IWSA

The department of Russian, Central Asian and Caucasian Studies held a lecture panel on the current economical war going on between Russia and the Western countries on 5th December 2017. Igor Makarov presented a lecture the sanctions of the West against Russia and its effects on the Russian economy.

Makarov categorized the sanctions in to five groups of IT and technology, oil and gas, finance and banking, arms, Crimea and diplomatic figures. These sanctions include prevention of extracting oil from the North Pole and negotiations for new exporting contracts and ending ongoing agreements. Makarov added that the sanctions had brought problems on the Russian government, repaying some of its debts as the financial sanctions had forced a drop in the Russian currency (Rouble).
Dr Jahangir Karami also spoke at the vent, analyzing the complex issued between Russia and the US and explained: four issues remain unresolved between Russia and the US to date: Syria, Ukraine, Defense Shield and the sanctions against Russia.

He explored the issued further by comparing Iran and Russia. How joining the WTO had affected the economy of the two states and how each states deals with the sanctions in different ways. The lecture ended with a Q and A session between the audience and the panel.

The 13th UNESCO Chairs Program in Cyberspace and Cyber Culture meeting about the dual-spacization of the world was held at the Faculty of World Studies on Wednesday, July 5, 2017. Ebrahim Mohseni Ahouei, the Ph.D. candidate of modern communication and media studies at the University of Vienna was the speaker of the meeting who talked about “economic culture of data sharing”. Dr. Ehsan Shahghasemi, the member of the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Tehran, began the meeting by discussing the economics of data.

“The subject of data sharing has appeared simultaneously with the discussion on modern media. It can also be included under the category of traditional media. One of the most important issues in the past few years is the changes in convergence. It means that data exists and instruments have been converged.” After Dr. Shahghasemi, the researcher Ebrahim Mohseni Ahouei, Ph.D. candidate of modern communication and media studies at the University of Vienna, began his speech by introducing his studies and the most modern trends in the field. Mohseni Ahouei argued that the main reason for discussing the economics of data sharing is the emergence of a social, political, and economic demand. “Studying the subject is important because the recent changes in the field of data and data sharing lead us toward a situation where the absence of necessary predictions about the phenomenon may produce legal and social crises.” “Today, the committed experts of the world must rise and inform the world of the abusing public rights by the neoliberal economy.

This abuse of power, especially by the multinational companies, which was introduced as ‘Cyberspace Empire’ by Dr. Ameli in 2011, is already happening and committed experts must assist in overcoming the issue,” he added. Mohseni Ahouei continued his speech by dividing the history of the internet into three periods. “We can introduce three phases in the history of the internet. The 1st phase was the development of the net based on FTPs platform. The goal was transmitting audiovisual files, music, etc. between different devices. Then came the 2nd phase that was the development of the Web based on HTML platform. This still exists to some extent. The goal in this phase was sharing information. Ultimately, the 3rd phase began by the development of the Web 2 based on advanced HTML platform or interactive Web. In this phase, we are engaged with the ‘cloud’. More importantly, here, we use data instead of information.” The researcher at the University of Vienna continued, “I emphasize the concept of data instead of information. Why is this important? Because, unlike the internet, whose development and progress was mainly due to a public, international will, data is different. Here, we have the will of the large organizations who have replaced information with data in order to economically use or, more appropriately, abuse the public data.” Ph.D. candidate of modern communication and media studies added, “There are two main reasons for replacing information with data. The first one is that the information could not be easily categorized in a standard, simple architecture. Secondly, measuring the economic value of information is impossible. You observe that, by replacing ‘information’ with ‘data’ in the above phrases, the sentences will be positive.”

Mohseni Ahouei concluded his speech by discussing the four stages of consumption in economic systems. “All societies have crossed four stages of consumption. These stages, respectively, are mass consumption, family consumption, individualized consumption, and shared consumption. However, it must be understood that there is a natural difference between the old socialist sharing system and the new neoliberal one.” After Mr. Ebrahim Mohseni Ahouei’s speech, Dr. Saeid Reza Ameli, Chair of the UNESCO Chairs Program, discussed the power of data. “The algorithmic power of data produces huge powers. Violating the private rights (cyberspace colonization) has enabled entering into different spaces and connecting to other peoples’ privacy. The algorithm of data is engineering of data. Like the cities that are living creatures and can act organically, data is a living existent as well. This space is present in algorithmic environments based on its own function. Therefore, it is a vast territory and it could be argued that data is the most important and most valuable capital. Data capital, like human capital that is produced by the aggregation of experience and knowledge in individuals, is a social capital. Data are no longer databanks. They have turned into a social capital with a high risk.” Chair of the UNESCO Chairs Program added, “The law of free access to information is important. It focuses on information sharing because it brings about social justice. We can advise the UNESCO Commission through the UNESCO Chairs Program in Cyberspace and Cyber Culture and explain this approach as a law so that the data is introduced as a professional, moral social responsibility.” Dr. Ameli concluded, “The generation of algorithms is like humans. In urbanism also, when we talk about space, the idea of roads, laws, and city culture is that, when we distribute the space, we define their physical and virtual space development in the same idea of city development in cyberspace. Therefore, it is necessary that these discussions are attended at universities.”
 

