Identity and Exile Th e Iranian Diaspora between Solidarity and Diff erence

Identity-and-Exile_web.inddVOLUME 40
Identity and Exile Th e Iranian Diaspora between Solidarity and Diff erence
Edited by the Heinrich Böll Foundation in co-operation with Transparency for Iran
IDENTITY AND EXILE
Identity and Exile The Iranian Diaspora between Solidarity and Difference
Edited by the Heinrich Böll Foundation in co-operation with Transparency for Iran Idea and editing: Resa Mohabbat-Kar
Identity and Exile The Iranian Diaspora between Solidarity and Difference Volume 40 of the Publication Series on Democracy Edited by the Heinrich Böll Foundation in co-operation with Transparency for Iran Idea and editing: Resa Mohabbat-Kar Translations: Bernd Herrmann
Design: feinkost Designnetzwerk, Constantin Mawrodiew (derivation design by State Design) Cover: Marjolein Katsma – Flickr (cc by-sa 2.0, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)
This publication can be downloaded here: www.boell.de Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, Schumannstraße 8, 10117 Berlin
Published under the following Creative Commons License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0 . Attribution – You must attribute the work
in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). Noncommercial – You may not use this work for commercial purposes. No derivatives – If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material.
CONTENTS
Cameron McAuliffe Unsettling the Iranian Diaspora: Nation, Religion and the Conditions of Exile 32
Judith Albrecht «How to be an Iranian Woman in the 21st Century?» Female Identities in the Diaspora 47
Donya Alinejad & Halleh Ghorashi From Bridging to Building: Discourses of Organizing Iranian Americans across Generations 62
Ramin Jahanbegloo Being Iranian today 76
Pardis Shafafi Long Distance Activism Looking beyond Teaching old Dogmatics new Tricks 80
Manuchehr Sanadjian Food, Narrated Dislocation and Diasporic Presence among Iranians in Germany 91
Sonja Moghaddari Engaging with Social Inequalities: The Stakes of Social Relations among Iranian Migrants 105
Sahar Sadeghi Boundaries of Belonging: Iranian Immigrants and their Adult Children in the US and Germany 117
Narges Bajoghli & Mana Kharrazi Iranian Alliances across Borders 132
Yalda Zarbakhch Sitting on the Fence or Straddling it? DIWAN – German-Iranian Encounters 143 «Sometimes we're very noisy, sometimes rather quiet» An Interview with Asghar Eslami, Association for Communication, Migration and Refugee Assistance (Kargah) 151
About the authors 165
7
PREFACE
For over two years now, the Heinrich Böll Foundation has been stepping up its collaborative programmes with groups and individuals that are part of Germany's Iranian diaspora. We aim to improve mutual understanding within the community and to extend the civil society networks of Iranians in exile. Past experience has shown that diaspora communities with their diverse identities and transnational traits are ideally suited to develop visions and promote development in their coun- tries of origin, as well as in the countries where they reside. Well over five million Iranians in exile – about 120,000 of which live in Germany – are influencing politi- cal and cultural debates in Iran on a daily basis, for example via social media, and this gives them the potential to stimulate a further opening up of Iran. However, it is not easy to bring together Iranians in exile – especially when it comes to politics. The Iranian diaspora is very mixed, and it is split along ideological, as well as along social, ethnic, and religious lines. This reflects, on the one hand, traditional social conflicts – baggage that has been carried over from the old home to the new – and, on the other hand, there is political discord that either came about during emigra- tion or even caused it, meaning, issues to do with the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and, to a lesser degree, the suppression of the so-called «Green Revolution» in 2009. This fragmentation of the Iranian diaspora impedes the formation of a collective identity and obstructs the ability of Iranians in exile to organise and act as one.
The present volume focuses on the construction of identities and the inter- actions between Iranians in exile. The aim is to promote a process of reflection within the diaspora and provide an input concerning the role and potential of the diaspora community. The Heinrich Böll Foundation can only assist such a pro- cess by offering a secure space for debate, while the actual reconciliation has to be undertaken by the exiled Iranians themselves. We hope that this volume will be able to kick-start such a process. We are happy to have so many excellent contrib- utors to this volume – experts who as academics or practitioners have been dealing with the Iranian diaspora and its organisations; our special thanks go to them. This publication has only been possible due to the support of our partner organisation Transparency for Iran. We would like to thank Resa Mohabbat-Kar for his excellent work as project co-ordinator.
