On Location

"The return of the Twitter Revolution?" Part II

2011-03-25T08:50:00.000-07:00

Perhaps looking back on the rise of the "Twitter Revolution" narrative during the Iranian protests of June 2009 can shed some light on the path forward, including how to approach its more subtle but persistent variants such as “the Wikileaks Revolution” (Tunisia) and “Revolution 2.0” (Egypt). In Iran’s case, techno-utopianism in international coverage boomed due to foreign journalists being banned, credited Iranian journalists being restricted, and a young, mobile, tech-savvy, and highly educated population being at the ready. Certainly, the Western audience’s recognition of social media networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube as popular, Western, youth-oriented, and benign also played a part. But the “Twitter revolution” also caught on due to a number of narratives that, in the Western consciousness, pre-existed the uprising.

One of them was the idea, cultivated since the early 2000s, of Iranian dissident blogger-journalists being driven to the free spaces of the internet in regionally disproportionate numbers, and experiencing persecution for their online, anti-régime endeavors. The stories of persecuted bloggers like Sina Motallebi and Hossein Derakhshan (still in jail today) come to mind, as does that of Omid Reza Mir Sayafi, the first Iranian blogger to die in prison. In the same period, the Bush administration pushed the Iran Freedom Support Act, which was passed in September, 2006. The serendipitous overlap between the rise of the internet’s role in Iranian civil society and the US régime-change agenda seemed to strengthen both. An additional narrative, purportedly reproduced historically by Iranian diaspora in the West, was one of Iranians (or “Persians”, rather) as intellectually and culturally advanced, similar to Westerners, “civilized,” and proud.

But there was also a deeper story about the internet itself as a vehicle of genuine democratic change that may have tipped the scales from balanced online/offline international solidarity towards over-enthusiasm about internet technologies. Fred Turner’s From Counterculture to Cyberculture traces internet narratives from the technology’s beginnings, and shows that the intersection between the internet and visions of utopian societies is as old as the Net itself. Could this utopian genesis narrative be at the root of today’s internet-boosting?

“Tools of liberation”

Turner argues that early perceptions about computers and the internet were shaped less by the engineers and programmers who made them and more by an élite of journalists and hippy ideologues from 1960s and 70s San Francisco who had the access and influence to write about these new technologies. This narrative was intended “to create the cultural conditions under which microcomputers and computer networks could be imagined as tools of liberation.” Given Turner’s account, it is not hard to see how today’s internet conjures up images of a quest for freedom.

This could be the reason why, in the summer of 2009, San Franciscan computer programmer, Austin Heap, was moved to involve himself in the Iranian Green movement without any prior knowledge or interest in Iran. He designed Haystack, a program which encrypts all online activity and hides this encrypted data in what looks like normal traffic. Heap’s inspiration was seeing images from the protests — his only connection to what he saw, the internet. The Tor Project was a program similarly used in solidarity with Iranians. Tor is headed by Andrew Lewman and designed to allow people in Iran to use anonymous proxies to hide their identities and online activity. The attention for such stories boomed and overshadowed the Iranian government’s censorship, government supporters’ hacking of opposition websites, and the government’s use of online amateur footage to identify protesters.

In addition, the hacktivist groups Anonymous and Pirate Bay supported the protesting Iranians by starting the website, Anonymous Iran, providing tools to circumvent censorship by way of navigating with privacy, uploading files through the Iranian firewall, and launching attacks on pro-government websites. The international involvement and dedication of these cyber-activists further entwined utopian internet narratives with the message of the Iranian pro-democratic movement, especially as they coalesced with the Green protesters’ counterparts outside the country.

Between solidarity and “Statecraft”

But these acts of solidarity also smuggle in elements of US foreign policy and commerce, together with a touch of American nationalism. Through international solidarity actions, the lines between the interests of citizens, business, and the state have become dangerously blurred, for instance, with the US administration’s “21^st Century Statecraft”, spearheaded by none other than Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton (yes, she likes reminding us which century it is). The US government connections to solidarity actions with Iran first came under public scrutiny in the much-covered delay in Twitter maintenance when the Iran protests were breaking out in June 2009.

The US State Department asked the private company to instate a maintenance delay so that Iranians could continue to use Twitter at Iran’s peak traffic hours (the company denied that the State Department had a hand in their decision to delay maintenance). State connections are also rife around Tor, as the project was an existing one, funded by the US Department of Defense (but also other organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation). More state links emerged on April 13^th 2010, when the US Treasury Department gave Heap an exemption from US sanctions to distribute Haystack legally in Iran.

This was part of a wider policy approach that saw a ban lifted on US companies like Google and Microsoft to export their products to Iran in March of the same year under the assumption that this would facilitate the development of Iranian civil society. But this would have little if any effect for Iranian citizens who would likely already be accessing these programs illegally. In Heap’s case, the Haystack project fizzled out quietly as it was later found to be fraught with security holes, thus endangering the very people it was meant to protect.

But while rushing to criticize this US narrative of “democratizing internet diplomacy,” and embracing post-Twitter revolution perspectives, some have ended up highlighting the spirit of American free market entrepreneurship that drives the technology industry that gave birth to the internet as we now know it. When American business competes with government to implicitly take credit for people’s revolutions we are still a far cry from being moved by the power of universal values of humanity. This blatant self-congratulation reminds us that the Twitter revolution narrative is more about a clamoring to claim glory for our own principles, policies, and tools. As one critic declared, “To proclaim a Twitter revolution is almost a form of intellectual colonialism, stealthy and mildly delusional: We project our world, our values, and concerns onto theirs and we shouldn’t.”

"The return of the Twitter Revolution?" Part I

2011-03-17T04:29:00.000-07:00

In her latest speech on internet freedom, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared the internet the “town square” of the 21st century. Clinton seized on the widespread attention for Facebook during the Egyptian revolution and used the opportunity to reiterate internet-oriented US foreign policy. Just days earlier the Egyptian people had ousted Hosni Mubarak, their dictator of 30 years. Cairo’s Tahrir Square had been occupied by protesters, stained with the blood of the revolution’s martyrs, and gained iconic status as the center of the 21st century’s most populous revolutionary movement. Soon after, protesters in Libya named the Northern Court in Benghazi “Tahrir Square Two.” If these events show us anything, it is that the town square of the 21st century is still, simply, the town square.

Internet Hyperbolae
It is not the first time Clinton’s language has hyperbolized the role of the internet, thus making her appear severed from reality. Author and scholar, Eyvgeny Morozov, skillfully rebutted her first major speech on internet freedom given in January 2010 on these very grounds, expressing unease at the Cold War imagery she evoked in warnings that “a new information curtain is descending.” Clinton’s latest speech reminds us that the power struggle over new technologies is not limited to the battles over who uses and controls the internet and how. It includes the battles over who gets to define and frame the internet through dominant narratives, and who challenges them.

Perhaps the most widespread and heated contestation of an internet narrative is that of the “Twitter Revolution.” Although it was first used with reference to Moldova, this term enjoyed its peak during the tumultuous aftermath of the Iranian presidential elections of June 2009. With his piece, The Revolution will be Tweeted, Andrew Sullivan was quickly established as a leading proponent of the hype. He eagerly compared the power of the Iranian protesters to the electoral success of President Barack Obama the year prior. The only link seemed to be some broad associations with democratic change and popular associations with social media applications such as Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, and YouTube, but it certainly caught on.

