Table Of ContentIIONOR ANd sltAME
ANd TilE UNilY of
TilE MEdiTERRANEAN ·
editedbyDAVIDD.GILMORE
aspecialpublicationoftheAmericanAnthropologicalAssociation
number22
ItONOR ANd sltAME
ANd TItE UNiTY of
TItE MEdiTERRANEAN
editedbyDAVIDD.GILMORE
aspecial publicationoftheAmericanAnthropologicalAssociation
number22
Publishedbythe
AmericanAnthropological Association
1703NewHampshire Avenue,N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009
ProductionEditor
FrederickCuster
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
HonorandshameandtheunityoftheMediterranean.
(ASpecialpublication oftheAmericanAnthropological Association ;no.22)
I. Ethnology-Mediterranean Region. 2.Socialvalues.3. Honor. 4.Shame.5. Med-
iterraneanRegion-Social lifeandcustoms. I. Gilmore,DavidD., 1943- .Il. Series.
GN588.H66 1987 306'.091822 86-26525
ISBN0-913167-17-7 (pbk.)
Copyright© 1987bytheAmericanAnthropologicalAssociation
Allrightsreserved.
ISBN0-913167-17-7
CONTENTS
1 Preface
2 Introduction: The Shame of Dishonor
DavidD.Gilmore
22 Family and State inthe Mediterranean
John Davis
35 Seeds of Honor, Fields ofShame
Carol Delaney
49 "Horsemen are the Fence of the Land": Honor and History among
theGhiyata ofEastern Morocco
MichaelA.Marcus
61 Female Chastity Codes inthe Circum-Mediterranean:
Comparative Perspectives
Maureen J.Giovannini
75 "As in Your Own House": Hospitality, Ethnography.rand the Ste
reotype ofMediterranean Society
MichaelHerzfeld
90 Honor, Honesty,Shame: Male Status inContemporaryAndalusia
DavidD.Gilmore
104 Shame, Family, and State inCataloniaandJapan
MarikoAsano-Tamanoi
121 Reflections onHonor andShame intheMediterranean
StanleyBrandes
135 Contributors
PREFACE
Over twenty years have passed since publication of the original volume on
honorandshame inMediterraneansociety(Peristiany 1965).Sincethen,aMed
iterranean subspeciality has gained currency and legitimacy in some quarters of
cultural anthropology, partly because of this pioneering work. But there remain
naggingquestionsaboutthealleged uniformity, validity, and geographicbound
edness of honor-and-shame, and of the correlative Mediterranean culture-area
construct. Theseessays, originally presented ata panel atthe AmericanAnthro
pologicalAssociation's Annual Meeting inWashington in 1983,areallattempts
to reexamine these questions and to reopen the issue of Mediterranean cultural
unity and the relevance of the honor/shame model of this supposed unity. This
symposium wasorganized by myself with the help of Sarah C. Uhland Mariko
Asano-Tamanoi,both ofSUNY-Stony Brook.
The reader may notice that "Mediterranean" is sometimes used here in the
nominativecase,sometimesasamodifier,andthat itisspelledwithalowercase
m bysomeof the authors. While I uphold a grammaticalconservatism that con
signs "Mediterranean" toadjective use-withacapitalM-I haveacceded here
tothe wishesof those whoare tryingto makeapoint with innovativesemantics.
Those who write "mediterranean" are apparently more convinced than others
thatithasenoughprovenempiricalconsistencytostandalone. Iwillletthereader
judge;inanycase Iassume thisgrammatical ambiguitywillbe.taken asatribute
todifferingpointsofviewrather thaneditorialinattention.
Mostoftheeditorialtasksinvolved inthisvolumewerecarriedoutwhileIwas
a Visiting Scholar at the Institute of Latin American and Iberian Studies at Co
lumbia University. Iwanttothank LambrosComitasandJoan Vincent for facil
itatingmyaffiliationwiththeInstitute. MythanksalsogotoSUNY-StonyBrook,
whichprovidedleavetime, totheNationalEndowmentfortheHumanities,which
paid my salary during that time, and to Dan Bates andJudith Tucker of Hunter
College, who provided officespace andother valuablesupport. Edward Lehman
of the American Anthropological Association also deserves a word of gratitude
for his perseverence and assistance under sometimes trying circumstances. Fi
nally, the three anonymous reviewers merit praise for their valuable criticisms,
andforrespondingsopromptly.
DavidD. Gilmore
INTRODUCTION:
THE SHAME OF DISHONOR
David D.Gilmore
Like the other sciences, anthropology evolves through a dialectic of primary
postulation, challenge, andrevision.So much of thisisbasedonpresentation of
new field data that it is sometimes hard to distinguish between description and
deduction. Thiscollection of empiricallybased essays has adual and reciprocal
purpose.Thefirstistoprovidenew,comparabledataonastandardMediterranean
paradigm, "honor and shame." The second goal is to reexamine fundamental
assumptions about Mediterranean unity made on the basis of theoriginalhonor/
shamemodel (Peristiany 1965).
Thismodel isvirtuallycoterminouswiththe birth of aMediterraneanfocusin
culturalanthropology.The earliest pathfinders intheMediterranean Basin-no
tably British structuralists Pitt-Rivers and Peristiany- were struck by conspicu
ousaffinitiesinthelimitedethnographyofthetime. Inresponsetheyconjuredup
aMediterranean culturalarchetypeimplicitlyincorporatinginsightsfromthehis
torical synthesis of Braudel (1972). Aside from obvious environmental and his
torical analogues, these pioneers saw the Mediterranean peoples as united by a
pervasiveandrelativelyuniformvaluesystem based oncomplementarycodesof
honorandshame. Peristiany(1965:10)calledthisvaluesyndrome "supreme" in
thesecularconsciousnessoftheregion;and theotherauthorsintheoriginalvol
umeaccededtothissuppositionandelaborateduponit,contributingethnographic
sketchesofdescriptivesparkleandliterarygrace.However,fewquestioned basic
assumptionsofconsistencyanddistinctiveness.Nordidtheybroachquestionsof
origin, diffusion, or causality.Their work provides us today with an invaluable
prolegomenon,akindofUr-ethnography,butleavesthetaskofcomparativeanal
ysisandintegrationopen-ended.
Takingup thechallenge, JaneSchneider (1971) inaugurated American Medi
terraneanstudiesbylaunchingavigorousanalysisofconsiderableoriginalityand
muscularity. Regarding the honor/shame syndrome as an ideological displace
mentforunderlyingstructuraloppositionsofthecircum-Mediterraneansocieties,
sheadded ahistorical-causaldimension to the study ofimplicitregularities. She
alsoproposedaparsimoniousthesisastowhytheMediterranean areaasawhole
differed fromothersinthisregard. Inlinkingcausalvariables to internalcultural
consistency, Schneider's paradigm added substance to the emergent claim for
Mediterraneandistinctiveness. Hergroundbreakingworkisreflectedinlaterstud
iesby Black-Michaud (1975), Ortner (1978), and inoriginalpapers by Giovan
niniandMarcusinthisvolume.
Shortlyafterwards,John Davis(1977) publishedacomprehensivecritiquetak
ingearlierMediterraneaniststotaskfornaivelyassumingculture-arearegularities
2
Introduction 3
withoutproviding the necessary comparative framework. LikeSchneider, Davis
argues that the Mediterranean region is indeed a culture area, a bounded entity
forgedthrough millennia of contact, exchange, intermarriage, and mutual colo
nization. Buthecorrectly warns thatthis unity must notbetaken forgranted but
grasped through comparison and historical study. This volume is in part a re
sponsetoDavis's challenge.
Mostoftheauthorsabove haveaccepted theimplicitassumption thattheMed
iterranean Basin represents acultural unity; that itshows both an internal cohe
sivenessinmoral-cognitivetermsandaperspicuous traitenclosure inspace.Fur
ther, there isgeneral agreement that the honor/shame syndrome is diacritical to
thiscoherenceanddifferentiation.It isthisdualnotion, lyingattheheartofMed
iterranean studies, that has been questioned by some of the authors represented
here.
Inone of the firstextra-Mediterranean comparisons (with Japan), Asano-Ta
manoibreaks newground by showing thatthis moral complex isnotconfined to
theMediterranean area. However, sheobserves thatthere areimportant-though
subtle-structural distinctions having to do with sexuality and its control, sub
sumed under the concept of the "physical person" in Spain-a concept almost
lackinginJapan.Similarly,Herzfeld continues his insightful critique of thepre
sumed uniformity of the honor principle itself, firstenunciated in a 1980paper
(seealso Wikan 1984). Herzfeld, Brandes, Asano-Tamanoi, and Ipresent field
workdatawhichsuggestthattheoriginal modelof "honor" hasindeedbeenpre
maturelynominalized, and thatthe Mediterranean region isdotted with societies
whereothermoralprinciplesoverlayorovershadow anassertive''honor" asmas
culineideals. Ofcourse someofthismay beduetorapid modernization andcul
tural accrual inthe past two decades-a period of unprecedented regional trans
formation. Allof us, though, would probably all agree thatthese "other" moral
principles, which we call hospitality, respect, and honesty, are also specifically
Mediterraneanvalueswhichcananddocomplementtheclassichonor/shamesys
tem, howeverweakeneditmightbe. Certainly thecorrelativeemphasisonfemale
chastity and thedesirability of premarital virginity remain strong throughout the
regiondespite modernization (Denich 1977;Giovannini,thisvolume).
At this point it would be worthwhile to summarize the seminal honor/shame
modelasoriginally postulated,andtooutline itssaliencetotheclaim forculture
areadistinctiveness. Afterwards,Iwilltracemorerecent refinementsmadeinthe
model, itsrelationship to theculture-area idea, and presumed causal factors. Fi
nally, Iwillmakesomepreliminary remarksconcerningneglected areasforcom
parative study on these issues, arguing the case for a crosscultural psychosocial
perspective inMediterranean studies.
Honor, Shame, and Mediterranean Unity
Honorandshame are reciprocal moral values representing primordial integra
tionofindividual to "group." They reflect, respectively, theconferral ofpublic
esteemuponthe person and the sensitivity topublic opinion upon which the for
merdepends(Pitt-Rivers 1965:42).Sinceallface-to-face societiesaremoralcom
munitieswherepublicopinionarbitrates reputation, allsuchsocieties maybesaid
tohavesomeformofhonorandshame (Peristiany 1965:10;Wyatt-Brown 1982).
However,what seemsdescriptively outstanding about the Mediterraneanvariant
istherelationship tosexuality and gender distinctions:
4 DavidD. Gilmore
Itisthecomparisonofthemale-femalerelationshipandthatoftherolesofthesexeswithinthese
societiesthatpoints .. . tosignificantanalogies... .[Peristiany 1965:9]
Previously honorhasbeenportrayedintheMediterranean literatureasessentially
male: itisthereward forsuccessfulpower maneuvers inwhich aman'srelation
shiptoother men through women isthe fundamental axisofevaluation (Dundes
andFalassi 1975:198).Honor iseverywhere "closelyassociatedwithsex" (Pitt
Rivers1961:114). Itsbasiccurrencyandmeasurementisthe"shame" ofwomen,
by which Mediterraneanistsmean female sexualchastity.Throughout theMedi
terraneanarea,malehonorderivesfromthestruggletomaintain intact theshame
ofkinswomen;andthisrendersmalereputationinsecurelydependent uponfemale
sexual conduct. Men are responsible for the shame of their women "which is
associated withsexualpurity and their own honor derivesin large measure from
thewaytheydischarge theirresponsibility" (Pitt-Rivers 1977:78).Whenmenare
unsuccessful in this they are "shamed," that is, diminished in relation to other
men.
ThisconceptionofMediterraneanhonor,then,positsaprecariousinverseequa
tionof moralobligationsin which women become the "weak link" inthechain
of masculine virtue (Campbell 1964:199). "Dishonour is contagious, through
women" (Davis 1973:160). In a sense, then, one may regard Mediterranean
moralattributesasfunctionally linked to aparticularkinetic notionofsocialsex
uality. Sexuality itself is perceived through a competitive idiom by which men
jockeyforcontroloverwomen asobjectstoachievenarcissisticgratificationsand
dominanceoverother men. Sexualityisaform ofsocialpower:
Successfulclaimsonawomanentaildominationofothermen,bothfromthepointofviewofthe
husbandwhojealouslyguardshiswife, andoftheadulterer, whoshowshimselftobemorepow
erfulthanthehusband. [Blok 1981:431]
The struggle for honor is not only erotic, though, for success has concomitant
economic implications(Schneider 1971). Patriarchaldomination,once achieved
and defended, is instrumental in securing access to scarce resources. The latter,
of course, is facilitated by the acquisition of desirable affines, who in tum are
attracted byanhonorable name (Boissevain 1976:7).
There aretwo logicalconsequencesto thisreciprocalconceptionof honor and
shame. First there is the rather unusual (ethnographically speaking) connection
between erotic andeconomic power, the latterbeing largely contingent uponthe
former. This is "intrinsically interesting" as Davis remarks (this volume); but
whatmakesthisdifferent from othersocieties where affluencederives fromcon
trol over women and their labor power?The difference is that inthe Mediterra
nean lands women themselves are often nonproductive materially-ideally they
are "excluded" from nondomesticwork (Davis 1977:43-44). Rather,theycarry
animmaterialorconceptual resource, theirchastity, arbitrarilyelevatedtocentral
position as an exchange value. This value is transmitted lineally through male
vigilance, enhancing the family patrimony. So as Schneider (1971)has argued,
femalemodestyismetamorphosed,almostinthe mannerofafetish,into apseu
docommodity,ormoreaccuratelyacapitalgood. Theemphasisisthusonfemale
"labor" inreproductionrather thanproduction. Second isthat the masculineex
perience of sexuality becomes broadened conceptually to encompass a triad in
volving two men--Drgroupsof men-and awoman, who isreduced toaninter
mediating object. Sexual relations are experienced as a measureofcomparative
