Scholars of the sociology of intellectuals have proposed that the decline of public intellectuals is due to two factors: the result of the professionalization of academic disciplines and political shocks in transitional societies through social movements and revolutions. Eyal and Buchholz (Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 117–137, 2010) instead argue that a new mode of intellectual intervention takes place in an “interstitial domain”; that is, a blurry space between the political field and academia. Absent in the literature of the sociology of intellectuals and interventions is the impact of varying perceptions of regime dynamics on shifting modes of political intervention that can pave the way for the depoliticization of public intellectuals. Drawing from Eyal and Buchholz, this study examines the depoliticization of public intellectuals and particularly religious public intellectuals, during Iran’s 2013 presidential race. The political authority of public intellectuals was challenged by an emergent generation of tech-savvy activists with “high journalistic profiles.” I argue that a new generation of activists intervened in the election across the overlapping space of journalism, digital activism, and political activism. As the new generation of activists “movementized” the election on Facebook—developing a different perception of the political regime and the election—against conservative candidates (“regime insiders”), they portrayed the moderate candidate as the “regime outsider.” Prominent public intellectuals framed all presidential candidates as regime insiders, however. By analyzing the “hope and despair narratives” of the 2013 election, this study relates the depoliticization of public intellectuals to digital activism of the new generation of activists to make sense of the “digital generational gap.”
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
I owe this phrase to Jen Schradie (2018).
Hashemi was one of the founding fathers of the Islamic Republic of Iran (I.R.I) after the 1979 revolution.
A more exhaustive sample of representations of religious public intellectuals in the conservative outlets, as well as their papers and comments, which were published in Kian and Zanan, will be provided by the author upon the request.
Ali Rabii, one of the leading reformists turned to the minister of labor in the Rohani’s first government, reported this surge of support and excitement as follows: “Had not been disqualified, Hashemi would have won the election by sweeping victory of forty million votes” (Aseman Weekly, July 27, 2013).
According to the Guardian Council’s official report, Hashemi’s age (78) persuaded the Council to disqualify him from the presidential race (sharghdaily.ir, July 27, 2013).
Mohsen Renani, one of the most sociologically oriented economists, clearly explains disillusionment of public intellectuals in 2013: “...It is rather ironic and unique in the modern Iranian history; right now, ordinary people are concerned and active, but reformists and intellectuals are frustrated. We should be realistic like ordinary people… we should try to choose a non-militarist president, even if he is not among reformists.” (sharghdaily.ir, June 1, 2013)
Rather than using “conservative” (mohafezekar), Iranian conservatives self-identify as principlist (osulgra). See Mohebian (2000).
Due to the privacy issue, all nonpublic references from the Facebook pages have been quoted after getting the permission of Facebook activists.
It should be mentioned that the late Ali Shariati and the late Mehdi Bazargan are known to be the first generation of Iranian religious public intellectuals.
Additionally, other young activists/journalists such as the previously mentioned Hooman Doorandish (May 25, 28, and 30, 2013), Matin Ghaffarian (March 12, May 28, 2013), Sajjad Salek (June 13, 2013), Pouyan Fakhraie (June 11, 2013), and Mojtaba Najafi (June 11, June 12, 2013), and so forth produced Facebook texts encouraging people to vote for reformist candidates before and after the disqualification of Hashemi.
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps
Amanat, A. (2009). Apocalyptic Islam and Iranian Shi’ism. London: I. B. Tauris.
Ayatollahi Tabaar, M. (2018). Religious statecraft: The politics of Islam in Iran. New York: Columbia University Press.
Baert, P., & Booth, J. (2012). Tensions within the public intellectual: Political interventions from Dreyfus to the new social media. International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society, 25, 111–126.
Bayat, A. (2007). Making Islam democratic: Social movements and the post-Islamist turn. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bennet, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2014). The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bond, R., & Messing, S. (2015). Quantifying social media’s political space: Estimating ideology from publicly revealed preferences on Facebook. American Political Science Review, 109(1), 62–78.
Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo academicus. Translated by Collier P. Stanford. California: Sanford University Press.
Bozoki, A. (1999). Introduction. In A. Bozoki (Ed.), Intellectuals and politics in Central Europe (pp. 1–15). Budapest: Central European University Press.
Calhoun, C., Joseph, G., James, M., Steven, P., & Indermohan, V. (2012). Contemporary sociological theory. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Collins, R. (1998). The Sociologies of philosophies: A global theory of intellectual change. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Culic, I. (1999). The strategies of intellectuals: Romania under communist rule in comparative perspective. In A. Bozoki (Ed.), Intellectuals and politics in Central Europe (pp. 43–71). Budapest: Central European University Press.
Daghagheleh, A. (2018). Ambivalent voting behavior: Ideology, efficacy, and the socioeconomic dynamic of voter turnout in Iran, 1997–2005. Sociological Forum, 33(4), 1023–1044.
Diamond, L. (2010). Liberation technology. Journal of Democracy, 21(3), 69–83.
Drezner, D. W. (2017). The ideas industry. New York: Oxford University Press.
Earl, J. (2013). Studying online activism: The effects of sampling design on findings. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 18(4), 389–406.
Earl, J., & Kimport, K. (2011). Digitally enabled social change: Activism in the internet age. Cambridge: MIT Press.
English, R., & Kenny, M. (2001). Public intellectuals and the question of British decline. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 3, 259–283.
Eyal, G., & Buchholz, L. (2010). From the sociology of intellectuals to the sociology of interventions. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 117–137.
