Justifying authoritarian practices: epistemic governance in two opposite interventionist policies on women’s attire in Iran’s pre- and post-revolution 1979

Abstract

ABSTRACT How do authoritarian actors seek to justify their interventionist gendered policies? The study bridges the authoritarian governmentality scholarship with Epistemic Governance theory to disclose epistemic politics in interventionist policymaking. It gathers textual data from political leaders and influential actors to investigate the epistemic practices around the justifications of two culture-shaping policies on Iranian women’s attire: the ‘unveiling’ policy banning all women’s head covers in the 1930s and the ‘mandatory veiling’ laws in the 1980s. Foucauldian discourse analysis as elaborated in Epistemic Governance analytic is applied to scrutinise how women’s attires were problematised in both cases and how exclusionary measures were justified. The findings reveal that in the 1930s, veiling was represented as the dangerous embodied emblem of backwardness that must be excluded in the urgent context of national progress. In contrast, unveiling, as the marker of cultural colonialism, was prohibited in the context of the necessity to protect the counter-hegemonic national values in the 1980s. These findings highlight recontextualisation practices turning women’s attire into a matter of national security that justify pastoral power for governmental interventions. The study hence warns against (in-)security politics in authoritarian governance whereby any epistemic field is depoliticised, and public opinion is conducted towards interventionist policies.