The Root of All Our Discontent
This is probably going several steps too far, but... a work of fiction of all things really jolted me. Then I look around at all of the topics, Main Feed and Member Feed, on Ricochet, whether they be about fornication, about men-women relationships, about the fiscal cliff, about the debt, about immigration, about Libya, foreign policy, what-have-you... and realize they all share a common core of discontent: lack of honor.
What is so bothersome about where we are as a nation and as a society is that we have, all of us, lost our notion or sense of honor. At a minimum, even if we haven't lost our own sense of honor, we recognize that so many of our fellow citizens and the taste makers in Hollywood and New York do not recognize our old-fashioned notions . In fact, there is even a philosophy on the Left (for the most part) that loss of honor is a real positive, since it is so tied up with the bad old ways of war, subjugation of women, and violence.
It is, of course, impossible to define honor precisely for each and every individual. The dictionary definition is:
- honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions: a man of honor.
- a source of credit or distinction: to be an honor to one's family.
- high respect, as for worth, merit, or rank: to be held in honor.
- such respect manifested: a memorial in honor of the dead.
- high public esteem; fame; glory: He has earned his position of honor.
What that definition misses, of course, is the ancient ideas about honor as being tied to courage and capacity for violence. This idea of honor is, to be sure, a male concept, but while chivalry was still very much alive, there was a female equivalent: her chastity. In both cases, honor -- and its opposite, shame -- was a part of everyday life, whether an upper-class patrician or a working-class plebe.
Consider this language:
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
The gentlemen who signed that document, the Declaration of Independence, meant something by "sacred Honor". It was set at the same level of importance (if not more, given the order) as life and property.
We conservatives often speak of the civic virtues, such as industry, honesty, family, and morality. But what underlies all of these virtues is the ancient concept of honor.
The work of fiction I read that jolted me so was Herman Wouk's The Winds of War. The story, told through members of the Henry clan, an upper-class Navy officer's family who hobnob with the elite of society throughout Europe and America, brought to life -- in a way that no history book could -- that men and women in the 1930s and 1940s still held very firm notions of honor, both personal and national.
The American public, so opposed to intervention in "another European war" -- enough so that FDR would have been impeached had he gone too far ahead of public opinion (although he did everything possible under the table to drag America into World War II) -- completely turned after Pearl Harbor. From my reading, it doesn't seem that it was simply because we were attacked. It was because we were attacked in a dishonorable way, via a sneak attack, on Sunday morning. Hence, it is a day not just of tragedy, but of infamy.
But thinking about American society and American character back in those pre-war days ... do we not have the sense that, as imperfect as the country was, there was a shared sense of honor among all Americans?
The captains of industry and CEOs of major companies were seen as leaders, not merely leeches who happened to get ahead ... because the workers and the people felt or believed that these men would behave with honor in their business dealings. The rage against Wall Street that the Occupy and Tea Party movements share did not exist in those days, because the people on Wall Street behaved within an informal code of honor.One did not refuse to manipulate the market simply because it was against SEC regulations; one did not do it because to do so would be dishonorable.
We believed our elected leaders, even though they didn't always tell the truth (see: FDR) and weren't always the most morally upright human beings, because they at least had to pay homage to honor. Using every parliamentary trick in the book, and "we'll know it once we pass it" type of nonsense was never against the law; it were merely against our collective sense of honor.
We see sign after sign that we no longer hold our leaders to such standards. Presidents, governors, senators, congressmen ... we expect and assume that they will lie through their teeth, that they have backroom deals going on that will benefit them personally, and that they're violating their stated principles and screwing over their constituents.
We no longer believe that our public figures strive to uphold notions of honor; instead, we believe that they live sybaritic lifestyles while preaching all sorts of morality to us. See how we all think of environmentalists with their private jets and mansions.
Personal morality appears to have gone from something driven by one's own sense of honor and shame, to one driven by obeying the letter of the law or regulation. Politicians, industrialists, financiers, even sports figures no longer argue that they didn't behave dishonorably, but that they didn't break the law.
Even something as trivial as steroid usage in baseball ... we now have former MVPs arguing that the league can't prove they doped themselves because of chain of custody or some other technicality ... instead of appearing as if they are ashamed of their dishonorable actions. It might not be against the rules, but there was once such a thing as honor and fair play.
On the other end of the extreme, we have our foreign policy. Americans watch a mummer's show of the President, the Director of the CIA, the UN Ambassador, "respected" news people, and others play blame games and whodunit shows ... while our own Ambassador and three other Americans lie dead at the hands of a Libyan mob.
Would Americans of the thirties and forties have stood by while our national honor was so trod underfoot? Would they not have immediately started shelling Tripoli, at the very least in revenge?
Everywhere we turn, we see one pipsqueak dictator after another thumbing their noses at us, the so-called hyperpower, who is nonetheless helpless and can only watch as our people are murdered, our soldiers killed by people they've trained in "blue-on-green" attacks, our citizens kidnapped and assaulted ... The ancient notions of sacred honor would have dictated that Americans level cities abroad in great wrath.
