran. This study identified the importance of focussing on practices and activities of women instead of on the types of organizations in which women are engaged. The results of this study showed that the practices and activities of women, independent of their organization, create spaces for civil society action in Tehran, Iran. Thus, to one only look at types of organizations and on how these organizations function has limited value and does not cover what civil society entails in Tehran. Nevertheless, this study uses this ordering as a starting point to demonstrate how activities of women cross the boundaries of different types of organizations and different spaces of civil society action. To summarize: (1) Women who are organized in registered organizations. These organizations are allowed to work as social organizations in Iran and are labelled by the state authorities as community based organizations (Rivetti 2012, 195). The women who are engaged in civil society through a registered organization are active on issues such as homelessness, poverty, empowerment and improving well-being of women and children. In almost all cases these organizations receive office space from the authorities (municipal of Tehran and State Welfare Organization). This participation takes place in the conceived spaces created by the state. These spaces are institutionalized; the state determined what the accepted themes and activities are. In almost all cases, the women questioned in this study who were active in registered organizations were also active in unregistered groups or activities that were

perceived to be ‘unaccepted’. Hence these women used publicly provided spaces for activities that were perceived to be ‘private’ activities. (2) Women who are organized in unregistered groups. These groups do not have a license to officially work as civil society organization and mostly operate in what can be considered to be the counter-hegemonic spaces of civil society. Women engaged in these groups were active as political activists, social workers, social entrepreneurs, artists, human rights defenders or as lawyer. These groups had created their own independent spaces for social action. The women who are engaged in civil society through an unregistered organization are active on issues such as social exclusion, women empowerment, human rights, sexual abuse, prostitution and addiction. In most cases, these organizations operate in private spaces. These private spaces can be described as differential spaces for special interest groups. In these spaces alternative ways of thinking and action were tried out. (3) Women who are organized in faith based organizations. These faith based groups can be registered or unregistered. The activities of these groups evolved around their religion as well as their motives to be engaged in these organizations. Of the three types of societal organizations, the organization of women in faith based organizations is most visible in public. These organizations used public spaces for their social action such as Mosques, streets and parks. In Tehran, public spaces are shaped by Islamic laws and customs. These laws and customs encourage people to help the poor. Women organized in faith based organizations perceived it as their duty to help others. This ‘duty’ is clearly visible and broadcasted in public spaces in Tehran. It is part of the conceived order of the state. (4) Women who are organized in state authorities. These women worked for state authorities in Tehran, however, these women were at the same time engaged in registered civil society organizations. Besides how women organize in civil society, this research showed that women also organize civil society by creating their own independent spaces for social action. They create these spaces because certain activities are restricted in certain public spaces. Therefore, women engaged in civil society organizations make use, shape and create a multitude of spaces for their civil society action. These spaces are both public and private. Another result of this study is that the distinction between private and public spaces in Tehran is blurred and dynamic. The research shows that at certain times and under certain circumstances public spaces turned into private spaces. For instance, at night the public park was by young people to gather, to kiss each other and walk hand in hand. Moreover, societal organizations made use of publicly made available spaces to be engaged in activities that were seen as private, for instance helping girls and women who have experienced domestic violence or sexual abuse. The research also shows that at certain times private spaces turned into public spaces, as the private home such as the private home was used for public meetings; in these meeting different people came together to discuss public issues, exchange