The professional meeting on “China-Iran Cooperation in Mutual Construct; One Belt, One Road Initiative” was held at the Iran Hall of the Faculty of World Studies on Tuesday, July 04, 2017. Dr. Lou Jin, Researcher of the Department of Cultural and Social Studies of the Institution for Western Asia and Africa Studies of China Academy of Social Sciences, was a speaker at the meeting. Iranian and Chinese students of University of Tehran attended the meeting that reviewed the mutual objectives and interests of Iran and China in the context of “One Belt, One Road Initiative”. After Dr. Jin’s speech in Persian, students asked their questions that embarked a challenging discussion throughout the meeting.

 

During the Week of American Human Rights, the one-day international conference on “The United States, Human Rights and the Discourse of Domination” was held in Hananeh Hal of the Faculty of World Studies on Sunday, July 02, 2017. The Center on Foreign Policy and Public Diplomacy Research of the University of Tehran sponsored the program that was organized in cooperation with the Iranian World Studies Association, Islamic Human Rights Commission in London, and the Faculty of World Studies. In the beginning of the congress, Dr. Saeid Reza Ameli, Dean of the Faculty of World Studies, greeted the attendees and, reminding the importance of the meeting, called it a historical event. Comparing the current human rights status with the past, he said, “Today, we live in a more violent and more threatening world. Internationally, the people are suffering from more serious human factors. This social rigor is rooted in the aggressiveness of human policies. One of the most fundamental human rights is the right to live, right to be peaceful, and right to have a quality life. Anything that prevents humans from achieving this is inhuman. Unfortunately, today we see that innocent people are living in war situation in Yemen, Iraq, Nigeria, and Bahrain.” “The international conflicts are rooted in the policy of ‘everything is for me’ and this policy is manifested through the ideas of ‘with us or against us’ or ‘American Exceptionalism’. The American people do not own this exceptionalism; it is owned by the dominating system of the country. War and the domination status have turned all standards of truth and life into relative concepts. It is that their human rights works in a way that they attack Iraq and kill nearly 600 thousand children through medical sanctions. On the other hand, they call Iran as an axis of evil; a country that has held more than tens of elections and is an outcome of a democratic system. Therefore, although ISIS attacks the Iranian Parliament, a symbol of democracy, the US calls Iran an advocate of terrorism”, Prof. Ameli continued. Dean of the Faculty of World Studies added, “All these are the children of the American sick, selfish, and exceptionalist mind that considers itself free of all rules. US aggressiveness justifies its military presence in more than 140 countries, including our neighbors, such as Bahrain, Turkey, and Iraq. The country’s military budget was 437 billion dollars in 2003 and will be 824 billion dollars in October 2018.” Reminding the audience of the violations made by the US in cases of human rights, he said, “The US has thousands of nuclear warheads but makes a fuss about one imaginary nuclear warhead while it already knows that Iran is not after nuclear weapons.” Prof. Ameli also discussed the cultural and social violation of human rights by the US and said, “Nationals want to live by their own culture. It is a violation of their rights if one wants to impose its way of life on others.” Talking about the increasing sanctions on Iran by the democrat and conservative governments in the US after the Islamic Revolution, the Dean of the Faculty added, “Sanction is a violation of human rights because it is the nations who suffer from sanctions and pay the costs, not the governments.” Prof. Ameli continued his speech by talking about four examples of violations of human rights by the US. “First of all, talking about human rights is completely at odds with war and you cannot use war to promote human rights. Second example is the structural and institutional violation where many international institutions, such as the UN and World Bank, are tasked with satisfying American domination needs. The third case is global violation of human rights through American military interventions around the world and the guardianship the country feels toward other countries. It works in a way that initially the countries, states, are called regimes and then the military intervention by the US is justified. Finally, the fourth example of human rights violation by the US is the cultural and social violation of human rights through imposing its favorite political and cultural model on other countries.” Mentioning the role of People’s Mojahedin Organization in terrorism, Dean of the Faculty of World Studies continued, “While more than 17 thousand Iranian people have been martyred by the terrorist People’s Mojahedin Organization, the group still, continuously, provides false pictures of Iran in foreign parliaments and, unfortunately, is under the protection of governments like the US.” Dean of the Faculty of World Studies continued his speech by discussing the dangers of ISIS for the international community and the world. “Iran’s efforts to destroy ISIS is the most strategic effort to provide peace and security in Europe and the United States and no country like Iran has been more successful in fundamentally hurting the terrorist group. Although Iran has paid the most in fighting against ISIS and the main sources of terrorism around the world, it is still considered a source of danger for the United States.” Prof. Ameli concluded his remarks by talking about the false picture that is broadcasted about Iran. “These false images are the reason for wrong reactions against us. We need to find a solution. In order for the realization of true and comprehensive human rights around the world, dominating, hateful ideology must be removed and the world must believe in the truth. The international community must not turn the truth into a relative concept by basing it upon own interests and realist approach of ‘more power, more