The moral cultures: Honor, dignity, and victimhood

The phrase “moral culture” describes a societal consensus on a variety of intermingled issues. There have been a number of moral cultures throughout the human history of which we have a record. There are several issues that are described by this phrase:

·         Status: How do persons gain status and get ahead in the society?

·         Wrong actions: What is considered an action which is inappropriate or wrong?

·         Disputes: How do persons settle disputes and problems?

·         Authority: What authority do persons appeal to when a dispute arises?

There have been many discussions of “honor” and “dignity” cultures. The new moral culture has been termed “victimhood culture”. In this post, I summarize the writings of many, in particular recent discussions. The inciteful and perspicacious recent discussions of “victimhood culture” by sociologists Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning has led to some increased understanding of events on college campuses, liberal religions, and society as a whole. The notion of “victimhood culture” is key to understanding what is occurring on campuses regarding sexual assault, male power, Israel, Hamas, and the current war. It also helps in understanding other issues in society, such as those being experienced in liberal religions at this time (early 2020s).

To understand this relatively new moral culture termed “victimhood culture”, it’s important to understand each of the moral cultures: honor, dignity, and victimhood. The three cultures will be summarized here, so that the reader can form a clear idea of how they operate. In subsequent blog posts, reference will be made to this summary. Little of what is said in this summary can be considered novel, but the summary will allow a reader to follow other references more easily. The reader who is interested in this topic should examine the multiple other works which discuss this topic (culture of honor, culture of dignity, The Rise of Victimhood Culture)

Culture of Honor

The Culture of Honor (CoH) is a culture which views personal behavior, the value of an individual, and society as a whole in a manner which held in many societies for thousands of years. In CoH societies, the key or most important aspect of a person is his reputation as well as the reputation of his family. Personal bravery is highly important, so that being considered a “coward” is a mortal insult.

In CoH societies, individuals will defend their own reputation with extreme actions. If they are insulted, they will find a way to exact revenge on the person who insulted them. This may involve a dual or a vendetta. Each individual in such societies is responsible for his own reputation, and for restoring the honor to his name or the honor of the family name.

The honor or reputation of a person is derived from various sources. The CoH societies began as ones in which there is a noble or aristocratic class of royal and titled persons (e.g.: kings, princes, dukes, counts, lords) and such persons have value based on their family and the history of the family. So, in England, the family names of Percy, North, and Neville are traditional families in the aristocracy. Persons, mostly men, in such families are considered to have honor by right of birth, but can lose it due to poor conduct. The name of the individual can lose honor, by a cowardly act. To add honor to a family or individual name, a great act must be performed. So, in English history, the name Nelson is associated with the great victory at Trafalgar, and the name Wellington is associated with the great victory at Waterloo. Persons are considered honorable with a sterling reputation if they have performed heroic acts in battle or performed a key service to the king. The first member of the Churchill family to be elevated to the aristocracy, John Churchill, found success by marrying a higher-status woman, and then by winning key battles. Persons in CoH societies also gain status by everyday risk taking, such as gambling, womanizing, excessive drinking, and risky personal conduct.

Prior to roughly 1800, many societies were CoH societies. Duels were common and accepted as a means of settling conflicts between persons. Personal bravery was a very important component of life. Those who had high status needed to demonstrate bravery, in some cases by reckless conduct (gambling, drinking, womanizing), and in other cases by physical bravery in battle.  Even today, in parts of society which are dominated by CoH views (inner city gang culture), the reputation of an individual is very important, and direct revenge for insults is very common.

Many movie plots turn on the issues in the CoH. In the movie “The Four Feathers”, a young man in England resigns his commission in the Army after he learns that the regiment will be posted in North Africa. His fiancé and his fellow officer friends find this to be evidence of cowardice, and give him four feathers to shame him and mark his cowardice. He then disguises himself as an Arab, keeping the four feathers with himself, and goes to the place where the regiment is posted. He has many moments of extreme danger, where he goes to extreme measures to demonstrate his bravery by saving the lives of the friends who had shamed him. At the end of the movie, he reveals himself to his fiancé, who has by then engaged to one of the men who gave him the feather. The restoration of his honor in the face of this “emblem of the coward” takes many years. In doing this, he saves several of his friends who did enlist, showing that his bravery and abilities were superior to those of the friends.