Down with the “Twitter Revolution”!
Unfortunately, Sullivan not only jumped the gun on Iran, his perspective also obscured the ways the Obama campaign had effectively hijacked users’ online social networks, rather than building them, as documented in Eric Boehlert’s Bloggers on the Bus. Even though Iran’s case was still developing at the time, tech journalists, bloggers, activists, and independent/public news media immediately poked the “Twitter Revolution” narrative full of holes. These skeptics challenged the notion that technologies rather than people are decisive for social movements, and continue to argue for placing new media impacts within wider, offline (socio-economic and political) contexts, stressing that the new technologies are “tools” that are used for oppression as well as liberation.

Although Iran’s case carried the Twitter Revolution narrative to new heights, it also played a part in mainstreaming its counter-narratives. Sullivan himself was soon among those “cured” of the “Twitter obsession,” as Morozov put it. And notwithstanding the unfortunate irony about the “town square” metaphor, Clinton’s latest speech reflected elements of this more balanced counter-narrative when she said of Egypt and Tunisia:

"People protested because of deep frustrations with the political and economic conditions of their lives. They stood and marched and chanted and the authorities tracked and blocked and arrested them. The internet did not do any of those things; people did. In both of these countries, the ways that citizens and the authorities used the internet reflected the power of connection technologies on the one hand as an accelerant of political, social, and economic change, and on the other hand as a means to stifle or extinguish that change… We realize that in order to be meaningful, online freedoms must carry over into real-world activism.”

Gone is the empowerment of technologies over people. Despite the contested “Twitter revolution” narrative’s partial revival through these recent revolutions, we all seem to be sobering up more and more from the new media celebrations. It looks like the counter-narrative has permeated the mainstream, balanced the scales, and even pronounced the debate around the “Twitter Revolution” dead.

Caught off guard

2010-08-29T13:28:00.000-07:00

So, a while ago a reporter contacted me about my blog and wanted to quote me on the Persian Version piece. Only thing was he was from the US State Department and writes for America.gov. In any case, here's what he wrote. Despite any scruples I might have had about the journalistic integrity of someone who works for the US (or any) government, I agreed to his request and was fine with what he wrote. Just the latest reminder of how the strange, online spaces of the internet can bring you into contact with people you never thought you'd be talking to.

Pomegranates on the Market

2010-08-08T12:38:00.000-07:00

Some friends recently put out a compilation album called Pomegranates. I wish I could have been there for the release event and to follow the response to the album, but I hear very positive things. In fact, late last month the two did live sets at an event with Hypernova, a New York-based band said to be at the forefront of Iranian rock, and Yellow Dogs are featured in Nobody Knows About Persian Cats, a (Cannes Film Festival) Award winning film by Bahman Gobadi (see flier below). In short: pretty cool. And pretty interesting as a music album is a form of mediated and material culture that is possibly closest to youth, pop culture, and the second generation.

You can preview and get copies of the album online, and listen to an interview the pair did on KCRW (below). Pomegranates sounded fresh and pioneering since the moment I heard about it. Arash told me how he cherished the old Iranian tunes they dug up and dusted off, and how all elements of this production would pay deepest homage to a genre, a past, and an culture. Mahssa spoke with equal passion about the project, despite the long, thankless hours it took to make. In both their descriptions are elements of making something not only auditory but also tactile, for future generations to hold on to - from the cover art, to the denotations to, of course, the psychadelic, funk, and pop music from the 60s and 70s it showcases.

But apart from its hip elegance, I think Pomegranates is a beautiful example of how contemporary, specifically second-generation ways of being Iranain American are emerging. I also think of it as an interesting case of commercial culture. It's interesting because Pomegranates is a commercial product that succeeds in maintaining its meaning and depth beyond its ability to be replicated, bought, and sold on the market. At least, so it seems.

In Ethnicity Inc. John and Jean Comoroff argue that markers of ethnic difference (but also national and religious difference) are becoming increasingly commoditized, to the extent that commoditization of ethnicity no longer threatens the authenticity of a given community, but strengthens it. Making something into a commodity has long been thought to reduce its value and authenticity as a signifier, but they see commoditization and market competition as a necessary and accepted part of distinguishing ones ethnicity.

Really? Reducing something to a commodity doesn't decrease the cultural value of a material artifact? Making something a product doesn't put its authenticity in jeopardy? How can this be, when many of us would surely recognize the problem of “selling out” - that familiar compromise of illusive “real” and “deeper” elements of creative expression (whatever they may be) for monetary gains; a problem often associated with music.

So it's not surprising that those I spoke with tended to distinguish the profit-driven cultural and community initiatives from the non-profit ones. Even when good intentions are acknowledged across the board, the voluntary, philanthropic, and gainless activities seem to represent community goals more closely than those for money. But when Reza Aslan commented that the Prince of Persia should indeed star Jake Jyllenhall rather than an Iranian American actor, at a PAAIA/Levantine Cultural Center public event late last year, “because we need to get the highest box office return possible,” not many seemed impressed by his logic, but nobody from the large, diverse audience actually challenged him on this point. Sometimes we reluctantly accept these ways of representing and addressing a community´s concerns because we must. To quote a second generation Iranian American musician´s similar resignation, “that's just the way things work in America.” There's an element of compromise in this sentiment; of loss of authenticity in exchange for broad, public recognition of Iranians/Persians in a positive light in a Hollywood movie.

But this doesn't seem like the win-win situation the Comoroff’s described (for more on that listen to this interview with them). In the case of the Prince, successful commerce doesn't seem to go seamlessly hand in hand with accurate and fair representation of Iranian Americans. Rather, it's a compromise. I also saw this in the way people talked representing themselves online. On the one hand it was a global commons where artists could show work, sell work, and network. On the other hand certain people spoke of it as a corrupting global marketplace where everyone had to be “tagged,” “labeled,” and compete to “sell themselves.” The collective commons of creativity versus the stifling clench of pure business.

But are the boundaries all that clear? They weren't for the Comoroffs, who see the ethic “brand,” as allowing people to commercially own and therefore benefit from the sale or marketing of their ethnic identity in an identity economy. It's not simply impoverishing to sell your own culture, it's empowering, they argue. Perhaps we can't easily say this of a massive Hollywood production like Prince of Persia, and the blatant story of accumulation it seems to represent. But the modest case of Pomegranates might be one where we see a sense of recognition and respect for Iranian (American) culture, an acknowledgement that operates through (and not despite) the consumption of such cultural products by both non-Iranians and Iranian Americans themselves.

But I still wonder what exactly allows such a product to maintain its authenticity to both the producer and the consumer. Is it that they also sell the record on vinyl? The sound and feel of which are associated with a time when music was more "authentic." Is it that it's put out by a European record label with a story of specializing in discovering the previously undiscovered value of unique music from the past? Undiscovered gems that haven't yet experienced value inflation. Or its circumvention of the mainstream? Is it more authentic as a product because of the makers' own emotional, familial, and cultural proximity to the persistent nostalgia of a diaspora/exile nation? Or a bit of all of these things? (the usual social scientific explanation).

