In 1934, for example, when three graduates of the American secondary school – where contrary to other secondary schools English was taught instead of French – began to study at the Teachers College, an English class was instituted and ‘Abdolhoseyn Sheybani, who taught medieval history and had worked for a while at the University of Cambridge as assistant to professor Edward G. Browne, was put in charge of the class. Russian language and literature were introduced in the academic year 1936/37 when Fatemeh Sayyah returned from Russia.51 Thus it is hardly surprising that in the study guides (rahnama, a mixture of yearbook, curricula, and course descriptions) of the University of Tehran, areas and courses of studies were listed for which no teacher was explicitly named. Certainly, it would have been possible to find someone who had studied in Germany among the instructors to teach German alongside his actual discipline.
This pragmatic mode of operation, which is a constituent element of the modernization process in Iran, commonly has to face a western explanatory model that is not consistent with it: the assumption that the foundation of universities in Middle Eastern and Third World countries is the direct result of a transfer of knowledge. The fact that the University of Tehran did belie the initially high expectations and that its ambitious aims were not fully achieved is generally explained by a lack of awareness of the difficulties generated by transferring a system of teaching from one country or culture to another. A closer examination shows that a conscious and consistent transfer did not occur and the Iranian reformers as well as the French, German, and American academics who were involved in the establishment of the University of Tehran were well aware of the problems that would arise, but were not able to avoid or solve them immediately – and these problems were not or not directly due to a failed process of knowledge transfer.
A comprehensive study of the faculties, the staff, the curricula, the student body, and the administration of the University of Tehran, with special focus on the question of whether and how the pre-existing institutions and their fields of study had changed after their integration into the university,52 reveals a phenomenon that from a western perspective has been determined as a manifestation of conscious modernization efforts, but in fact was only the result of a very specific demand for action by some individuals and its pragmatic and swift implementation. In my opinion – contrary to the widespread and commonly accepted notion of the decisive role of intellectuals in the Iranian modernization process – not the intellectuals, but the pragmatists initiated the modernization process and kept it going. The Iranian intellectuals tended to create concepts of modernization that were abstract and rarely precise or specific. Their concepts had either nothing to do with the realities of their time or were not adapted once certain paradigms changed. The pragmatists achieved their respective goals by observing and reflecting on realities and did not get tired of adjusting them continuously to changing circumstances. Each pragmatist had his quite personal and very specific concept that had been shaped by his own experiences and his individual career. These individuals who took an active part in the modernization of their country were subject to change in the same way that the concepts of “modern” and “modernization” did not remain static.
In its first years of existence, the University of Tehran presents itself as a mixture of highly diverse approaches and traditions which it is impossible to ascribe to one closed system alone. Much is owed to French models because of the intensive and long-lasting Iranian–French contacts in higher education. In most of the Iranian institutions of higher education French instructors had been employed, and since French was for many decades the only foreign language taught at secondary schools in Iran, most Iranians who went abroad to study decided on a university in France, mainly in Paris. Those among them who returned to Iran and were employed in the Ministry of Education or at one of the institutions of higher education resorted to their experiences in France for their conception of laws and statutes, as well as their daily work as teachers. As a result, many French elements like the grading system and the names of degrees can (still) be found in the Iranian educational system. However, the French system of higher education was not transferred as a complete and coherent system, but in small single pieces. Moreover, in the University of Tehran elements were combined which are strictly separated in the French system. The most important difference to the University of Paris was the integration of technical and artistic branches that in France were and are still taught in the grandes écoles, that is outside the universities. The incorporation of the Teachers College, which initially called itself École normale supérieure following its French model, would have been a faux pas from a French point of view.
The Teachers College as the nucleus of the University of Tehran: the contribution of ‘Isa Sadiq
