A Response to Dr. Miri's Critique of the Cyrus Article

Preamble

My dear friend Dr. Miri wrote a critique of my article on Cyrus that warranted a response. The critique focused on my article about Cyrus, published in the latest issue of Mehrnameh magazine, and I will respond within that same framework. Here, first, is his critique, followed by my response:

A Look at Dr. Shervin Vakili's (may his honor endure) Article on Cyrus in the December 2016 issue of Mehrnameh

Dr. Seyyed Javad Miri

I have divided my discussion in this critique into 6 general axes:

One of the key problems with the article by my scholarly friend Dr. Shervin Vakili is that it revolves around the dualism of "lovers" and "enemies" of Cyrus, whereas in our society there is a far greater diversity that transcends such binary constructions, and there is no need to speak in such a primitive manner within the context of complex theories. The second important point is the esteemed author's strong insistence on stating that his "method" is "scientific" and his attempt to present an objective introduction to Cyrus—since science is concomitant with objectivity. Yet the question here is: in what era do we live? Is it the ancient era? Is it the era of religion? Is it the era of science? Is it the era of technology? What era are we living in, and what is the relationship of this era-ness to our understanding? Merely saying that all opponents are postmodernists or petty Marxists, and so on, does not emerge from within the discourse of the discipline of history. In other words, we are not in the age of science but in the age of technique, and the meaning of this statement is not that science is unimportant, but rather that Science with a capital S has been reduced to one narrative alongside other narratives. Just as we are not in the age of myth, nor in the age of demonstration, nor in the age of religion... but not being in the age of religion does not mean the destruction of religion, but rather the transformation of Religion with a capital R into smaller religious narratives. In other words, in the age of technology, Dr. Vakili speaks to us using the parameters of the scientific age, and from within that, speaks of Cyrus as an "event as it actually happened" in the real world. And speaking in this way is not scientific; rather, it is storytelling in a children's theater for the entertainment of infants!

The third point concerns the issue of the “importance” or relevance of Cyrus for the identity of today’s Iran. To say that pre-Islamic Iranian history is important in the formation of Iranian identity is one discussion, but to say that Cyrus is our father is another discussion entirely. In other words, the author of the article initially states that his effort is to look at Cyrus within the scientific discipline of history and the context of complex systems theories, but then suddenly makes a “Herculean leap” from nearly three thousand years ago to the 28th of October 2016 and the binary opposition of friends of Iran and enemies of Iran!
If history were to be considered as a science, it would have been more fitting to conduct a comparative study among the three religious cultures of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and then we would clearly see the resurgence of Paganism or pre-Abrahamic heresies in the encounter with modernity across all three civilizational, cultural, and religious spheres, and subsequently in the European, Iranian, Arab, Turkish, and even Chinese nation-states. To put it more precisely, the analysis of the 28th of October 2016 has nothing to do with Cyrus the Great, who was the founder of the Achaemenid world empire and one of the most important pillars of ancient Iran; rather, this is a kind of paganistic identity construction that must be discussed in the context of the here and now, and has nothing to do with the discovery of two planets 2,750 years ago.
Regarding science: if Dr. Vakili is concerned with Cyrus as a model of governance in the ancient era and in the course of human evolutionary history—which is, by consensus, established in the view of the vast majority of Iranians—his scientific confrontation should not be within Iran, but at the scholarly level in the field of archaeology worldwide, responding to European or American historians who have often “Semitized” Cyrus—that is, turned him into a Jewish figure and refer to him as Cyrus—and he should present his solid evidence in the common scientific languages so that we do not witness such negligence by Hebrew-centric historians in the books on the history of religions.
Dr. Vakili, and fundamentally the Mehranameh circle, seek to create “objectivities,” but they are not aware that in the technological age, we are at best “narrators” and interpreters of narratives, and at best, we can offer a narrative that is more coherent and universal. However, in the capacity of an intellectual concerned with society, we must not deceive public opinion into thinking that this narrative is divine revelation and the sole definition of eternal and everlasting truth; for if we commit this error, we are forced to use the words friend and enemy in every line and to divide the people of Iran according to their relationship with our “revealed truth.” Cyrus was great, and the great must be honored, but sanctifying history and individuals leads to dogmatism, and this dogmatism does not emerge from complex theories.
Wassalam

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 2016

A Response to Dr. Miri’s Critique of the Cyrus Article

Shervin Vakili

My dear friend Dr. Miri raised six critiques of my writing on Cyrus, to which I find it necessary to write my viewpoint in six corresponding sections:

First: It seems that a misreading of my article occurred at the very first step. Because it appears it was assumed that the main binary of my writing was friends of Cyrus versus enemies of Cyrus, which is not the case. The discussion in my writing is about the historical position of Cyrus, and it examines this issue on two scales: national (the realm of Iran) and transnational (world history). I posed five key questions that must be answered to understand Cyrus’s historical position and briefly provided my own answers to them. These questions focus on five points: the methodological discussion of how to know Cyrus, Cyrus’s place in world history, Cyrus’s importance in Iranian history, the necessary indicators for making a moral judgment about Cyrus, and how Cyrus relates to contemporary Iranian identity. The discussion that stood out in his view, and in light of which he understood and critiqued my entire speech, was a concluding remark to the answer I provided for the last question. This concluding remark points to an important subject, but it is not the entirety of my speech or its most important part, and reducing it to this, if not stemming from inadvertence and misreading the text, is a distortion.

