Is Iran in a Phase of Structural Fragility? / Despite All Isolation, Rising Again Is Possible

Summing up the two speeches, Yousefi and Sadeghi approached the crisis from two angles. Yousefi focused on the erosion of social and institutional capacities, the accumulation of pressures, and the need to strengthen social capital and reform governance. Sadeghi showed that understanding the crisis is incomplete without examining the limits of political imagination and the difficulty of envisioning alternative futures.

Andisheh Group: The "Reorganization of Society in Crisis" meeting was held on October 15th, under the chairmanship of Zahra Daghianos and with the speech of Dr. Ali Yousefi, Professor of Ferdowsi University of Mashhad and Dr. Fatemeh Sadeghi at Rahman Institute. The report of this meeting was published on the website of Rahman Institute. In this meeting, Yousefi with the topic "Reflection on the fragility of the social situation in Iran" and Sadeghi with the topic "Is it possible to start again in the crisis-stricken society of Iran?" They investigated the social situation of Iran and the possibility of a new beginning in the crisis society. Analyzing Iran's dire situation, Ali Yousefi and Fatemeh Sadeghi explained the country's crises from two complementary angles. With the concept of "social fragility", Ali Yousefi warned that before reaching the stage of complete collapse, the society will be involved in the cumulative erosion of norms, the weakening of social capital and the crisis of legitimacy; A situation in which the ability to absorb structural, economic and political shocks is severely degraded. On the opposite point, Fatemeh Sadeghi used the term "iron cage of possibilities" by linking domestic crises to global challenges - such as inequality, the destructive consequences of social networks and the dangers of artificial intelligence - to depict the deep feeling of desperation and helplessness of contemporary man. Nevertheless, relying on the concept of "reproductiveness" in Hannah Arendt's thought, Sadeghi emphasized the necessity of opening "political imagination" and reclaiming utopian thinking and argued that in order to get out of the existing deadlock and picture a more just future, we must be able to imagine collective relations beyond fatalism or returning to the ideal past, in a new and radical way.

crisis; Signs of erosion and questions about the possibility of change

The Rahman Institute's "Society Reorganization in Crisis" meeting was dedicated to examining two related questions: How does society reach a fragile state, and what is the possibility of change and a new beginning when crises exhaust social capacities?

In the first part of the meeting, Ali Yousefi, focusing on the concept of social fragility, addressed the contexts and mechanisms that reduce society's ability to manage tensions and face shocks. He considered fragility as a pre-crisis situation in which social and institutional capacities are gradually worn out and the society becomes more vulnerable to new pressures.

In the second part of this meeting, Fatemeh Sadeghi expanded the discussion from Iran's situation to the link between domestic and global crises and raised the question of whether it is possible to think of a different future in the current situation. Relying on the concept of "reproductiveness" in Hannah Arendt's thought, he emphasized the importance of political imagination; A capacity that allows humans to see existing relationships as changeable and to imagine other forms of collective life.

These two speakers addressed a common issue from two different paths: understanding the existing limitations and erosions, without considering the current situation as an unchangeable fate.

Ali Yousefi: How is social fragility formed?

Ali Yousefi began his speech by distinguishing between social fragility and concepts such as collapse, chaos, poverty and vulnerability. According to him, social fragility refers to a situation where the society is not yet necessarily in a deep crisis, but its ability to regulate tensions, manage conflicts and absorb shocks has been greatly reduced.

Therefore, fragility cannot be explained simply by observing a sudden accident or crisis. This situation is usually the result of a cumulative and multidimensional process that develops over time. When structural pressures are accompanied by the erosion of social bonds, the weakening of common rules, and the crisis of legitimacy, the capacity of society to face new crises is reduced.

To explain this process, Yousefi separated three categories of factors from each other: primary factors or inputs, aggravating conditions and consequences. This distinction helps to understand how society moves from chronic stress to a fragile state.

From structural pressures to social erosion

In explaining the primary factors, Yousefi pointed to inequality, chronic and pervasive poverty, concentration of poverty in specific areas, and limited social mobility. These structural pressures can be accompanied by economic, political, security and environmental shocks and provide the context for the society to enter a fragile state.

However, according to him, the existence of pressures and shocks alone is not enough to explain fragility. What is important is how these factors interact with the conditions that reduce the ability of the society to bear the pressures.

He explained three important axes of these conditions: normative erosion, crisis of legitimacy and social erosion.

Normative erosion occurs when the rules governing social relations and common agreements among individuals, groups, and society and the government weaken. To explain part of this situation, Yousefi referred to the concept of "anomie" or abnormality; A situation in which common rules lose their regulatory power and confusion and uncertainty increase.

The second axis is the crisis of legitimacy and doubts about the authority of the government to manage affairs. This issue is not only limited to dissatisfaction with the performance of the government, but it is related to the fundamental question of whether the governing institutions have the necessary ability and competence to manage society's issues and respond to crises or not. Yousefi also distinguished between legitimacy and trust: legitimacy is related to accepting the rules of power and the rules of the game, while trust is more related to the evaluation of the behavior and performance of actors and institutions.

The third axis is social erosion and reduction of social capital; That is, the weakening of links, communications, collaborations and commitments that provide the possibility of collective action. As these bonds become weaker, it becomes more difficult to agree on common issues and the ability of the society to face crises collectively decreases.

Why is it important how to face the crisis?

One of the important points of Yousefi's speech was to pay attention to the difference between primary risks and secondary risks. Primary risks refer to the pressures and shocks that enter society; Secondary risks, on the other hand, arise from the way these pressures are faced and their consequences.