Berlin, November 2015
Bauke Baumann Dr Antonie Nord Middle East & North Africa Department Middle East & North Africa Department Heinrich Böll Foundation Heinrich Böll FoundationPr
ef ac
INTRODUCTION
«Whether ‹diaspora› is a common word, a scientifically constructed concept, or a rallying cry that gives meaning to a collective reality, it is highly contem- porary. Denying this would be pointless»
Stéphane Dufoix (2003, p.106)
Exile and diaspora
The above quote from French social scientist Stéphane Dufoix sums up his research into the colourful term «diaspora.» On the one hand, this categorisation obviously refers to ambiguities or controversial debates about what is meant by the term. Depending on the researchers' scientific background, concepts of diaspora tend to stress different aspects, which, in turn, result in different research focuses.1 Subjects discussed when using the term «diaspora» include experiences of social dislocation and marginalisation of migrants, concepts of home and belonging «when in distant lands,» relations with and interrelations between the country of residence and the home country, and the mobilisation and negotiation of collective identities and «ethnicities.» On the other hand, Dufoix's statement also accentuates how remark- ably popular the term is – for example, as a set phrase in politics and media used to explain certain phenomena, or as a way in which an ever increasing number of «affected» social groups and actors choose to describe and define themselves. Scien- tific efforts to establish clear definitions and analytical approaches towards diaspora mainly aim to distinguish it from related terminology – above all that of exile. The close semantic and historical links existing between the two terms makes such a dis- tinction difficult, which is also why diaspora and exile are often used synonymously, not only in common parlance but in scientific discourse, too. One concept central to both categories is that of displacement – of being uprooted from one's home. This situation may be used to distinguish between the two concepts, at least in terms of ideal types.2 Both terms describe more than just geographical uprooting, they also refer to ways of dealing with this situation and the ensuing process of coming to terms with and framing these experiences on an individual as well as collective level. In this respect, major differences appear among the affected groups regarding
1 The contribution by Amy Malek and Cameron McAuliffe in this volume presents a detailed overview of scientific discourses on diaspora.
2 A detailed overview of the shared as well as distinct characteristics of concepts of exile and diaspora can be found in Kuhlmann (2014).
10
e Ir
an ia
n D
ia sp
or a
B et
w ee
n So
lid ar
ity a
nd D
iff er
en ce
processes of identification and ideas of belonging and home, which, in turn, result in distinct patterns of social, cultural, and political interactions and relations (Naficy 1993; Said 1994; Kokot 2002; Ghorashi 2003; Olsen 2009; Calandra 2013).
Experiences of exile are characterised by powerful emotional bonds to the home country, meaning the people concerned mainly identify with the «lost» home they left behind, and that this is the focus of their symbolic links as well as actual social relationships, all of which are ruled by the longing and by efforts to return back home. This fixation on the home country impedes or prevents the social, political, and cultural re-orientation and settling into the country of residence, which is why the experience of living in exile is often perceived as paused existence, as «living in limbo,» a provisional state – and a double marginalisation. A diaspora, on the other hand, means that its members are able and willing to renegotiate questions of home and belonging and let themselves in for a life outside of their home country, that is, they are trying to put down new roots. In this process, the old home country will still be an important beacon, something that may continue for some generations, however, the diaspora as a whole and its individual members build an active rela- tionship with at least two other components, which may also impact the formation of identities and loyalties, namely, the public system and culture of the country of residence, as well as networks of other communities that share the same origins and are spread all over the world and that are interrelated to differing degrees. Thus, diaspora evolves within a triangle of exchanges and networks – as a community that, although dispersed all over the world, views itself as one and, based on this self-image, will develop its own identity policy and try to make it a reality.
