Tommy comments:
Look at the low crime Omanis or Jordanians versus the high crime "youfs" in France versus the Japanese or Koreans. Oman is what happens when you have the kings, sultans, or sheiks to crack the whip on a shame-based people. Suburban France is what happens when you have a shame-based people living in a society that depends on a certain measure of guilt. Japan is what happens when you don't need emirs, ayatollahs, or clans to enforce the rules strictly and hurt or embarrass offenders.
My suspicion is that all the following generally run together in social, psychological, neurological and genetic terms:
Guilt
= social orderliness in the absence of severity
= good manufacturing
= suicide in the face of defeat or embarrassment
= highly organized war crimes
= personal intolerance of the disorderly
= high level of visuospatial relative to verbal intelligence
= high latitude evolutionary environment
= personal responsibility, low narcissism and high collectivism
= rapid industrialization once the way forward is obvious
= high levels of cultural and institutional formalization
= low corruption or at least relative ease of ridding society of corruption once it becomes a priority
= less humor
= a certain degree of traditionalism related to formalization
Shame
= disorderliness in the absence of severity
= poor manufacturing
= unwillingness to commitment suicide (unless its suicide by enemy while doing something homicidal) in the face of defeat
= poorly organized and personally emotional massacres
= personal tolerance of disorderliness
= high verbal to visuospatial IQ ratios (not necessarily absolutely high verbal intelligence though)
= low latitude evolutionary environment
= seeking credit and avoiding blame, high narcissism, low collectivism
= poor industrialization
= low levels of cultural and institutional formalization
= high corruption and resistance to reform in this area
= more humor
= traditionalism that seems more emotional and nostalgic and has little to do with prior formalization of customs
All this may sound good for guilt-based societies, but I suspect that those that are too too guilt-based may be somewhat uncreative.
I would argue that in Europe the Germans are (or at least were) a shade more guilt-based than the English. The English beat the Germans to the Industrial Revolution (maybe in part because the English are a bit more free-wheeling than the Germans?), but Germany underwent industrialization even more rapidly than Britain.
Posts
54 comments:
Good people feel guilt.
Dumb people own guilt.
Smart people manipulate guilt IN OTHERS. Notice when Jews talk of guilt, it's never what Jews did to others but what others did to Jews.
"= more humor"
If you live in a chaotic society only held together by severe, authoritarian rulers, more humor is a necessity.
> I would argue that in Europe the Germans are (or at least were) a shade more guilt-based than the English. The English beat the Germans to the Industrial Revolution
Then again, I'm not certain but it seems like Copernicus was part German. Arguably he was the most creative man in history (Nietzsche might be another nominee).
Classical music has been largely dominated by Germans (though I rate Tallis very highly indeed). So was continental philosophy. They seem to have done about as well as the English in math. On the other hand Newton and Darwin do make a pretty powerful tandem.
My sense is that if anything Germans are the most creatively accomplished Europeans by a small margin. Then again, it's in my individual nature to be a bit partial to the German world over the English.
"Guilt
...
less humor"
The English are obviously guilt-prone, yet they developed one of the two most prominent types of humor in the modern world (the Ashkenazim developed the other one).
"Japan is what happens when you don't need emirs, ayatollahs, or clans to enforce the rules..."
And yet I have an impression of the Japanese as a primarily shame-prone people. They're obviously different from Chinese and Koreans in some positive way, but is guilt really that difference? All Mongoloid cultures seem more shame-prone than guilt-prone to me.
"Shame
...
more humor"
Shame rules over A LOT of cultures - the Middle East, East Asia, South Asia, the Amerindians, southern Europe to an extent. Most of these aren't particularly humorous. Some are. I doubt there's a correlation either way.
In my experience Africans have little of either of these two qualities. It's not an absolute lack, just a relative deficit on both fronts.
Where is China?
In Middle Eastern countries, getting your hand cut off for stealing deters potential criminals. In the banlieus, that type of punishment doesn't exist.
However, my impression is that even the banlieus are not that bad in comparison to our inner city ghettos. There's considerable unemployment and delinquency, but crime and family breakdown are less prevalent. Perhaps that owes to the influence of Islam and the demographic mix (mostly Arab, some black). The French car burning rioters seemed like amateurs compared to the Rodney King crowd.
