The Feminization of the World: An Alternative to Cultural, Economic and Ideological Violence in the Social Order
A Conversation with Nasser Fakouhi / Professor of Anthropology / University of Tehran
-How does the advancement of women contribute to the development of a given society?
To answer this question, we must first clarify what is meant by the term “development” or “growth” before we can assess how women’s advancement impacts societal development. In the literature of the 20th-century social and economic sciences, the concepts of growth or development have often been equated with what, prior to the mid-19th century, Europeans referred to as civilization and culture. These terms were used to position their own political, social, and economic systems as the most “advanced” — a classification rooted in Enlightenment ideology and the legacy of the French Revolution. On this basis, they constructed a global hierarchy of value and legitimacy, one that justified colonial interests and power relations. Thus, all societies whose political, economic, and social systems did not align with those of Europe were placed on lower levels of a supposedly “natural” and “evolutionary” curve. Societies without writing systems, state structures, or commodity-based economies were labeled “primitive” and were subjected to any form of treatment—including widespread genocides, as occurred in the Americas and Australia—on the grounds that their lack of such systems rendered their people “animal-like” in the eyes of Europeans. Even societies that did possess comparable systems, though organized differently—such as those without formal property documentation or with distinct religious, familial, or legal frameworks (e.g., Iran, Egypt, or China)—were classified as “historically stagnant societies.” The subjugation of these societies and the exercise of undemocratic violence upon them were thereby deemed “rational” and “legitimate.” In the 20th century, with the rise of nation-states and the collapse of colonial powers, the earlier “civilizational” discourses were replaced by new “developmental” narratives and a revaluation of the concept of “growth.” In these frameworks—as implied in European languages—growth and development were also interpreted in a “biological” sense. Consequently, the so-called “core” countries (Europe and the United States) were classified as “larger,” while the “peripheral” countries were considered “smaller.” New terminologies emerged: “developed” and “developing” countries. This liberal discourse later evolved into a neoliberal one from the late 20th century onward and still prevails today. According to this view, the fundamental issue remains that some societies have “grown” while others have not. The proposed solution is equally simplistic: developed societies must help underdeveloped ones grow—so the global problem will, in theory, be resolved.
However, the problems and challenges facing the world today are far more complex than what such simplified narratives suggest—and they become even more complicated when it comes to issues concerning women. We are witnessing undeniable global crises: a general economic and political breakdown, the failure to manage multicultural societies, the collapse of welfare states, the decline of democratic politics, the rise of racism, and increasingly, the emergence of large marginalized and impoverished populations in the central and developed nations. Simultaneously, in many developing countries, we see the failure of economic programs, widespread poverty, brutal authoritarian regimes, and growing influence of national, regional, and global mafias. In short, everywhere we turn, the logic of violence, cruelty, and militarization is on the rise. This situation, in our view, is the result of two distinct yet interconnected waves. The first wave has brought humanity to the apex of patriarchal logic that, from the earliest stages of human socialization, has been based on structures of violence, hegemony, power, and cruelty. Today, human societies have reached a paradoxical point where the peak of abundance, pleasure, and gratification coincides with the peak of cruelty, violence, and humiliation. Never has humanity been so wealthy, yet never has it been so ruthless and destructive toward its own kind—both other human beings and the natural world. This long wave has been reinforced by a second, shorter wave that emerged with capitalism—from its embryonic stages in the 16th century to its climax in the 20th. This capitalist era, through the commodification of all things, has fundamentally called into question the very meaning of humanity. Today, it continues to use every possible pretext to justify itself, transforming every circumstance into a rationale to argue that what we are experiencing is merely an economic crisis—one that will eventually be resolved, and resolved happily. In this context, women—both in their lived reality as women and as symbolic representations of femininity—play a crucial role. In fact, it is women who, in our view, may hold the only viable key to escaping this crisis. That key lies in breaking away from two entrenched logics: first, the millennia-old patriarchal framework; and second, the logic of commodification, etc., the objectification, dehumanization, and antagonistic relationship with the environment. This is not to say that only women can act to resolve the current, unbearable global condition. Rather, it is to argue that a deep understanding of femininity—understood in its historical, social, economic, and political dimensions—may be what enables humanity to steer the world toward a more manageable, sustainable, and humane situation. And this condition—namely, the achievement of intra-species harmony (a balanced and non-violent relationship among human beings) and inter-species harmony (a similar relationship with other living beings)—is what I refer to as the “feminization of the world.” I do not present this as an inevitable reality, but rather as an alternative, somewhat utopian—that envisions a different future. This alternative, which involves living in greater balance with one another and with nature, seems to me far more important and necessary than the pursuit of conventional “growth” or “development.” Such a transformation can only come through the understanding and acceptance of the feminine logic of history, in place of the dominant masculine one.
