Saturday, August 20, 2011

Richard Landes on Islam's Honor-Shame Culture

Richard Landes
(Image from The Telegraph)

Richard Landes has written an insightful piece for The Telegraph on Islam's lack of a culture of critical discourse, titled "Liberal intellectuals are frightened of confronting Islam's honour-shame culture" (August 19, 2011).

I found the article interesting not only for its perceptive analysis of Islam's problems in coping with Modernity but also for its overlap with a number of points that I intend to make about the need for a culture of discussion in East Asia when I give my talk at the 2011 Forum [on] Civilization and Peace early in October. Some of my ideas in an earlier stage of development can be read in "'Korean Identity?' in Philosophy and Reality" (December 18, 2009) and "'Toward a Culture of Discussion,' The Philosophy & Poetry Journal (Summer 2010)" (May 15, 2010). But I go substantially beyond these two in my upcoming Forum 2011 presentation.

I don't deal with Islam, however, so I'm intrigued by much of what Landes has to say. He brings into his analysis a distinction that I've often noted in blog entries, though I won't be using it in my presentation, i.e., the contrast between a shame culture and a guilt culture. Landes focuses on the characteristics of a shame culture contrasted to the culture of Modernity (which he doesn't describe as a guilt culture):
In an honour culture, it is legitimate, expected, even required to shed blood for the sake of honour, to save face, to redeem the dishonoured face. Public criticism is an assault on the very "face" of the person criticised. Thus, people in such cultures are careful to be "polite"; and a genuinely free press is impossible, no matter what the laws proclaim.

Modernity, however, is based on a free public discussion, on civility rather than politeness, but the benefits of this public self-criticism -- sharp learning curves, advances in science and technology, economic development, democracy -- make that pain worthwhile.
From this distinction, Landes formulates a memorable rule:
Politeness is not saying certain things lest there be violence; civility is being able to say those certain things and there won't be violence.
Landes applies this 'rule' to an analysis of Islam in our modern world:
This [use of violence to defend honor] is particularly true for Islamic religious culture. In Dar al Islam, a Muslim's contradiction/criticism of Islam was punishable by death, a fortiori did this hold true for infidels. Modernity has been a Nakba (psychological catastrophe) for Islam, and Islam in all its variegated currents has yet to successfully negotiate these demands of modernity.

On the contrary, the loudest voices in contemporary Islam reject vehemently the kind of self-criticism modernity requires. Criticism constitutes an unbearable assault on the manhood of Muslims.
Why is this the case? Landes explains:
Secularism demands more maturity, it requires that religions be civil, that they not use force (the state) to impose their beliefs on others. Religious communities have to give up their need to be visibly superior as a sign of being right/true. This involves high levels of both self-confidence and tolerance for public contradiction.

For Islam this is a particularly difficult challenge. For Islam's formative period, it dominated. Dhimma laws spelled out the principles: infidels were "protected" from violence and death at the hands of Muslims as long as they accepted a visibly humiliating, inferiority. And among the key demands made on dhimmis, was that they not challenge, criticise, or in any way "insult" Islam or Muslims.
Landes goes to the core of Islam's problem with Modernity, in my opinion, and does much to explain the rise of Islamism in our time. The article is well worth the time taken to read it, and a longer version -- "Islam, Modernity, and Honor-Shame Dynamics: Reflections in the Wake of Breivik" -- appears on his blog, The Augean Stables, for those with deeper interest in the issues raised.

As I noted at the outset, there's overlap between this article and my upcoming presentation, specifically, on the need for a culture of discourse, and I like the distinction Landes makes between courtesy and civility, though I won't be raising this in my paper. I also don't make the point about a shame culture, though I'm very familiar with the concept, as I've noted. Most of all, I don't talk about intellectuals being afraid of criticizing Confucianism, one of the main themes of my paper, because they're not afraid to do so. There are no 'Confucianists' with sharpened knives lurking as a warning not to 'insult' Confucianism, unlike the case with Islam, which has its violent Islamists.

Perhaps Confucianism is a more "civil" ideological system . . .

Labels: , ,

14 Comments:

At 9:53 PM, Blogger whitney said...

Hi, I just read your 2009 article on the Korean identity. I am very interested in what you think are the distinctions between shame based cultures and guilt based cultures. The idea of christian guilt and how it motivates you to strive to become more seems to resonate in the west in historically in many areas. I particularly liked this observation

"But the imaginary line exists in everyone's mind. To its west, Europe. To its east, Asia. West of the line, we find a civilization that integrated Athens and Jerusalem. East of the line, however, we find many civilizations."

