anno XVII (2014), n. 16 (2) Archivio ISSN 2038-3215 Antropologico Mediterraneo ARCHIVIO ANTROPOLOGICO MEDITERRANEO on line anno XVII (2014), n. 16 (2)

Semestrale di Scienze Umane ISSN 2038-3215

Università degli Studi di Palermo Dipartimento ‘Culture e Società’ Sezione di Scienze umane, sociali e politiche

Direttore responsabile Gabriella D’Agostino Comitato di redazione Sergio Bonanzinga, Ignazio E. Buttitta, Gabriella D’Agostino, Ferdinando Fava, Vincenzo Matera, Matteo Meschiari Segreteria di redazione Daniela Bonanno, Alessandro Mancuso, Rosario Perricone, Davide Porporato (website) Impaginazione Alberto Musco Comitato scientifico Marlène albert-llorca Département de sociologie-ethnologie, Université de Toulouse 2-Le Mirail, France antonio ariño villarroya Department of Sociology and Social Anthropology, University of Valencia, Spain antonino buttitta Università degli Studi di Palermo, Italy iain chaMbers Dipartimento di Studi Umani e Sociali, Università degli Studi di Napoli «L’Orientale», Italy alberto M. cirese (†) Università degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza”, Italy JeFFrey e. cole Department of Anthropology, Connecticut College, USA João De Pina-cabral Institute of Social Sciences, University of Lisbon, Portugal alessanDro Duranti UCLA, Los Angeles, USA Kevin Dwyer Columbia University, New York, USA DaviD D. GilMore Department of Anthropology, Stony Brook University, NY, USA José antonio González alcantuD University of Granada, Spain ulF hannerz Department of Social Anthropology, Stockholm University, Sweden MohaMeD Kerrou Département des Sciences Politiques, Université de Tunis El Manar, Tunisia MonDher Kilani Laboratoire d’Anthropologie Culturelle et Sociale, Université de Lausanne, Suisse Peter loizos (†) London School of Economics & Political Science, UK abDerrahMane Moussaoui Université de Provence, IDEMEC-CNRS, France hassan rachiK University of Hassan II, Casablanca, Morocco Jane schneiDer Ph. D. Program in Anthropology, Graduate Center, City University of New York, USA Peter schneiDer Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Fordham University, USA Paul stoller West Chester University, USA

Università degli studi di Palermo Dipartimento di Beni Culturali Studi Culturali Sezione di Scienze umane, sociali e politiche 57

Digital imagesbetweenanthropology, consumertechnologies andcontemporaryart 69 GiuseppeGiordano, 49 Bernd JürgenWarneken, ImpegnopoliticoecivilediEdgarKurz:daTubinga aFirenze

Donatella Schmidt,Femenelasuaprotesta.Allaricercadichiaviinterpretative 25 5

Anthropen, unprojetdedictionnaire enligne Shahram Khosravi,Writing IranianCulture 33 Apparatura.

Paolo Favero,LiquidVisions. Dossier Anthropen Documentare 89

Ragionare Divagare Una formadiartigianato“festivo”aPalermo Abstracts

Indice In copertina: foto di Davide Porporato Shahram Khosravi Writing Iranian Culture Ragionare

