Suchergebnisse

This essay discusses the various dimensions of diversity at Alborz, both when it was run by the American missionaries and when it was under Iranian management. In the first part, the ascriptive traits of human beings are the object of the analysis: gender, race, language, religion and class. In both periods Alborz was characterized by its openness to Iranians of different religious backgrounds, both teachers and students. The second part of the essay discusses the variety of the educational experience enjoyed by students, and concludes that it gradually diminished, as education came increasingly to be defined as instruction and extracurricular activities were reduced after the mid-1960s.

In late 1997 Iranian football made international headlines. In an article on the Islamic summit held in Iran, The Economist wrote that almost "anything can become a political football in Iran, including football." This attention was precipitated by the political ramifications within Iran of the national team's tie against Australia in Melbourne on November 29th, which secured it a place in the 1998 World Cup in extremis. Since then, major international soccer games have often given rise to massive street demonstrations by young people. That football should cause so much excitement in Iran is not astonishing if one looks at it from a global perspective. Football is a game in which each team works together to try to occupy as much of the "territory" of the other as it can, culminating in attempts symbolically to "conquer" the other side's stronghold by kicking the ball into the goal. The playing field thus becomes a metaphor for the competition between communities, cities, and nations: football focuses group identities.

Iran, the only posttraditional theocracy, is difficult for political scientists to accurately analyze. One of the main reasons that Iran is so difficult to categorize is because the Iranian state promotes Islam not as a religion, but as a way of life. Furthermore, Iran is both totalitarian & authoritarian in nature but, like a democracy, Iranian elections often offer the people a genuine choice. The election of President Khatami in May 1997 was seen by many as a unique opportunity for democracy to gain power over Iran's authoritarian & totalitarian leanings. However, Khatami's power remains limited. Though his popularity was reconfirmed in both the 1999 & 2000 elections, furthering the idea that a large majority of Iranians want reform in the political system, democracy's opponents are both entrenched & determined. Meanwhile, policy formulation mechanisms & Iran's rule of law are not yet supportive of a democratic political system. It is unlikely that true democracy will emerge in Iran's short-term future. K. A. Larsen

Two Decades have Passed Since the Overthrow of the Pahlavi monarchy, yet the upheavals of the post-revolutionary years have preoccupied scholars so much that the detailed and dispassionate analysis of Iran under its last dynasty is still in its infancy. To be sure, important events like the 1953 coup or the Islamic revolution and major issues such as oil or U.S.-Iranian relations have received the attention they deserve. But when it comes to the long years that separate moments of crisis, we know much more about the exertions of those who opposed Pahlavi rule, be they Mosaddeqists, leftists, or Islamists, than about the activities and policies of those who actually ran the country from 1925 to 1978. This asymmetry makes many an account of Pahlavi Iran an exercise in retrospective prediction, leading all too often to the tempting but logically flawed conclusion that the fall of the dynasty was foredoomed. Scholars' preference for studying the exceptional rather than the routine is understandable, as the former is, almost by definition, more exciting than the latter.

Amid all the attention that Iranian politics has received since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, local politics has been almost totally neglected. This neglect vitiates our understanding of contemporary Iran, as it is at the local level that state policies are carried out, contested, reshaped, resisted, or revised. Beginning with the centralizing state-building of Reza Shah Pahlavi (r. 1926–41), Tehran increasingly dominated Iran's politics, commercial activities, and cultural life, and most of the country's Westernized elites lived in the capital. The 1979 revolution was to some extent a populist revolt against this Westernized elite, and among the new rulers those whose social and family roots are outside Tehran abound. Among the common people, "the experience of participation in mass political activity … undermined the feeling of political abjection," while the new rulers have attempted, not always successfully, to lessen the gap not only between rich and poor, but also between rich and poor provinces. The new prominence of provincials in national life has gone hand in hand with a greater recognition of Iran's ethnic and linguistic diversity, while at the same time the sense of common participation in the revolution and the Iran–Iraq War has knitted people of different ethnic backgrounds more closely together.