Identity and Power in Iran: Diversity and State-Society Relations

Western discourse today portrays Iran as one rigid, uniform state, usually equating its people to its strict government. But behind that misconception lies a plural society built on ethnic diversity, layered identity and a national consciousness that has been shaped more by culture and history rather than politics alone. A living mosaic thriving together despite all their differences, Iran is more than a plain monolithic bloc as seen from the outside; a glance within reveals a bustling society bound together by their resilient national identity.

Iran’s population is far from homogeneous. The Kurds, the seminomadic Lurs of the western mountains, and the agricultural Azerbaijani communities in the northwest form only part of this mosaic. Even those commonly labeled “Persians” are themselves of mixed ancestry. This diversity strengthens the argument that Iranian society cannot be reduced to a single ethnic or cultural core. Linguistic pluralism further reflects this ethnic complexity, with Persian (Farsi) as the official and dominant language, and with large segments of the population speaking Kurdish, Lurī, Azerbaijani, Turkmen, or Armenian. Each language marks a distinct historical and cultural trajectory, underscoring how Iran’s identity has always been layered rather than uniform.

Arabic is widely spoken as well, albeit a small percentage is fluent in it. Its importance is twofold: historical and religious. Following the Islamic conquest of Persia, Arabic virtually subsumed Persian as a literary tongue, which led to the adoption of a significant amount of Arabic words and grammatical constructions. Later, under the monarchy, serious attempts were made to cleanse Persian of its Arabic influence, as they sought to distance themselves from this heritage, though they ultimately failed. Religious-wise Iran is also heterogeneous, divided between the Twelver Shi’i majority, and other minorities like Sunni Muslims, Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians. This living mosaic cements Iran’s plural composition and it is a testament to its complex socio-historic fabric. This diversity still allows for a shared identity to exist, though tensions and frictions still present itself largely because of governmental policies which seek to marginalize ethnic minorities and to essentially Persianize them.

At this point, it becomes clear that national identity in Iran cannot be understood independently of the central state’s long-standing project of nation-building. Since the early Pahlavi era, the state has promoted a highly centralized model of Iranian-ness, one that privileges Persian language, Shi’i symbolism, and a unitary political narrative. This top-down model has often clashed with the bottom-up expressions of identity among ethnic and sectarian minorities, creating a structural tension between cultural plurality and state-driven homogenization. Constitutive factors of national unity and identity in Iranian society rest on the idea that tribalism and ethnicity are not inherently destructive forces; rather they are integrative as they tie the population together under a shared political community. In other words, what binds Iranians together is the shared memory; the symbols of the nation have been internalized, which makes the diverse population act as one psychological group when there is a threat to the integrity of their national identity. Cultural collective memory, as historian Adamiyat claims, plays a pivotal role in shaping a unified identity and this all stems from a tendency towards historicizing with a romantic orientation: basic elements of modern nationalism such as the idea of Iranian lands and peoples, a common language and culture, and, above all, national pride and common historical consciousness were all present in Iran even before the emergence of nationalism in modern Europe.

According to Ali Mozaffari, in Iran the construction of a homeland is the result of an inevitable engagement with pre-existing cultural patterns, traditions and identities. For example, the pre-Islamic versus the Islamic or Shi’i strands: while the former (Iraniyat) is exemplified through historical sites and their symbolic significance such as Persepolis, the latter (Islamiyat) refers to religious rituals such as Muharram or Ashoura. Thus, mellat-e Iran (Iranian nation) refers to the fact that Iran belongs to all its people, regardless of their religious affiliation, ethnic origin, spoken language and socio-economic status. Iran has been an organic nation for more than 5,000 years and their survival as one, intact identity over the course of time, through several historical devastating foreign invasions and through various socio-political internal and external crises only stregthened the feeling of belonging despite their many differences.

