A sociological study on unlawful hijab in Iran (1)

Abstract

From a sociological point of view, observing hijab is considered a "social norm" and improper veiling a "social deviance". The condition of hijab can be analyzed by combining three views of determining social deviations as "structural- functional", "interaction", and "wise selection and social control" views. Through this approach, a model can be achieved in which individuals learn the compliance or violation of the veil as a social norm in interacting with social environments.
This manuscript as a structuralist explanation of the hijab situation in Iran declares that the hijab in Iran was an acceptable norm before the unveiling event and that improper veiling as well as negative attitudes to hijab were only common among upper-class subculture foreigners or people associated with the West; however, due to the expansion of cultural fusion formed among different classes, negative attitudes to hijab have gradually become so popular that have been continued to current date.
Although political factors such actions of Reza Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and foreign interventions have been effective in the propagation of unlawful veiling, there are also structural issues facilitating the conditions for the promotion of unlawful veiling through causal mediating mechanisms.
The author tries to point out that the process of modernization has provided the structural basis of illicit hijab through some changes, and also to describe the causal mediating mechanisms with the general title "communication environment". In addition, issues such as internalization of illicit veiling, reduced relations with the environments supporting hijab etc. have been discussed under the title of costs and benefits.

Introduction

Women’s veiling and covering have consistently been acceptable at different societies, and even in Europe, though there are signs of its gradual decline since the second half of the eighteenth century, local wearing of most women has been associated with head covers and long dressings until late nineteenth century. Before the unveiling event in Iran by Reza Khan in 1936, though perhaps not all women had fully complied with religious pattern of hijab (covering the body except the face and hands up to the wrist, without any makeup in front of non-mahrams), often wore a chador, and long, loose and unattractive dresses, so that their covering situation was much closer to the religious pattern of hijab than what has, later and during the current period, become popular among a large group of women.
Reza-Khani's unveiling, though forced, removed the women’s chador, but when he resigned in 1942 and left Iran, a large section of veiled women attended in the community again; yet, in the midst of a growing part of women a pattern of cover became popular which was seriously different from previously contradictory patterns common among part of women, including rural women working in rice paddies. The new paradigm referred to as the "new improper hijab" was associated with the exposure of all or part of the head or body, makeup, and public glaring. Such a pattern was more common among the upper-class, rich people, but later expanded further particularly at the time of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’ kingdom formation with a growing tendency toward western civilization and modernization (sp. among citizens of large cities).
With the victory of the Islamic Revolution and the resultant changes in values as well as relatively sharp formal and informal controls, the condition of hijab changed to a great extent compared to the pre-revolutionary situation, but this situation did not continue so that a wider part of the women’s community steadily take away the religious pattern of hijab.
A far more distance from the legal pattern of hijab and, in other words, the spread of improper veiling raises the question that how the above-mentioned pattern once placed in a limited, subculture upper class has now expanded among all sectors of the society. To address this question, it can be stated that compliance with hijab (at least a conventional hijab close to the legal pattern used to be a prevailing form in our society before the prevalence of the new form of unlawful hijab) is a "social norm" expected by the public to be observed by women facing with non-mahram people, and that the violation of which (i.e. improper veiling) accounts for a "social deviance". Therefore, social deviance points of view can be used to explain the "unlawful hijab" as a social nonconformity.

1. Social deviation viewpoints

Social deviances are described by different biological, psychological and sociological approaches. In the biological approach, biological factors such as physical defects and chromosomal patterns are taken into consideration; in the psychological approach, social deviations are explained based on the types of "character". In sociological approach, social factors affecting deviant behavior (rather than biological or psychological factors) are the basis for explanation of deviant behavior as well.
This research aims to discover the social causes rendered the prevalence of unlawful hijab (as a social deviation) in our society and, therefore, to review and explain the sociological approach.

1.1 Sociological deviance explanations

Social deviances are explained differently based on each different sociological perspective such as structuralism, interaction, conflict, wise selection and social control:

1.1.1. Structural-functional theories

Structural-functional theories consider crime and deviation as the consequences of structural inconsistencies and lack of ethical frameworks within the community. Anomie’s view, for instance, is a structural-functional explanation.
According to Durkheim, "In modern societies, traditional norms are weak with no alternative new norms; in this case, society is experiencing anomie and/or confusion and irregularity.
Merton's concept of anomie denotes the pressure imposed on the behavior of society resulting from incompatibility between the norms accepted by society with social reality; in other words, when the structure of society is in such a way that people normally fail to attain the targets accepted by the society through legitimate means (in accordance with social norms), they are drawn towards one of the four forms of deviant behaviors. Among these deviances is "innovation", through which people accept the goals and demands accepted by society, but to achieve it, they reject the legitimate means (normal modes) by employing illegitimate ones (abnormal ways). For example, in a society where "wealth" is a legitimate purpose and demand but it is not possible to achieve it for a major members of society through legal and halal work, the use of improper practices such as bribery, lies, fraud and so on become more common to achieve this goal.