information and create networks. Thus, spaces of civil society action become at certain times under certain circumstances hybrid. In these hybrid spaces the social action depends on the (perceived) visibility for the authorities and their watchdogs. Dependent on the activities and the circumstances, women manoeuvre between different types of organizations and between different public and private spaces of civil society action. Through these activities, in these different spaces, women actively negotiate, challenge and resist the restrictions on the spaces of civil society action. Doing so, women create civil society. The second research question further explored the different spaces of civil society action. The results show that women make use of institutional spaces of civil society action agreed by government authorities and religious ideologies, and that women create their own independent spaces for civil society action. In the institutional spaces for civil society action there is a constant tension between the conceived order, the practices of women and how women experience these spaces. In this study the conceived space is understood as the space in which the discourse of the state authorities and other power holders, such as clerics and conservatives, is dominant. In these spaces the official rules and norms of the authorities predominate. These often appeared to be public spaces in which the red lining of the authorities on certain activities is visible. On the one hand women adapt to this conceived order, for instance: they get a license, wear their hijab and claim to have religious motives as an organization, when they do not. On the other hand, women constantly negotiate and show resistance to this conceived order. This negotiation takes place through what women do in certain spaces, including: how they wear their hijab’s and manteaux’s (for instance, at the back of their heads or leaving the manteaux’s more open or closed), by taking different pathways on certain times to outrun the authorities and by creating different (virtual) spaces to express themselves on ‘unaccepted’ issues, such as sexual abuse, domestic violence or inequality among men and women. Hence, in the spaces in which the discourse of the authorities and their watchdogs prevails there is a constant tension between the experiences and activities of women engaged in different civil society organizations and the way authorities perceive how women should act and express in these spaces. This shows that, in line with Lefebvre, spaces are socially constructed, alive and constantly negotiated. Spaces are never only conceived, but are at the same time perceived and lived. They are shaped by activities, feelings and expressions of actors who inhabit these spaces (Lefebvre, in Soja 1996). Besides the institutional spaces, women create independent spaces for civil society action, mostly in private spaces. People’s houses and apartments that are actually destined as places to live are used for civil society action. Independent spaces were also created outside the geographical border of the country and on the World Wide Web. In these private spaces activities cannot be controlled by the authorities. These psychical and virtual created spaces are the differential spaces to which Lefebvre refers. In these spaces women resist and challenge the hegemonic socio-political order. In these spaces women are free to express themselves and act how they want. The red lines are blurred or not visible in

these spaces. These spaces are used to show the otherness of the group against the hegemonic order of authorities in public spaces. These spaces exist because people chose to be part of them (Lefebvre, in Soja 1996). From these spaces civil society action takes place against the conceived order and the red lines set by the authorities. The third research question explored what drives women to create civil society. In line with Biekart and Fowler (2012) and Lefebvre, the results of this study show that civil society action is shaped by spaces of everyday life as well as by future imagined spaces. The spaces of everyday life shape the individual and collective motivations of women to change these spaces. Their civil society action is shaped by women who dream of an equal society for women and men, education for undocumented Afghan girls and boys and freedom of expression. However, the results suggest that there is a distortion between visions of different actors in society on current and future spaces of civil society action. This distortion is part of the challenge of civil society organizations and seem to be the root for tensions between the state and different civil society organizations. This distortion is part of the motivation of women to negotiate red lines and resist the conceived order by creating independent spaces, in which women can organize around ‘unaccepted’ issues and other social activities can take place.

8.2 The Production of Spaces of Civil Society Action; the Ordering ‘Red Line’ As mentioned in the summary of the results, one of the main findings of the study is that women actively create civil society by their activities in different spaces for social action. Spaces of civil society action are not only shaped by women themselves, but are an outcome of negotiations between different actors and their perceptions on these spaces. Spaces of civil society action are shaped and bound by what informants refer to as the ‘red line’. This red line was mentioned several times when informants indicated that activities were ‘unaccepted’ or topics too ‘political’ to talk about. This study shows that this ‘red line’ is, what by Lefebvre is defined as, the ordering power of society (Lefebvre, in Soja 1996). The red line is ambiguous; it is not always clear when activities cross the red line and this differs spatially. This makes that in certain spaces activities are accepted, whereas in other spaces, the same activities were unaccepted. The red line is constantly negotiated by the practices and activities of people who inhabit the spaces. The red line is both imagined and real. The red line is imagined, because the red line is something that is mostly felt by people and is based on perceptions on where the line might be. The line is ambiguous; it is unclear when or where the line presents itself. The perception of the red line determines how far and to what extend people perceive they can do something in the public and how visible they perceive they can be. This perception is both shaped by fear and by visions of a better future. As the red line is something that is felt it is not always clear when or where it presents itself. The red line constantly changes dependent on the place in which one find itself. In addition, it is also constantly negotiated by activities of women themselves. In negotiation of this red line, women have created their own independent spaces to express themselves

