Last updated:

October 24, 2024

Khosrow Sadeghi Boroujeni: Sterilization is an admission of defeat/ Simin Ruzgar.


Conversation with Simin Rouzgar

Khosro Sadeghi Borujeni is a sociologist who, in recent years, has studied neoliberalism and political economy in Iran and has written numerous articles on this topic. His book, “Neoliberalism in the Critique of Boota”, is a collection of his articles published by H&S Media in England.
In light of the special topic of this issue of Khat-e-Solh, we approached Mr. Sadeghi Borujeni to have a conversation with him about the issue of racial improvement and sterilization of women or men. In this regard, earlier this year, Shahindokht Molaverdi, the Deputy President for Women and Family Affairs, indirectly mentioned sterilizing homeless women and preventing the birth of addicted infants and reducing the financial burden on the system and the country. Although a few days later, Health Minister Hassan Ghazizadeh Hashemi, in an interview with Etemad newspaper, firmly denied sterilizing homeless women, the issue was

Racial improvement has a long history, to the extent that centuries ago some countries were implementing it on a widespread scale with the help of medical science. Essentially, what perspective led to the formation of this thinking?

Sterilizing women or men in order to prevent the birth of individuals who are considered “unfit,” such as criminals, sick people, and those deemed “unworthy,” has its roots in a set of theories known as “social Darwinism.” Darwin, as a biologist, believed that stronger and fitter cells, through a process of natural selection, would destroy weaker cells and create a form of “survival of the fittest.” Social Darwinism applies Darwin’s ideas to social issues, and is often linked to political conservatism, late capitalism, fascism, and racism.

Social Darwinists generally linked social stratification with the natural abilities of individuals. The description of social Darwinist theories is important because it forms the basis of neoliberal thinking about social inequalities and justifies these inequalities based on a conservative and social Darwinist approach. Therefore, it is necessary to distance ourselves from discussions that often only reflect surface-level realities and instead delve into the theoretical roots of these ideas and their connections to current ideologies.

Herbert Spencer, the founder of social Darwinism, believed that the world constantly progresses towards a more advanced state. Therefore, it should be left alone, as external interference can only make things worse. Spencer accepted Darwin’s idea of natural selection and “survival of the fittest” in the social world. This means that without external interference, the “fittest” individuals will survive and reproduce, while the “unfit” will eventually be eliminated from the scene of survival. One of Spencer’s liberal views, which was not well received due to his conservatism, was the acceptance of a free market economy. He felt that the government should not interfere in personal matters and should only play a passive role in protecting the people, without taking on any other functions.

Spencer said that the general level of intelligence will increase to the point where only those with superior intelligence will be able to survive the struggle for survival. He believed that if the government intervenes in this mechanism through enacting laws to support the needy or other social welfare measures and does not allow the beneficial factors to naturally carry out their selection process, it will cause devastating damage to this useful mechanism.

In his book “Social Stability”, he wrote: “It seems to be a problem that we abandon widows and orphans in the struggle with life and death. However, if we consider this issue not separately, but in relation to the interests of all humanity, we see that these horrific tragedies are full of benefits; including the fact that the children of sick people die faster and abnormal and weak individuals are separated as victims of widespread diseases.”

American sociologist, “William Graham Sumner” is also one of the most famous social Darwinists who frequently uses terms such as evolution and fitness or merit. Sumner was a supporter of classical liberalism and individual freedom and therefore opposed government involvement in providing social welfare. According to Sumner, industrial and financial elites have proven in a competitive battle that they are the “most deserving” and should be considered the leaders of modern civilization.

He, like other social Darwinists, believes in the social classification of origin and natural necessity and believes: “…humans, like other animals and plants, must be classified and in the process of selection, those who are in higher ranks naturally have superiority over others. Therefore, those who have natural talents become rulers and those who are devoid of natural talents form the working masses.”

Samner believes that the majority of people come from the middle class and those with exceptional talents are in a higher stage and create the ruling class, while lowly and foolish individuals are placed in the lowest rank. According to Samner, “the middle class makes up the social masses and the working class is placed in a lower rank, only serving the recent generation.” Samner, inspired by Malthus, believes that any effort to reduce inequality, including through the creation of a social security system, is harmful; because it allows the unworthy to reproduce using the resources obtained, like rabbits.

