Table Of Content

HONOUR AND SHAME The Values of Mediterranean Society Editor: J. G. Peristiany WEIDENFELD AND NICOLSON .. 20 NEW BOND STREET LONDON WI Honour and socialstatus © 1965by Julian Pitt-Rivers Honour and shame: ahistoricalaccountofseveralconflicts © 1965by Julio Caro Baroja English translation © 1965by George Weidenfeld and Nicolson Ltd Honour and the Devil © 1965byJ. K. Campbell Honourandshame inaCypriothighlandvillage©1965byJ. G.Peristiany The sentiment ofhonourin Kabyle society © 1965by Pierre Bourdieu English translation © 1965by George Weidenfeld and Nicolson Ltd Honour and shameamongthe Bedouins ofEgypt © 1965by Ahmed Abou-Zeid Printedin Great Britain by Ebenezer Baylis and Son Ltd. The Trinity Press, Worcester,and London CONTENTS INTRODUCTION: J. G. Peristiany 9 HONOUR AND SOCIAL STATUS: Julian Pitt-Rivers 19 HONOUR AND SHAME: A Historical Account of Several Conflicts: Julio Caro Baroja 79 HONOUR AND THE DEVIL: J. K. Campbell 139 HONOUR AND SHAME IN A CYPRIOT HIGHLAND VILLAGE: J. G. Peristiany 171 THE SENTIMENT OF HONOUR IN KABYLE SOCIETY: PierreBourdieu 191 HONOUR AND SHAME AMONG THE BEDOUINS OF EGYPT: Ahmed Abou-Zeid 243 INDEX 261 J. G. Peristiany INTRODUCTION Introduction Mediterranean honour and shame were first discussed by the present group of authors in 1959 at Burg Wartenstein, the European Headquarters of the Wenner-Gren Foundation." Most members of this group continued their discussions in Athens in 1961and in 1963 during conferences convened by the editorfor the Social Sciences Centre, Athens," andsponsored by the Greek Ministry to the Prime Minister's Office - Press and Information Department - and the 1963 conference also re ceived a subsidy from Unesco. More convincingly, perhaps, than any recourse to past history, the essays contained in this volume reveal the con tinuity and persistence of Mediterranean modes of thought. At the same time the very frequency of the analogies encountered make it easier to set aside the superficial similarities of form and to centre our investigations on an analysis of the content. The fact that, on being provoked, a Greek Cypriot, a Bedouin and a Berber may answer 'I also have a moustache' as the least common denominator of equality between all males, does not necessarily point to affinities between their cultures. In this context it is the comparison of the male-female relationship and that of the roles of the sexes within these societies that points both to the significant analogies and to the equally significant differences. All societies have rules of conduct, indeed the terms 'society' and 'social regulations' are coterminous. All societies sanction their rules of conduct, rewarding those who conform and punishing those who disobey. Honour and shame are social evaluations and thus participate of the nature of social sanctions, the more monolithicthejury, themore trenchant thejudgement. Honour and shame are two poles of an evaluation. They are the reflection of the social personality in the mirror of social ideals. Whatisparticularto theseevaluationsisthattheyuse asstandard 9 INTRODUCTION of measurementthetype of personalityconsidered asrepresenta tive and exemplary of a certain society. Whoever is measured by its standards and is notfound wanting may, withoutfalling from grace, break a number of rules considered minor in relation to those of honour. Thus, in a number of instances, one may take another person's property, life and even honour, while retaining his own honour. The reverse is also true. The man who never endangers the property, limb and honour of his fellows" may neither be considered as having honour of his own nor gain honour through his passive acquiescence to social regulations. Honour is at the apex of the pyramid of temporal social values and it conditionstheirhierarchical order. Cuttingacross allother social classifications it divides social beings into two fundamental categories, those endowed with honour and those deprived ofit. It is true that in evaluating a person's conduct his social standingistakeninto consideration. Itisalsotrue that no person is acceptable, whatever his position and achievements, if he lacks the components of honour. Excellence in these qualities pertains to the ideal type of man, deficiency in them opens the way to social destitution. The ideal and the respected man are on dif ferent steps of the same value ladder. A study of the value judgements concerning honour and shameinvolves thestudy of the supreme temporal- ideals of a society and of their embodi ment in the ideal type of man. It is also a study of the basic mould of social personality. This way of reasoning can only lead to the conclusion that as allsocieties evaluateconductby comparingit toidealstandardsof action, all societies have their own forms of honour and shame. Indeed, they have. Why, then, do some societies make more constantreference thanothersto theseforms ofsocialevaluation? Do they protest too much? It is an interesting, if unoriginal, thought, since peoples under foreign domination have been say ing much the same thing about fair play, sportsmanship, religious and social equality, the white man's burden and all the other virtues peddled by their alien rulers. The anthropologist cannot ignore the constant preoccupations of the society he is studying. The Mediterranean peoples discussed in these papers are constantly called upon to use the concepts of honour and shame in order to assess their own conduct and that of their fellows. 