The CoH is one in which personal honor is sacrosanct, and in which personal actions are taken to solve conflicts. While it governed many societies for many years, it was eventually replaced by a more equitable, democratic culture.

·         Status: In the CoH, persons have status from their name and from performing heroic deeds. In such cultures, preserving the name of a person is a key to status. Status may be obtained by military service, although many CoH military are based on hereditary peerage situations.

·         Wrong actions: Insulting another person or questioning their status is a key wrong action. The phrase “Are you calling me a liar?” is a quintessential CoH question. “A man’s word is his bond.” If you break your word or commit a false deed that you have sworn to not perform, you can dishonor yourself. If a person’s word is questioned, the slight to honor must be avenged to recover the name and honor. Persons in CoH are also interested in maintaining and observing the honor of others, and will “call them out” to preserve this culture.

·         Disputes: Disputes are settled by the decision of important persons or by actions of the aggrieved party. If a person’s word is questioned, or his honor put into doubt, a personal revenge is sometimes performed. A duel is another method of addressing a question of honor. Another approach to settling questions of honor is the vendetta, a feud that sometimes can run for decades. In the US, the famous Hatfield-McCoy feud lasted many years. In Albania, vendettas can span generations, and can result in persons never leaving their house in order to not be killed in the street. In many US cities today, gang feuds result in many deaths of both other gang members, and innocent bystanders as well.

·         Authority: Authority in CoH are high-status individuals. In the movie “The Godfather”, Marlon Brando’s character was a mob boss who would settle disputes by one method or another, often by killing an offending party. His authority came from his use of fear, intimidation, and the unwillingness of Italian immigrants to trust local legal authorities. Other forms of authority are high-status individuals such as hereditary aristocrats, clergy, or scientists.

Culture of Dignity

The Culture of Dignity (CoD) is a societal culture which has become the main culture in most countries roughly since 1800, in the time termed the “Enlightenment”. In CoD societies, persons have inherent dignity or level of equality which cannot be taken away. This is the key attribute of a person.

In CoD societies, individuals will defend their dignity and their person by appeal to the law and the enforcement of the law. If a person is attacked by others, the police are called in to resolve the issue. If the police believe that a law is broken, an arrest is made, and the matter is referred to the courts. Laws are created to ensure that there is fairness in personal conduct, in commercial conduct, and in the society as a whole. The law is used to ensure that the dignity of individuals is maintained.

In CoD societies, no one is above the law. Persons of old, respected families are subjected to the same legal restrictions as those of poor people. While it is the case that some persons (or corporate persons) can obtain better lawyers than can other, less wealthy persons, the law remains the method of settling disputes. Gaining advantage by using family connections is seen as somewhat underhanded in such cultures. When a person attempts to use his name or his family connections to gain advantage or advance outside of the merit system (“Do you know who I am?”), this is often a moment of high amusement; no one in a CoD society gains status by the status of the family or by pre-existing conditions such as wealth. If it is known that a person gains a job or opportunity by family connections, this is the minor scandal termed “nepotism”. This is a problem due to the elevation of someone who is often less competent, and because it is not fair and following the rule of “equality of opportunity”.

The most important aspect of life in CoD is that there is a “level playing field”, in which all persons have an equal opportunity to succeed. This may be in the area of admission to universities, participation in activities, or other situations in which there is competitive selection. The US has been engaged in a process of leveling the playing field for many years, ensuring that there is no bar to the entry of non-white persons, women, persons of minority ethnic origin, persons of minority religious origin, amongst other groups.   

