INTRODUCTION
As governments over the last century have successively become the main providers of modern schooling, a large body of literature has developed based on theories which suggest that governments (or their regimes) implicitly or explicitly use the educational system as a vehicle for cultural hegemony (Gramsci, 1971), an ideological apparatus of the state for controlling populations (Althusser, 1971), or as a field that privileges dominant cultures and groups over others (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1977). Several studies about Iran’s educational system during both the Pahlavi and Islamic Republic era reinforce these critical and conflict theories (Habibi, 1989, Kashani-Sabet, 1999; Mehran, 1989; Menashri, 1992; Sakurai, 2004; Torbat, 2002). Notwithstanding the burden of educational repression, what can be said about the ways in which groups facing authoritarianism meet their educational needs?
When people feel they have a right to education, but authorities restrict their access to it or compromise its quality, what do people do about it? Do they accept, tolerate, resist, or reject these impositions? Do they establish their own institutions and services, or leave the country in pursuit of educational opportunity elsewhere? In other words, what is their educational strategy? Research Problem and Question Surprisingly, we know little about how minority groups in repressive settings react to, cope with, and counter purposeful policies and practices that diminish some level of educational quality or access. For example, we do not know if the brand of authoritarianism makes a difference on the kinds of strategies subjected groups select to seek educational opportunities. Neither do we know much about how or whether the composition and characteristics of a group, its networks, or its relations with the state affect the strategies selected to offset educational repression. While there is ample literature on mobilization and popular movements around education in democracies or relatively open societies (for example: Berkman & Plutzer, 2005; Kahlenberg, 2001; Shirley, 1997; Stone, 2001), there is a dearth of research about cases in autocratic states. The bulk of literature on minority education movements in repressive settings primarily addresses individual-based initiatives rather than community mobilization. I have yet to find any substantial study which systematically explains the reasons for educational strategy selection by discriminated minority communities in repressive settings: the ways and to what extent these groups mobilize, make claims to education rights, and collectively act to meet educational needs. Moreover, existing studies do not discuss the dynamic interaction between the state and the group, and how strategies and counter-strategies play out. For this reason, drawing on the case of religious minorities in modern Iran, I directly address the following questions: To what extent and how did the Jewish, Christian, and Baha’i communities in Iran select different strategies to meet educational needs under the Pahlavi and Islamic Republic regimes? To what extent and how does a group’s composition and characteristics, networks, and relation to the regime affect their educational strategy selection? This dissertation provides, for the first time, a monographic study on educational strategies of religious minorities in modern Iran. In order to better understand how groups meet educational needs, I argue that three aspects of educational strategy must be described and explained: (a) conditions for strategy adoption, (b) processes of strategy adoption and implementation, and (c) outcomes of the strategies. In this dissertation, I argue that conditions, processes, and desired outcomes constitute the driving force for educational strategy selection, which are, in turn, shaped by them. I propose that three features: group characteristics and composition, networks, and regime-group relations have a bearing on the strategies selected by these minority groups, and examine the extent to which they influenced those strategies. Through this study I found that these three features take shape from the relational dynamics of a given group’s interactions within its own community, with outside community members, with regimes, and with other actors. The comparison of Jews, Christians, and Baha’is in Iran was chosen for two reasons. First, they are categorically similar and thus suitable for comparison. Second, their group features differed enough to trace the effects of variations on educational strategy selection over a long period of time—distinguishable by three important elements: (a) the group’s composition and characteristics; (b) the group’s networks; and (c) the group’s relationship with the regime in power. I propose that variations existing in the combination of these three factors bear on educational strategies (see Figure 1). Figure 1. Three group elements influencing group educational strategies. However two other elements are important in this analysis: case objects and sites. After all, religious minorities and their strategies do not actualize in a vacuum, but rather both are invariably shaped by interactions with other actors. To this end I include analysis of two different Iranian regimes—the Pahlavi and Islamic Republic regimes—spanning 85 years of history. I agree with Charles Tilly (2005), who suggests that “every significant political phenomenon lives in history, and requires historically grounded analysis for its explanation” (p. 20). Situating these groups and their educational strategies in historical contexts is critical for explaining how changes in a group’s features affected their development, selection, and deployment. The cross-regime analysis in this dissertation contextualizes educational strategy selection by looking at how a group responds to regime changes and actions. Furthermore, it explains the extent to which regime-group relations shape the conditions, processes, and outcomes of the educational strategies selected by each group. I suggest that the chronological multi-case study is an optimal research strategy to examine parallel case subjects as they developed over the two different regimes, providing more substantial leverage to identify recurring causal elements. Looking at how three different, but categorically similar, groups select educational strategies under a secular and theocratic regime is useful for several reasons. This configuration allows us to look at a single group in different settings to observe how strategies shape and shift based on internal group changes (individual factors), intra-regime and regime changes (domestic factors), and changes in relations in the international sphere. This pattern of illustration is optimal for a comparative study that produces substantial information for analyzing variations and similarities in strategy selection processes. Theoretical Approach The questions posed above are important, but