Abstract

The struggle of Iranian women against entrenched norms to secure their basic rights has been a subject of debate among scholars and researchers. Research on the first feminist movement in Iran has typically been confined to the fields of sociology and gender studies. However, this paper examines Iranian women's struggle against patriarchal hegemony through the lens of theatrical performances staged by women in the early 20th century. It focuses primarily on public performances organized by women's associations shortly after the Constitutional Revolution and explores the phenomenological relationship between theater and socio-political gatherings. The paper offers an interdisciplinary study of women's theater, analyzing its significance in the social and political mobilization of modern Iran by employing performance studies and phenomenology. It suggests that the role of theater in Iran was not only limited to expressing literary messages and concepts; it could also serve as a sphere of appearance for marginalized communities.

Keywords: Women’s Theater, The Constitutional Revolution, Appearance, The Distribution of the Sensible, Social Norms, Disrupt, Assembly

Introduction

Theater has been a key force in shaping Iran's social and political environment. This was especially true during the Constitutional Revolution, a key moment in Iran's history. People were discussing democracy and freedom of speech intensely. Theater became a main way to share these democratic ideas, alongside poetry and journals. At the same time, more Iranian women began to appear in public. They collaborated with men to shape the country and initiated Iran's first feminist movement. Their role in theater was significant, serving not just for storytelling but also to challenge established norms.

Historically, the lack of women in public life and on stage in Iran has been a major topic. To show this, Jamshid Malekpour, in his book “The Islamic Drama” focuses on the lack of female actors in Taziyeh, a traditional Iranian theater form. He notes, “The actors of the Ta`ziyeh are usually divided into four groups. The first group, Olya, comprises those performers who play the role of Imam Hussein and his relatives or followers. The second group, Ashghya, consists of those portraying the killers of Imam Hussein and his followers. 'Disguised actors' are the third group, male actors who assume female roles. The final group consists of child performers.” (Malekpour, 2005, p. 98) This absence in the theater mirrors the broader issue of women being restricted to private spaces, known as Andaruni.

The Constitutional Revolution marked a change. Women started appearing on public streets for political protests, and soon after, groups led by women organized public theater performances. Theater became a strong medium in the early 20th century, letting women claim their right to be seen and heard in public. For the first time in Iran's history, women acted not just in private but also in public spaces. While there is much research on theater by women in Andaruni, the public efforts have not been widely studied. Kamran Sepehran’s “Theatrocracy in the Age of the Constitutional Revolution” does look at women’s theater during this period, but many aspects are still unexplored.

This research focuses on the corporeal dimensions of theater and gathering. It seeks to discern the pivotal role theater played for women during the revolutionary era and the methods they employed to stage performances. To contextualize this exploration, a historical backdrop detailing women's initial absence followed by their public emergence is imperative. Furthermore, a comprehensive understanding of the significance of bodily presence in public necessitates drawing from diverse disciplines including performance studies, sociology, phenomenology, and gender studies. These fields offer insights into embodied practices such as theatrical performances and socio-political gatherings, underlining the interconnectedness of these activities. The study will ultimately center on the theatrical pursuits of both Armenian and Muslim women in early 20th-century Iran, highlighting their shared attributes and points of divergence.

Iranian Women’s Theater in the Early 20th Century: The Sphere of Appearance

The Constitutional Revolution: A Turning Point

Before the Constitutional Revolution, women were left out of many parts of society and didn't have many rights. Afsaneh Najm Abadi says there was an old way of thinking about women's place in society that didn't change much even after the 1906 revolution. This old idea suggested that women needed to always be under men's care and that they belonged to them. People like Sheikh Fazlollah Nouri, who had traditional views, strengthened this belief after the revolution. He and people who agreed with him thought women shouldn't go to public schools and should stay at home. These traditional thinkers used Islam's teachings to support their views on keeping women out of public life. The common belief was that when women got involved in public and political matters, it wasn't good for society. Because of these strong beliefs, women didn't have a big role in Iran's society.