Throughout the twentieth century European shenasi but the most common and official one has and American anthropologists traveled to different been mardomshenasi. parts of the world in order to map out, analyze and ‘understand’ the others. However, as part of the modern education system, the discipline of anthro- Knowing the People pology emerged also in other parts of the world. Unlike the traditional pattern of a triangular rela- Mardomshenasi literally means ‘knowing the tionship between the Western anthropologist, people’. The term ‘knowing the people’ contains an non-Western field, and ‘native informant’, there are implicit power. During my fieldwork in I fre- now increasing numbers of so called native anthro- quently heard both seriously and jokingly: «you are pologists doing anthropology ‘at home’. In many a mardomshenas [anthropologist]. So you know cases non-Western anthropologists’ criticism of an- people. Tell us who we are. Tell us how we are». thropology as a Western-dominated discipline Authorized by a ‘scientific’ (elmi) designation (Asad 1973) has led to the emergence of what has (‘knowing the people’), the mardomshenas (the an- been called an ‘indigenous anthropology’ (Fahim thropologist) is conventionally seen to posses the 1982). This is a backlash against forms of anthropo- power to describe, to define, and to categorize peo- logical representation of non-Western societies. ple. This is the authority of anthropology and its In Iran too Anthropology has localized and power of representation. Anthropology shapes the gained a national characteristic. The history of an- notion of a specific people discursively. It generates thropology in the country goes back to the 1930s a knowledge/power in relation to authorizing views and to the rise of a modern nation-state. This essay, of them, to describing them, to representing them based on my own observation of the discipline and to ruling over them (cf. Said 1979: 2-3). The through a limited literature review and through a Mardomshenasi has, deliberately or unwittingly, series of personal communications with anthropol- been involved in the power relations in Iran and ogists in Iran, is a reflection on the role and posi- played a role in the construction of a national imag- tion of the discipline in the Iranian society. This ination. As I mentioned above, the rise of anthro- essay is not a historical review of anthropology in pology in Iran is linked to the establishment of a Iran. Neither is it a systematic study of the works of modern nation-state in the country in the 1920s. Iranian anthropologists (for a comprehensive study Pahlavi (reigned 1925-1941), a national- of Iranian anthropology see Shahshahani 1986; Fa- ist army officer, and later his son, Muhammad Reza zeli 2006; Nadjmabadi 2010). The aim is to explore Shah (reigned 1941-1979) launched the transfor- the context in which anthropology has been devel- mation of Iran into a westernized and modern na- oped and practiced in the country. I will examine tion-state. the approach of a -centric anthropology to- The Pahlavis attempted to construct an Iranian wards the Iranian other. I will also look at the role secular national identity based on the pre-Islamic of anthropology in the emergence of the modern cultural heritage. Mardomshenasi was regarded to Iranian nation-state and how the construction of a have potentialities for popularizing this construct- domestic ‘primitive’ people contributed to the ed identity based on a fictive linkage between the building of a Tehran-centric national culture. How- present Iran and the pre-Islamic Persian civiliza- ever, Iranian anthropologists do not make a ho- tion. This romantic nationalism showed an interest mogenous group. In this essay, the focus is on one in folklore, customs and cultural heritage. The role direction namely, mardomshenasi (see below). of mardomshenasi in the (re)construction of ‘the There are various translations of the term anthro- people’ fitted in the Pahlavis’ nationalist social en- pology in Persian such as qoumshenasi and ensan- gineering. Like in the other nation-state buildings,