A good overview of 'Shame' vs 'Guilt' cultures.
"Germany underwent industrialization even more rapidly than Britain."
It's easier to do something when someone else has shown you the way.
Smart people manipulate guilt IN OTHERS. Notice when Jews talk of guilt, it's never what Jews did to others but what others did to Jews.
Jews must be an extreme example of a "shame culture".
Strange to see Japan characterized as a guilt culture when, as one commenter noted, Ruth Benedict's study of Japan set the standard for a shame culture more than half a century ago. For a more recent contrast of a shame culture with a our guilt culture see anthropological theorist Melford Spiro's retelling of the South and Southeast Asian version of the Oedipus tale as the princess who was a nymphomaniac in his "Kinship and Marriage in Burma."
Japan is (or, at least, was) more of a shame than a guilt culture.
Classical music has been largely dominated by Germans (though I rate Tallis very highly indeed). So was continental philosophy.
Classical music, like bonsai and Japanese tea ceremonies, is something very formalized (and that's part of its beauty). In continental philosophy, the Germans were quickly overtaken by the more loquacious and less guilty French in all the dubious areas. It seems to me the heirs of the more rational parts of Germanic philosophy, like the Vienna Circle, tended to come out of the Anglosphere.
They seem to have done about as well as the English in math. On the other hand Newton and Darwin do make a pretty powerful tandem.
Yeah, exactly. The Germans are hard-headed, but I don't see quite the creative power of a culture that provided the likes of a Newton, a Darwin, an Adam Smith (and I say this as an ethnic German). Keep in mind that among the world's cultures, I think the Germans are only a shade more procedural and guilt-prone than the English. It may only be on the far left of that bell curve where the differences between the two groups become evident.
My sense is that if anything Germans are the most creatively accomplished Europeans by a small margin.
I get the sense the Germans may get the title of most productive overall, but not necessarily the most creative.
The English are obviously guilt-prone, yet they developed one of the two most prominent types of humor in the modern world (the Ashkenazim developed the other one).
True, but I don't get the sense that the English are more guilt-prone than the Germans. I also don't get the sense that the Germans are as funny as the English. Historically, English officers certainly haven't earned the reputation of their German counterparts for offing themselves in the wake of defeat or disgrace. (The Japanese, OTOH...)
I get the sense that the Celtic outliers, like the Scots and the Irish, may be more prone to shame and less prone to guilt than the English and that they have better senses of humor and lighter dispositions than the English.
Shame rules over A LOT of cultures - the Middle East, East Asia, South Asia, the Amerindians, southern Europe to an extent. Most of these aren't particularly humorous. Some are. I doubt there's a correlation either way.
That could be true, but I think Africans are often relatively jovial and boisterous compared to Southeast Asians, American Indians, or even Arabs. By sense of humor, I don't mean skill in jokes, just the willingness to laugh.
Amerindians are a strange lot, but I get the sense that even among them you see a gradient. Indians of, say, northern Canada strike me as more prone to guilt than do Mesoamericans. Athabaskans and Eskimos seem to me even less comical than do Mesoamericans.
It's easier to do something when someone else has shown you the way.
Not necessarily. Look around the world.
It may only be on the far left of that bell curve where the differences between the two groups become evident.
Excuse me, I meant the far right, of course.
The Chinese seem to need a heavy hand, to keep things from falling apart. They are according to Lee Kwan Yew, and he should know, habitually filthy. Hence his draconian laws to promote public cleanliness in Singapore. The Chinese have low trust, yet live in many high latitude areas. They don't cooperate much, hence poisoned baby formula and milk (again).
Meanwhile most Japanese atrocities in WWII were against strict orders: Nanking, Manila. The Granduncles or great grandfathers of the current Otaku, the grass-eating anime nerds with effeminate ways, essentially mutinied and instead of digging in against the advancing American troops went on an orgy of senseless rape, killing, and looting, and then mostly died in a futile battle they knew they would lose.
Something is wrong in the list of attributes.