However, the Constitutional Revolution has been thought of as a crucial period in Iranian modern history. Naser-Al Din Shah’s successor, Mozaffar-Al-Din Shah confronted with massive protests in 1905, and a year after, he and his regime capitulated to the calls for reform and signed a proclamation convening a “Constituent National Assembly”, in this way, the Constitutional Revolution toppled the Monarchy regime in Iran and transformed it into a Constitutional Monarchy. The protests, as a result, restricted Mozaffar- Al Din Shah’s authoritative power. The main reason that makes the Constitutional Revolution so iconic in Iran’s history is that it triggered a movement towards democratization which was unprecedented back then. Moreover, different women and men-led associations were established to run constructive dialogues on political and social matters to form a critical overlook of Iran’s issues, as they were obsessed with the idea of the right to free speech. These established associations in Iran almost amounted to agoras in ancient Greece. Therefore, since the rise of independent associations, the public sphere has become an integral component of Iran’s political atmosphere. Furthermore, these associations and their founders used media such as theater, newspapers, and the press to express their opinions.

With the onset of the revolution in 1906, women began to position themselves as integral members of the nation by becoming visible in public spaces. In “Zanhā-yi millat: Women or Wives of the Nation?”, Afsaneh Najm Abadi asserts that Iranian women were not merely spectators in socio-political events and demonstrations, but they actively sought recognition as equal citizens alongside men. Their presence on the streets became increasingly pronounced, and ample evidence exists documenting their public protests and gatherings. For instance, Janet Afary recounts an instance during a protest against the Russian Ultimatum: “Women crossed the streets, (Afary, 1996, p. 206), and called on embarrassed passengers to participate in the boycott against European goods and services. The protesters would not leave until the passengers left the wagons; sometimes they even helped pay the stranded passengers for a different mode of transportation.” This marked the nascent stages of women's political engagement in early modern Iran.

Women's public participation and gatherings functioned as subversive acts, challenging deeply rooted norms. Following the revolution, with the establishment of the Constituent National Assembly, debates intensified over women's rights to education and public assembly. The contrast between modern and traditional discourses became particularly pronounced as Iranian women, through their collective bodily acts, persisted in asserting their rights to both visibility and recognition. These actions stood in defiance of gender norms, which, as Judith Butler aptly posits, are formed through consistent enactments of those very norms. Butler further elucidates how certain plural bodily practices can elevate the voices of precarious and marginalized communities and empower them: “The entrance of such populations into the sphere of appearance may well be making a set of claims about the right to be recognized and to be accorded a livable life, but it is also a way of laying claim to the public sphere, whether it is a radio broadcast, an assembly in the square, a march down the main streets of urban centers, or an uprising at the margins of the metropole.” (Butler, 2015, p. 41)

Theater and Assembly

The connection between assembly and theater is evident due to their corporeal characteristics. When various bodies navigate and occupy a specific space, they transition that area from a neutral spatial setting to a bodily place, infused with social and historical context. This transformation is facilitated by the inherent potential of the bodies’presence. Judith Butler references Merleau-Ponty to explain the nature and potential of bodies, stating, "Merleau-Ponty, who does not regard the body merely as a historical idea but as a repertoire of infinite possibilities, that is as 'an active process of embodying certain cultural and historical possibilities.'" (Fischer Lichte, 2008, p. 27) Furthermore, theater is not solely a medium for transmitting literary dialogues and messages. As Max Hermann, the founder of theater studies in Germany, posited, theater should be recognized as a distinct discipline, separate from literature and drama. Theater revolves around the gathering of bodies at a designated time and location. As the performance begins, while some individuals play their roles, others interpret the movements, actions, and sounds of the performers. Integral to the aesthetic of theater is the collective, or plural presence of bodies, a phenomenon Hermann insightfully termed "Co-Bodily Presence."

The concept of co-bodily presence, or in other terms, the co-existence of bodies, possesses the inherent capacity to forge a community. Hermann discusses the formation of a social community, asserting, “[The] original meaning of theatre refers to its conception as social play – played by all for all. A game in which everyone is a player – actors and spectators alike ... The spectators are involved as co-players. In this sense, the audience is the creator of the theatre. So many different participants constitute the theatrical event that its social nature cannot be lost. Theatre always produces a social community.” (Fischer Lichte, 2008, p. 32) Evidently, when individuals gather at a predetermined time and location, a transient community emerges. This formation of a social community subsequently transforms a public or semi-public space into a public sphere, where individuals can authentically (re)present their freedom, rights, and appearance.

