Reason.com
New at Reason
Jonathan Rauch thumbs through James Bowman's new history of honor and starts to get why the chest-pounding pride of Muslims and Christians alike is so hard to get past.
Most Popular Stories
- 5 Classic Teen Sex-and-Drug Freakouts: Rainbow Parties, Butt-Chugging, And So Much More (By Which We Mean Less) (5.27)
- Government Beneficiaries and Other Fairy Tales (5.26)
- Are We Headed for a Fight with China? (5.28)
- Lessons From the United Fruit Company (5.28)
- Do Organic Consumers Shop Exclusively at the Jerk Store? (5.26)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
- New Poll: Obama Leads Romney In Wisconsin, But Gary Johnson Could Impact the Race (5.24)
- Wisconsin Recall: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42 Among Likely Voters (5.24)
- Reason-Rupe Poll: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42, Obama Leads Romney 46-36 (5.24)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
|10.16.06 @ 12:11PM|#
Excellent article that, if correct, tells us that we're totally doing everything wrong with the Middle East.
Sadly, if the article is correct, there isn't a whole lot that we can do right.
Ashish George|10.16.06 @ 12:24PM|#
"Whether or not Bowman has the whole story right, the prism of honor brings puzzling elements of the current conflict into sharper focus. Americans are baffled that Western appeals to freedom and prosperity get so little traction in the Arab and Muslim worlds. America's example as the 'shining city on a hill' inspired liberalizing movements from Eastern Europe to Tiananmen Square; why should the Middle East be different?"
Uh, maybe because it's hard for them to take the American example seriously when American troops are stationed in Saudi Arabia and Iraq and billion of dollars go to Israel every year?
http://www.amconmag.com/2005_07_18/article.html
This bizarre fixation with the "Why do they hate us?" question is really chasing the wrong answers. People in the Middle East are reacting exactly how you would expect people to react to the exhortations of a foreign government when that same government has sponsored coups, waged devastating wars, and supported the brutal military policies of a regional ally over the past 50 years. But nowhere in Rauch's article do you find the name Mossadegh, the recent Lancet study of Iraqi deaths due to the war, or Israel's recent conduct in Lebanon.
There is no excuse for terrorism. But neither is there one for such obtuse moral preening.
And as for Bowman, the guy is a schmuck, pure and simple. I don't take his opinions on honor seriously because it is obvious that honor doesn't mean a damn in practice to him. An example...
"The idea of �human rights� as applied to indigenous peoples in the 19th century is an anachronism. People at the time thought we were at war with the Indians because there was no alternative. Either those of European descent would defeat the Indians � obviously by killing quite a few of them � or they would be defeated by them. At this distance of time, it seems to me ill-advised to suppose that, if only such enlightened folk as ourselves had been present, we could have shown them a third, more humane course. If I had been present at the time, assuming it was not in such a godlike role, I trust I would have been on the side of the Europeans � and Christianity, enlightenment, reason and social progress. My country!
|10.16.06 @ 12:26PM|#
Witness how Dubya ridicules the way the press corps dresses, etc., and you'll go a long way toward understanding his arrogance toward Iraq, Iran, etc.
Southerners should know a little something about honor, but Dubya is not a true southerner.
|10.16.06 @ 12:51PM|#
Bowman is certainly not the first to note the 'honor' culture of the Middle East. Heck, just listen to the spew that comes out of the mouth of any random Iranian or Hamas official, and you'll hear it plain as day. Don't confuse an honest analysis of attitudes in that part of the world with "why do they hate us?" pablum. To deal effectively with other cultures, you have to understand what motivates them.
BTW, Ruthless, very true about the 'honor' culture of the Old South. As a note of worry, notice that 150 years after being brutally crushed in a bloodbath, there are still goofballs in that part of the country prattling on about Confederate honor, as if their SUV-driving, latte-swilling selves had even the remotest connection to Stonewall Jackson or R.E. Lee. That shit dies hard.
I don't pretend to have perfect answers to anything, but it might be that to deal with honor cultures, you have to provide Middle Eastern leaders with face-saving ways to get out of a confrontation. That might be the easiest part, though. What to do about random Euro-muslims obsessing about their lost honor and thinking of destructive ways to 'redeem' it? Solve that one, and you deserve a big payday.
|10.16.06 @ 12:53PM|#
Sadly, if the article is correct, there isn't a whole lot that we can do right.