Sadly, we are too modernized for all that raw, warlike honor nonsense.
But are we happy as a result? Is any American, Left or Right, truly happy to call himself an American knowing that no one fears us anymore?
Would we really be having this raging debate about the proper size and scope of the welfare state, if the people who are on welfare truly saw it as a stain on their honor, instead of an entitlement they are due?
Would the nation truly be riven by shrill argument about abortion, if having one were legal but deeply shameful? Would we really be fighting over marriage if divorce were perfectly legal, but carried with it the same taint on one's honor as it once did?
I don't know whether the restoration of all the things that were once considered honorable and dishonorable is a good thing or a bad thing.
But I do know that at the root of all our discontent as a people, as a society, and as a nation, is the sense that honor and shame no longer play a major role in our private and public lives.
So as we think about policy fights, as we think about the culture wars we must engage in, it seems to me that the central question facing all of us is whether honor is still sacred or merely a mote on the dustbin of history.
Your thoughts would be welcome. As I wrote this really more to organize my own thoughts, rather than proclaim them.
- Comment (44)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (18)
Comments:
Jun '10
Re: The Root of All Our Discontent
I agree. Well said.
In 2006, James Bowman wrote a wonderful book on this very subject: Honor: A History (published, I might add, by one of the podcast's sponsors Encounter Books).
It's safe to say that you and Mr. Bowman (who writes for the American Spectator and New Criterion) are on the same page.
Jan '11
Re: The Root of All Our Discontent
I've read that book, but was jolted by The Winds of War. :) It reminded me for sure. Thanks for the reminder.
Sep '11
Re: The Root of All Our Discontent
Thank you for this post: I totally agree with you.
Jul '11
Re: The Root of All Our Discontent
The thing that struck me when I first moved here was that there is no concept of "losing face".
More shame then honor, but along the same lines.
Mind you, the entire shame thing is why the suicide rates are so high in India and other eastern countries, but there is something to be said about it. One can have too much of it, as in some cultures. But public shaming is a good way for social change.
My 90+ year old neighbors would never dream of asking for anything, even in the middle of a week long power outage during the hurricanes a few years ago - I had to force them to accept an extension cord, ice, groceries etc. Their nieces / nephews on the other had, in their 60s, could not stop whining about how FEMA was not helping them.
Dec '12
Re: The Root of All Our Discontent
A very civilized post. Honor is lost, forgotten or ridiculed. Even the observation that honor is missing seems quaint and out of fashion. What a pity.
Mar '11
Re: The Root of All Our Discontent
Perhaps it's my inner biologist, but I tend to think that most traditions in interpersonal behavior (honor, chivalry, etc) emerged to meet a pressing need - and in the case of honor, this means the needs of pre-Industrial Revolution cultures.
It is easy to see how honor would be requied in a society with less-established institutions. If someone broke a promise to you (business or otherwise), you couldn't sue them or complain about them on Yelp. That would tend to make people untrustworthy, and acting honorable would help establish that trust.
If honor is lacking from society, I would wager that is because we don't need it like we used to. In a paradoxical way, civilizing society as a whole leads to less need for individuals to act civilized.
Edited on December 12, 2012 at 2:00amJan '11
Re: The Root of All Our Discontent
Mendel -- you may be correct. The modern society we live in no longer needs honor....
But you know what I'm wondering? Whether all the rules and regulations have ended up eroding the requirement for honor.
After all, if the laws tell us exactly how to behave, then is there really a need for nebulous notions of "honor" as long as you obey the letter of the law?
I dunno which comes first... institutions that render honor useless, or loss of honor, leading to the need for such institutions...
Mar '11
Re: The Root of All Our Discontent
TheSophist:
But you know what I'm wondering? Whether all the rules and regulations have ended up eroding the requirement for honor.
After all, if the laws tell us exactly how to behave, then is there really a need for nebulous notions of "honor" as long as you obey the letter of the law?
Bingo.
However, I do think the "modern society covers every base" crowd overestimates the extent to which institutions can replace human nature. Sure, a structured, civilized society goes a long way, but organization and rules eventually approach an asymptote, above which some norms of interaction become necessary again.
In other words, the structures of modern life may have made honor in its traditional sense superfluous, but at some point a new tradition will need to emerge and fill the gaps we still find in our system.
Edited on December 12, 2012 at 3:11amMar '12
Re: The Root of All Our Discontent
Honor and chivalry are superior to laws and regulations because they are intrinsic. One does what is right because one believes in doing what is right. It obviates the need for external coercion.
Under laws and regulations, people do the right thing (sometimes) because of external coercion. Too often they will avoid doing the right thing if they think they won't get caught.
Mar '11
Re: The Root of All Our Discontent
I have to defend Ryan Braun's honor.
If you assume that Ryan Braun was in fact using steroids, then you have a point. But if in fact he was NOT using and was instead the victim of a false positive, as any fair analysis of his career statistics/trajectory would indicate [like the fact that he had a BETTER year this year, despite heightened scrutiny and the lack of Prince Fielder hitting behind him], then he would have no reason to be "ashamed" of any so-called "dishonorable actions", since he didn't do anything to be ashamed of.