In theater, the body can be perceived in two distinct modalities: one that portrays a character and the other, the actor/performer's being-in-the-world body. The former is termed as the "semiotic body" and the latter is the "phenomenal body." Erika Fischer Lichte provides insight into the "semiotic body," noting, “The acting theories of the eighteenth century attempted to eradicate the possible dangers stemming from the tension between the phenomenal body of the actor and the actor’s portrayal of a role. They privileged the semiotic portrayal of a role over the phenomenal body by emphasizing the dominance of the literary text over the art of acting.” (Fischer Lichte, 2014, p. 26) However, in a theatrical setting, spectators, with their phenomenal bodies, are in close proximity to the actors. They primarily engage with this specific manifestation of the actor's body during a performance. The materiality of both the spectators' and actors/performers' bodies culminates in a form of assembly within a designated spatial context. These assembled bodies transcend the confines of theater as merely an artistic medium; they forge an event through the enactment of a theatrical performance.

Theater and the Constitutional Revolution

Due to the Constitutional Revolution, theater began to be showcased publicly. Before the revolution, theatrical performances were typically held in houses and private venues. At the outset of its emergence, Armenians started performing a Western style of theater in their homes. It is reported that in 1878, a troupe of Armenian youth staged a play in a wealthy Armenian's residence. However, after 1906, theater troupes and collectives began selling tickets for their performances, transitioning theater from obscurity to public view. Different venues, such as Atabak Park, school halls, and the Grand Hotel, were occupied by these collectives. In a relatively short span, theater became an integral part of Iran's society and its public sphere.

As previously mentioned, the primary objective of the Constitutional Revolution was to emphasize previously marginalized concepts such as democracy, gender equality, and freedom of speech. The theater played a pivotal role in shedding light on these overlooked ideas and marginalized groups. Kamran Sepehran used the term “Theatrocracy” from Plato and Jacques Ranciere to explain the function of theater in the socio-political mobilization of Iran during the Constitutional Revolution. Both democracy and theatrocracy serve as mediums through which ideas like freedom can be articulated. However, a notable divergence existed between democracy and theatrocracy in ancient Greece, rooted in their inclusivity or exclusivity. While democracy was reserved for free citizens, thus excluding slaves, theatrocracy in ancient Greece provided an avenue for slaves and other non-free groups to argue for their freedom. In the 21st century, Jacques Ranciere began to discuss the theater not just as an independent artistic medium but as a social institution capable of challenging established boundaries and redefining them. He believed in a strong bond between politics and theater, saying that both could create an artificial and temporary sphere. In the paper “Ranciere’s Theatrocracy Within and Beyond the Theatre”, Nic Fryer explains Ranciere’s idea of theatrocracy and its potential as a socio-political tool allowing artists and audiences to imagine unseen or nonexistent societal elements. Theater can create this temporary and artificial sphere where individuals gather, experience theatrical performances, and gain power. Fryer, referencing Peter Hallward, notes that performers and artists can voice their concerns without the fear of persecution: “By refusing to speak in their own name, by acting at a distance from themselves or imitating the action of another, actors and poets threaten the very foundations of authority itself.” (Fryer, 2021, p. 9) Fryer further highlights theater’s inherent disruptive quality, stating, “And it is in the tension between the sensible world of the time and the artwork’s potential to offer an alternative to this sensible world that his work remains political, in part at least: “Art is inherently political for him insofar as it acts as a potential meeting ground between a configuration of the sensible world and possible reconfigurations thereof” (Fryer, 2021, p. 11) Consequently, the Rancierian concept of “the distribution of the sensible” can be challenged by theater, especially during periods when theater, and consequently, theatrocracy are prominent.

