Iran: Cultural Values, Self images and Negotiation Behavior

Communication and Negotiationor deliberately leading others to an erroneous interpretation of those actions whilebeing able to successfully interpret the actions of others.” 108 In essence, zerœngi is anability to manipulate relations and communications with others. In Iranian literatureand cinema, a person who fails in such manipulation is a tragic figure, whereas onewho succeeds – even if the manipulation involves extreme deception and blackmail –is perceived as a positive figure. 109 In manipulating the interpretation of a message,Iranians put equal emphasis on maintaining correctness in speech (not diverging fromproper protocol) and effectiveness (creating strategic departures from correctness insuch a way as to unbalance the interlocutor). A person who is adept at discoursemanipulation is highly esteemed in Iran. Conversely, the expectation that the otherparty will attempt to be clever as well contributes to the general sense of mistrust andunwillingness to accept things at face value.An individual's use of the Persian language is frequently an indication of hispolitics. A comparison of interviews and speeches of Conservative and Reformistpoliticians clearly shows a predilection of the former to Arabized Persian, i.e.,vocabulary and a convoluted rhetorical style typical of religious sermons and ofclerics for whom Arabic is almost a second mother tongue. 110 The latter, on the otherhand, clearly favor a more colloquial, straightforward style with a preference forPersian words over Arabic imports. This distinction comes through even intranslation.The very terminology of diplomatic interaction concerning conflicts is indicative ofthe cultural baggage attached to possibilities of compromise or concession. Much canbe read into the etymologies of the words that Iranian diplomats choose to describethe interactions and agreements in which they are involved. An attempt to map theIranian terminology, 111 however, produced an ambiguous picture, with little practicalapplication. It seems that, in contrast with Arab obsession with well-crafted linguisticambiguity, the Iranian is less perturbed by the exact content of the words he uses; inany case, it is future circumstances and not connotations that existed in the past thatwill determine whether or not a statement will be politically relevant when the timecomes.Iranian interpreters have frequently been known to manipulate their translationsand even to translate dialogues in a manner that makes it more palatable to the Iranianside. When the interpreter is himself a member of the team and not a professionalinterpreter he may have more of a tendency to use his own political knowledge tocreate constructive misunderstandings. 112 A few observers have noted that the choiceof interpreter for sensitive meetings was not necessarily based on his proficiency inthe foreign language, but on his loyalty and security rating.108 Beeman, “What is (Iranian) National Character?” 34; Beeman, Language, Status and Power 26.109 Beeman, Language, Status and Power 31; Beeman, “What is (Iranian) National Character?” 34.110 Many of these clerics studied in the seminaries of Najaf and lived in Arabic-speaking countries. Thevery fact that the day-to-day discourse in these circles deals with the Koran and Hadith also increasesthe use of Arabic.111 Raymond Cohen, Farsi Negotiating Lexicon, Unpublished digital database, Hebrew University ofJerusalem 2 1998: 130-139.112 This custom was observed during Khomeini's period in Paris. His interpreters were Dr. IbrahimYazdi (to English) and Abolhassan Banisadr (to French). Both took care to translate only thosequestions that would not arouse Khomeini's wrath, and to render his answers in a “politically correct”manner.29