Papers by Ghoncheh Tazmini
This article seeks to develop an interpretative framework for understanding change and continuity... more This article seeks to develop an interpretative framework for understanding change and continuity in the Islamic Republic. Four guiding principles have motivated various Iranian political heads of state in the past century. The political inclination of leaders of the past has been very much determined by the prioritisation, instrumentalisation or sometimes the interplay of these principles. Current, moderate-orientated president, Hassan Rouhani’s challenge has been to strike a balance between these four competing objectives and to achieve a ‘balancing point’. The first of these pillars is ‘Republicanism and Participation’, which places an emphasis on popular sovereignty, civil society, the rule of law and pluralism; the second pillar is ‘Economic Development’, which became a priority in the post-Iran-Iraq War years; the third is ‘Economic Justice’, which centres on tackling poverty and corruption, and on re-distributing wealth; and, the fourth pillar is ‘Independence and Freedom’, which focusses on resistance against foreign encroachment, and forms of economic exploitation. The pushes and pulls of Iran’s history have brought to the surface a moderate president who understands that Iran needs a more sophisticated formula for political change in order to respond to the pressures for reform ‘from below’. With more executive steering power (and most importantly, the Supreme Leader’s tacit support), Rouhani has demonstrated his intention to pursue a path that run through the four points summarised above. In terms of national ideology and discourse, this translates into a balance between Iraniyat – the episteme that relates to Iran’s pre-Islamic heritage, Persian history, culture, and civilisation, and Islamiyat – the episteme that corresponds to Iran’s Islamic past, values, dogma, and tradition as well as classical revolutionary themes and slogans relating to Shi’a revolutionary revivalism, nationalism, and populism. Today, Iran finds itself in a unique historical moment where the theocracy is forced to test its commitment to democratic principles and to transcend the dichotomy between conforming to native traditions and dogma, and encouraging progressive reforms. Thus, social and political change in the Islamic Republic will remain an ongoing process of interaction between universal value patterns and specific cultural codes. With all of his political acumen and his ability to achieve the balancing point, Rouhani still faces the bulwark of conservative resistance, from not only domestic hard-liners, but foreign hawks and warmongers.
Third World Quarterly, 2018
Having passed through a labyrinth of social contradictions, both
Russia and Iran have reached a p... more Having passed through a labyrinth of social contradictions, both
Russia and Iran have reached a point on their historical timelines
where they have transcended the logic of development of the
eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Today, Russian and
Iranian modernisation reflects the interaction of universal norms
and practices and specific cultural traditions. As an epistemological
category, modernity can no longer be enchained in the grip of a
totalising narrative. Modernity has given rise to civilisational patterns
that share some core characteristics, but which unfold differently. The
Russian and Iranian historical experiences reveal the need to take
a much broader view of the modernisation process by placing it in
the context of cultural adaptation of civilisational particularities to
the challenge of modernity. The era of fixed, Euro-centric and nonreflexive
modernity has reached its end, and we have, in practical
terms, the emergence of ‘multiple modernities’.
In 2015, the quincentennial commemoration of the Portuguese arrival on the island of Hormuz in th... more In 2015, the quincentennial commemoration of the Portuguese arrival on the island of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf (1515–1622) revealed the underlying presupposition among Iranians that the Portuguese presence on the island was the harbinger of a long-term pattern of western imperialism. This analysis questions the accuracy of this narrative by advancing a new interpretative framework that does not reduce the
holding of Hormuz to simply another dark episode of European colonial history. Circumscribed and limited in aim and reach, Lusitanian activities on Hormuz cannot be brought under the generic rubric of “orientalism,” which is embedded in European colonial tradition, and which, by extension, buttresses Iranian nationalist sentiment about the Persian–Portuguese entanglement. This research demonstrates that Portuguese objectives diverged from the eighteenth and nineteenth century rationalist scientific traditions of the British, French and Germans professing a civilizing mission as a rationale for colonial policies. Whereas the Portuguese operated from a worldview that combined profit, dynastic pride and religious rhetoric, the Portuguese mission to
Hormuz was not guided by a grand discourse of civilizing the “other.” While there was a complex interplay of commercial interests and brutal methods on this strategic entrepôt, Portuguese ambitions in Hormuz were confined and elusive, and at best a matter of tribute-taking. The present paper charters some of these complex interactions.
