Table Of ContentHONOUR 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
