In 1946, American anthropologist Ruth Benedict wrote a study of Japanese culture. Her landmark work, The Chrysanthemum and the Sword, introduced to the public the concept of “guilt cultures” and “shame cultures.” Her audience was familiar with (American) guilt society, in which personal conscience keeps people voluntarily on the straight and narrow. In contrast, she characterized (Japanese) shame society by the threat of ostracism for the appearance of wrongdoing. It’s a useful analytical distinction. Today, it’s common to see it applied to Muslim vs. Western societal norms.

Where do shame and guilt come from? Both types of societies invoke the idea of honor — but the term means different things in each case. For example, “honor killing” is an oxymoron in the West, but a perfectly coherent idea in tribal cultures. That’s because in shame societies, “honor” means honor of the family, tribe, or group. It is judged by other people. Guilt societies, on the other hand, understand “honor” to mean individual honor before God. It is the root of conscience: What you do in private, too, is witnessed and under scrutiny. In shame cultures, one works to preserve appearances; in guilt culture, one works to preserve the truth.