• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Cultures of Honor -- your thoughts?

i always felt like all the star trek alien cultures were just extrapolations on the diversity of our own cultures.. in my mind a race like klingons we're extrapolations of samurai-ish asian culture and other such parallels but getting offtopic i suppose
 
Cultural practices of honor...a thorn in the side of any would-be anarchist? ;)
...
But my first instinct is to ask, to what extent has Western inquiry mis-defined these "cultures", mislead by the compulsion to create a foil with its own view of progress, and to what extent are we brushing over cultural difference in using this category?

However, I am rather sympathetic to Jamshyd's critique.

ebola
 
On Startrek, I know very little about it but a few years back there was a flap in the Jewish Community about the depiction of Jews as a People called the "Ferengi."

Rpaming the universe with only "Profit" on their minds, even worshipping money. Bald, short, and the ears as the equivalent of the so called "Jewish Nose."

I thought it was nonsense until I examined the issue and just like George Lucas, the man behind SStartrek seemd to have a particular world vision and used the show to get it out there. Alot of Science Fiction fans and producers are much the same, wait while I get the Thetan out of me....Where was I?

So, yeah I think the man definitely had a certain view of Jews, and many other groups and while I did watch very much if any of the show, I believe the man also had a thing against religion and visualised a universal government.
 
Cultures try to perpetuate themselves and the CoH is one of the methods to keep members inside when an alien (no, not Star Trek) influence tries to impose over it. How different are the Cultures of Honor we see now compared to the unadulterated ones prior to the colonial era?
 
You are totally off base. it developed (most agree and I concur) because of a lack of larger protective apprattus. A code of Honour enables one to feel they live in and are protected by a form of justice. It exists and thrives wherever geopolitical fragility exists and continues and this is why Clans also continue to thrive.

I am sure that were Israel to last for any real length of time that Mizrachi and Sephardic Jews like my paternal family would see their Clan structures begin to falter as more urbanised Arabs are finding throughout the Middle East (and elsewhere). Ashkenazim ( most Jews from Europe) have only Kollelim in place of blood clans and although they serve essentially the same function their form is much more fluid, in other words their having lived in more stable environments for longer periods of time allowed Clans to begin to disappear, and with them related senses of honour.
 
Papa, I think you're onto something. I think a CoH might be what cultures SETTLE AT when resources are very lean and central authority is lacking. Compare mammalian metabolisms, which settle at ketone body synthesis (ketosis) in starving times to save energy. They're very much selected against, though, in times of plenty and of competent central authority.


Actually, that's not what I said precisely. I don't see why there has to be a direct correlation between complexity and stability. Just because it's our past doesn't mean it's a default that we settle at. A complex solution can sometimes be a more stable one cf. evolution.

But despite what I just said, I guess CoH are less reliant on technology than more intricately structured societies. If that's the case, then maybe CoH result from societies without the necessary technology (e.g. communication technology) to support the otherwise-emergent complexities.
 
One thing though, it is not "settling at" anything. It DOES take place because of weak or non-existent social authority but it is not perceived s less than optimum for most adherents.

My own family for instance, we are very modern in many ways, and yet we value time proven way(s) of life.
 
This is the old debate of people vs. the state, but in one of its more basic and important incarnations.

Basically cultures of honor appear where there is no central authority to provide security and conflict resolution. There may be violence initially as it is a free-for-all. But people tend in time to form authority if it doesn't exist. They form families, gangs, clans, acquire reputations that protect them without them having to fight every day, the weak join up with the strong for protection in exchange for their obedience. Then clans form a mediatory body to settle their disputes in order to avoid violence, which gathers more and more authority and power, or one of them becomes more powerful than all the others and conquers power by force, and poof, you've got a state. This is how it happened pretty much everywhere in history.

How much monopoly the state has on violence and how much is left to individuals still varies quite a lot across societies. You have countries where the police is almost non-existent and your personal security depends on who you know and what group you're with and you have the 'civilized' world where the cops come for cranking the music too loud at a party. You have the US and a few other countries where everyone can buy a gun and you have for example the UK where from what I've read not only people aren't allowed to carry even pepper spray, but they are advised to assume a fetal position and cry for help if attacked on the street. As usual extremes are bad and it's up to each society to find a compromise in accord with their social and cultural characteristics.

