Thursday, June 18, 2009

a loud silence

June 18, 2009

Marches and police interventions continue. Spontaneous and organized gatherings are taking place in Tehran and other cities of Iran. Militias in plain clothes and security police operate on streets and squares but also in private homes and dormitories, beating, arresting.

The crowds shout slogans but are being described as mostly silent. Some interpret this silence as a peaceful response. Avoiding words that could be accused of being subversive, the crowd does not seek provocation. Silence is itself a sign of what people cannot say but show with their presence.

Silent are also the militia and security forces. It is not clear to whom they respond and who is in charge of them. At this moment, they are more than anyone else the real embodiment of the order (nezam) and act in capillary ways to discipline behaviors and thoughts. Their silence is action.

The main political actors are also silent. Yes, they make declarations and respond to each other. Their requests and replies have set in motion several administrative procedures to confront the situation. There is an official inquiry into the events at the university of Tehran. There is the partial recounting of the votes. There are letters to the ministry of Justice. In the overall however the declarations are few and most of all cautious. Things are being worked out in silence.

The usual channels of communication are suspended. Disruptions of txt services, blockage of social networks, websites, newspapers. As a consequence the available “official” media come under heightened suspicion and are seen as unfit to describe “things as they are.”

Opposition leaders give instructions inviting people to join a demonstration or wear green and black. Given the uncertainty in communication, these messages are also scrutinized: can that piece of instruction be trusted? Or is it a rumor, a provocation meant to harm those who follow it? At the same time state officials in the media often fail to acknowledge the situation on the ground or depict it in unlikely terms. All this generates indeterminacy and noise.

Silence as presence, as action, as caution, as censorship, as indeterminacy. These different kinds of silence are caught in the dynamic between “confusion” and “plotting” outlined below.

How power gets constituted between these two poles? Between the vision that Iran is a mess --a chaotic situation where it is unclear who commands over what-- and the idea that everything, including disorders, happens because it is orchestrated-- how is power articulated? How is legitimacy constructed and reproduced?

Religion and the nation are often evoked to describe the relationship between Iranians and their government. Certainly one could talk about the current situation as being about different ideas over what constitutes Iran as a nation, or describe the contending parties as embodying different approaches to the question of religion and politics.

But these commentaries would miss an important question, the relationship between power and truth. Truth here refers both to facts (who won the elections?) and to the more abstract question of representation and will (who represents Iranians? Who do Iranians want?).

Both confusion and plotting entail skepticism over the possibility of meaningful action. The question of truth forces a different logic, one that is oriented at (re) establishing a link between a people and its government, by peaceful or violent means, through different kinds of loud silences.

No comments:

Post a Comment