"Development" and "backwardness"
History of these Concepts in Iran
Preface
The concept of "Development" in Iran has been discussed as opposed to the concept of
"Backwardness". This question that why we are backward and west is progressed emerged to
a great part due to the military encounter between Iran and the west1.
At first, answer to this question is technical; Iranians perceived their "backwardness" in the
technical, military and instrumental sense and so tried to improve the army by equipping it
with the most progressive instruments. The question gradually was developed to cultural
backwardness. Then, some idea have been suggested including change of alphabet,
handwriting and clothes, modifying calendar and reform. This project was sought under the
title of "Omran wa Abadani"; however, after the Islamic Revolution the term omran2 has
replaced with tose'e3.
During this period, imitating the West and following the Western model of development was
seen as way to progress by some intellectuals. Malcolm Khan represents them. The idea
appeared in the modernization policies of the Pahlavi dynasty4.
In contrast to this trend, there was a tendency that emphasizes the necessity of independence
and emancipation from colonialism considering political and economic aspects of western
colonization. This tendency criticized western modernization and suggested a third way
instead of imitating the west or refer to tradition. One of the first signs of this tendency can be
found in "Gharb-Zadegi5" of Jalal Ale-Ahmad. And then Ali Shariati discussed a new model,
following the footsteps of Franz Fanon, in his idea of "return to self".
This article will discuss the history of the concept (Backwardness and Progress) in views of
the most prominent Iranian intellectuals in this field. Then, it moves to introduce the idea of
Westernization of Al-e Ahmad and Shariati. In the final section, it discusses development and
underdevelopment in post-revolutionary Iran, and points out to the prominent aspects of the
problem in Iran.
In this respect, Shariati believes that we need to work on the question of “which self” after the
issue of “returning to self”. Despite its importance, the question“which self” has been ignored
in Iran and Shariati has set his agenda to work on it and sought an answer. In this way, he
faced “humanism” and “internationalism” and asked “do we need to consider a certain and
specific term of humanism when working on the question of “which self”? The answer
Shariati gave to this question is strict and unquestionable: “humanism and modern
internationalism… is a big lie which aims to deny our individual personality and culture so as
to let us be denied and faded away in a fake and vague humanism.”
1
-It refers to the war between Iran and Russia (1804–13).
- Civil construction
3
-Development
4
- Imperial State of Iran (1925–1979)
5
-Westoxification
2
1
1. Awareness to backwardness and necessity of development
First question regarding "progress" and "backwardness"
"What has made you more powerful than us to this extent? What are the reasons of your
progress and our weakness?" (Jaubert 1967:137). This question which has been asked by
Abbas Mirza (1787-1833) (the crown prince of Fat-h Ali Shah Ghajar) from Jaubert (the
ambassador of France government to Iran) is one of the first statements about backwardness.
Abbas Mirza who was the Iran's main military commander (Pakravan 1973) and spent the main
part of his short life in war with Russia, after experiencing defeat from Russia, told Jaubert:
"You know the art of governance, the art of becoming winner and the art of using all means
while we have been condemned to plunge in swampy of ignorance" (Jaubert 1967:137). Then
Abbas Mirza asked Jaubert to guide him to what to do and emphasized that "Iranians are
eagerly ready to learn about inventions. Their traditions tell them to show or justify their
mistakes or fully as a right thing." (Ibid., 147-148). This demand of Abbas Mirza has been
considered as the beginning of the Abbas Mirza's series of reforms and the process of
imitating from western model of progress. Although it seems that the question of Abbas
Mirza and what he named the superiority of the Europe and the weakness of Iranians are
affected by the Iran's army serious defeat from Russia. It seems that this question is more
related to the lack of technological issues and weakness of equipment. Due to this fact, the
reforms of the crown prince are more concentrated on empowering Iran from the military,
technological and industrial points of view and it has less cultural features.
If Abbas Mirza can be considered as the first man who spoke about the Iranian's
backwardness, one should mention Mirza Fatali Akhundzade as the most significant
intellectual who speak about Iranian's backwarness in the subjective and objective aspects.
From his point of view, "the progress is not possible without the freedom of
imaginations"(Behnam 2012:87).
