Iran Bans (Bad) Western Haircuts, Putting Men Under Moralists' Gaze
Delia Lloyd
Correspondent
Posted:
07/8/10
"Business in the front; party in the back." So goes the famous descriptor of the signature retro haircut -- the mullet -- that is short at the front and sides and long in the back.
But not in Iran. The country's religious leaders have recently issued a catalog of acceptable "Islamic" male haircuts, and noticeably absent are ponytails, spikes, mullets and Mohawks. More styles are set to be unveiled Sunday at the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance's Veil and Chastity Day festival.
The ban on haircuts is but the latest in a long line of efforts by the Iranian regime to counter "decadent" Western trends within the country. Back in 2005, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad signed a decree banning all Western music that "does not conform to Islamic doctrines and the spirit of the Islamic Revolution." Women have long been subject to all sorts of restrictions on their dress, facing fines of up to $1,300 for improper hijabs (head scarves) and $400 for having a suntan. Earlier this summer, dogs were added to the no-can-do list (apparently, friendship with dogs is a "blind imitation of the West," according to one Ayatollah) as well as expensive foreign cars (which are deemed "harassment to women").
And, of course, it's not just Iran where the morality police are out in force. As my colleague Alex Wagner has documented before, there's been a trend towards more stringent dress codes all over the Islamic world. Bans on jeans and tight pants have cropped up even in more moderate Islamic states like Indonesia.
There are lots of reasons to fear this trend. As Alex argued cogently, getting the state involved in fashion is a slippery slope. And that's not only because the tactics employed to enforce these bans (like equipping police with video cameras to film "immodestly attired" women, as is happening in Teheran) is often demeaning and inappropriate.
By feeding the image of Islam as an intolerant, repressive, misogynistic religion, such bans also heighten anti-Islamic sentiment in the West, triggering a tit-for-tat like response from Western governments. Several European countries are either contemplating or have already passed legislation banning some form of face veils. In my view, all this symbolic posturing over East vs. West only serves to throw fuel onto a fire that's already very dangerous (which is precisely why I have argued repeatedly against bans on burqas in the West).
But lest you're ready to tear your hair out (pun intended) over all these modesty codes, it's not all bad news. For starters, restrictive dress codes in Islamic countries are usually directed at women. But the ban on haircuts -- as well as the frowning on owning expensive foreign cars -- are both targeted at men. In a world where, despite a growing trend toward equality of the sexes, things are not always equal in practice, it's sort of refreshing to see that women aren't the only ones being blamed for corrupting Iranian morals. (Yeah, I know: A ban on haircuts isn't exactly a step forward for modernity, but at least it's leveling the playing field a bit.)
On a more serious note, it's also possible that the politics of dress is exposing a deeper fissure within Iran's ruling elite. Ironically enough, Ahmadinejad -- not exactly a paragon of civil liberties -- has been arguing recently that it's not the government's job to crack down on styles of dress. This has earned him the ire of various conservative ayatollahs and politicians, who've been thundering against "half-naked" women roaming the streets.
The political science literature on democratization tells us that the decline of authoritarian rule is almost always precipitated by fissures between so-called "hardliners" and "softliners" over how much -- and which types -- of political liberalization to allow.
So, who knows, maybe these latest crackdowns, which have apparently been greeted with resentment on "the Iranian street," will provoke some kind of backlash and drive a larger wedge between warring factions within the Iranian government.
And maybe then people really will let their hair down.
Follow Delia on Twitter.
But not in Iran. The country's religious leaders have recently issued a catalog of acceptable "Islamic" male haircuts, and noticeably absent are ponytails, spikes, mullets and Mohawks. More styles are set to be unveiled Sunday at the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance's Veil and Chastity Day festival.
The ban on haircuts is but the latest in a long line of efforts by the Iranian regime to counter "decadent" Western trends within the country. Back in 2005, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad signed a decree banning all Western music that "does not conform to Islamic doctrines and the spirit of the Islamic Revolution." Women have long been subject to all sorts of restrictions on their dress, facing fines of up to $1,300 for improper hijabs (head scarves) and $400 for having a suntan. Earlier this summer, dogs were added to the no-can-do list (apparently, friendship with dogs is a "blind imitation of the West," according to one Ayatollah) as well as expensive foreign cars (which are deemed "harassment to women").
And, of course, it's not just Iran where the morality police are out in force. As my colleague Alex Wagner has documented before, there's been a trend towards more stringent dress codes all over the Islamic world. Bans on jeans and tight pants have cropped up even in more moderate Islamic states like Indonesia.There are lots of reasons to fear this trend. As Alex argued cogently, getting the state involved in fashion is a slippery slope. And that's not only because the tactics employed to enforce these bans (like equipping police with video cameras to film "immodestly attired" women, as is happening in Teheran) is often demeaning and inappropriate.
By feeding the image of Islam as an intolerant, repressive, misogynistic religion, such bans also heighten anti-Islamic sentiment in the West, triggering a tit-for-tat like response from Western governments. Several European countries are either contemplating or have already passed legislation banning some form of face veils. In my view, all this symbolic posturing over East vs. West only serves to throw fuel onto a fire that's already very dangerous (which is precisely why I have argued repeatedly against bans on burqas in the West).
But lest you're ready to tear your hair out (pun intended) over all these modesty codes, it's not all bad news. For starters, restrictive dress codes in Islamic countries are usually directed at women. But the ban on haircuts -- as well as the frowning on owning expensive foreign cars -- are both targeted at men. In a world where, despite a growing trend toward equality of the sexes, things are not always equal in practice, it's sort of refreshing to see that women aren't the only ones being blamed for corrupting Iranian morals. (Yeah, I know: A ban on haircuts isn't exactly a step forward for modernity, but at least it's leveling the playing field a bit.)
On a more serious note, it's also possible that the politics of dress is exposing a deeper fissure within Iran's ruling elite. Ironically enough, Ahmadinejad -- not exactly a paragon of civil liberties -- has been arguing recently that it's not the government's job to crack down on styles of dress. This has earned him the ire of various conservative ayatollahs and politicians, who've been thundering against "half-naked" women roaming the streets.
The political science literature on democratization tells us that the decline of authoritarian rule is almost always precipitated by fissures between so-called "hardliners" and "softliners" over how much -- and which types -- of political liberalization to allow.
So, who knows, maybe these latest crackdowns, which have apparently been greeted with resentment on "the Iranian street," will provoke some kind of backlash and drive a larger wedge between warring factions within the Iranian government.
And maybe then people really will let their hair down.
Follow Delia on Twitter.