What do you think?
Rate this book
Foucault and the Iranian Revolution: Gender and the Seductions of Islamism
In 1978, as the protests against the Shah of Iran reached their zenith, philosopher Michel Foucault was working as a special correspondent for Corriere della Sera and le Nouvel Observateur . During his little-known stint as a journalist, Foucault traveled to Iran, met with leaders like Ayatollah Khomeini, and wrote a series of articles on the revolution. Foucault and the Iranian Revolution is the first book-length analysis of these essays on Iran, the majority of which have never before appeared in English. Accompanying the analysis are annotated translations of the Iran writings in their entirety and the at times blistering responses from such contemporaneous critics as Middle East scholar Maxime Rodinson as well as comments on the revolution by feminist philosopher Simone de Beauvoir.
In this important and controversial account, Janet Afary and Kevin B. Anderson illuminate Foucault's support of the Islamist movement. They also show how Foucault's experiences in Iran contributed to a turning point in his thought, influencing his ideas on the Enlightenment, homosexuality, and his search for political spirituality. Foucault and the Iranian Revolution informs current discussion on the divisions that have reemerged among Western intellectuals over the response to radical Islamism after September 11. Foucault's provocative writings are thus essential for understanding the history and the future of the West's relationship with Iran and, more generally, to political Islam. In their examination of these journalistic pieces, Afary and Anderson offer a surprising glimpse into the mind of a celebrated thinker.
In this important and controversial account, Janet Afary and Kevin B. Anderson illuminate Foucault's support of the Islamist movement. They also show how Foucault's experiences in Iran contributed to a turning point in his thought, influencing his ideas on the Enlightenment, homosexuality, and his search for political spirituality. Foucault and the Iranian Revolution informs current discussion on the divisions that have reemerged among Western intellectuals over the response to radical Islamism after September 11. Foucault's provocative writings are thus essential for understanding the history and the future of the West's relationship with Iran and, more generally, to political Islam. In their examination of these journalistic pieces, Afary and Anderson offer a surprising glimpse into the mind of a celebrated thinker.
312 pages, Paperback
First published June 20, 2005
14 people are currently reading
361 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
May 23, 2013
Pretty amusing to see how a philosopher, so well-known for his distrust of totality and emphasis on singularity, made the gross mistake of packing all the heterogeneous and mutually contradictory elements of the anti-Shah movement into a single group, privileging the Islamist faction and neglecting the other subaltern groups like homosexuals-feminists-nonreligious people etc. Foucault wanted a spiritual politics that would get rid of the disciplinary mechanisms of modernity. Hard to see how the Iranian revolution fit the bill, specially when it utilized every ounce of that same modern disciplinary machinery to bring about a long lost medieval social structure. Foucault's romantic(and hence, far from authentic) view of antiquity informed his fascination with the Iranian Islamists' medieval aspirations. He also seemed to have this Orientalist conviction that all of us Orientals in the Islamic world long for an Islamic past that was free from Western cultural hegemony.
Well, no we don't. There are a thriving bunch of us, stifled by the majority nostalgic orthodoxy, who are glad that modernity happened to us. I personally refuse to concede the ownership of Enlightenment values to the West, since I don't believe that values can be "owned" or geographically constrained. Gifts of modernity like secularism and rationality are as much "Oriental" as they are "Western"; I can have a secular politics in my country and still have a claim to freedom from Western hegemony. If Western intellectuals like Foucault tell me that a political spirituality with an Islamic favour(predominantly dominated by medieval Arab values, which have nothing to do whatsoever with any culture outside of Arabia) is the only thing that will make me free, then I seriously don't see any difference between him and a run-of-the-mill Orientalist. Like a standard Orientalist, he ignores the vast possibilities of Oriental subjectivity and narrows it down to a few traits and aspirations that are based on his/her misconceptions and prejudices. He is defining the Orient as the spiritual "Other" like any other Orientalist, the only difference being that he adores this apiritual "Other" instead of the rational Western "Self".
All in all, modernity has its flaws, none of which is grave enough for us to jump back to antiquity. Modernity is a better time than any other period in history to question and challenge the various foci of power, and I won't have an Iranian Revolution take this privilege away from me.