2. 1.1. Views of interaction

From the perspective of "interaction", people communicate with each other, through which they form the behavior of each other, are influenced by and affect each other. This view considers social deviations a result of interaction with others. Clarifications of learned deviance and labeling theory are placed in this perspective.

1. 2. 1-1. Learned deviances

Sutheerland suggests that in societies with different subcultures, those interacting with deviant subcultures are socialized accordingly and accept their cultures.

2-.2.1.1. Labeling theory

This theory looks upon deviance to be the process of interaction between people with primary deviance (deviations that someone might perform but one is not known for that) and the non-deviant, so that the wealthy to the poor, men to women, seniors to youth groups, and the majority to minority groups assign deviation label. Hence, once they were labeled as deviants and they accepted the label and made it internally built, they are placed in secondary deviance (deviations that people openly commit and are known for that deviance).

3.1.1. Conflict view

The conflict view analyzes crime and deviance based on the structure of society, conflicts of interest between social groups, and power preservation among the elite. From this perspective, the development and application of the law in society are so argued that the law is a tool used by the powerful for maintaining their advantageous position; and rejects the idea that rules are "neutral» (normal) and are similarly employed among people.

4.1.1. Social control and rational choice perspective

From this perspective, social deviance is explained based on the costs and benefits of deviation, such that if the interests of a deviant action are more than its costs, the deviance becomes common.

2. Explanatory model

Among the theories of the past, the "conflict theory" has a pessimistic view at social norms and considers them a tool in the hands of those in power who thereby maintain their privileged position.
Therefore, for our opinion that considers hijab a religious rule on the God’s behalf not a tool to maintain the position of a particular class, the above view is not helpful to explain our problem, but such a model can be created through the inclusion of other theories (interaction, structural-functional, and rational selection):
1. People learn to respect social norms or violate them through interaction and communication with social environments; hence, the quality such environments determines the conformity or violation of norms.
2. However, people have rational behavior and choose wisely, so despite learning a behavior, they, though unlike the learned behavior, choose the rational one (more benefits, lower cost) as a result of connection and interaction with an environment.
3. Social structures (a relatively constant feature of social systems) are effective on the interaction, communication and learning environment, as they affect the determination of benefits and costs.
According to this model, to explain the "popularization of unlawful hijab" it is necessary to pay attention to communication environments and how people communicate and interact with those environments on one hand, and to assess the benefits and costs of improper hijab vs. wearing hijab on the other hand. Examining each of the two issues of communication environments and the benefits and costs should be made with regard to social structures; accordingly, the present research is a "structuralist" description of hijab situation in Iran.

1.2. Communication environments

People learn and adapt social indices (means of communication and convey of concepts), beliefs, values, and social norms and become as the so-called sociable through communicating and interacting with the society.
Communication and interaction with the society that make socialization possible may be in the form of relatively continuous communication and/or infrequent, transient communications.
Environments to which people are associated, may be homogenous in terms of culture and all endorse certain norms and adhere to them, but these environments may not homogeneous and consistent in accepting a particular behavioral rule as the expected norm.
The relationship of people with different environments may not be the same, but their relationship with some areas may be more than others; on the other hand, the activities of different environments to socialize people to a particular norm may be different; and from the fourth aspect, the mechanisms that different environments apply in the socialization of individuals to certain norms can be variable.
The influence of communication environments on the socialization of people to a specific norm can vary depending on the four above issues (homogeneous or heterogeneous, communication frequency, activity, and mechanisms).

1.1.2. Mechanisms of socialization

People at any social environments (family, mass media, educational institutions, etc.) to which they are associated, through specific mechanisms become consistent with social norms and socialize; these mechanisms include learning, matching, and internalization.

1.1.1.2 Learning

People learn and interact many social norms through repetition, reward and punishment, imitation, and trial and error by communication and interaction with different social environments, with which they accompany and conform; For example, because children see that people salute when they meet each other, they follow this behavior through mimicking, or little girls learn to keep social norms when they receive a reward like a parent’s smile of satisfaction when wearing chador, or a sharp glance of parents when encountering with aliens.
In fact, in this socialization mechanism the behaviors of individuals reflect their surroundings and they observe the norm without any proof of the rightness or wrongness of the accustomed social norm, or they follow the communication environments with no particular interest, passion, or hate to do or leave the norm.

