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.

To Die Is Gain

This chapter locates incarceration within a broader economy of violence in the Roman world. Prison was legible, it argues, in relation to embodied scripts of honor and shame, self-mastery and slavishness, and what might be called the somatic grammar of subjugation. Among the elite, who were accustomed to bodily inviolability, imprisonment breached a key symbolic boundary that distinguished persons of honor from those subject to them. For Paul, however, as for others among the non-elite, prison was an acute instance of an all too familiar reality—namely, subjection to the mastery of more powerful men. Paul’s desire to die and be with Christ (Phil 1:23) must therefore be read alongside his vision of glorious somatic transformation, a transformation that is also and not incidentally an inversion of power relations, with Paul now sharing the sovereign glory of Christ, before whom all knees must finally bow.

POSISI PEREMPUAN DALAM INJIL LUKAS: Sebuah Kajian dengan Perspektif Honor and Shame Melalui Kisah Elisabet

The number of female figures who appear in Luke's gospel behind a social context that places women in a lower position than men, raises questions about the position of women in Luke's gospel. This article aims to explore the woman in Luke's gospel through the story of Elizabeth. Because the issue of women's position related to social status, the analysis in this study will be based on the perspective of honor and shame with symbolic methods in cultural anthropology as the methodology. The results of this analysis show a positive and significant position for women in the Gospel of Luke. This is shown through the symbols of honor embedded in Elizabeth, as well as her significant and prominent role. Even Elizabeth is shown to be in a much more positive position than her husband, Zacharias. Elizabeth shows that women, like men, can play an important role as patrons, witnesses, and prophets. The way Luke positions Elizabeth indicates that there is an elevation of honor for women to an equal position with men. Keywords: honor and shame, cultural anthropology, Elizabeth, women’s position, the Gospel of Luke Abstrak: Banyaknya tokoh perempuan yang dimunculkan di Injil Lukas di balik konteks sosial yang menempatkan perempuan pada posisi yang lebih rendah daripada laki-laki, menimbulkan pertanyaan mengenai posisi perempuan dalam Injil Lukas. Artikel ini bertujuan untuk mengeksplorasi posisi perempuan dalam Injil Lukas melalui kisah Elisabet. Mengingat isu tentang posisi perempuan berhubungan dengan status sosial, maka analisis dalam penelitian ini akan didasarkan pada perspektif honor and shame dengan metode simbolik dalam antropologi budaya sebagai metodologinya. Hasil dari analisis ini memperlihatkan posisi yang positif dan signifikan bagi perempuan dalam Injil Lukas. Hal ini diperlihatkan melalui simbol-simbol kehormatan yang disematkan kepada Elisabet, serta perannya yang terlihat signifikan dan menonjol. Bahkan Elisabet diperlihatkan pada posisi yang jauh lebih positif daripada Zakharia, suaminya. Elisabet memperlihatkan bahwa perempuan, seperti juga laki-laki, dapat berperan penting sebagai patron, saksi, dan penyampai nubuat. Cara Lukas memosisikan Elisabet ini mengindikasikan adanya pengangkatan kehormatan perempuan pada posisi yang setara dengan laki-laki. Kata-kata Kunci: honor and shame, antropologi budaya, Elisabet, posisi perempuan, Injil Lukas.

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 the 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 (versus 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.