Well, no we don't. There are a thriving bunch of us, stifled by the majority nostalgic orthodoxy, who are glad that modernity happened to us. I personally refuse to concede the ownership of Enlightenment values to the West, since I don't believe that values can be "owned" or geographically constrained. Gifts of modernity like secularism and rationality are as much "Oriental" as they are "Western"; I can have a secular politics in my country and still have a claim to freedom from Western hegemony. If Western intellectuals like Foucault tell me that a political spirituality with an Islamic favour(predominantly dominated by medieval Arab values, which have nothing to do whatsoever with any culture outside of Arabia) is the only thing that will make me free, then I seriously don't see any difference between him and a run-of-the-mill Orientalist. Like a standard Orientalist, he ignores the vast possibilities of Oriental subjectivity and narrows it down to a few traits and aspirations that are based on his/her misconceptions and prejudices. He is defining the Orient as the spiritual "Other" like any other Orientalist, the only difference being that he adores this apiritual "Other" instead of the rational Western "Self".
All in all, modernity has its flaws, none of which is grave enough for us to jump back to antiquity. Modernity is a better time than any other period in history to question and challenge the various foci of power, and I won't have an Iranian Revolution take this privilege away from me.
July 18, 2016
This is a fascinating account of Michel Foucault's seemingly puzzling support for Ayatollah Khomeini and the Islamist clerics who took over the Iranian Revolution after the hated Shah was overthrown by the people. It is almost shocking to see this figure renowned for an incisive anti-authoritarianism claiming the Iranian people to be a singular, undifferentiated mass who all desired the coming of the Islamic Republic; the critiques launched against the philosopher by Iranian and French thinkers are in this sense embarrassing for him. The most poignant moments of the revolutionary process come when women mobilize en masse against the imposition of the chador on International Women's Day 1979, and then once the regime began executing suspected homosexuals--Foucault can say little, merely guarding silence about his grave error. The authors argue that his late work on the question of "What is Enlightenment?" provide a more balanced view in comparison to his earlier repudiation of the Enlightenment, for which he is perhaps best-known, within academia and beyond.
Afary and Anderson's argument is that Foucault's uncritical view of the Iranian Revolution follows from his nihilist rejection of Western modernity, even including its radical critiques, like Marxism and anarchism, as MF clarified in his debate with Chomsky (1971). In my view, his affinities for Nietzsche should be a primary angle to consider in this investigation of the intellectual's relationship with Iran and the mullahs, as for his overall thought and that of post-structuralism as well.
Afary and Anderson's argument is that Foucault's uncritical view of the Iranian Revolution follows from his nihilist rejection of Western modernity, even including its radical critiques, like Marxism and anarchism, as MF clarified in his debate with Chomsky (1971). In my view, his affinities for Nietzsche should be a primary angle to consider in this investigation of the intellectual's relationship with Iran and the mullahs, as for his overall thought and that of post-structuralism as well.
April 10, 2008
Hard to have much respect for Foucault after reading this. He betrayed himself and his own high intellectual standards in his blind support for a violent and sexually discrimatory revolution. An eye opener for any foucault lovers out there.
September 16, 2025
Great one.
November 5, 2024
I’m in this phase where I am returning to complete books I partially read. In the current political context, where Iran is back in the spotlight, I was interested in re-reading "Foucault and the Iranian Revolution: Gender and the Seductions of Islamism."
I found this book a little funny because of Foucault’s naivety—not so much in his support for the Iranian Revolution or his discussion of Islamism (as he is often criticized), but rather in his assumption that he could do so. Even when reading the reviews of this book on Goodreads, I was reminded of how wrong Foucault was—not in his analysis, but in his belief that he had enough cultural capital to intellectualise Islamism without receiving your fair share of backlash. I found myself thinking, Michel, this isn’t madness or sexuality; you can’t try to make Islamism sound intellectually, politically, or even archaeologically significant, suggesting it provides its own episteme or that it has something the West lacks
So, I chuckled a little at my own fate because if Foucault—a French, gay, white male celebrity scholar and authority on intellectual history—can't do that, what hope do any of us have?
