Iran: Cultural Values, Self images and Negotiation Behavior

Iran: Cultural Values, Self-images and Negotiating Behaviorexistentialists, people from rural and people from urban backgrounds, common folkand world-savvy sophisticated political elites, men and women, people from differentregions and from different age groups. The personal biography of an individual willhave a defining influence over the elements of the national mindsets that he integrates.In light of the above, some definitions of national character as proposed in diverseacademic disciplines are in order. Alex Ankeles has noted an important distinction isbetween national characteristics and national character. The former is seen as“mannerisms, customs, traditions, cultural norms and superficial traits” which varygreatly from one socio-economic sector of the nation to another; the latter, representsa deeper strata of an “enduring constellation of psychological dispositions, motivesand values of members of a society (nation) which they share by virtue of theircommon historical experience, culture, and institutionalized patterns of their socialexistence and is viewed as a determinant of overt behavior.” 2 Related approachesemphasize “recurrent themes and institutions, ideals, values and recurrent fantasiesand imagery,” or “traits… that are pertinent to the potentially idiosyncratic synthesesof different individuals.” 3 Another socio-linguistic approach is based on themethodology of the renowned anthropologist, Margaret Mead. It suggests that thestudy of national character should be based on an analytic interpretation of thesystems of communication within the society, including patterns of regularizedbehavior, both linguistic and non-linguistic, and that the “impression of…psychological regularities, constituting national character …stems largely frommisapplied assessments of the regularities of the communication system employed bythat population.” 4 A psychological-anthropological approach suggests the term“modal personality” to define the usual result of successful processes of socializationin a given social/national environment. The basis for this approach is that primaryinstitutions (such as subsistence type, child training) produce a common denominatorof basic personality that then translates into secondary institutions such as religion,ritual, and folklore. Thus, cultural integration is expressed in a common denominatorof the personalities of people who participate in culture. All members of a givensociety share certain basic experiences; these experiences produce a basic personalitystructure, which in turn creates and sustains other aspects of culture. 5 These theorieshave been hotly debated in recent years. This study, therefore, is not an attempt tojustify one or other approach, but to describe those phenomena that are widelyperceived as belonging to some sort of Iranian national character.An anthropological and sociological interest in Iran existed even before the IslamicRevolution made the Iranian regime into an adversary of the West. Various studieshave been published dealing with “Persian Psychology,” Iranian “National2 See Alex Inkeles and Daniel J. Levinson, “National Character: The Study of Modal Personality andSociocultural Systems,” The Handbook of Social Psychology IV (2 nd ed.), ed. Gardner Lindzey andEliot Aronson, (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1968) 418–506. This definition is used by AliBanuazizi, “Iranian ‘National Character’: A Critique of Some Western Perspectives,” PsychologicalDimensions of Near East Studies, L. Carl Brown and Norman Itzkowitz (Princeton: Darwin Press,1977).3 Mary Catherine Bateson, J.W. Clinton, J.B.M. Kassarjian, H. Safavi, and M. Soraya, “Safa-ye Batin.A Study of the Interrelationships of a Set of Iranian Ideal Character Types,” Psychological Dimensionsof Near Eastern Studies, ed. L.Carl Brown and Norman Itzkowitz (Princeton: Darwin Press, 1977) 257-273, 260, 261.4 William O Beeman, “What is (Iranian) National Character? A Sociolinguistic Approach,” IranianStudies 9.1 1976: 22-43, 23.5 See Ruth Benedict, Patterns of Culture, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1934) 1-7.2