and to act in. These spaces are created outside the public spaces, and therefore, the red line does not present itself in these spaces. The doings of women in these spaces negotiate, resist and challenge the red line. Doing so, the red line burrs. The red line is also real, mostly in its consequences. It presents the contours of how spaces are conceived or ordered by the authorities. The red line entails the laws and symbols of ideology and power of state authorities and conservatives who install and enforce laws that constrain certain activities in public spaces. These spaces are ordered, shaped and securitized by bodies of state authorities, the NGO law, arrests of human rights defenders and the morality police, who control public spaces on Islamic dress codes and on other ‘unaccepted’ behaviour, such as, walking dogs, drinking alcohol or holding gatherings. As stated, the red line is not fixed. It is constantly (re) negotiated. This negotiation happens through the practices and activities of women in certain spaces under certain circumstances. These practices blur, challenge and resist the red line. For instance, when people talk about issues that are perceived to be ‘unaccepted’ in public spaces, or when women negotiate the Islamic dress code by wearing their hijab on the back of their heads. At the organization level this negotiation becomes visible in private spaces that are used or created to hold public meetings. The spaces in which women share knowledge, become politically engaged and in which they mobilize others. This shows that the red line entails more than just the legal spaces of civil society action. At the same time, it entails the everyday experiences of women, or the lived. Taken together, spaces for civil society action in Tehran are the individual and collective reactions and negotiations on the ordering working of power - the red line - in the production of space. The results of this study seem to suggest that the space for civil society action has broadened in recent years, the red line seems to be blurred in more spaces. Spaces for civil society action have opened up a bit. Private spaces in which public activities happen could be used for public meetings and informants argued that public spaces could be used more publicly. However, people also stated that it was unsure how this would develop in the future, as they experienced push backs on space for civil action before. Probably, it will remain a constant negotiation between how spaces are ordered by the authorities and their watchdogs and by people who inhabit these spaces, who by their activities resist, negotiate and challenge this ordering power. Recently, Bahari, who is an Iranian reporter and was because of unclear reasons arrested during the 2009 movement, stated that: ‘lines are not clear in terms of anything in Iran’10. In my opinion this perfectly sums up the future space for civil society in Tehran, Iran.

10 http://uk.businessinsider.com/why-iran-fears-people-like-jason-rezaian-2015-11?r=US&IR=T 91

8.3 The Public Sphere and the Development of Civil Society In this section the results of this study are related to the broader academic debate about civil society and the public sphere. In civil society research the public sphere is understood as important in the development of a civil society. An open and free public sphere is seen as an essential precondition for the development of a vital civil society. This research has found that the relation between the development of civil society and the public sphere should be revised in Tehran, Iran. This research found that civil society not only emerges out of the public sphere but that in Iran, due to restrictions and exclusion in the public sphere, civil society action in most cases emerged from private and hybrid spaces of social action. Moreover, it showed that women by their practices and activities created their own independent spaces for civil society action. In these spaces, women can freely express, act and organize in. These created spaces can mostly be found in the private sphere. However, this study shows that these private spaces are much more than just private spaces in which individuals can celebrate their ‘private’ freedom. It shows that under certain circumstances these private spaces turn into public meeting places. Moreover, actors in these spaces are engaged in issues that can be considered ‘public’. These private spaces thus have public characteristics and turn into hybrid spaces. As the example of the director of the school for undocumented Afghan children showed. In this particular case, citizen’s social action started with activities in the private home. This woman started to educate undocumented children from Afghanistan, this children had no right of formal education. In time this organization became more public; the woman opened a new location, hired employees and made the school accessible for children with different nationalities. However, the organization remained unregistered, with as consequence that the certificate the children receive is not acknowledged by the Iranian government. This research found that civil society action arises out of these private and hybrid spaces. However, due to restrictions, the red lining and the securitization of the public sphere, civil society organizations in Tehran do not seem to be able to perform the functions that are generally destined to civil society, as for instance creation a connection between the society and the state. Civil society organizations could not bring certain societal issues to the public or make their demands (too) public, because these issues were seen as unaccepted by the authorities and their watchdogs. However, the results show that civil society organizations, instead of trying to create the connection with the state, they did create connections between different groups in society. In the created spaces of social action, civil society organizations facilitate meetings in order to create dialog between different groups in society. In these spaces interaction, exchange and discussion between different groups in society takes place. Doing so, civil society organizations create new types of publics – in hybrid spaces - in which citizens can have encounters with the ‘other’. In these spaces people can exchange views, discuss and can be heard by others. In these hybrid spaces different societal organizations collaborate with each

