国产日韩欧美一区二区三区三州_亚洲少妇熟女av_久久久久亚洲av国产精品_波多野结衣网站一区二区_亚洲欧美色片在线91_国产亚洲精品精品国产优播av_日本一区二区三区波多野结衣 _久久国产av不卡

?

Cultures of Face and Cultures of Honor:Representations of Violence*

2021-11-11 13:23MichaelSteppat
國際比較文學(xué)(中英文) 2021年2期
關(guān)鍵詞:呼蘭河婚姻生活蘇童

Michael Steppat

Abstract:Recently social scientists have carried out substantial research concerning the world’s cultures of face in relation to cultures of honor.It offers a range of data for the psychic or physical violence which in our time is built into each of these cultures,on a fairly global scale.Yet such research takes no notice of imaginative literature.Hence this essay asks:are we to assume that literature has nothing to contribute to an understanding of such forms of violence?Could we expect fictional works to offer insights of their own?Using social science as well as historical literary sources,the essay firstly aims to clarify what is meant by face and honor as cultural characteristics,focusing especially on personality and selfhood categories and on norms guiding social conduct.Then,secondly,the essay discusses instances of fictional works of our time and the recent past which,in a comparable manner,do indeed thematize key principles of face and honor cultures.It becomes apparent from research and fiction,in complementary ways,that these principles feature a notable gender imbalance.In many parts of the world,in so-called honor cultures,honor is often a prominent value in the context of women’s assigned sexual and familial roles as they are dictated by a traditional family ideology.Thus,in such cultural contexts we can observe a direct link between male reputation and the female body,leading in effect to a gap between a woman’s and a man’s honor by setting double standards.Face cultures share a number of features with honor cultures:with a collectivistic orientation,they have traditionally encouraged a maintenance of strong family ties and social harmony,effectively resulting in similar double standards.Accordingly,the focus in this study is especially on notions of obedience and of infertility,to understand how these affect women.Fiction has recently been called an important source of inspiration for psychology as well as for sociology,and the analysis shows that imaginative works can indeed contribute valuable and original insights into harmful cultural practices.We should note that our own cultural positionality,wherever we are located,is at stake in this comparative process,which pushes us toward rethinking the assumptions that we ourselves,as researchers and as readers,bring to bear on our observations.

Keywords:face cultures;honor cultures;social sciences;imaginative literature;comparative method;Mo Yan;Khaled Hosseini;Elif Shafak

In recent years,cultural psychologists have carried out substantial research concerning the world’s cultures of face and cultures of honor.Such research is also conducted in a context of management and organization studies and in sociology.The research highlights salient characteristics of these two types of culture,accounting for both intra- and inter-culture variants of behavior.It also provides data for the psychic or even physical violence which is built into each of the cultures.Yet owing to its disciplinary range of orientation,such research takes no notice of imaginative literature.Does literature have nothing to contribute?Could we expect fictional works to offer insights of their own?It is time to explore these questions.

I

To provide the necessary context for these guiding questions,we first need to ask:what is meant by face and honor as cultural characteristics?In this psychological map of the globe,the relevant cultural values are highly significant for many millions of people,seeing that they influence lives on a global scale.This significance calls for a comparison of interaction norms in different cultures,and how the norms affect social practice.The first sections of the essay will attempt to do so,making use of social science and partly of historical literary sources.

