- Email: [email protected]
Honor Killing: Multidimensional and Multilevel Perspectives
Honor Killing: Multidimensional and Multilevel Perspectives Tenzin Dorjee and Stella Ting-Toomey, California State University Fullerton, Fullerton, CA, USA Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Abstract Honor killing is a crime and a social and intercultural moral dilemma in terms of understanding its motivations and possible prevention. This article presents multiple perspectives to illuminate the multifaceted dimensions of honor killing. Various contemporary ethical and theoretical perspectives on honor killing are addressed. The article is organized into four sections: honor killing as contextualized and defined; honor killing as a complex social, moral, and intercultural issue; social ecological and intercultural facework perspectives on honor killing, with an illustrative application; and finally, conclusions and future directions.
Defining and Contextualizing Honor Killing ‘Honor killing or honor-related violence’ is a multifaceted phenomenon that reflects a heinous social crime, a moral dilemma within societies, and an intercultural challenge. In general, while killing can be accidental, premeditated killing with malice is murder. From this perspective, honor killing is murder, typically, the murder of a female family member by her own family and/or friends to avenge shame or disgrace brought by infidelity or any other culturally unacceptable behaviors (Nasrullah et al., 2009). Women are the majority of victims of honor killing but men can suffer a similar fate (Idriss and Abbas, 2011; Welchman and Hossain, 2005). According to U.N. reports, every year as many as 5000 women are killed in the name of honor (Chesler, 2010; Smartt, 2006), which most observers think is an underestimate. The world-wide average age of female honor killing victims is 23 years. Men are also victims of honor killing (Chesler, 2010; Nesheiwat, 2005). While honor killings can be found around the world, this article focuses on their occurrence within the cultural context of South Asia and the Middle East and addresses different aspects of honor killing from interdisciplinary perspectives. The key English terms to understand the motivations of this form of killing are ‘honor’ and ‘perception.’ ‘Honor’ is the English translation of the term ‘izzat’ in Hindi–Urdu languages and cultures. ‘Izzat’ is a broad term that includes honor, reputation, dignity, respect, social standing, and justice. In many cultures ‘family izzat’ guides social relationships and interactions (Encarta, 2009). All family members are expected to preserve and enhance family izzat. Social mobility from a low-status position to a high-status position via academic and professional achievement or matrimonial alliances, for example, a poor person marrying into a rich family, can enhance family izzat. Given the history of the caste system in India, social position is intimately related to one’s izzat (Mandelbaum, 1988). While promoting family izzat would usually be commended, disgracing family izzat entails serious social consequences including social ostracism and even murder in the name of honor. The term ‘honor killing’ thus illustrates the dark side of izzat. Honor killing is believed to restore family izzat (i.e., honor, dignity, reputation, respect, social standing, and justice). It is primarily a family izzat restoration strategy. Honor killing is
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 11
based on a perceived disgrace or threat to the family izzat. For example, if a family member or friend believed that another family member had done something to disgrace her or his family (e.g., interreligious dating, disobeying the parents’ wishes), the offending person would be punished accordingly in an authoritarian family system, including by death if the offense was sufficiently serious. Thus, the perception of bringing disgrace to the family is central to understanding honor killing or izzat-based killing (Carline, 2011; Perlmutte, 2011).
Dimensional Complexity of Honor Killing Honor killing is a multidimensional phenomenon that requires interdisciplinary and social–ecological perspectives for breadth and depth of understanding. Below, we discuss the two major perspectives taken on the issue: conflict face-negotiation theory (FNT) (Ting-Toomey, 2005; Ting-Toomey and Kurogi, 1998) and the social–ecological framework (SEF) (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Stokols, 1996; Ting-Toomey, 2011).