As to why attack the chain of custody, I'm no lawyer, but it sure seems like common sense that when defending yourself, you attack the weakest point of the opposing case, rather than just a mindless (and legally ineffective) "I didn't do it".
Jun '12
Re: The Root of All Our Discontent
Well said, thanks.
Mar '11
Re: The Root of All Our Discontent
James Bowman wrote a book to this effect not that long ago.
If you're interested in ideas, I might recommend a close study of the idea of honor as presented by Montesquieu and its subsequent modern transformation into recognition in Hegel.
Finally, since you mentioned him, Wouk's books are among the most underrated that I know in 20th century literature. They deserve to be ranked more highly.
Edited on December 12, 2012 at 3:51pmApr '11
Re: The Root of All Our Discontent
Very nicely stated. Thank you.
May '10
Re: The Root of All Our Discontent
I think the more we concentrate in big numbers, the less honor matters. Our brains are wired to know around 100-150 people well. Losing face means nothing if you will never see the person again.
Sep '12
Re: The Root of All Our Discontent
When studying Latin American history a few years ago, one of the professors pointed out that honor in those countries was class based. Only people of a certain class, and mostly men, could have honor, which amounted to defending certain principles, the good name of their wives and daughters for example. Dueling was an important component of the culture of honor. I guess for me a better word for what you're getting at is character, which implies personal responsibility and does not include the kind of approval from others that honor implies. After all, the country recently honored Barack Obama with reelection, which he achieved by a lot of nasty, dishonorable methods IMHO. I don't regard him as a person of character, but he has been honored.
Re: The Root of All Our Discontent
TheSophist:
The gentlemen who signed that document, the Declaration of Independence, meant something by "sacred Honor". It was set at the same level of importance (if not more, given the order) as life and property. .....
The work of fiction I read that jolted me so was Herman Wouk's The Winds of War. ......
But thinking about American society, American character, back in those pre-war days... do we not have the sense that as imperfect as the country was, there was a shared sense of honor among all Americans?
Great post. I do think there was a belief in honor through the fifties that is now mostly lost. I'm glad you mentioned The Winds of War. The TV series Winds of War was fantastic, and I recommend it. It was unfairly dismissed by critics - who surely were put off by its historical accuracy and decent, caring portrayal of the human predicament. By the time the series came on, critics overwhelmingly preferred shows that were edgy, perverse and cynical, and that changed history to make the U.S. look worse than it was.
Mar '12
Re: The Root of All Our Discontent
Schrodinger's Cat: Honor and chivalry are superior to laws and regulations because they are intrinsic. One does what is right because one believes in doing what is right.
I would change one word in the first sentence: Honor and chivalry are superior to laws and regulation when they are intrinsic.
When honor and chivalry are not intrinsic we need those laws and regulations. Given the written versions of the moral law in different cultures, in different eras, and in different places, it would appear that honor and chivalry are not always present, or present in such a way as to win the right.
Thou shalt or thou shalt not are present throughout recorded history. Chivalry and honor are not always on display.
Last item: The law is a teacher. If the law is bad, what it is teaching is bad. We are the beneficiaries of a great deal of bad law these days. Bad law does not urge us to virtue, it urges us to vice, and gives us an excuse for those failures.
Oct '12
Re: The Root of All Our Discontent
Lovely post. I am thinking of the loss of honor, not only at the societal and national level that your described, but also how this loss of honor has trickled down into relationships. I was just having a a conversation about men with a young female fellow that I mentor . I said that a man should treat a woman with respect (which she understood) and honor..at which point she stopped the conversation to clarify what honor looks like. I can't wait to follow up with about the content of this post.
Jan '11
Re: The Root of All Our Discontent
Merina - your professor is probably correct insofar as a narrow analysis goes, although I disagree that honor was a male thing. In every major society, women had their version of honor tied to sexual fidelity. Even the Odyssey praises Penelope for her handling of the suitors, while Helen doesn't come out so great in the Iliad.
But re: classes, my sense is that even if only the upper classes were obsessed with honor, the "lower classes" knew that they were obsessed with honor, and could be counted on to behave with honor in various areas. So there was far more trust in the elites, and far more cohesion throughout society.
We don't have that anymore. Maybe it's because of mass communications showing us the truth about our leaders. Or maybe it's because something changed where honor seems like an old-fashioned foolish notion. I don't know.
I do know that all of our discontents seem to have this lack of honor at their core...
Mar '11
Re: The Root of All Our Discontent
Honor is an aspect of and results from shared moral values - the existence of which requires a broad recognition and acceptance of an objective standard for right and wrong, at its most basic level - good and evil, if you will.
The core of the assault on the West has been to undermine and destroy that acceptance and recognition - it has been remarkably successful. Moral relativism is everywhere. Situational ethics and conditional morality dominate all public questions now.
Honor as a deeply held conviction has crumbled with the foundations of the shared morality that once characterized our society. I could cite examples from personal observation, but that has been done by so many in the last few years that it seems superfluous.