The Unthinkable Revolution Response

Chapter four of Charles Kurzman’s book details the evidence for and against a cultural explanation of the Iranian Revolution. There are two types of cultural explanations that center around the question, “Does culture shape us, or do we shape it (56)?” One side argues that cultures can be conductive of protest movements. The other views protest movements as groups that attempt to change culture, using the language of culture as a tool kit for the revolutionary. Both of these arguments have been used to explain the genesis and evolution of Iran’s protest movement.

The majority of cultural explanations could also be considered religious explanations for the revolution. While religion is not often conflated with culture, it appears that historians and social scientists have made Iran an exception. A vast majority, 90 percent, of Iranians are Shi’i Muslims (53). Both cultural structuralists and those who believe that the revolution used Iranian culture as a toolkit for revolution tend to see religion as the most important factor of Iran’s culture. Some scholars have even argued that Shi’i Islam is conducive for revolution and promotes such cultural instability through its ritual and symbolism.

There is some evidence to support this and it is true that Shi’i religious events were used as dates to set political protests. The cycle of mourning for Shi’ites became an important method of political organization during the protest movement. Those who look to Shi’ite culture as a conducer of revolution point out that the leaders of the movement already had a method of continual protest. In 1978 protestors would publicly mourn martyrs of previous protest movements for forty days. These ceremonies would end with a large fortieth day ceremony...

... middle of paper ...

...hundred thousand (137).”

The structuralist view of culture is not much different from the other explanations (political, organizational, economic, military) because it argues that one monolithic aspect of civilization was the root of the revolutions. What Kurzman points out is that these arguments are only useful in explaining the revolution after it happened, using hindsight. During the revolution itself, people weren’t able to think clearly about what was happening because revolution causes anomie in society, chaos ensues and the whole order of individual life is thrown off balance. With this in mind, the cultural explanation might be useful in looking at what caused protestors to join. Religious language that 90 percent of the population would understand might make the prospects of the revolution feel more secure as more and more people were seen in the streets.