Of course, in contemporary Iranian society there are differing opinions and views about Cyrus, but what is tied to people's identity and has gained increasing importance over the past decades pertains precisely to this dichotomy of those who praise or curse Cyrus. That is, this dichotomy is important and must certainly be examined. However, I have raised it as a marginal note to one of the five points in my article. The prominence he perceives in this concept lies in that audience, not in this text, since only the final tenth of my article addresses it.

Second: Dr. Miri and I apparently have a deep disagreement about the concept of science and its place in today's world. The nature of the disagreement is that, in his view, science and the other meta-narratives that interpret existence seemingly stand parallel to one another, and their methodological superiority or rational validity is no different. This perception, which probably originates from a postmodern source, is not as self-evident as he assumes; it is highly debatable and, at least from my perspective, incorrect.

I understand science in this sense: the rational and systematic interpretation of existence, with an emphasis on experience and the mathematical formulation of relationships among phenomena. Science in this sense is superior to and more effective than other systems of interpreting the world in terms of conceptual coherence (methodology and the production of disciplined, evolving, and critical thought) and operational achievements (technology, precision, etc.). Someone might take other indicators—such as spirituality, artistic ambiguity, the degree of usefulness for the proletariat, or other things—as a basis and, on that ground, deem other systems of interpreting the world more effective. But at present, there is a relative consensus that the main criteria for ranking systems that interpret existence are precisely this conceptual discipline and precision, and theoretical coherence, plus testability and technological efficacy. At least, I hold such a view, and on this basis, I look at issues through a systemic approach, which is a methodological and progressive sub-branch of contemporary science. If he knows of another strategy that poses and answers historical questions better, more precisely, and more desirably, it would be good for him to mention it specifically and state his reasons for choosing it. But the notion that changing the first letter of the words science and religion in European languages—from common lowercase to proper uppercase—creates a change in their nature and turns the geography of human cognition into something flat, level, confused, and without hierarchies, seems incorrect to me.

Another point is that he seems to rely on a kind of classification of historical ages, which is also neither self-evident and well-known nor acceptable. For instance, it is as if he believes we had something called the age of religion and the age of science, which have passed, and now we are in the age of technology, where science has presumably lost its efficacy. I do not consider such a periodization correct, and fundamentally, I see science, religion, mysticism, and philosophy (which are systems of interpreting existence) and technology, art, and literature (which are considered the operational application of those systems) as simultaneous subsystems of history, and I see all of them as present, active, and interconnected in all societies. If he believes in the succession and replacement of these, he must first explain his view and then argue for it.

In any case, with these controversial classifications and taking them as self-evident, neither does the "age of science" come to an end, nor does the rejection of rational and scientific theoretical frameworks gain acceptance. As he has correctly discerned, I look at history within a scientific framework and a systemic paradigm, and I consider it more valid than other approaches, and precisely in the way that has provoked his disbelief, I consider this method to be more correct, more precise, and more objective than rival approaches. That is, I believe and claim that my perspective, due to its verifiability, its theoretical coherence, its rational argumentation, and its grounding in evidence, is superior to other competing views and provides a more rationally acceptable definition of historical objectivity. Fortunately, the logical steps and rational argumentation leading to my conclusions are clear and transparent, as are the data, sources, references, and documents I have used. Hence, the path is smooth and well-trodden for those who wish to critique, scrutinize, and refute them; and I eagerly look on to see which champion traverses this path, so that I might learn something from them.

Third: Dr. Miri has unfortunately conflated my discourse with other sentiments and moods that they apparently find detestable. They have interpreted my view as holding that Cyrus is a father, a pagan deity, a sacred entity, or something similar, and it is evident that this interpretation is an endogenous matter in their own mind and has nothing to do with my thoughts or writings. Of course, I do not share their negative feelings about those who think Cyrus is their father. At the very least, I find them more tolerable than those who consider Stalin or Churchill their father. But fundamentally, my discussion has nothing to do with these matters. My argument concerns the importance of Cyrus on the stage of national and world history, and with clear reasons and specific criteria, I claim that this figure is of such importance at these two levels for these reasons; ultimately, I argue that it is precisely because of this importance that he has functioned as an identity-bestowing symbol and, particularly in the present era in Iran, has assumed such a function. There is no Herculean leap here, and if there is anything striking in terms of mythological metaphors, it is an Arash-like arrow, which was shot by someone else in history, and I have merely described and analyzed it.

