Hayes & Lee (2005)

As an emerging subcultural model, the culture of honor combines

previous notions of race and region (Nisbett and Cohen 1996). This

model states that white males reared in the rural South are more likely

to approve of violence in some situations, specifically those involving

protection of self, personal honor, family, or personal property.

Recall, Swidler’s (1986) ‘‘tool-kit.’’ Southerners simply are more apt

to draw a violent response from their tool-kit than others, given cer-

tain situations. To view it another way, Southerners have violence

near the top of their ‘‘cultural repertoire’’ when others may not. This

is a different approach than previous subcultural explanations of viol-

ence in the South because it focuses on a very limited and well-defined

demographic group, and couples this with a focus on violence having

protective motives. The culture of honor was most likely established

when the first settlers moved into the Southern regions of the United

States. As stated before, these settlers relied on a culture of honor as a

self-policing tool due to the lack of law enforcement in rural areas.

The high regard for personal honor was passed down through genera-

tions, and is still somewhat present today (Nisbett and Cohen 1996).

Nisbett and Cohen (1996) state that they borrow the term ‘‘culture

of honor’’ from anthropology, but insist that they confine their

theorizing to only part of its complete meaning. For example,

Wyatt-Brown (1982), who also discussed honor in the South indicates

that honor is often considered multidimensional and deals with more

than response to threats and handling personal disputes without

involving the authorities. Rather, honor is (1) ‘‘an inner conviction

of self-worth’’ (2) the ability to show that self-worth in public,

and (3) the assessment by the public of the self-worth of the individ-

ual (Wyatt-Brown 1982, p.14.) Thus to Wyatt-Brown, an individual

must first believe that he or she is honorable, they must not hesitate

to act honorably in public and finally, for the public or community

to consider an individual honorable, their public actions must be

interpreted as such.

 

There are clearly internal and external components to Wyatt-

Brown’s definition of honor, and this definition of honor is very gen-

eral and applies to virtually all public displays or overt behavior. So,

in general a culture of honor refers to a group or society that relies on

public displays to evaluate individual behavior and in a sense individ-

ual worth. Specifically, if someone were to be threatened in a culture

of honor, and especially if that threat were in public, the individual 
would feel the need to quickly respond to that threat to show that he

or she is still an honorable person, both to himself and to the group.

This is the main aspect that Nisbett and Cohen (1996) focus on in

their theory.

Useful stuff for my thesis on affirmation as a positive tool for organizational culture change

Cultural change
Despite the fact that the cultural codes which proscribe sanctions to restore damaged honor are passed from one generation to the next (King, 2008; Mojab & Amir, 2002a, 2002b), little research has investigated whether cultural change is possible with regard to the cultural values that support honor related violence. Because cultural change can be the most effective way of breaking the circle of violence against women, the current study investigates whether cultural change with regard to values that support honor related violence through an educational program is possible.

Ref: Cihangir, S. (2013). Gender specific honor codes and cultural change. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16(3), 319-333.

Consensus about normative behaviour can perpetuate honour culture norms.

Once again, the effect sizes for these social perceptions were much larger in the Turkish group than in the American group, suggesting there is more consensus among the Turkish participants about normative behavior in such situations. This perception can perpetuate honor culture norms (Vandello, Cohen, & Ransom, 2008), even if individuals personally disavow them. Future studies that actually expose participants from these two societies to these different types of honor threats would answer the question of whether personal evaluations or social norms are more likely to influence behavior.

Cultural constructivism - Definition

Cultural constructivism asserts that knowledge and reality are a product of their cultural context, meaning that two independent cultures will likely form different observational methodologies. For instance, Western cultures generally rely on objects for scientific descriptions; by contrast, some Native American cultures rely on events for descriptions. These are two distinct ways of constructing reality based on external artifacts.

Positive motivational force of honour on social protest/collective mobilization, and etc. etc.

Istanbul uprisings of the summer of 2013 over the government’s

plans to raze Gezi Park, both the protestors and the

government, who used force against the protestors, claimed

to be partly motivated by honor (Oz, 2013; “Turkish President

Warns,” 2013). This suggests that the everyday conceptions

of honor in Turkey may have diverse components that can

motivate quite different behaviors. Examination of lay conceptions

of honor can identify biases or hidden assumptions

in the existing research, and lay conceptions can be used to

assess competing theories (Fehr, 2005). Finally, the specific

features and dimensions of the construct identified through a

prototype analysis can contribute to the refinement of measurement

tools.

Second, these studies expand research on honor beyond

the focus on aggression and reciprocity that has tended to

dominate much of the research (at least in the United States).

In particular, these results focus on positive aspects of honor

and illustrate how people may mean different things when

they claim to be acting in the name of honor. When the protestors

at Gezi Park in Istanbul claimed that attacks on their

honor was partly what propelled them to act (e.g., Oz, 2013),

it is unclear whether self-respect, the opinions of others, or a

desire to behave morally (or all three) motivated their behavior.

