"Politeness is an equisite art in Iran"

Campus Watch takes us to  yet another example of intellect gone amok at a higher institute of learning:

William O. Beeman, formerly of Brown University and now professor and chair of the department of anthropology at the University of Minnesota, as well as president of the Middle East section of the American Anthropological Association, has some strange ideas about the theocratic regime in Iran.

He seems to think that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recurring threats to annihilate Israel and the regime's forging ahead with a nuclear program against the wishes of the international community, holding Holocaust denial conferences, taking British soldiers hostage, detaining a number of foreign and domestic pro-democracy intellectuals and activists, all the while repressing its own population and actively aiding the murderous insurgency in Iraq, constitutes the "exquisite art" of "politeness."

Beeman indicated as much in a July 23, 2007 article for New America Media titled "How to Talk the Talk with Iran" (scroll down to second article). As he put it:

Politeness is an exquisite art in Iran; it is especially appreciated in difficult negotiations. One can see this demonstrated in public encounters between Iranian officials themselves.

Welcome to the world of today's sophisticated progressive where a regime hell-bent on the destruction of a neighboring nation state, purposed in the oppression of women and homosexuals, involved in the killing of America's military members in Iraq and responsible for the spread of Jihadist mentality in the region can be overlooked because some in Iran have impressed the impressionable with their politeness.

A simple but relevant passage from the pages of the good Book comes to my mind as I ponder Beeman's musings, a Book probably not on the regular reading list of modern day sophisticates. 

Comments

[Erasmussimo]

I must ask, did you read the article by the professor? It belies all your accusations.

1. There's nothing liberal about it at all. It takes no political positions. It recommends no policies. It confines itself to explaining the cultural conventions that control Iranian attitudes towards negotiations. It says, "here's how to talk to the Iranians successfully". That's ALL it says.

2. There is absolutely NOTHING in the article that suggests that Iranian political behavior can be "overlooked" because of Iranian politeness. I cannot imagine where you got this notion.

3. I suspect that your difficulty here arises from confusing politeness with virtue. There is no connection whatsoever between the two. Politeness is a social convention, no different from handshaking or wearing ties or combing your hair. Chinese and Japanese social conventions place great importance on saving face. Western diplomats have learned to operate within those conventions. Why shouldn't they do something similar if they want to negotiate with Iran?

[William O. Beeman]

Thanks to Erasmussimo for setting the record straight. It is refreshing that someone commenting on my article might actually have read it rather than bloviating on the Campus Watch commentary. Campus Watch is in the business of trashing academic analysis, and they introduced topics utterly extraneous to the article. Erasmussimo is absolutely correct. I was talking about communication conventions, and making no comment whatever on Iran's politics, much less approving them. The whole point of writing about cross-cultural communication is to hope that people will be educated to the point where they will not so violate communication conventions that they cannot achieve their purpose, because the other party is so turned off by their boorishness. Believe me, simply unloading invective on Iran in a diplomatic encounter will accomplish nothing, however vicerally satisfying it might be.

[Rick]

I'm reminded, simply, of the politeness of Neville Chamberlain, the politeness of these words:

"We, the German Führer and Chancellor, and the British Prime Minister, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognizing that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for our two countries and for Europe.

We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again.*

We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference, and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe."

My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time... Go home and get a nice quiet sleep.

[Erasmussimo]

Rick, you're equating politeness with surrender. There's no connection between the two. You can be polite and stand firm, or you can be polite and cave in. You can be rude and stand firm, and you can even be rude as you're caving in. Courtesy is not a sign of weakness, but rudeness IS a sign of immaturity.