The traditional dichotomy between shame and guilt cultures was set up by Benedict a disciple of Erikson and others to explain the difference between Japan (shame based, you care a lot about what others think) verus Europe (guilt based, you are your own worst critic and internally monitor yourself).
However, your list of attributes does not fit Japan (lack of order? poor industrialization?)
So if the list of attributes was correct in the essay then you woud think Japan is guilt based, no?
The dichotomy of attributes as stated is too simple and therefore misleading.
A more nuanced list is needed.
The second list of attributes, in fact, really reads like its describing a culture without much of either shame or guilt.
Agree with others that Japan is more shame than guilt based and the difference between Japan and other shame-based cultures is probably that they're particularly good at it.
Alternatively nations may have both but in varying proportions.
For example the English and the Germans might have an equally strong guilt component but the English a weaker shame component which might lead to less "ordnung" which might in turn lead to reduced productivity.
To be Japanese is to engage in a lifelong struggle against accepting responsibility/blame for anything.
That is why, when one of them gets nailed to the wall on something, they do a train dive, having inescapable responsibility/blame for something is so unutterably horrifying...
"I would argue that in Europe the Germans are (or at least were) a shade more guilt-based than the English. The English beat the Germans to the Industrial Revolution (maybe in part because the English are a bit more free-wheeling than the Germans?), but Germany underwent industrialization even more rapidly than Britain. "
I would argue that you are not the Steve Sailer who used to run this blog. You obviously haven't stepped foot in the UK while Sailer has lifelong ties there. You will not meet a more polite, orderly yet friendly group of people anywhere. BTW, Germans are notoriously unruly.
The Brits are hardworking people who were also quite skilled at those more independent, home-based businesses (cottage industry!) that preceded the IR. Please think before you stick that hoof in your mouth again.
What do you know, another comment by Whiskey I can agree with. I've never been to China, proper, but Singapore's superficial cleanliness is, indeed, due to Lee Kuan Yew's understanding of the Chinese character. Hence urine sensors in elevators, rules about chewing gum, and the relative decay in Chinese housing units as opposed to commercial establishments built to appeal to American and European businessmen/tourists.
I disagree with tommy that classical music is "highly structured" similar to the Japanese Tea Ceremony. There is immense creativity and variance among classical music (not so much re the Tea Ceremony so far as I'm aware), and the whole genius is the creativity within a structured framework - same difference with a sonnet as opposed to free verse. One requires both creativity and skill, the other requires mere artistic pretensions. True story - I dashed off an extremely boring little free-verse poem for a requisite high-school assignment (back in the 70s), and won a college-level poetry contest with it.
This is a discussion about conscientiousness.
Tangentially related to the discussion of humour.
It's a commonplace among Brits, Canadians and Aussies that Americans have a less subtle or complex sense of humour than we do. As an example, Monty Python made money in the US but were vastly more popular in the rest of the Anglo-sphere. A lot of humour based on violations of politesse just doesn't play in the US as well.
"I'd like an argument, please".
"No you wouldn't"...
Not sure if this is a duplicate...
Tangentially related to the discussion of humour.
It's a commonplace among Brits, Canadians and Aussies that Americans have a less subtle or complex sense of humour than we do. As an example, Monty Python made money in the US but were vastly more popular in the rest of the Anglo-sphere. A lot of humour based on violations of politesse just doesn't play in the US as well.
"I'd like an argument, please".
"No you wouldn't"...
A great guilt-based culture (perhaps the greatest of all) is Russia. I mean, look at the literature...
-------------
Traditional Christianity (Catholicism and Orthodoxy) puts great emphasis on guilt-tripping its adherents. Obviously, some cultures are more naturally resistant to this sort of thing than the others. Certain strains of Protestantism are good at this as well; but there it is quickly dissipating.
--------------------
The Germans didn't do in math as well as the English. They did much, much better. Leibniz, Gauss, Euler, Hilbert, and so on.
