Iran: Cultural Values, Self images and Negotiation Behavior

Iran: Cultural Values, Self-images and Negotiating BehaviorWestern concepts of wholesale political transparency in contradiction with Iranianpolitical-social mores. 84Hierarchy in Iranian society is based on the utter subservience of the subordinate tohis higher-ups. The strongest and most pervasive hierarchy is within the family: thefather and the eldest brother remain the patriarchal sources of authority even inrelatively modern Iranian families. On the political level, the relationship between theruler and his people (even in the revolutionary regime) is often defined by the Islamicconcept of ra'yat – a word with connotations of both flock and serfs.The attitude towards total compliance with superiors is frequently linked to ideasof divine determinism – if God had wanted the superior to take the right position, hewould have inspired him accordingly. If he did not do so, to contradict the superiorwould be tantamount to acting against the will of God. The Persian moralist Sa’diquotes the Vizier on his “yes-man” attitude towards the King: “Only God knows theoutcome of all matters and only he determines whether a man’s view is right orwrong,” and he adds “To urge a view against the Sultan’s view/ Is to surrender hopeof living too/ If he should say the very day is night/ Say, ‘Lo the Moon, and there isPleiades bright.” 85 This poetic portrayal of the need to accept political realities is alsoexpressed in the Persian maxim: “If you can not cut off the hand of the King – kissit”. In modern relationships between the former Shah and his entourage, there hadbeen not a few cases documented in which the latter have called in foreigners toportray a reality to the Shah that they themselves feared to tell. 86A boss or person superior in rank will not greet his subordinates first; he will notfraternize with his subordinates or socialize with them except in the framework of aspecial visit for an occasion. At the same time, however, a superior is expected tocultivate his subordinates in order to maximize the benefit he gets out of them. He isexpected to protect them from others of his rank and to behave according to an agreedcode (ra'yet- parvar – kindness to or care for one's serfs, a sort of noblesse oblige).The duties that derive from this principle are similar to those of a father towards hischildren: to cultivate the subjects and to care for their needs, but at the same time toeducate them to discipline and obedience. The paradigm of hierarchal relations alsodraws, on one hand, from the political-religious status of the Imam in Shiite theology,and on the other from the Shah in Persian civilization. In both cases, authority is total(motlagh) and unquestioned. The subject or subordinate has no need to know thereasons behind the leader's decisions. The last Shah was centralist to an extremedegree, and tended to go into details of political and economic affairs that many of hisministers were not aware of.84 Khatami, for example, was criticized personally as one who speaks to the awam as if they werelearned and responsible people. Ayatollah Misbah-Yazdi went on record in a Friday sermon that theawam are like a flock of sheep and must be led as such.85 Quoted in Arasteh. 44, from Sa’di, Gulistan, in A.J. Arberry, Kings and Beggars (London: Luzac &Co., 1945).86 Y. met with a senior Iranian leader. Before the meeting the Iranian leader's most senior aide asked Y.to convince the leader of a certain point and to bring to his attention certain facts, otherwise the leaderwould make decisions that stood in contradiction to the facts. Y. asked the aide why he did not simplypoint out to the leader at the beginning of the meeting that these were the facts. The aid replied that thiscould not be done and only an "outsider" could bring in the "corrective" facts.20