Abstract:
With the emergence of the Islamic movement in 1979 and the establishment of a
patriarchal constitution, the future looked bleak for women’s rights in Iran. However, since the
1990s, a feminist resurgence in Iran has been affirmed by the establishment of women’s NGOs
and new journals. Despite the occasional tensions, there have been times the different women’s
rights groups and activists have worked together under a common strategic umbrella.
The One Million Signatures Campaign (2006) and the women’s coalition in the 2009
presidential election are instances of cooperation and consensus among the different Iranian
women’s rights groups, individual activists, and various other social groups.
These brief moments of consensus among the women’s rights groups, activists and
some other social groups motivate my research question: to what extent can women’s rights
groups and activists in Iran address the interests of women, while also engaging with the
diverse social groups, to help facilitate the formation of a civil society capable of engaging in
deliberative processes towards reform in the country?
I show that despite their differences, Iranian women’s rights activists and groups, and
a majority of intersectional groups have demonstrated that they are inclined towards
communication, not conflict, to build a civil society for democratic reform. Re-reading
Habermas’ work from a critical and feminist approach, I propose a theoretical foundation for
women’s rights groups, activists, and some other social groups to reach a long-term consensus
on building a pluralist-deliberative civil society capable of engaging in processes encouraging
democratic reform in Iran. By applying the theoretical framework, the dissertation proposes a
new interpretation and analysis of women’s activism in post-revolutionary Iran.