Honor Killing: The Sociocriminal Approach Honor killing is often primarily approached as a social issue or crime and is addressed according to the legal constitution of a country (Idriss andAbbas, 2011). The main goals of this approach are social justice for the victims of honor killing and their families and prevention of honor killing in the first place (Idriss and Abbas, 2011; Welchman and Hossain, 2005). Coomaraswamy (2005) offers a sociocriminal approach to understanding and preventing honor killing based on women’s human rights and criminal law: “First, we need to ensure that we draw upon existing international standards and laws in upholding state responsibility. As Special Rapporteur, I called upon states not to invoke custom, tradition or religious considerations to avoid their obligations to eradicate violence against women and girls. .” (Coomaraswamy, 2005: pp. xii–xiii). She recommended developing national penal codes to provide protection to women irrespective of cultural practice. In this regard, scholars have investigated laws pertaining to honor killing in various national contexts such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraqi Kurdistan, Palestine, Egypt, Israel, Latin America, Italy, and United Kingdom
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.64100-4
185
186
Honor Killing: Multidimensional and Multilevel Perspectives
(see Welchman and Hossain, 2005) and other countries (see Idriss and Abbas, 2011). The laws of these different countries vary greatly in their provisions for social justice for the victims of honor killing or honor crimes. Women’s rights proponents continue to advocate for the protection of women’s rights, including the prevention of honor killing and full justice to its victims. A major challenge, of course, is to create uniform national penal codes prohibiting or criminalizing honor killing in nations and societies with incompatible moral values.
regardless of faith or even no faith. In his two classic books, the Dalai Lama (2001, 2011) persuasively argues that secular ethics is rooted in compassion – a sense of caring for others or warm heartedness – that we have inherited biologically from our mothers before we come to know of any religion or ideology. Secular ethics and the so-called ‘middle way’ approach can be useful in addressing many human conflict issues and cultural dilemmas (see Dorjee, 2013).
Honor Killing: Intercultural Conflict Dimension Honor Killing: A Moral Dimension A moral order is the “theory by which a group understands its experience and makes judgments about proper and improper actions” (Pearce and Littlejohn, 1997: p. 51). From an intergroup perspective, moral conflicts that arise from issues such as honor killing are embedded in “incommensurate moral orders” (Pearce and Littlejohn, 1997: p. 54). These moral orders represent the most difficult forms of conflict to manage due to the multiple ways in which group members view being, knowledge, and moral values (Pearce and Littlejohn, 1997). In short, protagonists of honor killing strongly believe it to be the right course of action and represents moral justice (as a means of preserving traditional moral order), while antagonists strongly believe it is a morally reprehensible action and should be condemned and eradicated. Thus, multiple and competing ethical perspectives are brought to bear on the practice, and that creates a moral dilemma (Dorjee et al., 2013; Ting-Toomey, 1999, 2011). Ethical absolutists believe in universal standards, notwithstanding cultural and contextual differences, and they strongly condemn honor killing as immoral action (Dorjee et al., 2013). In contrast, ethical relativists strongly believe that cultural contexts are vital to understanding different moral standards and they may suggest caution before condemning honor killing. While relativism promotes respect for all cultural standards and practices, it can perpetuate negative values and standards such as honor killing, sati tradition, and genital mutilation. Ethical universalists would condemn honor killing (and like practices) because they strongly believe in universal standards systematically derived from cross-cultural comparative standards and humanistic concerns. But it is extremely challenging to develop cross-cultural universal standards. Possibly, a metaethics position (Ting-Toomey, 1999, 2011) that transcends all other ethical positions can be used to understand honor killing. Such a perspective would look at honor killings case by case, always from a multilayered, contextual framework, which does not prejudge the morality of such actions. Two cases of honor killing may differ greatly due to multiple social, cultural, and contextual factors. Honor killing posed a direct challenge to key metaethical concepts such as global social justice, identity equality and respect, human rights and freedom from pain and suffering (Dorjee et al., 2013). Importantly, how can we best ensure these metaethical issues are justly and globally respected and honored? One promising metaethical standpoint is found in the Dalai Lama’s Secular Ethics approach. His understanding of secularism is informed by the constitution of India (Smith, 2011) wherein secularism is defined as respecting all people