rights’. Truth originates in what has been defined by God as human life rules; it is based upon collective interest and respect.” Dr. Foad Izadi, Director of the Center on Foreign Policy and Public Diplomacy Research of the University of Tehran, was the second speaker of the opening ceremony. Remembering the US aids to Saddam Hussain during the eight-year war with Iran, he said, “Our country is accused of violating human rights. The US, in the name of human rights, is in violation of human rights. The latest sanctions by the United States are more expansive than the pre-JCPOA era sanctions. Our country must defend itself against the human rights related accusations. Public diplomacy in this affair must be followed more seriously. The enemies have formed a discourse against us and we need to do so and show a more active presence in the international arena.” The third speaker of the conference was Dr. Daniel Kovalik, Adjunct Professor of International Human Rights Law at the University of Pittsburgh. In his speech, ‘The US and Imperialism in the Name of Human Rights’, he said, “In the aftermath of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, there was much discussion in the media about the Bush Administration’s goal for “nation-building” in that country. Many Iraqis believe the invasion left their country in the worst condition it has been since the Mongol invasion of.” “The stark truth is that the US really has no intention of helping to build strong states in the Middle East or elsewhere. Rather, as we see time and again, the goal of US foreign policy is increasingly and more aggressively the destruction of independent states”, he continued. Commenting that with less than 5 percent of the world’s population, the US uses more than one-third of the world’s consumption materials, Dr. Kovalik added, “The only way the US has been able to achieve its interests has been by undermining the ability of independent states to exist. This is why the US has teamed up with the world’s most deplorable forces in destroying independent states around the globe. This has done in the name of protecting democracy, freedom, and human rights, and has often been aided and abetted by “human rights organizations” which play a key ideological role in laying the groundwork for war.” Professor of the University of Pittsburgh continued, “In order to weaken Iran, a mostly Shiite country, and to affirm the American domination, Bush Administration decided to reorganize its policies in the Middle East. They tried to cooperate in clandestine operations in Lebanon with Saudi Arabia to weaken the Hezbollah. The US government has also been active in clandestine operations against Iran and Syria, one of those outcomes has been the creation of extremist, Sunni terrorist groups. A conflicting characteristic of the new strategy is that in Iraq most rebels against American forces have been conducted by Sunni forces, not Shiite ones.” Making the argument that the US still intervenes in Syria in a way that prevents the Syrian government to overcome the terrorist groups in the country, he said, “Some terrorist groups are considered by the US to be terrorist as well and are attacked by American forces. Therefore, no party has a better situation than the other in Syria.” Asserting the intentional role of the United States in promoting chaos in the world’s strategic regions, the Professor of International Human Rights Law concluded, “As an American and a Western, I say that I am against military action against Iran. In fact, I will do my best to prevent this tragedy.” The next speaker of the conference was Dr. Beau Grosscup, Professor Emeritus of International Political Economy at Department of Political Science of California State University in Chico. In his speech, ‘United States War on Terror: Dodging the Terrorism Label’, he asserted that the United States owns the word ‘terror’ and said, “It means that the US is in a supreme position and it is the US that decides who are terrorists and who are liberalist fighters.” He continued, “Israel can apply its Dahya Doctrine that justifies the wholesale destruction of civilian infrastructure, as in Lebanon and the Occupied Territories, employing ‘disproportionate force,’ use white phosphorus on Palestinian civilians, or assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists inside Iran, yet it is the Palestinians and Iranians who are terrorists.” Dr. Grosscup added, “Saudi Arabia can ‘Shock and Awe’ Yemen, killing civilians by the score, yet never be labeled a terrorist state. Clearly, as it wages its War on Terror with a War of Terror, owning the word terror means the US is in the enviable (power) position of determining who the terrorists and freedom fighters are and making it stick.” “Dodging the terrorism label also means controlling media battlefield reporting. After the disastrous Vietnam War experience with corporate media journalists who abandoned the military’s daily briefings in search of ‘the truth,’ the US military command has reasserted its monopoly over battlefield reporting. In addition to the traditional measures, Pentagon’s Iraq Media Project has successfully sanitized reporting from combat zones”, Professor Emeritus of International Political Economy continued. Claiming that, typically, since the US owns the word terror, any one or a combination of machinations resolves the ‘credibility’ problem in favor of the US, Dr. Grosscup said, “Avoiding the terrorism label is a plan. The final end game is a US imposed ‘investigative silence’ over a sufficient length of time during which focus shifts to other issues. In short, owning the word terror, does not just mean dominating the discourse, it also means owning the ‘silence,’ investigative process and time schedule.” Concluding his remarks, Professor Emeritus of California State University said, “The US declared war on terror after 9/11. The argument that one is terrorist and again a freedom fighter, from another perspective, is a flawed cliché because terrorism could be interpreted in different ways. The real meaning of terrorism today is where the US decides who are terrorist and who are freedom fighters. This is applied also to its public and private policy and discourse.” The next speaker was Dr. Tanya Maria Golash-Boza, Professor