The integration of Athens and Jerusalem, or the integration of reason and logic and a faith that always tells you that you should be more. The Christian faith has gotten a lot of flak over the past decades because it seemingly asked people to be better than they are but, alternatively, is it what has propelled the west?

If you have written more on this topic I would love to read it..
Thanks,
Whitney

 
At 10:02 PM, Blogger Horace Jeffery Hodges said...

Thanks. I'm glad that my musings on shame and guilt were useful. I've probably posted other, similar entries over the years, so you might try a search on my blog.

As for the identity of the West, try Brague's Eccentric Culture.

Jeffery Hodges

* * *

 
At 10:16 PM, Blogger whitney said...

Thanks, I will check it out.

 
At 10:28 PM, Blogger Horace Jeffery Hodges said...

You're welcome.

Jeffery Hodges

* * *

 
At 2:23 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The Christian faith has gotten a lot of flak over the past decades because it seemingly asked people to be better than they are but, alternatively, is it what has propelled the west? "

That statement combines two assumptions:

1. Christianity asks people to become better human beings.

2. People have criticized Christianity on account of the first assumption.

I will not dispute that Christianity, like many religions, aims to help its followers become better people. I am puzzled about the second assumption, however. Could you please elaborate with specific details about who and how?

 
At 7:08 AM, Blogger Horace Jeffery Hodges said...

Good question.

I wonder if Whitney meant that people acknowledge that Christianity exhorts us to be better people according to Christian views of what "better" means but that many people in our (post)modern disagree with Christianity's understanding of what "better" means and thus criticize it.

My guess. Whitney?

Jeffery Hodges

* * *

 
At 10:45 PM, Blogger whitney said...

I was referring to part of the secular dogma which goes something like this. How can it be expected for priest to be celibate, teenagers not to fool around, people not to have sex out of marriage, to love your neighbor, to strive for a type of peace and harmony that wold require a person to set aside their baser impulses and look to a higher ideal. We will always fail and so Christianity becomes the religion that dooms you to failure.

I was reared in an atheist household and cannot tell you how many times I heard this dogma and, for a while, absorbed it. Christopher Hitchens wrote "it should be the goal of all civilizations to tame it's religion." but we have been so busy taming ours for so long we have forgotten some profound and beautiful truths that exist within the teachings of Jesus and also the roll of Christianity in the formation of the western ideology . We strive and fail and then strive again because we are imperfect trying to become perfect. We will probably never succeed but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

I hope that makes sense.

 
At 6:11 AM, Blogger Jay Kactuz said...

I have given the "why" question about Islam a lot of thought. Why is islam the way it is? What makes Muslims and Muslim society different from that in the West?

Here is my answer. Christianity (and the West - until recently at least) is based upon the concepts of sin and redemption. Islam, on the other hand, is based upon the ideas of belief vs unbelief.

In the Christian tradition the idea of sin, original and otherwise, is primordial. Thus we have the "thou shalt nots..." and "the wages of sin is death". A reading of the Bible gibes a person the pretty good idea of what sin is and isn't - there are even lists in both the OT and NT.

In Islam, the main requirement is belief. In islam, morality consists of following rituals, dress codes, diets, etc. To be a good Muslim, you have to have faith, say the shahada and follow these rituals. There is no "thou shalt not kill" in the Quran. Muslims values are not those of the West. Period.

Another major issue is the constant negative portrayal of non-believers as evil, devious, immoral, deceivers, etc... This explains Islamic treatment of non-Muslims, and why integration and harmony is impossible between infidels and Muslims.

Of course, this is a simplified explanation but there is a lot of truth there, somewhere.

jay

 
At 6:26 AM, Blogger Horace Jeffery Hodges said...

I wonder if Islam is really about belief so much as about identity. To become Muslim, one need only recite the shahadah. It's a statement of belief, of course, but it seems rather thin compared to the faith required for becoming a Christian.

But I'll have to give this some thought.

Jeffery Hodges

* * *

 
At 7:52 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

THE secular dogma? So all non-believers think alike? Your follow-up post contains more hidden assumptions and a common vocabulary error. I remain celibate in my mid-40s but am not chaste nor do I desire to be. Perhaps the disagreement lies not in whether all of your stated virtues are attainable but whether or not people should strive to attain them. A fair number of 'secularists,' sometimes labeled 'humanists' are kumbaya in their worldview, striving for love, peace and harmony. The only difference is that they do not invoke the names of God or Jesus.