other and try to aware the public or change social attitudes towards, for instance; divorced women, unequal gender roles, rights for undocumented Afghans and drugs addicts. Thus, in these spaces the ‘bridge’ function of civil society is taken on horizontally instead of vertically. In these spaces women also search for collaboration with the media. They create their own forms of media, for instance, on the radio or on the internet (private Facebook groups/viber and WhatsApp groups). Thus, this research found that by the practices and activities of women they create new public or hybrid spheres. From these different public, hybrid and private spheres civil society emerges. Further research regarding the distinction between private and public spaces in relation to civil society would be interesting and would offer new insights about the commonly held belief that the open and free public sphere is a necessary pre-condition for civil society to emerge. In addition, this would offer new understandings for the current debate on the shrinking space for civil society. If research includes different spaces in which civil society action takes place, and not merely focusing on public spaces of participation, this may result in a different understanding on space for civil society.

A Conclusion In conclusion, this study has shown how women by their practices and activities create civil society in Tehran, Iran. By practices and activities of women on societal issues they created different spaces (psychical and virtual) of civil society action outside the institutional spaces for civil action that are made available by the state authorities. These created spaces for civil society action are mostly created in private spaces. However, this study found that these private spaces often become hybrid; private spaces with public characteristics or public spaces with private characteristics. Women active in these different hybrid spaces on different public issues together create civil society. Overall, this study has shown that in order to define (space for) civil society it is necessary to look at practices and activities of civil society organizations in different spaces of social action. Further studies on civil society need to include these hybrid and private spaces in which social action takes place. Women active in civil society challenge the hegemonic ordering power of the authorities over spaces. This challenge is not a violent one. The challenge becomes visible in the activities of women in different public and private spaces. Women challenge the hegemonic order by the way they use, act and express themselves in these different spaces. In these spaces the ordering power- the red lining - is challenged by the social action of women. This social action includes activities that are perceived to be unaccepted such as: portraying political or sexual art work, providing training on human rights or how to use condoms and on awareness raising on sexual abuse and domestic violence. Research on civil society should acknowledge that civil society creates its own space for civil society action, these spaces depend on the circumstances in which it operate. The boundaries between state, civil society, family and market are complex, blurred and negotiated. It should embrace that civil

society entails a diversity of spaces, actors and institutional forms, varying in their degree of autonomy, formality and power. Some other observations were made throughout the fieldwork which should be elaborated on in future studies. For instance, a practical study about the consequences of unregistered groups taking up the function that is traditionally understood as the role of the state, namely; trying to solve societal problems. The results suggested that the activities of these unregistered groups were known by the authorities but that state authorities did not try to deter these unregistered groups to work on these issues. This reveals an interesting dynamic between the state and civil society organizations. A possible explanation is that Iranian authorities let unregistered groups deal with these issues. These groups tackle problems in society, without the interference of the state authorities. In this way, state authorities do not need to recognize, or intervene in these problems. If this indeed is the case it would mean that unregistered groups serve as an instrument of the state to deal with public issues, which the authorities rather keep private. Further research is necessary to investigate this relation and the implications for civil society in Iran.

References

Aarts, Paul; Francesca (2013) Civil Society in Syria and Iran: Activism in Authoritarian Contexts, Jan 7, 2013

ACT Alliance (2011). The shrinking political space for civil society action. ACT Alliance development aid effectiveness working group. Berkhout, Remko, Marlieke Kieboom and Lieke Ruijmschoot (2011) Civic Driven change: Synthesising implications for policy and practice, Amsterdam: DPRN,

Becker, H. S. (1996). The epistemology of qualitative research. Ethnography and human development: Context and meaning in social inquiry, 53-71.

Biekart, K., and Alan Fowler (2009) Civic Driven change: A concise guide to the basics, The Hague: International Institute of Social Studies.

Biekart, K., and Alan Fowler (2012) Civic Driven change: An update on the basics, The Hague: International Institute of Social Studies.

