Ethnic Labeling and the Legacy of Colonialism in Cultural and National Identities/Interview with Nasser Fakouhi

Conducted by the Human Rights Research Group of the University of Isfahan in collaboration with the Tricontinental Institute for Social Research.

Colonialism cannot be reduced merely to an event belonging to the past. Although classical colonial empires have collapsed and formal, direct colonialism is largely a thing of the past, many of the arrangements established during the colonial era persist within mentalities, power structures, economic relations, systems of knowledge, and modes of defining identity. Colonialism was not merely the occupation of territory; it was a specific classification of the world, a definition of the self and the other, cultural labeling, the subjugation of indigenous communities, the alteration of languages and lifestyles, and the reconstruction of power relations between the center and the periphery. Consequently, the discourse of colonialism and self-determination cannot be examined solely from a historical or legal perspective; it must also be understood through anthropology, cultural sociology, and identity studies.
The significance of this discussion lies in the fact that colonial powers did not rely exclusively on military instruments, ruthless massacres, genocides, economic plunder, and the theft of cultural heritage to govern dominated territories and populations. While these dimensions were vast and painful, a significant share of the blows inflicted by colonialism was delivered through cultural instruments. Colonizers undermined indigenous languages, transformed local lifestyles, harnessed religion and education to serve domination, and categorized colonized peoples into labels such as “civilized,” “savage,” “primitive,” “minority,” “majority,” or “the other,” establishing violent hierarchies among them and between themselves and the colonized. These classifications were far from neutral; they served political functions, operating as tools for control, exclusion, division, dependency, and the perpetuation of dominance.
Amidst this, the question of identity occupies a central position. Individuals and groups define themselves through language, religion, ethnicity, history, collective memory, lived experience, and territorial belonging. Yet the crucial question is to what extent these identities are rooted in social history versus being constructed, redefined, or manipulated. Should ethnic, religious, linguistic, and national identities be understood as natural and historical realities, or as social and political constructs shaped in relation to the nation-state, colonialism, and power? To address these questions, in a conversation with Dr. Nasser Fakouhi, Professor Emeritus of Anthropology at the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Tehran, we have explored the intersections of colonialism, identity, ethnic labeling, the nation-state, minority and majority dynamics, federalism, and the decolonization of the mind and memory.

Interview Information

• Interviewer: Marzieh Tajmiri, Ph.D. Candidate in International Relations, University of Isfahan
• Interviewee: Dr. Nasser Fakouhi, Professor Emeritus of Anthropology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Tehran
• Date of Interview: Wednesday, June 7, 2026 (17 Khordad 1405)
• Key Topics:
۱. The persistence of colonialism in the contemporary world and the importance of postcolonial studies.
۲. Ethnic, religious, linguistic, and national identities from an anthropological perspective.
۳. The relationship between historical-social identities and constructed identities.
۴. The concepts of minority and majority and their instrumental function in structures of dominance.
۵. The nation-state, colonial borders, and multicultural societies.
۶. Federalism, ethnic identities, and the Iranian experience.
۷. Decolonizing the mind, memory, language, and cultural structures.

Interview Text

Question 1: Colonialism, Postcolonialism, and the Persistence of Colonial Legacies

In conventional views, the discourse of colonialism is often relegated to historical the past—as if with the collapse of colonial empires, the issue came to an end. From the perspective of anthropology and cultural studies, why must we still converse about colonialism, colonial legacies, and their relationship with cultural and national identities?