Honor killing can also be viewed as an example of intercultural conflict, defined as the implicit or explicit emotional struggle or frustration between individuals of different cultures over perceived incompatible beliefs, values, norms, face-saving concerns, goals, scarce resources, processes, and/or outcomes in a communication situation (Ting-Toomey, 2005, 2011). From an intercultural or relational perspective, honor killing is directly related to face-saving concerns both within and between group community members. Face is an important aspect present in all social interactions. Its meanings, however, differ in specific cultures. The English term face (as used, e.g., in the term ‘saving face’) refers to a claimed sense of desired social image in a relational setting (TingToomey, 1988). On the deeper level, face is a concept people use to gauge their own social self-worth and the social worth of others (Baig et al., 2014). Ting-Toomey’s (2005, 2009) update of FNT explains the influence of cultural norms and values on people’s behavior in different cultural communities and how face is managed in various conflict situations. FNT recognizes three types of face concerns: self-face concern, other-face concern, and mutual-face concern. From cross-cultural perspectives, individualists are likely to be more concerned with self-face issues, but less with other and mutual-face issues. On the contrary, collectivists are likely to be more concerned with other and mutual-face issues, but less with self-face concerns. Since Hu’s (1944) initial conceptualization about the meaning of Chinese face, several researchers have examined other Asian culture-specific meanings pertaining to the concept of face. For example, the Japanese term for face is kao (Haugh and Watanabe, 2009); and the Thai term nâa concerns face (Ukosakul, 2009). In Indian social–cultural contexts, izzat largely connotes communal face concerns. The Tibetan term la gya also refers to group-based face concerns such as community honor, ethnic honor, and national honor. These culturally specific explorations of face provide insight into how face concerns emerge through interaction as well as the various expected communicated rules in these cultures. Nayar (2004) explored the idea of izzat in intergenerational contexts with Punjabi Sikhs in Canada, and found that the value of izzat is “extremely strong and is expressed through the notion of behaving properly to save face, be it the family’s or community” (p. 166). The above cultural terms highlight the importance of maintaining honor or face in interpersonal and intergroup relationships and interactions. In conflict situations, individuals need facework management strategies and skills to effectively negotiate conflict goals including identity goals and relational goals. According to FNT, facework strategy consists of
Honor Killing: Multidimensional and Multilevel Perspectives
two types: face giving strategy and face saving strategy (Lee and Park, 2011; Ting-Toomey, 2005). As social beings, all people want approval, respect, and acceptance. In this regard, it is vital to give others ‘face,’ i.e., by not humiliating others, acknowledging and respecting their identity, and communicating supportive messages in social interactions. However, when face is threatened or undermined, people employ face saving or restoration strategy. In minor face loss situations (such as not getting the expected jobs), individuals can engage in situational scapegoating attributions such as blaming all the foreigners coming in to take away the jobs. However, in major face loss situations, individuals may use sabotage strategies or even undertake drastic measures such as committing suicide or engaging in honor killing to restore face following deep face shame and humiliation (Perlmutte, 2011; Leung and Cohen, 2011; Scheff, 2011). In the case of the honor killing of Banaz Mahmod (see below) to restore family honor or izzat, the father authorized the killing of his own daughter. Societal, acculturational, situational, relational, and personal factors can profoundly shape izzat outlook and perspective (see Dorjee et al., 2013).
Conflict FNT in Multilayered Social–Ecological Contexts We believe the conjoint framework of FNT and the SEF can provide the most meaningful explanation of honor killing.