-How do you assess the impact of women’s higher education on the traditional and modern structures of our society?
Higher education for women, which emerged after their initial entry into the workforce and subsequently into political spheres, along with the attainment of a minimum level of equal rights, has become possible in our country thanks to discourses largely imitated from other cultural systems—though still effective—and especially due to the abundant natural resource revenues of our nation. This education grants women an important form of “cultural capital” that, although it cannot necessarily be quickly converted into “economic capital” or “social capital” due to the structure of the labor market in Iran, nonetheless plays a fundamental role in the complex social cycles within the fields of capital exchange. Consequently, it accelerates the process previously mentioned—the “feminization of society.” What has occurred in our society is not only because women today, despite the hegemony of anti-women systems, are at the forefront in almost all fields and many changes are carried out by their will and agency, but also because the presence of educated women—those possessing high cultural capital—and the increased cultural consumption by women, which signifies a profound transformation in the structures of daily life and a changed relationship with time and space in everyday realms, fundamentally limits society’s capacity to rely excessively on tools of violence and domination. A society in which women have an active and comprehensive presence can never reinforce and encourage structures of violence, injustice, and cruelty in the same way as a society where women lack social existence. Regarding the relationship between this issue and tradition and modernity, we must delve into different discussions. In our society, as in all others, the ancient era—often mistakenly called the “traditional” period—was highly patriarchal. Although the modern era intensified patriarchy and violence to its peak, the widespread entry of women into the workforce following the Industrial Revolution gradually created the tools to dismantle this process, which itself had reached a dead end. In my view, the problem has not been “tradition,” neither yesterday nor today, but rather a form of colonial and hegemonic modernity that, in its worst elements (undemocratic, corrupt, and ruthless), has combined with the worst aspects of our traditions (also in this domain), producing monstrous situations that we now must struggle to overcome in a crisis. The legacy of colonialism and domination in imposing self-serving European-centered structures on peripheral countries has been extremely heavy. In countries like the United States and Australia, this legacy meant the death of millions under brutal, near-torture conditions, while in somewhat luckier countries, the price of this egocentrism has often been ruthless political regimes, ethnic tensions, tribal conflicts, regional wars, and severely anti-women conditions, the effects of which persist today. Therefore, women’s education fosters a form of self-awareness and the emergence of a female presence in society that undoubtedly contains alternatives for change and improvement.
-Are centers of power, both in small societies such as the family and at the macro level, always inclined to limit women?
Based on what I mentioned at the beginning of this discussion, in my view, “power” is inherently a concept that is “masculine” by “nature”, with historical roots tracing back to humanity’s transition from a “natural” state (a gathering, herbivorous, and non-violent being) to a “social” state (a hunter, technologist, warrior, and inherently violent and aggressive being). Femininity, in our nature, appears as herbivorous beings and as relatively weak agents in applying violence both within and between species. Our cultural socialization into an “iron” order manifests in humans becoming increasingly instrumentalized, resulting in a continual rise in intra- and inter-species violence. From this perspective, what is called into question is not the institutions themselves, such as the family or any other social group—but rather the form these institutions have taken. Let me give an example: humans are not the only beings to undergo socialization, but they are the only ones in whom socialization has advanced to such an extent that, through a process still unknown to us, they acquire linguistic and cognitive abilities. These abilities can then be utilized within ideological structures to serve technological tools, thereby escalating intra- and inter-species violence to the point of threatening their own existence as well as that of all other beings within their environment. Considering the previously mentioned point, if we focus on the law governing the field and the exchange of capitals within it—aimed at gaining the greatest advantages among social actors (in the intra-species dimension)—and the broader struggle occurring at the level of ecosystems (in the inter-species dimension), we observe that two opposing forces, centrifugal and centripetal, are continually engaged in conflict within these dual structures. In Freudian psychoanalysis, these are referred to as the life and death drives, while anthropologists describe them as two forms of exchange: restricted and obligatory exchange versus open and expansive exchange. These two forces can largely be aligned with the life-giving female and the death-dealing male warrior. However, this does not imply that all women fit into the former category, nor that all men fit into the latter.