remain challenging because they cross three different fields of academic inquiry: (a) educational inequity, (b) social movements and contentious politics, and (c) international relations subjects of internationalization and transnationalism. Each field provides a unique and complementary contribution to addressing this problem. In the Literature Review I examine a range of literature in these three fields, to gain the theoretical grounding for approaching the study of minority group educational strategy selection and deployment in authoritarian settings. Literature from conflict and critical theories of education provides interpretations of government educational policies deliberately imposed on religious minority groups as an initiative to meet the regime’s agenda. For example, in the early stages of state building, both the Pahlavi and Islamic Republic targeted educational content and schools for ideological reorientation of society in order to align them with regime agendas. In later periods, schooling was used to maintain stability and continue the socialization of an envisioned ideal citizen. The literature on social movements and contentious politics not only informs the study of social and political processes relating to educational opportunities and obstacles, but provides the analytical framework to identify mechanisms and processes explaining how groups mobilized and collectively acted to meet their needs. This body of literature also provides a basis for understanding how the two regimes interact with the groups through facilitation, toleration, and repression. Finally, the literature on international relations, globalization, internationalization, and transnationalism sheds light on the dynamics involved in network connections and how global and transnational processes affected local processes shaping the various groups’ educational strategy selection, as well as state-state relation impact on regime-group relations and other features. Methodological Approach To explain how Jews, Christians, and Baha’is met their educational needs in authoritarian settings, I use a multi-case study design and employed two major and interrelated methods of analysis: first, historical analysis to identify developments affecting regimes and groups and their features, and describe their educational opportunities, challenges, and strategies. In order to address tangential issues related to educational strategies, I relied on some analytical tools and concepts, specifically those related to regime capacity and form (Chapter 1), and group networks (Chapter 2). Second, to explain how those educational strategies were developed and selected (Chapter 3), I used the contentious politics’ mechanism-process approach to divide long streams of history dealing with a particular phenomenon (in this case education) into smaller episodes. In some cases episodes were difficult to identify, so I retained focus on chunks of thematic streams. Within these streams and episodes of interaction among groups, governments, and other actors, I looked for processes and mechanisms that shaped the specific interactions and ultimately educational strategies. Information on religious minorities in modern Iran is fragmented, in multiple languages, and generally scarce. Secondary analysis is no exception. For example, there is only one published monograph about multiple religious minorities in modern Iran (Eliz Sanasarian, Religious Minorities of Iran, 2000). To offset the dearth of sources, threats to validity, and other limitations, I employed triangulation of sources and collection instruments, and included archival sources, interviews, and applied secondary analysis. A significant part of the data collection and organization included assessing the reliability of and bias in various sources. While there are various isolated sources on Jews, Christians, and Baha’is during the Pahlavi and Islamic Republic periods, their number is modest and of noticeably varying quality. It is not uncommon to find disparate accounts of historical and relational phenomenon due to author bias. More specific to the study of education and religious minorities, there are several important primary archival sources available, to which I refer in the methods section. These were useful in informing historical developments, but also shed light on the nuances in relationships between actors and the orientation of religious minority groups. Included in a fragmentary body of secondary sources on individual religious minorities, was a small number of extremely useful articles and books which provided valuable insights into actors, events, and the educational pursuits of one or another of the minority groups under study. In retrieving histories, I relied heavily on some of these in order to analyze and interpret my findings, using my proposed theoretical propositions and analytical framework. Analysis In Chapter 1, I examine the Pahlavi and Islamic Republic regimes in some detail, and discuss governmental form, capacity, and ideological orientation, all of which are highly significant in assessing regime-group relations and their educational agendas. To analyze changes in regime policies and practices, both regime periods are divided into epochs according to noticeable political shifts and variations in political orientation of those running the government. I draw on Tilly’s (2006b) work on governmental capacity and form to identify the characteristics that shaped much of the regime’s decisions. Both regimes were high capacity nondemocratic, as determined by applying the rubric developed by Tilly (2006b). I argue that the ideological orientation of the regime leadership was equally important in determining government actions toward other states and the country’s population. I include this factor in assessing government behaviour toward specific groups and education in general. The Pahlavi regime was explicitly secular and modernist in its orientation, while the Islamic Republic has continued to be theocratic. Both regimes used education as a means to push self-interested agendas, often at the expense of significant segments of the population. While the Pahlavi and the Islamic Republic regimes set out to provide services to meet the needs of the population, both were driven by regime priorities. This led to tension manifested as facilitation and tolerance of some group actions, and repression of other group actions. Although outwardly similar, as Tilly’s (1979) general typology accurately describes, the Pahlavi dynasty typically reflected characteristics of a totalitarian government and the Islamic Republic continues rely on measures characteristic of a repressive government. In review, it becomes evident that facilitative, tolerant, and repressive interactions were in simultaneously in motion, but the extent to and manner in which each was employed varied according to the regime’s acceptability of actions and actors. In Chapter 2, I define the composition and