You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Something remains on the body after war, not as memory, not as narrative, but as a persistence that refuses both.
The figure that emerges is neither hero nor defeated, but survivor who, in the absence of the hero, still carries the burden of its accounting.
From a postcolonial perspective, this position is that of a subject whom Fanon understands as bearing a violence inscribed first and foremost upon body and psyche, and whom Spivak describes as incapable of speaking within the framework of dominant regimes of intelligibility.
And yet, neither quite accounts for what persist when speaking is not absent, but unusable.
In queer psychoanalysis, this marginalized body is not merely the object of suffering but can be the site of the return of the Real: a place where violence, erasure, and desire have sedimented simultaneously, and where knowledge is produced from the wound rather than from security.
I write from there: not from the battlefield, but from the bodies that did not wage the war and yet live its effects and yet continue to carry it. Not outside it. Not after it.
At the outset, I find it necessary to insist upon a distinction that is often—deliberately or inadvertently—erased in international discourse:
the distinction between Iran and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Iran as its diverse, contradictory, wounded, and living people;
the Islamic Republic as a colonial-religious, systematic, and repressive project that reproduces its life through erasure, death, and the continuous production of crisis.