Islamism, for many, must be forever and a day marked by evil, not its own intellectual orientation (and many will reach for the most banal and predictable criticism in some Western intellectual ritual) On this, I found Edward Said's quote (in this book) about Beauvoir interesting:
" Beauvoir was already there in her famous turban, lecturing anyone who would listen about her forthcoming trip to Tehran with Kate Millett, where they Debating the Outcome of the Revolution, Especially on Women’s Rights were planning to demonstrate against the chador; the whole idea struck me as patronizing and silly and although I was eager to hear what Beauvoir had to say, I also realized that she was quite vain and quite beyond arguing at that moment. . . . Beauvoir had been a serious disappointment, flouncing out of the room in a cloud of opinionated babble about Islam and the veiling of women. (117; Said 2000a)"
The book Foucault and the Iranian Revolution itself offers a critical and comprehensive examination of what is now known as Foucault’s controversial support for the 1979 Iranian Revolution. It explores Foucault’s fascination with the revolution’s “political spirituality” and his belief that it represented a unique, anti-modern path distinct from secular Western revolutionary models.
What I really enjoyed was how Afary and Anderson provided a detailed analysis of Foucault’s writings on Iran, alongside his exchanges with critics like Maxime Rodinson and feminists concerned about women’s rights under an Islamic government. Foucault's writings are found in the appendix.
One of the book’s strengths is its careful contextualisation of Foucault’s ideas within broader intellectual currents, including Orientalism, postmodernism, and the Left’s engagement with anti-colonial movements.
Essentially, the criticism Foucault faced was that his admiration for the revolution reflected an Orientalist romanticization of “exotic” cultures while overlooking the authoritarian risks posed by Khomeini’s regime. Hence, Foucault largely ignored the plight of women, whose rights were severely restricted under the new Islamic government, sparking protests and backlash from feminists.
But when I read Foucault's words, they struck a different chord. I didn't read his project as such. Maybe, I got it wrong.
In response to an unnamed Iranian feminist critic anonymously named “Atoussa H.,” Foucault wrote the following, and I think the first sentence is true of many who charged him with naivety:
"Atoussa H. did not read the article she criticizes. This is her right. But she should not have credited me with the idea that 'Muslim spirituality would advantageously replace dictatorship.' Since people protested and were killed in Iran while shouting 'Islamic government,' one had an elementary obligation to ask oneself what content was given to the expression and what forces drove it."
Essentually, Foucault was being Foucauldian in tracing Islamic governance,
In his response, Foucault highlights two intolerable things in the criticism he faced: (1) “It merges together all the aspects, all the forms, and all the potentialities of Islam within a single expression of contempt, for the sake of rejecting them in their entirety under the thousand-year-old reproach of ‘fanaticism.’”
And secondly:
"The problem of Islam as a political force is an essential one for our time and the coming years. In order to approach it with a minimum of intelligence, the first condition is not to begin by bringing in hatred."
Nice try, Michel.
I should note, before I leave, the key concept: For Foucault, the Iranian Revolution represented a form of resistance that was neither secular nor materialistic in the way that many Western revolutions were; instead, it was rooted in a collective, spiritual vision that blended religious identity with political goals, a "political spirituality"
I found this book a little funny because of Foucault’s naivety—not so much in his support for the Iranian Revolution or his discussion of Islamism (as he is often criticized), but rather in his assumption that he could do so. Even when reading the reviews of this book on Goodreads, I was reminded of how wrong Foucault was—not in his analysis, but in his belief that he had enough cultural capital to intellectualise Islamism without receiving your fair share of backlash. I found myself thinking, Michel, this isn’t madness or sexuality; you can’t try to make Islamism sound intellectually, politically, or even archaeologically significant, suggesting it provides its own episteme or that it has something the West lacks
So, I chuckled a little at my own fate because if Foucault—a French, gay, white male celebrity scholar and authority on intellectual history—can't do that, what hope do any of us have?