Many who speak about colonialism sometimes assume that it is a finished matter—one belonging primarily to the history of the eighteenth, nineteenth, and at most the first half of the twentieth century. In this interpretation, the First World War and the subsequent interwar period are seen as marking the death of colonial empires, and following the Second World War, the world entered a bipolar order anchored by the United States on one side and the Soviet Union on the other. With the fall of the Soviet Union, some proclaimed a unipolar world, but the experiences of recent decades have demonstrated that such an order has not stabilized. Today, we are confronted instead with a constellation of crises, rivalries, and efforts to redefine the global order.
Within such a space, the discourse of colonialism might be marginalized and appear as a historical artifact, but this perception is incorrect. With the collapse of colonial empires, the problem of colonialism itself did not vanish; rather, its form shifted. Britain and France, the two major colonial powers, lost their global dominance in the classical mold of colonialism, but many of the arrangements forged during the colonial period persisted in new guises. Consequently, colonial studies and subsequent postcolonial studies established themselves as academic fields dedicated to examining not only the history of colonialism but also its narratives, mentalities, structures of dominance, unequal relations, and cultural legacies.
One of the factors that heightened the significance of these studies was the declassification of colonial archives. During the colonial era, vast quantities of documents were generated within military, political, administrative, and religious institutions. Part of this documentation was preserved in the colonial ministries, armies, and political apparatuses of the imperial powers, while another part belonged to the Church—particularly the Catholic Church and the Vatican—because the Christianization of indigenous populations, alongside political and economic domination, formed an integral component of colonial cultural policy. With the expiration of confidentiality rules for many of these documents, particularly beginning in the final decades of the twentieth century, the conventional portrait of colonialism was severely challenged.
In its official narrative, colonialism was often introduced through concepts such as development, improvement, civilization, urbanization, law, and modernity. It was argued that although violence occurred, the ultimate outcome of colonialism was the civilizing of parts of the world. However, colonial and postcolonial studies demonstrated that colonialism was not a peaceful process, but a profoundly violent one. The conquest of the globe by colonial powers was not met with indigenous consent; it was accompanied by war, repression, humiliation, plunder, and destruction. Slavery and the slave trade stand as among the most prominent examples of the intrinsic violence of this process.
Nevertheless, colonialism was not restricted to military domination. It encompassed political, economic, and cultural dimensions. At the political and military level, central powers sought to maintain control over colonized territories. Economically, the issue extended beyond the looting of raw materials—though the plunder of resources, as well as cultural and artistic artifacts, remains an undeniable reality, evidenced today by numerous museums in Europe and America filled with items belonging to colonized societies. The more critical issue was ensuring that former colonies could not achieve genuine economic independence, as economic independence would have provided the foundation for political and military autonomy.
The cultural dimension of colonialism was equally profound. Colonialism aimed for a form of cultural homogenization—namely, altering indigenous lifestyles and replacing them with the lifestyle of the colonizing nations. This process encompassed modes of habitation, diet, consumption, education, recreation, language, religion, and even individuals’ self-perception. Once the lifestyles of societies were altered, they transformed into consumers who both reinforced the economic dominance of former colonial powers and became culturally more dependent on the colonial center.
Language held a privileged position in this dynamic. In many regions, indigenous languages were marginalized or suppressed during the colonial process. In North and West Africa, the French language, and in other regions English, attained a dominant status. The loss of language constituted one of the most severe blows inflicted upon community identity, because language is not merely a medium of communication; it is the bearer of a society’s memory, history, imagination, worldview, and way of life. Therefore, when we speak of decolonization today, we do not mean merely the physical withdrawal of foreign forces from a territory, but the identification of the legacies left behind by colonialism within the mind, language, culture, economy, power structures, and social relations.

Question 2: Ethnic, Religious, Linguistic, and National Identities
If we return to the question of identity-building, how are ethnic, religious, linguistic, and national identities defined? Should these identities be understood as historical and natural realities, or as social and political constructs redefined during and after the colonial period?

