The Conscience of One Hundred Women

Noushin Ahmadi Khorasani

Originally published in Bonyan Newspaper (reformist daily), Iran

April 29, 2002

Transl. by Kamran Rastegar

On Wednesday, the 24th of April, in a demonstration outside the Palestinian Embassy in Tehran, in solidarity with Palestinian women, we chanted "Our conscience is alive, and against war and murder!" and "Women's conscience is awake, and hating blood and war!"... but sadly this conscience was comprised of only 100 women.

Indeed, what is it that has affected our consciences so much, that so many here in Iran have had an apathetic reaction to the outrageous and brutal killings in Palestine? Really, what has happened that our consciences have lost the measures by which to independently assess this and other situations? I say this because when we - the Iranian Women's Cultural Center - put out a call for this demonstration, quite often the response we heard was, "Defending Palestine is the regime's business!" And when we went to people, inviting them to join us to gather in defense of Palestinian women, we often were met with a thousand insults that led to "Since when have YOU become so right-wing?"

It is unbelievable - that a call to show support for a population which is being oppressed and murdered is negatively responded to with the slogan, "Independence at all costs from the government line!"

For hundreds of years the "great" Iranian nation has organized its political sensibilities on the basis of the politics of its ruling governments. If a government chose to outlaw the wearing of hijab, we chose to defend it. If they made hijab mandatory, we would become so against it that our entire struggle could be reduced to attempts at uncovering a single strand of hair. If the government was anti-Islamic, we would seek shelter in Islam. If the regime was Islamic, we would buy satellite dishes. If the government legislated legal rights for women, we would call the law a conspiracy and damn it and shun it. If it chose not to give women even the smallest of rights, we would all rise to defend women's rights - if only to oppose the government.

Similarly, if the government tended to support Israel, we felt the pain of the Palestinians, and if it supported Palestinians, we instead said, "Who cares?" If the government arrests someone, of course we mythologize him and say "he was outspoken." And if they don't arrest someone we say "there must have a problem," or "she's too conservative." If a newspaper is not closed right away we say "Oh man, this newspaper is totally useless!" If they arrest someone for an article they wrote, we sit and examine every letter carefully, and conclude "well, it's true, this word can have such-and-such a hidden meaning!" And if someone is not arrested, their writing is not worthy of being read. If the government is beholden to the U.S., all of our "radicals" take on the slogan of "Death to American Imperialism!" And if the government says "Death to America," we suddenly fall in love with the U.S. and chant "America, forget about Palestine, come and free us instead!"

There are a thousand other examples of this, both small and large. Sometimes, out of futility, we may say "it's not important - that's just the attitude of our people."  Other times, it may be justified by arguing that "after hundreds of years of living under totalitarianism, this kind of attitude is inevitable..." Or we argue that a lack of information has made us ignorant or closed minded. But when hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children are suffering from bombing attacks, lack of water, electricity, healthcare, and lack of even the most basic living necessities, how can we justify this kind of attitude? Perhaps the deaths of thousands of Palestinian women and children will eventually bring us to assess just how "independent" our political positions really are.  And in the end, does our tendency to assume the exact opposite position to that of our government derive from our independence, or in actuality from our total passivity and lack of independence?

They say that during development girls pattern their behavior on their mothers, and boys on their fathers. Of course, in psychological terms, this patterning can take on a positive or negative leaning. That is, sometime children copy their parents' behavior absolutely (positive patterning) or they act in total opposition to what their parents choose to do (negative patterning). What is important is that in both of these situations, children accept their parents as standards by which to pattern their behavior. They are the ones who set the conditions for what children may or may not be. And so, until maturity, the standards and foundations for children’s behavior are determined by their parents. It would seem that in Iran, our social positions are still in the patterning stage; that is, in relation to the government's position, the patterning is almost always of the negative variety.

After the 1998 elections, the prevailing analysis was that the people voted for side A so as to say no to side B. My intention here is not political analysis, but I want to bring to fore the issue of how our political positions are formed. This issue is so far-reaching that even our personal consciences have been set on standards that come from the government. Indeed, it can be argued that we have neither independent political positions, nor independent personal consciences, nor independent ethical standards outside of standing in opposition to the government.

