Exile, identity, and activism in the Iranian diaspora

Following the 1979 Revolution and the rise of the Islamic Republic, many Iranians were forced into exile, reshaping their sense of identity and belonging in the diaspora.Footnote ⁵ Despite shared migration causes, the Iranian diaspora remains politically divided, encompassing a broad spectrum of ideologies—from monarchists to Marxists—often leading to fragmentation within diaspora communities.Footnote ⁶ However, the Jin, Jiyan, Azadî movement reinvigorated feminist networking both within the Iranian diaspora and with protesters in Iran.Footnote ⁷ Cyberspace had already played a crucial role before the uprising and continued to do so. Social media platforms such as Instagram amplified the movement’s messages, enabling the diaspora to share protests and challenge state-driven censorship.Footnote ⁸

This development highlights the evolving relationship between exile and diaspora. These two concepts are interconnected but differ significantly in meaning and implications. Exile typically refers to forced displacement and a strong desire to return, shaping identity through political activism.Footnote ⁹ In contrast, diaspora encompasses broader experiences, including “voluntary” migration and transnational networks, allowing for more fluid, hybrid identities that adapt to different cultural contexts while maintaining ties to their origin.Footnote ¹⁰ However, as Ghorashi and Boersma examine, identities within the Iranian diaspora have transformed in response to transnational connections, shifting from an exclusive exilic identity to a more inclusive network facilitating solidarity and political action across borders.Footnote ¹¹ These evolving dynamics blur the boundaries between exile and diaspora, yet some distinctions remain.Footnote ¹²

Willfulness as resistance: a theoretical framework

I employ Sara Ahmed’s concept of willfulness as a theoretical framework to understand self-exile as a form of feminist resistance.Footnote ¹³ Ahmed describes willfulness as a form of persistence or insistence on one’s own will against persuasion, instruction, or command, often perceived as stubborn and irrational. It is an act of resistance against societal norms, a subversive refusal to conform to established flows of power that seek to constrain agency and autonomy. The willful subject resists, refusing to yield to expectations that dictate submission or compliance.Footnote ¹⁴ In Ahmed’s framework, willfulness is not merely an attribute of personality but a political stance that emerges through repeated acts of resistance. Importantly, willfulness is often embodied and affective—it manifests in how bodies position themselves in space, how they claim presence, and how they refuse to be directed.Footnote ¹⁵ As Ahmed notes, marginalized bodies, in particular, are marked as willful when they refuse to yield, demanding presence and autonomy.Footnote ¹⁶

Here, the decision to embrace visibility in the context of known political consequences should not be interpreted merely as expressive activism, but as an enactment of willfulness that foregrounds feminist agency. In Ahmed’s framework, this willfulness operates as both disruption and orientation, disrupting dominant logics of obedience while simultaneously orienting the subject toward an alternative political horizon, even at the cost of exile.

Exile by choice, not without coercion

Unlike conventional forms of exile that often follow forced displacement, self-exile emerges within the diaspora as a conscious political decision to embrace visibility at the cost of return. This shift reflects a particular form of exile—one not imposed through direct expulsion but actively chosen as a consequence of political commitment. However, this does not suggest that conventional forms of exile lack resistance or conscious political decision-making — on the contrary, they often involve such acts under even greater threats to life and security. Rather, what distinguishes self-exile in this context is that the decision to become politically visible, and thus unable to return, is made outside of Iran, within the diaspora itself. And yet, the phenomenon of self-exile is anything but new: it has resurfaced with every major protest in Iran—from the 1979 Revolution to the 2009 Green Movement, and again during the Jin, Jiyan, Azadî uprising.

What makes the self-exile of the feminists interviewed for this study distinct is their conscious and strategic navigation of visibility, a continual negotiation of when to remain unseen and when to become visible as part of their political praxis. They had been politically active in Iran before migrating and remained connected afterward through regular travel to Iran and sustained engagement via social media, while keeping their activism intentionally discreet to retain the option of return. The Jin, Jiyan, Azadî uprising, however, became a turning point: in response to its urgency and affective intensity, these feminists willfully chose public visibility, fully aware that it would likely close the path to return. This decision, as framed by Sara Ahmed’s concept of willfulness, constitutes a feminist refusal to be governed by fear and an assertion of political agency. At the same time, as Nader Talebi argues, the uprising dissolved the rigid boundaries between “inside” and “outside,” creating a transnational space in which care replaced fear and diasporic activism became intensely connected to the struggles in Iran. Social media played a central role in enabling this blurring of borders, amplifying both connection and consequence.Footnote ¹⁹ While self-exile remains a recurring response to repression, its re-articulation during the Jin, Jiyan, Azadî uprising as a deliberate, embodied feminist stance reveals both continuity and transformation. Documenting this dynamic is essential—not only to historicize self-exile as a form of resistance, but also to make visible the evolving costs and conditions under which feminist subjectivities are forged across borders.