To answer this question, one must begin with the gaze of Western and colonial powers toward the non-Western world. When European powers gradually began conquering the globe from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries onward, their comprehension of the world was limited and saturated with Eurocentric preconceptions. In their minds, the non-European world was largely divided into two categories: first, ancient and recognized civilizations such as Iran, Egypt, India, and China; and second, vast regions of the world deemed devoid of civilization and described with terms such as savage, primitive, or closer to nature.
Regarding civilizations like Iran, Egypt, India, and China, Europeans could not deny that these societies possessed states, laws, religion, tradition, history, and cultural systems. However, the prevailing view was that these civilizations had stalled in history—meaning they had flourished at one point, but from a certain stage onward had ceased to grow. By contrast, Europe positioned itself as the representative of historical movement, rationality, and progress. Regarding regions such as Africa, this perspective was even harsher, placing human societies within a hierarchy stretching from primitive to civilized. Such classifications were deployed to justify domination, slavery, plunder, and intervention.
Accordingly, a distinction must be made between two perspectives on identity: the top-down perspective and the inside-out perspective. The top-down view—the perspective of the colonizer and the dominator—defines identities for the purpose of classification, control, and the efficient administration of societies. In this view, Africa, Asia, the East, or the Islamic world are reduced to simplified, monolithic totalities. Conversely, identity viewed from the inside of each society is a vastly more complex, multi-layered, and diverse phenomenon.
From an anthropological standpoint, identity is the manner through which a group of human beings distinguishes itself from other groups. This differentiation can operate at the level of family, kinship, village, tribe, city, ethnicity, religion, language, nation, or even lifestyle. The primary identity an individual experiences is usually familial. Subsequently, in traditional societies, kinship, village, rural, and local identities acquire prominence. With population growth, urbanization, and increasing social complexity, broader identities emerge. Urban identity represents one notable example of modern identity, where individuals may identify as Tehrani, Mashhadi, Bushehri, Abadani, Shirazi, or Isfahani.
Religious identities likewise constitute some of the most significant macro and transnational identities. Religions such as Islam, Christianity, and Judaism forge identities that transcend the borders of nation-states. In the modern world, identities are typically multi-layered and composite rather than singular and simple. An individual can simultaneously embody gender, national, religious, linguistic, ethnic, generational, urban, class, and political identities. These identities do not necessarily negate one another; rather, they can function as complements.
The central question is which identities are real and which are constructed. There is no simple answer. One cannot assert that every identity rooted in history is authentic while every contemporary identity is fabricated, nor can one claim that every constructed identity is inherently bad or spurious. Many modern identities, including national identity, are constructed, but constructedness does not equate to invalidity. In many countries, national identity is the product of modern nation-building, yet it can be built upon history, language, memory, culture, and genuine experiences.
For instance, modern Iranian national identity has been reinforced and reconstructed since the early twentieth century, but this does not imply that Iranian culture or the concept of Iran is artificial. Iran possesses a profound historical, linguistic, cultural, and state continuity. Of course, one should not assume that an individual living in this land a thousand years ago shared the exact same conception of Iran as a contemporary Iranian citizen. The concepts of homeland, belonging, state, and nation have evolved across different eras. Thus, identities possess historical roots while simultaneously undergoing continuous reconstruction over time.

Question 3: Minorities, Majorities, and the Logic of Domination
In discussions of identity, concepts such as minority, majority, self, and other are heavily utilized. Should these concepts be understood as products of colonialism, or have they also been deployed in modern governance and politics as instruments for recognizing, controlling, or marginalizing groups?

The lineage of concepts like minority and majority is neither simple nor uniform. Examining political history reveals that these terms have carried varying meanings across different epochs. Within political modernity, particularly with the expansion of democracy, the concepts of majority and minority acquired immense weight. Yet even in older forms of democracy, such as classical Athens, the majority did not signify the entire populace. When it was proclaimed in Athens that the majority had decided, this did not encompass all residents of Athens, as slaves, women, and children were excluded from political participation. What was termed the majority was, in reality, the majority of free men, not the actual societal majority.
Similarly, in modern democracy, universal suffrage—especially for women—was not recognized from the outset. The right to vote was achieved quite late. Consequently, the concepts of majority and minority have perpetually been intertwined with structures of power. These concepts are not inherently bad or incorrect, but they can be heavily instrumentalized—deployed to legitimize domination, exclusion, marginalization, or inequality.
Here, the concepts of the “self” and the “other” become vital. Every society distinguishes itself from the other, but the problem begins when this distinction transforms into a hierarchy: the self is deemed superior, while the other is regarded as inferior, dangerous, uncivilized, or devoid of rights. Colonialism played a crucial role in this dynamic. Colonial powers, by defining themselves as representatives of civilization, rationality, and progress, relegated other societies to the subordinate status of the other.
To comprehend the instrumental nature of the minority-majority dichotomy, one can examine British colonialism itself. At the height of its colonial power, Britain was a relatively small island yet exercised dominion over vast territories in Asia, Africa, America, Canada, and Australia. Numerically, Britain itself was a minority compared to the populations and lands under its control; yet this very minority exercised dominance over an immense global majority. Therefore, under colonialism, minority and majority were not understood in numerical or democratic terms. Despite being smaller in population and expanse relative to the colonies, the colonial power positioned itself as the center and the rightful owner, portraying others as subjects and subordinates.
This logic did not operate exclusively outside of Europe. Even within Britain itself, the English held condescending attitudes toward the Irish, the Scottish, and certain other groups. The historical relationship between England and Ireland stands as a clear example of intra-European domination, repression, and humiliation. The historical experience of domination can generate a political and moral memory that remains active in relation to contemporary global issues.
Consequently, whenever concepts like minority, majority, self, and other are marshaled to justify domination, repression, discrimination, or injustice, one must remain vigilant. The issue is not the absence of difference within a society—differences are real. The core issue is how these differences are interpreted and what functions they are made to serve. If ethnic, linguistic, religious, or cultural difference is weaponized as a pretext to deprive a group of rights, participation, freedom, or dignity, that difference has been converted into an instrument of domination.
From this perspective, the benchmark of a genuine democracy is not the extent of power wielded by the majority, but the degree of freedom and rights enjoyed by minorities. In a democratic society, fundamental rights must not be subjected to numerical counts. Just as economic justice cannot be measured solely by evaluating the conditions of the wealthiest regions, the state of freedom and democracy must be assessed by examining the conditions of dissidents, the marginalized, and low-power groups. Do they possess the capacity to speak, participate, critique, organize, and appear in the public sphere, or not?

