The Body Is Part of Political Action Itself

According to the translator: 'The main issue is not merely the presence of bodies, but which bodies are able to be present, how they are heard and seen, and whether their differences are recognized in the political process.'

According to Ambassador Arjan's report, quoted by Ambassador Arjan's religion and thought service, Reza Dastjardi wrote in the introduction of his interview with Seyedah Mahdieh Qorshi: "Body and democracy; Body politics methods" written by political sociologist Amanda Machin and translated by researcher and translator Seyedah Mahdia Qurashi is one of the new releases of Qoms publication. In this work, Machin believes that democracy is not just a set of formal institutions, laws and procedures, and above all in bodies; Human emotions, vulnerabilities, care and lived experience flow.

By making connections between political theory, ethics of care, and body studies, the book argues that ignoring bodies makes democracy an unfinished project, while questioning abstract and rational conceptions of democracy. What is in front of you is the result of Ambassador Arjan's conversation with the translator of the book, who will soon publish the second volume of this triple series, focusing on fitness, militarism and war. The translation of "Oxford Government Quality Guide" has also been published by Qureshi.

Has the book been translated and published due to the feeling of emptiness in the literature of democracy theory?

Yes, but to be more precise, my motivation was not simply to feel the void in Persian literature about "democracy" in its general sense. Persian literature, or rather Iranian political literature, has significant works in the field of democracy, whether in translation or authorship; What mattered to me was a more specific void, the place of the body in democratic theory and practice. In many classical and even some contemporary discussions about democracy, politics is mainly understood in terms of rationality, dialogue, institutional participation, voting and reasoning, and the body is less considered as part of the political experience itself. While if we look at the reality of political action, therefore, when I came across Amanda Machin's book, I did not see it simply as a book about "democracy" but as an attempt to open a less seen angle in understanding politics and democracy. That the body is not only the subject of politics or a tool for the implementation of political action, but is itself one of the places of formation of political experience and democratic action. At the same time, for me, the importance of translating this book was precisely at this point. That this discussion enters the intellectual space of Persian speakers and we can think about democracy not only from the perspective of institutions and abstract concepts, but also from the perspective of real bodies, lived experience, emotion, presence and collective action.

Which common assumption do you think the book challenges?

First of all, the book challenges a common assumption about democracy, which is that democratic politics can be explained mainly in the form of dialogue, rational reasoning, exchange of opinions and informed decision-making among citizens; It is as if a political person can separate himself from his body, emotions, lived experience and social position before entering the public arena and participate in the democratic process as a rational subject. Machin specifically engages with the idea of ​​"disembodied thinking" or "abstract thinking" in the second chapter of his book. The issue is not that dialogue and reasoning are unimportant in democracy, by the way, the book does not deny the importance of dialogue-oriented institutions. The problem is that if we see democracy only from this angle, we miss a part of the political reality. We always enter the public space with a specific body; A body that has its own gender, age, physical ability or limitation, lived experiences, emotions and social status. Therefore, the political citizen is not an abstract entity. From this point of view, even the concept of "equality" needs rethinking. People may legally or formally have equal access to public space, but their bodies are not in the same situation. Some bodies have been more visible throughout history, some have been less likely to be present, and some have been essentially excluded from the public arena. therefore,

Another important point is that this work does not see the body simply as something to be added to the conversational process. For this reason, I think the basic question of the book is not how to bring the body into democracy? Rather, the deeper question is that if we see democracy from the perspective of real bodies and embodied human experiences, how will our idea of ​​democratic politics change?

For me, the importance of the book lies precisely in this shift of perspective, that is, from democracy as a set of institutions, rules and rational dialogues, to democracy as a lived experience in which bodies are present, differ, suffer, resist, communicate with each other, and in many cases shape the political space itself.

Do you think the discussion of "body" in politics is different for the Iranian audience compared to the Western audience?