25 Archivio Antropologico Mediterraneo on line, anno XVII (2014), n. 16 (2) the Iranian state embarked on the project of con- tributed to the emergence of nation-states. This is structing its own ‘modern people’ (mardom). The true for many different parts of the world. Anthro- new people would have different characteristics pological works (mapping out, categorizing, objec- from the ‘traditional’ people prior to the emergence tifying cultures in books and museums) have played of the nation-state. Reza Shah’s interest in mardom- a significant role in the formation of nation-states shenasi came from a new ruler’s need of ‘inventing and nationalism. This procedure is particularly evi- the people’ rather than ‘knowing the people’. The dent in anthropological museums where cultures nation-building project was started with the renam- are selectively chosen and objectified, fixed in time ing of the country from Persia to Iran: and space (Handler 1988). The discipline has been used as a ‘scientific’ means to legitimize the official Persia evoked negative associations in interna- representation of Iran and Iranians. Anthropolo- tional circles. Whenever the word Pars is uttered or gists use more or less the same metaphors and jar- written, foreigners immediately remember the weak- gon of the state bureaucracy. Like the bureaucratic ness, ignorance, misfortune, the dwindling inde- apparatus of culture-making, the mardomshenasi pendence [...]. On the other hand, the new title elic- scholars use a common conceptualization of cul- ited images of a new, progressive nation that could ture (farhang) as static and essentialized. The offi- hold its head up high in the company of other ‘civi- cial cultural policy has used this notion of culture in lized’ world powers. Iran embodied the flourishing order to glorify an Iranian national identity, which present while Persia recalled the country’s past cir- many anthropologists have then reproduced un- cumstances (Kashani-Sabet 2000: 218). critically. The state’s economic and political interest in Paradoxically the pre-Islamic Persian cultural keeping people fixed in their place, fitted with mar- heritage became a source for the creation of a na- domshenasi’s mission to fix people and cultures in tional identity for the new ‘civilized’ nation of Iran. time and space through the act of ‘writing culture’. A selective interest in folklore, customs and cultur- Mardomshenasi has contributed to the nation-build- al heritage was included in the plan of the Pahlavis’ ing through the objectification of cultures in muse- cultural politics. By order of Reza Shah Pahlavi ums and publications, incarceration of ethnic Muse-ye mardomshenasi (The Museum of Ethnolo- groups in time and space, and the construction of gy) was established in the 1930s1. The museum was an exotic domestic other. Primarily dominated by a directed by bureaucrats and was turned into a Tehran-centric perspective, mardomshenasi repre- center for the production of a nationalist ideology. sents the official account of Iranian identity. While In the course of the construction of the ‘people’, Tehran is the center, culture of minorities and of Rezazadeh Shafaq, one of the founders of the mu- people in the periphery are represented as «exotic seum, emphasized the importance of mardomshe- primitive art» or as objects of «academic and tour- nasi researches in order to «discover the physical ist interest» (cf. Tapper 1983: 29). Tehran-centric and psychological characters of our nation». He anthropology has been part of the advertisement believed that the development of the country re- apparatus representing the ‘exotic’ nature and cul- quired knowledge of «the racial [sic] characteris- tural diversity of Iran to the world, exhibiting their tics, customs, and morals of Iranians» (quoted in lifestyles and customs on television and in newspa- Naraghi 1379/2000: 360). pers, magazines, tourist organizations, handicraft shops, and international festivals of arts and folk The state-directed knowledge production by traditions (Beck 1982: 432). the museum was criticized by Sadeq Hedayat, a A central anthropological project has pre-emi- modernist writer and cultural critic, who called the nently been the production of ethnographic maps museum «a secret intelligence office» (quoted in (atlas-e mardomshenasi). The ethnographic map is a Shahshahani 1986: 69). Since its birth mardomshe- tool for producing a spatial distribution of people nasi has been and still is a partly state-dictated re- and cultures. Maps have not only been crucial in search discipline. It has often wittingly or unwit- the formation of «imagined communities» (Ander- tingly been involved in state-designed projects. A son 1983) but also significant for social engineer- huge part of mardomshenasi researches in Iran are ing. Ethnographic maps represent geographical directed and conducted by Sazman-e miras-e far- places as culturally distinct. The ethnographic map hangi, a governmental office, whose mission is sav- is based on an unproblematic link between identity, ing the ‘cultural heritage’. Thus, preserving, repro- culture and place. It is a mechanism for naturaliz- ducing, and even inventing miras (heritage) has ing culture and identity. According to the ethno- become the main aim for mardomshenasi. graphic maps cultural borders match geographical It is not only in Iran that anthropology has con- ones. The result is a mosaic of ethnicities and cul-