of Sociology at the School of Social Sciences, Humanities, and Arts of University of California in Merced. She lectured about ‘Detention, Deportation, and Human Rights in the United States’. Discussing immigration policies in the US, she said, “Over the past forty years, the number of people detained and deported by the US government has grown precipitously. In 1973, the federal government detained a daily average of 2,370 migrants; this number more than doubled to 5,532 in 1994 and then surged to 34,000 by 2009. Today, over 40,000 detainees are behind bars. Patterns of deportations have followed a similar trajectory.” Talking about immigration detention in the US, Dr. Golash-Boza said, “When one enters the United States and does not have documents proving citizenship, the person is transferred to an immigration detention center. These centers are much like prisons but are not legally considered as prisons.” “The immigrants are imprisoned without any criminal activities and are questioned without any courts or rights. Therefore, no legal system rules are considered for them”, she continued. This Professor of Sociology added, “The issue of immigration detention in the United States is very important to the extent that if even Americans cannot prove citizenship, they are detained. Immigration detention is not a penal affair in the US, rather it is a cautionary act and a toll to ensure that people enter the US legally and do not impose a threat for the country.” She concluded, “The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides for the right not to ‘be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.’ The framers of the United States Constitution found the deprivation of liberty to be a very serious denial of freedom. For this reason, they included two critical protections in the Constitution: due process and habeas corpus. Together, these protections ‘ensure that the authority to detain must be exercised according to law, and must be subject to judicial review.’ The writ of habeas corpus ensures that individuals will have recourse to a court that challenges the legality of their detention.” Dr. Anthony J. Hall, Professor of Liberal Education and Globalization Studies at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, was the next speaker who talked about ‘From the Indian Wars to the Global War on Terror, 1776-present: US Assaults on Human Rights in the Expansion of Imperial America’. He argued that war is not the ultimate cure for terrorism. “Fighting a Global War on Terror makes about as much sense as spying on the public indiscriminately in order to identify threats to our privacy.” “The misrepresentation of the 9/11 crimes promote the lie that war can be a viable remedy for terror. What an absurdity! Warfare is the very quintessence of terror, a primary motivator, facilitator and medium of the most extreme forms of terror”, he continued. Dr. Hall added, “There were many groups that would be transformed into savage enemies along the course of the imperial journey that would see the United States become the most militarized entity the world has ever seen. In its growth to transcontinental proportions, and then in its expansion from the status of a hemispheric to global superpower, the US government chose its friends and set up its foes with calculated geopolitical dexterity.” “Many aspects of the genocidal treatment directed at Native Americans in the transcontinental expansion of the United States in the name of a Manifest Destiny were re-enacted in the treatment of Palestinians in the establishment and expansion of the Jewish state of Israel. This treatment was re-enforced by the linkages connecting the Old Testament theology of New England›s Calvinist founders with the Israeli embrace of the Jewish Torah as a book of divine revelation”, Professor of Liberal Education and Globalization Studies. Discussing exceptionalism, the Professor of the University of Lethbridge in Alberta concluded his speech. “An outgrowth of both the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the effort by the US superpower in 1947 to gain international consent for the UN establishment of Israel through UN Resolution 181, the horrific fate visited on the Palestinians can be seen as an extension of the Anglo-American empire into new frontiers of expansion in the Middle East. There are formidable geopolitical implications in the axis of self-understanding linking the ‘exceptionalism’ claimed by the United States and political preoccupations of those that see themselves God’s Chosen People.” The next speaker of the conference was Dr. Sayyed Mohsen Fatemi, post-doctorate in Psychology, Lecturer in Psychology, and Associate Fellow at the Department of Psychology at Harvard University. In his speech, ‘Psychological Subtleties of Human Rights in Islamic Perspective’, he argued, “The Islamic view of Human Rights departs from the utilitarian interpretation of humanity and critiques the approaches and policies that tend to keep humans within the confines of materialism. Modern slavery imposes diverse points of illusion and involves numerous forms of disguise. It is shrouded in the pretentious masks of progressiveness, development and betterment, but etiologically looks for domination, mastery and conquest.” The next speaker of the afternoon panel was Robert Fantina, journalist and peace and human rights activist. He discussed ‘Double Standards in United States’ Human Right Practices’. “When discussing human rights, it’s helpful to define exactly what is meant”, he said. “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948. Forty-eight countries, including the United States, ratified this declaration. It details fundamental human rights that are to be universally protected. The document consists of thirty articles, and is worth reading.” He continued, “According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone is entitled to freedom and dignity, life, liberty and security of person, and the following are prohibited: Slavery in all forms, arbitrary arrest, detention or exile, arbitrarily deprived of his nationality, arbitrarily deprived of his property.” “Florida Senator Marco Rubio recently said that the world looks to the U.S. as an example of democracy. This myth is not believed outside of the United