And will I feel a little more a part of a community (within a community) when my copy arrives in the mail? Will it be because I will listen differently than someone who has little or nothing to do with that community? Is that what will make it authentic for me and other listeners like me? For all my (Western) reluctance about marketed culture, will I be moved by listening nonetheless - moved a little closer to a people and a time and a place I engage with mostly through such means as a product made by others who create from a similarly second generation position. It seems the interaction between these factors of both production and consumption are a indispensable parts of the formula.

Iranian Americans: The-Making-Of

2010-06-08T07:17:00.000-07:00

An exciting, new exhibit opened at UCLA's Fowler Museum over the weekend: Document: Iranian Americans in Los Angeles. It's based around photographs of and by Iranians in LA, and what makes it really interesting is the focus on "the second generation." Since the 90s Bozorgmehr, Mahdi, and others have been calling for further understanding, documentation, and analysis on the second generation, but over the years very few have gone there. On the other hand, I can see this starting to change as second generation Iranian Americans start studying, documenting, and representing themselves, and in doing so, construct their "selves" in idiosyncratically second-generation ways, which are at times contiguous with, and other times distinct from, their parents' generation. All this is part of the ongoing process of making and remaking Iranian American-ness that's happening today in unique ways.

Multi-vocality is a strong theme in the work of involved members of the second generation representing Iranian American-ness. The show at Fowler is likely a great example of this. And that's why I'm particularly proud of my friend and fellow anthropology doctoral student, Amy Malek, for producing and curating this show, and also deeply disappointed about my own absence from LA and therefore the event. Amy and others I've talked to are stressing the need to include a wide range of different voices when it comes to representation, casting aside simple caricatures (which often get easy attention), and making space for the range of variation among Iranian Americans in LA. That's what makes this more than the simple documentation of a bounded group or population; it's the making of, rethinking of, and extending of a "community's" boundaries to include a varied and dynamic new generation.

I can't help but see this as part and parcel of a wider shift in which the Internet has played an important role. It was the many North American-based Iranian bloggers I interviewed online back in 2006 who turned me on to it first. Since then I've kept seeing how the Internet offers unique ways to represent Iranian Americans by adding nuance, humanity, and accuracy to important public debates concerning Iranians in America and beyond. Above all, they allow the voices of many (some previously unheard) a space to come out and engage. But the Internet's in-built multi-vocality is one thing; reflexively curating and purposefully bringing together different voices is another. This additional layer of consciously co-ordinating multi-vocality as included in community rather that dividing it is the value added by a younger generation with the right capacities and resources.

It goes to show that the public existence of varied voices among Iranian Americans is not, in itself, necessarily something that makes Iranian Americans in general or the second generation in particular see themselves as part of a varied community. It's curating these voices - both online and offline - in styles that create and recreate Iranian American subjectivities, which cultivates our senses of community; not the voices that are ultimately important, but the conversations they are able to be a part of.

The "crisis of representation," with which so many Anthropologists struggle(d), suggests foregrounding multi-vocality as the only way to properly write about people and cultures. The postmodern/linguistic/literary turn that was largely responsible for this within academia stressed that there's no-one with sufficient authority to represent the 'truth' about people of a certain background, group, or community. Problematizing all representations was embraced wholeheartedly, leaving no representation as more "real" than another.

But in the real world (if we can agree there still is such thing at least rhetorically speaking :)) what does this do for organization, mobilization, and people's sense of "community" other than make it more fragmented, insecure, and uncertain? More than a need to just simply gaze across a range of diversity and point out that it exists, there seems a desire to frame what it means to be Iranian and American within that diversity. And photography exhibits, blogs, and other creative spaces seem to be a part of how all this is taking shape as part of a search for identity and a sense of community in an increasingly multi-vocal and uncertain world.

But what do I know, I haven't seen the exhibit. It's open till August 22nd, so feel free to tell me what you think once you have.

Going Viral

2010-04-14T14:06:00.000-07:00

I’ve been wondering for a while why certain YouTube clips go viral among Iranian Americans while others obviously don’t. Are there videos that go particularly viral among the second generation? An example that comes to mind is the “I love you America” video that I had sent to me by a second generation friend I met in LA (if you're on the homepage click "read more" below to see the vid -- or tell me how I can get it to post without people having click).

Anyway, before I knew it, people were posting it all over Facebook and referencing it in conversations, jokes, face-to-face, on the phone, and of course our hero was “Iranian of the day” on Iranian.com. Seeing this, and the 87,000+ views it got on YouTube, I guess we could say it went viral. So, what's the appeal?

A friend to whom I showed the video said it was all about the genuineness of the singer - the fact that he represents his own, very particular, and very candid way of being both Iranian and American at the same. The more people I talked to the more I heard about the importance of being real and honest online. Why this emphasis when it comes to online communications? Is it because we must always beware of fakes on the net? Or is it, rather, because the internet is a particularly effective medium for sharing in honest and open ways?

Marshall McLuhan talked about the ways in which changing technologies have always been shaping our social worlds. According to him, they do this by changing the way we communicate with one another and therefore how we think and organize ourselves into societies. His famous phrase "the medium is the message" might provide ways to understand the significance of some of these viral videos. McLuhan used the example of the railway, claiming that "the message of any medium of technology is the change of scale or pace or pattern that it introduces into human affairs. "The railway did not introduce movement or transportation or wheel or road into human society but it accelerated and enlarged the scale of previous human functions, creating totally new kinds of cities and new kinds of work and leisure." This, he argued, was the effect of the railway as a medium, completely independent of what it was being used to carry, the content.

So, what about the content of youtube video clips? I thought the content was the most important part! Especially given the emphasis placed by one discerning viewer on the issue of genuineness of this particular guy in this particular context engaged in this particular act. And also because of the fact that this video is very likely circulating among Iranian Americans and not Chinese Swiss for a reason: the content, right?

So why is McLuhan still important? In the BBC documentary, The Virtual Revolution (catchy/cliche/presumptuous title and all), Jonah Peretti, co-founder of Huffington Post and founder of BuzzFeed talks about how we can use McLuhan today (20 years after his death) to explain how inane videos of cats playing the piano are mega youtube-hits. We need only see that it's not at all about the content, but completely about the fluidity with which the video is shared with others, is adapted through the process, and ultimately ends up engaging people in a "viral culture" in which their interactivity is key. We can see a version of this in the way remixes and impersonations of the "I Love You, Amrika" guy have been added to the youtube library by other Iranians (lousy, as they might be in quality, but hey...).

Apparently, the mere fact that we're engaging with a new, interactive media is changing us. If this is the case, then while we're being shaped into so-called members of the "global village" (another of McLuhan's famous phrases), we're not just becoming more connected to as many other people as possible for the sake of it, regardless of what kind of content they share or produce (this leaves the question of why some vids go viral and others don't unanswered). What we do seem to be doing is trying to keep close track of those parts of what the Web offers which are especially close to us, those things with which we can identify, things that make us feel at home, things that touch a deeper "me" or "us" feeling. That's exactly the feeling I got when a friend from LA recently posted a simple close-up of a car number plate that read "ACHJOON" and tagged a bunch of us hyphenate Iranians in it. I Loved it. The comments that ensued covered the range of meaning that this phrase in Farsi (literally: oh baby/dear) has that can't fully be translated, and the fact that this object also somehow immediately conveyed a typical LA Iranian-ness was also obvious without explanation.