Question 4: The Nation-State, Colonial Borders, and Multiethnic Societies
In multiethnic and multicultural societies, particularly in the Middle East and Africa, how did the modern nation-state emerge? Can crises of coexistence, national cohesion, and political legitimacy be attributed to imposed borders and colonial classifications?

To answer this question, one must examine the situation that materialized following the collapse of colonial systems. Classical colonialism—a condition in which a foreign power directly governs a territory—gradually disintegrated; however, colonial powers were unwilling to relinquish their political, economic, and cultural influence. Thus, following direct withdrawal, they sought structures that would render continued dominance possible under novel formats.
The European colonial powers themselves were nation-states at that time—nation-states that had emerged in European history out of absolute states, centralized monarchies, wars, and protracted processes of power concentration. When colonialism collapsed, former colonial powers attempted to forge structures resembling their own nation-states within the former colonies—structures that remained comprehensible and controllable to them. In practice, many of the new states were shaped not according to the historical, geographical, ethnic, and cultural realities of the local populations, but rather in accordance with the interests of colonial powers and the administrative borders of the colonial era.
This phenomenon is visible in Africa. Across many regions of Africa, borders were drawn in ways that ignored ethnic, linguistic, and cultural realities. At times, a single ethnic group was fragmented across several countries, while entirely distinct groups were compressed into a single political unit. A comparable situation is observable in the Middle East. Some of the region’s nation-states were artificially engineered to serve foreign interests. In certain Arab states of the Persian Gulf, foreign powers utilized dominant tribes or powerful dynastic families to erect new political units.
Nevertheless, not all nation-states can be analyzed uniformly. Certain nation-states, such as Iran, occupy a more complex status. Modern Iranian national identity was reconstructed in the twentieth century, yet it was built upon an ancient civilizational, linguistic, cultural, and state structure. Therefore, one cannot claim that Iranian culture or Iranian identity is artificial and rootless. Iran exhibits a historical continuity that can be traced from antiquity to the present through various vicissitudes. The concepts of state, language, tradition, literature, historical memory, and cultural bonds possess deep roots in this land.
It is crucial to note that while national identity can be constructed, construction does not equate to fabrication. Many modern realities, including the modern city, administrative systems, and educational institutions, are constructed; yet this construction does not inherently invalidate them. The critical question is upon what foundation and for what purpose an identity or institution is built. If national identity is forged upon the bedrock of history, language, culture, shared memory, and the lived experience of the people, it can prove authentic and durable. Conversely, if it is constructed for the purpose of domination, exclusion, control, or imposition, it will generate crisis.
In Iran, ethnic and local identities do not stand in opposition to national identity; rather, they constitute an integral component of the definition of Iranian national identity. Ethnicities, languages, and local cultures in Iran possess exceptionally ancient lineages and have consistently coexisted within the framework of a broader cultural totality. For this reason, the notion that ethnic identities in Iran are merely manufactured by colonialism to weaken the national state is erroneous. Colonialism has occasionally manipulated existing identities and, at other times, suppressed or weakened authentic identities to install puppet regimes.
Iran serves as an example demonstrating that the relationship between ethnic identity and national identity is not necessarily antagonistic. The Iranian Kurd, the Iranian Baluch, the Iranian Azeri, and other ethnic groups in Iran predominantly perceive themselves as part of Iran. Their cultural and linguistic demands—such as education in the mother tongue or respect for local culture—do not necessarily equate to separatism. These demands can be fully understood within the framework of Iranian national identity. The problem arises when these demands are either ignored or transformed into centrifugal projects by extremist and interventionist factions.

