Double‐Thinking and Contradictory Arrangements in Iranian Law and Society

Abstract

Although thinking double thoughts and living dual lives are not specifically Iranian traits, Iranians have, nevertheless, become more susceptible to them for historical reasons, which may be traced back to when Persians became Muslims. The gradual normalization of double‐thinking over the centuries has given rise to social and political patterns of behavior and institutional arrangements which oscillate between opposing regimes of truths and different sets of ethical concerns, often without merging them into a new process. Once double‐thinking is normalized at the level of society, it helps people to cope with the cognitive dissonance they experience in circumstances where it is difficult to change attitude and behavior. It also affects the organization of society by making contradictory arrangements appear normal. It promotes reflexive thinking and subversive action as much as it facilitates misrecognition of sociopolitical suppression and legitimization of symbolic violence. This state of affairs generates a form of modernity which appears, at least on the surface, to be comfortable with contradictory social arrangements, while deep down it remains ill at ease with its inner contradictions.

Editor's introduction—July 2024

“…It is surely widely recognized that politicians do not always answer questions in a straightforward manner—but how do they avoid questions, and what does this avoidance look like in their public comments and debates? Yousofi and Najafi's study (2024) examines the 2009 presidential debates in Iran, analyzing the comments and responses of six presidential candidates, to understand the use of a range of evasive techniques, and finds that “ignoring the question” is a leading tactic. He also finds that reformist candidates tended to be more evasive than fundamentalist candidates.…”