One Can Awaken Society but Not Humiliate It

The speech by Youssef Abadari, an Iranian sociologist, critiquing the tendency towards social indifference and the inclination of a significant portion of society towards what he called 'a kind of triviality,' took place on Tuesday, December 9, at the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Tehran. It was followed by various reactions, especially on social media. The speech aimed to sociologically examine the phenomenon of the death of the young pop singer, Morteza Pashaei, and answer the question of why thousands of Iranians attended the memorial service for this young singer with such unprecedented enthusiasm. However, as Mr. Abadari stated in this meeting, has society indeed fallen into a kind of triviality and superficiality? To answer this question and analyze the reactions to Mr. Abadari's controversial speech at the University of Tehran, we turned to Taghi Rahmani, a political activist residing in France. The result is a conversation that follows. Mr. Rahmani, as Mr. Abadari expressed, can some inclinations and interests align with the direction or use of the government? In some cases, part of society acts according to its traditions and customs, such as Nowruz or religious ceremonies like Ashura and Arbaeen, which the government can also utilize. In this context, the intellectual is the conscience of society when it turns inward. Regarding Mr. Abadari's speech about the death of the late Pashaei and the community's reaction, it should be noted that Mr. Abadari, as a sociologist, should have addressed layers of society, but in my opinion, not with this language, as this linguistic issue requires detailed discussion. Apart from the discussion of verbal literature that we will address later, does a significant portion of Iranian society, especially the youth, appear indifferent or negligent as Mr. Abadari suggested? In my view, society has not yet become passive and indifferent, but the issue is that we lack civil institutions in our country. Unlike many developed countries where civil institutions have specific functions, we do not see such a thing in Iran. Yes, there is a danger that the people of Iran may become indifferent or lethargic towards corruption or the situation of their fellow beings, but this has not yet happened, and measures must be taken regarding this issue. The primary role is to remind and stimulate, of course, with appropriate language. This may be a problem for Iranian society that uses harsh language to stimulate; perhaps this is also a tradition of the prophets of Israel! But the reality is that what makes people lethargic and saves them from indifference are civil institutions and independent media that can highlight flaws separately from government media and institutions, such as deprivation and drought in Sistan and Baluchestan. In fact, we must pay attention to how and with what means people should be aware and stimulated. The discussion space between supporters and opponents of Mr. Abadari's remarks, especially on social media, was very intense and passionate, and in some cases, it was accompanied by aggression. Does this language and discourse help solve the problem? Regarding the reactions to Mr. Abadari's comments, I must say that some began to attack on social media, while others defended him, and in my opinion, such discussions detract from addressing the core issue and topic, with both sides accusing each other of ignorance and unawareness. This is the worst kind of language among our intellectuals, turning them into village chiefs with a group of supporters who expect their opponents to be crushed by their chief. For this reason, dialogue for problem-solving does not take shape in Iranian society, and this is a significant pain. Regarding the recent topic, Mr. Abadari's language faced an onslaught, but fortunately, some wisely analyzed his speech while also critiquing his language and rhetoric. Most intellectuals who have been effective in Western societies do not engage in dialogue in this manner. I believe that even if this language provokes, its effect quickly dissipates because the margins overshadow the content. Society can be awakened, but it should not lead to insult and humiliation. Unfortunately, after the revolution, the language of our rulers has become very harsh and aggressive. The language of society has also become aggressive, and eight years of war has exacerbated this rhetoric, unfortunately turning it into culture. This is as dangerous as the lethargy and drowsiness of society; when intellectuals do not talk to each other and only attack one another, no discussion progresses, and no significant issue settles in society. I believe that aggressive language closes the path to dialogue and reform, and the margins overshadow the content.