Where Were Intellectuals Before the February 1979 Revolution?

What role did the group known as intellectuals play in the formation of the revolution as a social phenomenon in the years leading up to the 1979 revolution? Were the intellectual groups ahead of their society? What vision did they have for the future political governance of Iran, and how connected were they with the masses? Faraj Sarkouhi, a journalist, and Abdi Kalantari, a writer and sociologist, discuss these questions in this week's Taboo. I start the discussion with Mr. Sarkouhi by asking what role the so-called intellectuals played in shaping the phenomenon of revolution in the years leading up to it. Faraj Sarkouhi: This is not a comprehensive definition, but for the sake of continuing the discussion, let's agree that an intellectual is someone who has creativity in cultural fields and is also interested in the public sphere of society and engages with it. When we talk about intellectuals, they are not a single group. In the 1970s, we had a group of intellectuals who wanted to return to the past and to traditions, known at that time as the identity movement or the return movement. They were supported by the court, and Mrs. Farah Pahlavi supported them, while another group was critical of the monarchy. They had access to television, and there were programs where individuals like Fardid and Naraghi defended a return to tradition. They certainly influenced the groundwork for the Islamic Revolution. However, alongside this trend, we had someone like Jalal Al-e Ahmad, who, while advocating a return to Islamic Iranian traditions, was also critical of the Shah's dictatorship. We had another group of intellectuals who wrote poetry or stories but were not involved in political criticism. There was another group that criticized the Shah's dictatorship, characterized by their support for freedom and democracy and their social justice and socialist aspects. Thus, we see that when we look at this spectrum, it is a colorful array. In the early years after the revolution, we also see different tendencies; for example, someone like Ahmad Shamlou, who wrote in the editorial of the Friday Book, referring to Khomeini's arrival, stated that a February is coming that will destroy culture, or Dr. Mostafa Rahimi, who severely criticized the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist and the Constitution of the Islamic Republic during those years when criticism was not possible. Of course, we also had intellectuals who were inclined toward the Tudeh Party and even wrote poetry for Khomeini. The Iranian Writers' Association, which was one of the centers of gathering for intellectuals in Iran during the Shah's era, opposed the dictatorship and continued this trend, wanting to hold poetry nights, which did not happen. Therefore, we cannot speak of a single group of intellectuals in the revolution, and we must also pay attention to the scope and impact of their influence in society. Yes, this scope and impact is a question that we will certainly address throughout the program, Mr. Sarkouhi. It may even be one of the central questions of this discussion, but you have categorized intellectuals into at least three groups. Let me bring in the other guest of this program, Mr. Abdi Kalantari, who is with us. My question remains unanswered: what role did these intellectual groups, who were involved in producing thought, play in shaping that revolution or in explaining what was happening? Abdi Kalantari: The description that Mr. Sarkouhi provided was a comprehensive description of the discursive systems of intellectual discourse, such as the discourse of Westernization and modernization, and their classifications. If we are not too biased that an intellectual must necessarily be non-religious or secular and modern, we must also acknowledge the influence of another group of intellectuals that we can call organic or traditional intellectuals. Part of the clergy and also religious intellectuals fit into this classification, and they too, during the period from 55 to 57, had their leaders in prison. Individuals like Ayatollah Taleghani, Ayatollah Montazeri, and Ayatollah Motahhari and their like were writing books. They had a pen and influenced public opinion. However, to consider the real impact of pen and thought on the people, we must see when and at what points it becomes a material force. In my opinion, that moment is when something called assembly takes shape, and this did not occur at the beginning of the 1979 revolution. The revolution began in 1975, and the largely secular intellectuals could only write open letters, issue statements, and send them to authorities and human rights organizations worldwide, with very limited impact. They had no direct influence on the people, and those who listen to your program should remember that at that time, communication facilities were very limited; there were no mobile phones or the internet. There were no television or satellite channels, and censorship was such that it placed you in a dark room and cut off communication. I believe the first time that material assembly, or what sociology calls collective subject, took shape was in the autumn of 1976, during the ten poetry nights of the Iran-Germany Association, and since I participated in those ten nights, I can say that it was a turning point where the relationship between modern secular intellectuals, who were generally prominent figures of the Iranian Writers' Association, and a mass of student intellectuals began to form, and they acted as a collective subject. The discussion was about censorship and rights and freedom of expression, and Mr. Be-Azin, who was a prominent elder of this group of intellectuals, when he came to speak, said not to expect us to give radical slogans, and that it was enough that we could print our works. However, that turning point was very important because later we students returned to universities and higher education institutions and invited these speakers to come and talk to us, forming large crowds of two to three thousand people. The speakers spoke about their fields. They did not say very revolutionary things. For example, Saeed Soltanpour spoke about theater. Mr. Fereydoun spoke about humor; they spoke about the East and West, about technology. Mr. Manouchehr Hazarkhani, Bagher Parham, and others. But I want to say that the scope and impact of secular intellectuals remained limited to this extent. It did not go beyond student and intellectual circles. In fact, Mr. Kalantari, with this point you emphasized, led me to another question in this discussion that let me raise with Mr. Sarkouhi, which is how much the intellectuals at that moment were connected