In the late 19th century and early 20th century, the role of theater in Iran became undeniably significant, because different political figures, groups, and associations started to employ theater. Just before the revolution, many associations were created by both men and women. The Anjoman-e Okhovat (Society of Brotherhood) is one example. It was founded by Ali Khan Zahir-ol-Douleh in 1899, this group presented a play at the Zahir-ol-Douleh Theater, positioned behind their main building. While the exact title of the play is unknown, Zahir-ol-Douleh penned it as a critique of Mohammad-Ali Shah's governance, who followed Mozafar-Al Din Shah and was seen as unfit to lead. Besides theater, the society also organized music events that carried political messages. Later on, opponents targeted their theater building with arson, aiming to hinder their political intentions. Meanwhile, another association, the “Iran Javan” (Iranian Youth Association), emerged in March 1921, led by Ali Akbar Siassi. They shared goals with the Brotherhood, promoting reformist ideas. To achieve this, they backed artistic and social initiatives, often showcasing plays in theaters at Tehran's Grand Hotel. While this paper primarily examines the performative aspects of theater over its literary qualities, it's pertinent to highlight that issues of marginalized groups, particularly the lives of Iranian women, were brought to the fore in plays. Gregory Yeghikian, an Iranian-Armenian playwright, often chose women as central figures in his works. Out of his four major plays, two ("Who Is Right?" and "Fear Square") specifically addressed women's social issues, emphasizing thoughts on gender equality. For instance, "Who Is Right?" centers on a young woman, Foruzan, who aspires for education and independence. However, financial constraints push her family to arrange a marriage against her will. The plot unfolds with tensions between Foruzan and her family, culminating in her reluctant acceptance of the arranged match.

Women’s Theater in Iran

Similar to other minorities in Iran, women began their theatrical activities shortly after the 1906 revolution. Women-led associations, established during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, regarded theatre as a crucial component of their artistic and societal engagements. As documented by Irani-Naw in 1910, the Armenian women's association within the Social Democrat Hunchakian Party organized two theatrical performances at Masoudieh Palace. The first play, titled "The Bloody Way or Tragedy (Rah-e Khouni Ya Fajee)," was penned by Grigory Yeghikian, although limited evidence exists concerning its details. Based on insights from Jamshid Malekpour, the narrative centers around a woman tasked with assassinating her uncle, a senior police officer, in the name of liberty within a Russian city; she accomplishes this mission successfully. It is clear that the play was presented in Armenian, but translations were provided for non-Armenian attendees during the performance. The subsequent play was a one-act comedy translated by Galvastian. The primary objective behind this event was to gather funds to inaugurate a school for Armenian women. This was particularly significant, as public education for Iranian women was a contentious issue at the time. Notably, Armenian women in Iran faced fewer challenges than their Muslim counterparts. Even before the revolution, there existed schools where Armenian women could receive a public education. In contrast, Muslim women encountered more restrictions due to the conservative ideologies prevalent in Iran during that period. In 1899, in the city of Isfahan, while Armenian women took on female roles on theatrical stages, Muslim women were restricted from doing so in both public and semi-public spaces. Instead, their theatrical endeavors were limited to private spaces (Andaruni) prior to the revolution.

Theatrical performances featuring women constituted a new sensible order. Prior to the revolution, the absence of women in both societal settings and theater stages represented a categorization intrinsic to the distribution of the sensible in Iran's early modern history. Subsequent to the revolution, the tangible presence of women, be it as performers or spectators, disrupted this distribution of the sensible, giving rise to a new sensible order. This evolution was profoundly intertwined with the process of modernization inaugurated by the revolution. Before these developments, the sight of women in public spaces was an uncommon trend for even Iranian tourists visiting European nations. Kamran Sepehran cites Mohammad Tavakoli, who delved into the travelogues of Iranians journeying to European cities like London and Paris. Such Iranian travelers often expressed astonishment at women’s presence in the public spaces/sphere, with some even conveying pessimism about this European trend, perceiving it as antithetical to their ethical beliefs.