When I say "we," I mean a collective "we," the "we" that is a nation that is called "the Iranian nation." There are undoubtedly individual people, perhaps very many of them, who do not fall into this trap -- but what is clear from the actions of this collective "we," is that we all are culpable and that we are not independent of standards set by the government. Through opposing the government's positions, we decide which nations to support and what to give prominence to in our political discourse. Occasionally women also, in defending women's rights, set their standards against masculine values, arguing that equality on the basis of these values is their objective. Thus in the end, again we see that the standards for what can be done and said are actually set by men, and that this the only issue of any importance.

The various Iranian political factions - of those that are visible - also seem to operate on the basis of this mechanism, acting only in negation of whoever they deem to be their opposition, in the hopes of consolidating public opinion. And this issue does not end with the political factions. Even our leading politicians are this way... their standards are also set by forces outside of themselves. They are largely caught up with what the "enemy" has said or done. If the "enemy" praises some individual inside Iran, this becomes a sign of this person's "crime." If the "enemy" speaks in defense of a newspaper, then this newspaper is "deserving" of closure. It's as if we are bereft of any agency or pro-activeness, and can only ever react.

But let's pass over the politicians, as my discussion is of the "nation of women," and the sympathy that places me within their ranks, and gives me hope that we can find a common sensitivity and build an independent set of standards for ourselves. It seems to me that this building of independent standards is necessary for our ethics, consciences, personal and political behavior, and personal choices. Even in our following of fashions and our consumer choices and the like, our ability to be able to stake out independent political positions is important. Of course, I mean truly free standards, based not on blind opposition to everything "that side" says. But rather based on our true sensitivity, that same sensitivity that has been the basis of ridicule and scorn of women for centuries. A sensitivity that can take a strong stand in the face of the hurricane that threatens us all, the same sensitivity that we must instill in our children so that they can also choose an ethical order and personal consciousness that can be truly independent, even if they are alone in doing so.

I want to tell women: let men go ahead and think that through negative reactionism they have set themselves on a path hundreds of kilometers away from the opposing side, while we women know that in actuality, they are quite close to that side if only because they have accepted their standards and values. It is enough to use as a measure the laws enacted -- such as the allowance of polygamy -- to see how in courts everywhere, many of these same men who disavow the ideas of the opposing side make optimal use of these laws. Or observe how the "revolutionary opposition" raise their children without any political values, in keeping with the desires of "the opposing side." There are many more examples of this.

However we feminists have understood that every choice, every personal action, down to consumer choices about products we use, even something such as what hat we might buy, can be considered a political action. When we look at all of these all together, we in sum ask "to what extent do we - the nation of Iran - live with standards and values that are independent from the government?"

It is correct that we call an intellectual (roshanfekr) a person who is opposed to the existing order, or what we might call the dominant order. But in reality how much do we, especially in our personal lives, oppose this order? From another perspective, we might wish to think about the extent to which the mechanism of critiquing the dominant order has taken on a more global set of standards. Especially now that the lives of people everywhere across the world have become more entwined, and as the economic systems have become global. And with transnational trusts and military expansion, it is impossible for nations to be limited to their geographical frameworks.

So more than before, it may be necessary for us to adopt a transnational perspective ourselves. How can we see ourselves as distinct from other nations such as Afghanistan, Palestine and others, and not see the common struggles we face? How can we be political and not realize that an immense crisis is gripping our region, and either today or tomorrow it will descend upon us as well?

In any case, I am hopeful that the age-old Iranian tradition of enacting pity, and our affinity for acting out mourning-rites have not been so deeply instilled in our consciences that we only cry out about our own problems, and that this historical love of mourning-rites has not made us numb to the responsibility we have towards the problems of others. No less than the fact that on the basis of our consciences we should defend those who previously defended us, or who will someday defend us again.

Of course, what is necessary in all of this is the instilling of truly independent standards in each of us. Indeed, we may someday sit down to discuss our political fates with these independent standards as our path - thereby speaking truth to power, and seeking freedom in this truth.

Back to top