The culture problem
How the honor/shame issue got the wrong end of the anthropological stick
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 7100426 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Johannes Merz (0000-0002-3533-2385, SIL International, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2019 |
| Volume | 48 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 127-141 |
| Publication date | 2019-12-24 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Missiology An International Review (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0091-8296 • E-ISSN: 2051-3623 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/0091829619887179 |
| OpenAlex | W2998059964 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 7 |
| References cited | 27 |
The honor/shame issue is an important topic in mission, as portrayed in Georges’s The 3D Gospel for example. Proponents of the shame–guilt distinction draw on the popular culture concept of the early 20 th century by assuming that cultures are objects that we can easily grasp and demarcate from one to another. Culture thus becomes a convenient idea to understand difference by generalizing and simplifying the unfamiliar and submitting it to one’s own way of thinking. Current anthropology, however, rejects such a reifying and essentializing approach. Rather, culture is seen as an expression of how humans think, act, and live in the world, and is thus complex, fuzzy, and dynamic. In dealing with the honor/shame issue, we need to get hold of the other end of the stick by starting with humans and treating honor and shame as cultural traits. Accordingly, honor and shame are encountered to different degrees and in different ways across humanity. A vertical and categorical classification and demarcation of cultures thus needs to make room for a more dynamic and horizontal spread of cultural traits. This allows us to account better for human diversity, while simultaneously maintaining humanity’s commonality as cultural beings. To study honor and shame we need to focus on how relationships work in various real-life situations. Such an ethnographic approach builds on observation, participation, and sharing in other people’s lives. It also asks what words and notions people use to express the values that shape their relationships
Aesthetics · Environmental ethics · Epistemology · Honor · Humanity · Political science · Shame · Sociology · Anthropological Studies and Insights · Anthropology: Ethics, History, Culture · Computer Science · Law · Philosophy · Psychology · Social Psychology · Southeast Asian Sociopolitical Studies
The Chrysanthemum and the Sword
Honor and Shame
Honor and shame and the unity of the Mediterranean
Honour and Shame
Shame Cultures, Fear Cultures, and Guilt Cultures
Anthropology and Mission
Argonauts of the western Pacific
History and Theory in Anthropology
How to Think Like an Anthropologist
Thinking Anthropologically for the Theologically and Missiologically Engaged
Thinking Through Things
The Interpretation of Cultures
Theories Of Culture Revisited
Honour and Shame
Forget Culture
The End(s) of Ethnography
Hegemonic Concepts of Culture
Writing for Culture
| Citations per year | 1.4 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2021 - 2026 (6) |
| Highly cited | No |