In the Islamic Republic of Iran, amr-e be m‘arouf va nahi az monkar is a universal and reciprocal duty that must be fulfilled by the people with respect to one another, by the government with respect to the people, and by the people with respect to the government. The conditions, limits, and nature of this duty will be specified by law.20
However, in post-revolutionary Iran, “the principle of mutual discipline” has been used by Islamists to justify the violent oppression of young people.
Hierarchical relations in Iran, whether teacher/pupil, father/child, or master/disciple, are often based on a common paradigm, in which the role of the senior partner is to encourage, exercise, and inculcate appropriate practices in order to stimulate reason and to constrain the space for passion, the two contradictory forces. The youth have to be led toward aql by tutelage and discipline (Rosen 1989: 12). The mutual discipline of amr-e be m‘arouf va nahi az monkar is a crucial feature in the process of learning:
The individual’s acquisition of appropriate agency and its exercise are articulated by responsibility, a responsibility not merely of the agent but of the entire community of Muslims severally and collectively. In this tradition, the body-and-its-capacities is not owned solely by the individual but is subject to a variety of rights and duties held by others. (Asad 2000: 50)
To understand the context in which notions of “cultural crime” are mobilized, we have to look at the genealogy of the “principle of mutual discipline” and its roots in the history of political Islam. As a “collective duty,” a Muslim who lives under an Islamic regime should struggle for the survival of the regime. One who lives under a regime hostile to Islam should struggle for its overthrow (Enayat 1982: 2). Thus the principle of mutual discipline is not only an ethical issue but a political one as well. Ali Shariati, one of the ideologues behind the Islamic Revolution, interpreted “prevention of vice” (nahi az monkar) as a revolutionary act directed against social injustice and against “cultural imperialism,” “Weststruckness,” and dictatorship (Rahnema 1998: 307). Morteza Motahari, another key figure in the formation of the Islamic revolutionary movement in Iran, delivered a series of lectures in 1969 in Tehran under the title “Amr-e be ma´rouf va nahi az monkar in Imam Hossein’s movement.” In these lectures he declared that “the prevention of vice” was the principal aim in Imam Hossein’s battle against the despot Yazid and his injustice. Thereby he linked “the prevention of vice” to the contemporary social issues in Iran and made a political agenda of it (see Motahari 1379/2000).
The essence of the “principle of mutual discipline” is not to preach to individuals, but to apply moral order in society in order to achieve a state of equilibrium. Neglect of such order is seen as a vice that harms not just the individual sinner alone, but also the entire community (ummat), which is why the sinner is also a criminal in post-revolutionary Iran. To assert the significance of the principle and to promote it in society, a squad (Setad-e Ehya-ye Amr-e be m‘arouf va nahi az monkar) has been established, devoted particularly to this purpose. Furthermore, the first week of the holy month of Ramadan is assigned as the “Week of the principle of mutual discipline.”21 The motto amr-e be m‘arouf va nahi az monkar combines two different techniques of power: oppressive surveillance and Foucaudian salvation-oriented “pastoral power.” The former is wielded by the moral police through the constant checking of bodies and spaces. Pastoral power, in its original sense, is a form of power whose ultimate aim is to assure individual salvation in the next life and which takes the shape of paternalistic care.
Father’s Shadow
A child who does not grow up under the protective “shadow of parents” (zir-e say-ye pedar va madar) is supposedly heading for delinquency. Only the shadow of an elder (say-ye yek bozorgtar) can guarantee one’s well-being. Tarbiyat kardan in Persian is used for both educating and punishing. Iranian schools are not very different from military bases imposing harsh discipline and punishment. Disobedient children are called nakhalaf (deviant). Young people are thus exposed to torment and discipline by teachers, masters, and fathers who “want the best for them” (khobeshan ra khastan). Delsozi (empathy) is a term frequently heard in political discourses. The severe ways teachers or officials treat youth are legitimated by claiming that they are delsoz, they care. In public debates the authorities defend their violent guidance by claiming they are expressing care and concern (delsozi kardan). The art of government is characterized by the continuity of the individual’s self-government and its connection with morality, from the father’s government of the family to the science of ruling the state. There is continuity and transmission running from the family to the state. The art of government is thus the extension of the “pastoral power” of the father over his household and wealth into the organizing technicalities of the state (Foucault 2000).
Iranian law legitimates the father’s total authority over his child. In the process of tutoring punishment is justifiable even if it results in the death of the child (Bahnassi 1982: 183).22 Backed up by shariat, Iranian Civil Law allows fathers’ endorsement to punish their children physically. Article 1179 in the Civil Law says: “Parents are permitted to penalize their children but not outside the restriction of punishment.” There is, however, no definition of restriction. Article 220 in the Penal Law goes even further: “Father or father’s father who kills his child will not be punished afterward (qessas). He would be sentenced to pay dieh [blood money] to the murdered person’s heirs” (quoted in Kar 1378/1999: 117). Within families a harsh system of control is applied to youths in order to protect them from “social and ethical delinquency” (enherafat-e ejtemai va akhlaqi) (Rejali 1994: 86–89).
Pastoral power is a supplement to discipline-oriented power. It is imposed not only by states or religious institutions but also by parents and teachers. It concerns the care of young people: the moralization of their bodies, welfare, and salvation. This is best expressed by a former member of the Supreme Judicial Council, Ayatollah Bojnourdi, who declared that “Penalty in Islam is correction rather than punishment.”23 While disciplining attempts to achieve normalization by drilling individuals, salvation-oriented tutelage does it by engaging in dialogue. In his study of torture in modern Iran, Rejali observes,
Individuals are treated not as objects that require training, but as subjects of questioning and guidance. Tutelage alters self-understanding and so behavior. In this respect, it assumes that individuals possess within themselves a deeper self that is realized through speech. In practicing tutelary techniques, individuals realize themselves as normal members of a moral speech community. (Rejali 1994: 84)
To understand the mechanisms of pastoral power in Iran, and in particular the ways power and hierarchy legitimate themselves, we need to study the institution of the morad/morid relationship and the way it is expressed in Sufism, family life, the bazaar, and the educational system. Originally coming from Sufism, the morad/morid relationship is a generational hierarchy that allocates power to the elders, a system that schools youngsters into total obedience to the patriarch. Morad is the master and morid the disciple. The master is also called pir (old) in Sufism. To find the right path in life, one needs a master, a pir. A person without a pir is “like a wild tree that bears no fruit.”24 The Sufi master not only is a teacher, but is himself the goal (morad literally means goal), a beloved role model for living. The disciple loves his master and devotes a large part of his life to serving him.25 The master/disciple relationship is not very different from that between father and son. During education the master replaces the disciple’s father. Total obedience to one’s father is transformed into total obedience to one’s master. While this pattern of obedience and loyalty (morad/morid relationship) originally had religious underpinnings, very similar forms can be found in secular