--------------------
Two kinds of humor? It is a myopic, parochial view. Each culture has its own kind of humor that usually doesn't translate all that well (and I don't mean only the language). In the outside world, the English are considered a rather humorless bunch. The Germans, even more so.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/german-court-prohibits-circumcisions/
German judges rule parents can be brought to court for circumcising children When not performed out of medical necessity, circumcisions constitute a ‘severe and irreversible interference into physical integrity,’ Cologne judges ruleBy Raphael Ahren June 26, 2012, 10:49 am
"Historically, English officers certainly haven't earned the reputation of their German counterparts for offing themselves in the wake of defeat or disgrace"
Agreed. The typical English commander, following defeat:
"Well, we gave it a good shot, eh what? Can't win 'em all."
The Germans seem to take setbacks much, much more heavily. They are also much more pesimistic.
I'm not sure that the Celts are more optimistic, light-hearted or humorous than the English, though. I think Britain's Celtic fringe was somewhat defined by the tragic sense of life you get from always fighting a stronger opponent (England), like the Serbs with the Ottomans. The American South has a bit of that, too. Celtic humour tends to be very bleak, in my experience.
I would add a liking of very weird porn under the guilt category (e.g. Japan, Germany).
Saying country x underwent industrialization faster than England is like saying captain y found the New World faster than Columbus.
It's a lot easier when you can just pull the instructions out of the box, instead of having to make the box, its contents, write the instructions, etc.
"It's easier to do something when someone else has shown you the way."
Not necessarily. Look around the world.
Yes, necessarily. "Easier" doesn't have to mean "guaranteed success." I can't believe I even have to point this out.
The Chinese seem to need a heavy hand, to keep things from falling apart.
I can't help thinking that this has to do with the fact that China is a "nation" more comparable to something the size of the EU, than to any country in Europe. More racially homogeneous, to be sure, but definitely over-sized. The simple fact that China exists, rather than an Asian Europe in China's place, suggests to me that the Han are more domesticable than Europeans.
In short, if the Europeans were going to pull off the EU in whatever BC and make it last, they'd need an even heavier hand. And it occurs that needing a heavy hand goes together with tolerating a heavy hand; I doubt that heavier hand would've made a European China out of Europe. The Roman Empire went down as soon as the frontiers spread and the provinces got their shit together.
"The Chinese seem to need a heavy hand, to keep things from falling apart. They are according to Lee Kwan Yew, and he should know, habitually filthy."
My observation of Chinese grad students in the US is that they are personally clean but allow their surroundings to be cluttered and dirty. In Riding the Iron Rooster, Paul Theroux writes of the Chinese in China, "They were very tidy in the way they packed their bags, but they were energetic litterers, and they were hellish in toilets. It was strange seeing a neatly dressed mob leaving a railway car they had just befouled."
The traditional dichotomy between shame and guilt cultures was set up by Benedict a disciple of Erikson and others to explain the difference between Japan (shame based, you care a lot about what others think) verus Europe (guilt based, you are your own worst critic and internally monitor yourself).
Then I reject the traditional dichotomy as well intended as it might have been. I will argue that observable behavior takes precedence in understanding people over ad hoc or post hoc rationalizations offered up by those same people for their behavior since. People are typically thoughtless or self-deceptive when providing such rationalizations.
It seems to me the Japanese are well behaved even the absence of risk of social sanction. Japanese behavior is precisely not governed by such external concerns. As a commenter on the previous thread noted, the Japanese know they are in the wrong when they apologize. Committing an error is painful in and of itself, not simply getting caught in the act. In cultures I would label "shame-based," the concern is over not looking like one is in wrong in the eyes of others.
Of course, we may just be caught in semantic differences. There may be no fundamental difference between hypersensitivity to sanction and good behavior in the absence of the risk of social sanction. This kind of thing is always a risk in the social sciences. However we choose to describe it, I would still argue that Arabs are at one end of the spectrum and the Japanese are at the other end. Europeans are somewhere in between and there are probably some small differences between various European nationalities in this area. And while I would describe Arabs as a people sensitive to offenses to their honor and to public embarrassment (i.e. what I would call shame), I certainly wouldn't describe them as a people given to feelings of guilt.
Yes, necessarily. "Easier" doesn't have to mean "guaranteed success." I can't believe I even have to point this out.
