You Don’t Negotiate with Honor Cultures
I’ve posted here before about the fiction of Lars Walker. I didn’t mention that he is a shrewd commentator on political and cultural matters, as well. I offer you a taste of his take on the Pope’s comments and the Islamic reaction:
Any reasonable person would recognize that rioting and murdering people are a self-contradictory means of proclaiming one’s peacefulness. And the fact that a large part of the Muslim world fails to get the joke (such as it is) pretty much says it all.
But the Islamic world doesn’t care. Because they’re not involved in a struggle of ideas, but a struggle of honor.
Honor, and honor cultures, is one of my hobbyhorses. I believe (perhaps wrongly) that my study of Viking sagas has taught me something about the subject.
I want you to go read the whole post, so I’ll leave the rest of it at Lars’ site. Check it out and discover how to deal with honor cultures.
As someone who has also read a lot of Viking sagas, I’d have to dispute the point a bit. Not the main point — that we should be defending our honor. We should.
However, it’s clearly true that one -can- negotiate with an honor society. The sagas, and most especially the Icelandic ones, are full of negotiations. The negotiations just have to be in the language of honor.
Feuds are prevented by paying a blood-price (a tactic used in Iraq both by Saddam’s government, and our forces, to prevent triggering tribal blood feuds with the governing power). Disputes are settled through careful words (witness Egil Skallagrimsson explaining his intention to take his leave from the King of England’s service — by stating that he doesn’t intend to do so, except for a while. Of course, he never returns).
One can indeed negotiate with honor cultures. It just requires a different understanding of how to go about negotiation.
“Diplomacy is the art of saying ‘Nice doggie’ until you can find a rock.”
Wise and true words from Will Rogers. Diplomacy can be effective in certain cases, but in this world force is the ultimate arbiter. The Islamic world understands this basic truth, and the West has attempted to ignore it.
I’m having trouble conceptualizing this strategy Walker proposes. Who are we supposed to be attacking, specifically? We routed the Taliban–I understand that. We invaded Iraq–debatable but I understand that. We’re pursuing Al Qaeda. So now what?
I’m not being snarky. I’m trying to envision what this means in immediate, practical terms. Give me an example of the kind of retaliation, or whatever it is, that we’re supposed to be engaging in.
Lars is brilliant. Thanks for the link.
The Pope’s comments seem to represent a real tipping point in the West’s vexing relationship with Islam.
Grim: I agree with your point. I didn’t mean to suggest that all we can do with the Muslim world is forever attack and kill them. My point was intended to be that what we do must proceed from a position of strength.
Grover: I’m talking philosophy, not specific tactics. What I’m saying is that we must not respond to provocation in ways that convey an impression of weakness and fear.
Hunter, thanks for the plug.
Further thought: Grim’s excellent point about negotiations notwithstanding, my own reading of the sagas tells me that, although the feuds do generally end with a negotiated settlement, the settlements only work after everybody is sick and tired of the feud and the pool of warlike men has been heavily reduced through casualties.
Legal settlements are often made early on, but they tend not to hold up very well.
Thanks, Lars, I appreciate your taking the time to respond, and I understand what you’re saying. My comment comes across as a little more agressive than I intended. But I hear this being bandied about a lot lately, and while I agree with it, I sometimes feel unclear as to exactly how this translates into specific actions–i.e., what could we be doing that we’re not doing. This probably isn’t the time to get into a big discussion about it, maybe some other thread, but it comes to mind often these days.
Grim may be too modest to plug his own post on what AQ’s conception of honor does to their communications –
http://www.grimbeorn.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_grimbeorn_archive.html#115930176449182360
- I on the other hand shamelessly praise him for it. If nothing else, it’s good for a laugh on a grim subject – I have had occasion to read the worst of academic, legal, and corporate prose, but I believe these boys take the cake.
(Actually it was following the link to this document that led me to the USMA Combating Terrorism Center documents I linked to in the other thread.)
One aspect of honor is that you do not flinch from telling the truth. The Norse had this idea down – if you have to lie about things then you are a slave and a coward so the really cool Norsemen – even evil ones like Killer Hrapp in Njal’s saga – told the truth. When asked why there was blood on his ax Hrapp said that he had been “curing” a fellows backache = Hrapp told the truth even though it was likely to get him killed.
Contrast this with the mellifluous mendacity of the jihad boys. They have no honor at all.
Hang on, so in order to respond to this threat *without* appeasing the enemy, we have to adopt their way of seeing the world? How is that remotely sane??
No, we don’t adopt their way of seeing the world. We recognize the differences in our ways of thinking, and act accordingly. Bearing in mind that the Bible recognizes the responsibiity of the government to effectively protect its citizens with the sword.
he makes a good point about honor. some say that is why the romans were able to conquer the celtic tribes. the celts were too proud to fight in an organized “team manner”. honor is one of the reasons the native americans never put up a united front to face “the white man”. could honor be a reason for the outbreak of the american civil war? for the way the war ended?
i am with lars when he said “the settlements only work after everybody is sick and tired of the feud and the pool of warlike men has been heavily reduced through casualties.” thats what we are going to have to push for on terroists and terroist nations
sorry lost an r in terrorist
As re: Viking deaths:
The popular sagas, which survive because they were beloved enough to be written down, were beloved in part because they were great stories. “Great stories,” to Vikings, appears to have included as a precondition that there was a fair amount of bloodshed. It doesn’t mean they always tended to lots of bloodshed — just, those occasions when they did made better sagas.
As re: examples of what to do with the language of honor:
I don’t suggest we adopt their way of seeing the world either (or their means of communication, as Joseph notes). What we do need to do is understand it, and be able to use that understanding to good advantage.
In fact, we need to understand at least two different codes everywhere we are fighting — al Qaeda’s conception, and also the more general civilian conception in the areas in which we’re in conflict.
If we can do that, we can speak the language of al Qaeda when it is useful — as for example, in constructing PSYOPs that will draw out the enemy to fight us. We can speak the language of the general culture when it is useful — as for example in preventing them from taking offense at some action we take out of military necessity. And we can understand both languages when useful — as for example in order to point out to the general culture when al Qaeda is saying something that might appear to be aligned with their values, but actually is not.
If al Qaeda is the only one speaking in a language of honor, the honor cultures in which the COIN is being fought will tend to side with them. If we can do it also, we can promote our values, and drive wedges between the terrorists and those who have the same roots, but different final conceptions about what those roots should mean in terms of building a society.
Sounds good to me. The one thing I’d add is something I said in comments on my own blog — never apologize. Apologizing is an act of submission in an honor culture.
http://buyzestril45.blogspot.com buy zestril zestril cheap zestril buy cheap zestril buy zestril online cheap zestril online order zestril
http://buyzomig49.blogspot.com buy zomig zomig cheap zomig buy cheap zomig buy zomig online cheap zomig online order zomig
oxycontin oxycontin side effects buy oxycontin generic oxycontin oxycontin withdrawal buy oxycontin online oxycontin no prescription oxycontin online prescription oxycontin online oxycontin pill