Approaching Honor and Shame with Humility: Limitations to Our Current Understanding

Although honor and shame have been popular missiological themes in the last decade, there are several limitations associated with the concepts that occur in both the missiological literature and the secular anthropological, sociological, and psychological literature. The first set of limitations concerns the meaning of honor and shame. Their definitions vary greatly from author to author. Some authors consider honor and shame to be emotions internal to the individual and others consider them as a measure of one’s social status, something external to the individual. Similarly, there is often no distinction made between shame and shame proneness. Their relationship with other self-conscious emotions (guilt, embarrassment, and pride) is not clear. Often the distinction between vicarious and individual shame and honor is blurred. The second set of limitations concerns our lack of understanding of how honor and shame relate to culture. Since shame dynamics exist in every culture, it is not clear what is meant by a “shame culture.” Modern conceptions of culture tend to view culture as a phenomenon that is due to psychological processes within individuals, rather than external to the individual. Characteristics of cultures are described by positions on dimensions. Shame cultures are often defined as those which are more collectivistic (vs. individualistic). However, many definitions of honor and shame indicate that the dimension of cultural tightness (or uncertainty avoidance) may be just as relevant for understanding shame dynamics, and the cultural dimension of power distance may also be relevant. In light of these limitations, missiologists need to approach the concepts of honor and shame with humility.