The social sciences are often inexact and controversial, full of observations and speculative, inexact theories, because we are inexact creatures. Nevertheless, as I find honor killings to be repulsive and, quite honestly, inexplicable, when an article professing a usable theory on their existence popped up in NewScientist (“Reputation is everything”, Emma Young, 12 November 2016, paywall), I was quite intrigued.
Anthropologists and social scientists distinguish between what are sometimes called dignity cultures and honour cultures. Dignity cultures value people simply by dint of being human. Here, people seldom turn violent at the first hint of a challenge to their reputation, instead ignoring it or perhaps seeking redress in the courts.
In honour cultures, on the other hand, your value rests on your reputation, the impulse to defend it is heightened and individuals are expected to avenge insults themselves. There are plenty of historical precedents: think of the duelling tradition in the Old West or in Europe, from the chivalrous knights of medieval times right up until the 18th century.
Honour cultures are also characterised by contrasting gender expectations. For women, the key requirements are to be faithful and protect one’s virtue. Men should be strong, self-reliant and intolerant of disrespect. They must earn this reputation, and then defend it – even if that requires violence.
The roots of such a culture?
[Ryan Brown], who was himself born and raised in Alabama, had suspected that these attitudes might be rooted in religious fervour. The south is known as the “Bible Belt”, after all, and countries with much stricter honour cultures, such as Pakistan, are highly religious. However, repeated studies both in the US and elsewhere have found no link between a person’s religiosity and how much they endorse honour-culture attitudes.
Instead, honour cultures seem to develop wherever there is severe economic insecurity and a degree of lawlessness. “When these factors come together, we believe honour culture is a sort of natural byproduct, because reputation is a way you protect yourself when no one else is coming to your aid,” says Brown.
One of the results concerning the honour culture of the United States, which is the Deep South:
Brown has recently investigated the connection between honour culture and mental health. A 2014 study showed that people who strongly endorse honour-related values are especially concerned that seeking help for mental health problems would indicate weakness and harm their reputations. This makes a skewed sort of sense. In an honour culture, “if you need help, that suggests you are mentally fragile and weak”, says Brown. “But going to get help would be a second blow: ‘Not only do I have a need, but I can’t handle that need on my own.’ ” Such results chime with another of Brown’s findings: that honour states not only have higher levels of depression and lower use of antidepressants than other states, but also have higher suicide rates, even after controlling for other relevant factors.
It makes a great deal of sense.
So, as overpopulation worsens and, arguably, make the economic situation worse, will the honour culture grow? Not an attractive future. I am well aware that previous generations, even here in Minnesota, put a lot of value on the Do It Yourself culture; my house, built in 1938, has a disturbing number of shortcuts that even I, a software engineering specialist who hires out a lot of work on the house to others, recognize as, at best, shabby, and occasionally fairly dangerous – and I see the DIY culture as close kin to the honour culture in that it features a certain amount of self-reliance while scanting on the specialists who really do know how to do things better than the generalist. When I moved in here, one of my neighbors, who was a no-apologies racist, had that DIY mentality, although at that point he was somewhat feeble and eventually he and his wife passed away from old age.
Fascinating stuff, but not without controversy. It will be interesting to see if it gains traction in the field.
And I wonder if this sort of study has applicability to the equally puzzling phenomenon of young Somali-American men, born or at least raised since early childhood here in the States, going off to fight for ISIS. Refugees rarely adopt the dominant social culture of the area where they settle, as we know from our own history. Does fighting for ISIS provide a way for a young man to quickly gain a useful reputation within their subculture? Despite the negatives that will bring within the dominant culture?