States’ borders, and decreasingly within. There is simply too much evidence to the contrary”, Fantina added. “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights mentions the prohibition of ‘torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment’ and states that everyone is entitled to live. In 2014, the U.S. government rightly condemned beheadings carried out by Daesh (aka ISIL, ISIS). In August of 2014, at least 22 people were executed in Saudi Arabia, and at least eight of them were beheaded. The following month, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry visited Saudi Arabia on an official visit; the U.S., of course, has full diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia”, this journalist continued. He added, “In typical US style, interference in foreign elections are only acceptable when the US does it. In 2006, when commenting on the election in the Gaza Strip that brought Hamas to power, Mrs. Clinton said this: ‘I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake, and if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win.’” This peace and human rights activist continued, “In 2003, the United States invaded Iraq. This was, ostensibly, to rid that country of so-called weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein, then the leader of Iraq, had welcomed Hans Blix, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) into Iraq to search peacefully for such weapons. Mr. Blix and his team were gaining unprecedented access to any area of the country they requested, and were finding nothing. Finally, before they had exhausted their search, U.S. President George Bush told Mr. Blix to remove his team from Iraq; his invasion as coming. Shortly thereafter, he began bombing Iraq. This resulted in the destruction of the Iraqi infrastructure, the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children, and the displacement of millions more.” Fantina concluded his lecture by arguing that, “This is the mighty United States, that self-proclaimed beacon of peace and justice. This is international hypocrisy at its most blatant and deadly. People within the U.S. and without are working tirelessly to resolve these issues, but they are opposed by powerful interest groups. Yet such shocking cruelty and violations of international law and the human rights of millions of innocent people cannot continue forever. The end of the injustices perpetrated by the United States will be a welcome day across the globe.” Sohrab Salahi, Assistant Professor at Law Department of Imam Hossein University, was the next speaker who discussed ‘US and Human Rights Violations during the Occupation of Iraq’. “From a strategic viewpoint, the occupation of Iraq in 2003 by the American forces was aimed at implementing Washington’s Greater Middle East plan to turn the United States into the world’s dominant hegemonic power. However, from a legal viewpoint, violation of human rights by the former Iraqi government in addition to preventing the proliferation of the weapons of mass destruction and the Iraqi Baathist regime’s support for terrorist groups, were three excuses used by Americans to invade Iraq”, he said. Dr. Hassan Hosseini, Professor of Department of American Studies at the Faculty of World Studies of University of Tehran, was the next speaker who lectured on ‘Ruling the Waves, Waving the Rules; A Civilizational Analysis of Humans, Rights and Human Rights’. “Human rights in the contemporary sense of the word and practice is an example of this British and now American practice of ruling the waves and waving the rules”, he said. The next speaker was Dr. Hakimeh Saghaye-Biria, Ph.D. in American Studies from Faculty of World Studies of University of Tehran. In her speech, ‘Human Rights and Americanizing Soft Power Discourses: Hegemony and Counter-hegemony’, she argued that “the language of human rights is the newest Americanizing soft power discourse through which the United States seeks to legitimize its hegemony around the world. However, it is suggested here that the American utilization of the human rights discourse as a legitimization tool is backfiring just as the narrative of modernization backfired and gave rise to the counter-narrative of dependency.” The other speaker at the conference was Dr. Seyyed Ebrahim Hosseini, Assistant Professor at Imam Khomeini Educational and Research Institute. In his speech, ‘Defense of Human Rights in Islamic and International Law; A Comparative Analysis’, he argued that, “The principle of “non-intervention” and the principle of the “prohibition on the use of force” as stated in the UN Charter are among general rules governing international relations. In both Islamic and international law systems, the two principals have been accepted in substance. The two have, however, introduced cases of exception to both principles.” The final speaker at the international conference on “The United States, Human Rights and the Discourse of Domination” was Dr. Foad Izadi, Director of the Center on Foreign Policy and Public Diplomacy Research of the University of Tehran, who lectured about ‘American Democracy and Human Rights Faults’. He said, “The latest presidential elections in the US was a special one and this was evident in the debates between the main candidates of the dominant parties. Ultimately, millions of Americans preferred Trump, as an antisystem candidate, over the other one. They expect to limit the role of money in their country’s policies and hope to do so with a change in the real politics of the US. Currently, American democracy is largely based upon money and the role of the public in politics is less than before.” Member of the Faculty of World Studies continued, “In addition to economic inequality, there is the issue of racial discrimination in the United States. Today, about one-tenth of the American families own a wealth of more than 90 percent of the public. The gap between blacks and whites is another issue. Racial minorities in the United States encounter three racial injustices; physical violence, political violence, and legal violence.” Dr. Izadi concluded his remarks by adding that, “Trump, as an antistructure candidate, could absorb American votes. Certainly, the future America will see more dissents and opposition movements.”