Hence, it unfortunately appears that the esteemed Dr. Miri has either not read my texts about Cyrus—including the article they critique—carefully and completely, or has read them in a way whose incorrectness can be demonstrated by referring to those very texts. I clearly state that Cyrus, based on the criteria I have described, has decisive importance in world history, and based on other criteria, in the history of Iran, and therefore, the contemporary identity-seeking and identity-forming reference to him is reasonable, correct, and understandable. Regarding the precise details of his life and activities and the influence he had on the course of ancient Iranian society, I have also written a book—Cyrus the Liberator—and it is unlikely that anyone, after reading it, would have any ambiguity about my intended meanings or feel any lack in finding ancient and modern references to the subject. My basic expectation of someone who wishes to judge my views is that they critique my specific and clear theoretical claims and proposals with the same precision and clarity.

Fourth: They have posited a contrast between pagan religions and Abrahamic religions and, in a way that remained incomprehensible to me, have claimed that the importance acquired by Cyrus in the 7th of Aban ceremony relates to pagan identity-formation. I unfortunately did not quite understand what they meant. If the meaning is the contrast between puritanical monotheism versus polytheism, that has a specific history in the course of the development of religions. If the meaning is the unity or plurality of the sacred in people's minds, abundant evidence shows that both elements have always existed side by side, and this remains the case today. If the interpretation of modern identity-finding systems and attaching the label 'pagan' to it is intended, the use of the word 'idol' for movie stars, singers, and modern celebrities is a rhetorical metaphor, and I do not think anyone in the field of history or sociology takes it that seriously. That is, all these discussions have no connection to Cyrus and the 7th of Aban. Cyrus is a historical figure and a cultural signifier that, in our time, is being processed in connection with our national identity and has assumed a unifying function. These matters pertain to the sociology of identity, not the anthropology of the sacred, and they constitute neither a historical question nor a religious problem, and the attempt to reduce the former to the latter is both questionable and a source of doubt.

Fifth: Dr. Miri has clearly not read my writings on Cyrus and has attempted to extract my view of Cyrus and my methodology in this area based on a single article. Both the references to Semitic sources and the methods of reconstructing the concept of Cyrus in the modern era have been discussed at length in my writings on this subject and were not the topic of my article. However, in “Cyrus the Liberator,” I have cited and commented on all the sources of the ancient world in this regard—including the Bible. In general, my concern is not how Europeans in the last two centuries have utilized Cyrus as a meaningful symbol in their own history. My discussion pertains to the history of Iran and specific historical and archaeological documents, and questions the connection of Cyrus with our present day and the ways in which he is linked to the identity-construction and identity-seeking processes of contemporary Iranians. The writings I have published on this matter span over a thousand pages and have addressed the subject of his concern (how the image of Cyrus became Semitic-Jewish) alongside similar issues (how Cyrus became Greco-Roman), none of which has been a determining factor in Iran and in the image of Cyrus among Iranians.

Sixth: Dr. Miri has considered me a member of a circle called the Mehnameh circle and then proceeded to reveal our goals and conspiracies. I must emphasize that I am not a member of any group, faction, party, or sect. I hold membership in many scientific organizations and circles and have good friends everywhere, among whom the esteemed Dr. Miri himself (somewhat distantly) is counted. But I am neither loyal to any intellectual front nor coordinated with any organization; and fortunately, I am not employed by any institution or organization, so that concern for reputation or worry over livelihood would tie my tongue or cause hesitation in my speech. When I speak about history, I seek questions and answers that are objective, evidence-based, and rational, and it is obvious that on this basis I myself have a position, a front, and a bias regarding issues, which I strive to keep free from obfuscation and convoluted speech, and to make the distinction between right and wrong plainly apparent.

In this context, from my perspective, Mehnameh is the most interesting “general humanities publication” in the country, and for this reason, I like it and am pleased to have my writings published in it. Undoubtedly, the managers of this magazine have a bias and a position, part of which—the nationalistic and truth-seeking part—I see as close to my own position, and whatever the rest may be, it has no connection to me or to my writings.

Postscript: In their relatively short piece, the esteemed Dr. Miri has misunderstood my short article in at least ten different ways. This misunderstanding is so layered and divergent that its accumulation in a single piece was a source of astonishment, and this prompted me to write a response. From their perspective, my view of Cyrus is tainted with the worn-out scientism of pre-technological ages, focused on the friendship and enmity of Cyrus, outside the postmodern spirit of the times, possessing a Herculean leap, indifferent to issues of Judaism, dependent on the Mehnameh circle, related to “Cyrus our father,” accompanied by the sanctification of Cyrus, indifferent to the pagan essence of the subject, and so on. These various incorrect ways of interpreting a text and criticizing it on that basis are unfortunately common, prevalent, and dominant in our current academic atmosphere. I ignore words like primitive, deception, and the like in their writing, and I am pleased that the esteemed Dr. Miri, due to their relative politeness, precision, brevity, and clarity, has distanced themselves from the other norms of this atmosphere—namely rudeness, verbosity, and obfuscation—and I hope they will distance themselves from these other norms as well and offer a clear, transparent, and methodical critique of what I think clearly and write clearly, so that instead of a rhetorical discussion about their rhetorical opinions, I can engage in a documented and reasoned discussion about their documented and reasoned criticisms.

.

---

.

A Response to Dr. Miri's Critique of the Cyrus Article

Author: Shervin Vakili

.

---

.