Question 5: Federalism, Ethnic Identities, and the Iranian Experience
Given the ethnic, linguistic, and cultural diversity within Iran, can federalism serve as a mechanism for managing this diversity, or do Iran’s conditions differ fundamentally from countries that have adopted federalism?

In my view, federalism is nonsensical in Iran because the primary prerequisite for federalism is the existence of sharp ethnic, linguistic, or regional segregation, and such segregation does not exist in Iran. In certain countries, ethnicities or linguistic groups inhabit distinct and relatively separated geographic regions, and the political history of those nations has been such that federalism offers a viable path for managing differences. In Iran, however, the situation is different. Ethnicities, languages, families, and social ties are so deeply interwoven that a federal division along ethnic lines is not a solution; rather, it would transform into a problem itself.
For example, when we speak of Iran’s Turks, the correct question is not which provinces they inhabit, but rather: where are Turks absent in Iran? Turks are dispersed across the entire expanse of Iran—from Azerbaijan to Tehran, from Fars and the Qashqai to numerous other cities and regions. The same condition applies to Kurds and many other groups to varying degrees. If one were to restrict a linguistic or ethnic group to a few provinces, it would neither align with Iran’s social reality nor would those groups themselves accept such a framework.
One critical reality is the extensive rate of inter-ethnic marriage and kinship bonds in Iran. In many Iranian families, tracing back two or three generations reveals multiple ethnic, linguistic, or regional roots. In daily life—marriage, friendship, neighboring, work, or education—ethnicity is rarely the primary criterion for acceptance or exclusion. This demonstrates that Iranian society, at the lived and everyday level, is far too amalgamated to be partitioned into separate ethnic units.
While federalism has functioned as a mechanism for managing diversity in some countries, in Iran it would introduce artificial divisions. When families, languages, memories, kinships, and lifestyles are intertwined, political partition along ethnic lines would erect borders that possess no grounding in social reality. Such borders could subsequently generate friction and tension. Consequently, opposing federalism in Iran does not mean opposing ethnic and linguistic identities; rather, it reflects the recognition that these identities have coexisted with national identity throughout Iranian history and require no rigid political or federal partitioning.
Iran has been a multilingual and multicultural society since antiquity. This plurality is not novel. Even in ancient periods, multilingualism existed in Iran, and diverse languages were officially recognized alongside one another. Many ancient Iranian inscriptions and documents were composed in multiple languages. Therefore, the assumption that Iran must be monolithic, monolingual, and devoid of diversity is incompatible with Iranian history. Iranian culture has perpetually lived with plurality, and this very plurality has constituted a source of its strength and resilience.
From this perspective, the appropriate model for Iran is not ethnic federalism, but the recognition and reinforcement of local and ethnic identities within a national framework. Local languages, cultures, and traditions must be respected. Education and the dissemination of local literature, local media, the utilization of local languages in cultural spheres, and the participation of local actors in the administration of their regions can all contribute to strengthening national cohesion. Respecting local and ethnic identities must not be conflated with political divergence. If cultural and regional demands are officially recognized and managed within a framework of justice and participation, they can reinforce the bond between local identity and national identity.

Question 6: Decolonizing the Mind, Memory, and Cultural Structures
If we speak of decolonization in the realm of identity, the objective is not merely the physical departure of foreign forces from a country. What does the decolonization of the mind, memory, and cultural structures entail, and what path must be traversed?