However, identity is also shaped by modern political dynamics, which reveal how identity becomes activated during moments of contention. In light of a perceived common threat, such as it happened during the 12-day war, the term “everyday nationalism” (The Guardian) can be summoned, as it doesn’t imply the endorsement of the status quo, but a rising against a shared enemy. Thus, the political meaning is that identity persists beyond ideology and that even though tensions between society and the state remain, identity is yet stronger than ever. This simply stems from the fact that this unity turned their love for their country and their sense of belonging to it into a conscious feeling; the need to remind each other of their Iranian-ness became a central point of discourse during that distressing period. According to The Washington Post, in light of the unfortunate recent events, Iran’s leaders reached back to pre-Islamic times to stoke nationalism. Even though nationalism is not part of the ideological agenda of the Islamic Republic of Iran, after the 12-day war Ali Khamenei invoked Iran’s “cultural and civilizational wealth”, stressing that it is far greater than that of America. By doing this, he sought to rally a population that soured on the clerics who rule the country and the religious ideology that defines how society is governed.

As Ali Ansari claims, this is proof that the ideology of the Islamic revolution has failed. However, it also shows that Iran’s government is willing to adapt its ideology, even by de-emphasizing religion when it needs to. Historical evidence shows that Iran’s different regimes have manipulated ideologies of nationalism and collective historical memory to suit their own goals in the past as well. The Islamiyat-Iraniyat dichotomy has been cleverly deployed by the Islamic Republic to suit their ideological agenda and by toning one down and highlighting the other, or even by mixing their significance, it has managed to successfully stir feelings of nationalism to protect its legitimacy. However, Tehran’s repeated attempt to Persianize the entire population and to play the card of Iranian-ness has proven to be less efficient with ethnic minorities.

 Alam Saleh argues in his book “Ethnic Identity and the State in Iran” that this politicization of ethnic identities combined with deprivation of their rights and continuous marginalization has set the perfect foundation for resentment to fester and will eventually lead to internal conflict and unrest. National identity is far from being coherent in Iran, and this is mostly due to Tehran’s reluctance to acknowledge the multifaceted aspects of Iranian identity. The government employs two strategies to secure national identity: Persian hegemony and Shi’i dominance, both of which neglect the ethno-religious minority and their subsequent demands. The rise in politicized identity awareness among these ethnic minorities, coupled with a widening ideological gap between them and the state will further increase social insecurity and will ultimately undermine the legitimacy of the state itself. However much the regimes might seem to stir and accentuate the feeling of nationalism in the population according to their agenda, one aspect remains certain: it is the people’s social resilience as one single unity in the face of adversity that feeds their national identity in spite of the government’s attempts to fabricate irreconcilable differences between ethnic groups and the Persian majority.

One very telling example of the present tensions between the people and the state comes from Mahsa Amini’s death in 2022, which sparked the “Women, Life, Freedom” movement all across Iran, while the rest of the world showed solidarity and encouraged their protests against the government. Mahsa Amini’s Kurdish origins have sparked further outrage among the people as the current regime systematically marginalizes and discriminates against minorities in an attempt to safeguard the centralized power in the hands of the Persian Shi’a majority. However, this disrespect didn’t always exist, the discourse of the Islamic revolution in fact championed the so called “slum dwellers”, giving them an honorary place amongst society at large. While Wall Street Journal placed emphasis on social unrest in the aftermath of this tragedy, Tehran Times was quick to absolve the government of any guilt and to point the finger at external factors, especially the influence of the United States. As the West and Iran tried to decide who the scapegoat is, what became evident was the fact that tensions between minorities and the state continue to exist and to cause friction and dissatisfaction, albeit their voice is continuously stifled. Once again, this relentless dissatisfaction has contributed to a growing sense of solidarity, as the whole community came together as one psychological unit to protest against the atrocious outcomes of governmental policies.

Whether a unified national identity can ultimately prevail over internal fractures depends on the evolving balance between state authority and societal agency. Iran’s historical experience shows that collective identity resurfaces in moments of existential threat, often overpowering local grievances. Yet in times of political stagnation or economic crisis, ethnic and sectarian grievances regain prominence. This dual pattern suggests that Iranian national identity is resilient but conditional-strong enough to mobilize society during external crises, yet vulnerable to internal fragmentation when the state fails to address structural inequalities.