The Iranian diaspora – identity and experience between continuity and change
Over 35 years after the Iranian revolution, which marked the beginning of the con- tinuing history of Iranian immigration, diaspora has become a key term for writ- ing or describing this ongoing history, «what it is Iranians are and experience as a result of having left Iran» (Elahi/Karim 2011, p.382). Today, this question will be answered in other ways than during the 1980s or 1990s. Consequently, shifts must have taken place in the consciousness and self-awareness of Iranians, resulting in a new relationship with their respective countries of residence, with Iran, and with their compatriots around the world. Naturally, literary scholar Elahi and academics from related disciplines such as film and art criticism tend to look at the abundant artistic and cultural productions by people of Iranian decent in order to analyse new positions, identities, and relationships. According to the established accounts the changes observed qualify as being «diasporic» because they obviously express a productive examination of various influences and thus point to «multiple iden- tifications.» Up until the early 1990s, the first generation of Iranians in exile, those who had witnessed the revolutionary upheaval and experienced traumatic loss, frequently compensated for their longing for the home country «as they had known it» by nostalgically reproducing what they thought of as «authentic» Iranian culture.
11
In tr
od uc
tio n
For these exiles, the cultures of their country of residence and the home country were often irreconcilable, mutually exclusive models of belonging, which were fre- quently lived and practiced in separate spheres – as a «public persona» in main- stream society, on the one hand, and, on the other, as an «authentic person» in the privacy of the home (Mostofi 2003; Sanadjian 1995 and 2000). When discussing the emergence of an Iranian diaspora, this means, first of all, that such points of ref- erence have become «reconciled» and intertwining. Consequently, the resulting identity of an Iranian diaspora is more than a mere reproduction of the «authentic» Iranian identity and culture of the home country, as it includes influences and expe- riences of life in the «new home country» – including those of feeling not at home, uprooted, and marginalised – and forges them into a new source of identity. In this, Iran, the old home country, remains an important beacon, functioning not only as an «intermediary» that shapes this «reconciliation» but, even more importantly, informs the condition of Iranians abroad. The old home country continues to have an effect, as the way in which individuals view Iran and their own history constitutes an important factor informing conditions within the diaspora. The context in which the Iranian diaspora came into being was characterised by many conflicts – one can even call it a diaspora generated by conflict – and this means it comes with weighty historical baggage. Academic as well as popular debates about the Iranian diaspora are dominated by the view that «Iranians abroad» consist of nothing but a bunch of ideologically fragmented, competing, and largely disconnected groups, especially when it comes to their relations to and political attitudes towards the home coun- try. Strained social relations within the diaspora should be viewed as the result of (conflictual) processes of identification that are being shaped equally by the social and political dynamics of the «old» and the «new» home country.
Studies of Iranian populations and cultures in North America and Europe show that the process of «repositioning» always goes hand in hand with the actual social and political environments and situations, meaning it is always influenced to a considerable degree by, on the one hand, the way mainstream society treats immi- grants and «foreigners» and, on the other, its attitude towards the Islamic Republic of Iran (Malek 2011; Ghorashi 2003, 2007; Alghasi 2009; Khosravi/Graham 1997).3 Nevertheless, although the longing for «Iranianness» is a constant factor shaping the diaspora, forms and ideas about what constitutes «Iranianness» are subject to negotiation, which, against the background of the actual environment, results in
3 In her study, Amy Malek describes the shifting ways in which, over the years, the New York Persian Day Parade has portrayed and represented Iranian identity and culture, and how this has been influenced by the way in which public discourse has developed on issues such as international terrorism and the Islamic Republic of Iran as a threat to national security (Malek 2011).
12
e Ir
an ia
n D
ia sp
or a
B et
w ee
n So
lid ar
ity a
nd D
iff er
en ce
new and distinct manifestations of Iranian identity and culture (Ghorashi 2004).4 This interplay of continuity and change is especially clear when looking at the dif- ferent generations. The second and third generation of Iranians, which is composed of those who have grown up abroad, is crucial for forming the identity of the Iranian diaspora. Part of how they deal with ethnicity and Iranian identity are the ways in which they take up and negotiate existing cultural «stock,» that is, the stories and the history of migration, the fault lines and the «baggage» of the Islamic Revolution – in sum, the cultural and historical memory and legacy of the generation that emi- grated and fled the country – and how they attune this to their own and new issues, challenges, and obvious facts of life that are a result of growing up with the institu- tions and cultures of their respective country of residence (Mahdi 1998; McAuliffe 2008; Maghbouleh 2010 and 2013). This process of «amalgamating» influences and experiences bears witness to the continuity and change within the Iranian diaspora that occurs through adopting and continuing pre-existing, acquired discourses, cultural identities, and relationships – as well as rejecting, re-evaluating, and rede- fining them.
