A nationally televised interview with Iranian President Mohammad Khatami January 7 elicited a number of friendly comments from all sides. But in focusing on the explicit content of his remarks, according to PNS associate editor William O. Beeman, officials and analysts may be overlooking the more subtle, and more important, suggestions embedded in his presentation. Beeman teaches anthropology at Brown University and is the author of Language, Status And Power In Iran. This is one of two articles today on the Khatami interview by William O. Beeman.

American officials hailed Iranian President Mohammad Khatami's call for better relations, focusing on the substance of his pronouncements. What they may well have missed is his more subtle message about how such a rapprochement could proceed.

For Iranians, it's all about the art of communications -- an art Americans often miss in their dealings with other nations.

For one thing, we do not appreciate the importance of status differences. For another, we believe contrition is not only honorable but a precondition of improving personal relations.

Americans actually despise status differences, and repress them, even when they are clearly present in interpersonal communication. For example, a boss will tell his or her employees, "Call me Chris" and the employees obey -- though they know that the boss has the real power in the organization.

Iranians are dramatically different. Status is of enormous importance in their lives, and individuals spend their careers in an elaborate dance balancing status differences -- sometimes emphasizing their low relative status, sometimes their higher relative status -- in order to advance their interests.

For Americans, "getting something off your chest" is a well-advised strategy in interpersonal relations. In legal matters, we require signs of contrition before we grant parole or pardon. If anything, expressions of regret for past misdeeds raise individuals in the opinion of others.

Iranians, on the other hand, may admit guilt or become contrite -- but only as a conscious decision to accept a decisive lower-status position vis-a-vis another person or group. This can be advantageous as a way to escape responsibility, but it is unseemly for a leader, or group of leaders.

Looking at President Khatami's interview in these lights, he is saying in no uncertain terms that Iran will not enter into communication with the U.S. government as a lower-status partner. Iran sees the relationship between the two nations before the revolution of 1978-79 as one of patron (U.S.) to client (Iran), all engineered by the Shah without any Iranian public input. The current regime vehemently rejects this relationship and President Khatami must defend this position in order to retain his own power.

This means that Iran will respond to U.S accusations of wrong-doing only with denial and counter-accusations, because to accept the American accusations, even as a topic for discussion, places the U.S. in the higher-status position.

On the other hand, President Khatami did provide a way to talk about things of mutual concern without pressing the hot button of status difference. In talking about the past, he brought out analogies in U.S. history for all of the bad behavior of which the Iranians have been accused. In effect he was saying: "We can discuss our mutual pasts in a common framework without needing to determine who was the wrong-doer."

With regard to terrorism and weapons of mass-destruction, Khatami's statements indicated that Iran considers these to be general problems facing the region, and indeed the world -- problems that will require broad dialogue if there is to be any progress.

In the same way, Khatami's call for people-to-people contacts was a way of opening discussion between Americans and Iranians without confronting the status-guilt problems that loom in government-to-government contacts favored by Washington officials.

In short, Khatami wants to eschew the need to make Iran admit guilt and place it in a lower status position as conditions for renewed dialog with the U.S. There is precedent for this in the business world where companies sued for liability quietly fix the problems they have with consumers "out of court" without admitting guilt. Lawyers are often effective mediators in such situations.

This model clearly shows the way to make progress with Iran. A mediated dialogue (Saudi Arabia has wisely volunteered to serve as mediator), no requirements for admission of guilt, and a commitment to fix global problems of mutual interest will establish the two nations on the road to healthy communication. Since neither government can actually control people-to-people communications , the U.S. would be wise to graciously endorse the Iranian leader's suggestion to widen them.

President Khatami has clearly made a strong opening and has shown the way for further productive communication. We can only hope that U.S. national leaders have the sensitivity and wisdom to transcend narrow U.S. cultural models to carry the dialogue forward.