26 Shahram Khosravi Writing Iranian Culture tures that together build the nation. The project is family, pattern of population movement etc.» (San- not an innocuous and neutral documentation and adjian 1996: 16). description of the facts. Anthropologists fabricate what they write (Clifford and Marcus 1986). The objectification of culture turns people’s everyday The domestic primitive Ragionare life into exotic decorations in the museums of Teh- ran and other large cities. These objectified cul- Anthropology in general has produced its tures, which are represented as parts of an authen- knowledge through interaction with the exotic oth- tic national culture, appear also in textbooks and in er (the ‘primitive’). In a similar way Iranian mar- the education system2. domshenas have found their own exotic ‘primitive’ An explicit patriotism is a prominent character- outside large cities and mainly among nomadic istic of the discipline. The main goal of this aca- tribes. These ‘primitive’ people were exotic as demic discipline has been seen as representing Iran much for Western anthropologists as for their Ira- in terms of cultural grandeur, a glorious civilization. nian urban-dweller, mostly foreign-educated, coun- It happens often that the mardomshenasi confer- terparts (cf. Sanadjian 1996). Mardomshenasi was ences easily turn into a ritual for praising the - for long time limited to the studies of tribes and an nation. Patriotism was explicitly expressed at nomadic people. It was taken as synonymous to no- the Anthropological Conference of Frankfurt in madic studies. The anthropologist Brian Street, 2004 when the conference was opened by reciting a during his fieldwork in Iran, was frequently asked classical Persian poetry to show «our emotional by many Iranian colleagues, which tribe he was commitment to Iran»3. The poem was also printed studying and not whether he was studying tribes on the program, on the folder, and on the cup each (Street 1990: 247). This disproportionate stress on participant was given as a gift. One speaker thanked nomadism compared to other groups – peasants the anthropologists for their valuable contribution and urban population – has not been specific only to «Iranology and promoting world understanding for Iran but for the whole Middle East (Eickelman about Iran and the social and cultural life and iden- 1989: 75). tity of the people who live in Iran»4. Another speak- The interest in tribes and increased er emphasized the role of mardomshenasi in the re- drastically after the Revolution. Ayatollah Khomeini construction of what he called jahan-e irani (The called them as «the treasures of the revolution» Iranian World)5. According to this approach Irani- (zakhayr-e enghlab) and the state launched special an culture covers a large part of today’s Iran, Af- programs to reconstruct nomadism; pastoralist ghanistan, and some central Asian countries. Not mode of production, tradition, and cultures of no- surprisingly, Parviz Varjavand, one of the first Ira- madic life (see Tapper 1994). In the same manner nian mardomshenas has been the founder of the the state encouraged more studies of nomads and Pan-Iranist Party. accordingly literature on nomadic tribes has flour- For patriot anthropologists miras (heritage) is ished since the 1990s (Fazeli 2006:187). Many crucial. In the search for an authentic Iranian cul- scholars in Iran believe that the focus on tribal and ture, mardomshenasi has generally been orientated nomadic people was perhaps a way to sustain and towards the past (museum activities, historical eth- protect the identity of anthropology against the nographies) and been affiliated with archaeology. A predominant and ‘hostile’ sociology. The quantita- large number of Iranian anthropologists at the Fac- tive oriented sociology in Iran has overshadowed ulty of Social Science, Tehran University and the mardomshenasi. It seems that there is a tacit divi- Institute of Social Studies and Research were sion of research fields between sociology and an- trained by André Leroi-Gourhan – known as thropology (see Tabibi 1992: X). According to Ta- L’homme de marteau (the man of hammer) for his bibi, a leading sociologist at Tehran University, analysis of mythogrammes and studies on archaeo- while sociology deals with social structure, the eco- logical anthropology (Rouholamini 1370/1991: nomic and political dimensions of society, mardom- 237). This explains also the high degree of interest shenasi deals with cultural variation. Mardomshena- of Iranian anthropologists in material culture. Two si, he continues, has a tendency to study small predominant features have characterized mardom- societies such as tribes (ibid: 21-22). shenasi, namely an older folklorist tradition and a Anthropology in general has approached cul- positivist scientific practice. Mardomshenasi litera- ture as a question of one or another kind of past, in ture is often «marked by juxtaposition of a narra- terms of customs, heritage, and traditions (Appa- tive style deriving from folklorist tradition with a durai 2004: 60). Consequently, cultural actors are tendency towards the measurement of the most ob- viewed as people of and from the past. The exotic servable aspects of the people life – the size of herd/ others are sometimes represented by the anthropol-