The issue, in fact, goes beyond men and women as mere categories; rather, it relates to the fact that “femininity” and “masculinity” exist as two natural, clearly distinct, and definable positions that, for various social and cultural reasons—which then themselves reinforce certain natural distinctions—manifest different capacities in each sex. One sex tends to foster life, expand freedom, and build structures that avoid violence, while the other tends, conversely, to foster death, aggression, violence, and cruelty. Accordingly, culture, in its evolution, defines “self-love” predominantly in masculine terms and “love of the other” predominantly in feminine terms. However, since socialization is a process that fundamentally demands power and increasing order, masculine forms and contents tend increasingly to shape the structures of “action,” which constitute the reality of “being,” while feminine forms and contents tend increasingly to shape the structures of “thought,” embodying pragmatism on one hand and utopia on the other.
I must again emphasize that the most incorrect and simplistic interpretation of what I am saying here would be to view and reinterpret this discourse purely within a feminist framework. In my view, feminism, though not always and not always consciously—is itself part of the masculine manipulative strategies and structures that manipulate, self-manipulate, and are manipulated. Therefore, this discussion is not about defending women against men, but rather about defending the universal and cultural (not natural) concept of femininity as it has been shaped through historical processes and evolved from nature into culture, against the universal (and again, not natural) concept of masculinity as it has been historically formed. My emphasis on the non-naturalness of these positions is not only based on ethological studies but also on the realities of human life throughout history and today. The positive point I see here is the belief that an alternative form of socialization is possible—one defined and shaped by the structures of the first group—that can free us from the deadlock of the structures of the second group.
– Educational restrictions on women are often justified by the claim that certain fields of study are inherently masculine; is there, fundamentally, such a thing as masculine or feminine fields or jobs—i.e., a form of gender segregation?
Belief or disbelief in gender-based occupational segregation is precisely one of the key issues that distinguishes our discourse from feminist discourse. Many feminists construct the concept of “equality” as a kind of myth that contains inherent contradictions, which is why it quickly falters when confronted with certain questions. For example, why should equality be sought only in its “positive” dimensions within given societies, while its negative aspects are mechanically excluded? For instance, while the number of female surgeons is low, the number of female criminals is also low. The current question is whether it is possible to increase the number of female surgeons while keeping the number of female criminals low. Our response is that surgery is inherently a violent structure, even if its use has been culturally “softened” or sublimated. This does not mean that surgeons are violent individuals, but rather that the relatively low number of female surgeons is largely due to the same reasons that the number of female criminals is low. If women are few in military fields and other areas where violence is inevitably used—even if for societal benefit—this is exactly why many women are found in non-violent fields such as nursing, education, and similar professions. We do not deny that masculine structures have historically guided women toward certain occupational groups, but this does not negate that women themselves have often preferred these structures. Recent research in psychology and ethology shows that upbringing is only one of the determinants in shaping feminine and masculine personalities; the nature of women and men, and perhaps more importantly, the social structures shaping gender roles, have also played significant roles.
Canadian psychologist Susan Pinker, while considering genetic and hormonal differences alongside cultural differences and their complex interactions, argues that female and male capabilities differ within social systems. As she states: “In the distribution of cognitive or emotional skills, men are more numerous at both extremes of the curve, while women tend to cluster around the average. This means we have more boys among criminals and geniuses than girls.” Similarly, Camille Paglia writes: “We have never had a female Mozart because we also have never had a female figure like Jack the Ripper among women.” Therefore, I do not believe that absolute egalitarian ideology can lead to a completely equal division of labor in occupational structures, as this would imply the elimination of gender itself. However, I strongly maintain that under no circumstances should women be prevented from entering any field or social position. Any educational discrimination against women leads us toward cultural destruction. On the contrary, I argue—and have repeatedly stated—that positive discrimination systems, like those implemented in European countries decades ago, should be established in our country to promote women’s employment. This means that all institutions and organizations would be required to hire a specific quota of women, allowing our educated and socially engaged women to enter the labor market more broadly, rather than being confined only to fields such as art and literature.
