September 22, 2014

ONE GOOD THING THAT COULD COME OF THE CAMPUS RAPE HYSTERIA...:

The slow, tentative return of women's lost sense of sexual honour : Something in our nature craves the constraints that produce the rewards an honour code confers. (Barbara Kay | 16 September 2014, MercatorNet)

One of the most intellectually influential books I have ever read was cultural critic James Bowman's 2006 Honor: A History. As fellow cultural critic Charles Murray wrote in its praise: "Ranging across psychology, popular culture, military history, the arts, and politics, Honor: a History is a tapestry of the twentieth century that uses a neglected thread - the evolution of the complicated bundle of values that goes into the concept of honour - to explain how out culture got where it is today."

Relevant in this particular context is Bowman's elegantly simple definition of honour as "the good opinion of those who are important to you." Honour is not the same thing as morality (both bad people and good people act in honour's name). Although its hold on western life today is fragile, a sense of honour is not entirely moribund in our culture. Honour codes still flourish in the military, for example. We are not always able to articulate what honourable behaviour consists in, but we usually have an instinctive grasp of what constitutes "dishonourable" behaviour.

Honour, Bowman says, is sex-specific. Male honour is rooted in physical courage; women's honour is rooted in sexual modesty. Men are ashamed to be called out for being cowards; women are ashamed to be called out for being sluts. Morality is usually a private affair. But, as Alexis de Toqueville wrote, "Honour acts solely for the public eye." Before the personal became the political, we made a firm distinction between public and private behavior, and as a collective, we only judged public actions. Today that line is almost utterly obliterated.

The jettisoning of honour as a criterion for judging the behaviour of others has been the assiduously pursued task of "progressives" throughout the 20th century. Conversely, the application of honour as the only criterion in judging the behaviour of others - notably the sexual behaviour of girls and women - has been the assiduously pursued task of Islamists in their own lands, and in the last several decades in the western lands to which they have migrated in large numbers.

Both of these ideologically-rooted drives represent poles of honour-related extremism. Both are socially destructive of healthy relations between the sexes. And both tend to obscure the fact that in reasonable doses, honour is a force for good in society. In the West, tribalist honour joined forces with Christianity to produce a distinctly western strain of honour, which we call chivalry. Nobody is pretending that men and women today should aspire to replicate the relationship of Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth Bennet in Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice, written in 1813, but there is a reason this honourable couple continues to attract fascinated and even envious attention from every new generation of women who discover them. Something in our nature craves the constraints that produce the rewards an honour code confers.

...would be for young women to stop getting drunk in the presence of young men and for young men to stop taking advantage of that drunkeness.



Posted by at September 22, 2014 7:43 PM
  

blog comments powered by Disqus
« KNOWING YOUR ALLIES: | Main | A GOVERNOR AFRAID TO GOVERN?: »