Islamism, for many, must be forever and a day marked by evil, not its own intellectual orientation (and many will reach for the most banal and predictable criticism in some Western intellectual ritual) On this, I found Edward Said's quote (in this book) about Beauvoir interesting:
" Beauvoir was already there in her famous turban, lecturing anyone who would listen about her forthcoming trip to Tehran with Kate Millett, where they Debating the Outcome of the Revolution, Especially on Women’s Rights were planning to demonstrate against the chador; the whole idea struck me as patronizing and silly and although I was eager to hear what Beauvoir had to say, I also realized that she was quite vain and quite beyond arguing at that moment. . . . Beauvoir had been a serious disappointment, flouncing out of the room in a cloud of opinionated babble about Islam and the veiling of women. (117; Said 2000a)"
The book Foucault and the Iranian Revolution itself offers a critical and comprehensive examination of what is now known as Foucault’s controversial support for the 1979 Iranian Revolution. It explores Foucault’s fascination with the revolution’s “political spirituality” and his belief that it represented a unique, anti-modern path distinct from secular Western revolutionary models.
What I really enjoyed was how Afary and Anderson provided a detailed analysis of Foucault’s writings on Iran, alongside his exchanges with critics like Maxime Rodinson and feminists concerned about women’s rights under an Islamic government. Foucault's writings are found in the appendix.
One of the book’s strengths is its careful contextualisation of Foucault’s ideas within broader intellectual currents, including Orientalism, postmodernism, and the Left’s engagement with anti-colonial movements.
Essentially, the criticism Foucault faced was that his admiration for the revolution reflected an Orientalist romanticization of “exotic” cultures while overlooking the authoritarian risks posed by Khomeini’s regime. Hence, Foucault largely ignored the plight of women, whose rights were severely restricted under the new Islamic government, sparking protests and backlash from feminists.
But when I read Foucault's words, they struck a different chord. I didn't read his project as such. Maybe, I got it wrong.
In response to an unnamed Iranian feminist critic anonymously named “Atoussa H.,” Foucault wrote the following, and I think the first sentence is true of many who charged him with naivety:
"Atoussa H. did not read the article she criticizes. This is her right. But she should not have credited me with the idea that 'Muslim spirituality would advantageously replace dictatorship.' Since people protested and were killed in Iran while shouting 'Islamic government,' one had an elementary obligation to ask oneself what content was given to the expression and what forces drove it."
Essentually, Foucault was being Foucauldian in tracing Islamic governance,
In his response, Foucault highlights two intolerable things in the criticism he faced: (1) “It merges together all the aspects, all the forms, and all the potentialities of Islam within a single expression of contempt, for the sake of rejecting them in their entirety under the thousand-year-old reproach of ‘fanaticism.’”
And secondly:
"The problem of Islam as a political force is an essential one for our time and the coming years. In order to approach it with a minimum of intelligence, the first condition is not to begin by bringing in hatred."
Nice try, Michel.
I should note, before I leave, the key concept: For Foucault, the Iranian Revolution represented a form of resistance that was neither secular nor materialistic in the way that many Western revolutions were; instead, it was rooted in a collective, spiritual vision that blended religious identity with political goals, a "political spirituality"
December 10, 2007
In 177 pages, Janet Afary and Kevin Anderson manage to pull off a rereading of Foucault's work--showing how he arrogated Greco-Roman history to an idea of the East--give a concise retelling of the 1978-9 Iranian Revolution and indicate a path between the poles of cultural relativism and culture-blind rights discourse. Until this book, I hadn't realized the depth of support originally enjoyed by the Iranian Revolution from the Western Left. Having been well-informed about the Shah's oppressive regime by Iranian dissidents since the early 1960s, Western leftists at the time assumed that the coalition of Marxists, social democrats and fervent Muslims filling the Iranian streets in late 1978 could only bring about a more genuinely democratic and (here's the rub) more "authentically Iranian" form of government in its wake. Foucault was completely smitten by the possibilities of the Revolution, traveled to Iran, met with Khomeini in his French exile, and wrote a series of articles in praise of the "irreducible" nature of the Islamic Revolution and his new hopes for a form of "political spirituality" that could begin to undo the damage of modernity. The authors use a close reading of these articles to show how F's particularly obstinate and monolithic rejection of Western modernity on the issue of the Iranian Revolution (and more generally) led him to embrace anything that seemed like its opposite. As the authors point out, this was particularly galling for feminists and queer activists, for whom F's discussion of "difference" and the production of normality had been so inspiring. The last chapter opens out into too many fruitful paths to summarize here but wisely concludes with a discussion of the revival of women's activism and political voice in Iran in recent years, suggesting how this could be the starting point for a genuinely progressive position that resists dealing in binaries and remains vigilantly attentive to the margins.