What I have called the “feminization of the world,” a general and universal process, will—if there is a future—lead to the disappearance of a large group of occupations currently labeled as “male.” Consider all physically demanding jobs that are being replaced by machines, and even look at scientific fields like medicine, where invasive and “violent” interventions (such as surgery) are increasingly being supplanted by non-invasive procedures like radiology. Just as there are few female surgeons, there can be many female radiologists. This is not merely a division of labor but represents a shift in ideologies and theoretical-practical approaches.
-How do you assess the impact of higher education for women on their attainment of higher occupational positions than men? And does the increased presence of women in universities and their access to equal job opportunities necessarily mean limiting educational and occupational opportunities for men?
In my view, such an impact is real but, by itself, cannot fundamentally facilitate women’s social integration into the workforce in our society. The issue is that women’s cultural capital—especially educational capital—has increased rapidly over the past few decades, while, due to various factors including patriarchal labor structures, their entry into the job market has occurred at the same or even a much slower pace. Today, while female students consistently constitute more than half of the university population—and in some fields up to seventy or eighty percent—there is a stagnation in the labor market at around ten to twelve percent. Such a situation is unsustainable and requires urgent solutions. As I mentioned, this solution involves implementing “positive discrimination” mechanisms and establishing employment quotas for women. Naturally, like any social intervention, this process requires preliminary studies, followed by pilot implementation in specific and limited areas, and careful evaluation of the outcomes. I believe the first step is to promote and normalize this idea. Even many women themselves often do not take this issue seriously and tend to prioritize general demands for “equality,” whereas, in my opinion, broadening women’s participation in Iran’s labor market should be an absolute priority and would have profoundly positive effects on other social relations. Achieving this also demands social, political, economic, and other forms of preparation. Moreover, such reforms must be accompanied by economic growth, as only under these conditions can their inevitable negative consequences—such as adverse impacts on men’s employment opportunities—be effectively controlled and optimally managed.
– What do you consider the best way to achieve parity in higher education between the two genders?
In my opinion, such parity already exists, and for various reasons, women’s position within our university system is even better than that of men. Many young women have been able to utilize the new societal values and opportunities available to enter virtually all fields of study. In recent years, officials have been more concerned about the declining rate of male enrollment in universities. While overall we face an excess number of students relative to our capacity to create job opportunities, I do not see women’s educational equality as the problem. Rather, the real challenge for women lies in post-educational opportunities, where they inevitably encounter significant barriers. This is precisely one of the post-educational challenges that can be identified. The roots of this issue are often formed during the years of education and persist throughout a woman’s life. In Iranian families generally—and without delving into detailed social stratifications that require extensive field studies (some of which have been conducted)—although women’s education is now established as a social value, this value does not necessarily align with the value placed on women’s work. Many Iranian families still hold the belief that while education enhances a woman’s social status, this does not translate to acceptance of her participation in work, and this mindset has not become internalized. The problem lies precisely here. In developed countries, which have served as models for rebuilding modern nation-states including ours, the social integration of women began primarily through their widespread entry into industrial labor markets, followed by university education that provided the cultural capital necessary to access higher social positions. This is in direct contradiction to the very principle of higher education, which should enable women to achieve financial independence by accessing better employment opportunities, thereby fostering their autonomy within the family institution. Undoubtedly, this situation presents an initial risk of weakening the family structure and increasing divorce rates. Such phenomena have occurred globally with the widespread entry of women into labor markets. However, the problem will not be resolved by restricting women’s participation in the workforce, especially in contexts like ours. Instead, it manifests as potentially more severe social harm. For example, in our society, although women’s employment rates have not significantly increased over recent decades, divorce rates have surged sharply, largely because women are dissatisfied with their family positions—where higher education ironically acts as a factor exacerbating this dissatisfaction. . Secondly, women’s entry into the labor market can be managed, and if this management is conducted properly and effectively, there is hope that marriage failures can be controlled, leading to stronger, more durable families and better child-rearing environments.