Easier doesn't imply guaranteed success, but necessarily does imply necessity last time I checked. For some people and groups, it really doesn't get necessarily easier, Svigor. The fact that an Ethiopian with an IQ of 60 didn't have to derive the laws of relativity himself, since they've were discovered previously, does not necessarily imply he'll be any better at learning them than if they had they remained undiscovered.
So, yes, not necessarily. A silly semantic argument in any event: you got my drift. The Germans industrialized much more rapidly than many other neighboring nations and certainly far more rapidly than many other nations further afield. The Japanese can claim much the same.
I must say that of all the attributes I would ascribe to the English, guilt is the last one. I could understand the labelling of the Germans as a guilt laden people but I just don't see that in the English. I have always thought there was something ... well ... I can't think of a better way to say this but well ... sociopathic about them. They are neither a guilt or shame prone society. It seems that they are built on the opposite of guilt and shame, a kind of moral hypocrisy which insulates them from such feelings.
This is why they could do things like the industrial revolution which required the immiseration of their working class and the creation of a colonial empire. I put this down to the Norman conquest which I've come to believe was enormously consequential to the kind of nation England became. It was an extremely brutal conquest which together with the later suppression of the remaining Anglo Saxons aristocracy during the harrowing of the North would largely put in place a foreign over-class in England. I saw a TV programme once that said their descendants still owned one fifth of the land of England today. The effect of the Norman over-class was that they developed a colonial attitude toward the Anglo Saxon English. I have come to believe that this is why England is so different from the rest of the Germanic nations and that this is the origin of their class structure which is so divergent in England. I have also come to believe that this is the reason for the development of capitalism first in England and the failure of a scandinavian social model to take root. Had it not been for this invasion England may well have been more like Scandinavia. You can see this in the kind of morality of the puritans who were from East Anglia which was settled I think by Scandinavia adjacent Germans and Danes.
P.S. Tommy said "I get the sense that the Celtic outliers, like the Scots and the Irish, may be more prone to shame and less prone to guilt than the English and that they have better senses of humor and lighter dispositions than the English."
I disagree. There is a very strong "Jante law" in Ireland and Scotland. Americans might be familiar with Catholic guilt, well it's Irish guilt. Nothing Catholic about it at all.
Kylie said...
My observation of Chinese grad students in the US is that they are personally clean but allow their surroundings to be cluttered and dirty.
I tend to agree. Chinese grad students, and Asians in general, use soap but do not worship it as a god, or ram it down anyone's throat.
As for packrat-iness, I can see it being more common in people that grew up poor, such as most Asians and Eastern Europeans. Modern Japan is hardly poor, but a certain Japanese generation did grow up poor, and became well-known packrats.
They would have trouble understanding the largely WASP "throwaway / everything grows on trees" mentality.
In Riding the Iron Rooster, Paul Theroux writes of the Chinese in China, "They were very tidy in the way they packed their bags, but they were energetic litterers, and they were hellish in toilets. It was strange seeing a neatly dressed mob leaving a railway car they had just befouled."
I think it's a case of Chinese (males) not picking up after themselves because their mothers picked up after them. And also they hire someone to clean their trains, hotel rooms, houses, etc.
The same must have applied in the Euro-American Golden Age of Cheap Labour, when dumb hicks worked for peanuts picking up after everyone.
I have always thought there was something ... well ... I can't think of a better way to say this but well ... sociopathic about them.
As an Irishman, that's an understandable feeling to have about the English. What you describe as sociopathic, may be...well...just typically Germanic. I get the feeling the Celtic types have a lot of what I can only describe as "primeval heart and spirit" and the Germanic folks, like the Anglo-Saxons, might strike the Celts as cold, indifferent, soulless, possessing a flat affect, etc. In my experience, though, the Scandinavians have even more of this trait.
The effect of the Norman over-class was that they developed a colonial attitude toward the Anglo Saxon English. I have come to believe that this is why England is so different from the rest of the Germanic nations and that this is the origin of their class structure which is so divergent in England. I have also come to believe that this is the reason for the development of capitalism first in England and the failure of a scandinavian social model to take root. Had it not been for this invasion England may well have been more like Scandinavia. You can see this in the kind of morality of the puritans who were from East Anglia which was settled I think by Scandinavia adjacent Germans and Danes.