Flores, R. D. (2017). Do anti-immigration laws shape public sentiment? A study of Arizona’s SB 1070 using twitter data. The American Journal of Sociology, 123(2), 333–384.
Frickle, S., & Gross, N. (2005). A general theory of scientific/intellectual movements. American Sociological Review, 70, 204–232.
Ghamari-Tabrizi, B. (2008). Islam and dissent in postrevolutionary Iran: Abdolkarim Soroush, religious politics and democratic reform. London: I.B. Tauris.
Gilbert, L., & Mohseni, P. (2011). Beyond authoritarianism: The conceptualization of hybrid regimes. Studies in Comparative International Development, 46, 270–297.
Gross, N. (2003). Richard Rorty’s pragmatism: A case study in the sociology of ideas. Theory and Society, 32(1), 93–148.
Hanna, A. (2016). Automated coding of protest event data: development and applications. Ph.D. dissertation in sociology. University of Wisconsin-Madison, ProQuest number: 10190827.
Harris, K. (2012). The brokered exuberance of the middle class: An ethnographic analysis of Iran’s 2009 green movement. Mobilization: An International Journal, 17, 435–455.
Harris, K. (2015). The breakaway boss: Semiperipheral innovations and the rise of Mahmoud Ahmadinezhad. Journal of World System Research, 21(2), 417–447.
Harris, K. (2016). All the Sepah’s men: Iran’s revolutionary guards in theory and practice. In E. Grawert & Z. Abul-Magd (Eds.), Businessmen in arms: How the military and other armed groups profit in the MENA region (pp. 97–117). Lanham: Rowmand & Littlefield.
Hashemi, N., & Postel, D. (2010). The people reloaded: The green movement and the struggle for Iran's future. New York: Melville House Publishing.
Howard, P. N. (2010). The digital origins of dictatorship and democracy: Information technology and political Islam. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Howard, P. N. (2013). Democracy’s fourth wave? Digital media and the Arab spring. New York: Oxford University Press.
Jacoby, R. (1987). The last intellectuals: American culture in the age of academe. New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers.
Kadivar, M. A. (2013). Alliances and perception profiles in the Iranian reform movement, 1997 to 2000. American Sociological Review, 78(6), 1063–1086.
Kazemi, A. (2004). Jameshenasi-e roshanfekri-e dini dar Iran. Tehran: Tarhe No.
Kempny, M. (1996). Between politics and culture: Is a convergence between the east-European intelligentsia and Western intellectuals possible? Polish Sociological Review, 116, 297–305.
King, L. P., & Szelenyi, I. (2004). Theories of the new class: Intellectuals and powers. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Kurzman, C., & Leahey, E. (2004). Intellectuals and democratization: 1905-1912 and 1989-1996. The American Journal of Sociology, 109, 937–986.
Kurzman, C., & Owens, L. (2002). The sociology of intellectuals. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 63–90.
Mannheim, K. (1968). Ideology and utopia: An introduction to the sociology of knowledge. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World Inc..
Medvetz, T. (2012). Think tanks in America. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Misztal, B. A. (2012). Public intellectuals and think tanks: A free market in ideas? International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 25(4), 127–141.
Mohebian, A. (2000). Rast, mohafezekri va ghodrat. In M. Ghoochani (Ed.), Dolat-i diniva din-i dolati. Tehran: Saraee Publication.
Nettle, J. P. (1969). Ideas, intellectuals, and structures of dissent. In P. Rieff (Ed.), On intellectuals: Theoretical studies, case studies (pp. 53–122). Garden City: Doubleday & Company.
Posner, R. A. (2003). Public intellectuals: A study of decline. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Sadri, A. (1992). Max Weber’s sociology of intellectuals. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sadri, M., & Sadri, A. (2000). Introduction. In S. Mahmoud & S. Ahmad (Eds.), Reason, freedom and democracy in Islam: essential writings of Abdolkarim Soroush (pp. ix–xix). New York: Oxford University Press.
Schradie, J. (2018). The digital activism gap: How class and costs shape online collective action. Social Problems, 65, 51–74.
Schradie, J. (2019). The revolution that wasn’t: How digital activism favors conservatives. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Schwartz-Shea, P., & Yanow, D. (2012). Interpretive research design: Concepts and processes. New York: Routledge.
Shils, E. (1972). The intellectuals and the powers: Some perspectives for comparative analysis. In S. Edward (Ed.), The intellectuals and the powers and other essays (pp. 3–22). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Tănăsoiu, C. (2008). Intellectuals and post-communist politics in Romania: An analysis of public discourse, 1990–2000. East European Politics and Societies, 22(1), 80–113.
Tufekci, Z. (2013). ‘Not this one:’ Social movements, the attention economy, and microcelebrity networked activism. The American Behavioral Scientist, 57(7), 848–870.
Tufekci, Z., & Wilson, C. (2012). Social media and decision to participate in political protest: Observation from Tahrir Square. The Journal of Communication, 62, 363–379.
Vissers, S., & Stolle, D. (2014). Spill-over effects between Facebook and on/offline political participation? Evidence from a two-wave panel study. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 11, 259–275.
Conflict of Interest
The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Human and Animal Participants
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Teimouri, A. Passing the Torch: Iran’s 2013 Surprise, the Digital Generational Gap, and the Depoliticization of Public Intellectuals. Int J Polit Cult Soc (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10767-020-09367-3
- The depoliticization of public intellectuals
- Perceptions of regime dynamics
- The digital generational gap
- Iran’s presidential election