Actually, that's exactly wrong. If the article is correct, then the ME values honor over interest and the US values interest over honor. So obviously there are gains to be had from trade. That is, if the US finds ways to respect the ME's honor, we can stop the whole bloodbath in its tracks. (Examples might include leaving a smaller military footprint in the region and being more even-handed in the Israli/Palestinian question.)
Honor wars are only death spirals if both sides think they are defending their own honor.
|10.16.06 @ 12:57PM|#
As "if"s go, I've seen smaller.
|10.16.06 @ 1:20PM|#
being more even-handed in the Israli/Palestinian question
Another attempt to apply rational analysis to what is, essentially, an irrational cultural characteristic. Such would be seen by the Arab side of the equation as 'capitulation' and would lead only to further demands. That is the condundrum in dealing with honor cultures.
Personally, I think the U.S. ought to evict everyone--Israelis and Palestinians from--the Levant, which could be turned into a new theme park called Jesusland, with waterslides, donkey rides, and all kinds of blonde, animatronic "Israelites" wandering around trying to figure out what the hell 'myrrh' is.
|10.16.06 @ 2:00PM|#
Surely this isn't as black and white as the author supposes. How can a culture that values honor over interest entirely function. They'd be killing each other left and right over the smallest indescretions. To say that middle easterners value honor more than the US is one thing, but to say they can't comprehend self interest in place of honor is completely overstating the situation in my point. There is a struggle between those who want to control their society and using the easy maxim of honor and traditional values gives them more leverage vs. those who want change. But control is still control.
|10.16.06 @ 2:01PM|#
well said.
Ashish George|10.16.06 @ 2:18PM|#
"To deal effectively with other cultures, you have to understand what motivates them."
I agree. Which is why it is important to note, as the Univerity of Chicago's Robert Pape does, "...what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland. Religion is rarely the root cause, although it is often used as a tool by terrorist organizations in recruiting and in other efforts in service of the broader strategic objective."
http://www.opendemocracy.net/arts/suicideterrorism_3836.jsp
So Bowman, who was and is a nationalistic superhawk, can spare us his amateur sociology. Physician, heal thyself.
|10.16.06 @ 2:18PM|#
I think there's a lot of relevant stuff in Bowman's point, but I think that it's only one angle on current affairs, one of many, and shouldnt be overweighted. It may help understand the mindset of "the Arab street" at times, maybe, but isnt necessarily the primary motivator of Jihadists, Hamas/Hezbollah, or leaders of Middle Eastern states.
It would be foolish to think that states like Iran or Syria are significantly less driven by self-interest than say, the US or Israel. They play chicken not cause they're suicidally prideful, but because they can see the angles and know how to work them to maximise both their domestic support as well as put their enemies in a defensive rhetorical stance.
There's some real truth to his point, but I think it has more relevance to the dominant type of political-rhetoric each culture employs, the spin that is put on events. And I also think that the West maintains plenty of the same "Honor"-based principles when it comes to certain aspects of international relations. We get in squabbles over purely symbolic issues all the time.
I also think a lot of arabs werent particularly fooled by the very-rational-if-totally-lacking-factual-basis WMD, Al-Q/Saddam-nexus arguments, and saw the US invasion of Iraq as a pure 'revenge' narrative, where son finishes off the nemesis of the father, to make the surrounding states 'cover with respect' of US willingness to use force in reckless fashion.
And I think the whole "cutting and running" meme has been effective because it boils the issues down to "dems are pussies with no honor"; yeah, OK, we're not achieving our goals, but we'd LOSE FACE if we "cut and run", regardless whether it's in our interests to disengage in the region or not.
|10.16.06 @ 2:25PM|#
(follow up to demonstrate example of honor and self-interest working hand in hand) =
Lawrence: Did Auda come to Aqaba for gold?
Auda: For my pleasure as you said. But gold is honorable. And Aurens promised gold. Aurens lied.
|10.16.06 @ 3:19PM|#
Oddly enough, one of the things about "honor" cultures is that while victory is always honorable, defeat can also be honorable if it comes at the hands of an honorable enemy.
Losing to overwhelming force is generally pretty honorable. Hey, what could you do? The other guy had you outnumbered 20 - 1.