Quite right!
The vaunted Anglo-Saxon morality that the Victorian English praised to high heaven was actually Norman and not Anglo-Saxon - a Norman value system that died out in Normandy itself.
The real Anglo-Saxons were culturally closer to Scandinavia than anywhere else - and were more "piggish" than priggish - lazy, dirty, filthy, drecky, bloody, gutty, perverted, fun-loving, freedom-loving - i.e. closer to Erik Bloodaxe than Mary Whitehouse.
tommy:
"And while I would describe Arabs as a people sensitive to offenses to their honor and to public embarrassment (i.e. what I would call shame), I certainly wouldn't describe them as a people given to feelings of guilt."
But Arabs don't feel 'ashamed' - they get *angry*! Angry at the accuser. Steven Pinker pointed this obliquely out in 'The Better Angels of our Nature' in the discussion of Prisoner's Dilemma games, and it certainly fits my experience.
Whereas the Japanese clearly feel shame, but actually so do Pakistanis, at least some of the tribes. Guilt seems to be more or less a uniquely European emotion, though.
irishman on the English:
" It seems that they are built on the opposite of guilt and shame, a kind of moral hypocrisy which insulates them from such feelings.
This is why they could do things like the industrial revolution which required the immiseration of their working class and the creation of a colonial empire..."
Everyone else had comparable colonial empires, too. Some, like the Belgian, were considerably more brutal.
Maybe the English capitalist class were more willing to immiserate the English working class than were the Germans. But compare the Russian aristocracy and their serfs, or Romania, or anywhere where the lower class were at all ethnically distinct from the rulers. I think western Germany and Scandinavia may have been more the exception, in relative lack of immiseration, not England.
However, I agree there is definitely something very odd about the upper-middle-class English; everyone knows that.
"Of course, we may just be caught in semantic differences. There may be no fundamental difference between hypersensitivity to sanction and good behavior in the absence of the risk of social sanction. This kind of thing is always a risk in the social sciences."
Tommy, I am the Anon to whose comment you were responding.
I agree that it could a semantic difference. Extreme hypersensitivity to possibe external sanction is possibly the equivalent, in most ways, to great self-induced guilt.
I have quite a few Japanese friends, and would note that even the Westernized ones who have been abroad for a while can be incredible worriers. Some of them self-torture themselves with anxiety over seemingly small matters.
They are aware of this tendency, but can't seem to stop themselves.
They remind me quite a bit of other American White friends friends who were raised in excessively religious Christian households.
Some of them, even if they have renounced their parents' beliefs, still seem to have a great deal of free floating anxiety which can attach itself to what others would consider inconsequential matters.
Some of them are also aware of this, and claim they are suffering from a "religious hangover."
Isn't the Western Christain religious concept of an all seeing and all powerful God who judges a lot like having the permanent possibility of an external sanction around forever (including even life after death)?
We may say this produces "guilt" reflexes in Westerners which can manifest in various ways, but its result is probably the same as severe worry and hypersentivity of doing something shameful.
I suspect that both culture and genetics plays a role to how people respond to being raised in these envirnonments which place a high value in instilling certain behaviors to the extent that they become second nature.
But Arabs don't feel 'ashamed' - they get *angry*! Angry at the accuser. Steven Pinker pointed this obliquely out in 'The Better Angels of our Nature' in the discussion of Prisoner's Dilemma games, and it certainly fits my experience.
Interesting. I suspect that anger is indeed a product of humiliation though.
Between all the comments, I'm beginning to suspect there is probably more than a single axis here. Besides guilt and shame, there is always the trait of narcissism to consider. While I notice that narcissism seems to go hand and hand with sensitivity to being publicly humiliated (cultures that are shame-based), it may vary independently to a certain extent.
I'm just throwing out some red meat, some anecdotal observations, with my original comment. In the absence of quantifiable evidence, I leave it to the commenters here to figure it out. Good arguments! Thanks to everyone for responding.
tommy:
"Interesting. I suspect that anger is indeed a product of humiliation though."
IME, when we catch wrongdoers, and they feel ashamed, they go red in the face. They may cry.
