Conversation with Simin Rouzgar

Mahmoud Sadri, a comparative sociologist and professor at Texas Woman’s University, holds a PhD in Sociology from New School University in America. He also collaborates with newspapers such as New York Times, The Guardian, and some Persian-language media outlets. Dr. Mahmoud Sadri has published the book “Migration, Globalization, and Ethics” (co-authored with Dr. Mohsen Mobasher in English) and numerous scientific articles.

In this issue of the monthly magazine “Peace Line”, we have spoken with this Iranian sociologist about the roots and reasons for the conflict between the Iranian government and music, which can only be seen in the cancellation of concert chains. Mahmoud Sadri, while pointing out that “removing music from society is as impossible as removing language from society”, speaks about peace: “This kind of political coercion, although in the short term benefits those in power, ultimately harms them… The hammer of destroying concerts is in the hands of a well-digger who with each destruction, finds himself deeper in the well.”

Considering the history of Iran after Islam, do you see the current government’s hostility towards music as a popular concern or a result of political efforts by the government and state?

The confrontation between traditional religion (and the reconstructed ideological religion, as we see in the Islamic Republic of Iran) and music is not limited to Islam. We can find other examples of it in Christianity and Judaism. This competition is carried out on one hand through complete prohibition of music, and on the other hand through the use of music to intensify and promote religious matters. In the history of Islam, music has been both prohibited and approved in various eras and methods; from the call to prayer and recitation of the Quran to eulogies, hymns, laments, and chanting. This challenge also has a long history in other religions. In Christianity, until the 18th century, playing the organ was even forbidden in many churches. Today, some Protestant denominations such as the Church of Christ still do not allow it. Their argument is that in the Bible, music is only mentioned in two instances: during the time of the prophet David, who sang and played instruments himself

Please note that the subject goes beyond concerns of public morality or governmental maneuvers and speaks of an ancient dispute. Religious sociologist Max Weber says the main competition here is likely over the salvation of two rivals. Both religion and music, in their own way, offer such a commodity. The difference is that the type of salvation offered by music is critical and its origin is immediately accessible. Therefore, religious leaders feel threatened and try to prohibit, control, or channel it.

In your opinion, what benefit does canceling concerts and restricting music, despite its demand in society, have for the government of Iran?

Cancelling concerts under the pretext of their contradiction with religious principles is not consistent with the interests of the religious authorities of the government. It is evident that those who attend concerts are usually educated and music lovers, and spend less time in Friday prayers or listening to the sermons of the illiterate government preachers. Preventing these programs is actually a way to prevent the formation and organization of social and cultural movements that are in conflict with the official religious program of the government.

The series of approved concerts in Iran has emerged since the beginning of Hassan Rouhani’s presidency. Do you see this as a sign of political conflict between different factions within the government, or do you simply see it as a belated discovery regarding cultural concerns, such as Ayatollah Khamenei’s concerns about teaching humanities in universities? In simpler terms, if tomorrow a different president from a different faction than Hassan Rouhani takes office, will these pressures come to an end or will they continue to affect the artistic community in the same way?

It is evident that the Islamic Republic of Iran is not truly democratic. It is a dual government in which the unelected part of the regime controls many economic, political, and cultural centers. Naturally, the elected part of the government (the administration and parliament), especially when they have the support of the people, cannot oppose cultural phenomena and events such as concerts and even supports them. However, the unelected part, which has no concern for the people’s votes, always takes a stance against these cultural and popular manifestations. As long as this dual government exists in Iran, such opposition will continue to exist.

Mr. Sadri, is there any research or perspective from a sociological point of view that examines the effects of the presence or absence of music in a society? In other words, if we were to remove music from Iranian society, would there be any harm?

Music is an inseparable part of human culture and civilization. Removing music from society is just as impossible as removing language. Governments that deny the role of music, in practice, divide it into two categories: permissible and impermissible. The permissible category of music (at least on the surface) serves the ideological goals (religious or secular) of society, and is sometimes referred to as “committed art.” The impermissible category of music does not disappear, but rather goes underground and gains more freedom for innovation and dissemination in secrecy.

The example of a secular society that divided music into two categories, permissible and impermissible, was the Soviet Union, which ruled over Russia and its neighboring regions from 1917 to 1989. This government banned “bourgeois” types of music, such as jazz, and promoted classical music (of a specific type). The life of the famous musician, Dmitry Shostakovich, was full of ups and downs, which were attributed to his outward and forced adherence to revolutionary music in order to continue his artistic life.

The summary is that removing music from Iranian society is neither possible nor desirable. Dividing it into permissible and impermissible categories will generally result in unintended consequences and go against the goals of censors.

What do you know about the long-term consequences of attending licensed concerts? Thousands of citizens – especially young people – are constantly faced with closed doors after purchasing tickets; can we imagine a serious impact for this issue?

This kind of political oppression, although in the short term benefits those in power, ultimately leads to their downfall. Censorship, control, and manipulation of art increases and creates a powerful cultural rival for religious rule. The destruction of concerts is like digging a well, with each destruction, they find themselves deeper in the bottom of the well.

Thank you for the opportunity you have given us.