The dignity of each individual is inherent in that individual. However, persons can gain in status by improving themselves. They can obtain credentials (e.g.: degrees, certifications) which enable them to perform higher status jobs. Parents can help their children to gain access to specific schools and opportunities, but the student must then perform and succeed on his own. The merit system or “meritocracy” is the primary method for gaining status, and for governing the process of status improvement in a CoD.

The CoD has been growing in the West in particular since early in the 1800s. The terrible results of conflicts during the 1800s (Crimea and Boer) in British military campaigns, in which senior officers created disaster after disaster, sped this process up; the senior officers were often incompetent persons of the minor nobility. An increasingly professionalized military was the result. In the US, a professional military had always been the case.

In advances in other areas, increasing uses of testing replaced less professional approaches to advancement; my great grandfather Hiram Loomis sued the City of Chicago and the Chicago school board in 1935 due to non-professional methods of elevating teachers to higher paying positions as principle – the method he sued over was open bribery for the coveted principalship positions. Starting in WWII in the USA, the use of standardized tests has considerably evened the playing ground for college admission, in that persons from small and large schools, from urban and rural areas, from rich and poor families, are all evaluated on a common standard.

In terms of popular culture depicting the idealized working of the CoD, movies and books which fall into the “bildungsroman” (coming of age) genre frequently show the individual rising due to hard work and consistent effort. Books by Horatio Alger show that working hard and not giving up are the key to success. This is the essence of the CoD – each person can succeed if they have a good idea, work hard to fulfill it, and sometimes are aided a little by luck.

·         Status: Each person in a CoD society has an inherent worth and dignity. This worth and dignity are supported by a network of laws. The legal system allows persons who are both poor and rich to have somewhat of an equal status. This is not always the case, since rich persons can get more and better lawyers.

·         Wrong actions: Wrong actions are those which are against the law. The system of laws defines actions are either “legal” or “illegal”. Actions that are illegal are considered wrong. If an action is questionable or unfair, it can be legal. Law-making bodies (legislature) look for actions which are NOT illegal but which are both unfair and harmful. These actions are put into legal status by passing new laws.

·         Disputes: Persons settle disputes by the action of the courts, either the criminal or the civil sort. The courts are run by persons duly constituted by society, usually with law degrees (lawyers are experts in the procedures of social order and of law).

·         Authority: The authorities in CoD are those elected (judges, legislators) or appointed (judges) or trained (police) to enforce the laws of society.

Culture of Victimhood

The Culture of Victimhood (CoV) is a relatively new moral culture to society, which has been gaining strength for possibly the last 20 years. In the CoV, the key component of a person lies in the groups of which they are members. Groups which are considered traditional “downtrodden victim groups” or “marginalized” groups are of particular importance and given specific value.

Status in the CoV comes from being a member of a traditionally victimized or marginalized group. These might include racial/ethnic minorities (high status: persons of African descent, of Hispanic heritage, of North American indigenous groups; medium status or low status, of Jewish heritage, of Asian descent, of Eastern European heritage, of Western European status), sexual conduct minorities (gay, trans, bisexual, queer), sex (female), poverty, deformity (wheelchair use), mental illness or mental deficiency (autism spectrum, depression, anxiety, schizophrenia), and location of origin (foreigners who have immigrated to the US, persons from places in the US which are lower status and characterized by poverty). If a person belongs to one or more of these marginalized or disadvantaged groups, they have a status in the CoV as a victim. Victims are given higher status, because they are vulnerable and cannot act for themselves. Conversely, being a member of a “privileged group” brings opprobrium upon a person. Thus, in a CoV, persons look for ways of not being members of privileged groups.

The term “intersectionality” refers to the situation in which a person is a member of more than 1 marginalized group. Such persons are more disadvantaged due to the multiple group memberships, and thus have a higher status. So, black females have more status than do black males, or white females. Black lesbians are members of 3 marginalized groups, and so have more status. Black lesbians who are confined to wheelchairs again have a higher intersectionality score, and a higher status, than do able-bodied persons. Sometimes this is called a “dis-merit badge” system. Sometimes this is termed a “purity spiral”, in that the status level is continually being raised by introducing more and more “dis-merit badges” into a situation in a quest for the higher status of being a member of more marginalized groups.