characteristics, networks, and regime-group relations of each of the three minority groups, which I argue have significant causal impact on educational strategy selection. After providing definitions for each, I contextualize the case subjects in light of these three features and their sub-categories to identify assessable changes in each, and their subsequent affect on the selection of educational strategies. By presenting each group within the framework of composition and characteristics, network ties, and regime-group relations, I move beyond a static analysis of groups as monolithic and unchanging, and treated them as active and complex bodies, whose own features are shaped by the cycle of interactions springing from ongoing changes in community features, and focusing attention on the agency of actors in both open and restricted circumstances. Moreover, I argue that changes in any one feature had a bearing on the others. Since this is the first study which categorizes group features using a combination of such propositions, I believe it will be useful for analyzing other settings and groups and identifying their selection of educational strategies. While statistical generalizations cannot be made from this study, analytical generalizations may be applicable elsewhere. By the end of Chapter 5, I systematically categorize groups within these features, which presents an abundant empirical base for analysis. In Chapter 3 these classifications are essential for interpreting the social processes related to educational strategies. For in this chapter, I focus on explaining the chronological development and selection of educational strategies by each group over the two regime periods. I simultaneously engage in historical interpretation and the mechanism-process approach in analyzing different identified streams and episodes. The range and depth of information for each group and period varies because of the availability of sources. I use different scales of observation when looking for processes and mechanisms, as well as for the identified episodes and streams. The educational landscape for each group is analyzed historically, with actions and events categorized according to their educational strategies. I then identify streams and episodes, which are examined for mechanisms and processes that took the shape of educational strategies. As defined by Tilly and Tarrow (2007), “episodes are bounded sequences of continuous interaction, usually produced by an investigator’s chopping up longer streams of contention into segments for purposes of systematic observation, comparison, and explanation” (p. 36). I refer to streams as interactions over longer periods of time, dictated by policies and ongoing practices. Episodes occur within streams, denoting (a) when the regime responds to a particular group claim or action, (b) when a group responds to a regime policy or decision by taking specific action, or c) when either group or regime takes initial action that makes a claim affecting the other’s claims. I argue that by identifying recurring mechanisms and processes which combined to shape broad strategies, variations and similarities in group strategies become readily explainable. The strategies that I identified are not exhaustive but recur for Iranian Jews, Christians, and Baha’is during the Pahlavi and Islamic Republic periods. Sometimes strategies were processes, and tactics mechanisms, at other times strategies never materialized or failed to find fruition. Throughout my analysis, I critically examine the role of group composition and characteristics, networks, and regime-group relations in influencing the various combinations of mechanisms and processes involved in educational strategies. I argue that these three features work within the relational dynamics of political opportunity structure, resources available to groups, and framing processes. In the context of educational strategies, I model this intricate dynamic of the former and latter sets as the education opportunity dynamic. The benefit of having conducted a historical case study confirmed what I had presupposed to be a pervasive phenomenon: namely, that the proposed three group features influenced educational strategy selection. It was evident, after historical interpretation using the mechanism-process analyses, that selected strategies themselves cause, in turn, shifts in group features. I refer to this as a bi-cycle effect, in which shifts in either strategies or features, not only change internal elements within each, but also have significantly bearing on each other. In other words, conditions, processes, and outcomes are all causal factors in strategy selection. The mechanism-process approach which was applied to each case over a long period of time reveals several important and sometimes counterintuitive findings about how strategies are selected, how they change group features, and how they, in turn, determine subsequent strategies. For example, while institutionalization of groups may have provided opportunities for specific strategies, the restrictions inherent in incorporation into the state curtailed other strategies. The strength and reliance on international network ties was heavily dependent on a group’s relation with the regime, but within context of the regime’s relation with the states wherein those ties existed. While strategies resemble one another in most cases, the processes that went into the specific manifestation of their deployment often vary. Most groups relied on past strategies, and augmented them to meet their educational needs. However, changes in group features led to emphasis on strategies that remained open and acceptable, based on the new configuration of community features. The selection of specific strategies not only influenced the choice of future ones, but sometimes limited strategies available to the community even if other strategies might have been preferred. Remarkably, some educational strategies radically changed group features, which shaped new strategies in some situations and limited them in others. In the final analysis this dissertation empirically, theoretically, and methodologically contributes to the field of comparative education, social movement and contentious politics studies, and international relations. It will be of interest to those looking at educational inequity and repression by its novel approach to group responses and methods of analyzing education strategies of minority groups. It will no doubt be a valuable consideration for social movement and contentious politics scholars who could benefit from focusing more attention on education and educational space as a terrain of contention. Finally, for international relations and human rights scholars it provides a unique but analytically generalizable study on how relational dynamics in transnational networks, state-state relations, and human rights norms influence specific communities and the governments with which they interact. |