Conflict FNT Research on face and facework can be found in a wide range of disciplines such as anthropology, psychology, sociology, linguistics, management, international diplomacy, and human communication studies, among others. The concept of face has been used to explain linguistic politeness rituals, apology acts, embarrassment situations, requesting behaviors, and conflict interactions. Ting-Toomey’s (1988, 2005) conflict version of FNT explains the culture-based, individual-based, and situationalbased factors that shape communicators’ tendencies in approaching and dealing with conflicts. Based on the results of several large cross-cultural conflict data sets, a third version of the FNT appeared in 2005, and contained 7 premises or assumptions and 24 theoretical propositions. Of the seven assumptions, the four relevant to this discussion are as follows: (1) people in all cultures try to maintain and negotiate face in all communication situations; (2) the concept of face is especially problematic in emotionally threatening or identity vulnerable situations when the situated identities of the communicators are called into question; (3) the value dimensions, in conjunction with individual, relational, and situational factors, influence the use of particular facework behaviors in particular cultural scenes; and (4) intercultural facework competence refers to the optimal integration of knowledge, mindfulness, and communication skills in managing vulnerable identity-based conflict situations appropriately, effectively, and adaptively. When an individual’s face image or a community’s face image is being threatened in a conflict situation, she or he
187
would likely experience identity-based frustration, emotional vulnerability, anger, hurt, and even a desire for vengeance (Zhang et al., 2012). Collectivists tend to emphasize the importance of communal face or izzat more highly than individualists. Individuals can experience face threats at both individual and group membership levels. In the 2005 FNT version, the following conditions were posited concerning the valence direction of an intercultural or intergroup face threatening process (FTP). First, the more important, the culturally appropriate facework rule that has been violated, the more severe the perceived FTP. Second, the larger the cultural distance between the conflict parties, the more mistrust or misunderstanding accumulates in the FTP. Third, the more important the perceived conflict topic or imposition of the conflict demand, as interpreted from distinctive cultural angles, the more severe the perceived FTP. Fourth, the more power the conflict initiator has over the conflict recipient, the more severe the perceived FTP by the recipient and also the initiator. Fifth, the more harm the FTP produces, the more time and effort are needed to repair the FTP. Sixth, self-face or in-group community-face concern becomes incrementally more salient if several of these conditions are present in a FTP. For example, individuals are likely to move toward self-face saving and in-group face-saving emphasis if they perceive the escalation of the various face-threatening conditions directed at them or their salient in-groups. Cultural worldview perspectives, individual personality tendencies, and situational pressures frame the underlying interpretations of what count as a severe intercultural ‘facethreatening’ interaction episode. All five of these facethreatening conditions can aptly explain the intensity and perceived face-threatening level in multiple honor killing cases and in conjunction with the twisted, dark side of ingroup face or izzat.
Multilayered SEF In conjunction with the conflict FNT, the SEF provides us with a set of conceptual tools to sharpen our analysis from the macrolevel viewfinder to the microlevel cultural clash in an honor killing case. Honor killing is not a random act of taking someone’s life. It involves both intercultural/intergroup factors such as incommensurate moral orders, role membership expectations, institutional procedural breakdowns, and communication malfunctions to interpersonal attitudinal rigidity factors. Therefore, research that focuses on any one contextual level underestimates the effects of other contexts. For example, looking at honor killing as a mere violation of criminal law or strictly as a cultural issue would exclude insights gained from examining the interplay of macro- and microlevel factors in honor killing. SEF is the study of people in embedded environments and the reciprocal influence between human behaviors and multiple environmental contexts (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Stokols, 1996). Contemporary interdisciplinary research suggests the importance of a multilevel-theorizing approach to understand the complexity of human behavior (such as honor killing) in embedded contexts (Oetzel et al., 2006). A multilevel perspective enables us to understand (and possibly
188