For an accurate description,personality and selfhood are especially useful categories,allowing us to focus firstly on the significance of face.“Face”is traditionally used as a way to understand key aspects of Chinese culture.In Mandarin,the term has different equivalents,most frequent among these being“l(fā)ian(臉)”and“miàn-zi(面子).”Erving Goffman,anthropologist and sociologist,takes face to refer to“the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact.Face is an image of self delineated in terms of approved social attributes.”It is“the rules of the group and the definition of the situation”which are decisive,in light of judgments by other participants.Sociology has found that face work becomes a chief purpose of social engagements,not only an effect of everyday social interactions.Recent research has shown that Chinese people are“

miànzi

sensitive”regarding a respectable status,which appears in terms of social interactions between family members and between social groups and not only of individual conduct.As Yvonne Chang states in her summary of the research,in Chinese culture“

lian

embodies a moral dimension and is often ‘internalized’;whereas

miànzi

represents a social image and is often ‘externalized.’”Evidently,the two concepts are complementary to each other.Moreover,it has been shown that“face”is a field concept:it recognizes the manner in which an individual is embedded in“the social network.”Accordingly,in face cultures,the idea of the self is“informed and defined by others’ judgments,”so that“fostering harmony within the group”is a critical task.People,that is,“prioritize understanding the self through the eyes of others and may resist knowing the self through their own eyes.”This pertains especially to East Asia,notably China,Japan,and Korea,as well as to migrants from there as in the case of Asian Americans.

The way others view the self is thus“an integral part of the self,behavior,and social interactions.”Chief characteristics of such cultures are known as the three H’s,viz.,Hierarchy,Harmony,and Humility,though in logical terms these are not necessarily congruous.In this context,members of face cultures tend to pursue the value of harmony“within the hierarchical social structure,”while humility is a consequence of doing so.Yet it should be clear that not all citizens of the countries mentioned are automatically supporters of face culture values,and that culture is never completely congruent with a whole country and its borders.That said,the value of harmony is“intertwined with the concept of ‘saving face,’”which is accomplished when a person fulfills“expectations of assigned roles”and thus refrains from transgressing group norms,which may be invisible and implicit.This does not have to be entirely restricted to specific cultures of face.Sociologists have in fact argued for the pancultural importance of the face construct,which can become highly significant for people from various cultural backgrounds so that the mutual knowledge of a public self-image can be encountered universally.A similar concept is advanced in communication study:Stella Ting-Toomey has developed the core assumption that in all cultures people make efforts to maintain and negotiate face or how we want others to see us.

Hence we are dealing with interactivity between cultural formations,composing an intercultural dimension which we can see in the way Goffman discusses honor in a context of“face-work.”What is more,in the“Arab mind,”in order to be honorable a man“must beware of allowing his ‘face’ to be ‘blackened’;he must always endeavor to ‘whiten his face,’ as well as the face of the kin group to which he belongs.”Bearing in mind this cultural universality,we will concern ourselves here with the manifestation of such efforts in a large cultural region,as face“assumes a particular importance”in East Asia.Of course Chinese readers may be well aware of traditional codes of face culture,and may hardly need reminding about these.Yet that is not the case in other cultures around the globe.At this point,we should not allow ourselves to become misled into thinking that the cultural norms and ideals are nothing more than a harmless matter of politeness protocols—they include a repressive and harshly punitive dimension.A failure to fulfill expectations will result in sanctions and various forms of punishment,since the consequences of“l(fā)osing face”can be“devastating”:they amount to an experience of shame with a corresponding public damage to or denial of a person’s self-worth.A study of the motivation of male persons in China who have used severe violence against their female partners emphasizes their face orientation,as they report being responsive to“needs of face and their social image,”becoming furious in situations of face loss.In face conflict,significantly,“the more the actor is perceived as directly responsible for initiating the conflict cycle,the more that person is held accountable for the face-threatening process.”

Before we can go on to inquire about the meaning of honor culture,we need to look at some further research findings about the cultural reality.The scientific account is generalizing and seems abstract,but it is crucial for an adequate understanding.As should already be apparent from the brief account above,in face culture there is a strong emphasis on hierarchical layering in society.In systematic terms,psychologist Harry Triandis has analyzed Vertical Collectivism as a typical feature of face cultures:while the individual in this cultural pattern regards the self as an aspect of an in-group,the members of the in-group are different from each other,because some enjoy a higher status than others.Of course this does not imply that hierarchical structures occur only in face cultures,but the way they become socially effective there has characteristic consequences.We need to go back all the way to the classical era for the sources of these codes of social conduct.Confucian society in its ideal form emerges from a hierarchical order of subordination and superordination.Accordingly,the principle of

