Kevan Harris

THE RISE OF THE SUBCONTRACTOR STATE: POLITICS OF PSEUDO-PRIVATIZATION IN THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN

Since 2009, analyses of Iran have stressed the centralizing takeover of the countrys economy by a single state institution, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. At the same time, however, Irans factionalized political elite uniformly advocate for rapid privatization of state-owned enterprises. Underneath this puzzling contradiction is a complex shift of economic ownership away from the state toward a variety of parastatal organizations including banks, cooperatives, pension funds, foundations, and military-linked contractors. The result is not a praetorian monolith but a subcontractor state. This article draws on interviews conducted in Iran during 2009 and 2010, primary data from parliamentary and governmental reports, and secondary sources to show how intraelite conflict and nonelite claims have structured the process of privatization. Framed comparatively with privatization outcomes in other middle-income countries, Irans subcontractor state can be seen as a consequence of the way in which politics and society shaped the form of capitalism that has taken root in the Islamic Republic.

Do nomenklatura dream of capital strikes

Debates over the relative autonomy of the state have returned to welfare state theory, with an emphasis on the relative. Michael McCarthy’s (2017) Dismantling Solidarity: Capitalist Politics and American Pensions Since the New Deal asks us to pay serious attention to the fetters that private capital accumulation clamped on the feet of pension policymakers in the United States over the twentieth century. McCarthy argues that the theoretical action of welfare policy is inside the state itself. However, the state does not function as an autonomous and coherent apparatus, but rather as bundles of politicians and policymakers shaping pension regulation in response to perceived economic crises. In his book, capitalism is not some amorphous force with a capital C. Instead, a tiny capitalist avatar sits on the shoulder of every politician, alternately cooing or shrieking into their ear. Along the way, McCarthy gives a measured bow to neo-Marxian forebears, a respectful nod to historical institutionalists, and a sneaky wink to ideational constructivists. Below, I highlight all three gestures in the book and probe their payoffs. First, I discuss the contribution of Dismantling Solidarity for the conceptualization of welfare politics. Finally, I take a trip with McCarthy’s arguments to explore their relevance to other regions and time periods.

Middle East Studies for the New Millennium: Infrastructures of Knowledge:

openly and honestly? Schippers wants us to appreciate that such questions matter theoretically, sociologically, and politically. Polyamory subcultures provide Schippers with clues to how multipartnered sex can reconfigure selves and relationships in queer, feminist, and anti-racist ways. As presented in Beyond Monogamy, these clues are strongest regarding hegemonic relations between femininities and masculinities, though they extend to race and, to a lesser extent, class as well. Unlike polygyny, polyamory decreases competition for female partners because everyone has access to multiple partners, and polyamory subcultures tend to reject sexual double standards while encouraging open communication and interpersonal responsibility. Schippers argues that these basic feminist and queer-friendly blueprints, combined with a DIY spirit, lead to self-reflective, conscientious decisions about how to do things not just differently, but better—for ourselves, for our lovers, even for our lovers’ lovers. And therein lies a key point: successful multipartnered relationships often necessitate what polyamorists refer to as compersion, finding joy in a partner’s experience of pleasure with another partner. Moreover, these other partners, or metamours in polyamoryspeak, should also be afforded respect and consideration. Within these generous bounds of intimacy and interpersonal responsibility lies the potential to build from the ground up—across gender, race, class, and sexuality and with equality, social justice, and an ethic of care built in. Beyond Monogamy will be of interest to sociologists and scholars of race, gender, and sexuality. The book does not provide the basic tenets of critical discussions of race, gender, or sexuality but assumes them as starting points in a complex theory-building discussion that is alternately dense and heavily worded, personally revealing and accessible, and even pornographic. One of the most captivating aspects of the book is Schipper’s use of graphic depictions of sex—both real (auto-ethnographic) and imagined (fictional narratives/vignettes). Using sex in these ways deconstructs the sacred/profane binary that marginalizes the explicitly erotic in scholarly work. It also bridges the gap between academic theorizing and polyqueer cultural practice. As Schippers points out, literary feminist theorists have a long history of exploring power and building theory through pornographic fictional narratives. Yet such lurid engagement of the erotic remains rare in sociology and perhaps rare in all of queer and cultural studies. Her focus on fantasy and fictional narratives also reflects the overarching goal of Beyond Monogamy—to look forward, expand conversation, and explore the possibilities of polyqueer sexualities for reconfiguring ourselves and building more just relationships and communities. In short, for doing things differently.