However, returning to the challenges women face within the family, nearly all educated women are aware that once they reach an age at which their families “feel threatened” (i.e., fear of remaining single), the pressure to either leave their studies or get married—often synonymous—increases significantly. In Iranian families, there are even instances of a form of exchange: the family consents to the daughter pursuing advanced education, such as a doctorate, on the condition that she marries first. This type of exchange is highly detrimental and often results in divorce and family breakdown, yet it reveals the prevailing mentality within Iranian families. Moreover, even after marriage, women often encounter pressure from their spouses and children to cease pursuing further education or employment. There is a common perception that a woman’s non-participation in the workforce strengthens family cohesion. However, this notion did not hold true in pre-industrial societies, where women primarily engaged in domestic tasks or work close to home and lacked broader social roles. In contemporary society, this assumption is neither economically, socially, nor culturally valid or feasible. In fact, I contend that women’s unemployment in the current context poses a significant threat to the family’s stability, as it heightens women’s dissatisfaction and reinforces restrictive cognitive frameworks. An educated woman who remains unemployed may experience a lifelong sense of wasted potential, which adversely affects her personal well-being, child-rearing practices, and marital relationships, potentially leading to family dissolution. Conversely, the contemporary global trend demonstrates that many employed women sustain healthy and stable family lives.
– How do you envision a society where women have higher educational attainment than men?
Such a future is conceivable in the short term and, in fact, reflects the situation we currently experience. In marriage contracts, many women present their cultural capital—namely, their education—as one of their advantages, whereas for men, economic and social capital often carry greater importance. However, this situation is not sustainable in the long term. The classic study by Betty Friedan (The Feminine Mystique /1963) in the United States, along with subsequent research and the film “Mona Lisa Smile »(۲۰۰۳), have demonstrated that a high rate of women’s education—especially at advanced levels—cannot be sustained alongside low female employment rates. This imbalance inevitably leads to social and cultural tensions and crises. One of the main causes of the women’s movement in the U.S. during the 1960s was precisely this: an increasing number of women entering universities while the labor market offered them limited opportunities. Despite the high material wealth available to these women, many experienced feelings of depression and deprivation. When the movement emerged, it quickly became a powerful force that demanded a reevaluation of labor market structures. In Europe, this process was implemented through legal mechanisms, and today, after nearly three decades, it is creating a nearly equal situation in the labor market. We must follow a similar path. The notion that education at any level is solely to produce better homemakers is misguided. Firstly, new socio-economic realities make it nearly impossible for families to rely on a single income, except for a very small elite. Secondly, the cost of providing university education is unsustainable without its connection to the broader social system. Therefore, we should neither compare our situation to other Middle Eastern countries where women remain largely un-socialized through education, nor to countries like China and India, where poverty and hardship are so severe that socialization occurs primarily through industrial and low-skilled domestic work. Iran has no alternative but to undertake very intelligent labor market reforms that both increase job opportunities overall and improve the distribution of employment between women and men. I would also add—and will revisit in subsequent questions—that the university system worldwide is undergoing a major transformation that must be considered.
– Why do we not observe a proportional increase between the educational advancement of women and their empowerment in administrative positions and political roles?
In my view, the reason is clear and has been previously discussed. Besides economic and structural factors, the primary causes lie in cultural norms and social beliefs that have yet to change. Additionally, abundant oil revenues have enabled most urban households to maintain a single-income structure. However, this possibility is steadily diminishing, making it inevitable for women to participate more actively in the labor market. This change could occur spontaneously, potentially resulting in unknown and likely negative consequences, or it could be managed deliberately and strategically to minimize social and cultural repercussions. Any country aspiring to secure a suitable and developed position within the current global system—an objective Iran has set for itself—must necessarily adapt to this system by opening pathways for widespread female participation across all professions and social strata. From this perspective, I believe that the presence of women in high-level political positions since the beginning of the Islamic Revolution—despite being limited and, in some cases, potentially lacking in effectiveness—holds symbolic significance. It serves to raise public awareness about the possibility of expanding and enhancing women’s participation in governance. Moreover, such representation contributes positively to the evolution of our society’s value systems—developments that, in my view, are rooted in both our religious and national traditions, and I see no inherent contradiction between these two foundations in this regard.