The three dimensions are interrelated, but further research

into their differential influence on specific behaviors as well

as on individual differences in the strength of the three

dimensions would provide a more nuanced understanding of

honor.

One problem with comparisons of two cultural groups is

that they may differ on many dimensions in addition to the

dimension under investigation. Although our samples were

generally similar in age and SES, they differed in terms of

their religious heritage and degree of religious devotion. As

noted in the footnotes, the Turkish samples tended to be more

devout than the U.S. samples; furthermore, religious devotion

was related to the moral behavior dimension in Studies

2 and 3 in the combined samples. Most religions encourage

virtuous, upright behavior; thus, this association is unsurprising.

Yet, religious devotion was not strongly related to the

other components of honor. Some people have associated

honor-related behavior (such as honor killings) with religion,

but the existing anthropological research disputes that belief

(Wikan, 2008). Our findings suggest that this perceived association

between religion and honor may lie in the shared

importance of moral behavior. It would be intriguing to further

explore the ways that religious beliefs and honor-related

ideologies interact to influence behavior.

Moreover, this work did not uncover gendered dimensions

of honor, which has been the focus of other researchers

(e.g., Barnes, Brown, & Osterman, 2012; Rodriguez

Mosquera, Manstead, & Fischer, 2002b; Vandello et al.,

2009). The gender differences in these studies were inconsistent

(see footnotes) except for one finding: Men rated moral

behavior as less central to the prototype of honor (Study 2)

and less personally important (Study 3) than did women.

There are many double standards in cultural norms and roles

for men and women, and women may intuit that they have

more to lose from moral missteps than do men. Because we

did not directly ask for gendered features of honor, these

findings may understate the importance of gendered social

roles in honor-related behaviors.

Cultural differences in regulatory focus & strenghts of lay conception for theory building

Theories of a phenomenon that lose sight of lay conceptions
risk being overly narrow and neglecting key elements of the
phenomenon. Yet, exclusive focus on the lay prototypes of a
phenomenon lacks the rigor and connections to other related
theoretical formulations found in good theories (Gregg et al.,
2008). Thus, the inclusion of a prototype analysis into the
literature on honor cultures can provide enhanced coverage
of the concept that may lead to testable hypotheses and new
theoretical developments. Our findings highlight the importance
of moral behavior for a thorough understanding of
honor. The role of moral behavior in cultures of honor has
tended to be understated (or assumed) in much social-psychological
research (but see Leung & Cohen, 2011;
Rodriguez Mosquera et al., 2008). The moral behavior items
identified in these analyses may prove useful in future measures.
In addition, the specific features generated by these
participants differed in their orientation toward avoidance of
specific negative behaviors (e.g., not to tell lies, generated by
Turkish participants) or approaching positive behaviors (e.g.,
doing the right thing, generated by Northern American participants).
This finding suggests a cultural difference in regulatory
focus, which may underlie other cultural differences in
honor-related behavior (Higgins, 1996). Thus, this prototype
analysis points out potentially useful descriptive elements of
honor and points to ways to integrate other theories into further
research.

Need for contextual information in intimate relationships

A snippet of a speech between the two psychology students (from different cultures and differing needs of pragmatism and emotionality both in the head and outside the head):

- Why are you spending this time with me and why are you looking at me that way? Is it really because you feel this way? Do you think your behaviours match with your feelings?
- Why would my behaviours not match my feelings? Why would I need to deceive you or myself?
- I don't know, I am only asking to understand if you are true, because we never talk about the way we feel with you.
- We don't need to talk, your actions can tell everything.
- People don't act the way they feel...
- I don't know about others, but I do. I think the thing is you always need more confirmation with words.
- Me? Nooo! Oh yeah, maybe compared to you. I'm used to being intimate in this way though, where people express the way they feel constantly or definetely more regularly. This is because of my relationship history, I've been socialized in this way through my past experiences...
- Hmmm maybe, I remember you told me before. Here, we tend to believe that people behave with integrity, so usually you'd guess how the other is feelings based on their actions.
- Ok, I'd still appreciate it if you give me regular updates about your feelings, it would make me feel more comfortable. I'm not saying you should do it everytime we meet, but you know...
- I know...you need confirmation and contextual information.

Gender, honour and shame

http://www.umbc.edu/MA/index/number3/magrini/magr1.htm

Music as Representation of Gender in Mediterranean Cultures

http://www.umbc.edu/MA/ma_stg/ma_con4.htm

Men drinking diet coke, men on diet, men eating salad, men going to pilates...

male honour & female shame

Make a vow on the honour of your family

When she was telling me about the issues she was having with her boyfriend, I noticed that my mind was drifting away from being a friend and giving subjective advice to an objective mind that of a scientist. She said "P. , focus on me for one second." She continued "I told him if you're not lying and completely honest with me, then say that you are telling me the truth on the name of your brother and family."