27 Archivio Antropologico Mediterraneo on line, anno XVII (2014), n. 16 (2)

ogist as if they, paraphrasing Johannes Fabian He is neither Bakhtiari nor urbanite. He is a mov- (1983), live in another kind of time. The pioneers of ing creature [mojoud] lacking cultural qualities. He anthropology, particularly the British tradition, suffers from mental confusion and his condition is used hunter-gathering societies as laboratories for far from that of a normal human being (p. 190 quot- studying the ‘natural state’ of humankind. In a sim- ed in Naraghi 1379/2000: 404). ilar neo-evolutionist approach, the Iranian anthro- pologist Sekandar Amanollahi believes that the As Liisa Malkki (1992) asserts, spatial incarcera- knowledge of present nomadism gives us insights tion of the native is perceived not only as normal into the life of our ancestors: but also as a moral and spiritual need. The Bakh- tiari man in the above mentioned monograph is re- They [nomads] have maintained old culture and garded as deviant. Outside his ‘place’ he is seen as tradition as well as ancient customs. Contemporary an identity-less and culture-less person. His right to nomadic lifestyle is not very different from that of his identity and culture is recognized as far as he our ancestors several thousand years ago. Thus, by stays within the borders of the Bakhtiari. Mardom- understanding nomadic culture and life, we can un- shenasi creates a hierarchical construction of the derstand the life of our ancestors [...]. Studying their native who is linked to a bounded geographical life is a way to perceive the culture-social evolution of space and is associated with an ideology of authen- human beings (Amanollahi 1368/1989: IX, my trans- ticity (cf. Appadurai 1988). The object of anthro- lation). pological investigation is thus imagined at distance, far away from the ‘civilized’ modern center, Tehran. This argument is based on a preconception that During my fieldwork in a shopping center in a mid- tribes and nomadic people have never been in con- dle-class neighborhood in Tehran (see Khosravi tact with others and that their lifestyle and culture 2008), I faced often skepticism about the choice of have been static since ancient times. A neo-evolu- my field. Once I was told by the director of the tionary approach within anthropology views tribal shopping center that «a mardomshenas should be societies as the first rung on a ladder of societal among the people. What do you want to do in a scale and complexity. Accordingly contemporary shopping center? You should do research in villag- small-scale societies (tribes, nomadic people, hunt- es and tribes where real people are». The director er-gathers) are viewed as sources of evidence about verbalized the common idea that the real mardom ancient stages in societal evolution (Keesing 1981: and the subject for an anthropological study are 112-113). outside the arenas of modern time and space. This strategic temporalization of difference is Imagining these people being ‘out of sync with very common in monographs on Iranian tribes. time’ and not being in-time with modern Tehranis, Since the exotic other (as in example above) is sent is palpable in textual and visual representation of into the past, the anthropologist’s experience of the the domestic other. For instance, a recurrent theme other is not an experience of an encounter between is characterizing these people in terms of ‘forgotten co-selves. Rather it is an encounter between the tribes’ (Shahbazi 1366/1987) and ‘isolated villag- knowing self (the well-educated, middle class, ur- es’8. Anthropologists have long been fascinated by ban scholar) and his or her object of study (the distant and ‘forgotten’ groups of people. In fact, it ‘primitive’ from a different time). Accord- has been mostly anthropologists themselves that ingly, the ‘isolated’ people from another time are made them as isolated, static, and as if they were a regarded as a people ‘without history’. Mardomshe- part of nature. Consequently the mission of the an- nasi pays tribute to itself for «its contribution to the thropologist is to ‘discovering’ [peyda kardan] these recognition of the cultural identity of a range of people9. Sima Sedigh, the US-based scholar and the ethnic groups of Iranian nomadic and rural com- director of Bakhtiari Alphabet (2009) – an ethno- munities and has made a written social history for graphic film about nomadic Bakhtiaris – stated in a these oral traditional societies with non-recorded speech after screening her film in Stockholm 2010 history»6. that «it took one year to find Bakhtiaris». Through The exotic other is not only fixed in a past time, romanticizing nomadic Bakhtiairs’ “natural” and but also in a specific geography, which fits to the “beautiful” lifestyle, she emphasized repeatedly on ethnographic map. In one of the most famous mon- the distance and differences between “us” and ographs prior to the Revolution (Bamedi, tayeefi az “them”: il-e Bakhtiari, 1346/1967)7 and written by a group It was like when I lived among natives [bomiyan] of ethnographers, an explicit regret over the migra- in Africa […] since native people are close to the na- tion of the Bakhtiari people to the cities is ex- ture they have a different view which is different pressed: from our mechanized approach10.