There's indeed something movingly sincere about these tiny snippits of web-aided Iranian American-ness that make them work for people, at least from where I'm looking. And together they seem to make up a bigger patchwork of other people's similar feelings. It's almost as though it's in those moments, when you feel this kind of closeness and immediacy when relating to others, that the role of the internet as media is most invisible. But perhaps it is in precisely these moments when its role is most significant - imperceptibly changing the ways we are being and becoming ourselves as Iranians and as people with mediated lives.

Strong Aversion to the "Persian Version"

2010-04-10T08:01:00.000-07:00

The reactions started immediately. I have to admit, my own gut couldn't hold back its impulsive reaction to possibly the newest addition to the quality MTV programing that graces our screens across the globe. Hot on the heels of the announcement came the angry, sarcastic, concerned, ridiculing, responses from Iranian Americans. I secretly felt quite proud. But apart from the obvious low-brow -ness of the whole thing, is there a more precise reason why the Persian Version strikes such as sensitive chord with us?

I'm still not sure, but if my Facebook feed is any indication, nobody's excited about it... at all. One LA Iranian publicity magnate became a fan of the Boycott page against the show before it is even made, saying her objection was based on Iranian Americans being a relatively new ethnicity in the US and at this stage needing better representation than a show like this "Jersey Shore" spin-off, which exploits the negative aspects of a stereotype. And, yeah, pretty much everyone else I know was repulsed to varying degrees.

So who are the people who would not only be excited by the prospect of the show being made, but also more than willing to participate in it? Personally, I'm familiar with this type only through legend. I was never able to access the life of this much-talked-about Persian American club-scene-enthusiast since I've never come across anyone willing to own that label let alone boast it with pride (as the show demands). Despite his/her illusiveness (at least to me) this typical "Persian Version" individual plays a big part in the responses of those with whom I did speak.

Across the board and unequivocally, my respondents assert that these shallow, club scene creatures create a harmful image of Iranian Americans in LA, one from which others take distance and with which they don't want to be associated. Some express their aversion much more strongly - I won't use their language. I would guess this show and the group it seeks to showcase uncover a sore spot amongst Iranian Americans because of the wider issues among Iranians in LA and the culture of consumerism and material wealth they have come to embody.

Views on Privilege

Some young second generation women I spoke to (a couple of which are active community organizers) considered the readily visible wealth and privilege of LA Iranians to be an obstacle standing square in the way of united struggle for equal rights and recognition in the US. According to them, portraying Iranian Americans' wealth as their main strength excludes the many lower/middle- and working-class Iranians in America today (not to mention the many in Iran) and therefore undermines notions of "community" by simultaneously capitalizing on and denying the economic inequalities among us.

On the other hand, the idea of wealth as a central Iranian American strength is embraced by some large Iranian American organizations, important public figures in the community, and individuals in general. After all someone thought the Persian Version of the Jersey Shore was a sign that "we have arrived" as a legitimate ethnic group in America. The tension between the accumulation of individual wealth/status on the one hand and the spirit of volunteerism and community-building on the other is nothing new within Iranian American diaspora - it's an old plague. But it seems today's generation is the first to be dealing with it head-on by thinking critically and being on top of things when it comes to the ways Iranians are represented to the public eye. And I see how this is an important role for all of us to play.

The Media Dream

But what about the responsibility of a media and a society that promotes the acceptance of a diversity of cultures into the mainstream by including them in the lowest common denominator-kind of entertainment. Doesn't this implicate a media culture that rewards recklessly materialistic behavior because it has proven to embrace the "American Dream?" The Persian Version is something of a grotesque extreme in this sense, but the idea of Iranian Americans being incorporated into American society because of their power as consumers, financial backers, and entrepreneurs seems to be prevalent today among LA Iranians and is used as a way to mobilize the second generation, too. It betrays close parallels to Hamid Naficy's analysis of the first generation's embrace of blatant consumerism as a way to fit in to American society as newcomers in the late 70s and into the early 80s in his well-known book and article on LA Iranians and satellite television.

The difference, I suppose, is that while there have almost always been complaints about how others portray us, today those who call attention to the issue of wealth as an obstacle to community-building also reveal the problems with how we represent ourselves (as particularly wealthy members of American society). They attempt to avoid misrepresentation by avoiding self-misrepresentation. And I've seen how young Iranian Americans take (self)-representation seriously in increasingly sophisticated ways in online and offline public media today. But that probably won't change the fact we live in a media society that tends toward content like "Jersey Shore," regardless of what Iranians do. The question is then, are we to beat them or joint them?

Peggy Levitt and my insecurities about 2nd Gen LA Iranians

2010-04-09T16:53:00.000-07:00

In a few days highly esteemed scholar on Transnationalism, Peggy Levitt from Wellesley College, will be visiting our department. She makes these visits to us from time to time. Last time I told her about my research plans. This time I've recently returned from the field, so I'm expected to have all sorts of interesting things to say about the way Iranians of the second immigrant generation in LA use the internet.

Okay... interesting is not the problem... what I'm dreading is having some semblance of a coherent story/argument to present in the 15-20 mins I've been allotted. Although this is not that big of a deal, really, it does get me questioning the position I'm in to say things about the people and relations I studied over the past year in LA. I think my case is particularly curious given that the journals I publish in these days also feature works from people I spoke to as informants, and who are also writing about overlapping issues and topics concerning the diaspora, themselves. I find it both thrilling and intimidating that second generation Iranian Americans I've been lucky enough to talk to are writing about the diaspora alongside me (although they aren't in the corresponding position of doing ethnographic research on me and other members of the 2nd gen and using our words to construct their arguments). I think this breech of the usual way in which ethnographic authority is fashioned is really interesting but at the same time is also a cause for my insecurity when it comes to really putting things on paper for print or making assertions in front of an audience.

Nonetheless, this is of course what I will inevitably have to do, and have already started doing it. But whichever form the products of this research turn out to take they will place me as one of the several second generation Iranian diaspora whose academic pursuits are by no means separate from self-understanding, much as is the case for the respondents whose words I will draw on to show this. I have to say, I also appreciate being in this position. It's a clear testament to the investment that this generation is making in (re)presenting, defining, and speaking for themselves (and often their counterparts in Iran), and this is what makes me feel part of those I study the most - being part of this generation.

Many of those I spoke with implicated me and my research in their own worlds, as one of them. Whether they wanted me to convey a message for them, found talking to me to be kind of therapeutic in dealing with their complicated positionings as Iranian in the US, or whether they simply urged me to allow the research experience to develop my own Iranian-ness, I think I was seen as united with them in some kind of unnamed struggle or endeavor, and I eventually felt I was too, and still feel that way, even though I had never lived in LA before this fieldwork and have not spent much of my life around other Iranians or involved in "Iranian causes" at all.

