[baybal2]

I read it, and think it is a so so writing. The author piles too many things together.

martythemaniak gets more of what it is to it.

There are no such thing as an honour based society, and the author is imagining things.

Popular explanation: what seems as an "honour" things to people in the west are often just egregious displays of social status. It is hard for Americans to naturally arrive to the way of thought of this sort. I'll drop few examples for you:

Men killing their wives who were raped - it is not them any much recovering that "honour," but to show everyone that these men do not let the enemy to assert dominance over them, non-verbally stating "hey look, the enemy has no power over me, he will not diminish my status by forcing me to sleep with a woman raped by him"

Same for the extreme sensitivity to insult marty mentions - it is to show everyone "No one is allowed to place themselves above me"

Acceptance of personal revenge including retaliatory killing - is the thing from the same opera. It is to show that you do not let the assailant to assume social status above you. If you can't retaliate and kill, you show your weakness/inferiority/impotence.

Americans, you are fortunate enough to not to live in a society where ones social status is not determined by a principle of "the ones who have higher status than I am are the ones I can't kill"

[jacknews]

"No one is allowed to place themselves above me" .... "social status"...

This is exactly what the author means by "honor", as opposed to the western definition of integrity, trust, chivalry, etc, etc.

[PhasmaFelis]

I don't understand what you're trying to express here. You agree that all of the things the author describes do happen, and pretty much for the same reasons the author describes, but you...still think he's wrong, somehow? Possibly because you don't like him using the word "honor," even though he went to great lengths to not do that?

[baybal2]

While he mentions that to him, it seems that deemed honour is a proxy for social status in some cultures, in none it is. Egregious manifestations of social status, do come a mile apart from what even moderately enlightened person considers an honour in cultures he listed. His finding went only a finger poke length in the issue.

No sane Sikh or Bengali will publicly admit that men who killed their wives in anticipation of Pakistani army coming, rather than to defend them with their lives did an honorable thing. These historical episodes are publicly denounced as the most shameful in history of Sikh and Bangla communities, with only few fringe, marginal religious fanatics coming forward with opposing opinions.

Nor will any normal person from Balkans accept exceptional vengefulness as something to be proud of.

[baybal2]

He picked word Thar, but even that semantic loading that he devised, reinvents the bicycle. He want to put that to "wage feud" as he puts is different from simple fight over social status, while it is, and later he effectively says that.

[PhasmaFelis]

Most people don't kill over social status. If we're going to communicate about this effectively, we need to find a word that means "social status except you're willing to kill over it." Which he did. Is there a word you would have preferred?

[techdragon]

I’m not an anthropologist but I’ve read a few things over the years.

Honour and social status are often correlated inside of honour valuing “subcultures” that often use the honour system they make up as the driver for the typical in group vs out group social dynamics that perpetuate the majority of subcultures. So it’s often hard to distinguish between different “honour systems” that can make some of the more extreme behaviour understandable.

For example the honour killing of wives can stem from absolute moral codes surrounding sexual behaviour combined with strong social stances on purity. Once “tainted” it is viewed as more honourable to kill the tainted wife than to allow her to remain in the family. She is no longer pure enough to remain a suitable partner for anyone thereby making death preferable. This relates back to my honour subcultures point because in this subcultures view, failing to “eliminate the taint” risks devaluation of their own social standing and creates sufficient incentives that some are driven to commit murder in the name of “honour”

Also it often happens that “both” people involved in the extra marital sex are killed in such honour killing cases.

[justinpombrio]

You've listed a few things as not being honor, that I would have called honor. Could you say what you do mean by honor?