28 Shahram Khosravi Writing Iranian Culture

A comparable example to documentation of the pology [would] restricts the Third World indige- Bakhtiairs by anthropologists in Iran is the exhibi- nous anthropologist’s way of analyzing [...] his/her tion The Colours of Bakhtiari by the Swedish carpet ‘implicit knowledge’ and immediate perception/ collector JP Willenborg in Stockholm in the Fall experience of his/her people [...] and rather, pro- 2002. The exhibition was a unique collection of duce a standard anthropological image of them in Ragionare older Bakhtiari carpets. Beautiful colorful carpets terms of Western specific concepts, categories and in different sizes were hanging on walls. However, formulas» (Kanaaneh 1997:18, emphasis in origin). the exhibition, with its ‘authentic’ black nomad Sharing Kanaaneh’s concern, I believe that the Teh- tent made of goat hair, other items from the Bakh- ran – centric mardomshenasi, has produced a local tiair region, photographs, a film playing on a TV version of Western orientalistic construction of the set, was rather an ethnographic display of the Bakh- ‘primitive’ other. tiari tribe than just a carpet show. What caught my interest was a poster, a movie, and a door. The post- er at the entrance introduced the exhibition as Mardomshenasi and moral purity «unique treasures from Iran’s forgotten moun- tains». Since the notion of mardom (people) in the Ira- The poster read that the exhibition showed how nian context is inherently associated with purity, Bakhtiaris «lived in harmony with nature». Ironi- divinity and goodness, mardomshenasi in general cally, the first oil well in the whole Middle East was carries an ethical aspect. It is expected to represent drilled in Masjid Soleyman in the western part of only a proper, correct and good society. The term the Bakhtiari region ca 100 years ago. There are mardom has a sympathetic ring. Its different deriv- four gigantic pipelines which carrying gas from the atives also refer to virtuousness. Mardomi means Persian Gulf to the north Iran through the Bakh- admired and popular. Mardomdar means generous tiari land. While damages on the enviornemnt due and tolerant whereas the negation of the word to the oil and gas industries have been increasing na-mardomi means bad behavior and deception. since the mid 1900 century, representing Bakhtiaris Thus mardomshenasi is expected automatically to as living in ‘harmony with nature’ seems ideologi- be a kind of knowledge of morality and ethics. Re- cally dangerous. It attempts at hiding disasters zazadeh Shafaq, one of the founders of mardomshe- threatening Bakhtiaris for the generation to come. nasi defined the discipline this way: «It implies a Among all the colorful carpets and kilims, a color- moral sense, which means to know people and their less wooden door in the corner of the exhibition values morally» (1335/1956, quoted in Fazeli 2006). caught my eyes. It was transported from a village in Mardonshenasi, therefore, is supposed to repre- the Bakhtiari to Stockholm. It was old but cleaned sent a ‘proper’ people and culture and has thereby and polished. On the front of the left half, I saw systematically neglected ‘improper’ and ‘immoral’ some blurred words. With a little effort, I could parts of the Iranian society. Loaded with morality read Marg bar Shah (Death to the Shah) just below and ethics, mardomshenasi has generally been nor- the handle. At the top of the door stood a few num- mative. It argues about how Iranian society and bers and a date and sarshomari shod (are regis- culture should be rather than about how they are. tered). It was written by the officials from the na- Mardomshenasi usually has a normative and moral- tional statistics agency who after counting the izing language. In the summer of 2000, I wrote an household, took note of this notice on the door. article on “women and anthropology” for a journal The paradoxes could not be more obvious. How in Iran. After a few weeks the chief editor put the could the people who lived in this house and the article in front of me and said that she could not village been referred as ‘forgotten’? The door certi- publish it. In answer to my ‘Why?’ she explained fied that the people of the village were included in that I had mentioned the words ‘menstruation’ and the national statistics and their village was involved ‘semen’ excessively in the text. In her view these in the revolution against the Shah 1979. Ethnogra- words were not ‘appropriate’ for an anthropologi- phies likewise have reproduced the ‘imagined cal journal. The ethical feature of mardomshenasi primitive’. For instance that there is a «different became more obvious after the Revolution. The Is- kind of sexuality among the » (Lum ‘eh lamic Republic demanded new kind of social 1349/1970 quotes in Sanadjian 1996), or that the sciences, appropriate to the religious values and Bakhtiaris «are not used to washing themselves» norms. Influenced by Jalal Al-e Ahmad and Ali (Karimi 1368/1989: 80). Shariati, two ideologues of political Islam in Iran, it Kanaaneh in an article on the ‘anthropologicali- was believed that Western anthropology saw hu- ty’ of indigenous anthropology is concerned that man beings only in form of material beings the «fundamentally Western “essence” of anthro- (Shahshahani 1986: 80) and was not concerned