Problematic of cultural progress
Mirza Fatali Akhundzade(1812-1878) was the starter of the European model of playwriting
and one of the pioneers of new materialistic approach to philosophy in Iran (Adeamiyat 1967:
:210). He was aslo one of the pioneers who criticized historiography and literary criticism in
his period of time. He, as the writer of "Maktoobaat" book (1863), was one of the first
thinkers who have thought about the evolution and progress. He presented some thesis such as
necessity of changing Persian alphabet and the religious reform as a way of relief from
backwardness. He tried to redefine some Islamic rules and Islamic laws and demanded for a
religious reform and elimination of religious superstitions. Akhundzade believed in seventeen
key concepts as the solutions for the country's evolution and progress such as: "Proghreh"
2
(Progress), "Parliament" and "Protestantism". He always used them in French and believed
that these words cannot be translated to Persian (Akhundzade, 1985).
In addition to Akhundzade (who can be considered as promoter and defender of a kind of
Iranian nationalism), we can mention a thinker whose nationality and religion are seriously
controversial: Seyed Jamal-e din Asad Abadai; there is no other eastern thinker could ever
reach to his internationally prominent position (Adeamiyat 1967).
Religious reform
Seyed Jamal-edin Asad Abadi (1839-1897) is known as "the pioneer of the Eastern
awakening". He is the first person who starts thinking about a collective battle against
"Westernians colonials" by "Easternians" (Ibid). The complex personality of Seyed Jamal
could not be reduced to an anti-colonial political activist or to a Pan-Islamist figure although
he has all of these characters characteristics. His frequent travels to different countries
(Afghanistan, Egypt, India, France, Ottoman Empire and England), paradoxical reports by
France police about him and different reactions by political powers against him, all reveal a
part of the complexity of his personality and the significance of his social role. He set the
political and cultural elites of Islamic countries as his main audiences not the public and
concentrates on the enlightenment of elites as the main goal not reforms on the public
religious beliefs and fading religious superstitions. He stressed on the importance of
"progress" and mentioned "one cannot lead people to progress through elimination of their
beliefs. In contrast, it is necessary to explore and find suitable features of each religion which
can lead that religion to progress". Regarding the question of backwardness, it seems that the
main concern of Seyed Jamal is to find a way to combine science and Islam. He regretted that
"Muslim thinkers study under the weak light of lamp till morning… but he never think even
for one moment to ask himself that why when I put away the glass of this lamp, it smokes but
when I put it again on its place, I dose not...". It seems that his goal is to find a way to apply
knowledge and he felt sad for the existing situation of the Hekmat and Hakim among
Muslims. In addition to science, he made a great effort to unite Muslims.
Adopting the western model of civilization without Iranian intervention
Mirza Malkam Khan(1833-1909) was an Iranian journalist (director in charge of “Ghanoon”
newspaper) and politician. In spite of differences, he was one of the Seyed Jamal-edin’s
friends and partners. He is also known as a follower of his other predecessors in a lecture in
London: “The first issue that come to our mind in a comparison between Easternians and
Europeans, is that how Europe has developed to this level of progress while the Asian nations
who were promoters of first civilizations has been remained backward?”( Malkam khan 1891)
He tries to answer this question in his book – “Osool-e-Taraghi” [The principles of progress]
- by writing a simple and understandable text for normal people. Adopting an economic
approach, he related the superior statues of great governments to “goods production” and
“ability of international trades”. It seems that concessions which gave to foreigners by Iran
3
government and confronted by public opposition, is related to his aim to attract foreign
investment. He who is acquaintance with the opinions of John Stuart Mill and Auguste
Comte (Behnam 2002:77), concentrates on two main concepts: “Law” and “Progress”.
Malkam Khan can be considered as the first person in Iran who claimed clearly that Iran’s
path to progress goes through adopting the“western model of civilization”, “without any
Iranian intervention”. Although Islam is not his main point of discussion, he refers to the
relation between Islam and progress as a part of answer to the question of “Iran objective
backwardness in comparison with western civilization”. In his lecture in London, Malkam
Khan discussed that Islam is not an obstacle to progress. However, he believed that it is
necessary to extract basic elements of western civilization and then represent them as
originated from Islamic sources. As soon as we can prove that these elements comes from
Islam, Iranian people will accept them immediately and enthusiastically (Malkam Khan1884).
He believed that “Iran and Ottoman empire’s little progress” should be attributed to
application of this method (Ibid).
After Malkam Khan, Seyed Hasan Taghi Zade is another thinker who is famous for his idea
regarding the necessity of “adopting the western model of civilization”. He, as Malkam Khan,
has been blamed by public opinion for giving concessions to the Western companies.
