Elena Wasnak
World Politics
Book Review
Majd, Hooman. The Ayatollah Begs to Differ: The Paradox of Modern Iran. 1st. New York: Anchor Books, 2009. Print.
What is perhaps one of the most interesting about Hooman Majd’s book about modern Iran is the genre it has been allocated to. Travel. The word brings to mind pages filled with descriptions of sunny streets, friendly locals and directions to the best local food. Majd’s book though focuses less on Iran as a country and more on Iran as a people.
Hooman Majd , the son of an Iranian diplomat, was raised in America and this lends to the impression that Majd is trying to understand his own people as much as he is trying to make them understood by his audience. His grandfather was an eminent ayatollah but Majd is obviously secular. The objectivity one might expect from a journalist and translator is absent from the book and adding to its effect as a memoir. In fact, it is very hard to put Majd or his book in any type of box, they are as full of contradictions as the Iran they describe.
Majd spends a good portion of the book explaining and illustrating the uniquely Persian tradition of “ta’arouf”. Ta’arouf is what Americans might view as an extreme form of courtesy, putting oneself down in order to raise someone else up. It seems to be present in the most everyday occurrences, such as making purchases, but more notably it can be used to gain power. The example Majd provides is a striking one: Ahmadinejad during an interview on NBC’s nightly news in 2006 replying to Brian William’s questions the politest of insults. “We’d heard you are a suit, so I wore a suit,” he replied when asked about his dress. The paradox lies in reconciling ta’arouf with Persian pride. The time Majd spends in his descriptions of ta’arouf and its antithesis the Iranian pride and nationalism, not to mention the subtitle of the book, points back to what seems to be the thesis of the book. Persian sensibilities are uniquely Persian and the paradoxes found within the modern Iran will continue to determine the shape of the nation as they have done for thousands of years.
The Iranian notion of “haq”, or rights, is also brought into sharp focus within the book. It is Majd’s primary explanation for the public support of the nuclear plants. Although the United Nations sanctions imposed on Iran made it impossible at one point for anyone but the richest of the rich to afford tomatoes; Persian supported the regime’s decision not to give in to the demands of the international community as to do so would be to give up a right. The author explains, in one of his many brief overviews of Shia Islam, that Shiism is, at its core a sect of Islam built on both justice and injustices. Ali was deprived of his title of First Caliphate and this injustice is what formed Shiism. Persian Muslims have a very intense sense of justice, to willingly give up a right would be to betray both their nation and their faith.
The organization Majd uses to convey his points is the book’s one downfall. There is no clear form or structure and the text jumps back and forth between chronologically random narratives, background history of Iran, the Islamic Revolution and Shiism, and description of the separate social classes or government actions. There seems to be no rhyme or reason to the jumps, it appears that Majd simply finished writing on one subject and switched to whatever he felt like writing about next. However, The Ayatollah Begs to Differ is a critical analysis, and as such completely at his discretion; his audience will just have to deal with quirks in the structure.
The Ayatollah Begs to Differ, despite the strange form it was written in, paints a vivid picture of the social, political and religious climates of modern Iran and the contradictions therein. Though, because the book was written in 2007 and first published in 2008, it was written before the election protests of 2009-2010. One wonders if Majd’s portrait of the Iranian people would have been colored differently if it had been written after the protests. Perhaps he would have been speaking to a different audience. As is, it appears he is appealing to the average American, trying to make Iran more than just the face of the Supreme Leader and instead about the people who live there.
I think books like this one are really helpful in IR because they allow people to see the people behind the veil of government. Many times after 9/11 I had the idea that all Afghanis were evil and that the whole country was a breeding ground for terrorists, but really there are people who are just trying to get by, carry on their businesses, and raise their children. The religious element in this book seems to take a look at one of the many cultural differences that differentiates people throughout the world, showing that while those customs may seem strange to the U.S., there are certainly customs here and throughout the world that must seem strange to them and other cultures.
ReplyDeleteSounds extremely interesting, Elena!
ReplyDeleteI would agree with Adam in that the best aspect of this book is that it puts a face on the common Iranian. It humanizes the people of Iran. Often when in a state of war, the increased alertness of ourselves causes the people of the United States to label an entire country "bad" when the people genuinely mean well and are living normal lives.