When we catch Gulf Arabs in wrongdoing, they never go red in the face. Firstly, they deny all wrongdoing, without showing any emotion. If pressed, their teeth draw back in a sort of feral, hostile grimace. This is an expression of anger, I believe. But I never see any indication of any shame-reflex such as going red.
IME, when we catch wrongdoers, and they feel ashamed, they go red in the face. They may cry.
When we catch Gulf Arabs in wrongdoing, they never go red in the face.
First thing, who is "we?", other than the accuser?
Another Arab? Or a foreigner, especially a Westerner? That can make a huge difference, given the immense ethnocentrism of Arabs. I really can imagine that Arabs need other Arabs, especially ones with a ton of desert cred, to keep them in line. A puppet of the West, such as Mubarak, will not do.
"However, my impression is that even the banlieus are not that bad in comparison to our inner city ghettos. There's considerable unemployment and delinquency, but crime and family breakdown are less prevalent. Perhaps that owes to the influence of Islam and the demographic mix (mostly Arab, some black). The French car burning rioters seemed like amateurs compared to the Rodney King crowd."
A lot of European cities have "no go" areas for civilians as well as police which are mostly muslim neighborhoods. The worst black ghettos in the US are not considered no go areas for the police. Maybe the US cops are just tougher.
I disagree. There is a very strong "Jante law" in Ireland and Scotland
JOOC, I looked up "Jante Law" - and was shocked to find that it was essentially North American public school law!
A lot of European cities have "no go" areas for civilians as well as police which are mostly muslim neighborhoods. The worst black ghettos in the US are not considered no go areas for the police. Maybe the US cops are just tougher.
Tougher = more violent, more ruthless, and better armed.
Also in US black ghettos there is a long tradition of fear, hatred, loathing of police. I don't think this is the case for Muslim immigrants in Europe.
tommy said...
I have always thought there was something ... well ... I can't think of a better way to say this but well ... sociopathic about them.
"As an Irishman, that's an understandable feeling to have about the English. What you describe as sociopathic, may be...well...just typically Germanic. I get the feeling the Celtic types have a lot of what I can only describe as "primeval heart and spirit" and the Germanic folks, like the Anglo-Saxons, might strike the Celts as cold, indifferent, soulless, possessing a flat affect, etc. In my experience, though, the Scandinavians have even more of this trait."
Sociopathic really is a terrible word. I regret using it. It is like using a sledgehammer to drive a nail. I am an Irishman but I am not anglophobic. Quite the contrary, I think there is a lot to admire about the English. What I meant by sociopathic was the lack of guilt or shame felt by the English in a public sense. An Englishman might be just as conscientious in a private setting but what I called a colonial morality impedes these feelings in a public setting. The scandinavian welfare state survives because a scandinavian would be ashamed to stay on welfare but this isn't the case in England. This is because the typical Scandinavian taxpayer is of the same culture and background as the welfare recipient and vice versa. This isn't the case in England and this breeds the colonial morality with it's lack of guilt and shame because both the colonising Normans and the colonised anglo saxons do not identify with each other.
Simon in London wrote:
"Everyone else had comparable colonial empires, too. Some, like the Belgian, were considerably more brutal.
Maybe the English capitalist class were more willing to immiserate the English working class than were the Germans. But compare the Russian aristocracy and their serfs, or Romania, or anywhere where the lower class were at all ethnically distinct from the rulers. I think western Germany and Scandinavia may have been more the exception, in relative lack of immiseration, not England.
However, I agree there is definitely something very odd about the upper-middle-class English; everyone knows that".
I was refering to the role of postcolonial guilt. Not the empires themselves. The rest of your comment is fair.
anon:
"First thing, who is "we?", other than the accuser?"
Me and my (non-Arab) academic colleagues. We catch a lot of attempted cheating via paid-for essays.
But Arabs don't feel 'ashamed' - they get *angry*! Angry at the accuser.
Am I the only one who thinks "Arab" always sounds like a stand-in for "culturally Middle-Eastern" in these conversations? The descriptions always seem to fit Jews, too.
In my experience Africans have little of either of these two qualities. It's not an absolute lack, just a relative deficit on both fronts.