The trouble then becomes not about being in a position to speak about others, but a question of whether an academic audience wants to hear about all this insecurity and self-doubt that ultimately relates to the messy business of separating speaking for myself as an Iranian diaspora of the second generation from speaking about my respondents' selves. I wonder what Peggy Levitt will think.

Census 2010: Iranian Americans getting recognition

2010-03-23T12:46:00.000-07:00

This year’s US census is something I'm quite curious about these days, especially since the impetus behind getting Iranians to fill out their race/ethnicity as Iranians seems to have such broad/popular appeal. The fateful combo of streaming video and social networking site seems to be playing an important role in the popularity of the campaign (at least from what i can see from here) which will probably reach a lot more young Iranian Americans than radio or satellite channels.

The census has really got all the big Iranian organizations and websites working together to get people to "stand up and be counted". Of course the mobilization is about getting the federal money allocated in ways that reflect the ethnic makeup of the population. But aside from the monetary reasons (which are not unimportant unto themselves) it looks like the census plays into the wider issue of recognition for Iranians - a notion of "we're a significant part of American society as a group", a message that publicly-oriented Iranian American organizations are also in the business of promoting, and the net seems to be a very popular method of doing just that.

Whether through online or offline means, the politics of equal recognition for minorities in multicultural, pluralist societies is an important way of demanding rights and equality as members of society within a sovereign nation state. This goes beyond the demand for redistribution of public resources. The aims of recognition include emancipation of a community, preservation against future generations ‘losing’ this particular part of their identity, and gaining the respect worthy of the community and its culture. All pretty noble, most would agree.

But when a group demands to be valued by the state because of their particularities and differences from the “majority” (and from other minorities), there's a subtle shift from making claims to equal access to resources because of our universal sameness to being valued because of our difference. This focus on “recognition” has gained salience in multicultural societies around the globe in recent decades - no, it's not just Iranians who want it. It’s an approach that some people have worried borders too closely on the “politics of difference,” which suggests we should be “proud” of our culture precisely because of its difference. This pride in difference is seen by some as a healthy remedy to the damage caused by any (past) lack of recognition, but one central Iranian American community organizer I spoke with expressed her distaste for teaching the younger generation to be proud of themselves simply for being Iranian. Other may prefer teaching pride in oneself despite being Iranian American in a society that can be prejudiced.

The other question this raises is whether pluralist states can indeed treat all their people as equally valuable while at the same time recognizing the distinctive cultural differences of some and offering the kinds of recognition and respect they demand. This debate goes on within academia, just as parallel debates go on within the Western political left, and also among Iranian Americans in LA. I saw this in everyday discussions about how we are to represent ourselves in ways that don’t come across as arrogant, especially given our wealth and success. How do we teach young people to claim their Iranian-ness in ways that don’t give way to chauvinistic “Persian pride.” Supplementing redistribution with claims for recognition seems to be a double edged sword that can possibly slip into exclusionist exigencies. I think, though, that with the nature of the content that’s circulating online around the census and with the activities of many (second generation) Iranian American organizers, that such segregatory politics are addressed and avoided… for the most part.

Filling out the US census as Iranian or Iranian-American seems a bit of a no-brainer. It's probably the most straightforward way to contribute to a fairer redistribution and further recognition alongside the multitude of other unique and different cultures suffering from various levels of misrecognition in the US. Perhaps we can see it as a good example of how to effectively allow the approaches of redistribution and recognition to go hand in hand in order to reach self-empowerment and collective justice. Maybe you think I'm reading too much into it. But I´m amazed at the breadth of organizations that are promoting the census this time around. Has it ever before been this big of a deal? I'm impressed with this divided community's unification.

Mixed feelings

2010-03-21T06:18:00.000-07:00

Been back in the Netherlands again since recently. The “mixed feelings” cliché really sums up how I’m experiencing it. It’s good to return to “real life” since fieldwork existence is a bit up in the air despite being long-term, but I also miss many things about being in LA and the people who I had around me there.

The bulk of my fieldwork is behind me now. Will be writing from here for the time being before returning to LA again. My return to LA is planned for the Summer of 2011. I have quite some stuff on my mind to put up here but have only now started to make the time to write it up (so lots coming up soon!).

In the meantime I’m looking forward to seeing all the active, interesting, passionate, and friendly people again who were so generous with their time as to talk with me, and so open as to share their stories with a stranger from Holland/Australia/Iran. Some of these impressive people really made my stay in California especially memorable and I feel super lucky to have met them. I will surely stay in touch until I come back, because I think there's lots to stay in touch about, since the questions that I´d like to ask people back in LA are raised for me on a daily basis while looking back, listening to recordings, and going over notes. Just hoping that this online channel can be a(n incomplete and flawed) replacement for being there and talking with you guys in person.

Translating a Movement

2009-11-17T14:22:00.000-08:00

A few days ago, blogger Omid Memarian told me a story about the day after the June elections this year. As someone who knows pretty much all the major news agencies’ Iran correspondents, he called one of these colleagues and started talking animatedly about his analysis of the events. The journalist on the other end sounded confused. He listened but didn’t have much to say. 48 hours passed. It was only then that the journalist friend started to feel he had grasped what had happened after the elections, how, and why, and called Omid back. Omid said his own lack of time-lag was due to his close embedding in the political context of Iran. He explained that blogs like his own, which provided immediate English language commentary on the events in Iran from a real insider’s perspective, fulfilled a unique role in the wake of the election turmoil. They were the translators.

Many young second generation Iranians I’ve been talking to are aware of this need for translation. And English language blogs and websites are where several of them look to find it. But it happens offline too. Nothing exemplified this for me more than when we rounded up a bunch of friends, first and second generation students, and went to watch Khamenei’s fateful post-election speech together in Westwood. The running commentary of the meanings behind the “leader’s” words was for the benefit of those second generation kids who were deeply interested – enough to be there that night till 3 in the morning – but would have been lost without translation.

The political actions and stances of these second generation kids show awareness of their own distance from the complexities of the developments in Iran. But this doesn’t mean they’re passive. Student organizers I spoke with were clear about their support for and solidarity with the demonstrators of the green movement in Iran. But they drew the line at some of the “claiming of the green movement” going on, often among regime-change groups, who were commonly seen as rooted within an older generation of “exiles.” This generation gap seems to reflect a political gap, too (a point that recently got some attention in the LA Times); a shift towards a different type of political involvement among the second generation when it comes relating to the Iran’s green movement from here in LA.

Globalizing the movement is one of the impacts Mahasti Afshar attributes to social media and the Internet at large in today’s Iran. This important new facet of online communication seems to rely heavily on the quality of political, cultural, and of course linguistic translations that are being shared between Iranians in Iran and the diaspora, both online and offline. Yes, the Internet makes access to various perspectives very accessible. But are Twitter and Facebook updates directly from individuals inside Iran the main source of info for the second generation? Or are there still other barriers despite the Internet’s connectivity? It seems the important links between them are sources closely entrenched in both the Iranian and diaspora contexts - the virtual bureaus and journalistic blogs of those first (and some 1.5) generation individuals who have gained status as translators for this movement.