In fact, Spencer believed, unlike Darwin, that there is an inverse relationship between being civilized and being savage. While Darwin believed that “the fittest species of animals reproduce faster than the unfit ones.” Spencer ultimately tries to justify the dominance of the capitalist class as the most civilized class in response to the Marxist class analysis.

In other words, fascism of the 20th century and neoliberalism of the 21st century can be seen as evolved and theorized forms of a type of social Darwinism. However, unlike Darwin’s belief in natural selection, here we are not faced with a neutral institution like the government, but rather the neoliberal government acts in favor of the dominance of the powerful and at the expense of the underprivileged and marginalized, and makes policies accordingly. The belief in the superiority and dominance of individuals or classes can be defined in a fascist state like Nazi Germany based on “race” or in a neoliberal state based on “class”. In any case, the government is not working to support vulnerable classes and groups, but rather taking steps towards creating a social and economic system that leads to the dominance of the upper class and the marginalization and destruction of the underprivileged and poor in society.

What is the application of social Darwinism in the policies of countries and what experiences exist of its implementation?

Examples of social Darwinism in social policy of countries around the world can be mentioned. For example, doctors and scientists participated in the Nazi policies in Germany, which aimed to sterilize individuals with “defective” genes. They established health courts to determine the genetic health of individuals and even before the start of World War II in 1939, they issued orders to sterilize approximately 400,000 mentally ill, disabled, and alcoholics. From then on, “killing out of mercy” was revealed to include “killing out of starvation” in psychiatric hospitals. Between January 1940 and September 1942, they killed more than 70,000 mentally ill patients with gas. They were chosen by 9 prominent psychiatry professors and 39 high-ranking doctors among those who were deemed “worthless”. The application of social Darwinism in social policy of countries around the world takes various forms, not necessarily in the form of sterilizing the disadvantaged. Social Darwinists and believers

In a situation where racial discrimination is considered a violation of human rights in most parts of the world, some countries have taken steps to compensate victims of forced sterilization. It seemed that this issue would be a thing of the past, but recently in Iran, some individuals and officials have been discussing the issue of forced sterilization of homeless individuals.

As far as the current discussion is concerned, according to statistics from the Anti-Drug Headquarters, the number of addicted women has doubled in the past 10 years. On the other hand, the proportion of women living in cardboard boxes has also decreased to one third. According to Shahindokht Molaverdi, the Vice President for Women and Family Affairs, there are only 5,000 women living in cardboard boxes in Tehran. In social foundations, it is said that when the quantity of a problem goes beyond a certain level, that problem is no longer analyzable at a smaller level, but it becomes a “social” issue and its root causes and damages must be examined from a social perspective. For example, if two people commit suicide in a city during a specific period of time, we can examine the reasons for their suicide by looking at their personal lives and mental states. But if one hundred people commit suicide during a specific period of time, it is a social issue and must

Raising issues such as sterilization of women, cardboard sleeping, above all, shows the inefficiency of the governing system, organizations, and relevant ministries in solving social problems and admitting failure in reducing these crises. In other words, raising the issue of sterilization, giving the wrong address, and paying attention to the disabled and victims to cover up the problem. While according to most sociological studies, the root cause of social problems is not the “individual” and these problems cannot be solved, analyzed, and solutions provided at the “micro” level alone. It seems that the dominant approach of decision-makers in the country is in line with the economic ideology they follow, based on a kind of individualism. In this approach, the cause of social and economic crises is attributed to the individual choices of known individuals, and structural barriers and limitations are marginalized. It is natural that when such a view is dominant, the solution to the country’s crises and problems is also seen at the individual level.

In this regard, it is worth mentioning a note from the Minister of Welfare, which was published a few days after the publication of the Shahr-e-Now newspaper’s report on graveyards in the media. In this note, the Minister of Welfare, while visiting the graveyards, stated that they are victims of their own personal choices to indulge in drugs, and an attempt was made to give more weight to individual factors in analyzing this crisis. Such non-expert and biased opinions are shirking the social responsibilities of the government and passing it on to individuals who are both victims of the reproducing social-economic system of inequality and do not have the freedom to choose in a fair and just situation.

