[lit-ideas] SOS - The "honour ethic"
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 14:26:28 -0700
I've started Sources of the Self. I ran across a number of subjects I might
have commented upon; however Taylor would add something like "I hope to
explain this more clearly below." However on page 20-21 he has said
enough it seems to me to be able to see a conclusion about something fully
drawn and to agree or take issue with.
"Looking at some common examples of such frameworks will help to focus the
discussion. One of the earliest in our civilization, and which is still
alive for some people today, is that associated with the honour ethic. The
life of the warrior, or citizen, or citizen-soldier is deemed higher than
the merely private existence, devoted to the arts of peace and economic
well-being. The higher life is marked out by the aura of fame and glory
which attaches to it, or at least to signal cases, those who succeed in it
brilliantly. To be in public life or to be a warrior is to be at least a
candidate for fame. To be ready to hazard one's tranquility, wealth, even
life for glory is the mark of a real man; and those who cannot bring
themselves to this are judged with contempt as 'womanish' (this outlook
seems to be inherently sexist)."
Taylor then goes on to say that Plato argued against this and advocated a
higher life ruled by reason. Certainly Plato advocated a higher life ruled
by reason, but his hero, Socrates, did serve in the military and did very
well if I recall correctly. Had Taylor not said "and which is still alive
for some people today," I would have let this pass, but he is combining a
number of issues and opinions in a mishmash of a paragraph. No, we do not
have the warrior perspective of the ancient Greeks. On the other hand, we
still need citizen soldiers and those who aren't up to it for whatever
reason have put themselves into a category I hope to explain more clearly
below.
From what I recall from reading about early history and anthropological
speculation about hunter-gatherer societies, when it came time to battle
against a neighboring tribe, the warriors would assemble to go out. The men
too old and the boys too young to fight would stay with the women. Also, if
there were something wrong with some particular man, whether physical or
mental, he too would stay with the women; so there was a natural association
between being unable to fight and being with the women.
Coming forward in time to the present, those willing to fight do often look
with contempt upon those unwilling. Our tribe is being attacked and you
won't help defend it? What's wrong with you? Is there a modern desire to
call such people womanish? I can't bring it to mind. If that concept,
calling men unwilling to fight womanish has carried forward in time, I
suspect it will lose currency as time goes on inasmuch as many women are
distinguishing themselves in combat. Many women are willing to fight; so if
womanish was once a fairly good description of those unwilling to fight, it
is so no longer.
Taylor's use of the term "framework" is interesting, and it sheds light on
some of the bizarre accusations made about my beliefs not so long ago.
Several people magnified the fact that I was a Marine, had been willing to
fight, and thought we should always have young men willing to fight as
though that were the overriding concern of my life; which it isn't at all.
I thought about it a lot when I was young but rarely think about it any
more. If the subject comes up I'll express my opinion, but if it doesn't
than I probably fit more into Plato's replacement framework - sort of. I
think young men should be willing to defend their countries if called upon
to do so, but when that responsibility is over then (in seeking Taylor's
axis number two, i.e., that which comprises the good life) we set for
ourselves other goals and frameworks. Can we not have more than one
framework? Or perhaps if we feel the responsibility to do different things
at different times in our lives there is another "framework" that can best
describe this. I would say so, but Taylor's paragraph doesn't seem to allow
for it.
While it doesn't precisely fit Taylor's "honour ethic," I can recall in a
number of cases when the subject of military experience came up when someone
who had not been in the military explained that he would have gone except
for X. It was understood that going into the military in time of national
need was the right thing to do, and they would have done it except for X.
Too much time has passed and I'm much too old to feel contempt for these men
who feel a need to explain why they didn't go into the military, but it
still bothers them. They probably feel ashamed to some extent. They do
obviously feel it would have been the honorable thing to serve in the
military and they want to avoid being considered dishonorable. Is this the
"honour ethic" of ancient Greece? I don't think so, but it is in our
natures to defend our selves, our families and our tribes. And it is or at
least seems unnatural to refuse to defend the tribe; so when you are the
same age as someone you meet and the subject of the military comes up and
they learn you were in the Marines and went to Korea and they have never
been in the military; they don't want it to hang there. They want to
explain themselves. It isn't the honour ethic of ancient Greece, but it
does have to do with honor and responsibility. If one doesn't feel a duty
to defend himself, his family and his tribe, then does he feel any duty
whatsoever?
Lawrence
Other related posts:
