In the following essay, Scott Harris examines the differing ways America and much of the world view the concept of honor, and the misunderstandings that result from those different world-views.

-- Tim Machesney

AN AMERICAN SENSE OF HONOR

by Scott Harris

A FUNDAMENTAL REASON America is misunderstood by other societies, regardless of race or region, is that many throughout the world view America as dishonorable. This is due to the fact that many non-Americans relate to one another based on the historical concept of honor, or "face." To those who live according to this ideal, an insult is a threat and honor demands a defense.

Why does the United States tolerate insults from every corner of the world? Americans do not share much of the world's concept of honor. We happily tolerate insults because we do not perceive the need to "save face." Rejecting this common perception of honor also allows Americans to view defeated enemies in a fundamentally different manner. We do not perceive their defeat as "losing face." Hence, Americans have an unusual capacity to forgive former enemies and contribute to their rehabilitation.

The inescapable fact is that the concept of historical honor is inseparably linked to the darker concept of hereditary dishonor. And entwined within this honor system is the principle of class-based society. Americans prefer judge people and issues based on merit. When criticized, we tend to examine the merits of the criticism. Is there any truth to the accusation? If there is, we thank the critic, change and move on. No loss of face is perceived or recognized. I am personally fond of saying, "I would rather be right at the end of the argument than at the beginning."

Americans also differentiate between insults and threats. Many who hold us in contempt for our refusal to defend our honor become unwittingly blind to the line we draw between insult and threat. Indeed, our current suspicion of France is based on our uncertainty of French motives - is France merely insulting us, or are they playing a complicit role in the emerging threat of terrorism? This explains why the American response to a perceived threat is so dangerously underestimated and misunderstood.

Americans also misunderstand other cultures. Our casual dismissal of unwarranted criticism is itself seen as a threat to the honor of the critics. Our misunderstanding of their concept of honor contributes to the general confusion about each other's motives and what constitutes mutual respect.

Americans find pictures of Iraqis slapping the images and statues of Saddam Hussein with their shoes humorous. We laugh. Arabs don't. They understand this is a grievous insult, which MUST be responded to with force. Otherwise, the person being slapped loses face and is discredited.

You see this concept of historical or collective honor throughout the Oriental cultures; you see it in caste-conscious India; you see it in most tribal situations, which includes many of the Middle Eastern, African, and Native American cultures. It is very pronounced in Latin America. You see it in urban ghettos. And finally, you see it in Europe and Russia, with their historical ideas of royalty, landed gentry, and working classes.

We like to pretend that Europe shares our sense of democracy, but government and society are two separate concepts. Europeans share our form of government - representative democracy. But they do not share our sense of society, defined as how we relate to one another in the absence of government and regulation.

The fundamental difference between the American and French revolutions, both of which spawned modern democracies, lies in the underlying values that inspired revolt. The foundation of the French Revolution was its citizens' feelings of inferiority. In its ravenous hunger for revenge via the guillotine, the French Revolution did not require a demonstration of personal culpability in order to pass judgment. The French nobility were condemned merely on the basis of their class membership. Hence, the French Revolution was explicitly a class-conscious revolt.

In contrast, the American Revolution was built upon our collective sense of individual competence. We had been effectively self-governing for 150 years, and saw no further need to retain our allegiance to a King who refused to recognize our equality as Englishmen. Our desire was not to punish, but to be left alone to fend for ourselves. Indeed, we did not reject all things English, but retained the traditions we found useful, such as English common law.

In his little pamphlet that helped spawn the American revolution, "Common Sense," Thomas Paine examined government versus society, described hereditary monarchy and nobility as "sinful," and declared the concept of hereditary honor as totally without merit. Honor cannot be bequeathed; it must be earned anew by each generation. America was founded upon that concept.

