Browsing by Author "Soroush, Nazanin"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Focusing on “What is Happening Right Now”: Understanding Michel Foucault’s Writings On the Iranian Revolution Through Hannah Arendt’s Theory of Action
    (2013) Soroush, Nazanin; Miller, Jerry; Wright, Kathleen, 1944-
    Michel Foucault visited Iran in 1978 in the midst of the popular uprisings that ultimately toppled the Shah’s monarchic regime and led to the foundation of the Islamic Republic. His writings and interviews on the Iranian Revolution indicate his astonishment with the movement. He was particularly awed by the surprising unity of the movement and the role that Shia Islam played in bringing hundreds of thousands of people together. His writings, however, received a lot of immediate criticism, especially after Khomeini founded a fundamentalist Islamic government in the aftermath of the revolution. Foucault was asked to admit to his “mistake”. But he refused to reevaluate his observations on the Iranian revolutionary movement in hindsight. In his writings, he explicitly stated that he aimed at grasping what was “happening right now,” indifferent to the past or the future of the movement. The purpose of this thesis project is to analyze Foucault’s understanding of the Iranian movement through a close reading and analysis of his writings on the movement. In doing so, this thesis draws on Hannah Arendt’s theory of action to argue that Foucault witnessed the actualization of human freedom in Iran. Furthermore, this thesis hopes to, in Foucault’s defense, show the value in attempting to grasp a new phenomenon as it occurs, placing emphasis on the process, as opposed to the aftermath, of a movement.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Small State Insecurity Complex: Explaining the Variation in Foreign Policies of Bahrain, Kuwait, and Qatar With Respect to Iran
    (2013) Soroush, Nazanin; Mendelsohn, Barak, 1971-
    This thesis tries to explain why the Gulf states have adopted varying foreign policies toward Iran. This variation in their foreign policies toward Iran is perplexing since they are all threatened by Iran, as demonstrated in their founding of the GCC. Moreover, Iran’s aggressiveness has increased since 2003, thanks to the convenient elimination of its regional rival, Iraq during Saddam. This variation in the Gulf states’ foreign policies is further puzzling when considering the fundamental similarities among these countries, including the monarchic regime type, rentier state economy, the Arab and Sunni identity of the ruling elite, and reliance on the US to ensure their security. There are two dimensions to this thesis. By looking at the Gulf States individually, it aims to isolate and study the effects of the presence (majority or minority) or absence of a Shi’ite population in a state’s foreign policy toward Iran. In contrast to the mainstream view that the presence of Shi’ite populations necessarily explains a state’s hostile foreign policy toward Iran, the schools of thought that will be discussed in this thesis will demonstrate the various ways that the presence or absence of a Shi’ite population would affect a state’s foreign policy. By looking closely at the internal political and social dynamics of the Gulf states individually, this thesis also examines the role of other variables, such as relations with local powers as well as the small nature of a state. This thesis tests Bahrain, Kuwait, and Qatar against the fourteen hypotheses generated by the schools of thought. While demonstrating the deficiencies in each hypotheses to account for the complexity of each case‐study, this thesis concludes that the variation in the foreign policies of these three Gulf states’ foreign policies toward Iran is a result of the complex, yet undeniable, relationship between the ruling regime and its nation. Sectarian divisions play a role insofar as they complicate or facilitate a regime’s overall relations with the nation, thus contributing to the final foreign policy toward Iran; however, by themselves, sectarian divisions do not explain Bahrain’s hostility, Kuwait’s neutrality, and Qatar’s former friendly but current hostility toward Iran.