Our current approach to the Middle East doesn't really connect with the concept of honorable defeat. We are trying to just barely beat them, using the minimum necessary force. In an honor culture, this looks like we view them with contempt, and precludes an honorable victory.
|10.16.06 @ 3:29PM|#
How can a culture that values honor over interest entirely function. They'd be killing each other left and right over the smallest indescretions.
Umm, that seems to describe the Middle East pretty well, from my perspective. And the fact is that it doesn't function very well.
The point is not that 'honor' cultures don't appreciate self interest, but that they define it in a different way that you and I might think is irrational or primitive.
It would be foolish to think that states like Iran or Syria are significantly less driven by self-interest than say, the US or Israel. They play chicken not cause they're suicidally prideful, but because they can see the angles and know how to work them to maximise both their domestic support as well as put their enemies in a defensive rhetorical stance.
Cynical and too clever by half. It might be comforting to think that the bilious rhetoric emanating from Middle Eastern leaders and jihadists is just a smokescreen for some kind of easy-to-understand political game, inasmuch as that would reinforce the notion that we all mostly think the same way. But, at least to me, the scary reality is that much of that jihadism is totally sincere. Again, their definition of 'self-interest' is clearly a bit different than yours or mine.
|10.16.06 @ 4:59PM|#
On the surface, at least, Bowman's assessment of the Middle East as being a culture preoccupied with honor makes a lot of sense.
For the first time ever, I find myself seeing a comparison between this war and WWII that is valid, in that the Japanese warrior culture was built around all sorts of ideals about honor.
And if the comparison is valid, then we're really fighting this war the wrong way.
|10.16.06 @ 5:15PM|#
It's really pitiful how Muslims can feel honor even when the only reason they ever win is because the "enemy" cares more for their women, children, and elderly than they do. They are completely aware of this too because human sheilds are a regular part of their warfare strategy.
|10.16.06 @ 5:16PM|#
Cynical and too clever by half.
I've never really understood what that 'by half' cliche is supposed to mean. Other than you seem to be saying, "I'm an idiot".
Maybe you misunderstood my comments, but I think i was simply saying that most people seem to be reading Bowman's comment in very black-&-white terms and I think that might be, as Rauch warns in his opener, a bit oversimplified. Maybe we should read the book.
It might be comforting to think that the bilious rhetoric emanating from Middle Eastern leaders and jihadists is just a smokescreen for some kind of easy-to-understand political game, inasmuch as that would reinforce the notion that we all mostly think the same way.
...and why not? I dont see how that's 'Cynical' if I assign rational motives to my otherwise shithouse-crazy enemy.
But, at least to me, the scary reality is that much of that jihadism is totally sincere. Again, their definition of 'self-interest' is clearly a bit different than yours or mine.
"Totally sincere" and "also guided by self-interest" do not necessarily have to be mutually exclusive.
Yes, for the person blowing themselves up, it's clearly not working out.
But for the guys recruiting the people blowing themselves up, it may be an extremely effective use of the resources at hand. Which is just as scary, mind you. But its not completely being done without a careful calculation of the effects and consequences.
As a possible case in point = the question as to whether Hezbollah "gained or lost" from inciting Israel to "overreact"... Many seem to be saying that what Israel did was the appropriate way of dealing with the 'irrational' jihadists. But I think in the final calculus, it's not 100% clear that Hezb didnt come our stronger. You may suggest that's accidental, but I'm prone to give people the benefit of the doubt. Analyses that start with "there's two kinds of people, see", are usually not the most insightful approaches to complex issues.
JG
|10.16.06 @ 9:09PM|#
In the modern West, interest trumps honor (or subsumes it). We don't shoot ourselves in the foot to prove we're tough and fierce.
Not completely. If it were so we wouldn't be hearing from certain quarters that a retreat from Iraq would amount to a humiliating defeat for the US.
and the debt to honor must be paid, never mind the cost.
Ok, fine. Then let's make it so expensive for them that it bankrupts them. Taking over their wealth=oil supply might go a long way toward that goal.
It would be a mess and our feminised, no-risk culture would never have the guts, but if Mr. Bowman is right, total defeat will be the only way to peace.