That being said, I think many societies are a bit too far from cultures of honor. This is not a big issue in most European countries as crime rates are low, but if you do run into violence, the state may fail you big time. In many countries the state claims a near monopoly on security, forbidding people to carry weapons and restricting self-defense, but fails to provide security itself and protect people from criminals. And if people use violence to protect themselves, the legal and procedural provisions may be stacked against them and they may end up treated as criminals for infringing this state monopoly.

This usually happens in rich countries with a low crime rate and liberal statist politics. There, people like the idea of the kind big brother protecting them and abhor thinking about having to come face to face with violence themselves. They are not adverse to giving up their liberties to the government in order for it to protect them and they are far enough removed from crime in their day-to day life that they do not have to face the consequences of their choices. But if they finally are victimized and find that the police can not protect them, and that the same police arrests them if they defend themselves, they change their opinions. The American saying that 'a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged' is a bit politicized but it is generally true for all societies like this.

Incidentally, this is a way of thinking which also contributes to drug prohibition. People tend to dismiss a problem which doesn't directly affect them, shun people they do not relate to and let the government deal with it. Drugs are bad, those druggies shouldn't have done them in the first place, so throw them in prison to teach them a lesson. Then their son gets popped for cannabis possession and they don't know what to do to get him off. This seems to be one of the rift lines in liberal vs. conservative politics, and many liberal pot-smoking people show the same obtuse thinking and closed-mindedness about gun rights as they lament about in their conservative counterparts when it comes to marijuana. What it comes down to is intolerance to anyone different to you and unwillingness to understand and accept other points of view.
 
Last edited:
^ Lot of food for thought there, RigaCrypto!

Based on your post and your username, are you from Latvia? I ask because I've been to Estonia. Estonia seemed to fit your description: an modestly rich country with a heavy police presence that didn't do much. When I went to Russia, I was told it was a dangerous place where I could get robbed easily if I didn't know the right people. But it felt well-policed there. In fact, I had a feeling people there were scared of the police, and obeyed the law because of this. Russia felt kind of like China and Japan in that way: a place where violence is rare, but when it does happen, it's BRUTAL, and often hidden. All of these societies felt very different to me from Mexico, where people seem more scared of each other than of the state, and minor violent incidents seemed common.

The US feels something in between, to me. In fact, I think I've just unearthed one of the major characteristics of the American mind: wanting to have both a culture of law AND a culture of honor, all the good parts of both with all the bad parts of neither. Of course that's impossible. And what this produces is an endless struggle in American society between people who've decided their ideal America is more one way than the other. The pendulum of central power (and purchasing power. And educational power. You get the idea.) swings back and forth between these two camps, but none is ever decisive in the long term. Just as we've settled for being Puritans, we start dreaming of being Cowboys. And vice versa. But maybe I flatter our culture too much :p

I've also gotten to the bottom of my uneasiness with the extreme fringes of society. For a long time I've idolized those who live on the fringes, whether we're talking hobos or off-the-grid people or artist types. I'm not easily shocked or offended by very much, and I'm almost impossible to 'weird out', so nothing about the way any such people lived has ever really made me uncomfortable on a purely aesthetic or associative level.

But I always felt a deeper moral queasiness about many (not nearly all) who choose life on the fringes, and now I know why: it's an 'every man for himself' outlook on life, which I don't relate to. I don't like not being able to trust a lot of the people I meet in 'fringe' settings. I'm a pretty self-reliant and strong person for the most part, which is probably why I have a taste for the fringes in the first place. (That and the fact that those on the edges have a tolerance for my quirkiness which feels refreshing.) But I'm also very giving, and don't like having to always be wary that I'm seen as weak, or being taken advantage of, just for this. Although I've been of much help to people truly in need on the fringes of society, and have met many truly decent human beings there who appreciated this about me, I find my giving-ness gets me the most mileage in settings where people bow to a central authority. Also, even the strongest and most resilient reach snags that they can't get over by themselves. I don't like the feeling of being in a setting where I can never be sure I can rely on anyone (in a relative sense), no matter how much of myself I've given to others.

I may be physically strong now. But I don't have it in me to be violent. I may be intelligent. I love to fly under the radar. But I don't have it in me to grift.

