The Phycology Of Iranian American Relations

Published on Psychology Today (http://www.psychologytoday.com/)

[pic]
The psychology of Iranian-American relations
By Dr. Nassir Ghaemi
Created Feb 2 2009 - 11:39am

[pic] 
American diplomacy is based on the principle of rational self-interest. Indeed standard American political theory, dating to the Founders, is based on this view. Yet, as the great diplomat General William Sherman oncesaid: "Reason has very little influence in this world; prejudice governs." Or we might put it slightly differently:  we humans decide as much by the gut as the brain.
Now that Iran is top on the new US president's agenda, we can expect that he and his advisers, trained in politics and history, but not psychology, will try enlightened diplomacy, rationally appealing to shared interests. Diplomacywithout knowledge of individual psychology and cultural beliefs is hardly diplomacy, however. So I will presume to offer some unsolicited thoughts from an Iranian-American, trained in psychiatry and philosophy, in the belief that any policy which fails to attend to emotional matters will never begin to approach rational self-interest.
(Disclaimer for bloggers: Readers from both nationalities maytake exception, perhaps justifiably, to some of these observations, but these comments are only meant to expand the usual discussion, not to provide proofs).
Some observations:
1. Americans are pragmatic; Iranians are not: Philosophy is often implicit and unconscious. We need not read John Stuart Mill to practice utilitarianism; we learned it in preschool and on the playground. In culturalpractice, Iran and the US have quite different philosophical commitments. The only home-grown American philosophy is pragmatism (founded by Charles Peirce and William James), a profound view of knowledge that is often underrated and misinterpreted as superficial (e.g., truth is the cash-value of things). In cultural practice, this pragmatic philosophy has produced a flexibility and provisionality thatis second nature to Americans. In contrast, Iran's predominant philosophy has been a Shiite mysticism, personified in the 17th century Islamic philosopher Mulla Sadra. While more open-minded that traditional Islamic theology, Shiite philosophy remains committed to certain basic beliefs about divinity and revelation, a bedrock upon which the whole superstructure of culture is built.  These twoconflicting philosophical traditions have seeped into the daily habits of the two peoples: Americans are willing to compromise principle for results; Iranians are willing to sacrifice results to principle. (Hence the failure of the Bush stance: compromise first, then we'll negotiate; which to Iranians is just illogical).
2. Americans are Calvinistic; Iranians are not. No matter what one's religioustradition, American culture is suffused with the influence of its Puritan founders: the notion that hard work is inherently virtuous is so deeply believed that it rarely requires mention. The easy acceptance of limited vacations and long working hours reflects this heritage. Iranians tend to be busy, but working hours are much more flexible, midday naps persist, and a more lax attitude to laborprevails. People work hard, but in spurts and with an eye to immediate results, not religiously in the belief in an inherent value of labor, as in the US. To some extent this Iranian approach is based on an experience that work is poorly rewarded, and thus it need not be one's focus. A certain pessimism about earthly success prevails, as opposed to the American optimism about worldly prosperity.
3.Americans worship the future, Iranians the past. Americans have no past, or little of it - two centuries is a lot of time, and very little time. Clearly Iran's golden age occurred long ago, and, deep down, Iranians ache for that lost prestige. America's history has been an upward arc, justifying, perhaps, the belief that the future will be better than the past. Iranians have a deep historical...