2.1.1.2 Matching

Another mechanism by which people accept and adapt social norms is matching with people or groups with "charm" as people often tend to resemble those who are attractive, interesting, and admirable. Although such a matching takes place in appearance and also in some aspects, it also leads to adapting other aspects, behavioral dimensions, and attitudes including accepted norms of the attractive group.
Normally, we hate the behavior and attitudes of those whom we found worthless, vile and despicable and we are highly elusive to behave or contemplate like them, so that we become get upset if someone assigns their behavior and attitude to us; for example, if the dressing, walking, or talking styles of addicts, thieves and the illiterate (if these are worthless in our opinion) are attributed to us, it should not be pleasant and avoid the behavior or attitude like they have; in contrast, we tend to behave and contemplate like individuals or groups whom we consider important, valuable and perfect, or similar to individuals and groups who are of our interest and admiration, and are attractive.

1.2.1.1.2. Attraction criteria

Individuals or groups that resemble us in ethnicity, race, religion, culture, location, social class etc. as well as those we are familiar with and with whom we communicate and interact more are attractive to us; in contrast, those whom we do not consider to be similar to us are grouped entirely distinct and different from our favorite group, are not closely familiar and interactive to us, and we identify them according to our conceptual; such people are not fascinating to us, we have prejudices about them and see our own group to be superior and more attractive compared to them.
"Majority" is also charming; and thus, behaviors and attitudes belonging to the majority of people are beloved and admirable to us.
"Scarcity" is another factors creating attractiveness; a scarce entity is attractive when it is "desirable", required, and of value based on the culture and merits of a society; for example, if wealth, higher income, higher education, or advanced technology become desirable and valuable in a society, the holding individuals and groups are of fascination provided that in the above criteria are not abundant.
In general, people make matching with people or groups with attraction, and avoid matching with unattractive and hateful individuals or groups.

2.2 1.1 2. Incentives of matching

Matching with attractive people is, on the one hand, caused by the people’s intrinsic desire to be valuable, eminence, and attraction generated by matching. In fact, the matching people feel to have an identity more or less like individuals or groups with which they match; for example, a person who makes himself similar to a wrestling champion in hair style, dressing and gesture has, to some extent, the impression that he is also attractive, strong, and heroic.
Matching, on the other hand, could result from positive consequences a person attains through following individuals or groups, or it might be caused by negative outcomes a person may achieve in the case of not matching with them.
People in low social status holding some points of those in high social status (such as respect and social eminence) is an example of the positive impact that raises people in low social conditions to match with those in high social status, who are attractive due to holding valuble, scarse sources such as wealth and high incomes; for instance, people with low education, income and wealth try to dress the same as the rich and the educated, speak and gesture like them, and in general take special symbols them in order to acquire respect and honor in the society as they do.
Given the explanation about cloning, it became clear that compliance with social norms of the society can be through assimilating to attractive individuals or groups that have developed the norms or follow them.
This mechanism of socialization and conformity to social norms is of higher reliability and strength than the former (learning) as it results from the wish and intrinsic desire to match attractive individuals and groups; in this mechanism, individuals although not very consistent and established, believe in social norms adopted by gorgeous individuals or groups and make it internal.

3.1.1 2. Internalization

Another mechanism through which people gain compliance with social norms, is "internalization". People tend to have "legitimate" behaviors and attitudes as to include them in their beliefs and values systems if they ensure the legitimacy of those manners.
The "reputation" of a person who advises behaviors and attitudes (such as a social norm) is an element that makes one’s behavior and attitude to be internalized by others. The "credit" on one hand is based on personal integrity and honesty, and the other hand the competence and adequacy of a person. Accordingly, the individual or group whom we know to be truthful, we do not feel them to be of crafty, self-interest, hypocrisy and benefit-seeking when they advise us to observe certain norms; on the other hand, we consider them as decent, competent, clear-sighted and experts on the target subject, and accept, trust and internalize their attitudes.
"Internalization" creates the most stable level of socialization and compliance with social norms because people follow norms at this level as their internal desire tend to conform to social norms whose legitimacy has been proved and internalized in them; as a result, when people follow a internalized norm in a process called self-evaluation, they achieve a positive assessment of their self-a kind of inner reward; by violating that norm, they fall into a negative evaluation of their self-a kind of inner punishment. Such an internal reward and punishment make people not to leave behind complying with internalized social norms even in spite of external rewards and punishments. That is why the prophets and faithful social reformers because of serious faith and inner fidelity to their visions and goals, in spite of all the difficulties, obstacles, oppositions and punishments, have not abandoned the behaviors and attitudes they believe.

