Foucault and the Iranian Revolution: Gender and the Seductions of Islamism by Janet Afary and Kevin B. Anderson (review)

Michel Foucault is one of the rare Western admirers of the Islamic Revolution of Iran. His writings in the leading Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera from September 1978 to February 1979 as well as his articles and interviews in French opened a window to the Revolution for the West that went beyond what was in the headlines. In 1978, during the course of the Revolution, Foucault made two trips to Tehran; the first was from 16 to 24 September and the second from 9 to 15 November. His experience in Iran is regarded a turning point in his overall thought and is immensely important for understanding the core of his philosophy. The most significant achievement of Foucault and the Iranian Revolution is, in fact, collecting and translating all of Foucault’s writings on Iran into English. This appears as the Appendix (179–277), but the volume also contains a critical evaluation of Foucault’s stance on the Islamic Revolution, and this appears first (1–177).

Janet Afary, originally from Iran and currently a Professor of Religious Studies and Feminist Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and her husband, Kevin Anderson, start their narrative with a critical assessment of Foucault’s anti-modernist thought, and, as they put it, his ‘one-sided critique of modernity’ (26). As committed feminists, Afary and Anderson continue their assessment by harshly criticizing many of Foucault’s intellectual stances, particularly where, in their eyes, he disregards feminist concerns (27). To them, such anti-modernist and anti-feminist aspects have led Foucault to take sides with the Islamic Revolution.

Then the narrative continues with some theological and social discussion about Shi‘ism since Shi‘ism was at the core of the revolution. The authors link Shi‘ism to ancient Zoroastrianism on the grounds that the Shi‘a have reenacted the fight between good and evil in the history of Karbala (35). Of course, this claim is left without any evidence, as merely portraying a combat between good and evil cannot be linked to Zoroastrianism unless it is portrayed as a battle between God and the Devil, which is totally absent from the Shi‘a understanding of Karbala. When portraying Shi`a tradition, they mention some unorthodox practices such as wounding the forehead with knives and swords in the mourning ceremonies for Imam Husayn (42); however, they do not mention that such acts are not mainstream and have even been forbidden by some ayatollahs. They continue their narrative of Karbala and Ashura mourning ceremonies from a purely orientalist approach. Lacking sympathy with their subject of study, they describe the beliefs and practices of the Other as if the Other is insane (for instance, see Chapter 2).

Then their argument waxes political as the writers attempt to show their political dissatisfaction with Ayatollah Khomeini, labeling him ‘the personification of Nietzsche’s “will to power,” a ruthless historical figure with saintly self-mastery’ (36). In their political rhetoric, they even link Iranian Islamism to fascism (57). They later generalize that to all Islamist movements, holding that ‘[i]n terms of its social vision, Islamism was far closer to fascism than to the socially progressive politics’ (169). Furthermore, in their political judgment, they consider Foucault somehow guilty, for ‘the Iranian people suffered terribly under a regime for which he had helped to build support’ (133).

The weakest part of the argument, however, appears in the fifth chapter. There, the authors try to link a quite personal aspect of Foucault – namely, his homosexuality – to his intellectual stance on the Islamic Revolution. At first glance, it would seem that the harsh punishment for sodomy under Islamic law, namely the death penalty for both sides, should have alienated Foucault from any Islamic political movement. But regardless of his awareness of this punishment (143), he was still fascinated by...