In this way, the crisis is not aggravated only because of the occurrence of an incident; Improper management can also increase existing fragility. In a situation where social capital is weakened, legitimacy is in crisis, and the power of governance is reduced, a heavy shock may bring the society to the brink of crisis more quickly.

Yousefi emphasized that social fragility does not necessarily lead to the collapse or fall of the government. Its consequences may appear in the form of spreading social disobedience, weakening the implementation of rules, increasing insecurity and conflict, or reducing the ability of government institutions to implement their decisions. However, coming back from such a situation can be difficult.

Assessing Iran's situation and ways to reduce fragility

This professor of Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, referring to the study of Iran's trends from 2016 onwards, said that the data and indicators used by him indicate the gradual intensification of social fragility. According to his assessment, the situation in Iran is worrying and the society is closer to the threshold of fragility compared to six months ago.

At the same time, he did not present a one-sided picture of the war conditions. In his opinion, the threat to the existence of the country and the formation of an agreement around the defense of the land can lead to the strengthening of social capital and even increase the legitimacy of the government in a part of the society in the short term. On the other hand, heavy military shocks can destroy the infrastructure and institutional capacities and bring new pressures on the society. Therefore, the assessment of the situation should consider both sides of this process.

In the final part of his speech, this university professor emphasized on strengthening social capital, rebuilding ties between individuals and groups, and agreeing on common rules and values. He considered the defense of the land and homeland as one of the potential capacities for the formation of a common agreement. At the same time, according to him, the reduction of fragility is not limited to surface reforms; A fundamental revision of the governance system, policies and accountability methods is also necessary.

The conclusion of this section was that social fragility is not a sudden and single-cause phenomenon. This situation is formed as a result of the accumulation of pressures and simultaneous normative, social and political erosion; Therefore, its prevention also requires simultaneous attention to these dimensions.

Fatemeh Sadeghi: Is a new beginning possible?/ World crisis and Iran's position

Fatemeh Sadeghi started her discussion by asking about the possibility of a new beginning in today's world and Iran. He considered the crisis as an emergency and decisive situation, but emphasized that the crisis should not be taken as the end of all possibilities or the impossibility of change. In this situation, the governments themselves may become part of the problem and not be able to give a proper response to crises.

Looking at Iran's place in the world order, Sadeghi disagreed with the notion that Iran should be considered a completely exceptional case and separate from world developments. In his opinion, the special characteristics of Iranian society are important, but these characteristics do not prevent us from examining the country's situation in connection with global crises. On the other hand, the world order itself and powerful governments are also facing a crisis, and the simple distinction between "system" and "anti-system" forces is not enough to understand today's developments.

He discussed several world crises to explain this situation. First, there was a crisis of inequality; A crisis which, according to him, is also experienced in Iran with remarkable intensity. Second, there were social networks, which, despite allowing less heard voices to be heard, can help spread misinformation, form echo chambers, and exacerbate social polarization. Sadeghi mentioned the waves of hostility against Afghans in Iran as an example of the social consequences of this environment.

He also warned about artificial intelligence. According to him, this technology has important capacities in areas such as medicine, but its widespread use can also affect the ability of analysis, creativity and human perception. Referring to his experience in the academic environment, Sadeghi said that the apparent improvement of the quality of writing does not necessarily mean an increase in the depth of learning; Because people may find less opportunity to develop their intellectual abilities in the process of using resources and directly engaging with texts.

"Iron cage of facilities" and the feeling of helplessness

Sadeghi used the term "iron cage of possibilities" to explain the contradiction of the contemporary world. According to him, the increase in technological possibilities and capabilities does not necessarily mean freedom, more power to change the situation or more happiness. Humans may have more possibilities, but at the same time feel that they have less control over their life path and future.

The parable of the plane without a pilot and its passengers not knowing where they are going was an illustration of this situation: there is anxiety and awareness of danger, but the possibility of intervention and rerouting is limited. Sadeghi examined this feeling of desperation in connection with global crises and Iran's special conditions; The conditions that war, sanctions, poverty, loss of human lives and political and social unpredictability have cast a shadow on.

The main focus of Sadeghi's speech was the possibility of a new beginning. Referring to the concept of "natality" in Hannah Arendt's thought, he explained that humans have the ability to start something new even in restrictive conditions. In this view, political action can provide the basis for creating different relationships.

However, Sadeghi believed that in order to understand the possibility of a new beginning, one should also pay attention to the issue of imagination. Before we can create new relationships in practice, we need to be able to imagine them. If only catastrophic scenarios are imaginable for us and we cannot consider an alternative to the existing situation, the possibility of change is also limited.

He called this situation "the subjugation of political imagination". According to him, one of the signs of this decline is that it has become easier for many to imagine the end of the world than to imagine a different and more just world. Referring to Mark Fisher's famous idea about the difficulty of imagining the end of capitalism compared to the end of the world, Sadeghi showed that the limitation of imagination is not only related to Iran and is part of the contemporary political situation at the global level.

Political hindsight and reclaiming the possibility of the future

According to Sadeghi, the decline of political imagination can also be seen in the predominance of retrospective scenarios. Instead of presenting a picture of a different society, many political currents rely on reconstructing an idealized past. He considered monarchism in Iran and the slogan of returning America to the golden age in the "MAGA" movement as examples of this trend.

Sadeghi went on to discuss the limitations of the notion that simply gaining power or political organization is enough to change society. Referring to the revolution of 1357 and 2 Khordad, he emphasized the importance of political imagination in social developments; It means a change in people's perception of themselves, society and the possibilities of collective life. According to him, historical experience shows that social change cannot be reduced only to seizing power and implementing programs.