Scholarly Pursuits or Hidden Agenda?

Title: Scholarly Pursuits or Hidden Agenda ?


Azar Nafisi’s book Reading Lolita in Tehran is a memoir that emphasizes American literature to portray various aspects of the oppressions in Iran against women. At the same time her informative nature leads the reader into the interpretation that Nafisi believes she is an expert on everything she talks about. The fact that her book conveys such an a rigid stance about everything Iranian makes the reader wonder if there is another alternative besides her rigid stance. Professor Hamid Dabashi’s stance in his article, “Native informers and the making of the American empire,” that the book is “insular’ and an “illusionary text” is justified (Dabashi 7), especially since Nafisi does not back her view with any scholarly interpretations other then her own authoritative one; rather her message can be conveyed through other means that would not glorify Western literature.
Dabashi believes that Nafisi is a colonist and agent for the “American Empire” and is also is “reminiscent of the most pestiferous colonial projects of the British in India”(Dabashi 3) . He reinforces that statement by using a quote of a colonial officer, Thomas Macaulay, who believed in having a class of Indians that were educated in England with British tastes. He believes that Reading Lolita in Tehran is a similar attempt to create a class of agents of colonialism by Nafisi, who was educated abroad and throughout most of her memoir pushes Western literature. Nafisi believes, by using the book Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov as an example, that Western literature is a “defense not just of beauty but of life, ordinary everyday life, all the normal pleasures” (Nafisi 33) that were taken away by the Iranian government. She never mentions why normal everyday life should be Western for all Iranians, including the average Iranian man, and not Iranian in nature. Dabashi continues to quote Mr. Viswanathan who believes that “the establishment of English literary studies” goes “back to its colonial origins in India and as an effective strategy of colonial control”(Dabashi 5). He asserts that Nafisi is like one of those Indians who were used by colonists to keep the population of the colonies in line. He also points out that she is from a privileged Iranian family that were able to afford to send their daughter overseas to be educated and the privileged are the elite minority in Iran. There is also a question of whether the common man in Iran even has the opportunity or choice of going overseas for a Western education.
Dabashi mentions the cover of Reading Lolita in Tehran and how it has been robbed from its true context. He mentions that the original image was “distorted” intentionally from its true purpose which was really conniving. The real picture is of female students reading about a political outcome in an Iranian newspaper on a college campus in Iran. They are also in front of a poster of President Khatami, who represents the reformists’ movement. Dabashi believes that Nafisi is stripping the intelligence of those Iranian women by suggesting that a sign of intelligence is only shown through the reading and knowledge of Western literature. The image also contradicts the fact that when her students came to her house Nafisi does tell them that they can “take that off ,” ( Nafisi 12) meaning their veil. So the image on the cover, that they are wearing their veils while they are readings the books, is inaccurate and misleading and there is evidence in Reading Lolita in Tehran that backs Dabashis’ claim.
Nafisi even goes so far as to put The Great Gatsby by Scott F. Fitzgerald on trial while she teaches the book in her class. Since Nafisi had suggested putting the book on trial she was encouraged to defend it to which she responded that she “should not be the defense but the defendant,” “ and to talk in my own defense” (Nafisi 121) which makes Nafisi’s stance, of the books, an extension or even reflection of herself. Dabashi criticizes Nafisi for that very authoritative gesture and omissions that “any relevant theory amassed for generations about and around the works of the authors that hold the four chapters of the books narratively together” (Dabashi 7). Dabashi’s view on this point does hit the mark that The Great Gatsby and Lolita were not always considered classics, that in the beginning right after publications there have been many criticisms of both books and even attempts at banning. Nafisi does not care to recollect that fact and if there is its as a slight inclination that is just an after thought. Nafisi even forgets the history behind the perception of Lolita, in the US and Europe, like it has been a “piece of proverbial cake” (Dabashi 9). Nabokov was turned down by many publishers before he found “Maurice Girodia Olympia Press” which published pornographic titles. The fact that Nafisi considers only Iran as a country that bans books is clearly intentional and attempts to conceal the fact that they there have been attempts in the West to ban Western literature.
There is even a scene in the book where Nafisi and her “magician” have ham sandwiches at his dining room table “greedily biting into a “forbidden ham and cheese sandwich“ (Nafisi 55). The fact that pork is taboo has not escaped Nafisi and her magician and they gleefully portray that and it ultimately rises the question of why? How does eating pork emphasize the harm that the Islamic regime has put the Iranian women through? Yet again Nafisi ignores the fact that the West is benevolent, in principle, to all forms of religions and the freedom of practicing ones religion. The West does cater to the other types of food such as kosher and halal. At this point her message is unclear and the interpretation, for the cause, is very obscure. Does her actions reflect any world that she mentions the “West” or even the Iranian Regime? Nafisi’s, message, if any, is very unclear at this point.
Every country has undergone change to reach the pedestal it is currently on. America, as a country, went through many changes from the moment of its birth to its current position as a supreme power. They are various historians within America with different positions and stances about America’s history. Nafisi conveys the arrogance of thinking she can be the only voice of Iran with one opinion that does not allow room for any other. Dabashi, who is also a professor at Columbia University an Ivy League University, questions this arrogance by pointing out the flaws in her arguments which are completely justified. He does admit that they are issues in relevance to the role of women in Iran that need to be addressed. He doesn’t agree with her platform but also doesn’t agree with her patronization of other forms of literature by emphasizing only one category, that of the West. Scholarly disputes do come up and Dabashi makes a strong claim with evidence that were in existence prior to his article. Nafisi only uses her life and shuttered view of evidence to convey her stance. Although a memoir is by nature only the author’s viewpoint, to hold it up as the only viewpoint is misleading and contrary to the values of the freedom of expression she so values of the West. She forgets that the books she mentions were initially banned when first published. Banning of books, though not encouraged, are still attempted at even in America. Nafisi holds up America as an icon yet overlooks even that simple fact which would go against her point that the West is ideal.






















Bibliography Page:
1. Nafisi, Azar. Reading Lolita in Tehran: A memoir in books. New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks, 2008.
2. Dabashi, Hamid. "Native informers and the making of the American empire." Al-Ahram Weekly. 7 June 2006. Al - Ahram. 12 May 2012 .