On the other hand, introducing possibilities and opportunities for progress and what is commonly referred to as climbing the ladder of success is the issue at hand. Today, a large number of books published in the field of psychology of success and business reflect an individualistic tendency that only considers personal abilities and efforts as the key to individual success and progress, disregarding the social and economic constraints in which individuals live and grow.

In our country, on one hand, there are numerous advertisements about childbearing and various methods of birth control are somewhat censored, and on the other hand, some people who believe in forced sterilization find a way. Should this be called a duality or is it a different matter?

The discussion of promoting childbearing is a multidimensional issue that cannot be analyzed solely by considering traditional approaches and the fact that its supporters seek to strengthen the institution of family and enhance the role of motherhood for women. Supporters of this program believe that the fertility rate in Iran has decreased and if this trend continues, we will witness an aging population. According to the World Health Organization, if the fertility rate in a country – meaning the average number of children a mother gives birth to – falls below 2, it is considered a threat to health. Currently, the average fertility rate in the world is 2.5 and in Iran it is 1.8.

This issue can have an impact in the future on both the decrease in the number of young workforce and the disruption of the balance between resources and expenditures of retirement and deepening their financial crisis. On the other hand, opponents of population growth policies also have valid concerns, including the fact that the country’s management system has proven to be inefficient in providing for the needs of this population and a larger population would mean more resource shortages in various sectors.

According to what has been said, the issue of sterilization has little to do with the policy of population growth. The policy of population growth aims to increase the overall population of the country to prevent future crises, but the issue of sterilization is about permanently and temporarily preventing a very limited portion of the population from having children, which is believed to impose a greater economic and social burden on society and lead to the spread of social problems such as addiction, homelessness, and various crimes.

One of the issues that supporters of compulsory sterilization emphasize is why should the people’s taxes or public funds be spent on the treatment and care of homeless children who are already known to not have suitable conditions for upbringing before birth and whose parents are not capable guardians for them. In this regard, even the inevitable exposure of these children to diseases such as AIDS and hepatitis, or even addiction due to genetic issues, is mentioned. What is your approach in this regard?

This discussion is completely devoid of any legal, human, and even historical justification. The Constitution has obligated the government to create the necessary conditions for a fair and dignified life for all citizens, regardless of their race, religion, or social class. According to the Constitution, this goal is achieved through the establishment and implementation of a fair and humane economic system. Free education and healthcare, as well as providing suitable housing and shelter, are among the duties of the government, which must fulfill them through proper planning and optimal use of the country’s resources and facilities for all citizens. To claim that the existence of a group of people imposes additional costs on the country is fundamentally against the principles of the Constitution. Every individual, simply by being born within the borders of Iran and having Iranian citizenship, has rights that have not been enforced by the executive branch so far. It should also be noted that Iran is a country where the majority of its financial resources and budget are not provided through citizens’ taxes, but rather

How likely do you think it is that the government will have a serious plan in this area in the future?

Experience tells us that every decision that we once thought was impossible to be implemented by the government, has become practical through reforms and adjustments. Let us remember the targeted approach and gradual elimination of subsidies, which were once considered a joke. Or other mind-boggling decisions made by the country’s decision-making system. By examining the dominant discourse in the minds of officials and planners, and the approach dominating the country’s planning, it can be understood that the act of sterilization and its implementation is not far-fetched. Now, by adding optional suffixes such as “sterilization” or other reforms to reduce social reactions against it.

Currently, neoliberal ideological beliefs dominate various aspects of planning in the country. This ideology, based on a form of social Darwinism, strengthens and perpetuates class structures in favor of the elite and at the expense of the lower classes. This approach, instead of addressing the social and economic roots of crises, turns to psychology, family, and the social circle of the guilty individual, ultimately making the victim the main culprit. We have previously witnessed examples of this type of confrontation with social reality in the violent and judicial treatment of street vendors and homeless people, and it is not unlikely that we will see the implementation of forced sterilization. On the other hand, when a root and social solution is not accepted by authorities to address social crises, conflicting interests compel them to medicalize the issue and choose medical solutions as a quick and accessible solution.

Thank you for the opportunity you have given us.

Created By: Simin Rouzgard
January 27, 2017

Tags

Carton bed Darsinim Homeless 2 Khosrow Sadeghi Boroujeni Monthly Peace Line Magazine peace line Racial improvement Simin Daytrip Sterilization پیمان صلح ماهنامه خط صلح