Movie Analysis: A Separation (2011)
A Separation by Asghar Farhadi is a deeply layered Iranian performance that examines marital dissolution while also exposing intricate social, legal and gender aspects in present-day Iran. As an Iranian movie lover, I have watched this movie before I took Critical Psychology lesson. It was gorgeous when I saw the performance of artists in movie. However, I watched it paying attention to certain concepts with the critical psychology perspectives. Asghar Farhadi fascinated me for the second time. I realized that the movie is a great way to look at how societal issues are experienced on a personal level since it explores topics such as class conflict, gender roles, judicial injustice (the movie is started in courtroom). In this essay, the societal issues raised in A Separation will be examined, along with the shortcomings of popular psychological frameworks and a difference of mainstream psychology and critical psychology.
1. How does the movie comment on a social issue?
A Separation is primarily about two families involved in a moral and legal conflict, but it also provides a detailed portrayal of the social divisions in Iranian society. From the starting scene, the movie emphasized the marital divorce case in the shade of moving abroad. Simin wants to leave Iran to offer a better future for their daughter in front of the judge, but Nader refuses to leave because of his father. Leaving a country for better future is common case in Turkey too, therefore I can empathize and comprehend that it is about systemic constraints rather than individuals’ desires.
In other words, class-based inequality and religious conservatism are emphasized in the movie in the shade of Raziyeh and Hodjat (her husband). They represent the lower-class in movie, Raziyeh conservative religious women works even though she is pregnant and doesn’t want to work because of her husband is unemployed and indebted. Raziyeh consults a religious hodja whether changing an elderly man’s clothes violates religious law serves as a powerful example of how gender, work and faith interact in daily life.
Lastly another societal critique in the movie is the judicial system, which is shown as ineffective, bureaucratic and patriarchal. Not everyone has equal access to justice like the Türkiye’s situation. Women like Raziyeh are disadvantaged by the law as well as moral pressure.
2. How does mainstream psychology praxis fall short in addressing these social issues?
I will explain the difference between mainstream psychology and critical psychology perspectives using characters’ features in question four more detailed. Primarily, mainstream psychology ignores how culture and institutions influence behavior and instead view conflicts as communication breakdowns or personal pathology. I do not think Nader and Simin’s marriage is not brought through by couple therapy. Because the problem between them is not just about anxiety or mental health like the mainstreams psychologists said. They are precious concepts for marriage. However, these views fail to consider the bigger picture, which includes the influence of social judgment, economic hardship, legal disparities, and religious norms.
When I volunteered at a charity organization in a Boğaziçi/Mamak (very lower income Ankara neighborhood), I realized standard mental health advice such as “just set boundaries” did not resonate with individuals whose lives in extreme conditions and were formed by multigenerational religious or traditional commitments. This disparity demonstrates how Western-centric mainstream psychological practices can fall short, like in A Separation.
3. In what ways do psychological theories contribute to the maintenance of the social issues at play in the movie?
In movie we absolutely see Iran is not individual culture. In Iran, relational duties and collectivist beliefs are more prevalent rather than the many psychological theories foundations are individualism, autonomy and rational choice. This gap between cultures frequently does not align with lived reality.
Get Abdulbasit’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
For example, moral development theory of Kohlberg’s might praise Simin because of her “advanced reasoning” and condemn Raziyeh’s religious worries as immature. However, in Iran society, asking a religious hodja if she may clean an elder man is not a sign of illogical behavior. In contrast, it is a question of moral consistency within an Islamic cultural context. Moreover, the person who does not breathe this cultural context never understands this questioning and seeks an answer.
4. How would perspectives of a mainstream psychologist and a critical psychologist differ in interpreting the movie?
As I mentioned in the second question, mainstream psychologists and critical psychologists have completely different perspectives when they interpret the movie and its characters. A mainstream psychologist might look at Nadir and Simin’s divorce through unsuitable partners and recommending couple therapy for emotional communication, they could diagnose Hodjat’s neurotic and Raziyeh’s anxiety.
At the same time, critical psychologists might inquire:
-What choices do these characters have as a result of class inequality?
-How do cultural and religious standards offer structure in A Separation?
I believe critical psychology must exist, it is the bond between mainstream psychology and real life. Most positive sciences lost their bond with real life. Academicians publish about abstract things and unrelated to real life such as present philosophy and theology departments. Critical psychology is the fence between reality and abstract. It must be protected and supported by mainstream psychology.
5. What are some shortcomings of some psychological perspectives that are complicated in the movie?
Many of psychology’s universalist presumptions are called into question in A Separation. It demonstrates that emotional control may be just as valid as emotional outbursts. Raziyeh’s silence is a survival and moral tactic, not a sign of weakness. On the other hand, mainstream psychology frequently assumes that “healthy communication” involves verbalizing every feeling or idea, which is not necessarily suitable for a specific culture.
Another limitation is the medicalization of suffering. It would be easy to pathologize Simin’s irritation and Hodjat’s anger and giving them antidepressant drugs. However, both cases are responding to structural forces such as restricted rights, injustice and unstable economies. The film serves as a reminder that distress is not just internal but may also be situational and collective.
In conclusion, more than just a family drama, A Separation is a powerful critique of the ways in which society structures influence individual lives. As a Turkish person, watching it got me thinking about how comparable factors such as class conflict, gender stereotypes, and family expectations affect lives of people in Türkiye as well. Mainstream psychology focused on individuals and symptoms often overlooks the complexity. A deeper comprehension of human behavior is provided by critical psychology which places a strong focus on context, culture, and power. Lastly, the movie makes me reconsider our definitions of morality, suffering, and agency in various social and cultural contexts as well as forcing me to empathize with its characters.