Central Asian Survey, Jan 1, 2001
Book Reviews by Ghoncheh Tazmini
Edited by Abbas Maleki and John Tirman
Books by Ghoncheh Tazmini
This volume extends debates on the interaction between universal human rights and the political e... more This volume extends debates on the interaction between universal human rights and the political experiences of Iranians, through a conceptual analysis of 'theories of change'. It assesses the practical processes by which individuals, organizations and movements can reform or impact the structural, theological, and political challenges faced in the Iranian context. Contributors to this volume investigate how structures, institutions, and agents in Iran maneuver for influence and power at the state level, through the law, in international corridors, at the grassroots, and by implementing multiple and complex methods. The chapters provide distinct but interrelated analysis of key drivers of change in Iran. A number of those operate primarily through top-down approaches, such as the political reform movement, lawyers pursuing legislative change, and international human rights monitoring bodies. Others take a bottom-up approach, including local movements and campaigns such as the women's movement, the labor movement, the student movement, and ethnic minority groups.
Chapter by Ghoncheh Tazmini
Litsas, N. Spyridon (ed), ‘Reasserting normalcy in Iran’s foreign policy realm: continuities, cha... more Litsas, N. Spyridon (ed), ‘Reasserting normalcy in Iran’s foreign policy realm: continuities, challenges and opportunities’, in The Eastern Mediterranean in Transition: Multipolarity, Politics and Power, Farnham, Ashgate Publishing, 2015.
Leman, Johan & Gino Schallenbergh (eds), ‘Between change and continuity in Iran’, in Muslims and ... more Leman, Johan & Gino Schallenbergh (eds), ‘Between change and continuity in Iran’, in Muslims and Public Space Citizenship, Cornell UP, 2015.
22 Ideas to Fix the World: Conversations with the World's Foremost Thinkers, Oct 25, 2013
The aftershocks of the 2008 financial crisis still reverberate throughout the globe. Markets are ... more The aftershocks of the 2008 financial crisis still reverberate throughout the globe. Markets are down, unemployment is up, and nations from Greece to Ireland find their very infrastructure on the brink of collapse. There is also a crisis in the management of global affairs, with the institutions of global governance challenged as never before, accompanied by conflicts ranging from Syria, to Iran, to Mali. Domestically, the bases for democratic legitimacy, social sustainability, and environmental adaptability are also changing. In this unique volume from the World Public Forum Dialogue of Civilizations and the Social Science Research Council, some of the world's greatest minds - from Nobel Prize winners to long-time activists - explore what the prolonged instability of the so-called Great Recession means for our traditional understanding of how governments can and should function. Through interviews that are sure to spark lively debate, 22 Ideas to Fix the World presents both analysis of past geopolitical events and possible solutions and predictions for the future. The book surveys issues relevant to the U.S., Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. Speaking from a variety of perspectives, including economic, social, developmental, and political, the discussions here increase our understanding of what's wrong with the world and how to get it right. Interviewees explore topics like the Arab Spring, the influence of international financial organizations, the possibilities for the growth of democracy, the acceleration of global warming, and how to develop enforceable standards for market and social regulation. These inspiring exchanges from some of our most sophisticated thinkers on world policy are honest, brief, and easily understood, presenting thought-provoking ideas in a clear and accessible manner that cuts through the academic jargon that too often obscures more than it reveals. 22 Ideas to Fix the World is living history in the finest sense - a lasting chronicle of the state of the global community today. Interviews with: Zygmunt Bauman, Shimshon Bichler & Jonathan Nitzan, Craig Calhoun, Ha-Joon Chang, Fred Dallmayr, Mike Davis, Bob Deacon, Kemal Dervis, Jiemian Yang, Peter J. Katzenstein, Ivan Krastev, Will Kymlicka, Manuel F. Montes, Jose Antonio Ocampo, Vladimir Popov, Joseph Stiglitz, Olzhas Suleimenov, Jomo Kwame Sundaram, Immanuel Wallerstein, Paul Watson, Vladimir Yakunin, and Muhammad Yunus.