The Bomb of imitation from West
Sayyed Hasan Taqizādeh(1878-1970) was a teacher, member of the parliament, statesman
and contemporary politician. His main thesis is a total imitation from west from the tip of toe
to the top of head. His emphasis on the necessity of a total imitation from west was
significantly more than his predecessors. Even Malkam Khan (who was the first founder of
“adopting the western model of civilization without Iranian intervention”), did not believed in
accepting “all of the western traditions and rituals”; He believed that if somebody claimed this
kind of imitation he would be a fool (Ibid., 138). But Taqizādeh in the January of 1920 in the
first number of “Kaave” Magazine, wrote an article which shows his strict deep tendency to
achieve progress and development through westernization: “Iran must be come westernized
appearance wise, subjectively, mentally and mentally.” (Homayoun Katouzian 2010). The
main goal of “The Iranian nationalist committee resident of Germany” which had been
founded by Taqizādeh, as he wrote in first number of Kaave magazine, was to “accept the
Europe civilization completely, to become submitted to Europe entirely, by adopting the
rituals, traditions, pedagogies, sciences, industries, life style and the European issues in all
aspects without any exception (expect the language)” (Behnam 2012:109). He presented the
old idea of changing Persian alphabet to Latin’s ones. Taqizādeh and his followers,
considered “modernization” same as “Westernization” and believed in universality of the
western contemporary civilization and the necessity of inevitable trend of “Westernization”
(Azerang 2002:48-49).
The concepts of “Gharb-Zadegi” by Al-e-Ahmad and “Baazgasht be Khishtan” [Return to the
self-] came to birth and emerged in this context.
4
2.Looking for third way: Al-e Ahmad and Shariati
Jalal Al-e-Ahmad: Gharb-Zadegi
Jalal Al-e-Ahmad (1923-1969) is the most prominent figure of Iranian intellectuals in the
1960s. He who came from a Shiite clergy family, ruptured from Islam completely as he joined
“Tudeh party” in 1944 (Algar, 1982:10). But even this departure did not last for long time and
he started criticizing his political affiliation and finally quitted the party. Then he moved away
from political activities and concentrated on the literature and translations (Ibid.,11). It seems
that Al-e-Ahmad paid more attention to the crucial role of religion and religion’s institution in
society at the final period of his life. He went to the Haj and emphasized on the significant
role of Shiite Ulama to fight against what he called “Gharb-Zadegi”. This period of his life
came into prominence after Islamic Revolution and his statements frequently quoted and
interpreted as his conversion to Islam.
The most important book of Jalal is Westernization which is in fact a written document to
address “Iranian council of culture” (1961-1962). This book is written in a very common and
colloquial language and that was the reason it soon became widespread in and out of Iran and
was translated to different languages and inspired many discussions in Iran.
It is said that Edward Said was present at one of Jalal's speeches about westernization in the
US and since Said had not coined the term "Orientalism”, it is believed he used Jalal's ideas to
give birth to Orientalism. That is why his work is said to be international.
We can divide the book into two parts of "East and West Dichotomy" and” post
westernization". In the first part, the author referred to works of Ahmad Fardid, Khalil
Maleki, Tibor Mende in "Entre la peur et l'espoir", Josué de Castro in "géographie de la faim",
Seyed Fakhredin Shadman in "Cultural Civilization Seizure", and Mohamad Bagher Hoshiar
in "Free Public Education) and in part two he uses Albert Camus, Jean-Paul Sartre, Georges
Bernanos, Ernst Jünger works.
In his book, Jalal addresses the public (elite as well as the non-elite) by simple language. He
intended to criticize pioneers of the idea of progress including Molkom Khan,Tabriziand
Taqizade and so on. Jalal considers them as those who pave the way of westernization (Al-eAhmad 1984). His book is based on the concepts of westernization and machinism. Several
point were made to explain this phenomenon. Westernization, according to Jalal, works like
an infestation of weevils which eats up the wheat from inside. The bran remains intact, but it
is just a shell, like a cocoon left behind on a tree. Westernization –in a more exact definitionis "the aggregate of events in the life, culture, civilization, and mode of thought of a people
having no supporting tradition, no historical continuity, no gradient of trans formation, but
having only what the machine brings them, it is clear that we are such a people"(Al-e-Ahmad
1984:34).