In my opinion, the principle of the issue of the body in politics is not different for the Iranian audience and the Western audience; In both contexts, the body is not just an individual and personal thing and can become an arena for exercising power, representing identity, protesting, resisting and forming social relations. But the political experience of the body and the meaning we get from it are highly dependent on the historical and social context. Therefore, it is not possible to consider a completely universal and uniform meaning about the body politic. By the way, one of the important points of Machin's book is that the body cannot be separated from the situation in which it is placed.

We do not enter politics with abstract bodies; Bodies are always located in certain social, historical and cultural situations. Gender, identity, lived experience, limitations and even the way a body is seen in the society affect the possibility of its presence and political participation. In the chapter on "thinking without a body", the book also shows that if we turn the political citizen into an abstract and equal person in the dialogue space, we lose part of the differences and inequalities that are experienced through the body.

For the Iranian audience, this discussion can find more specific layers, because the body has a very strong historical and cultural burden in Iran's social and political experience. A woman's body, clothing, presence in public space, the way the body is seen, restrictions on social presence and even different forms of physical protest can all have political meaning. In such a context, the body sometimes becomes a political expression before the person says anything. From this point of view, if we want to read Machin's book for an Iranian audience, perhaps one of its most interesting points is that Machin discusses physical protests and especially strikes, but at the same time, I think we should not present this difference as a simple dichotomy of "Iran vs. the West".

Western societies themselves do not have the same experience, and there too, different bodies have entered politics in a different way based on their gender, race, class, physical ability, and historical background. The book itself is exactly concerned with this issue and shows that even when it is said on a theoretical level that all people have the possibility of equal presence in the public space and dialogue, one must ask whether all bodies really enter this space under the same conditions or not. Therefore, it seems that the main difference is not that the body is political in Iran and not in Western societies; The main difference is in which bodies have been politicized in each society, in what historical and social conditions and in what way. Every society has its own experience, and this experience determines which body is seen more, which body is marginalized, which type of presence is considered natural or unconventional, and which type of physical action can be turned into protest or resistance.

For me, this is where the charm of this book lies. If we bring this view into the Iranian context, we can ask under what conditions our real bodies enter politics, what limitations do they carry with them, how are they seen and represented, and how can they change the political atmosphere through presence or protest, etc. In this case, the translation of this book is not only the transfer of a theoretical discussion from a western academic environment to Persian, but it can also provide a basis for thinking about our own bodily experience.

Basically, what is the difference between the role of the body in philosophical traditions and political science?

In my opinion, the main difference is that philosophy deals more with the body from this angle, what role does the body play in the formation of experience, perception, subject and human relationship with the world; Whereas political science, especially in more classical traditions, has mostly examined the body in relation to power, institutions, and political action. Of course, these two fields are not completely separate, and in recent years, more connections have been formed between them. In many philosophical traditions, especially in an important part of modern philosophy, there has been a kind of dualization between mind and body, and mind, consciousness and reason have found a more central place.

As a result, the body has sometimes become something secondary or belonging to the realm of material and individual experience. But on the other hand, some philosophical traditions, such as phenomenology, have questioned this relationship again. For example, Merleau-Ponty emphasizes that we experience the world from a specific bodily position, and that the body is not simply something we "have," but is part of how we are and experience the world. The same idea is used in the book to show that political experience cannot be separated from the body.

In political science, the issue of the body is usually introduced from another direction; For example, in the discussion of power, discipline, identity, representation, political participation or protest. That is, the question has been what power does with bodies, whether bodies are seen or removed in the public arena, and how bodies can be turned into political action. Machin's book is exactly at the junction of these two paths. That is, on the one hand, it uses philosophy and the concept of corporeality, and on the other hand, it asks what this view adds to our understanding of democracy and political action.

Therefore, I think the importance of the book's argument is that it transforms the body from a "subject" in politics to a constitutive component of political experience. That is, we don't just ask what policies are applied to the body; Rather, we ask how the body itself can think, experience, communicate, protest and play a role in the formation of a collective action. For example, in the context of a hunger strike, the protester's body is not just a carrier of a message; The body itself becomes a medium and a part of the protest action and can even create a collective identity and a new audience.