Drafts by Ghoncheh Tazmini
This volume extends debates on the interaction between universal human rights and the political e... more This volume extends debates on the interaction between universal human rights and the political experiences of Iranians, through a conceptual analysis of 'theories of change'. It assesses the practical processes by which individuals, organizations and movements can reform or impact the structural, theological, and political challenges faced in the Iranian context. Contributors to this volume investigate how structures, institutions, and agents in Iran maneuver for influence and power at the state level, through the law, in international corridors, at the grassroots, and by implementing multiple and complex methods. The chapters provide distinct but interrelated analysis of key drivers of change in Iran. A number of those operate primarily through top-down approaches, such as the political reform movement, lawyers pursuing legislative change, and international human rights monitoring bodies. Others take a bottom-up approach, including local movements and campaigns such as the women's movement, the labor movement, the student movement, and ethnic minority groups.
Uploads
Papers by Ghoncheh Tazmini
Russia and Iran have reached a point on their historical timelines
where they have transcended the logic of development of the
eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Today, Russian and
Iranian modernisation reflects the interaction of universal norms
and practices and specific cultural traditions. As an epistemological
category, modernity can no longer be enchained in the grip of a
totalising narrative. Modernity has given rise to civilisational patterns
that share some core characteristics, but which unfold differently. The
Russian and Iranian historical experiences reveal the need to take
a much broader view of the modernisation process by placing it in
the context of cultural adaptation of civilisational particularities to
the challenge of modernity. The era of fixed, Euro-centric and nonreflexive
modernity has reached its end, and we have, in practical
terms, the emergence of ‘multiple modernities’.
holding of Hormuz to simply another dark episode of European colonial history. Circumscribed and limited in aim and reach, Lusitanian activities on Hormuz cannot be brought under the generic rubric of “orientalism,” which is embedded in European colonial tradition, and which, by extension, buttresses Iranian nationalist sentiment about the Persian–Portuguese entanglement. This research demonstrates that Portuguese objectives diverged from the eighteenth and nineteenth century rationalist scientific traditions of the British, French and Germans professing a civilizing mission as a rationale for colonial policies. Whereas the Portuguese operated from a worldview that combined profit, dynastic pride and religious rhetoric, the Portuguese mission to
Hormuz was not guided by a grand discourse of civilizing the “other.” While there was a complex interplay of commercial interests and brutal methods on this strategic entrepôt, Portuguese ambitions in Hormuz were confined and elusive, and at best a matter of tribute-taking. The present paper charters some of these complex interactions.
Book Reviews by Ghoncheh Tazmini
Books by Ghoncheh Tazmini
Chapter by Ghoncheh Tazmini
Drafts by Ghoncheh Tazmini
Russia and Iran have reached a point on their historical timelines
where they have transcended the logic of development of the
eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Today, Russian and
Iranian modernisation reflects the interaction of universal norms
and practices and specific cultural traditions. As an epistemological
category, modernity can no longer be enchained in the grip of a
totalising narrative. Modernity has given rise to civilisational patterns
that share some core characteristics, but which unfold differently. The
Russian and Iranian historical experiences reveal the need to take
a much broader view of the modernisation process by placing it in
the context of cultural adaptation of civilisational particularities to
the challenge of modernity. The era of fixed, Euro-centric and nonreflexive
modernity has reached its end, and we have, in practical
terms, the emergence of ‘multiple modernities’.
holding of Hormuz to simply another dark episode of European colonial history. Circumscribed and limited in aim and reach, Lusitanian activities on Hormuz cannot be brought under the generic rubric of “orientalism,” which is embedded in European colonial tradition, and which, by extension, buttresses Iranian nationalist sentiment about the Persian–Portuguese entanglement. This research demonstrates that Portuguese objectives diverged from the eighteenth and nineteenth century rationalist scientific traditions of the British, French and Germans professing a civilizing mission as a rationale for colonial policies. Whereas the Portuguese operated from a worldview that combined profit, dynastic pride and religious rhetoric, the Portuguese mission to
Hormuz was not guided by a grand discourse of civilizing the “other.” While there was a complex interplay of commercial interests and brutal methods on this strategic entrepôt, Portuguese ambitions in Hormuz were confined and elusive, and at best a matter of tribute-taking. The present paper charters some of these complex interactions.