This is not to say that Americans do not have a sense of honor. But our sense of honor is based on personal achievement and integrity, not hereditary position. The son of a rich man may have more privileges, but in America he is not automatically accorded more honor than the son of a poor man. In fact, the opposite is true. Rich heirs are seen as soft, coddled, and not fully tested. Hence the practice of leaving home to "make it on your own."

I watched an interview with former President Bush and his wife, Barbara, in early 2001 just after their son, George W., had taken office. The interviewer asked the "Bush political dynasty" question. The senior Bush bristled, saying he rejected the concept of dynasty because it implied a hereditary right to govern. Barbara Bush added that while public service was a family tradition, another family tradition was even more important. Before a Bush family member is considered qualified for public service, he must first pass the prerequisite of proving himself in the private sector. How very American of the Bushes. And how foreign a concept this is to other societies.

The U.S. Constitution specifically guards against the idea and practice of any protected class of citizens. That is why many neo-liberal ideas like multiculturalism, affirmative action, and trans-nationalism, all of which rely on classifying and assigning benefits and/or penalties based on group membership, are so repulsive to Americans on a gut level.

The political left has ceased being liberal in the classical sense. In the modern left, individualism and property rights are sacrificed to group imperatives. You see this illiberality exposed in the socialistic, anti-American, anti-capitalist, and anti-globalization movements. In groupthink, if you belong to an overachieving class of people, then your personal success, or lack thereof, is immaterial. Those belonging to "lesser" classes must be given greater rights, and your rights must be limited so that the classes become more equal. Your personal situation is therefore defined according to your class membership, not your personal integrity, your personal effort, or your personal achievements.

Paradoxically, although the stated goal of socialism is the obliteration of classes, the effect is perversely the opposite. The very emphasis on class membership and class-consciousness inherent in socialism tends to entrench classes. Since class membership is the overriding value, class members tend to defend the honor and privileges of their specific class. Those who attempt to transcend their class through personal achievement are viewed with suspicion and labeled as class "traitors." Those who enjoy actual privilege are encouraged to pit lower classes against another to obscure and shield their group from scrutiny.

American style capitalists challenge this historical concept of honor on all three levels of society. First, by virtue of their demonstrated class mobility, they challenge the historical status the ruling classes enjoy and consider their birthright. The elites only grudgingly give recognition to someone who has newly achieved. And more often than not, they sneeringly demean them on social grounds such as not being a true gentleman, being uncouth, being a barbarian, being crass or vulgar, or some other supposed character defect. Interestingly, the children of the "barbarian" capitalist are easily accepted as true members of the elite because they were born to their positions, and more significantly did NOT attain their status on the basis of their own personal effort or merit.

Secondly, the successful capitalist challenges the status of the privileged classes, and their complicity in keeping down the working class. The privileged classes, with their status as the instruments of elite power, have become addicted to the residue of power, and are more likely to be intimately responsible for the abuses of that power. Hence, they are usually the most vigorous in defending the status quo. They tend to view the individual liberty of the common man as a threat to their unstable position. Their status is maintained by their relationship with elites, and their willingness to act on the behalf of their "betters" in the daily administration of the working class.

Perennial middle managers, they bend and scrape in front of the ruling classes to maintain their assigned positions. Acting as a buffer between the elite and working classes, they blame each in turn for the plight of the other. To the ruling elites, "Yes your nobleness, it is terrible that you must bear the heavy load of ruling such an unworthy, ungrateful horde." To the workers, "I am not personally responsible for oppressing you, I am only following orders."

Lastly, the working classes are kept in a state of perpetual servitude, subject to the whims and desires of the elites. Subclasses of the working class are identified and pitted against one another to divert attention from the elites' higher status. To pacify their occasional revolts, government programs are created by the elites, and administered by the privileged. The working classes have come to accept their role, and expect to be taken care of by those "above" them. Successful capitalists challenge their laziness, and introduce a concept of personal responsibility that is, in fact, personally repugnant to those who only wish for success and are not willing to work for it.