In fact Westernization "characterizes an era in which we have not yet acquired the machine, in
which we are not yet versed in the mysteries of its structure"(Ibid).
5
According to Jalal's definition of westernization in his first part of the book (East-West
dichotomy), the East and West are not considered as two political or geographical concepts
but the economic ones. Dichotomy of "hungry and full" which are believed to be based on the
issues of productivity and consumption. The west is the producer and the East is the consumer
of western products; in fact, the east provides the west with raw material. In this discussion,
the West is considered Europe and North America, and progressed countries, and we, the
East, includes Asia, Africa and all backward countries .
Jalal’s definition and explanations show that the issue of westernization has not been an issue
before his time. He considers the exact explanation and elaboration of the term to be carried
out by the scholars; however, his perception comes from applied knowledge. He further
explains that when the West was awakened from long Middle Age ignorance, it attributed the
name of East on us, from Mediterranean to India. He points out to six encounters between the
East and the West:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The west under the holy umbrella of the Christ.
As Crusaders
As merchants
Under auspice of their ships full of goods
In the name of preachers of Christianity
In the name of preachers of civilization.
In this six forms, they came to the East for the reasons above .Jalal considers Africa as the
most receptive region. In the opposite, the Middle East did not undergo colonization thank to
being under umbrella of Islam. Islam does not let the society to stay passive and go through
colonization. Therefore, it (the Middle East) was broken into pieces which became a good
laboratory for the West. Jalal also states that the West was successful and Asians were turned
to goods capable of being studied.
The West in his idea moved forward to the point that the East provided not only the raw
material for the West but also preserved "culture” and "religion" and civilization to make
themselves a proper material for the West to study and research.
Jalal Al-e- Ahmad points out that there is a historical separation between East and the West.
He believes that such a separation appeared three centuries ago and was based on envy and
competition between East and West. It means that Iranians considered themselves deserved of
all the West owns and this has been the stimulus and creating a win- win situation in first
period.
Iranians impression in the second period relies on regret; envy and misery of themselves in
front of the West. Iranians imitate the West in various aspects such as science, research or
even life styles and traditions. Exploring history, Jalal seeks to explain reasons for the
superiority of the West as opposed to the backward position of the East. He attributes the
most important reason of this fact to the conflict between Shiite and Sunni, and in particular
establishment of Safavid dynasty, neighbor of Sunni Ottoman Empire.
In his book, he explained two ways to face the West “machinism:“
6
12-
to remain a consumer
to close doors to the technology and Machinism and plunge into our own traditions
and national and religion rites
He declines the ways mentioned above because the first way leads to westernization while the
second one does not guide us to any destination and those who follow it, will accept the key
role of Machinism.
He instead recommends a third way. He believes that specialization takes the individuality
and personality away from one and “we need to start from here”. He underscores that we need
to train professionals with specific specialization. But our culture is not able to train such
individuals and due to westernization the academic institutions such as schools, colleges and
universities, train one that has neither personality and character nor the specialization. This
human owns neither wishes, party, tradition, nor legend and fit into one of these criteria of
melancholia:
1-exaggeration 2- being proud of the past 3- fabricating fake enemies and frightening the
public
As long as we have not manufactured Machine, we are westernized and when we manufacture
the Machine, we will be haunted by Machine .
It seems, Al-e- Ahmad considers westernization as “Cultural consumerism from the West”
and presents religion as a tool to resist Westernization. He criticizes the clergies for working
on details of the religion and avoiding Machinism while he puts emphasis on the key role of
clergies in accomplishing the third way as he presented.
His deep understanding about post-colonial literature, in spite of lack of any trace of it at that
timen is the very important point of this writing. He had a great emphasize on subject and
object in exposure of west and east; for instance, before “westernization” happen, the east and
especially, Muslim and Iranians were standing at the position of subject and label the west as
“pagan”. It means that they know themselves and their beliefs as true; while at the time of
westernization, the criterion of evaluation is being imitated from west, too. The importance he
maintains for “object of being studied” and his constant emphasize on its relation with
colonialism, places him among the pioneers of “post-colonial discourse.”
Yet it can be said that he plays on orientalism in some cases by means of east sociological
stereotypes such as maverick eastern, lazy and ever lack of anything named city, mostly
illiterate and Superstitious people, and so on.