29 Archivio Antropologico Mediterraneo on line, anno XVII (2014), n. 16 (2) with the spiritual aspect of humanity. Al-e Ahmad’s political culture of the Islamic Republic (2009: 84). nativist ideology is illustrated in several mono- Like prior to the Revolution, anthropology has graphs he published on villages and marginalized been used as an instrument for protection of cultur- communities in the south Iran. al purity against the imagined threats from the out- Hence, after the Revolution, search for a local side world. anthropological point of view was part of the Islam- ization of social sciences. The authorities believed that Western anthropology, restricted by its con- Final remarks cepts and theoretical framework, would not under- stand Iranian and Islamic culture and accordingly Either as a state-dictated nationalist project or an Islamic mardomshenasi was needed. as a means for discursively designing a nativist Shi- Mardomshenasi came to be used as a theological ite culture, mardomshenasi has been a Tehran-cen- view on man. Fazeli states that the basic anthropo- tric discipline whose main purpose has been and is logical questions – such as «what is humankind; to create a common national sense of Iranian-ness. what are its origins and its processes of cultural de- Mardomshenasi has been seen merely as a version of velopment; what is it that makes humankind differ- the folk model and has generally been practiced in ent from animals?» – in Iran are generally regarded a way to reproduce it. Based on an internalized ori- as religious and theological questions (Fazeli 2006: entalism, this research apparatus has produced a 209). As an attendant at the museum of mardom- local version of Western anthropological concepts, shenasi told me in 1995 «understanding mardom is categories and formulas. I do not claim that no- a pre-requisite for understanding God». Gradually, madic studies, folklore, or studies of material cul- linking mardomshenasi to theology became usual ture are insignificant in understanding Iranian soci- even among scholars. At a seminar on the Future of ety. Neither do I deny the importance and high anthropology at Tehran University held on first days quality of the works done by many Iranian anthro- of June 2005, Ebrahim Fayaz (a faculty member at pologists. In the absence of qualitative sociology in Tehran University) explicitly emphasized the link Iran, anthropology can contribute to understand- between anthropology and theology: «anthropolo- ing contemporary Iranian society. gy began when Jesus received God’s spirit». In sim- Anthropology, however, should be more a sort ilar manner, Rouholamini, one of the leading Irani- of cultural critique; a defamiliarizing view; a way of an anthropologists and the head of the department critically redefining taken-for-granted assumptions at Tehran University until the mid 1990s, likened and categories. There is a need of reflexivity and his work to the Sufi thinker, Rumi’s mystical search discussions on the issue of language and genre of for the ‘real’ human being (Rouholamini writing. Iranian anthropologists should reflect for 1357/1978). Based on a nativist ideology (a yearn- whom they write; for colleagues, for the people ing for a cultural purity which had been demolished who they study, or for bureaucrats? It is important by Westernization), the Islamic Republic created its to find a language distinct from the current bureau- own ‘people’ who would differ from the pre-revo- cratic one which is normative, moralizing, and Teh- lutionary Western-oriented ‘people’. The revolu- ran-centric. The new but still small direction among tionary (enghelabi) people have systematically been some Iranian anthropologists who use the term en- described with specific attributes such as ready to sanshenasi to dissociate themselves from mardom- sacrifice (isargar), warrior (mobarez), virtue (najib), shenasi need more attention to ethnographic enter- always prepared to act (hamish-e dar sahne), and prise and fieldwork methodology. There is a high honorable (ba gheyrat), just to name a few. Against risk this new direction becomes more cultural stud- pre-revolutionary Persian nationalism, the new au- ies than anthropology. thorities sought to promote an Iranian Shiite cul- Anthropology has developed by paying atten- ture. The reconstruction of an authentic culture tion to its mistakes. If anthropology contributed to became a political mission in combating Westerni- the making of cultures, there is today an anthropol- zation and what is called tahajom-e farhangi (cultur- ogy that writes against it (Abu-Lughod 1991). If al invasion). The Centre for Iranian Anthropology anthropology reduced people to simple cultural was established in the 1990s to carry out «cultural units before, today it shows the cultural complexi- heritage» studies with the purpose of reinforcing ties and fragmentations within each society. Mar- Shiite Iranian culture and identity (Fazeli 2006: domshenasi should learn from its mistakes to be 165). Mardomshenasi launched researches on reli- able to face the changing world, globalized lifestyle, gious institutions and rituals, e.g. Muharram rituals. transnational connections, and the complexity of As Fazeli put it, anthropology has generally been in the small-scale societies. the line with the ideology of the Revolution and the

30 Shahram Khosravi Writing Iranian Culture

Notes Anderson Benedict 1983 Imagined Communities, London, Verso.

1 Majal-ye mardomshenasi n.1, 1335/1956: 3 Appadurai Arjun 1988 «Putting Hierarchy in its Place», in Cultural An- Ragionare 2 Naser Fakohi at the conference Anthropological Per- thropology, 3, 1: 37-50. spectives on Iran: Millennium and Beyond, Frankfurt, 30 2004 «The Capacity to Aspire: Culture and the Terms September - 2 October 2004. of Recognition», in V. Rao and M. Walton (eds), Culture and Public Action, Palo Alto, Stanford 3 The poetry was by Jalal al-din Rumi, Benamay rokh University Press. ke bag o golestanam arezost (Show me your face as I am longing for a rose garden). Bogoshay lab ke wand-e farava- nam arezost (talk to me as I wish to listen to beautiful Asad Talal things). 1973 Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter, Lon- don, Ithaca Press. 4 Ali Bulookbashi, «Foreign Anthropologists’ Contri- bution to Iranology», presented at the conference Anthro- Beck Lois pological Perspectives on Iran: Millennium and Beyond, 1982 «Nomads and Urbanites: Involuntary Host and Frankfurt, 30 September - 2 October 2004. Uninvited Guests», in Middle Eastern Studies, 18 (4): 426-44. 5 Mohammad Mirshokraei, «From Anthropology In- stitute (1935) to Anthropology Research Center (2004)», Clifford James, Marcus George presented at the conference Anthropological Perspectives on Iran: Millennium and Beyond, Frankfurt, 30 Septem- 1986 Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Eth- ber - 2 October 2004. nography, LA, University of California Press.

