The closed shame-honor circle

What would Mr. Pryce-Jones make of Japan, which is also very much of a honor/shame based society, and which doesn't display many, if any, of the dysfunctions that he lists for the Arabs? It seems to me that the difference is the ability to be self-critical, societies that where criticism is accepted, or even welcomed, do better than ones where it is not, and it is possible to be both shame/honor based and be self-critical. How the culture views the relationship between honesty and honor is also important. Is lying considered dishonorable, or more dishonorable than just about anything one might lie about?

These are cogent cultural points, Rod.

Middle Eastern culture is deeply traditional and is today much as it has been for thousands of years. It never suffered a "dark ages" and so never benefitted from the Enlightenment. Like most traditional cultures, it has adopted many of the trappings of modern life without embracing the Modernism that sprouted them.

By contrast Israeli culture is an interesting hybrid. It contains the very traditional (that is very much like Arab culture) that pre-dates the founding of the modern state, and the very modern (socialist, marxist, secularist) that was the hallmark of the founders of the modern state. These exist in tension, which is why Israeli politics confound both enemies and allies alike. What Israel is not is a modern Euro-descendant society as one finds in the United States or Australia.

And we view these cultures though post-Modern lenses. Even the most "traditional" of us view their age-old ways of being as "corrupt."

The question of how to bring a pre-Enlightenment cultures into a post-Modern age is pressing upon the west, and not just Arab culture but traditional African and Asian culture as well. The conflict between Modernism and traditionalism is currently finding expression as a conflict between Islam and the West, but it will play out on many fronts in the years to come.

The conflict between Modernism and traditionalism is currently finding expression as a conflict between Islam and the West

Chris, you can chalk up a goodly part of that showdown to envy. Islamists loathe our decadence, sure, and rightly so in some ways. But they also foam at the mouth over the prosperity of the "Satanic" West vis a vis the failure of their own civilization to thrive. The discrepancy flies in the face of their belief that Islamic society is superior in every way to all other systems. Their failure begs the theological question "Where is Allah?" as well as the pragmatic question "What might we be doing badly that we could take steps to correct?"

Of course, as Rod's post above points out, this is a culture incapable of asking introspective questions like those of itself. For individuals caught in its web, it's more honorable to kill, or at least physically threaten, the successful infidel than to ask what you might learn from him.

Islamist culture: kindergarten without rules ... except the ones made up by the bullies.

Hmm:

So the Israelis are now combining the western attributes that exist in their society with what can be seen as an "Arab" sensibility; that they must respond to provocations with overwhelming force for fear of being seen as "weak." Since the Israeli military is actually effective--as compared to the primitive rockets used by Hamas--the results are wholly disproportionate.

Re: Of course, in WWII Japan underwent a complete and utter humiliation (at least in their eyes) and subjugation that the Arabs have never experienced.

For about the last 1000 years the Arab world was repeatedly conquered and ruled by outsiders-- various tribes of Turks, Berbers in the west, the Mongols, the Crusaders, finally the French and British.

Some of this pop psychology (Pryce-Jones and the odious Patai's "The Arab Mind") led directly to scandals like Abu Ghuraib and Guantanamo. Good luck with that.

And it seems to me that we could use a bit more focus on shame and honor in our own country for that matter. Interesting on how that would have played out on Wall Street, for example.

Dubai anyone? I think the bigger issue is the involvement of religion with state function. Corruption is a bigger issue. Constant war is another.

Steve

Good morning, Rod, and welcome to the patriarchy!

sooner the honor of the elite than the dignity of the people Yes . . . hello, RC Church! Better that your children should continue to be raped than that "scandal" should ensue by exposing the villainy of priests and bishops. Hello to all those who felt it was morally wrong to expose, say, the marital failings of John McCain--because he was a war hero! His honor must be preserved. Hello to those who were indignant that a son, say Frank Schaeffer, should openly discuss the failings of his parents, leaders in the right-wing Christian community. Or a daughter, say Honor Moore, should discuss the actions of her father, a bishop. Religious leaders and parents should never be criticized--their honor must be preserved at all costs.

I disagree with Your Name at 9:20, only because I think he/she has confused "taking responsibility" with "assigning blame." The point of determining responsibility is to determine where and how things went wrong, so they can be fixed. In a shame culture (like our own) this is transformed to a process of assigning blame to a scapegoat, so that individual can be shamed and punished on behalf of the system, which then continues unchanged. Because most failures are system failures on some level and cannot be assigned to one individual. Read about quality management.

Yes, our culture is certainly less shame/honor based than many other cultures in the world. But the changes that have enabled us to move away from that base are the very changes decried by conservatives. Puzzling! And this method of blaming all problems on some other BAD culture--say, the Palestinians--and urging that they be punished, thus avoiding all consideration of our own part in the problem, is just another iteration of the shame/honor cycle.