Shariati: Return to self
Ali Shariati is an Iranian scholar, sociologist and intellectual of 1970s who is mostly known
as “the ideological father of 1979 Islamic Republic of Iran” (Rahnema 2002); however, Iranian
7
authority has had an equivocal attitude toward him1. He was one of the most important and
effective Intellectuals in the history of Iran.
A decade after Jalal Al-e Ahmad (1961) proposed westernization, Shariati pursue the
problematic of westernization and return of self. It is worth mentioning that Shariati did not
add any significant point to the concept of westernization2; however; Shariati’s contribution is
related to the way he seeks to get out of “westernization”3. Adopting the concept of additional
value from Marx, he reflects on “colonialism” and notes that this is not the additional value
which “fattens the capitalist”; and even further, “this additional value is not rooted into
distributary work, specialty, labor division and machine”, but it is “plundering the whole
sources of wealth and existence of Yellow skins, black, Muslim and the Hindu”. Instead of
“production”, Shariati offers concept of “plunder” at the center of capitalism (Ibid.,165).
Shariati has three texts about return to self; the first one was compiled after a speech under
title of “return to self” in University of Jondi Shapoor in Ahvaz(1970); the second (after
releasing from prison) was published in 33 issue of Keyhan newspaper (1976) and the third
was written under title of “return to which self?” (Not published during his life time). Here
our emphasis is on the first (the speech) and the third (return to which self)4. On the other
hand, the “Cultural Foundation of Dr. Ali Shariati” also compiled all above texts in a book
named “return”; therefore, the base of our study is “return”(1970).
In this text, Shariati refers to Aime Cesar, Francis Fanon, Julius Nye ra ra, Jomo
Kenyatta,Falcon, Kateb Yacine and Al-e Ahmad and knows himself as their follower. He
mostly refers to Seyyed Jamal Aldin Asad Abadi among others and admires his ideas and
views. On the contrary, he refers to Malcolm Khan and Taghizade and criticizes their point of
views. According to Shariati, they similar to their comrades in other countries (like Ataturk),
pursue to pave the way for colonialism by putting Islam away in the name of modernization
(Ibid.,41).
Readout the common attitude toward “return to self”, Shariati writes:” what was proposed in
the last fifteen years, is readout of thesis of Aime Cesar, Francis Fanon and alike; while its
readout is inefficient” (Shariati 2002:22). He immediately adds that “I believe in that thesis
strongly”; but knows it as inefficient yet. And the reason of this inefficiency is that “the
western speaks toward me, an eatern, in one way and towards the black Aime Cesar, in a
different way”.
In this respect, Shariati believes that we need to work on the question of “which self” after the
issue of “returning to self”. Despite its importance, “which self” has been ignored in Iran and
. One the one hand names the streets, hospitals and schools as “Shariati” and on the other hand, sometimes
avoids holding his celebration.
2
In studying “westernization”, Shariati attempts to avoid mixing their feature in confrontation with west by
separating two concepts: “Modernization” and “Civilization”. Modernization equals to the “westernization”;
changing into a “consumer”; “materialization” and permit control of west; “Cultural alienation” and
“assimilation”. “Civilization” is “evolution of power of thought, expansion of insight, depth and Gentleness of
spirit, social development and making human self-awareness and Sense of responsibility”. “Modernization”
happens quickly via imitation; but unlike it, civilization is totally spontaneous and it is getting free from
imitation and gaining creativity and independent identity”. Modernization can be imported but civilization is not
importable.
3
. The thing can not be seen in others works.
4
. There are many talks in the second text in terms of text authenticity and pressure on the writer
(Rahnema,2002)
1
8
Shariati has set his agenda to work on this question and seek an answer. In this way, he faced
“humanism” and “internationalism” and asks “do we need to consider one certain and specific
term of humanism when working on the question of “which self”? The answer Shariati gave
to this question is strict and unquestionable: “humanism and modern internationalism… is a
big lie which aims to deny our individual personality and culture so as to let us be denied and
faded away in a fake and vague humanism.”(Ibid.,27)
Shariati further considers existing humanism to be a product of western human and believes
that “we (the eastern people) distort, deny and betray ourselves as long as we try to explain
ourselves in the framework of humanism while we are considered a local human as opposite
to western human in the modern humanism; therefore, we need to avoid them”.