New Media Reflections

2009-11-10T17:28:00.000-08:00

The questions about the camera-phone videos from inside Iran have come up in some conversations recently. I spoke to a young Iranian woman from East LA. She happened to be in Iran at the time of the post-election turmoil for work. She’s an artist. She said she was worried that the Twitter and Facebook circuits were showing a sensationalized version of the events. She didn’t feel like the videos she saw online when back in the US reflected her experience of the events when she was there. The little things like the everyday forms of resistance that people had been engaging in for a long time were being overlooked because they would not captivate audiences in a short video clip. She was concerned that this version of events would not help people outside Iran come to a more nuanced understanding of the complex political climate inside Iran that led to the recent unrest.

I think op-ed columnist for NYT, Roger Cohen, made a similar point when he came to LA to speak about writing from Iran after the elections. He said there’s substitute for being there. We should remember that what we’re seeing is not the full picture even if it’s vivid and current, he basically said. We shouldn’t see new media as replacing the role of quality, trained journalism. I think that’s what a lot of us learned, as we started to become more discerning about the sources and the content after acclimatizing to the initial shock of the developments. I have the impression that new kinds of media literacy had to emerge during that time. One female Iranian student I spoke to disagreed, though.

She already knew which sites to trust and which not to, she said. She talked on the phone to her relatives back in Iran, like many others here, and followed the news both on mainstream and other (online) media agencies. Despite the floods of Twitter messages of this summer, and the steady stream that is still flowing, those I talk with relied heavily - and still do - on journalism that fulfills conventional standards and methods of information verification and presentation… at least those who were, indeed, relying on such sources before the Facebook and Twitter booms hit, that is. Those who weren't... well, there will always be people like that, I guess.

Alternative Online Art Networks

2009-11-09T17:39:00.000-08:00

Sociarts is an online forum for artists started up by Bita Shafipour, who came over to the US from Iran when she was 19 to study here, and is now a filmmaker. Bita told me she saw the role of the Internet as a means of preserving the quality of the arts; the film industry has completely given in to profit motives to the detriment of artistic quality. But Sociarts is supposed to represent how artists who are socially conscious - not just into making money - can get their social message out with the help of the Internet.

Sociarts is still run as a business and therefore has to make money itself, but the idea is that this online network provides more than just connections to clients and between artists. Rather, the network itself is “alive,” according to Bita. It’s based around common goals and interests, engenders trust and cooperation, and resembles an international community of artists more than a utilitarian artist network. This idea of online community is interesting to me. And the optimism and good intent of the creator are impressive. I just wonder how the artists and clients feel about it.

I’ve met artists who feel excluded from the established networks of artists in LA and perhaps have a slightly different idea of what “social consciousness” is. These artists don’t relate to the Iranian art circuits that are rooted in the spaces of wealth and privilege in West LA. The few I’ve spoken to identify more closely with the struggle of less wealthy Iranians (including those who couldn’t afford to leave Iran), and different ethnic minority groups in other parts of LA. I can’t say the role of the Internet is taking any solid shape yet among the young Iranian American artists I've talked to(who all happen to be women, by the way). However, it’s beginning to become a space for them to share their art with others inside and outside of their regular audiences. They’re learning new things about the consequences of sharing their work online, the difficulties and advantages, and it seems to be something that’s developing.

The Iranian Internet Freedom Bandwagon

2009-11-06T17:39:00.000-08:00

Those three months went by too fast. But now I’m back, to write about a jumble of things that have happened in the meantime, in no particular order, starting, this time, with international internet solidarity with the Iranian “green movement.” Austin Heap started Haystack, an anti-censorship program. A few months back Heap was seen on stages rallying for Iran and speaking at events. TOR has had a spike in users (approx 3000) from Iran starting after the elections. Pirate Bay also declared their support for online Iranians and their “green” agenda... It has certainly caught on.

Maybe I’m totally off, but it all reminded me a bit of Fred Turner’s description of the ideals that the Internet was set up with in its early days in his book Counterculture to Cyberculture. These utopian notions from the 60s and 70s saw the Internet as a harbinger of “virtual communities” and global connectedness that was going to democratize the world. But according to Turner, this ideal has since morphed into an ideology of deregulating the newly-networked marketplace, empowering a technologically enabled elite, and encouraging the building of new businesses.

It's not the initiatives that people are taking to technologically empower Iranians that remind me of these early cyber-cultural ideas, but the reception they've been getting in the mainstream media and general public. Listening to the celebratory and somewhat self-congratulatory tone of the speakers at the Internet's "40th birthday" event last week at UCLA, these ideas still seemed very much in full force. Apparently not much has changed in 40 years in that respect.

But I don’t know if this sounds like what Heap is doing today with Iran. He started basic with just himself and Daniel Colascione and has now set up a non-profit. It seems things are much less shady this way than when the US State Department funds your project like with TOR, or has influence over your maintenance hours like with Twitter. Shady is definitely the world that comes to mind when considering the way McCain (and others) also jumped on the Iranian Internet freedom bandwagon with the legislation he announced would ensure Internet access to social networking sites in Iran. Is it just me or has the line between those who work towards freedoms for Iranians and those who want war with Iran become very fine?

The Revolution will not be Tweeted

2009-07-29T16:26:00.000-07:00

There are so many postings, links, and updates about the Iran elections circulating around the popular social networking, blogging, and sites like facebook and twitter that include ‘microblogging’. While mainstream news sources such as CNN hailed the online media as hosting a “twitter revolution,” some tech experts reminded us that twitter was not at the center of these events because most Iranians don’t have access to twitter and the protesters inside Iran don’t actually rely on these technologies for organizing demonstrations as much as they do text messaging and word of mouth.

On the other hand, among the young Iranian Americans I’ve been talking to, Facebook has been of massive importance in organizing gatherings, protests, and other events related to the elections and showing solidarity to those inside Iran. They have seen the spaces of their Facebook transform from domains for frivolous socializing into political spaces. I can completely relate to this experience looking at how my own Facebook news feed and profile postings have changed since the elections in June.

I suppose Facebook is more potent here in the

for the networking and sharing aspects because Iranians here were already well-entrenched in widespread social networks on these very websites. Starting up an online social network in order to become more involved in the events after the fact doesn’t seem to be effective. Although some reported trying. But if the network is there already before the fact, it can become very easy to get caught up in the Facebook flow concerning the developments in

Iran

and the diaspora. Some have commented that even their Iranian American friends who previously had nothing to do with

Iran

are posting on

Iran

now. There is certainly a drive towards supporting the protesters/students/“sea of green”/green movement from all ends of the globe. It’s also been quite trendy to proclaim one's Iranian-ness, and it seems to be culminating in a particularly visible way online, as well as in offline events being organized all over the globe in support of Iranian democracy.

The fact that there was such demand for English translations of online articles and documents from Farsi to English during the post-election coverage was both a sign that Iranians were relying on the internet to get a message out and those outside were relying on it to stay informed. Bilingual readers took it upon themselves to translate and distribute material online. The up to date and detailed accounts written in English like the Huffigton Post’s and LA Times’ columns circulated widely, as did Andrew Sullivan’s blog.