Li

(originally 禮)becomes manifest as“rules of proper conduct”or“rules of propriety,”and it consists of a body of special protocols of behavior which reflect a person’s status and thus lead to a differentiated notion of honor or reputation.It is a pattern of behavior suited to distinguishing the noble from the humble,being taught and implemented in the feudal era by education,ethics,custom,as well as social and legal sanctions.In this system,each individual receives a status which determines a characteristic way of life,with particular rights and obligations.Preserving status difference was considered to be vital,historically,in order to maintain a stable social order.Accordingly,the head of a family or

tsu

was granted the highest authority in the family unit.Disputes would frequently be brought first to the head to be judged,and they would only be brought to a court of law if the head was not able to settle the issue.The government recognized this family authority,so that the head was responsible for the actions of any member of the family.When a provocation occurred,in a face culture context,individuals were not encouraged to respond or retaliate directly.Doing so was not deemed proper because such action would undermine the idealized harmony of the social system.Yet it is clear that traditional values are no longer valid in modern China.Since the feudal system came to an end in China in 1912,when some Western cultural and legal values were imported by means of widespread social and official efforts,the Confucianist concept of society has been continuously reformed.In our time,we can experience alignment and partly conflict between Marxism and traditional assumptions of Chinese civilization,enabling a restructuring process in society.Fan Ruiping maintains that China is“on its way to capturing and rearticulating the Confucian moral and political commitments that lie at the foundations of Chinese culture.”A gradual reform with traditional elements interacting with modern principles has resulted in“a unique logic of the open society different from any other country in the world.”Li Youmei concludes:“In such a society,no institution and way is radically new,no system and life is stable traditionally;instead,all seemingly contradictory factors dramatically intertwine with each other,being both oppositional to and dependent on each other.”While modern China has in fact judged many Confucian

Li

norms to be outdated and illegal,the long-held behavioral codes related to them appear to have left deep imprints.“ In everyday interactions,individuals constantly make conscious or semiconscious choices concerning face-saving,face maintenance,and face-honoring issues across interpersonal,workplace,and international contexts”;face is playing the role of a“ social interactional identity,”directing people’ s verbal and non-verbal behaviors that“protect/save self-face,other-face,mutual-face,or communal face.”This is not only the case in China.Nonetheless,the inherited preference for hierarchy has not entirely evaporated in the modern era,and this may explain why the“Power Distance”dimension in Geert Hofstede’s country comparison tool ranks fairly highly for China.Moreover,in interpersonal conflict situations the Chinese ethnic group uses a significantly higher degree of an avoidance/withdrawal style than other cultural groups which have been investigated.We have already seen how face concerns can acquire a gendered dimension.This dimension,especially,needs our attention;it enables comparison with the codes of honor culture.Again,we have to go back all the way to the classical era for the sources,and to some classical literature.The Confucian guiding rules of proper conduct(

Li

)demand that a woman be submissive,gentle,and fertile,while they require the following for a man:

Kindness on the part of the father,and filial duty on that of the son;gentleness on the part of the elder brother,and obedience on that of the younger;righteousness on the part of the husband,and submission on that of the wife;kindness on the part of elders,and deference on that of juniors;with benevolence on the part of the ruler,and loyalty on that of the minister.