One participant described how her perception of living outside Iran evolved, particularly during the uprising. Initially, she had just come to terms with the fact that her presence in Germany was permanent and had begun engaging in homemaking efforts. However, the uprising momentarily reignited hope for a possible return, only to ultimately reinforce the permanence of self-exile, causing a sense of turmoil. She emphasized that politics in Germany and Iran remain equally significant; a duality reflecting the broader tension between the desire to contribute to the political transformation of Iran and the process of navigating the realities of life in the diaspora. Another interviewee reflected on the moment she chose to engage in public activism during the uprising, fully aware that it could mean permanently closing the door to Iran as long as the current regime remained in power. Although she recognized the consequences, this was not a passive awareness but an intentional decision made despite the risk, accompanied by the hope that change might still permit her return. She described the loneliness that followed, as well as the weight of knowing that exile was no longer just a circumstance but a defining element of her identity.

These testimonies reveal that self-exile extends beyond physical displacement; here, it involves navigating identity and belonging in response to an uprising occurring in a distant yet connected geography. The hope for change motivated visible political action, ultimately leading to exile.Footnote ²⁰ The consequences of self-exile manifested deeply in the form of loneliness and inner turmoil, as the price of resistance often includes emotional distress and, at times, isolation. While the distinction between self-exile and forced exile points to a particular political temporality, the binary itself requires caution. The Testimonies show that migration is rarely wholly voluntary or wholly coerced. Instead, it arises from overlapping pressures that blur clear boundaries. To frame self-exile as an expression of agency does not erase the coercive structures shaping such choices. Rather, it draws attention to how constraint and resistance intertwine within exilic subjectivities.

Self-exile as willfulness

The decision to engage in activism that renders return impossible can be understood through Ahmed’s concept of willfulness.Footnote ²¹ The choice for self-exile is not merely a forced response to external circumstances but a conscious act of defiance against repressive conditions. Self-exile becomes an ambivalent space in which new forms of political identity can emerge through refusal and repositioning.

The decision to self-exile can be seen as an act of willfulness, illustrated by one participant’s recollection of the early days of Germany’s 2022 protests in support of the Jin, Jiyan, Azadî uprising, when she attended these demonstrations wearing a mask in order to avoid recognition. Over time, however, a different kind of defiance emerged from within her—one directed against fear itself. As she removed the mask, she did not do so because she suddenly felt safer; rather, it was an act of rejecting the ever-present weight of fear, a refusal to carry it any longer. Ahmed discusses how willfulness is often framed negatively but can also be a potent form of protest against what is imposed. Discarding the mask is in this case a willful declaration of not willing to be defined and governed by fear any longer.Footnote ²²

In another testimony, a participant articulated the bodily dimension of this resistance, describing the experience of moving freely and expressing oneself openly as a form of liberation. Her decision to self-exile stemmed from the desire for greater control over her own body and the fundamental right to exist without fear. This account highlights how self-exile represents the intertwining of political and bodily processes. Visibility is not merely a symbolic act but a concrete form of resistance involvingd the body: the decision to be visible means asserting one’s body against an ongoing structure of control and invisibility. Surveillance exerts itself as a bodily constraint—limiting movement, dictating posture, and forcing practices of disappearance. To reclaim visibility is to reclaim bodily autonomy. As Ahmed notes, willfulness can emerge from a resistance to what is already willed or assumed to be the common will, and the choice to inhabit one’s body without fear embodies this defiant stance.Footnote ²³ In this specific case, the common will is the expectation of invisibility, a condition imposed to ensure the possibility of return. To resist this demand—to make oneself visible despite the risks—disrupts the logic that ties survival to erasure, asserting presence as an act of defiance. Visibility in this context functions as a material politics of presence: to be visible is to re-signify one’s body from object of surveillance to subject of defiance.