So, to put it very briefly, philosophy helps us understand how the body shapes our experience of the world and ourselves, and political science can show how this experiencing body enters into power relations and political action. Machin's book moves exactly in this distance and brings these two debates together.

And for me, this was one of the things worth pondering in the book, because when we see the body only in the framework of power or only in the framework of biology, we miss a part of the problem. The body simultaneously experiences, makes meaning, is seen, is limited, and can act. Therefore, to understand the politics of the body, we must pay attention to both the philosophy of corporeality and the political and social context in which this body lives and acts.

What tools does the body provide to groups that are marginalized in the power structure?

One of the most important facilities that the body provides to marginalized groups is the possibility of being seen in the public arena, especially when these groups have limited opportunities to express their wishes in official power structures. In this situation, the body can become a means to express protest, identity and desire that may not be possible to express through official channels. Therefore, in Machin's book, we can see that, for example, when a group gathers in a place or goes on a hunger strike, they are no longer just talking about one issue, but have put their bodies into the field of politics. In the discussion of physical protests, the book shows that the physical presence of protesters can change the meaning of a space and even give that place a new political meaning.

Another important possibility is to express identity. Bodies in society usually carry different identities and these identities can be formed under the influence of social norms, but at the same time, they can be changed and challenged. Therefore, the body is not only something on which power creates identity, but the body itself can also play a role in redefining that identity. On the other hand, the book even points out that the gathering of people itself can create a specific meaning of "people"; That is, a group is not only made up of individual people, but can become a political community through the presence of bodies.

Another important point is that the body can sometimes cross the limits of language and formal conversation. For example, collective silence, occupying a place or hunger strike is not necessarily done with arguments and speeches, but it can create a strong emotional and political reaction. About these types of actions, Machin shows that the presence of the body can create a meaning that cannot always be fully expressed in words. Of course, there is a subtle point here. The body itself is not a means of liberation. The same body that can be a tool of resistance can also be controlled or monitored.

Therefore, the political power of the body is formed precisely in this contradictory relationship with power. That is, the body can be both a place of exercising power and a place of resistance against it. For this reason, if I want to sum up the answer in one sentence, I would say that the body provides the opportunity for marginalized groups to bring something that may not be heard or seen in the official power structure into the public space through presence, being seen, protesting, expressing identity and creating solidarity. And this is one of the important points of the book, that sometimes the body is not only a tool for expressing politics, but also one of the methods of politics.

What is the role of paying attention to the role of the body in the realization of inclusive democracy?

From this point of view, the body helps to see the concept of participation more broadly. Memchin shows in the book that bodies can change the public space and even create new forms of cooperation and collective action through these different forms of presence. Another point is that attention to the body transforms differences from something to be eliminated into a part of democracy itself. If we assume that all citizens must think, speak, or participate in politics in exactly the same way, we are effectively leaving many experiences and voices out of the realm of politics. But democracy can become more plural if we recognize different bodies and their different experiences. The book itself considers democratic bodies as bodies that enliven participation, enrich knowledge and reveal differences in the political arena.

On the other hand, as I mentioned earlier, the body can also help create a kind of collective "we". When people with common experiences stand next to each other, the presence of bodies can create solidarity and show that a problem is not just an individual's problem, but a social and shared problem. So, of course, I think we should also consider one point here. That attention to the body does not mean that every embodied presence or every bodily protest is necessarily democratic. The book itself shows that bodies can both reproduce the existing order and challenge it. Therefore, if I want to summarize, attention to the body is important for inclusive democracy, because it takes us from the idea of ​​an abstract citizen to a real and embodied citizen. This is where the discussion of the body can approach the concept of democracy from a set of rules and institutions to a more real and plural experience of political participation.

Do you think that the theory that arises from the European and American context can be used to analyze politics in Iran?