The reason he recommends avoiding this separation is that he does not suppose that both sides
in the comparison are equal. He points out that the comparison and relation is “a lie when it is
between two sides in which one is taking everything while the other is totally giving; in
another words, one is the sole producer and the other one is only a user” (Ibid.,28).
One of the ways to return to self is return to our "national and ethnic character". He calls
ethnic as returning to racism, fascism and tribal ignorance which is retroactive return.
The other way to return to self is to focus on “historical self” or “ancient self” which is far
from what we really are in Shariati’s conviction. He also believes that “the historical self can
be discovered, studied and understood by the archeologists, sociologists or scientists but not
our nation. The heroes, and faces along with legends in the past are not tangible and moving
among the society.” In fact “Islamic civilization cutter” has made too big separation between
“PreIslamic self” and “post Islamic self” that these two cannot recognize and relate to each
other.
In fact we need to return to the “potential existing self in the ego and conscience of society to
be discovered by the elites as a “source of material and energy” and “move on” in the heart of
the society.
The theory of Shariati in “returning to self” lays emphasis on the key role of elites. In his
point of view, the elite are responsible for the period of time they lives in and the relevant
generation. Their big goal is to transfer the abnormal realities, sheltered and hidden in the
heart of society and time to the
Shariati further emphasizes that the elite needs to take assistance of “history” “culture and
“public language” to carry out carry out responsibility when passing westernization.
The elite need a common language and according to Shariati, the common language between
elite and public is “religion”. Shariati also underscores that to carry out their responsibilities,
the religious and non religious elite must function the same and in respect with the matter of
“returning to self”, the elite come to the term of “returning to our culture”(Ibid.,13).
Shariati believes that in their studies, the elite who are seeking answer for “which self” , they
face the issue of “returning to Islamic culture and Islamic ideology” which results in the
question of “which Islam”. He points out that “the Islam we return to must be a reformed,
revised Islam which has undergone the evolutions" and he adds that "my impression toward
religion is in a way that a non religious elite can rely on it."(Ibid.,11).
9
On the other hand, Shariati does not neglect the problems of westernization and returning to
self and believes that after introduction of the idea of returning to self by third world elites, it
went through Iran as a fashion and changed to returning to a religious historical self. Shariati,
in this fashion believes that westernization outdoes this type of returning.
He worries that avoiding westernization and independence justifies "ignorance". He warns
that some avoid studying about western schools of thoughts, theories and human sources or
blame elites of westernization with the excuse of following an “independent thinking". In this
way, while Shariati criticizes the “Machinsm and bureaucracy and technocracy “and
“nationalism” and “positivism”, he defends machine, bureaucrat, techniques and nation
(Ibid.,243-245).
In Shariati’s idea, elite can criticize the West and avoid westernization after passing two
stages as follows:
1- comprehensive and deep knowledge of European culture and civilization
2- comprehensive and deep knowledge of history, sociology, culture and religion of their
own (Ibid.,254)
In short, to resist westernization, we need to study the West.
Shariati prescribes it to improve a society. we need to follow some criteria as follows:
1- “Social and political issues are case and time sensitive. Thus, studies on one society or
a period of time cannot be applied well on another society or period of time. In some
cases they may be harmful and devastating rather than constructive and improving.”
2- “Issues and subjects in Western societies are politically and culturally constructed
according to the relevant historical and societal circumstances of that society.
Therefore, following issues and subjects of West to apply them to another society with
totally different historical, cultural and societal circumstances is wasting the best
opportunities, talents as well as local rites”.
3- Each and every society is in specific circumstances according to its situation in
different realms such as history, culture and one cannot be intellectual by taking
advantage of general knowledge of social science and so on, unless he knows the
culture, society, common language of his own nation (Ibid.,305-309).
In addition, being aware of the role of religion in Iran and trying to answer “returning to self”
and “which self”, Shariati recommends returning to cultural Islamic self and when the issue of
“which Islam” rises, he draws attentions on religious corrections in which Islam has been
reformed, corrected and turned to be a progressive religion.
In the coined process of “extracting and purifying the cultural sources” by Shariati, he calls
the religion as one of the most important issues to work on as a cultural source.
3. Post-revolutionary era in Iran
Localization and Islamization
10
After Islamic revolution emerge many attitudes about development. A wide range of these
attitudes so emphasis on development as universal issue. But someone criticize these
approaches and follow-up (take) two ways:
1. Someone believe to localization in development and modernization.
2. Someone believe to Islamization in development and modernization.
More than three decades pass of revolution but theses later two approaches just criticize prior
approaches and don’t offer and explain alternative plans and mechanisms to development.
