Honour vs dignity

Both words “honour” and “dignity” carry positive meanings related to integrity in modern language, but I was surprised to learn that in sociology these concepts are, in fact, opposite.

According to Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning, the authors of “Microaggression and moral cultures” (2014) Comparative sociology, 13, 692-726, the term “honour culture” describes a paradigm where people are sensitive to slights and insults in order to maintain reputation of physical bravery. In contrast, people living in a “dignity culture” are taught to ignore the slights. The idea there is that responding to a slight would lower the person to the insulter’s moral level. In this respect, dignity culture shares some fundamental ideas with stoicism. Stoics believed that no external forces or circumstances, including insults, can fundamentally hurt them, because their self worth and intentions are not subject to extent influences.

Historically, honour cultures developed where the power of the state was relatively weak, and people had to rely on their reputation for bravery to protect themselves and their families, to pre-emptively deter an aggression. Dignity cultures, on the other hand, rely on a strong state that can be invoked in time of need to quickly and efficiently stamp out a conflict. In the case of an honour culture, a conflict can develop into a prolonged blood feud, for example, where members of two clans keep taking revenge for each consecutive act of violence against them.

It is fascinating that such positive concepts as honour and dignity can be based on mutually-exclusive ideas. While most societies nowadays operate in the realm of dignity, principles of an honour culture have left a prominent mark on the modern world in terms of art, literature, etc. The symbolism created to it still resonates strongly with the emotions of the audience due to the cultural baggage that they we are carrying through generations.