Iran & The Cult of Male Martyrdom: a gendered perspective on Persian conflict

In this brief case study, I'm interested in the interaction between gendered structural violence, gender roles and actual violence in conflict.  I believe that consideration of gender relations is important when responding to conflict because structural violence exerted through imposed gender roles can sustain actual violence.

In the spirit of gender-sensitivity, I will use the case of Iran to explore how a failure to sufficiently consider gender dynamics in peacebuilding can perpetuate actual and structural violence.

The Iranian case study emphasises how structural violence can be used to construct and weaponise cultural gender norms, centring conflict in national and gender identity in a way which is incredibly difficult to deconstruct and assuage.

Before we begin looking at the Iranian conflict in detail, here are some definitions of key concepts:

• Biological, anatomical (or hormonal / chromosomal) sex is different to gender or gender roles, (Goldstein, 2001).  Whereas biological sex is fixed, gender roles and gender identity manifest themselves differently depending upon the situation and those we interact with, (Woodward and Winter, 2007).

• Separating the concept of gender from biological sex enables us to explore societal norms and their impact on the roles people play.  The performance of such roles can have a great bearing on our agency and access to resources.  This concept of ‘performativity’ importantly describes how gender roles are actualised through words and actions, focusing upon the context-dependent nature of their fluidity, (Butler, 1990).

• Patriarchy is the systemic societal inequality where men are implicitly or explicitly deemed to be superior to women, leading to the exclusion, subjugation and multiple disadvantage of women and girls.

• Masculinity describes the characteristics and practices traditionally deemed typical of or suitable for men.  Association with such characteristics may give both women and men greater resource and power (due to patriarchy), (Connell, 1995, Hooper, 2001).

The Iran-Iraq war (1980-88) concluded with an externally-driven UN security council resolution (598) with Iran widely-perceived to drag its feet through the peace process.  Such an inauspicious end to conflict was borne more out of exhaustion by the warring parties rather than a new-found desire for reconciliation, (Weinrauch, 1989).  However, a gendered framing of Iranian lack of urgency and appetite for peacebuilding reveals how patriarchal gender dynamics sustained the Iran-Iraq war.

Photo credit: Mostafa Meraji

In this conflict, gender roles in Persian Shi’a identity (‘manly’ duty to protect the vulnerable, ‘feminised’ land from trespassers) significantly contributed to the largest ever mobilisation of Iranians, (Keyhanfar, 2012).  Khomeini skilfully combined gendered rhetoric with propaganda, (Varzi, 2006), weaponising extant gender norms to promote martyrdom.  Iranian masculinity emphasises male possession and protection of women (especially relatives).  Khomeini cleverly evoked this ‘male duty’ by calling for men and boys to defend their (feminised) land against infidel invaders (Keyhanfar, 2012).  Khomeini repurposed mystical Shi’a concepts of martyrdom, galvanising the belief that young men could transcend material life through death in battle (Varzi, 2006).

Hijab’s imposition in 1983 redefined Iranian femininity, demarcating private from public, with women relegated to the private realm and zealously protected.  Just as women had been secured from ‘outsiders’, the Iranian homeland now also needed securing, (Keyhanfar, 2012).  This gendered view of sovereign national territory was reinforced through societal norms, with mothers sending their sons to join the ‘holy defence’ of the motherland.  In this way, women ‘fulfilled their calling’ to imitate Fatemeh, ‘mother of martyrs’, whose son Huseyn was the ultimate Shi’a martyr and archetypal son of the nation (Keyhanfar, 2012).

Khomeini celebrated martyrs by naming streets in their honour, as sermons expounded the ‘glory’ of male martyrdom and striking propaganda, such as billboards and film, showcased the ‘beauty of sacrifice’.  This multimodal propaganda offensive was especially highly effective in mobilising poorer, illiterate families, (Varzi, 2006).  Poorer women, systematically oppressed by restrictive gender roles, gave all they had to give; sending their husbands and sons to a ‘noble’ death for the promise of eternal salvation (and a lifetime pension).  Martyrdom was presented (particularly to poor, uneducated families) as the only viable route to escape current hardships, achieving glory, honour and promise of a better life, (Varzi, 2006).  This gendered view of Iranian mobilisation reveals the structural violence Khomeini actively exerted through gender roles to sustain the conflict.

The Iran-Iraq war was sustained by a juggernaut of structurally violent (and highly gendered) cultural, spiritual and nationalistic pressure in favour of conflict.  As such, the most effective and efficient peacebuilding would have involved a highly gender-sensitive approach.  In its absence, interventions failed to address the root causes of fanatical public support for war and the gendered drivers of mobilisation.  This resulted in the conflict limping on until the 1988 stalemate, since which, Iranian appetite for conflict hasn’t abated, as evidenced by the country’s continued involvement in multiple international conflicts.  The lack of gender-sensitive peacebuilding interventions also missed the opportunity for addressing and transforming underlying societal gender inequality that persists to this day.

It is important to consider gender relations in conflict and peacebuilding because these events differently affect each gender (and are themselves significantly impacted by issues of gender).  A consideration of the opportunities and risks around gender equality in conflict and peacebuilding illuminates the continuum of structural violence present in patriarchal systems and imposed gender roles.  Such societies may be predisposed towards conflict, reproducing gender inequality and further sustaining structural violence.  In order to reduce and eradicate both actual and structural violence, our definition of peace and its implementation must be maximally inclusive in relation to gender.

The Iranian case study shows how structural violence wielded through repressive gender roles can sustain actual violence.  It also shows how a failure to understand the gendered drivers of conflict can inhibit peacebuilding processes whilst missing opportunities to improve gender equality.  The persistence of gendered structural violence, (despite the end of war and declaration of peace), raises the crucial question of whether peace has truly been achieved for all.

References

• Butler, J., 1990. ‘Lana's "Imitation": Melodramatic Repetition and the Gender Performative’. Genders, (9), pp.1-18.

• Connell, R.W., 1995. ‘Politics of Changing Men’. Radical Society, 25(1), p.135.

• Goldstein, J.S., 2003. War and Gender: How Gender Shapes the War System and Vice Versa, Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

• Hooper, C., 2001. Manly states, Columbia University Press. New York.

• Keyhanfar, G., 2012. ‘Gendered Nature of Martyrdom in “Holy Defense”. Visual Anthropology, 25(1-2), pp.89-119.

• Varzi, R., 2006. Warring Souls: Youth, Media, and Martyrdom in Post-Revolution Iran, Duke University Press. North Carolina.

• Weinrauch, J., 1989. ‘Iran's Response to UN Resolution 598: The Role of Factionalism in the Negotiation Process’. American-Arab Affairs, (31), p.15.

• Woodward, R. & Winter, T., 2007. Sexing the Soldier: The Politics of Gender and the Contemporary British Army, Routledge. London.