Hello, I'm back. I decided to provide sources for my claims. While my original post clearly rang true for a lot of people, I thought it would be good to provide something that sounds less like hearsay.
My core claim is India is a shame/honour based culture, from which their seemingly bizarre and irrational behaviour can be understood. A lot of the sources I looked at this time didn't speak about India specifically, but once you start looking at general honour culture research, then the pieces start falling into place. The things I described happening in India are not unique to this continent. Honour culture is a worldwide phenomenon. The issue is India is still an honour culture in the modern day.
I would also like to back up my claim about how Izzat and caste are bundled together.
'In India, the honor culture is deeply rooted in its hierarchical caste system prevalent majorly in the Hindu religion.'
Understanding honor and dignity in North Indian and German cultural contexts - Tanya Keni, 1.4, Context of the study
My claims about the linguistics of Izzat/Ijjat/maana was weak. It does mean honour. However, the issue is that what 'honour' means in India is not the same as the romanticized view of honour in the west. It is honour in the classical sense. I will keep using Izzat to describe Indian honour, specifically because it's the most charged of the three. Naming the other words prevents Indians from pretending they don't know what I'm talking about.
In addition, 'honour' in honour cultures is rarely, if ever, individual. The group is the collective holder of Izzat. So choices are measured by how they reflect on the group's honour, not the individual.
'The importance of honour should not be underestimated. Here, honour was the principle by which the society was organized. Not only did honour regulate the relationship between the individual citizen and the groups it belonged to (family and clan), but also to the society at large. Even if there was a legislature, there was no executive power – and no police force. This meant that every citizen had to safeguard and protect his or her own reputation, rights and property, by relying on the strengths of family and clan alliances. In fact, honour was also the ultimate norm for value of life – in the way that a posthumous reputation could be worth dying for.'
The concept of honour and honour narratives, Thorstein Norheim and Aasta Marie Bjorvand Bjørkøy
Honour (Izzat) is a currency that can be lost or gained at the expense of someone else. It is also zero-sum.
'Not only is status relatively immovable and stable, the amount of status available to a group is relatively inexpansible. Stated another way, status is a relatively zero-sum or positional resource. One group or society can have ten or even a hundred times more per capita wealth or force than another society. No society, however, has a hundred, or even ten, times as much status per capita to distribute as another. Status is basically a matter of relative ranking.'
Status and Sacredness: A General Theory of Status Relations and an Analysis of Indian Culture - Murray Milner Jr., page 34
As for cycles of revenge, academic literature does support the existence of this type of dynamic in honour cultures. While many people can infer this type of dynamic playing out in an honour culture, it would be good to back that up with some more formal studies.
'Honor is also implicated in a range of violent behavior: what we call honor based violence. This violence comes in many forms throughout history and across the globe. Feuds, vendettas, and duels are classic examples. Another form of honor based violence is the murder of women who have violated or are believed to have violated local norms of sexual behavior: “honor killings.” Honor violence is interesting because it is ubiquitous (occurring throughout history and in many different parts of the world), similar (despite local differences, many core elements of honor based violence are similar from culture to culture), and seemingly gratuitous (the amount of violence involved seems hard to justify based on any conceivable benefits).'
'...This sort of honor violence is commonly associated with feuds or vendettas, which entail cycles of retaliation and counter-retaliation. Engaging in retaliatory violence is necessary if one’s family, clan, or gang is to avoid a significant loss of standing: a stain on its honor.'
Honor and Violence: An Account of Feuds, Duels, and Honor Killings, John Thrasher
Honour culture does impede people from apologizing and admitting fault, and it is seen as deliberately humiliating yourself or placing yourself in the weaker position. It also doesn't provide any outlet for de-escalating conflicts other than with victories or defeats.
'A large body of evidence suggests that, during conflicts, an offenders' apology plays a key role in generating forgiveness, repairing relationships, and allowing people to restore trust after transgressions. Indeed, apologies are critical not only for de-escalating interpersonal conflicts but also professional and even international ones.'
'Because honor is the value of self in the eyes of others, it does not exist without others’ recognition. To prevent the loss of honor, it is important to keep one’s reputation untarnished and display an image of strength so as not to appear vulnerable. The logic of honor can interfere with apologizing for one’s transgressions, as apologizing often signifies an admission of fault and an acknowledgment of responsibility. By making an apology and admitting wrongdoings, one can potentially damage one’s reputation and lose social standing. Put simply, the act of apologizing can cause one to lose honor. Therefore, we predict that reputation concerns in honor cultures will crowd out apologizing.'
From virility to virtue: the psychology of apology in honor cultures - Ying Lin, Nava Caluori, Engin Bağış Öztürk, Michele J Gelfand
I would like to revise my statement regarding the police too. While police CAN be deterred from interfering with Izzat disputes, the more likely outcome is police are complicit in these disputes, either by bribes or having specific sympathies for the parties involved. Policemen in India deliberately impede investigations regarding honour crimes, which I consider to be far more damning than merely sitting out of Izzat/Ijjat/Maana disputes. The most likely outcome is the police or local court will side with whoever has the winning position, rather than the party who is in the right.
Senior Indian policeman in honour killing row
In the above example, a high ranking police officer in Uttar Pradesh fully supported honour killings and even gave advice to a father to kill his daughter if she eloped. While not an academic source, I would say this is a much more vicious demonstration of honour culture dynamics in India.
'In what follows, this kind of honor will be referred to as reflexive honor. What distinguishes it is this: that if A impugns B's honor, then B's honor is ipso facto diminished or destroyed, unless B responds with an appropriate counterattack on A. Rules which govern this matter are part of the code of honor.'
Honor, Frank Henderson Stewart, page 64
'Reflexive honour' is the sudden, vicious and violent outbursts you notice from Indians when criticized. When a man is beaten to death over a request to a use a toilet. When Anon said he didn't believe an Indian and received death threats in response. It's the vindictive, disproportionate anger born out of having one's honour challenged. From the viewpoint of honour in the classical sense, it's having the right to be treated a certain way. Not being treated this way is grounds for instant escalation.
In addition, I would like to further explore why honour-based cultures care about appearance over authentic morality. The notion of something being right or wrong is a feature of guilt-based cultures. It's you feeling guilty because you did something wrong. India is not a guilt-based culture. Shame is external and only comes from how others perceive you.
'In many ethnic communities the ultimate disgrace is to see the internal councils of the family exposed. Shame does not damage the family honor until it has become public knowledge. Dishonor is not a fact that has to be dealt with until “everybody knows”'
In Honor of Fadime: Murder and Shame, Unni Wikan, page 6
Honour culture is pragmatic when it comes to making choices. This means whether or not something is right is not the point. If an action benefits your group or its honour, then it's considered good, the most extreme example being honour killings. It's only a problem if other people find out and shame you for it. Such a dynamic does not discourage wrongdoing, but from other people from discovering it.
And finally, I encourage everybody to read about honour culture. You don't have to just take my word for it. There is plenty of anthropological research in this field. If what you read doesn't describe Indians, then I don't know what would. Here is some misc reading which I couldn't really fit anywhere else.
My conclusion is India is a shame-honour culture and this is why it's dysfunctional.
To India, I claim all of your izzats and I redeem the gift cards.