For another participant, exile was marked by a contradiction between loss and newfound freedom. While the inability to return represented a definitive break, it also created opportunities for personal transformation. Over time, perspectives on belonging shift, with some embracing transformation in both their political identity and sense of self. The experience of exile becomes inscribed on the body through the ways one moves, speaks, and claims space differently. Rather than being solely a space of deprivation, exile becomes a site of profound change and growth, where the body, once constrained, now moves with new agency.

The decision to self-exile, as illuminated by these accounts, is not merely a passive consequence of external pressures; it is an act of willfulness according to Sara Ahmed’s understanding, involving a willful assertion of bodily autonomy, a willful rejection of pervasive fear, and a willful embrace of self-transformation in the face of loss.

The ambivalence of self-exile: beyond romanticization

While self-exile can be understood as an act of willful resistance, it is important not to romanticize this experience. The testimonies reveal the deep emotional conflicts, pain, and moral dilemmas accompanying self-exile.

One interviewee described her ongoing inner conflict, expressing feeling emotionally trapped. The inability to return to Iran weighs heavily: the transition from maintaining a hidden identity to embracing visibility is not just a political choice but an emotional and psychological struggle. The realization that returning is no longer an option brings a complex mix of emotions.

Despite feeling justified in her decision, another participant mentioned grappling with the guilt of leaving loved ones behind, particularly family members who can no longer be easily visited. She articulated that even the relationship with fear itself remains a constant struggle. Even after the decision to self-exile, fear remains inscribed in the body, becoming a bodily experience that manifests in daily sensations. This perpetual confrontation with fear becomes both a rebellion and a form of endurance—a continual engagement with fear that never fully dissipates. Fear, along with the resistance against it, remains an inseparable companion in this process.

These testimonies highlight how resistance is both an act of rebellion and a constant confrontation with emotions, responsibility, and belonging. Even though Ahmed’s understanding of willfulness helps to view exile as resistance through refusal to submit oneself to mechanisms of invisibility and control, it should not be overlooked that this process is also associated with loss, deep emotional conflict, pain, and moral dilemmas.

Discussion and conclusion

This analysis of self-exile among Iranian feminist activists in Germany during the Jin, Jiyan, Azadî uprising reveals several insights into the evolving nature of exile, diaspora, and feminist resistance.

First, self-exile represents a distinct form of exile: rather than beginning with forced departure from one’s country of origin, self-exile emerges from a conscious political choice made from the diaspora. This adds to the idea that exile and diaspora are no longer clearly separated concepts; they increasingly overlap.Footnote ²⁴

Second, through the lens of Ahmed’s concept of willfulness, self-exile can be understood as a form of feminist resistance that is both embodied and affective.Footnote ²⁵ The decision to engage in visible political activism at the cost of being able to return represents a willful stance against repressive structures—a refusal to be constrained by fear and control. As the testimonies reveal, this resistance is often conceived, expressed, and experienced bodily and emotionally.

Third, while self-exile can be empowering, it is important not to romanticize this experience. The testimonies highlight the profound emotional turmoil, loss, and moral dilemmas that accompany self-exile. The participants expressed deep ambivalence about their decisions—feeling both liberated and constrained, empowered and deprived. This ambivalence underscores the need for nuanced understandings of exile that acknowledge both its liberating potential and its painful realities.

Fourth, the extended reach of the Islamic Republic’s repressive apparatus beyond Iran’s geographical borders adds a crucial dimension to understanding self-exile. The regime’s ability to project power transnationally means that the space of diaspora is never entirely free from its influence, making the choice for visibility and political engagement all the more significant as an act of willful resistance.

This analysis argues that self-exile among Iranian feminist activists is part of a longer historical continuum of political displacement, which has significantly shaped the Iranian diaspora. While the 2022 uprising reignited and reshaped this dynamic, self-exile has also been a recurring response to repression following events such as the 2009 Green Movement. The interviews conducted in this later phase highlight a distinctive feature: the explicit articulation of exile as a willful and embodied form of feminist resistance chosen by those already active in Iran and intensified and made more visible by a renewed sense of political urgency in the diaspora. While this framing emerges most clearly in the current moment, it does not preclude the possibility that similar motivations and articulations were present in earlier periods of self-exile. aken together, this analysis contributes to a more nuanced understanding of exile as a historically situated yet continually reconfigured practice within the Iranian diaspora.