A Critique of the Impasse in Dialogue and Scientific Deficits at the Institute for Oriental Studies
Introduction:
This open letter was written to the Rector of the University of Vienna following repeated, unanswered academic and administrative inquiries. It serves to criticize the prevailing approach at the Institute for Oriental Studies, particularly regarding the systematic exclusion of Iranian civilization and the reductionist treatment of Islamic studies. With a diagnostic perspective, the author warns against the transformation of this academic institution into an “isolated island” where ideological constraints overshadow free thought, calling for a return to authentic academic standards.
To the Rectorate of the University of Vienna,
Distinguished Rector,
I trust this letter finds you well. I apologize for taking up your time once again. In my view, the University of Vienna stands as one of Europe’s most prestigious institutions, having played a monumental role in the scientific progress of both the modern era and the contemporary world. Many of the world’s greatest scholars have emerged from this university, a fact that commands universal respect. A defining hallmark of the modern academic world is its commitment to freedom of thought and the clear distinction between scholarly labor and socio-political or ideological activities. It is, however, difficult to deny that the concerns of eminent thinkers regarding the erosion of intellectual freedom within European and American universities are increasingly justified.
I have personally requested a meeting with you on two occasions. My intent was twofold: to personally express my gratitude for the University of Vienna’s long-standing contributions to Oriental Studies—and its indirect role in Iranian Studies—and to offer several proposals aimed at addressing specific, fundamental deficits and weaknesses, informed by new and far-reaching perspectives. Your office correctly and respectfully informed me that, due to the specialized nature of the subject, a discussion with the Institute for Oriental Studies would be necessary. Your office even forwarded my request to said Institute. However, I had already reached out to the leadership of that Institute multiple times previously, without ever receiving a response.
Given the reputation of your prudent leadership and intellectual openness, I find myself questioning why it is impossible for me—an experienced Iranian scholar in the fields of Islamic philosophy and political thought, a former head of a major research institute in Iran, and the author of numerous books and articles—to meet with the Director of the Institute for Oriental Studies. Is there a form of restriction or sanction imposed by the Republic of Austria that has not been officially communicated to us? Or has the space for freedom at the Institute become so constrained that a meeting with a cultural representative of Iran—who is himself a university professor—is perceived as a transgression?
I do not intend to ask you to demand an explanation from the Institute’s leadership or to mediate a meeting, as I no longer consider such a meeting appropriate for my professional standing. Nevertheless, not in my capacity as a cultural representative, but as an academic colleague with nearly thirty years of experience in the university environment, I wish to highlight several points regarding the Institute for Oriental Studies, in the hope that they may be of use to your institutional reflections.
First: This Institute lacks both a scientifically grounded, critically reflected interpretation of Oriental Studies and a corresponding comprehensive scientific strategy. Furthermore, it lacks institutional recognition of scientific plurality, displaying instead a somewhat caricatured approach to the field. The most glaring deficit in its scientific mapping is the marginalization of Iran’s 7,000-year-old civilization—a subject I have addressed extensively in the attached scientific statement, which I recommend for your perusal. Another significant flaw is the superficial engagement with the role and importance of the Persian language in understanding the deeper layers of Oriental Studies across vast regions of the Orient and the Islamic world. Similarly, the neglect of Shia Studies within Islamic Studies constitutes a central deficit, the significance of which would be obvious to any expert observer.
Second: The Institute has failed to maintain a sufficient space for free scientific criticism and open dialogue on complex questions within the field. Through a hierarchical posture toward professors and researchers, and the emergence of a form of scientific exclusivism, the Institute has become an “isolated island.” The consequence of this isolation is a lack of holistic vision and a limitation in the depth of its scientific output, as viewed by prominent Orientalists.
Should my critical observations be met with disagreement, I hereby expressly and with conviction declare my readiness to represent and defend these views in a scholarly debate with any professor from the Institute for Oriental Studies, conducted according to the established rules of academic discourse.
I thank you sincerely for the attention you have given to my correspondence and wish you continued success in your valuable endeavors. I am certain that a vibrant and experienced leadership—characterized by open-mindedness, a receptiveness to critique, and a high regard for scientific humility and epistemic plurality—will bring “new blood” into the veins of such institutions; an experience I have witnessed firsthand during my own years of leadership.
With the highest consideration,
Reza Gholami