Foucault &

21.6.2007

FOUCAULT and IRANIAN REVOLUTION

by Janet Afary & Kevin Anderson

Foucault is the messiah of post modernism in the sixties and seventies in European intellectual circles. Though there were predecessors he was the outspoken one. Postmodernism propagated an idea that the science and technology were the products of western cultural constructs and should not be accepted as universal truth. This has devotees in all countries specifically the developing countries like India. Ashish Nandi, Vandana Shiva and others are vociferous in their advocacy of post modernist concepts. The European enlightenment is seen as having deleterious effects in society. The rapacity of capitalist development aided by a state power was the target of their criticism and attacks.

Foucault was considered to be a leftist for his criticism of the existing European social system, in political terms. The present treatise points to all his faults and omissions. It turns out that he was a real ally of religious right, which in fact turned out to be revengeful, racist and authoritarian. Foucault’s self contradictory statements are cited and discussed here in detail. While he opposed liberal left for their tolerance of capitalist authority, he approved the oriental religious discourse as freedom. Religion was accepted as protecting, expanding the traditions and culture that impart an identity for nations struggling for their independence.

Foucault recalls and interprets Muharrum in Islam as willingness to sacrifice life for Islam as it happened to the grand son of Prophet Mohammad, Hussein in the deserts of Karbala. The martyrdom is celebrated with violent self flagellation and feast. The authors on the other hand recall the violent killing of the Prophet’s heirs by opponent Sunnis. There were mutual killings for power. All these could be interpreted as signifying struggle for power by one or other groups of Muslims from the inception of the idea of Islam and its practices.

Foucault’s writings justifiably invited criticism by well known intellectuals of the time. One of it was by an Iranian feminist and another by the French historian of Islam and the biographer of the Prophet, Both found the Muslim fundamentalists taking leadership of the Iranian uprising against the Shah.

Foucault maintained that in Iran it was a new type of revolution where there was no other, meaning that class or other differences were completely discarded. The revolutions in history were one part against other i.e. classes or groups. In Iran Foucault found no division among the population and all were one with the idea of Islamic rule. Foucault did not go thru the intentions and motives of the mullahs heading the revolutionary masses. He mentioned the unsavoury aftermath of Marxian revolution in Russia and China, how they degenerated into dictatorships of the party in power and in fact individuals heading the party.

The Iranian revolution turned out to be another fanatical religious state with all its coercive powers concentrated into the hands of one mullah Ayatollah Khomeini. The medieval concept of an Islamic state was brought into practice. The most affected were the women, minorities. The authors of this book have given a detailed account of the fate of women, non-Muslim minorities, dissident intellectuals, etc. At these times Foucault remained silent. Thus the real meaning of postmodernist cultural construct came out as the acceptance of any kind of autarchy, including religious rule. In this regard the authors did not flinch from criticising left leaning intellectuals such as well known Chomsky.

I remember my political days when all of us were in favour of Iranian revolution just for the fact that it was uncompromising towards all imperialist attempts to chock the movement. But later, I realised that many of the political parties and movements were resorting to reprehensible acts towards others in the name of anti-imperialism. Even now people like Praful Bidwai and other Indian left are uncritically ally with the fanatical mullah rule in Iran in the guess of combating American intervention into sovereignty of Iran. It is bizarre situation.

This book is well researched and includes writings and interviews given by Foucault, the texts of criticism from others as appendix. More than 20 pages of notes and a further list of references. This book is a warning to all leftists, intellectuals or other. No one should support or encourage movements without fully understanding their purpose and solely in the name of anti-imperialism. In our country the leftist CPI (M) while vehemently opposing the communal and religious fanatics on the Hindu side, overlook similar or more fanatical groups in other faiths. Their hobnobbing with the Muslim protesters of last year’s cartoon episode is well documented. When are they going to re-think their dogmas and correct?