During the 1990s, while for many Iranians the provisional state of limbo that is exile began to dissolve, be it in material ways or in their self-awareness, and while they became (or: because they became) increasingly susceptible to the immediate, everyday realities of life and the influences of their «new home» – at the very same time this occured, an additional, crucial factor began to take shape, as they became conscious of the histories, destinies, and circumstances of Iranian compatriots who had made other Western cities or capitals their home. Today, boosted by globalised mobility and online communication, as well as the consumption and the commer- cial success of some products of Iranian diaspora culture, an ever growing number of people of Iranian descent communicates with one another, thus coming into con- tact with different or similar experiences and forms of being «Iranian» or «living an Iranian life» outside of Iran.
As a consequence, an alternative Iranian map began to emerge, one that lies beyond the boundaries of the Islamic Republic of Iran and has nodes along the West and East Coasts of the U.S, as well as in Toronto, Sydney, and many European cap- itals. In addition to the «old» and the «new» home country, the network of com- munication and the relationships forming between these nodes offers participating Iranians a new and wider transnational frame of reference and identification, and
4 During her fieldwork in California, anthropologist Halleh Ghorashi was surprised to find that many people of Iranian ancestry participated in the pre-Islamic, old-Persian harvest celebra- tions of «Mehregan.» These celebrations construct and preserve a conscious sense of having an Iranian cultural identity. In Iran's more recent history, Mehregan has not been part of national celebrations and thus has little meaning for Iranians in Iran. Iranians living abroad frequently fall back onto pre-Islamic symbolism and the history of the Persian empire of antiquity. This helps them construct and advertise an Iranian diaspora identity intentionally different from that of contemporary Iran, and this is, among other things, a reaction to the negative views of post-revolutionary Iran that dominate public perception and debate in many Western countries. (Ghorashi 2004).
13
In tr
od uc
tio n
a sense of belonging to a cross-border community outside of Iran – the Iranian diaspora.
If the self-perception of Iranians is changing as described, and if the men- tioned new sources of identity are undergoing a re-evaluation, then this has the potential of becoming the basis of new patterns of interaction. A re-evaluation of one's position concerning the institutions and public spheres of the «new» home, which results from an increasing sense of identification, may lead to a new level of political and social participation – something that has been observed in Europe and the US (Naficy 1993; Kelly 2011, Sreberny 2000; Khosravi/Graham 1997). For Iranians in the US, cultural studies researcher Hamid Naficy observed that in the early 1990s a shift in self-perception (from «Iranian» to «Iranian-American») went along with increased political involvement in the «host country.» According to Naficy, this changed the social status of the Iranian population from exiles whose lives revolve around a «lost» home country, to «ethnic minority,» which points to additional objectives and needs that have to be co-ordinated and represented (Naficy 1993, p.195 et seq.). Over twenty years after Naficy's observation, it is evi- dent that Iranian activities and associations in the US are no longer exclusively dominated by a focus on Iran and the overarching desire to end the enforced exile – be it by nostalgically enshrining a notion of the home country or by an unrelenting will to create conditions that will enable a return. Increasingly, Iranian publications and projects are focusing on the political, economic, social, and cultural experi- ences, interests, and challenges presented by living on an «alternative Iranian map» where Iranians have to find their bearings and position themselves as an ethnic minority, as well as, based on their shared experiences, as a «transnational commu- nity of destiny.» This does not mean that Iran becomes irrelevant for the activities and the outlook of Iranian diaspora organisations, however, its relative importance declines: «The initial exilic identity, with its rooted notion of a home left behind, was replaced by a more rhizomatic network-based diasporic approach to Iran as one basis of reference among many others » (Gorashi 2009, p.678; emphasis added). The anthropologist Halleh Ghorashi describes this change as a «moderation» of former «radical» positions on Iran. According to Ghorashi, the uncompromising rejection and radical opposition to the Islamic Republic was a key element of the first generation's identity…