Decolonization must be understood across multiple levels. In military and direct terms, decolonization refers to the departure of foreign forces and the cessation of overt domination by a foreign power over another territory. Barring exceptional cases, this form of colonialism rarely exists today in its classical sense. The primary issue in the contemporary world is not direct military colonialism, but rather the mentalities, cultures, language, power structures, economic relations, and patterns of inequality inherited from the colonial era that persist in novel formats.
In this regard, Iran occupies a distinctive position in certain respects. The most critical point is the issue of language. Iran is among the rare countries that has managed to preserve its linguistic independence. The Persian language, operating alongside local languages and cultures, has played a pivotal role in the continuity of Iranian identity. The significance of this lies in the fact that Persian has functioned not as an instrument to eliminate local languages, but as the central pillar of a broader cultural constellation. Local languages have likewise coexisted alongside Persian throughout history, forging a part of Iran’s collective identity.
Language is not merely a medium of communication; it is the bearer of memory, history, literature, imagination, and the mode of comprehending the world. One of colonialism’s most devastating blows to many societies was the undermining of indigenous languages and their replacement with the colonizer’s language. When a society loses its language, it simultaneously forfeits a portion of its memory and its capacity to independently narrate its history and experience. Consequently, preserving the Persian language and local languages in Iran has served as a foundational pillar of resistance against cultural and mental colonization.
Nevertheless, the most sinister legacy of colonialism must be sought in the power relations forged between the center and the periphery, which continue to afflict many societies. This is not to suggest that pre-modern societies were entirely devoid of inequality, despotism, or domination. However, the systematic, extensive, and modern forms of inequality, the commodification of society, social humiliation, and the institutionalization of injustice have been profoundly shaped by the experience of colonialism and modern systems of dominance.
Colonialism did not merely occupy territories; it engineered models of management, classification, and inequality that persisted in numerous societies long after colonialism ended. Colonial governments—and subsequently global superpowers—obstructed the genuine growth of democracy, development, equality, and liberty in peripheral nations. Among the mechanisms employed to prevent this were the patronage of corrupt governments, rentier structures, repressive regimes, and unequal economic relations. Organized corruption, rent-seeking, the instigation of division among social groups, and the prevention of stability and development all form part of the patterns comprehensible through the persistence of colonial legacies.
Decolonizing the mind and memory entails identifying and critiquing these very structures of domination. We must examine what has been naturalized in our thinking while actually being the product of a history of domination. We must ask why certain languages, cultures, or lifestyles have been designated as superior while others are deemed inferior; why certain societies are labeled centers and others peripheries; and why development, modernity, and progress have so frequently been defined exclusively through Western templates. Decolonization means reclaiming the right to narration—ensuring that societies retain the capacity to narrate and define their own history, culture, language, identity, and developmental path.
However, decolonization must not be construed as a simplistic, nostalgic return to the past. Modern societies cannot be governed using models from a millennium ago. The objective is to construct a modernity that is more equitable, freer, and consonant with our own history and culture. Modern societies cannot be administered in the absence of freedom, social justice, political participation, and the recognition of identities. Ultimately, the decolonization of the mind, memory, and cultural structures is impossible without freedom, democracy, and economic justice. Freedom grants people the capacity to articulate their narratives; democracy enables participation and reform; and economic justice prevents inequality and corruption from hollowing out the social fabric from within.
Final Conclusion
The discourse of colonialism cannot be restricted to historical time or the direct occupation of territories. Colonialism represents a constellation of power relations, cultural classifications, narratives of domination, and patterns of inequality whose reverberations persist in the contemporary world. Although classical colonial empires have dissolved, unequal relations between the center and the periphery, economic dependency, cultural humiliation, the undermining of indigenous languages and identities, and the instrumental manipulation of ethnic and religious differences remain observable.
Consequently, identity emerges as a multi-layered, historical, social, and concurrently reconstructible phenomenon. Ethnic, religious, linguistic, local, and national identities are neither entirely natural and fixed nor purely fabricated and rootless. These identities take shape at the intersection of history, language, memory, lived experience, power structures, and collective narratives. While certain identities may be manipulated, magnified, or distorted by political or colonial powers, this does not negate the social and historical roots of all identities.
Regarding the nation-state, one must similarly differentiate among varied historical experiences. Certain nation-states, particularly in Africa and parts of the Middle East, were shaped largely along colonial borders and foreign interests. Yet not all nation-states can be analyzed uniformly. Iran represents a distinct case, as Iranian identity is anchored in an ancient historical, cultural, linguistic, and civilizational continuity. Within this framework, ethnic and local identities in Iran reside not in opposition to national identity, but within it.