– Will top administrative positions in the public and private sectors soon belong to women, while men dominate positions in the open market and economic sphere?
I do not believe this will be the case. The outlook offered by globalization studies and existing analyses generally present two alternatives. The first is a negative and pessimistic scenario: in this view, the world continues along its current trajectory, relying on structures of violence, cruelty, hierarchical organization, and various forms of inequality. It will persist in upholding and reinforcing these structures using force. In this scenario, most thinkers foresee a bleak future—marked by global and regional wars, the use of increasingly devastating weapons of mass destruction, growing social and cultural inequalities both between and within societies, which will further fuel internal tensions and pave the way for anti-democratic ideologies such as racism, militarism, and the glorification of violence. The outcome of such a scenario could be deeply troubling, potentially erasing or significantly undermining the positive cultural achievements of humanity. However, the optimistic alternative, in my view, lies in what might be termed the “feminization of the world.” In this case, we should expect profound transformations in the relationships between developed and developing nations, as well as within each society, across different social groups. These transformations should not be based on the utopian or mythical ideal of absolute “equality” among individuals and social groups—a notion which, in all its forms, from fascist to communist totalitarianism, has proven to be unstable, discredited, and costly throughout the twentieth century. Instead, we must begin with an understanding of “difference” and work toward management of difference. It must be acknowledged that human beings, societies, and cultures are inherently different and therefore cannot be entirely equal. Yet such inequality must be regulated so as not to exceed certain limits that would endanger the present and future of individuals and societies. Additionally, humanity’s violent and exploitative relationship with the environment must be moderated. Humans must cease to act as a destructive, anti-natural species—because in the long run, in a battle against nature, there is no doubt that we will be the losers. If we adopt such a perspective on the future, we will be better equipped to comprehend the complex processes we are facing today. Otherwise, we risk falling prey to a wide array of futile and illusionary ideologies that, in fact, reproduce the very manipulative structures of the current ruthless global order.
– Do you believe that, soon, we will witness a decline in women’s pursuit of higher education similar to the trend observed among men today?
I would respond to this question within the same broader framework, and I have, in fact, written a detailed article on this topic for the Persian journal “Barg-e Farhang”, published by the University of Tehran, which interested readers may consult. In summary, the prevailing view today among scholars worldwide is that higher education will undergo a fundamental transformation within the next few years, largely due to the impact of the information revolution.
The classical academic model is approaching its end, and new academic structures are expected to emerge, likely operating on two distinct levels. The first level will focus on general cultural education, aimed at enhancing individuals’ cultural capital through various means, including virtual universities and knowledge-sharing systems. This level—approximately equivalent to the current early undergraduate years—will prepare individuals for everyday life and employment in conventional, non-research-based professions. In parallel, we are also likely to witness the rise of highly elite systems of higher education in which only the most outstanding scholars and students will participate—systems where gender will play a minimal role in selection. These new types of universities will be profoundly shaped by, and dependent upon, the information revolution, interdisciplinary approaches, encyclopedic knowledge structures, internationalization, and multilingualism. They will cultivate the future scientific elites, who will, in turn, experience a new mode of life within the information society of the 21st century. However, I must emphasize once more that the realization of this optimistic scenario (without dismissing the existence of countless other possible futures) depends on our ability to rapidly and decisively move away from systems of violence and inequality—systems rooted in masculine ideologies. Humanity must move toward a more ethical and responsible global order. In this vision, I advocate for more just, rational, and balanced intra-species relationships (among humans) and inter-species relationships (between humans as a species and their natural, animal, plant, and even inanimate environments). This stands in contrast to superficial and ritualistic conceptions of morality. I believe that if we return to the moral resources of our own ancient civilization—one grounded in long-standing religious and cultural traditions—we will certainly rediscover ethical foundations. We only need to learn how, and most importantly, develop the will to use them properly.
This is an AI generated translation from Persian into English.
This electronic interview was first conducted in November 2010 with the publication “Sobh-e Azadi.” (Dawn of Liberty) Iran.
Original Text in Persian