The gaze of the Western public has been attracted towards Iran even more in these past weeks (and even some after MJ’s death!), and although Obama is still staying on the fence (or struggling to), we have all seen what a positive light the protesters have been shown in over here, and the effect of this Western audience through mainstream and new media outlets is no doubt having some effect. The English language “Where is my vote” placards held in Iran’s streets during protests are a pretty clear sign that the protesters are aware of this international Western audience, one of my respondents said, just as the steady stream of twitter updates in English (sometimes translated directly by other tweeters) about events inside Iran during the demonstrations also showed. He said, it appears the breadth of the transnationalisaiton of the Iranian movement is something relatively new if we make the commonly-made comparison to the revolution of ’79.

But this can't possibly just be because of Twitter and Facebook, right? I feel like it’s more likely that the public’s awareness has been raised because of the mainstream Western media (CNN obviously comes to mind) highlighting the plight of innocent protesters/voters. Several people I’ve spoken to have pointed out their concern that this image of Iranian people vs. oppressive government fits in with the image of Iran that have been promoted consistently by American news media in order to justify war with Iran on grounds of 'liberation.' Can't say it doesn't sound familiar. Suffice it to say, lots of people don't trust the 'twitter revolution.'

Facebook, Twitter, and the Iranian Elections

2009-06-11T23:19:00.000-07:00

From where I'm sitting, the role of facebook and twitter in these Iranian elections and the post-election aftermath can't possibly be overstated.

There were already articles circulating about the importance of social networking sites like facebook in the run-up to the elections, but since the protests in reaction to the election results broke out, facebook and twitter have been the go-to sites for so many Iranians both inside and outside the country.

And it's obviously not just Iranians relying on these sites for Iran info, since the Iran elections are the hottest topic on Twitter and Google blog searches - millions of web users worldwide are waiting for the next online postings of those brave people with (limited) Internet access inside Iran, who keep writing even as they fear being tracked and ending up in grave danger. The addresses of proxy servers are being circulated on social networking sites so as to help those inside Iran evade filters. Twitters users even persuaded twitter to postpone their web maintenance to a less "intrusive" time so that updates from those who rely on twitter in Iran wouldn't be hindered as much. Later it appeared that the US State Department had a hand in this decision, which you can read more about here and here. But this was never admitted by Twitter.

Surely the others who are also following the events from afar have noticed (as I have), Facebook and Twitter status updates are temporally way ahead of big, mainstream news sources when it comes to reporting the smaller details and keeping up with events as they develop. This article even lists guidelines so users can make the most of this new "social media" for following the events in Iran.

I can safely say I saw footage of the 'riots' embedded on Facebook and linked through Youtube posted by people in Iran (and those friends and family) way before I saw anything like it on news sites. For a moment, I saw into the face of a riot policeman up close through his transparent plastic mask as he rushed the camera-person, who then turned and started running with the rest of the crowd - the camera still filming but shaking to the point where you could only see some feet, some people's backs, the ground, and hear the screams of a woman: "don't hit, don't hit". More and more of the established news agencies are airing these home-made clips since foreign reporters were ejected and banned from the country in the days following the initial uprising.

Many people in other parts of the world here are living on Iran time. Not only figuratively because they've been urged to change their location and time and date on twitter to look as though they are in Tehran to fool the censors, but also literally, because they're actually staying up nights on end to keep up with the twitter updates that are coming in continuously. Balatarin.com has even introduced continuous live streaming in Farsi from those inside Iran.

At the same time, the 'cyberwars' have also started. The limited access because of filters on sites like Facebook and Youtube quickly became international common knowledge after the election crackdown on these sites. But Iranians succeeded in getting around these obstacles to access. The battle seemed to enter a new dimension when Tehran Bureau's site was attacked yesterday and they had to temporarily rely on Facebook updates through Iran Pages and Twitter their updates. Andrew Sullivan's site was also hacked by the Iranian government people. He is a long-time political blogger whose writing on Iran was very popular, especially in these past days. Websites outside the country being successfully brought down by Iranian government forces? Maybe I'm behind, but this was something new to me (although I have to say it's really hard to prove that this was actually done by people inside Iran. Maybe it wasn't).

Maybe Tehran Bureau was targeted because it was proving to be such a particularly powerful site, being one of the very few that mixed the best of both worlds: citizen journalism + trusted news, and effectively delivered it to a substantial outside audience. They were/are keeping up with the main Farsi language sources (as I compared my information with those of my Farsi speaking friends) and they post detailed reports from the ground. For me and the English speaking friends who are following the events, TB has become indispensable.

The site is back up now, and "stronger than before," and they have apparently even taken down several state news agency sites with their own counter-attack. I got this all from their Facebook pages. But then an Iranian contact (and techie) posted a link to this article on why those attacks can be harmful. The argument that you could be contributing to the slowdown of internet in Iran in general by launching the type of attack that overloads your target's system with requests is the most interesting. This concern has grown by virtual word of mouth over the past couple of days, as people have tried to warn others.

Clearly, one of the limits to the democratizing potentials of this powerful tool (in addition to the obvious ones such as lack of universal accessibility) is that one's ignorance of how it works, combined with increased access and lower and lower barriers to engagement in cyber-battle could be like arming the untrained. But it also seems that by gaining the experience, people increase their literacy and improve their abilities to harness the potentials of these online tools in ways that best suit their cause(s).

Just like everyone who has anything to do with the Iran elections, I have lots more to say as things are constantly happening and developing. I can't get it all out right now, but will come back to it very soon.

Virtual Bureau

2009-06-06T18:04:00.000-07:00

Some of the people I've been speaking to alerted me to this relatively new website on Iran and the Iranian diaspora called Tehran Bureau. It's one of its kind as far as I know; a site dedicated to the news, current affairs, arts etc. concerning Iranians internationally. The election coverage segments right now are especially interesting (and popular, from what I hear).

The friendly and forthcoming editor of the online publication told me that she saw the purpose of Tehran Bureau (TB) as making a break with the politicized spaces that Iranian media have created for too long in the diaspora. Objective and credible journalism is lacking and doesn't have a strong tradition among Iranians at all. That is evident from some of the weak support TB has received from members of the Iranian American community, she said.

But she also has much hope for the younger generation who are more open to and appreciative of projects like TB; people who can digest multiple perspectives and draw their own conclusions on the basis of factual reports on Iran; including young Iranians who are getting back to their "roots" like she, herself, sought to do in becoming more active and interested in issues concerning Iran. She also sees Iranians as being in a good position to cover their own people and country, tell their own personal stories, and describe their own experiences and impressions. In this editor's experience, this is something there is less space for in many mainstream American news agencies, where being Iranian is seen more as a hindrance to objectivity in covering Iran issues than a facilitation of in-depth understanding of the events occurring there.

This "virtual bureau" is virtually "located" in Tehran, which makes it very curious, as most of its contributors live outside Iran. The reasons for this are no mystery. Many Iranians cannot return, and some will not be allowed to leave if they do. TB's writers are no exception, and may not feel as safe writing in Iran as they do, for instance, in the US. On top of that, one contributor told me that inside Iran he wouldn't be able to consult all the Farsi sites that informed his writing here, as many of them were filtered there.