In my opinion, no theory can be directly transferred to another society without paying attention to the historical and social context in which it was formed. Theories are formed in a specific context and it is natural that the historical experience, political structure, culture and even the meaning that concepts such as body, freedom, participation or protest find, differ from one society to another. Therefore, I am not going to consider this book as a ready-made model for explaining politics in Iran. But this does not mean that the theory formed in the European or American context can only be used for those societies. It is important to distinguish between the use of a theory and its mechanical adaptation. Theory can create a problem or a new perspective for us, and then we re-examine it in our own historical and social context.

For example, one of the important arguments of the book is that the political citizen cannot be separated from his body and political participation does not happen only in the form of votes, dialogues or arguments. This idea can be used in different fields, but its examples will be different in each society. In one society, the body may be politicized more through strikes or gatherings, and in another society, covering, being in the public space, the form of protest or even silence and refusal become more important. Ironically, the book itself emphasizes that the forms of democratic participation are diverse and depend on different actors and contexts. Therefore, one of the useful points of the book for the Iranian audience is that it invites us to ask new questions about our own political experience, rather than providing ready-made answers for it.

From this point of view, maybe the value of the book for us is more in the possibility of rereading our own experience. At the same time, we should not ignore the difference in contexts. The experience of democracy, the history of the state, the relationship between society and power, gender issues, social norms and forms of protest in Iran have their own history and characteristics. Therefore, if we want to use this framework to analyze Iran, we must bring it into dialogue with Iran's historical and social experience, rather than trying to force Iran's experience to fit exactly into the concepts of a Western theory. For me, translating this book was fascinating for exactly that reason. Translating a theory into Farsi is not just transferring words and concepts from one language to another; It can be a kind of invitation to dialogue between different experiences. We can use concepts that have been developed elsewhere, but reassess, modify, and even challenge them in the face of our own experience.

Based on this, these theories can be used for Iran, but not as a ready-made version, but as a tool for questioning and seeing aspects of politics that may have been less seen in the usual frameworks. The value of a theory increases precisely when it can raise new questions when faced with a new context and make us think about our own experience.

It seems that the "body" in Iran is the arena of sovereign control and resistance at the same time. What tools does this book provide to understand this situation and what are its limitations?

I think that before answering this question, we should be a little careful in its wording. In which situations the body in Iran is under control or in which situations it becomes a field of resistance is a historical and social issue and it is not possible to make a general judgment about it with just one theory. It should be noted that rather than giving us a ready answer about Iran's situation, Machin's book provides us with a conceptual tool for asking more detailed questions. One of the most important tools that the book gives us is not to see the body as just a subject or victim of power.

The body can also play a role in the formation of political action. In the discussion of physical protests, Machin shows that the physical presence of people, gathering, occupying a place, silence, hunger strike and other forms of bodily action can carry meaning and even be a kind of political action. In some cases, the body expresses something that cannot be conveyed through language and reasoning alone.

But for me, the most important part of the book happens to be right here where it makes a difference between "resistance" and "complete liberation". In Chapter 5, Machin shows that bodies that resist power are not necessarily outside of power relations. It is even possible that the resistance itself will lead to the formation of new habits, rules and orders among the protestors. Therefore, the body can be formed under the influence of power and create a disturbance against it at the same time. For this reason, if I want to use this book to understand Iranian society, rather than saying "this body is under control and that body is resisting", I will ask: when and how does a body become political?

What makes a physical presence turn from an everyday behavior into a political action? How do individual bodies become a collective "we"? And on the other hand, how does this resistance itself reshape bodies, identities and relationships between people? The book emphasizes the same aspect in discussing the formation of collective solidarity through suffering and common presence.

But the limitation of the book should be taken seriously. This book was not written to directly explain the political history or power structure in Iran, and its historical examples and contexts mainly come from the experiences of other societies. Therefore, its concepts cannot be exactly applied to Iran without paying attention to historical, cultural and political differences. In my opinion, its value for the study of Iran is more in the fact that it provides us with a perspective; Then it should be seen what this angle explains in the historical and social background of Iran and where else it needs to be corrected or completed.