Disputes in the CoV are handled in a variety of manners. Persons in the CoV are often extremely sensitive to very small comments or problematic terms. The term “microaggression” refers to a slight or insult that one person makes in conversing with another. The person who commits the microaggression often does not realize that this insult has occurred. The listener, the victim of the microaggression, is often unaware that he has said an offensive word. The insulted person is allowed to control the “outrage level” of the conversation.

Disputes are also handled by appeals to authority. Since most of the disputes are not offenses against the law, the authorities are not the legal authorities of the police or courts, but rather the authorities of workplace behavior (the HR department), social media (the comment screeners), and groups in the local area (clubs, members of groups). In appealing to these authorities, the aggrieved party wishes to get a correction of behavior (an apology or a removal of a comment), an expulsion of a person from a group, or a complete cancellation of the person. The term “cancel culture” is one applied to this component of the CoV, in that persons who are considered to have violated a taboo (sexual conduct, beliefs about gays and trans persons, beliefs about racial minorities) are cancelled by removal from the group (firing from the job, cancellation of the social media account). This behavior is sometimes called “swarming” in that the offended person will recruit other like-minded persons to “pile on” the offender, either in the physical presence or on the social media platform.

Persons who are in the CoV are very sensitive to statements and beliefs. They object to comments which imply that the marginalized groups are optional. For this reason, those who follow the gay/lesbian sexual orientation insist that they were “born that way”, rather than choosing this sexual relations path. This applies to the trans sexual identification as well, in which those persons are considered to have an innate sense of the “other sex” from birth. For this reason, detransitioners (persons who have exited the trans state and re-identified with their chromosomal sex) are not well-received as they are a direct threat to the notion that trans persons are “born that way”. Other persons who have “identified” as a racial minority by deception are strongly rejected, as a racial minority is not considered a group of optional membership.

Persons in the CoV are also sensitive to the identification of them as members of victim groups. The term “social justice warrior” (SJW) was originally accepted but has been moved by the process of the “euphemism cycle” into a negative term. If the term is used, it is considered a slur. This is also the case for “political correctness” and “social justice”. In the Catholic Church, “liberation theology” refers to a religious elevation of lower class persons and a concentration on political, rather than religious, actions by priests and nuns. In discussing the CoV, it is increasingly difficult to find a term which can be used to identify members in this group, which will not lead to objections by those very persons. 

The term “cultural Marxism” is sometimes used for the CoV. That is because in the CoV, an ideal state or condition is one in which all groups are equally valued and have equal status. Thus, “from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs” is a statement that can be applied to CoV efforts to elevate marginalized groups. The program of elevating lower-status groups and lowering higher-status groups is similar to the program of political Marxism in making all members of a society economically equal. As students of history know, political Marxism was a complete failure in all cases in which it was attempted.

One approach to implementing the CoV in universities and businesses is the DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) approach. In this approach, persons are required to attend workshops about “privilege” and “marginalized groups”. They are encouraged to consider their own biases and unconscious thoughts about marginalized groups. In some cases, “DEI statements” are required for hiring or promotion. Evaluation of such programs shows that there are many problems with them, and that they result in more racism rather than less. Possibly this is due to the heightened focus in such trainings on marginalized groups. It seems likely that persons in such trainings, in defense of their own integrity, find any sort of marginalized group in which they can claim membership, and then use the “purity cycle” to increase their own marginalized “dis-merit badge” count.  In a recent post (“The DEIter Principle”), the implications of the imposition of DEI in university settings were discussed.

·         Status: In the CoV, status is an intrinsic part of the groups with which a person is associated. Most of these groups are unchangeable. However, groups of sexual affiliation (gay, lesbian, bi-sexual) and of gender status (trans man, trans woman) are malleable. Persons can change their status by joining a victim group, which is considered a key factor in the rise of trans identities.

·         Wrong actions: Actions which strengthen the “current power centers” are considered wrong. Actions which “impede” the attempts to raise victim groups are considered wrong.

·         Disputes: Group action is used to settle disputes in many cases. The use of social media is key to bringing the forces of social action to stop “wrong actions” and correct them using cancel culture, shaming, and blaming.

·         Authority: Thought leaders in victim groups are the main authorities. Traditional authorities (college/university leaders, politicians, police/law authorities) are part of the power structure, and are ignored or actively disobeyed. Parents are often considered threats to autonomy and growth, and are ignored as well.

Transitioning from the CoH to the CoD

The transition from CoH to CoD has occurred over time. Many societies began in the CoH, but changed to the CoD as the middle class became more important.

A signal event occurred on an English meadow in 1215. King John, an unsuccessful and unpopular monarch, was forced to sign a treaty with his upper nobles, the barons. This treaty, the Magna Carta, constrained the behavior of the King, and required that the King follow rules in his behavior. This was an important development, as the King’s behavior prior to this treaty was unfettered by rules or treaties. Eventually, the Magna Carta led to the Constitution of England, and to the current status as constitutional monarchy, in which the Sovereign has great limitation on behavior.

As societies entered the Enlightenment starting around 1500s, the limitations of the aristocratic world, and the CoH that it was characterized by, became more and more apparent. The populations of these societies were becoming larger. The needs of commerce superseded the needs of the aristocracy. In many places, the honorable but pecunious nobility needed to “marry rich” by finding a spouse from a lower class with money. Most importantly, the nobility needed to be controlled.

A key event in the early US history was the duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr. This duel, which occurred in 1804, resulted from a report that Hamilton had a “despicable opinion” of Burr. Burr challenged Hamilton to a duel, which occurred in the morning. Hamilton was mortally wounded. However, this did not improve the standing of Burr. In many ways, it was a terrible event for him, because the public was not in sympathy with the notion of the duel to restore honor. Burr was considered a murderer, and legislation was passed to outlaw dueling.

When the notions of the CoH and CoD are understood, almost the whole history of the “western” movie involves this transition. Many of the plots involve a lawless town, in which no one is safe and all disputes are settled by duels (CoH). A new sheriff arrives to impose the rule of law on the town (CoD). Things go well for a time, then the bad guys capture the schoolmarm (sweetheart of the sheriff). He uses his knowledge of plane geometry and French literature to defeat the bad guys, and complete the transition from lawless CoH society to a safer (and somewhat less interesting) CoD town. The music swells up, and the sun sets as the hero and his schoolmarm sweetie ride to the cabin for a cocktail and possibly some other fun activities. TADA!!

Transitioning from the CoD to the CoV

Western society is currently involved in a possible transition from CoD to CoV. The change is generational – those in the “boomer” generation (now aged 55-80) are firmly in the CoD view. The persons in Gen Z (17-30) are heavily involved in the CoV. This produces many different types of problems. Workplace conflicts between boomer managers/employers and Gen Z workers involve differing expectations, and differing views of the place of work for persons. Universities are finding that Gen Z students are different, and have different expectations, than did boomers or the intervening generations. Many discussions of this issue have been written, but the key points of unwillingness to be “harmed” by speech, and the centrality of upholding victim groups, have changed academic life.

The long-term outcome of the challenges of the CoV on the prevailing CoD are unclear in 2024. Pushback to suppression of speech is gaining strength. Opposition to cancel culture is strengthening. It’s unclear what will happen in the long run, but such opposition is heartening.

Conclusions

The three cultures, honor, dignity, and victimhood, characterized societies and the manner in which various events are viewed, and the manner in which disputes arise and then are settled. There are other approaches to this societal moral culture issue, but these three are relevant to events occurring today.