Not sure how much you know about other world religions, but they, too, contain profound and beautiful truths and exhort their followers to strive continually to become better people. A former boss posted above his desk a Buddhist guide to right speech. I mentally refer to it when I am contemplating talking to someone or reflecting on words said.

Jay wrote:
"Christianity (and the West - until recently at least) is based upon the concepts of sin and redemption. Islam, on the other hand, is based upon the ideas of belief vs unbelief. "

I echo Jeffery's response. Jesus made very clear in the New Testament that salvation depended on belief in him as God's son and savior. Some modern Christian churches have moved away from salvation through faith alone because they are uncomfortable with the notion that a merciful God would doom people to Hell for not believing in Jesus.

Sonagi

 
At 4:24 AM, Blogger whitney said...

I do believe that there are differences between members of a group but there are also commonalities. I used certain examples for sin or virtue but what I wanted to get across was that Christianity is considered a religion of failure. Even in Buddhism, you can find enlightenment right here on earth. That is not going to happen for the Christian. Have faith and wait. Even a joke in the islamaware world relies on the assumption that the Christian will always fail at being a Christian.

"The problem with Christians is they aren't as good as Jesus. But thank God most Muslims are better than Muhammad."

That joke refers to all Christians but only some Muslims.

I do think there is a secular dogma (really more atheist) but this belief is based on my experiences. My family (not just parents but aunts, uncles, grandparents) and then their friends and then my friends and on through the years. But the hardest part of the dogma for me was the part were it is said "Anyone that believes in God is either mentally or psychologically deficient". You know, you might as well believe in a giant spaghetti monster.

 
At 9:37 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I used certain examples for sin or virtue but what I wanted to get across was that Christianity is considered a religion of failure.

As a Christian apostate turned atheist and nominal follower of Buddhism with plenty of friends of similar persuasion, this is the first time I have heard or read this idea. I believe you that your family and friends have expressed this idea, but no one in my social or online circles has labeled Christianity a "religion of failure," so I'm not sure this particular notion is widespread among secular humanists and atheists. Even if Dawkins or Hitchens expose a particular idea, they do not speak for the masses anymore than the Pope speaks for all Catholics when he denounces using artificial means of birth control, for example.

Sonagi

 
At 7:44 PM, Blogger whitney said...

"no one in my social or online circles has labeled Christianity a "religion of failure,"

Well, maybe you will hear it now. It generally comes in a discussion about how chrisinity makes you deny your human nature, which is deemed impossible and therefore just a set up for failure. Mean ol' God.

Cheers

 
At 9:48 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I used certain examples for sin or virtue but what I wanted to get across was that Christianity is considered a religion of failure. Even in Buddhism, you can find enlightenment right here on earth. That is not going to happen for the Christian. Have faith and wait. "

I find this idea puzzling for two reasons. First, while Buddhism teaches that there are Boditsattvas, human beings who have attained enlightenment yet choose to be reborn to help others, I have never heard of any person actually identifying himself or herself as enlightened. Though Buddhists strive for enlightenment, no one really has the expectation that he or she will achieve it. Second, Christians describe themselves as being joyful in their personal relationship with Jesus, not sitting around waiting for salvation. If non-Christians have expressed this perception to you, I would say once again, I don't know how common this idea is. Active Christians have always seemed like happy, positive people to me, and I say this as an atheist who rejected Christianity.

" Well, maybe you will hear it now. It generally comes in a discussion about how chrisinity (sic) makes you deny your human nature, which is deemed impossible and therefore just a set up for failure. Mean ol' God."

Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Christianity knows that the heart of the religion is forgiveness of sins, so far from expecting people to deny their human nature, Christianity generously accommodates human nature. Secular humanists and atheists like me tend to be well-educated and of Christian background, so I'm surprised that some would be woefully ignorant of the concept of God's forgiveness at the core of Christian belief.

Buddhism and other religions founded in India actually do expect followers to deny their human nature by living a life of asceticism if they wish to free themselves from suffering. No meat, no hair, no sex, no fun!!! Mean ol' Buddha!

Cheers to you,
Sonagi

 

Post a Comment

<< Home