If the freedom and access to information about Iran is so much greater outside the country, could it be that in some ways, setting up a "virtual bureau" is actually more authoritative than being there?

Understandably, TB still sees value in having some correspondents report from inside Iran, but the current perspective is predominantly Iranian American. This particular slant may make the online publication all the more significant because it speaks best to policy makers, other journalists, and just regular people in the US. That could have powerful positive impacts. But what about the audience of second generation Iranians? Without the language skills to follow sources in Iran, are they(we) going to be learning about their(our) country more and more "virtually" from now on? Will we find our "roots" from a distance? Will that be better?

Filming/Blogging your return. What's the appeal?

2009-05-20T17:36:00.000-07:00

I was at the Noor Film Festival in West LA a couple of weeks ago.

There were some great films, but some of the most interesting to me, given the themes of my research, were the ones that young Iranian Americans had made about their trips to Iran. Whether for the first time, or returning for another visit, none of these young film-makers had grown up in Iran or lived there for any significant expanse of time. But they felt enough of a connection to the country itself to actually dedicate their time, efforts, talents, and other resources to documenting their travels to Iran and telling the stories they had to tell about themselves and about America(ns) and Iran(ians) while doing so.

The three film-makers I am talking about also each have websites that are pretty impressive. Sam Ali Kashani's film "Tehran: Another Side" has film segments on his website, Nooshin Navidi's "Young Republic" is summarized on hers, and Justin Mashouf's "Warring Factions" has a trailer here and his blog is here.

Speaking of blogs, I've also met a number of Iranian American bloggers whose stories of return are echoed in those of Sam, Nooshin, and Justin. "Returnees" who are discovering Iran for the first time more than returning to anything they have known in the past, yet at the same time seem to feel like they're going back to a place they (at least partially) come from. It seems more and more of the second generation is seeking this journey of (self) discovery, and also wanting to engage an audience of others to participate in it with them through making a film about it, or a blog, or both. I wonder why sharing this experience with others is so important, and what the chosen media of film and blogging have to offer over others.

Getting back in the swing…

2009-05-20T17:15:00.000-07:00

From the long silence you can tell I haven’t really got the hang of this research blog-writing business. I was starting to wonder why I got myself into this whole mess to begin with. But then I met someone who happened to see my blog. This practical stranger urged me to start up again. The realization that a real life person actually read what I was writing and wanted to know more made me finally get over myself and just keep writing.

I came to LA late last year and spent about 2 months talking to various interesting people; almost all of whom would call themselves Iranians of the ‘hyphenated’ kind (Iranian-American). Looking back, it was a couple of months of randomness and following anything that seemed at all interesting at the time. It was a time during which I taped interviews with some “prominent members” of the “Iranian-American community” in Los Angles and Orange Counties – a category of people which I had only heard stories about from outside the US and seen fringes of on my childhood family visits to Southern California. I soon noticed the same thing that many of the respondents I talked to also mentioned about LA Iranians: to a very large extent all the stories and stereotypes were true.

But on the other hand I also talked to Iranians I didn’t expect to meet; people who surprised and intrigued me. So these early months also turned out to be a time for casual discussions with new friends through water-pipe smoke on a warm night on Westwood Boulevard – with them being amused by not being able to quite place my strange accent when I spoke Farsi. It was also a time when I did a lot of wandering among, and questioning of people without really knowing exactly why, or where it was all going. But ultimately I was able to mix these bouts of confusion with the intermittent moments of clarity that drove me to come back again, this time with a refreshed and somewhat more personal interest in the research I am doing and the people it’s about.

Who are the Second Generation?... And what are they doing that’s new?

Coming back to LA from the Netherlands again, I am a bit more focused this time; focused mainly on the second generation and the new things they are doing on/with the Internet. I would call the first generation those who moved over here in adulthood – many during the early 80s on, but some earlier – and the second generation their children. Many of these kids are now in early adulthood and are doing interesting things Online, which I will get into more soon.

I know this picture of Iranian American migrant generations is quite a limited and static one. It doesn’t deal all the various in-between generations of people who came to this country as minors with their parents but have many memories of Iran, or those who have much more recently come over as young adults but end up with second generational peers. Indeed, anyone’s generational age group is difficult enough to delineate and may change with the social context, even without taking migration into account, so this is a dynamic and tricky category. But one of the things that’s most interesting to me is how and when generational gaps are experienced from the perspective of those young Iranians who are native speakers of English, call America their home, and can generally be called ‘the second generation,’ but want to ‘stay Iranian,’ however they define that. How are these young people being Iranian in different ways than their parents and what role do the use of Online media communications play in the way they do this?

Another Internet Researcher Blogging

2008-08-10T15:02:00.000-07:00

Intro

Salaam. My name is Donya Alinejad and I am an Iranian and Australian national, as well as researcher at the Vrije Universiteit van Amsterdam in the Netherlands. A short time ago I started working on a project that focuses on trying to understand the multitude of ways in which Iranians in LA use the internet. This project is tentatively called "Mapping a Transnational Nation on the World Wide Web: an Online/Offline approach to studying Iranian Diaspora Internet Use in Los Angeles."

The title phrase "On Location" refers to the fact that I have started this blog as part of preparing to travel to my fieldwork location in Los Angeles, where I will continue to post updates based on what I find out. At the same time, however, the title also refers to one of my important hypotheses about what I will find once I'm there. Namely, I think how people communicate through the Internet is shaped more by their locality than it is by a free-floating, cyberworld that exists only on the screen. So my investigation of the Internet's role takes place offline too! And one thing I would really like to know more about is the role of location, territory, borders, places, (e.g. Iran and US locations/borders) and how they are shaped by, or constructed within, the disembodied, dislocated spaces of the Internet...

But this is just one of the many MANY questions I have about what it means to be Iranian (or Persian American or American of Persian descent, etc.) in LA and use the Internet. For instance, is there such as thing as a (virtual) Persian Communtiy? What are the limits of political organization with the help of the Internet? How do people "(be)come" Iranian online? etc, etc. That is why, while the location question is a means for me to introduce to you my research, my thoughts, and indeed my blog, it does not mean that my focus, hypotheses, and questions won't shift, multiply or change along the line as I talk to new people and observe new things. In fact, I do expect such shifts to happen during the period of fieldwork that I will be doing in LA and Iran over the next year. I will be doing qualitative research, which to me means collecting ethnographic data through in depth-interviews and spending time with Iranians/Persians who live in and around Greater Los Angeles.

Hopes

My hope for this blog is not only to offer a way for me to represent myself to those from whom I ask co-operation as respondents, but also to allow them to take part in "re-representing" themselves to me through their comments on the fieldwork observations and the analytical reflections that I post here. That means telling me what you really think!

I start here with humble expectations, knowing that I am leaving the Netherlands for the US in a few weeks to arrive in a city I barely know with the aim of finding, meeting, and making connections with people who are willing to give their time and energy for a stranger's research project. To help along this introduction process I will do everything I can to answer questions, give clarifications, etc. about myself and my research goals, so please just ask and I will do my best to answer. Although I don't expect much at this stage, I do nevertheless hope that this blog and this project respectively will grow into something that is shaped by the voices, experiences, and stories of the people that this research is based around. I hope you can help me with that.