Calhoun, C. (2011). Civil society and the public sphere. Public Culture, 5(2), 267–28

Carothers, Thomas ; Barndt, William(1999) The Concept of Civil Society Is a Recent Invention, Foreign Policy, Issue 117, pp.18-29

Carothers and Brechenmacher (2014) Closing space; Democracy and Human Rights support under fire. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Cohen, J. L., & Arato, A. (1994). Civil society and political theory. Mit Press.

Downey, J., & Fenton, N. (2003). New media, counter publicity and the public sphere. New Media Society, 5(2), 185–20

Erikson, E. (1995) Small places, large issues: An introduction to social and cultural anthropology, London, Pluto.

Gaventa, J. (2005). Reflections on Using the Power Cube Approach for Analysing the Spaces, Places and Dynamics of Civil Society Participation and Engagement. United Kingdom: University of Sussex.

Gaventa, J. (2006). “Finding the Spaces for Change: A Power Analysis.” IDS Bulletin 37 (6): 23-33.

Gobo, G. (2008). Doing ethnography. Sage publication. London.

Habermas, J. (1996). Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Hilhorst, D.; Jansen, B. (2005). Fieldwork in Hazardous Areas. Wageningen University, Disaster Studies, 2005.27p.

Jongerden, J. (March, 2015), “Radicalising Democracy: Power, Politics, People and the

PKK”, Vol. IV, Issue 3, pp.64-78, Centre for Policy and Research on Turkey

(ResearchTurkey), London, Research Turkey. (http://researchturkey.org/?p=8401)

Kaldor, M. (2003) Global civil society: An answer to war. Cambridge: policy press.

Merrifield, Andy. (2006). Henri Lefebvre, a critical introduction. New York & London: Routledge.

Schmid, Christian. (2008). "Henri Lefebvre’s theory of space: towards a three-dimensional dialectic." In Space, Difference, Everyday Life, reading Henri Lefebvre, eds. Kanishka Goonewardena, Stefan Kipfer,

Sommerfeldt (2013) the civility of social capital: Public relations in the public sphere,

Civil society, and democracy, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-7635, United States

Soja, E. W. (1996). Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and other real-and-imagined places. Oxford: Blackwell.

Spradley, B. (1980). Informant observation. Radboud University, Fort Worth: Harcourt.

Sriram, King, et.al. (2009). Surviving Field Research, working in violent and difficult situations. Routlegde New York, NY.

Van der Borgh, C., & Terwindt, C. (2012). Shrinking operational space of NGOs–a framework of analysis. Development in Practice, 22(8), 1065-1081.

Appendix 1: Interview guide Semi-structured Interviews The questions were asked depending on the interview setting and the line of the conversations. 1. General questions regarding individual and organization - Name, age, type of organization. - Time working for the organization - Position and tasks in organization - Background and vision of the organization - Reason for joining/initiating the organization?

2. Questions related to Activities of organization - To what needs is the organization responding? - How is your organization responding to these needs? - What kind of activities are organized by your organization? - Why these activities? - How do these activities make a difference in society? - How can these activities create space for more activities? - Do you feel constraints in your activities? o If yes, what kind of constraints? - How can these be resolved? - Do you try to resolve this? o If yes, how? - What opportunities offer the activities of your organization - for women? - What kind of activities you think should belong to the state and how is it negotiated

3. Questions related to spaces (lived, conceived and perceived space) - What is your relation to other actors in society? - How do you work together with other actors in the field? - Do you actively seek connection to other actors in society? o Which actors and how? - Are, and on what matter, are you related to the government? - Do government policies influence your work? o If so, in what way? - What other actors influence your work? - In what way does religion influence your work? - Is the fact that it is an organization initiated by women influence the work? - How do you raise funds? o In Iran and/or international? - Do you have freedom to operate and talk publicly about your organization? - Are you able to, in public, talk about the needs you are responding to? - If related to International NGOs– how do you think this influences your work? - In what way do you use social media? o Has it changed your activities/space to organize?

4. Questions related to lived spaces/ Civic Driven Change - What do you/ the organization want to establish in Iranian society? - How do you perceive the future of Iranian society?

- How does this image drive your action? - In what way does your organization contribute to that? How do these activities contribute to societal change? - Do you lobby for these needs with other actors in society and how?