The appropriate pathway is the respect of local and ethnic identities within a national framework, balanced development, local participation, cultural freedom, and social justice. Ultimately, the decolonization of the mind and memory remains unattainable without freedom, democracy, and economic justice.

Policy and Practical Recommendations

۱. Differentiating between Historical Colonialism and Colonial Legacies: Political, legal, and analytical evaluations must distinguish between colonialism as direct territorial occupation and colonial legacies as the persistence of mentalities, inequalities, dependencies, and cultural classifications. The end of classical colonialism does not equate to the cessation of colonial effects.
۲. Avoiding Simplification of Ethnic, Religious, Linguistic, and National Identities: Identities are multi-layered and historical phenomena. They should be viewed neither as entirely natural and immutable nor as completely fabricated by foreign powers. Each identity must be examined within its specific historical, social, linguistic, and cultural context.
۳. Critiquing the Instrumentalization of Minority and Majority Concepts: The concepts of minority and majority can prove useful if applied within the framework of democracy and equal rights; however, if deployed for exclusion, humiliation, deprivation, or the legitimation of dominance, they degenerate into instruments of injustice. The criterion of genuine democracy is the condition of low-power groups and dissidents.
۴. Recognizing Ethnic and Local Identities within the National Framework: In multicultural societies, the denial of local and ethnic identities does not foster national cohesion. Sound policy involves acknowledging diversity and converting it into an asset for national identity. Cultural and linguistic demands should not be hastily equated with separatism.
۵. Strengthening Local Languages and Cultures: The preservation and education of local languages and cultures do not threaten the national language and identity. The national language can serve as the central axis of communication and cohesion while simultaneously permitting local languages space for growth, education, literature, and media.
۶. Rejecting Ethnic Federalism in Iran and Focusing on Administrative Decentralization: Given the profound ethnic, linguistic, and familial interweaving in Iran, ethnic federalism is incompatible with the nation’s social reality. A more suitable approach is administrative decentralization, the reinforcement of local management, the participation of indigenous actors in regional administration, and the equitable distribution of resources.
۷. Combating Pan-Ethnocentrism while Avoiding the Denial of Ethnicity: Pan-ethnocentrism can convert local identities into instruments of divergence and tension. Conversely, denying ethnicity fosters distrust and discontent. A balanced policy ensures that ethnic identities are respected while being reinforced within the framework of national identity and equal rights.
۸. Linking National Consistency with Economic and Social Justice: National cohesion cannot be sustained solely by emphasizing a shared history. Populations develop a durable sense of belonging only when they enjoy regional equity, equal access to education, healthcare, employment, public services, and social opportunities. Regional inequality can easily crystallize into identity schisms.
۹. Enhancing Local Participation in Decision-Making: In regions characterized by ethnic, linguistic, and cultural diversity, engaging local actors in administrative, educational, cultural, and developmental management is vital. Local participation increases a sense of ownership and responsibility while preventing feelings of marginalization.
۱۰. Decolonizing the Educational System and Historical Narrative: The educational system must impart knowledge of the history of colonialism, slavery, cultural plunder, the humiliation of indigenous identities, and the persistence of global inequality in a scientific and critical manner. It must also accommodate local, ethnic, and regional narratives alongside the national narrative.
۱۱. Reclaiming the Right to Narration from the Colonial Gaze: Societies must retain the capacity to narrate their own histories, cultures, experiences, and developmental paths. Reliance upon the narratives of central powers constitutes part of the persistence of mental and cultural domination.
۱۲. Reinforcing Freedom, Democracy, and Economic Justice: Genuine decolonization is impossible without freedom of expression, political participation, democracy, economic justice, and the capacity to critique power. If citizens lack the ability to express identity, demand rights, and participate in decision-making, no sustainable cultural policy can take root.
Published in Datikan Analytical Quarterly, Vol. 3, No. 8, Spring 2026, Human Rights Research Group of the University of Isfahan in collaboration with the Tricontinental Institute for Social Research.

انتشار هشتمین شماره فصلنامه تحلیلی داتیکان

English Translated by AI
Link to the original interview in persian

برچسب‌زنی قومی و میراث استعمار در هویت‌های فرهنگی و ملی