He also seems to imply that if the West continues down the sissy path, we will never win.
thoreau|10.16.06 @ 9:37PM|#
Good point about out culture, martin. The militarist strain in this country places a priority on never showing weakness. I suspect that the Scots-Irish influence in this country has something to do with why we invaded Iraq.
Given that Scotland and Ireland are now much nicer places than they used to be, maybe the Scots-Irish militants in this country would consider going back? Then the rest of us could adopt a foreign policy more like Switzerland's.
|10.16.06 @ 9:48PM|#
A good point, but you can't limit the potential causes for the feelings of shame to political things: its also about Coca Cola and internet porn.
The Power of Nightmares presented a compelling case that the most radical islamists believe that the influence of American culture is to blame behind the peoples failure to rally behind them and that they must attack this corruption at its source. Kind of like the US Drug Warrior who spray fields in Colombia while their friends and neighbors snort away.
|10.17.06 @ 1:10AM|#
Whether or not he's right about the etiology of Islamist America-hatin', Bowman is a crazy motherfucker. I read a National Review interview with him awhile back where, after rumbling ominously about the Arab world's "honor culture," he lamented the absence of a similar honor culture in the West, set about justifying the Iraq War as a passionate and laudable anger-reaction to 9/11, and argued that among other things, war itself is what makes national greatness. Combined with his characterization of "honor politics" as a "narrative about national rebirth or return to glory," it becomes damn tempting to Godwin oneself attempting to find the appropriate taxa for his views.
|10.17.06 @ 2:08AM|#
maybe the Scots-Irish militants in this country would consider going back? Then the rest of us could adopt a foreign policy more like Switzerland's.
I seem to recall that Swiss pikemen were the scourge of European battlefields, once upon a time.
In any case, you will sooner achieve Nirvana by moving yourself to Switzerland.
btw, how come it's so damned hard to find a decent history book on Switzerland? You can find books on almost any other country in Europe but I've found little on the Swiss.
Except when they were most honorably shish-kabobbing the rest of Europe's soldiers. That's about the extent that Switzerland even gets mentioned.
|10.17.06 @ 3:14AM|#
"the chest-pounding pride of Muslims and Christians alike"
The review says Bowman credits Christianity with *moderating* the West's honor culture.
|10.17.06 @ 3:48AM|#
Didn't you know we have our own brand of political correctness?
|10.17.06 @ 11:08AM|#
I've never really understood what that 'by half' cliche is supposed to mean. Other than you seem to be saying, "I'm an idiot".
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. "Too clever by half" is a way of saying that you might be overthinking the problem by assigning ulterior motives to that which does not make sense to your western mind. In other words, Mr. Ahmadinejad likely does not have some Machiavellian reason to say that seemingly insane crap. He probably believes every word of it. As do many of his countrymen. In his culture, his pronouncements are no doubt very effective political tools, but that doesn't mean that he is insincere about them.
Maybe you misunderstood my comments, but I think i was simply saying that most people seem to be reading Bowman's comment in very black-&-white terms and I think that might be, as Rauch warns in his opener, a bit oversimplified. Maybe we should read the book.
In that, I agree with you. Cultures are not amenable to simplistic descriptions and distinctions. Anyone who has ever studied a foreign language, with all of the nuances of word usage and meaning that don't correlate well between cultures, understands that.
Which doesn't lessen the value of describing Middle East cultures as generally valuing their notion of 'honor' as high or higher than their 'rational' self-interest. You simply have to take such things into consideration when dealing with folks from that part of the world. Which is a major indictment of the Bush Administration and all of its "winning hearts and minds" crapola. Not a single person in the WH seems to have a frickin' clue about this stuff, at least based on their actions.
I'm not saying that we should go in guns blazing. In fact, to do so against an honor culture is often counter-productive, unless you intend either annihilation or such a high degree of destruction that the opposing culture has no choice but to change (Japan). But invading a heavily honor-bound country to win hearts and minds is, to put it mildly, stupid.
|10.17.06 @ 11:16AM|#
Historically, I'd say the trend is for honor-obsessed (or religion-obsessed) countries to fight bloody wars until a) they wise up or b) all the honor/religious-obsessed are dead.
Took about 200 years for Europe to get over religion as a reason for large-scale wars.
They've been fighting about honor in the Mid-east for the last 2000 years. Don't think they're going to stop any time soon.