2. 1. 2. Activity

The environmental impact, in relation to socialization on the other hand, depends on the activity level performed in that environment to socialize the individuals; whether to what extent social norms are emphasized and strengthened through verbal communication, textual, graphics as well as by acts, rites and rituals; for example, the environment in which lots of concepts, explanations, arguments, evidence, anecdotes, and allegories are provided through dialogue, discussions and lectures, books, articles and essays, images, videos and objects (such as a product, building, and depicted shape carrying a meaningful view) concerning a particular norm, the environmental in which a special norm (such as fasting of the blessed Ramadan) through the actions and programs (such as making collective iftar and breakfast tables, prayer ceremony, recitaion of the Koran, and religious meetings in Ramadan, preparing special foods in this month, making the task and ritual celebrations such as Eid ol-Fitr prayer and zakat ol-fitr) are constantly reminded and emphasized.

3. 1. 2. Relevancy

The extent to which individuals relate to the environment is among the variables involved in the impact of that environment on their socialization. This, on one hand, provides socializing activities; in fact, when people are exposed to diverse and extensive socializing activities in an environment to have wide communications with the carrying activities, it would be possible to use even more of these activities as this communication is greater and more extensive.

4. 1. 2. Coordination of communication environments

The culture governing a society sometimes has a more or less harmonious state, such that a particular norm is coordinately accepted and approved in all social environments (family, religious centers, workplace, etc.) as an expected rule of conduct. Meanwhile, people approve the specific normative behavior without ambiguity and haziness and, as a result, it is less likely to violate those norms. Nonetheless, the society happens to be double and/or multi-cultural and, while a specific normative behavior is approved as an expected rule, it is not approved by another sector, even contrarily, it is endorsed as an expected rule. For instance, hijab is validated as the women’s expected behavior in relation to non-mahram men whereas such a norm is refuted in another sector by supporting the contrasting manner i.e. unlawful hijab.
In such a situation where multiple cultures combine together and people encounter and communicate with various and/or contrary social environments and cultures, they are facing with ambiguity and confusion for the diagnosis of accepted mode by the society (social norms) leading to a state of "anomie" in the community, in which it is probably facilitated to violate a non-stable norm resulting in increased contraventions of social norms.

2.2. Benefits and costs

As noted, the observance or violation of a social norm depends, on one hand, on the benefits and costs, or positive and negative consequences of its violation against those attained by the conformity to the norms (positive and negative consequences).
The mechanism for the positive and negative outcomes on following the social norms by people is that because people have desires and demands they care about being elusive of whatever making it difficult to obtain them. Hence, if after such actions as violation of a social norm they, in effect, receive or anticipate receiving the outcomes, they would avoid doing or repeating the act; this is also the case when people actually receive or anticipate receiving the consequences consistent with their needs and desires following complying with a norm, they are stimulated to do or repeat the action.
Desires and demands, for which the rewards and punishments are employed accordingly, are sometimes a need of basic human needs and desires including the biological ones (water, food, clothing, etc.), the need for security, respect, acknowledgement and acceptance by others. In many cases, however, something that mediates the provision of one or more basic needs is applied as a positive or negative consequence, such as the money that does not meet the basic human needs per se, but is a mediating tool that provides the needs of food, water, clothing and other physiological needs, and that renders the affluent people to be safeguarded and respected.
Implementation of the discussed social consequences aiming at preventing and dealing with social deviance is named the so-called "social control". Being sometimes "official", the social control is applied by a specific organization (police, judiciary, etc.), but in many cases it is as "informal" and is not implemented by a particular bureau, instead, it is employed by the public.
The formal social control is mostly executed in the form of financial penalties- when the provision of interfaces is endanger - and through torture, execution, and prison- in case a security need is threatened. The informal social control is mainly implemented in the form of verbal orders, blaming remarks, insults, ridicule, surly, gossip, breaking relationship, disregarding, and rejecting the offender; these consequences threaten the needs, the most important of which is the need for respect and acceptance by others.
In a construct of social relationships in which there are strong informal relations among individuals, people are personally familiar with each other, lots of emotional and financial relationships and dependencies are established between them, which are very important to them. According to an interpretation by Parsons, the informal methods of social control are much more effective than formal ones in the construction of the "emotional" relationship, "broadcast", "nature" and "particularism". This is because a lot of interrelationships lead to threating a number of needs resulting from the imposition of informal practices against offenders; these needs include the acknowledgement and respect by others that are obtained in the light of informal relations. In contrast, in a construction of social relations governed officially and, according to Parsons, is based on emotional neutrality, and general features, achievements and criteria, not very informal communications basically exists to be threatened by applying the methods of informal social control. In such construction, therefore, informal methods of social control are not very impressive, instead, formal methods can be effective, although their impacts are lesser compared to those by informal practices.
To be continued...