August 30, 2016
This is a Marxist critique of Foucault's relationship with the Iranian Revolution. It attempts to deconstruct Foucault through highlighting how his early stance on the Iranian Revolution went against his own principles, how in effect he supposedly "became seduced by it and blind to its true nature."
It is also a defense of the Enlightenment and a repudiation of the movement of Philosophers who put Enlightenment truths into doubt and exposed a serious lack of confidence in that era and its supposed "universal values." In that sense the authors are in the same company as the Nouveux Philosopher's such as Bernard H. Levi and others, an association which they would and should recoil against.
I believe that they go too far, are overly harsh and miss the point that Foucault is bringing to the "foreground." Their argument from the Enlightenment perspective was riddled with holes and lacked depth.
It is also a defense of the Enlightenment and a repudiation of the movement of Philosophers who put Enlightenment truths into doubt and exposed a serious lack of confidence in that era and its supposed "universal values." In that sense the authors are in the same company as the Nouveux Philosopher's such as Bernard H. Levi and others, an association which they would and should recoil against.
I believe that they go too far, are overly harsh and miss the point that Foucault is bringing to the "foreground." Their argument from the Enlightenment perspective was riddled with holes and lacked depth.
October 2, 2008
It is certainly useful to have Foucault's writings on Iran and the writings of other contemporary commentators on Iran collected in one place - even if they appear in the 'appendix' in this book. Foucault's writing is journalistic for the most part with a couple of interesting references to the possibility of a 'political spirituality'.
Some of the interpretative work done on Foucault in this volume is highly controversial however and numbers of critics have taken issue with it.
Some of the interpretative work done on Foucault in this volume is highly controversial however and numbers of critics have taken issue with it.
October 9, 2008
So far so great. It reveals all Foucault's discussions of the Iranian Revolution when he traveled there and witnessed most of it, which were previously unavailable to English audiences. And it really reveals that his support for the theocracy wasn't as much of a "mistake" as most of his interlocutors suppose...
March 29, 2015
You wonder, why on earth a French philosopher would ever support the Iranian revolution.
This book takes a deep look into the sate of mind Foucault was in at the time and why he supported the revolution and everything that contradicted modernism.
It is a bit heavy on the academic side, but well written for its genre. 4/5.
This book takes a deep look into the sate of mind Foucault was in at the time and why he supported the revolution and everything that contradicted modernism.
It is a bit heavy on the academic side, but well written for its genre. 4/5.
August 29, 2016
I was not very impressed with the analysis portion of this book. Pretty standard criticisms Khomeinism from a liberal perspective combined with repeatedly calling Foucault naive. Also totally lacked discussion of perhaps the most interesting gender topic in the Islamic Republic -- trans rights. Loved the translations of Foucault's writings on Iran though!
September 28, 2010
Foucault was EXTREMELY naive.
March 9, 2011
We all make mistakes.
(Love the appendix of every article Foucault has ever written on the Iranian revolution. Starting there, then reading the book.)
(Love the appendix of every article Foucault has ever written on the Iranian revolution. Starting there, then reading the book.)
October 7, 2015
I thought the authors were hella biased and did not understand foucault. I actually enjoyed the appendix (which included essays by foucault on the iranian revolution) more than the actual book
Read
December 6, 2017Foucault's actual writings – 4/5
Afary and Anderson's analysis – 1.5/5
It's 2017 – why can't we have access to English translations of Foucault's 1979 writings without the misleading and incredibly disingenuous Afary and Anderson package?
Read Behrooz Ghamari-Tabrizi's "Foucault in Iran" instead.
Afary and Anderson's analysis – 1.5/5
It's 2017 – why can't we have access to English translations of Foucault's 1979 writings without the misleading and incredibly disingenuous Afary and Anderson package?
Read Behrooz Ghamari-Tabrizi's "Foucault in Iran" instead.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews