"Syndrome" here simply means things that go together. I'm taking this from Jane Jacobs' most under-rated book Systems of Survival. It is a much better work than her more highly rated output.
Anyway, these two collections of virtues correspond to guilt-innocence and shame-honour societies. I'll just post them for now and comment later as seems appropriate. Jacobs, by the way, calls them commercial and guardian values and that is a helpful way to think about them. Think of the first in terms of the virtues that would make a good business man such as that of Frank's father in Rob Roy and the latter as what would be appropriate to a military unit or a polce force.
Guilt-innocence Shame-honour
Shun force Shun trading
Come to voluntary agreements Exert prowess
Be honest Be obedient and disciplined
Collaborate easily with strangers and aliens Adhere to tradition
Compete Respect hierarchy
Respect contracts Be loyal
Use initiative and enterprise Take vengeance
Be open to inventiveness Deceive for the sake
and novelty of the task
Be efficient Make rich use of leisure
Promote comfort and convenience Be ostentatious
Dissent for the sake of the task Dispense largesse
Invest for productive purposes Be exclusive
Be industrious Show fortitude
Be thrifty Be fatalistic
Be optimistic Treasure honour
A couple of quick notes. In recent years a new brand of elite has argued that we can survive on guilt-innocence values alone. We see this both in the political elite and in the religious elite.
The second thing is a big shocker for many Christians, particularly liberal Christians. And it's this: the values Jesus lived and died by are shame-honour values. Some explanation and qualification is needed here and there but that is where he fits and he cannot be made fit the first set without doing considerable violence to his teachings, although Luther certainly tried.
Anyway, these two collections of virtues correspond to guilt-innocence and shame-honour societies. I'll just post them for now and comment later as seems appropriate. Jacobs, by the way, calls them commercial and guardian values and that is a helpful way to think about them. Think of the first in terms of the virtues that would make a good business man such as that of Frank's father in Rob Roy and the latter as what would be appropriate to a military unit or a polce force.
Guilt-innocence Shame-honour
Shun force Shun trading
Come to voluntary agreements Exert prowess
Be honest Be obedient and disciplined
Collaborate easily with strangers and aliens Adhere to tradition
Compete Respect hierarchy
Respect contracts Be loyal
Use initiative and enterprise Take vengeance
Be open to inventiveness Deceive for the sake
and novelty of the task
Be efficient Make rich use of leisure
Promote comfort and convenience Be ostentatious
Dissent for the sake of the task Dispense largesse
Invest for productive purposes Be exclusive
Be industrious Show fortitude
Be thrifty Be fatalistic
Be optimistic Treasure honour
A couple of quick notes. In recent years a new brand of elite has argued that we can survive on guilt-innocence values alone. We see this both in the political elite and in the religious elite.
The second thing is a big shocker for many Christians, particularly liberal Christians. And it's this: the values Jesus lived and died by are shame-honour values. Some explanation and qualification is needed here and there but that is where he fits and he cannot be made fit the first set without doing considerable violence to his teachings, although Luther certainly tried.
I'm trying to separate the use of "guilt" and "shame" in this context from the way they are used in the therapeutic setting. As I said in an earlier post, in the therapeutic context "guilt" allows people to change, "shame" offers no hope of redemption.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, regarding your use of those terms, I think maybe people arrive at a synthesis of "guilt/innocence" and "shame-honour." Also, I think the traits that you ascribe to each can have different meanings depending upon the context and the particular situation. But I have to say that the "shame-honour" syndrome to me offers few attributes that I would consider virtuous, and I don't know how you could think that Jesus lived and died by this, if anything he was a victim of it. He rejected the religious hierarchy of his time (and paid the price), he called for a new alternative to tradition (and paid the price), he said turn the other cheek (not take vengeance), was not ostentatious, welcomed everyone (was not exclusive), and talked about eternal life which is the very antithesis of fatalism.
I think this has helped me understand why I had my "Epiphany" moment at that Easter Vigil a few years ago, when I realized that the Church turned Jesus into a policeman to enforce the Old Law. You hit the nail on the head here.
ReplyDeleteOk, I haven't read the book that you're referring to, but what she is describing are attributes or qualities, not virtues. You need certain attributes to be a cop, a banker, a teacher, that might or might not be virtuous. You need certain attributes to survive in a dog-eat-dog world that might or might not be virtuous. Virtue is irrelevant, there's no box labeled "Virtuous" on any job performance appraisal I've ever heard of. In addition, the same attributes that are required to be an effective cop, banker, or survivor, would probably make one a lousy husband, father, or friend if they were not moderated or tempered in the context of intimate or simply non-professional relationshiops. I think when attributes are elevated to the status of virtues, it obfuscates and ultimately lowers the bar for what is truly virtuous. An efficacious business man, military leader, or cop does not equal a virtuous human being. I think she's mixing apples with oranges, maybe a sign of moral relativism?
ReplyDeleteI retract my last statement, Jane Jacobs isn't mixing apples with oranges, it would appear that you are doing that. I did some research and her book that you cite refers specifically to the morality of work as it relates to cities, urban planning, etc. which you seem to be extrapolating as a model for living a virtuous life. But please don't let me stop you, I'm dying to read how you transform Jesus into Uber-Cop!
ReplyDeleteIn the preface, Jacobs explains, “This book explores the morals and values that underpin viable working life. Like the other animals, we find and pick up what we can use, and appropriate territories. But unlike the other animals, we also trade and produce for trade. Because we possess these two radically different ways of dealing with our needs, we also have two radically different systems of morals and values – both systems valid and necessary.”*
ReplyDelete*Jacobs, Jane (1992). Systems of Survival. Random House, Inc. ISBN 0-394-55079-X. p. xi.
It's interesting because your reactions to just this teaser are very similar to the way people reacted to the book when it came out.
ReplyDeleteOne thing, I wouldn't want to give the impression that I am going anywhere in particular with this. I thought of it because I am reading Rob Roy wherein one of the main sources of conflict is between guilt-innocence and honour-shame values. where that leads me I don't know.
By the way, having read the book I can tell you that one of Jacobs strongest conclusions is that it is not a good idea to mix the two syndromes. One person can live in both but not simultaneously. When you put on one hat, you must remove the other.
I agree, we all live in both worlds but not simultaneously, and the trick is knowing when to remove one hat and put on the other. The cop better make damn well sure that he takes off his uniform when he gets off work and before he walks into his house. Maybe that explains the high incidence of chemical substance abuse, depression, domestic violence, divorce, heart disease and hypertension among people who work in law enforcement. In CT, under a special legislative fiat, cops and firefighters can retire early with as little as 10 yrs on the job with full pension and benefits if they can demonstrate any of the above.
ReplyDelete