These requirements make a subtle distinction between duties inside and outside a family.A male person is first expected to manage family affairs efficiently,as a foundation for his capacity to handle social relations outside his family.A woman’s“submission”is further specified in the Confucian classic

Book of Etiquette and Ceremonial

(

Yi-li

),which identifies three major obediences as a woman’s guiding moral principles:obedience to her father before marriage,to her husband after marriage,and(for widows)to her son.It is similar in the

Rites of Zhou

.In feudal China during a very long period,from the Qin(221–206 B.C.)to Qing(1644–1911)dynasties,it was parents,especially fathers,who would make decisions about their children’s spouses,so that the wedding day would be the first meeting between such a new couple.Wealth and social status were prominent among the marriageability criteria(again,by no means only in China).Marriage procedures would get under way after a matchmaker’s activity and subsequently the parents’consent on both sides,whereupon the procedures would advance through the conventions of“Three Letters”(a betrothal letter,a gift letter which would include a gift list,and a wedding letter)and“Six Rites”(Proposing,Birthday Matching,Presenting Betrothal Gifts,Presenting Wedding Gifts,Selecting the Wedding Date,and Wedding Ceremony).All these elaborate stages would be a standard requirement to ensure a valid marriage.

Li

and law together forbade children to disobey parents’ decision about their marriage.(A focus on modern literary works will follow below,beginning with“Face:Literary Depictions of Obedience.”)

Do cultures of honor have any features in common with face cultures?Their origin and also their geographical position,after all,are quite different.Yet here,too,the focus is on a person’s sense of worth and the importance of the“social image”:the socialization process emphasizes“a concern for others’ opinions,represented by a sense of shame.”Accordingly,the external honor system gains priority,subordinating the purely internal.Honor can be understood as a social and relational process,which relies on a person’s“internalization of the identification with the value that the group has so inscribed.”Such internalization can proceed to individually differing degrees,however,and thus cannot be taken for granted.Members of such cultures are expected to behave“in ways that protect or maintain their social image,”which means knowing the accepted ways,and as in the case of face culture the expectation is inseparable from forms of psychic or physical suffering in that,if individuals fail to live up to their required image,they are likely to be ostracized and discriminated against—being viewed as inferior and“despicable.”Especially important in this regard is the expectation that women demonstrate“modesty,chastity,sexual fidelity,and obedience to authority,”qualities that belong to“the bedrock”of honor cultures.If a threat to one’s honor becomes apparent,it calls for“action that in some way ‘cleanses the stain’ of dishonor.”A family’s honor can be stained by“real or merely alleged dishonorable conduct”on the part of female family members,requiring punishment to protect family honor.Honor-based violence has been studied in sociological contexts.In Jordan,for instance,it has been found that 40% of adolescent boys believe it acceptable to“kill a female family member who has dishonored the family,”so that violence is regarded as a tool to preserve honor and to protect the ideal of female chastity,which stands for family honor.In keeping with these values,an experience which is closely associated with the loss of honor is shame,which is expected as a suitable response to a“threatened social image”as in the case of a lack of sexual modesty.Cultures of honor are commonly understood to be encountered especially in the Mediterranean regions of Greece,Italy,and Spain,in parts of the Middle East,in North Africa,and also South America.

The prevalent codes in cultures of honor are not directly related to religion.Yet it is useful nonetheless to be aware that the Quran,as a key religious source text for the Middle East and much of North Africa,assigns specific roles to the sexes:“Men are the protectors and maintainers of women,because Allah has made one of them to excel the other,and because they spend(to support them)from their means.Therefore,the righteous women are devoutly obedient(to Allah and to their husbands),and guard in the husband’s absence what Allah orders them to guard(e.g.,their chastity,their husband’s property,etc.).”The requirement of obedience thus derives from respectable authority,as in the case of face culture.In practice,as well,it becomes most apparent in the expected conduct of girls and women.An“imbalanced set of social rules”applies to men and to women in the Middle East and adjacent areas;women’s sexuality is strictly regulated in societies with honor-related value systems.If a girl or woman does not live up to behavioral guidelines,her conduct will have an effect on the accepted functioning of her family in society,provoking the symbolic violence of masculine domination(as diagnosed by Pierre Bourdieu).Masculinity,that is,tends to be constructed in terms of female chastity.Thus honor almost by definition becomes a collective concern.It is a highly fragile group value which needs to be defended and(after a transgression)to be restored,as soon as a female person transgresses honorrelated codes by conduct which is deemed to be immoral.In such a situation,saving a whole family’s public reputation is viewed as a collective responsibility which most directly concerns male family members but which at times may require female help and support.In honor cultures,this understanding extends to social differences in evaluating men’s and women’s conduct:men who do not control their sexual desires,who make unwanted sexual advances,or who are accused of rapeare often judged less harshly than women who behave in similar ways.