African Americans particularly do. Black South Africans as well.
Svigor:
"Am I the only one who thinks "Arab" always sounds like a stand-in for "culturally Middle-Eastern" in these conversations? The descriptions always seem to fit Jews, too."
I wouldn't know - I've never caught a Jew cheating! :p
@Svigor - while Arabs get angry when caught at wrongdoing, they don't show the same kind of verbal aggression that Jews (at least male Jews) commonly do. Arabs seem to bottle it up. Male Jews seem to be more like male Greeks or southern Italians, who become aggressive and threatening.
I think the "Tommy" is off-base. Average IQ is a way better predictor of industrialization, crime levels, corruption, institutional quality than guilt or shame culture. Look at Japan (definite shame culture) and Germany (definite guilt culture).
Some are confusing overall conscientiousness with the cultural method of enforcing moral behavior (shame or guilt).
Guilt approach: If you do a bad behavior (however defined) you feel guilty. Whether or not you are caught you still feel guilt.
Shame approach: If you are accused of bad behavior (however defined) you and your associates should feel shamed. Whether or not you ultimately did what you were accused of everyone still feels shame.
That explains why shame-based societies seem more common in the orient and inside the sphere of dharmic religions and confucianism. There is no concept of an omniscient God who knows about that thing you did when nobody was watching. In Europe this obviously was the case. The Roman Catholic Church served as the premier guilt-absolving institution throughout European history until Protestantism came along allowed the people to pray away guilt themselves.
A conformist, hierarchical society of the type seen in East Asia is easier to enforce with shame because bad feelings are spread amongst many individuals. For a prominent individual, an accusation of wrong behavior results in shame to him and everyone person the line. With the guilt method there is the risk that an individual does not feel personally guilty about various social infractions.
Of course, a lot of that thrown out the window in a society that contains radically different cultures and radically different peoples.
I think the "Tommy" is off-base. Average IQ is a way better predictor of industrialization, crime levels, corruption, institutional quality than guilt or shame culture. Look at Japan (definite shame culture) and Germany (definite guilt culture).
Okay, one last response.
Well, again, I disagree with that original assignment and think it ignores the fact that the Japanese don't need to be motivated by a real fear of humiliation to behave well, but for the most part you're right about the importance of intelligence relative to other traits.
Crime though is not entirely a function of intelligence: you're far less likely to be the victim of a violent crime in many low IQ Gulf Arab societies than in many American cities. And isn't crime what prompted this whole discussion?
Corruption obviously exists somewhat apart from intelligence as well. Argentina isn't that low on the global IQ scale but you wouldn't know it by its corruption ranking. I would argue that Mediterranean cultures tend to be more prone to shame and less prone to guilt than Northern European ones employing my own definition.
As much as the Japanese may value honor, they seem well behaved even when saving face isn't a serious concern. Avoiding humiliation seems a much more significant predictor of conduct among the Bedouin, the Pashtun, the traditional Sicilian. A Japanese probably won't kill you over an unintentional insult. A Pashtun might.
If you ask a guilty man why he feels guilty he may tell you that he he's harmed his family, brought disgrace on himself, etc. He may say he feels ashamed. But these are, in truth, after the fact rationalizations for his guilt. Guilt is a very internal and direct feeling.
By contrast, a shamed man feels shame precisely because he has been put in the position of looking like he's harmed his family, he's been publicly humiliated, etc. It's an external and indirect thing.
The difference between shame and guilt (as I define it) is like the difference between someone who says to themselves, "I'm lazy and I need to work harder," (guilt) and the person who tells themselves, "I need to show my boss and co-workers that I'm a hard worker" (shame). I suspect the Japanese are pretty direct with themselves in all of their feelings and motivations.
The Japanese may give a litany of reasons as to why they might feel ashamed should they commit misdeeds but, in truth, I think they actually experience guilt.
That guilt seems so troublesome and incurable to us may simply be a product of our own Western/Christian background where redemption can be obtained but only with pain and effort. This may give European guilt its unique qualities. In some other guilt-prone culture, redemption from that feeling may either be more readily available, or not available at all. It may also not have quite the same cosmic implications.
Post a Comment