The 12th professional meeting of “UNESCO Chairs Program at University of Tehran”: Digital Turn in Literary Discourse The 12th professional meeting of “UNESCO Chairs Program in Culture and Cyberspace: Dual Speciation of the World” was held by Dr. Abdullah Karimzadeh, scholar of cultural studies in literature and researcher in cyberspace studies, on Monday, June 12, 2017, in Iran Hall of the Faculty of World Studies.

Scholars and professionals of cyberspace attended the meeting where Dr. Karimzadeh discussed the digital turn in literary discourse. “Social theorists have called the contemporary society by many names to describe and analyze the current social status and the modern human being. Network society, communicative society, informational society, consumer society, individualized society, panoptic society, industrial society, knowledge-based society, postmodern society, globalized society, and mediated society are some examples. In reaction to these discursive structures, literary studies has witnessed various turns, including linguistic, cultural, historical, narrative, moral, spatial, cybernetic, and digital.” Commenting on the role of literary theory in reacting to modernism and modernity and their outcomes for society, he argued that literature has changed in form and content and new genres have emerged to respond to digitalized experiences with culture. “Cyberpunk is one these new genres which gave birth to a new literary wave known as “Cybernetic Literature”.

It is a reaction to fear of being controlled and is rooted in Foucault’s Panopticism theory.” Dr. Karimzadeh also mentioned the concept of Cyborg Writing as one of the other literary genres which emerged after the cybernetic turn. “In this new genre, the protagonists are new creatures, “Cyborgs”. They are hybrids of humans and machines.” He continued that, “an outcome of the evolutions in the contemporary society is the changes in cultures and digitization of cultures. In a critical response to these evolutions, literature also changed and digital literature was born. We have “Flash Fiction”, “Parody”, and “Hyperfiction” in this new form. The session continued by a comprehensive discussion on various forms of digital influences on literature and the role of cyberspace in defining the writers and readers in the contemporary literary world.