Muslim women challenged the prevailing discourse that prohibited them from engaging in public theatrical performances. They began to organize theatrical meetings and gatherings in public and semi-public spaces, such as Atabak Park. Their theatrical endeavors were not merely artistic and social endeavors but also political actions. Through these actions, they disrupted the sensible order of polis (the Rancierian concept), a structure upheld by patriarchal and conservative discourse. Given the available evidence, it is evident that Muslim women faced significant legal and social hurdles when participating in theater, as their presence on theater stages was perceived as contrary to Islamic principles. Thus, the very act of a woman's body being present on stage became representative of a performative disruptive act against societal norms prevalent in Iranian society. Moreover, they began to challenge and redefine traditional gender conceptions. In 1910, in Atabak Park, the Patriotic Women's League of Iran (Jam'iyat-e Nesvân-e Vatankhâh) organized an event to gather funds for a school focusing on women's public education. Janet Afary highlights this initiative, stating, “Conferences and plays were held for women to raise funds for the movement. In the spring of 1910, a play held at the Atabak Park was attended by five hundred women, including several Europeans. That evening four hundred tumans were collected for the establishment of a school for orphan girls, adult education classes, and a women's clinic. Participants were asked to make regular contributions to the Anjuman of Ladies of the Homeland, which sponsored the event.” (Afary, 1996, p. 196) However, such socio-cultural activities encountered numerous obstacles, occasionally culminating in outright bans on theatrical performances. Upon Reza Shah's ascension to power in 1925, he adopted modernization principles, yet patriarchal discourse persisted. For instance, in Bandar-e Anzali, a northern coastal city in Iran, a religious group disrupted a theater performance of a socialist party simply because a woman enacted a female role. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that the efforts of Iranian women during and post-1906 revolution paved the way for subsequent generations. They provided an avenue for women to vocalize their perspectives and champion their rights with greater ease. Although they couldn't entirely eliminate patriarchal discourse, their public appearances and, more broadly, their plural bodily presence in both theatrical and non-theatrical events disrupted the sensible order governing women’s appearance. 

Conclusion

This paper sought to explore the role of theater in advancing the emancipation of women in early 20th-century Iran. As discussed, women were largely absent from the societal foreground until the advent of the Constitutional Revolution. This revolution marked a significant turning point in Iran’s modern history as both men and women increasingly embraced concepts of democracy and equality. Theater, during this transformative era, served not only as a medium for embodying ideas but also as a platform for Iranian women to make public appearances. Consequently, this research primarily centered on the aesthetics of theater and performance, viewing it as a form of assembly. While data on women’s theater in Iran is notably limited, hindering deeper analysis, the study endeavored to establish a connection between the performativity of theater and assembly. To this end, the paper harnessed various theories to frame women’s theater not merely as an artistic endeavor but also as a sociopolitical gesture that significantly supported Iran’s social and political mobilization, further empowering women in their resistance to patriarchal discourse. Nonetheless, vast facets of Iran's theater remain uncharted, particularly in distinguishing the aesthetics of theater from literature and dramatic literature.

References

Abrahamian, E. (2017). Iran between Two Revolutions

 (A. Gol-Mohammadi & M. A. Fattahi, Trans.). Tehran: Ney.

Abrahamian, E. (2021). A History of Modern Iran (M. A. Fattahi, Trans.) Tehran: Ney.

Afary, J. (1996). The Iranian Constitutional Revolution, 1906-1911. New York: Columbia University Press.

Butler, J. (2015). Notes Toward a Performative Theory of Assembly. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Butler, J. (1988). Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory. Theatre Journal, 40(4), 73–83. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203567234-13

Fischer Lichte, E. (2014). The Routledge Introduction to Theatre and Performance Studies. New York: Routledge.

Fischer Lichte, E. (2008) The Transformative Power of Performance. New York: Routledge.

Floor, W. M. (2021) The History of Theater in Iran (A. Barrati Moghadam, Trans.). Tehran: Jarf.

Fryer, N. (2021). Rancière’s Theatrocracy Within and Beyond the Theatre. In N. Fryer, & C. Conroy, Rancière and Performance (pp. 1-14). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

Malekpour, J. (2005). Drama in Iran (Vol. 3). Tehran: Toos. 

Malekpour, J. (2005). The Islamic Drama. London: Frank Cass.

Negri, A., & Hardt, M. (2022). Assembly (F. Habibi, Trans.). Gilan: Negah.

Ranciere, J., & Engelmann, P. (2021). Politics and Aesthetics (A. Salehi, Trans.). Tehran: Ney.

Ranciere, J. (2021). The Emancipated Spectator (A. Salehi, Trans.). Tehran: Ney.

Sepehran, K. (2019). Theatrocracy in the Age of the Constitutional Revolution. Tehran: Niloufar.