Capitalists exist outside this class system, and are labeled evil because they transcend the traditional honor system. For the ruling and privileged classes, capitalists threaten their "tenured" positions. For the working classes, capitalists expose their complaints as mere excuses. So, rather than examine the merits of someone's success, and emulate their behavior, people in class-based societies are encouraged to forego self-examination, condemn those who achieve, and vilify even those who attempt to do so. Instead of personal responsibility, the concept of collective or "social justice" is emphasized.

In Europe, you see this class system played out on all levels. The ruling elites chastise and threaten those who presume to challenge their authority, a la Jacques Chirac in his tirade against Eastern European leaders. The privileged classes, within the structures of government bureaucracies and entrenched corporations whose vitality is long gone, are kept in place by the pleasure of the ruling class. The ruling elite passes regulations creating such onerous burdens on new enterprise that established companies have a completely unfair advantage. Simultaneously, the privileged bureaucrats are empowered to enforce these regulations using reward and punishment to effectively hold down the working classes for no other reason than personal maliciousness.

The working classes live within this system, occasionally decrying its inherent unfairness, and then lapsing back into embittered complacency, too lazy to take matters in their own hands. They clamor for more government support, not fully realizing that the support money is collected from themselves, and both the ruling elite, and the privileged take a commission for collecting it.

In this class-conscious type of society, the primary personal expression available is one's concept of honor, or "face." It is the only way one can declare, "I am worthy of respect." In the Third World (and in First World ghettos), this includes a hyper-machismo that values reputation over responsibility and degrades women. In Europe, it is more subtly demonstrated in the affinity for Socialism.

In Socialism, the working classes are awarded empty status by being "underprivileged." This begs the question of just who awards the status. To try to achieve would be a tacit admission that their current position is less than honorable. This cannot be admitted; therefore they embrace Socialism - false honor bestowed by being a member of a class. This allows the ruling elites and the privileged classes to maintain their elevated positions temporarily insulated from popular revolt.

Is it any wonder that those who are suckled on this class system do not, even cannot understand America? The genius of America is not in our form of government, but in our reliance on personal integrity and personal responsibility. It is a concept of honor that is foreign to most of the world. It is why they don't understand us. It is why we don't understand them.

It is also why America is the cradle of creativity, vitality, and strength. Much like a fruit tree must be regularly pruned so that it produces more fruit, American civil society demands a constant reevaluation of one's status based on his RECENT achievements, and his personal integrity. We regularly celebrate those who are newly successful more than to those whose success is more distant. And we ruthlessly destroy the reputations of those who are discovered to have achieved success by compromising integrity.

The operative phrase in America is "What have you done for me lately?" To maintain status, you must continuously have new successes. And this concept is not limited to financial success. Someone who does voluntary philanthropic work is awarded community honor for his recent contributions. Another very American phrase is "Don't rest on your laurels."

The American folk hero, the cowboy, has been derided across the world in the last two years. But he is an American hero because he embodies rugged individualism combined with personal integrity. He relies on no one but himself, refuses to compromise his personal integrity, and yet is still convinced that achievement is not only possible, but inevitable. He bows to no man, but gives respect to all. He represents American society.

I believe that we have mistakenly promoted democracy as the cure to the world's problems. Democracy, as an expression of individual value, is a vital structure for building a modern society. But I agree with Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek in his article about creating civil society in Iraq when he warns of creating a form of government without the substance to support it.

Modern democracy is many things to many people. But our manner of relating to our fellow citizens, our society, is what determines the ultimate success or failure of democracy. Our values, not our form of expressing them, provide the foundation for American success. Only by adopting our fundamental principles of mutual respect, professional honesty, personal integrity, individual responsibility, and hard work can others expect to truly copy our success. And the ruthless destruction of the concept of hereditary honor is required. How much better would this world be if more societies shared the American sense of honor?

Mr. Harris writes from Texas.