This is a toughie. I'm sure I have more to say, but I have to go to class, and I don't want to bore you all.
 
^ Lot of food for thought there, RigaCrypto!

Based on your post and your username, are you from Latvia?

You got the general area right, I am from Ro mania. It is also an ex-soviet country but culturally it is more Latin than Slavic.
RigaCrypto is the King of Mushrooms who falls in love with a girl in a poem by Romanian poet Ion Barbu about the impossibility of romance between members of different biological kingdoms:
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/adelina.gschwandtner/Cryptorex.html

I ask because I've been to Estonia. Estonia seemed to fit your description: an modestly rich country with a heavy police presence that didn't do much. When I went to Russia, I was told it was a dangerous place where I could get robbed easily if I didn't know the right people. But it felt well-policed there. In fact, I had a feeling people there were scared of the police, and obeyed the law because of this. Russia felt kind of like China and Japan in that way: a place where violence is rare, but when it does happen, it's BRUTAL, and often hidden. All of these societies felt very different to me from Mexico, where people seem more scared of each other than of the state, and minor violent incidents seemed common.

The Soviet model is all about reaching for the stars and having your rocket blow up on the launch pad. This also applies to law enforcement, and the policing of ex-soviet countries, including mine, goes somewhat like this:
1. The laws give police as much power over the population as possible. ID cards, searches, rampant surveillance.
2. Cops are low-paid, stupid, corrupt hacks. Walking through my country you seldom see cops on the street, and often police cars cruise around listening to music or park under a tree to take a nap. If you need them they try to blow you off, and if they catch a criminal he can buy a get out of jail card if he has enough money. Generally they only move their fat asses off the chair to extort bribes or if a case makes it to the news. They often collude with criminal gangs for money.
3. Regular people despise and distrust them and avoid dealing with them as much as they can, having little hope of getting justice from the state, and fearing getting framed or extorted by the police. Criminals don't give a shit about police knowing that even if they may be caught, which is unlikely given their ineffectiveness, they can buy their way out.
4. The police uses the full weight of its powers only where its private interests are at stake: to extort money from criminals and legitimate businesses alike, to use prosecution as a political or economic weapon, to protect its image if subjected to media pressure to solve a crime.

In this regard they are much more similar to Mexico than Japan or China. You are dead wrong in this respect. Perhaps there are a lot of cops in the tourist areas in Moscow, but the crime rates are many times higher than in Western countries. The difference from Mexico is that the police does have great power, but uses it only to pursue its private interests or those of its political bosses.

The US feels something in between, to me. In fact, I think I've just unearthed one of the major characteristics of the American mind: wanting to have both a culture of law AND a culture of honor, all the good parts of both with all the bad parts of neither. Of course that's impossible.

Perfection is impossible, but IMO the US have a much better compromise than most of the world, which seems to swing between the extremes.

But I always felt a deeper moral queasiness about many (not nearly all) who choose life on the fringes, and now I know why: it's an 'every man for himself' outlook on life, which I don't relate to. I don't like not being able to trust a lot of the people I meet in 'fringe' settings.

Many honor cultures are not 'every man for himself'. As I said earlier, and as you can see in your own cities, people gang up. It's rather 'every man for the group, the group for each man'. Slavic peoples for example tend to have this kind of mentality. They are indeed mistrustful of outsiders or people they don't know but once they come to know someone and accept them in their group they tend to show total trust, loyalty and kindness to that person. They have a kind of black and white view on this, 'everything between us and nothing for others', they tend to polarize the world in 'us' and 'the others', keep mistrust and aggression for the outside world and feel in their group like in a family. Latin peoples also have collectivist mentalities. Maybe the 'every man for himself' is more characteristic of your white American culture and it is only brought into more relief at the fringes of society?
 
Maybe the 'every man for himself' is more characteristic of your white American culture and it is only brought into more relief at the fringes of society?

That's possible.

Thanks for clearing that up about the system in E. Europe. Sounds like the Soviet legacy will be long-lasting. :\
 
Estonia seemed to fit your description: an modestly rich country with a heavy police presence that didn't do much.

By 'rich countries with a low crime rate and liberal statist politics' I mostly meant Western European countries and also urban areas and 'blue states' in the US. It seems that liberals everywhere tend to look down on the 'honor culture', self-defense and private gun ownership.
 
Top