6 Ali Bulookbashi, «Foreign Anthropologists’ Contri- Eickelman Dale F. bution to Iranology», presented at the conference Anthro- 1989 The Middle East: An Anthropological Approach, pological Perspectives on Iran: Millennium and Beyond, Prentice-Hall. Frankfurt, 30 September - 2 October 2004. Fabian Johannes 7 Khorshid, Rakhsh et al., 1967, Bamedi, tayeefi az il-e 1983 Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes Its Bakhtiari , p. 190. 10 Khabargozari-ye miras-e farhangi, Object, New York, Columbia University Press. 12 khordad 1384: http://heritage.chn.ir/newsprint/?id= 21600, accessed 2005.06.07 Fahim Hussein 8 Conversation with Jalal Rafifar, Tehran 1999. 1982 Indigenous Anthropology in Non-Western Coun- tries, Durham, NC, Carolina Academic Press. 9 Anthropological Perspectives on Iran: Millennium and Beyond, Frankfurt, 30 September- 2 October 2004. Fazeli Nematollah 2006 Politics of Culture in Iran: Anthropology, Politics 10 http://www.persiran.se/index.php/farsisocial/ and Society in the Twentieth Century, London, more/127, accessed 12/10/2014 Routledge. 2009 «Anthropology in Postrevolutionary Iran», in Nadjmabadi S. (ed.), Conceptualizing Iranian Anthropology: Past and Present Perspectives, Lon- References don, Berghahn Books. Hadler Richard Abu-Lughod Lila 1988 Nationalism and the Politics of Culture in Québec, 1991 «Writing against Culture», in Richard Fox (ed.), Madison WI. Recapturing Anthropology, Santa Fe NM, School of American Research Press. Kanaaneh Moslih 1997 «The “Anthropologicality” of Indigenous An- Amanollahi Sekandar thropology», in Dialectical Anthropology, 22 (1): 1368/1989 Kuch neshini dar Iran (Pastoral nomadism in 1-21. Iran), Âgâh Pub, Tehran.

31 Archivio Antropologico Mediterraneo on line, anno XVII (2014), n. 16 (2)

Karimi Asghar Said Edward 1368/1989 Safar be Diar-e Bakhtiari, Tehran, Far- 1979 Orientalism, London, Routledge. hangsara. Sanadjian Manuchehr Kashani-Sabet Firoozeh 1996 «An Anthology of the people, Place, Space and 2000 Frontier Fictions: shaping Iranian Nation 1804- Home: (Re)constructing the Lur in Sought-West- 1946, Princeton, Princeton University Press. ern Iran», in Social Identities, 2 (1): 5- 36.

Keesing Roger M. Shabazi Abdullah 1981 Cultural Anthropology: a contemporary perspec- 1366/1987 Il-e Nashenakhte (the unknown tribe), Teh- tive, London, Holt, Rinehart and Winston. ran, Nashre Ney.

Khosravi Shahram Shahshahani Soheila 2008 Young and Defiant in Tehran, University of Penn- 1986 «History of Anthropology in Iran», Iranian Stud- sylvania Press, Philadelphia. ies, vol. XIX (1): 65-86.

Malkki Liisa Street Brian 1992 «National Geographic: The rooting of peoples 1990 «Orientalist Discourses in the Anthropology and the territorialization of national identity of Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan», in Richard among scholars and refugees», in Cultural An- Fardon (ed.), Localizing Strategies: Regional Tra- thropology, vol. 7 (1): 24-44. ditions of Ethnographic Writing, Washington, Smithsonian Institution Press. Nadjmabadi Shahnaz 2009 Conceptualizing Iranian Anthropology: Past and Tabibi Heshmatollah Present Perspectives, London, Berghahn Books. 1371/1992 Introduction to Sociology and Ethnology of Iranian Tribes, Tehran, Tehran University Press. Naraghi Ehsan 1379/2000 Nazari be tahghighat-e ejtemai dar Iran, Teh- Tapper Richard ran, Shokhan. 1983 «Introduction», in Richard Tapper (ed.), The Conflict of Tribe and State in Iran and Afghani- Rouholamini Mahmud stan, London, Croom Helm. 1357/1978 Mabani-ye ensanshenasi: gerd-e shar ba cher- 1994 «Change, Cognition and Control: The Recon- aq, Tehran, Payam. struction of Nomadism in Iran», in C. M. Hann 1370/1991 «Shenidane seday-e chakosh», Nameye (ed.), When History Accelerates, London, The Olum-e Ejtemai, vol. 2 (2): 235-241. Athlone Press.

32