with the masses or the so-called revolutionary 'people,' which was a term widely used at that time. Some say that this connection was minimal. We even have terms like 'ivory tower intellectual.' For example, we have Shariati as an example of an intellectual who had an emotional connection with the masses and could influence them through shared religious beliefs. How much could intellectuals connect with the people, or why could they not, Mr. Sarkouhi? Sarkouhi: A significant part of the influence of intellectualism is in cultural formation, meaning that an intellectual creates concepts, and those concepts are conveyed to the people through art. For example, note that Shamlou's poems were published in Kayhan with a very high circulation... But Mr. Sarkouhi, when you talk about Shamlou's poems, a specific group is the audience for Shamlou's poems. I am talking about the people. Sarkouhi: No, when I talk about Kayhan, this specific group becomes broader. When you talk about the people, do not think that, for example, in Germany everyone read Hegel or in France everyone went to read Rousseau and then the French Revolution happened. The issue is that concepts are created. These concepts penetrate the value system of society and the consciousness of society. I do not want to say that intellectuals had a significant impact on the masses. Let us remember that the main force of the revolution was the urban workers who were not organized and had their own characteristics, and they were generally not close to intellectual concepts. For example, when you look at the films 'Ghaisar' or 'Gavaznha,' which were the highest-grossing films in cinema history, they actually conveyed the constructed concepts of intellectualism to the people. But this does not mean that I want to claim that the revolution was influenced by intellectuals... But you still do not answer my question. My question is that it is correct that 'Gavaznha,' 'Ghaisar'... talk about protest, but the question is how much could intellectuals connect with the masses at that time? Did they have a connection? Did they convey anything? Sarkouhi: You mean the masses, that is, the majority who were in the revolution, namely the urban workers and urban marginal people? No, they naturally did not know the intellectuals. The Shah's repression and other reasons, of course, one of them was the very weakness of Iranian intellectualism [were at play]. But the most important reasons were repression. The elimination of intellectualism from the media and schools and universities had caused the clergy to become the only existing organization in Iran that we can say was a party that had branches in all villages. Mosques, religious gatherings, and places of worship were the ones that had the most connection with the people. At the same time, the people who were the main force of the revolution were those who had a religious culture. Mr. Khomeini represented this culture. Intellectualism had no direct connection with the working masses and urban workers, and the revolution showed that the majority of the revolutionary force, namely the people, were under the influence of religious culture with the interpretation of the clergy. Here I want to ask what the role of intellectuals is. Mr. Kalantari, perhaps you would like to discuss this. I want to know when, for example, the people or the masses or the workers, whom Mr. Sarkouhi referred to as revolutionaries, saw Khomeini's picture in the moon or chose Ayatollah Khomeini as the spiritual leader of the revolution that had arisen, what role did intellectuals have in correcting or editing or grounding the image that the people had? How many of our intellectuals had actually read Khomeini's works? How familiar were they with Ayatollah Khomeini and his views, and how much did they convey this to the people? Kalantari: If you mean secular and leftist intellectuals, I believe they had no role, and of course, Mr. Khomeini entered this image very late; we are mainly talking about the years 56 and 57. A series of events occurred in 56 that neither intellectuals nor even religious leadership had an influence on. The anger of the people was increasing more and more, and the resources and reserves available to the clergy network were far greater than the facilities we intellectuals had; they had access to both intellectual and spiritual reserves and ideologically understood the language of the people and had a communication network and mosques and religious gatherings. They continuously held memorials for the fortieth day. In any case, throughout this process, this anger was constantly flaring up, and that mass, what we call the crowd, that is, the multitude of people, spontaneously and involuntarily kept coming forward until we reached 1357. Throughout this period, the people were at the forefront. No intellectual or thought leader or even cleric was leading the people... Well, Mr. Kalantari, I understand your point and this historical sequence of events, but I am not getting the answer to my question. My question is specifically whether this assumption, this proposition that, in any case, an intellectual is someone who, by definition, is supposed to be involved in producing thought and culture, does he move ahead of his society or not? If he moves ahead, what role and what effect does he have? Kalantari: Yes, but he must be able to convey his voice to the people. How can he convey his voice to the people? At that time, newspapers were controlled. There were no mass communication tools. It was only in these crowds that slogans were raised, and then consider that the process of a mass movement or revolution has two stages: one is the passive stage, and one is the aggressive stage. The passive stage is when fear is still in their hearts, and they do not dare to come out, and the aggressive stage is when this balance changes, and the people lose their fear and can stand in front of the bayonet. The real leadership must seize that moment, and Khomeini was the only one who, in Azar 57, that is, during the great Tasu'a and Ashura march, seized the moment. At that point, you cannot use intellectual language. The language of human rights does not work. The language of these Marxist leftist groups that advocate worker governance, equality, and brotherhood does not work. The language must be apocalyptic, prophetic, and this was what Khomeini did with precision. He directed the whip towards the Shah, and this language went directly to the hearts of the people. This was not something that intellectuals could do. This was what led to the revolution and the overthrow of the Shah's regime. Let us see what explanation Mr. Sarkouhi had. Was it the fault of the intellectuals' language?