Racket Theory

This paper focuses on Olmo Gölz’s articles as the case studies of luti masculinity and racket theory in two significant shifts in Iran’s modern history. First, by looking into the agency in the Constitutional Revolution and the coup d’état of 1953, I aim to compare and contrast both lutigari agencies. In this direction, I argue that both lutigari examples are not contradicting each other but indicate continuity in the ways of power crystallization and intensification of social control. In the second part, I zero in on the masculinity dimension of lutigari by arguing that luti is vague for analyzing masculine configurations. Lastly, the theories of Weber and Horkheimer-Adorno will be reconsidered to understand the structuring of domination and legitimacy-making in Iran. This paper concludes with skepticism toward the social evolutionary approach as seen in Weber contrary to Frankfurt School, and it suggests further research on lutigari or urban poor masculinity, for instance, looking into criminality and imprisonment experience.

The best way to encourage others to dislike a character is by demonizing the character. The process of demonization begins by using media which plays a significant role in shaping public opinion against the designated figure.

The players in this paper are Reza Shah Pahlavi, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi and England. England has a long grudge against the Pahlavi dynasty because it ended England's exploitation of Iran. Reza Shah Pahlavi ended the Qajar dynasty, which played in the hand of England. Reza Shah Pahlavi started purging Iran from England's divide and conquer policy of Iran by centralizing the political will of Iran and bringing peace, order and good government to Iran. Reza Shah Pahlavi furiously began to defend Iran's right to oil because England believed Iranians did not have a legal right to its oil. England had 100% ownership of Iran's oil, and England would toss a few pence to Iranians to buy a few goods for themselves. England deemed Iran as its colony. Reza Shah Pahlavi began to push England out of Iran and brought engineers from overseas to build Iran's infrastructure, particularly German engineers. England used German engineers as a pretext against Reza Shah Pahlavi as a Nazi sympathizer. England invaded Iran during World War Two and began to exploit Iran's oil. 

When England invaded Iran, Reza Shah Pahlavi abdicated the peacock throne, favouring his son ascending to the peacock throne. 

The above historical fact cannot be altered. However, England is always looking for a pigeonhole to introduce its version of view on Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi.

The focus of my dissertation is put on three of the most prominent and ambiguous figures in 20th century Iran: Nematollah Nassiri (1910-1979), Tayyeb Hajj Rezai (1912-1963), and Shaban Jafari (1921-2006). All three can be seen as paradigmatic actors who in their specific milieus possessed the capacity to control and conduct violence. All three actors are highly polarizing figures, bundling the public discourses both in the historical moment and in retrospective commemorative cultures. Therefore, the protagonists ideally demonstrate the processes, in which configurations of masculinity are determined and embedded in the discursive substructure of the prevailing gender order. Additionally, the different paths of life of these three men crossed on several significant occasions, coinciding with major events in Iranian history. Furthermore, evaluating the interactions of these actors is theoretically framed in terms of the theory of rackets of Horkeimer and Adorno, because the actors exemplify and confirm the hypothesis that cliquishness and racketeering are the fundamental factors in the formation of all societies.

Hauke Branding unternimmt eine kritische Rekonstruktion der von Horkheimer und Adorno in den 1940er Jahren fragmentarisch ausgearbeiteten Rackettheorie, um ihre Erklärungskraft für gegenwärtige Formen gesellschaftlicher und politischer Herrschaft auszuloten. Dabei werden die »soziologische Ebene«, die Rackets als konkrete soziale Gruppen erfasst, und die »gesellschaftstheoretische Ebene«, die Rackets als Form der Herrschaft in der nachliberalen Phase klassifiziert, unterschieden. Erst die analytische Unterscheidung, so die These, offenbart das aktuelle Potenzial der Rackettheorie und macht sie nutzbar für die Analyse neoliberal und postdemokratisch strukturierter gegenwärtiger Herrschaftsverhältnisse.