Culture Of Honor: The Psychology Of Violence In The South

by Richard E. Nisbett, Dov Cohen

This book focuses on a singular cause of male violence―the perpetrator's sense of threat to one of his most valued possessions, namely, his reputation for strength and toughness. The theme of this book is that the Southern United States had―and has―a type of culture of honor.

Genres: Psychology, Nonfiction, Sociology, History, Anthropology, Politics, Research

138 pages, Paperback

First published March 14, 1996

About the author

Richard E. Nisbett is one of the world's most respected psychologists. His work focuses on issues in social psychology and cognitive science. He has received the Award for Distinguished Scientific Contributions from the American Psychological Association and many other national and international awards. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and is a recipient of the John Simon Guggenheim Fellowship. His book The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently . . . and Why won the William James Award of the American Psychological Association. That book, as well as Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count and Mindware: Tools for Smart Thinking have been translated into multiple languages. His newest book is Thinking: A Memoir.

Reviews

[Ayman Fadel · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was very suspicious of the idea that "culture" could be the reason for higher levels of personal conflict homicides among Southern whites, but the evidence presented was surprisingly convincing.

I have a couple of observations. #1, and I have no scientific basis for this, but I have an attachment to Malcolm X's assertion that "chickens come home to roost"/ karma / uncontrollability of violence. That the US south and west have the worst histories of genocide & slavery & expansionist war seems to me to be a "cosmic" reason for higher rates of bad things happening. Of course, that doesn't explain why non-personal homicide rates are similar.

#2, When the US military talks about a culture of honor, is that the same thing?
http://www.army.mil/values/

#3, Since the south hosts a higher percentage of military facilities than other regions, I wondered if white homicide rates could be correlated with presence of military installations?

#4, when the US government responds to "insults" with war, is that a reflection of a culture of honor? I'm thinking about the personalization of the enemy - Hitler, Tojo, Noriega, Saddam - so we're attacking an individual who "dissed" us rather than entire peoples.

As you can see, I am ideologically more inclined to attribute US violence to national policies than a culture brought by Scotch-Irish pastoralists. Although, if I'm honest with myself, that doesn't explain regional differences in white personal conflict homicide rates.

[Ryan Fohl · Rating 2 out of 5]

A theory that has had a grip on my mind for years. It’s neat to think about the origins of a culture and the causes for why the culture persists, even when the economic origins change. This book is old, and it seems to me the culture of honor has lightened but spread since publication. Corporal punishment of children is down, but guns are up. This book is too academic and narrow to be an enjoyable read, but it’s Interesting. Some of the experiments were creative but I doubt the methodology. Would Testosterone and cortisol saliva tests be accurate over such a short period of time?
It’s a useful frame for looking at violence.

What I learned: southern and western states were the first to have women governors. George Wallace used his wife Lurleen to get an extra term through her.

When southerners tell me I’m a rude yankee I can respond that southerners only developed a culture of politeness because they are so murder prone. Or I would tell them that but I don’t want to get shot.

[Rachel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Interesting take on the differences between in aggression between southern and northern US and the evolutionary-cultural-geographical theory behind these variations. Nisbett's argument posits that European settlers of the southern US were mostly self-governing (they had to be, for lack of structured society) and those who protected their flocks aggressively from thieves were more likely to keep them (and therefore, survive and reproduce). Thus, this inclination toward aggression evolved—culturally—as an adaptation to the geographic and economic pressure of southern life. Out of this adaptation, we also see the cultural evolution of southern politeness in order to prevent or mitigate southern aggression.

[Nidhi Bhatt · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book was much more analytical than I was expecting, though not in a bad way. It makes its assertions in the introduction and spends the rest of its time providing proof in the form of studies, experiments, and disproving other potential reasons for the higher levels of violence in the South.

It reads more like a thesis than anything else. Its main assertion being that Southern culture, which is most descendants of herding societies, has a culture of honor that creates this increase in violence. Its quick to note that the South is not overall more violent, but has higher levels of violence when it comes to protecting one's home, property, and family, and that Southerns (as opposed to Northerners and Westerners) are more likely to view violence as a legitimate response to insult (as a means of self-protection) and a justifiable tool for restoring order.

Though the research rests solely on white males, it does note that women also uphold this culture in the way they raise their sons, and the way they would judge a male for turning the other cheek or not standing his ground. It also notes that its possible Southern culture is so polite because not being polite is much more likely to lead to violence.

The role a culture of honor plays in domestic violence, homicide, and corporal punishment is interesting and something to keep in mind when doing advocacy and justice work within Southern communities. The book notes that, when it comes to keeping social order, violence is more accepted not only for this reason but also because a history of slavery has made violence to keep social order socially acceptable.

The below excerpt from page 82 pretty much summarizes the book's findings:

1. The only types of homicide that are more frequent in the South are those in which affronts and threats to property and integrity of self are likely to be involved - arguments, brawls, and lovers' triangles.
2. Southerns do not approve of violence in the abstract, nor do they approve of violence for any concrete purposes that we have been able to discover - except for protection of self, family, and possessions, for responding to an insult, and for socializing children. Southerners may favor violence for purses of social control, but we attribute that to the experience of slavery rather than to the culture of honor.
3. Lab studies of southern college students show that when they are insulted, they manifest a range of physiological, cognitive, and behavioral reactions that distinguish them from southerners who are not insulted and from northerners, whether insulted or not.
3a. Insulted southerners are more stressed, as indicated by the increases they show in cortisol levels.
3b. They are more prepared for aggression, as indicated by the increases they show in testosterone levels.
3c. They are more "primed" to consider violent solutions to situations involving an insult, as indicated by the completions they wrote for scenarios beginning with an affront.
3d. They display more anger and less amusement...
3e. They display more aggression in our version of the "chicken game"...
3f. they engage in more dominance behavior,....

[Martin Lowery · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting study conducted to look at the differences in violence between Northern and Southern cultures.

The authors review a historical aspect to the differences, and conduct their own experiments on Northern and Southern subjects to test their propensity and reasons for violence.

As the authors propose and then conclude, the South faces higher rates of violence due to a "culture of honor" that was brought to the region by immigrants from herding societies. They argue that such a society would see higher rates of homicide and higher rates of perceived defense of ones character.

While the studies do point to such a conclusion, it was conducted in 1996, and it would seem that this should be re-evaluated in the 21st century. As the authors conclude, the "culture of honor" is diminishing in the modern world, so its wouldn't be surprising if the study doesn't hold up in 2019 as much as it did in 1996.

[Clay · Rating 3 out of 5]

Nice companion piece to Sowell’s Black Rednecks and White Liberals. Curious they didn’t cite him actually.

[Hannah · Rating 4 out of 5]

my professor's shameless plug = required reading

[Julia · Rating 3 out of 5]

read it for school

[Elise R · Rating 2 out of 5]

Really fascinating stuff in this book! It is a bit dry, with a lot of figures and charts, so I think it would be more suited to someone doing academic research rather than a casual reader. However, the findings are extremely interesting and shine a light on something that was thought to be a stereotype. I really enjoyed reading about the history of the south and how southern culture influences behavior today.

[Phil · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting book with interesting findings. The historical work was weak, however, while leaving out groups that might seem problematic. Also, the inability or unwillingness to address issues of race or racism was disappointing.

[Bridget]

Excellent review of the psychological literature on Cultures of Honor by two of the main names in the small and recently developed field in social psychology. Still quite accessible to non-psychologists.

[Rick Rempala · Rating 2 out of 5]

The authors don't seem to accept their own hypothesis.It is a case of shooting the arrow and painting the target around it,yet still off the mark!