The Body of an Iranian Woman in the Culture of Acid Attacks

Reza Kazemzadeh, a psychologist and researcher residing in Belgium, has examined the culture of acid attacks in Iran in five articles. The fourth section of this article was published last week. In the struggle between the public and private domains, to compel an individual to commit horrific crimes such as acid attacks, contrary to the common moral teachings of society (such as refraining from harming others) that have been internalized since childhood through family and educational systems, one must educate them within a specific subcultural framework and keep them within that framework. Thus, one of the important features of this subculture is that within it, every action, speech, or even appearance characteristic in the public domain loses its individual quality and becomes public and collective. In such a subcultural context, the personal tastes of our girls and women in terms of clothing, makeup, speaking style, and even the vocabulary they use are no longer personal characteristics or indicators of personal style and taste but are perceived as public matters and symbols of one's stance towards the political system (political positioning) and the ideology of that political system (religious positioning). Under these conditions, the public domain transforms from a place for the individual to showcase personal taste in clothing and makeup to a space for expressing submission or declaring war against the political system. In the Islamic Republic, every action, behavior, and even every appearance characteristic, once it enters the public domain, acquires political meaning and orientation. Thus, as soon as an individual appears in the public domain, they must clarify their position with the ruling political system before organizing their relationship with other individuals present in society. In such conditions, the possibility of remaining neutral is eliminated, and as soon as an individual appears in the public domain, they become a representative and symbol of the collective: a symbol of the 'Muslim women' society or an example of the 'badly veiled' women's population. Therefore, in the public domain of the Islamic Republic, instead of encountering various women with different tastes, we only face representatives of these two camps. The distorted representation and symbolic misrepresentation of reality have led to the fact that in this system, a woman has never existed as an individual in the public domain who wishes or can display her 'opinion' or 'individual taste' in clothing or makeup. The woman in the public domain of the Islamic Republic is merely a symbol: a symbol of 'Muslim women' or a symbol of 'badly veiled women.' Here, let us pause for a moment and ask ourselves: Where does the political system's fear in Iran of the emergence and manifestation of the individual and their manifestations in the public domain (independence of opinion) stem from? A fear that has even led to the suppression and removal of individuality and independence of opinion not directly under the title of 'individuality and independence of opinion' but after transforming its appearance into the symbol of 'bad veiling.' In response to the above question, it can be briefly stated that the emergence and growth of individuality in the public domain gradually transforms the relationship between the private and public domains in Iranian society; meaning that as conditions are created for the infiltration of individual matters (or here, private matters) into the public domain, gradually the public domain, instead of serving private matters for the benefit of public matters (i.e., utilizing the individual to achieve collective ideals), becomes a platform for presenting private matters and thus growing individuality outside the limited sphere of the private domain. With the increasing infiltration of private matters into the public domain, gradually the public domain serves to grow and strengthen individuality in society, and this is precisely what the designers of a totalitarian system fear. It is no coincidence that all totalitarian systems are group-belief and group-centered, and consequently, they not only do not tolerate the emergence of individuality and its presence in the public domain but also exert all their efforts to eliminate it from the private domain. From this perspective, the new Islamic human is a being entirely in service to the public domain, a human who has placed their private life entirely in the service of group goals. In our society, from the very beginning of the revolution, a clear and persistent contradiction emerged between the public and private domains; a contradiction rooted in the ideology of Islamists and their perspective on organizing social and individual life. In the thirty-six years since the Islamic Revolution, the private domain has remained the most important area facing serious and numerous problems due to the direct and totalitarian oversight of Islamists to control society more broadly. In our society, from the very beginning of the revolution, a clear and persistent contradiction emerged between the public and private domains; a contradiction rooted in the ideology of Islamists and their perspective on organizing social and individual life. In the thirty-six years since the Islamic Revolution, the private domain has remained the most important area facing serious and numerous problems due to the direct and totalitarian oversight of Islamists to control society more broadly. Contrary to democratic Western societies where the sanctity of the private domain is based on individual rights and the dignity afforded to humans as individuals, in the legal system of the Islamic Republic regime, personal privacy and the sanctity of the private domain are based on the sanctity and value of the 'family' institution. Attention to this subtle point explains many of the differences between our society and a democratic society in how the two public and private domains are organized. Thus, in Iranian society, the sanctity of the private domain does not arise from the recognition of individual rights but from the sanctity of the family institution. The sanctity and sacredness of the family institution in tradition and also in Islamic religion have gradually made this institution, contrary to the wishes of Islamists, the most important stronghold and in many cases the only defensive system for the individual against the totalitarianism of the government. In fact, the most important official institution in the Islamic Republic system that has fiercely resisted the totalitarian demands of the rulers over the past three decades and has become the greatest challenge against it is the family institution. This has led to the 'individual' in our society from childhood to experience feelings of support or security only within the framework of their kinship system. However, the fact that the sanctity of the private domain is not based on respect for individual rights but rather on the sanctity of the family institution means that as soon as an individual steps out of their home into the public domain, they lose many of the rights related to the private domain. Essentially, a legal entity called 'individual' does not have real existence in such a system to seek legal protection. In Iran, the individual exists within the framework of the private domain and as a member of a hypothetical family, and for this reason, as soon as they enter the public domain, they can only appear in the role of a member of a social group or a symbol of a hypothetical category ('Muslim woman' or 'badly veiled woman'). From this perspective, one can well understand the relationship between the emergence and presence of individuality in the public domain with the creation of 'public anxiety' and the production of 'insecurity' in the Islamic Republic system. In such a system, the presence of the 'individual' in the public domain is inherently a producer of 'insecurity' and 'public anxiety.' The only refuge and sanctuary that the 'individual' has found for themselves in our society is the private domain - family - home, and not because the government recognizes the presence of the 'individual' at least in this environment - institution - place, but primarily because its control over such an environment is less based on the considerations mentioned (the sanctity of the family institution). Thus, since 'individual rights' in the Islamic Republic system are relative and entirely dependent on conditions, the individual benefits from some of its advantages within the framework of the 'private domain = family institution,' but as soon as they step outside this space (specifically when entering the public domain), they lose many of the rights related to it. The only refuge and sanctuary that the 'individual' has found for themselves in our society is the private domain - family - home, and not because the government recognizes the presence of the 'individual' at least in this environment - institution - place, but primarily because its control over such an environment is less based on the considerations mentioned (the sanctity of the family institution). Due to the constant tension and incompatibility between the various elements of the two public and private domains on one hand and the prevention of the emergence of individuality and the presence of the 'individual' in the public domain on the other, matters related to the private domain do not find the right to enter the public domain. The ideal order in such a system is based on the fundamental principle of preventing the entry of private matters into the public domain. Here, for a better understanding of the issue, I would like to draw the reader's attention to two examples of the infiltration of private matters into the public domain and thus creating chaos and disorder in the governing order of this domain. The first case: According to the note of Article 5 of the 'Support Plan for Promoters of Virtue and Preventers of Vice,' which was approved in the Islamic Consultative Assembly last October (1393), 'places that are exposed to the public view without investigation, such as common areas of apartments, hotels, hospitals, and vehicles, are not subject to privacy, and virtue promotion and vice prevention can take place there.' (Aftab Yazd newspaper) As can be seen from the content of this plan, the two public and private domains must remain distinct under any circumstances, and contrary to what is customary in democratic countries (for example, regarding personal vehicles), rules related to privacy cannot under any circumstances enter the public domain. The same perspective regarding 'common areas of apartments, hotels, hospitals, and vehicles' also applies to the presence of women (as a private matter) in the public domain, although the solutions that the Islamic Republic has found for each may differ. In relation to the movement of private vehicles in the public domain, privacy laws are revoked in favor of the rules governing the public domain, while regarding the presence of women in this domain, the characteristic of 'privacy' remains as long as her body is protected from the gaze of non-mahrams under a specific covering (hijab). In both cases, however, what is important is that the object (vehicle) or the individual belonging to the private domain (woman), when moving in the public domain, either loses its 'private' characteristic or, if it is to remain 'private,' must be kept hidden from public view. Thus, the Islamic Republic's perspective on both cases is the same, although its solutions for preventing the entry of private matters into the public domain may differ based on the case. Based on this logic, the individual's demeanor in relation to their personal vehicle in the public domain is analogous to the relationship of a woman with her body in this domain. The second case: The same issue can be found in the Islamists' view of art as well. From our perspective on the relationship between the two public and private domains, one can consider one of the primary and important functions of art in modern societies to be the presentation of issues related to the 'individual' and the private domain among the collective and in the public domain. One of the social functions of various forms of modern art (novels, painting, cinema, poetry, music, etc.) in the contemporary world is the aesthetic presentation of topics related to the private domain and, even more importantly, the inner world and personal states of individuals in the public domain. In fact, art in the modern world has become one of the most important tools for establishing communication between the two private and public domains and currently provides more than anything else the opportunity to present private matters in the public domain. For this reason, modern art can be considered one of the most important platforms for the emergence and appearance of the 'individual' in the public domain. Thus, the aesthetic approach of art plays the role of a visa for the entry of private matters and individuality into the public domain. This characteristic alone makes modern art a significant challenge for the Islamic Republic system because it undermines the principle of separation and impermeability between the two private and public domains. Consider the case of cinema. In relation to our topic here, the Islamic Republic's dilemma with cinema can be formulated as follows: How can scenes related to the private domain be displayed on the cinema screen (i.e., in the public domain) without violating the rules regarding the separation between these two domains? The Islamists' solution to the problem of the leakage of private matters into the public domain in the realm of cinema has led to the invention of a completely new and unique method of censorship. In fact, a significant part of censorship in Iranian cinema relates to the censorship of the characteristics of the private domain and also the individuality of characters. The application of these strategies in Iranian cinema has led to the creation of completely surreal and often absurd situations that, unfortunately, have become ordinary for the eyes of the average Iranian today: women who appear in their homes and private spaces while fully observing Islamic hijab; women and men who live together like genderless angels, without any sexual desire; seemingly diverse characters who have little difference in terms of belonging to social groups: all are Shia Muslims, often speak Persian (in the Tehran style), are heterosexual, and if they are the 'good' characters of the story, they are never dissatisfied with the political government, etc. In the private domain, behaving according to the rules of the public domain is another aspect of the cultural schizophrenia in a society where the Iranian individual is born and grows from the very beginning.