They just raise some claims like Islamic Japan Pattern or Malaysia as Islamic pattern of
development. In recent years they effort to advance their ideas, for example they follow-up
localization in 4th development plan (2005-2009), and in 5th development plan (2010-2015)
the government is obliged to design “Islamic- Iranian model of progress”. But, according to
change the government in 2013 election, it is unlikely to follow this idea.
It seems that Islamization approach at the beginning of the long path, and now just deny
development and modernization. This approach hasn’t clear idea about progress. As the
superme leadership, ayatollah Khamenei said: "the goals, values and methods will all be
rooted in Islam. That is to say, our focus is on Islamic concepts and teachings".
Islamization approach use “progress” instead of “development”. This approach knows
“development” as western approach of “progress”.
Of course Ayatollah Khamenei says, in this case: "I selected the word "progress" carefully. I
intentionally avoided the word "development". The reason is that the word "development" is a
loaded term. It is accompanied by certain requirements that we may be opposed to. I do not
want to take a common international term - of which people have a certain understanding and use it in the context of our own work. I will now discuss the concept that I have in mind".
Conclusion
To conclude, post-development is absent from debates regarding the sense of backwardness in
Iran and its literature is less known. One can say that after the revolution discussions and
reflections on “development” have moved out of the circle of elites and restricted to the
monopoly of academia and government policies. Thus, indigenizing and Islamization are of
those theories have face intellectuals’ responses.
It is worth mentioning that the determining aspect of the question of development and
backwardness in Iran, compared to other countries, is related to the role and status of religion.
All Iranian intellectuals, religious or non-religious, have faced with the question of religion
and religious tradition in their debates. However, after the Islamic Revolution and following
the emergence of religious governance, these discussions gained a governmental and political
echo; therefore, they can be found in the field of policy making more than the area of
thinking. At the end, one can conclude that the idea of post-development as a project can be
so helpful in another landscape.
References
Adamiyat, Fereydun 1967: Thoughts of Mirza Agha Khan Kermani. Tehran: Tahuri. (in persian)
Al-e ahmad, jalal 1984: Occidentosis: a plague from the west. Press Berkeley. (in english)
Algar, Hamid 1982: ,Introduction, in: Al-e ahmad, jalal 1984: Occidentosis: a plague from the west. Press
Berkeley. (in english)
11
Azerang Gholam Hossein 2002: "Sayyid Hasan Taqizada", in: Bokhara 25, 32-51. (in persian)
Behnan, Jamshid 2012: Iranians and modernization. Tehran: Farzan. (in persian)
Bernanos, Georges 1947: La France contre les robots, Paris: Laffont. (in french)
Camus, Albert 2014: The plague. Tehran: Nika. (in persian)
Jaubert, P.A. 1967: the journey to Armenia and Iran. Tehran: Bonyad-e farhang-e Iran. (in persian)
Junger, ernst 1970: over the line. Tehran: Farzin. (in persian)
Homayoun Katouzian, Mohammad Ali 2012: "Sayyid Hasan Taqizada: tree lives in a lifetime", in Comparative
Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East 32 (1): 195-213.(in English)
Mende, Tibor 1958: Entre la peur et l'espoir: refiexions sur l'histoire d'aujourd'hui, Paris: Éditions du Seuil (in
french).
Mirza malkam khan 1891: ,Persian civilization, in: Asil, Hojjatolla (ed.) 2009: treatises of Mirza malkam khan-e
Nazam-eddolle. Tehran: Nashr-e ney, 158-168. (in persian)
Mirza malkam khan 1863: ,The idea of progress, in: Asil, Hojjatolla (ed.) 2009: treatises of Mirza malkam
khan-e Nazam-eddolle. Tehran: Nashr-e ney, 169-210. (in persian)
Mojtahedi, Karim 1984: sayyid Jamal ad-din Asad-Abadi and the new thought. Tehran: Tarikh-e iran
Pakravan, Emineh 1973: Abbas mirza. Paris: Chastel. (in french)
Rahnema, ali 2002: an Islamic utopian: apolitic biography of ali shariati. Tehran: gam-e no. (in persian)
Shadman, Sayyed Fakhr-al-Din 1947: Conquer the civilization of the West. Tehran:no publisher. (in persian)
12