A loss of honor results from any form of disobedience to the honor-related rules,which are designed to ensure a respectable social appearance.The family,as already suggested,is an essential social unit in this context.A study conducted with university students shows that normative ideas concerning the female body and a woman’s appropriate behavior in public“are most likely formulated from early childhood within the societal structures of the family and the community.”The protection of her honor is thus a chief task to be fulfilled by a girl or woman during her life,and it prominently consists of obedience to rules which have been laid down by her parents.It is not only and sometimes not even chiefly the father whose responsibility it is to ensure a thorough acquaintance with such rules.In cultures of honor,it is frequently the duty of mothers to make their daughter(s)understand the importance of the values of sexual purity and innocence,and thus to provide them with internalized guidelines to govern their life:“[w]omen are also expected to protect the

namus

[i.e.,honor as chastity]of other women and girls related to them,for example their daughters and granddaughters.”A mother will be concerned to prove her own honor by educating her daughter(s)toward obedience:“The purity of the daughter reflects that of her mother,and thereby,the honour of her father.”As this suggests,honor is assumed to have a hereditary character.Sana Al-Khayyat emphasizes that in the“socializing process”of girls,“the most important issue for the mother—and other adults in the family—is how to make them totally submissive.A girl is taught to be obedient from an early age and will be punished if she refuses to do what adults in the family demand of her.It is

aib

(shameful,immodest)for her to disobey,although it is not necessarily

aib

for a boy.”Educational practice serves the need of social appearance when a family’s honorable public reputation rests on children’s upbringing,especially the moral training of daughters,and the effectiveness of warnings regarding the negative consequences of disobedience.Parents are strongly aware that a daughter’s inappropriate behavior will bring shame on their family’s name,not only on herself,and such a failure will be put down to inadequate parenting techniques.A hierarchical order is strongly evident,and it is strengthened in the culture’s patriarchal structure which leads to unequal upbringing of boys and girls:from an early age children learn that man and woman,brother and sister,and also father and son are not equal.(A focus on modern literary works will follow below,beginning with“Honor:Literary Depictions of Obedience.”)So far,then,we might assume that research in social science,mainly psychology and also sociology,buttressed in places by works of historical literature,should be suited to enabling a general grasp of the prevailing behavioral codes in face culture and honor culture.The research should also facilitate an understanding of key analogies between these cultures,alongside palpable differences.But if any modern literary representations of these codes and of their social implementation can be found,how can such works enable a better understanding?What would their purpose be?No sustained or comparative attention has been previously given to such representations.Hence:why should we inquire,at all,about imaginative literature in this context?A recent study calls psychology and literature“two branches of social science studying human behavior,”and claims that they are“interrelated and mutually beneficial.”Fiction is then“an important source of inspiration for the science of psychology which tries to explain human emotions,behaviors and mental processes.”Badegül Emir names Murasaki Shikibu’s eleventhcentury

Tale of Genji

among fictional works which are capable of illuminating the mutual benefit of psychology and literature.Indeed,this famous tale,though not modern,happens to have bearing on our inquiry:it shows the Japanese hero secretly cuckolding his father,who is the Emperor,and he thus becomes guilty of familial as well as political disobedience.As a consequence,it is“the burden of society’s condemnation”which he fearsso that he decides he must escape from the court“before I suffer any greater shame.”He prays to the gods“[t]o right a wrong and restore my honor.”Thus the tale represents the connection between male honor loss,which can only occur when a transgression becomes publicly known,and the sense of shame.By doing so,in fact,it also suggests analogies between face and honor concerns.As for psychology,another researcher reminds us that this science makes use of classical literary works“to provide multi-faceted analyses.”Carl Gustav Jung for his part has called the human psyche“the womb of all the sciences and arts”;for Jung,“[p]sychology and the study of art will always have to turn to one another for help,and the one will not invalidate the other”—the psychologist can“never make good”his full scientific claim because“the creative aspect of life which finds its clearest expression in art baffles all attempts at rational formulation.”