10 INTRODUCTION If honour and shame are universal aspects of social evalua tions, the polarity of the sacred and the profane is equally common. But our concern is not with the universal causality or logic ofthese phenomena butwith their relevance to aparticular social system and to the search for correlations which might provide an index to the classification of these social systems. It is not possible to read about honour and shame in these six Mediterranean societies without making frequent mental excur sions and involuntary comparisons with the gesta of chivalry, with school gangs, with street corner societies, etc. What do these groups have in common? This, it seems to me, is the crux of the problem. The papers collected here may allow the formu lation of a tentative, an exploratory, answer. Honour and shame are the constant preoccupation of individuals in small scale, exclusive societies where face to face personal, as opposed to anonymous, relationsare ofparamountimportanceandwherethe social personality of the actor is as significant as his office. Within the minimal solidary groups of these societies, be they small or large families or clans, spheresofactionare well defined, non-overlapping and non-competitive. The opposite is true outside these groups. What is significant in this wider context is the insecurity and instabilityofthe honour-shame ranking. Even when honour is inherited with the family name it has to be asserted and vindicated. To accept this is to accept the all powerfulness of public opinion rather than that of a hierarchical superior. When the individual is encapsulated in a social group an aspersion on his honour is an aspersion on the honour of his group. In this type of situation the behaviour of the individual reflects that of his group to such an extent that, in his relations with othergroups, theindividualisforciblycastin the role of his group's protagonist. When the individual emerges with a full social personality of his own, his honour is in his sole keeping. In this insecure, individualist, world where nothing is accepted on credit, the individual is constantly forced to prove and assert himself. Whether as the protagonist of his group or as a self seeking individualist, he is constantly 'on show', he is forever courting the public opinion of his 'equals' so that they may pronounce him worthy. The fragmentation of contemporary Western society, the multiplicity of models put forward for imitation, the lack of a II INTRODUCTION clear hierarchical order of preference between these models, are deeply puzzling for modern youth.P With what group do we identify ourselves? Should one belong to many interlocking groups? Is the primary identification with one of them constant? In the final analysis which is the court of peers sitting in judg ment over our conduct? Indeed, who are our peers and for how long? A Greekcharasand a contemporarytraditionalist Mediter ranean societywould have thought of these questions as beingso many riddles. Social mobility and urbanization have com pletely altered our outlook. The essays collected in this volume concern a perennial social phenomenon studied within thesocial framework with which it has been traditionally associated. The first essay is that of Professor Julian Pitt-Rivers, who introduces thethemethrough his discussion ofthe general struc ture ofthe notion of honour in the literature of WesternEurope. In the second section of his essay the meaning of honour and social status is seen through his examination of the semantic range of the notion of honour in Andalusian society where he carried out intensive field work. He points out that reputation is not only a matter of pride but of practical utility, and that different social groups have different systems of evaluation, so thatastudyoftheseevaluationsisat thesame timeastudyofthe position of these groups in the social structure. It is a study of leadership. In analysing the moral sanctions of the pueblo, Pitt Rivers points out that these have only a limited importance for the middle class and nonefor the upper. Here a mostinteresting question is asked: why do the families who claim honour accompanying lineal descent appear to be so careless of their sexual honour? It is, says the author, not only because they are free of the sanctions enforcing the plebeian code of honour, but also because their honour is impregnable. Women in the upper most social class, when behavingin a manner which would seem unfeminine to the plebeian, do not forfeit their femininity, as femininity, in the higher class, is not a passive, a negative reflec tion of male dominance. The honour of awoman of high society does not have to lean on a male for protection. The studies of Professors Pitt-Rivers and Caro Baroja are complementary. Caro Baroja's essay, based on both field work and literary texts, is mainly the outcome of a thoroughgoing analysis of legal, theological and historical Spanish documents. 12