Since the late 19th century, despite multi-cultural and multilingual composition of Iranian population, Persian nationalism has functioned as the ideology of the state. Persian intelligentsia have formulated a set of historical and cultural referents that enabled them to present the Persian language and identity as primordial and allinclusive of all Iranians. By the advent of the modern nation-state, during Pahlavi dynasty, the non-Persian identities were brutally repressed in favor of the "One Country, One Nation, and One Language" policy. Through the adoption of such a policy and with the help of Persian intellectual and literati classes, the state was able to impose Persian identity as the singular "Iranian identity" and systematically marginalize and criminalize the non-Persian identities, treating them as "manufactured ethnic identities." Being declared as "manufactured," non-Persian identities are consequently perceived as constant threats to the territorial integrity and ideological monologue of the sovereign. This paper, therefore, aims to critically reassess "Iranian identity" and its production of "internal colonized Other." It argues that through such an "internal othering" that Persian nationalism, backed by the combined force of a military and "privileged epistemology" has generated and sustained "the process of internal colonization."

Through the investigation of kolberi (cross‐border labor), this paper sheds light on the state’s policy of de‐development (or internal colonialization) of the Kurdish region (known as Rojhelat) in Iran. While the most dangerous form of labor, kolberi has become a dominant employment opportunity for Rojhelat Kurds in the last decade. There are no Iranian state laws criminalizing kolberi, and yet those laborers die on a regular basis—being shot or thrown off mountain cliffs by the state forces, stepping into minefields, and so forth. Nevertheless, there is not a single scholarly paper on this subject. Using the mixed methods research approach, our study analyzes the existing data along with in‐depth interviews with 20 people who are currently engaged in kolberi to contextualize this understudied phenomenon. Our finding demonstrates that kolberi is a direct outcome of a uni‐ethno‐religious policies of development and part and parcel of the state's Perso‐Shi‘ification strategy in Kurdistan. Therefore, kolberi is more of a political phenomenon than an economic one.

The modern Muslim world is an integral part of global society. In transcending the confi nes of area studies, this series encompasses scholarly work on political, economic, and cultural issues in modern Muslim history, taking a global perspective. Focusing on the period from the early nineteenth century to the present, it combines studies of Muslim majority regions, such as the Middle East and in Africa and Asia, with the analysis of Muslim minority communities in Europe and the Americas. Emphasizing the global connectedness of Muslims, the series seeks to promote and encourage the understanding of contemporary Muslim life in a comparative perspective and as an inseparable part of modern globality.More information about this series at

No abstract

In this paper, we intend to deconstruct the term ‘tribalism’ as a colonial category, which figures as a prominent concept in social studies on Kurds as well as the Middle East at large. Blithely used, tribalism has occupied a central place, especially in the existing scholarship on Kurdistan. Some earlier anthropological works have gone so far as to regard tribalism as the ‘DNA’ of Middle Eastern people. Drawing on recent studies on Latin America, Africa and Central Asia, we argue that the use of tribalism as if it is the natural constitution of Kurdish society has caused a significant misrepresentation and oversimplification of socio‐political life in Kurdistan as well as the broader Middle East. In a way, the existing body of scholarship on this region has reproduced statist‐nationalist discourses at the expense of dominated communities (e.g., Kurds). The historical context of both colonial powers and nation‐states ‘combating tribes and tribalism’ coincided with the emergence of the discourse of racial biopolitics. Thus, the use of the term tribalism to define certain nations or ethnic groups should not be viewed as merely an application of socio‐anthropological categories. Hence, we argue that the ethical aspects and implications of the use of tribalism by both colonial powers and later by nation‐states to define certain ethnic groups must not be overlooked.