Sociology offers clear answers to the question about the significance of fictional works.Mariano Longo as a sociologist explores literature as a form of empirical material:his analysis recommends thinking of fictional narratives as“tools that a sociologist may adopt to get in contact with dense representations of specific aspects of the social.”We can regard narratives,that is,as a process by which“the description of singular events and actions is useful to explain other contexts and actions,”beyond a focus only on particular characters and situations.Complementing sociology’s own methods of understanding social phenomena,narratives are able to give“a plausible representation of social reality and intercourse,”presenting events and themes as an“areferential”representation of the referential world.Accordingly,for social science fictional narratives do appear able to provide“new perspectives from which to observe and understand reality.”

The new perspectives dwell in a function which is characteristic of literature,quite likely even unique:fiction often represents“typical deficits,blind spots,imbalances,deformations,and contradictions within dominant systems of civilizatory power”;it stages and semiotically empowers what is“marginalized,neglected or repressed in the dominant cultural reality system.”In a similarly meaningful way,it can be argued that“[a]s critics,readers and writers,we contribute to the disordering of dominant discourses by recognizing,pointing to and pushing the limits that dominant narratives would impose.We contribute to the remembering of erased and forgotten experiences and voices by pointing to the traces and echoes left by these acts of violence and historical forgetting.”We can,indeed,identify this as the chief purpose to be expected of any imaginative literature that deals with the codes and social realities of cultures of face and of honor —a purpose of creating awareness,of calling attention to the“ erased and forgotten experiences,”incurred under conditions of suppression and suffering which remain somewhat abstract in scientific accounts.

II

If imaginative literature is acknowledged as being a useful tool for social analysis,then,we can come back to our initial question:does it have anything to contribute to a better understanding of face and honor cultures?Classical and feudal-era literary sources may be pertinent,as we have seen,but what about our own time?We can begin with face culture.When we recall the ancient notion of obedience as a woman’s guiding moral principle,isn’t it a value so outdated that fictional representations of our era would not consider it a topic worth writing about?

Yet Jiang Lanfang 姜蘭芳,for instance,is an author who can teach us otherwise.In the 2013 Online Fiction Award–winning novel

Hun Shang

《婚殤》(Death in Marriage

)

,we find an arranged marriage prominently depicted in the narrative action.The work’s female protagonist Xiao Jinyan dutifully goes through most of the marriage rites—which we have specified above—with Zhang Tao before her wedding,but then finds out that he has a flawed personality.Such pre-wedding rites are viewed as parts of marriage,establishing a marital relation between the couple;we can understand rituals as arising from the valorized body.Zhang Tao attempts to have sex with Xiao but is strongly rejected,provoking him to assert angrily that she belongs to him in accordance with the rites.
洮南市| 华池县| 德格县| 南溪县| 项城市| 洮南市| 调兵山市| 彭水| 皮山县| 上饶县| 定日县| 靖西县| 元氏县| 邵阳市| 皮山县| 靖边县| 类乌齐县| 长泰县| 郸城县| 伊川县| 奉贤区| 湟源县| 叙永县| 滁州市| 逊克县| 金昌市| 县级市| 泰州市| 西昌市| 盐山县| 荆州市| 泾川县| 吉林市| 平昌县| 宁都县| 大关县| 彰化县| 常州市| 宁安市| 含山县| 阜宁县|