Honor Killing: Multidimensional and Multilevel Perspectives
challenge) the deeply held assumptions of a particular conflict approach, family/community reactions, institutional bureaucratic procedures, role expectancy violations, and cultural/ religious worldview clashes. According to Ting-Toomey and Oetzel (2013), SEP consists of five contextual levels of analysis: macrosystem, exosystem, mesosystem, microsystem, and chronosystem. The ‘macrolevel’ analysis focuses on the history, values, beliefs, and ideologies of a culture that influence interactants’ conflict perspectives and behaviors. In comparison, the ‘exolevel’ analysis looks at the influence of established institutions and their formal procedures or policies on the community and individuals’ reactions and actions. Meanwhile, the ‘mesolevel’ analysis examines the influences of immediate groups (e.g., family) and organizations (e.g., the workplace or religious groups) on the conflict parties and conflict episodes. The ‘microlevel’ analysis looks at both intrapersonal (e.g., identity issues and attributions) and interpersonal (e.g., the actual face to face or social media interactions) levels of interpretation and communication manifested in the actual conflict settings. The final level, the ‘chronosystem level’ refers to the developmental time span of the case history. Together, these multicontextual levels of analyses can provide a comprehensive understanding of diverse conflict situations – from everyday intercultural-intergroup conflicts to abusive family conflict events. Furthermore, social ecological analytical concepts include three types of cross-level effects: (1) top-down effects, (2) bottom-up effects, and (3) interactive effects (Klein et al., 1999; Ting-Toomey and Oetzel, 2013). Top-down effects refer to how the larger cultural and institutional forces shape the intercultural conflict stance or practice – from the macro, the exo, the meso, to the microlevel. From this vantage point, individuals’ conflict ideologies and practices are shaped by the various layered structures in which people are nested hierarchically (e.g., does the larger cultural worldview or institutional level emphasize communicating apology or forgiveness and does the effect spill downward to the lower levels?). Bottom-up effects focus on how lower levels (e.g., individuals and interpersonal relationships) affect higher levels (e.g., workplace, media news to institutional policies, and then cultural change). These types of effects are not as prevalent in the literature as are top-down effects, but they are no less important. Interactive effects involve simultaneous and mutual effects at more than one level. In some cases, the effects of one level (e.g., culture) moderate the outcomes at another level (e.g., family policies). Unlike top-down or bottom-up effects, interactive effects assume simultaneous process impacts at multiple contextual levels.
Conflict Face Negotiation and Social–Ecological Integrative Lens: A Theory–Practice Application Case SEF enables the multicontextual level analysis of richly dense conflict cases such as the honor killing story presented below. In applying the analytical concepts of SEP in a systematic manner, we can explore the interplay of various complexlayered factors that frame honor killing, lead to deeper insights and suggest more compassionate ways to circumvent such heinous crimes in the future. Due to space limitation, we will present an excerpted honor killing story from the work of
Dorjee et al. (2013; for a complete story rendition and detailed analysis, please consult Dorjee et al., 2013). The case amplifies intercultural conflict among the key characters: the victim – Banaz Mahmod; her father – Mahmod Mahmod; and her uncle – Ari Mahmod, The case also exemplifies the cultural clash of the mainstream U.K. community, the Kurdish community living in the UK, and the Mahmod family. An abridged story of her brutal murder is described below. Banaz Mahmod was a 20-year-old, Iraqi-Kurdish female, living in Surrey, UK. She was murdered in her home in January 2006. Strangled with a bootlace, her body was stuffed into a suitcase. Several months later, the suitcase was found buried more than 100 miles away, under a house in a Birmingham suburb. Banaz’s father (Mahmod Mahmod) and uncle (Ari Mahmod), along with three other accomplices, were arrested as murder suspects in the honor killing. Following cultural practice, Banaz had been forced to marry an older man at the age of 17. She returned to her parent’s home when her ‘arranged’ husband proved to be abusive and violent. Later she met Rahmat Sulemani, a young Iranian Kurd, and fell in love with him. A cousin saw Banaz kissing Sulemani outside the tube (train) station informed the father and uncle, who then decided to kill her for this offense. Banaz learned from her mother about the death penalty and went to the police with the information, but she was evidently not persuasive and her situation was ignored. On 23 January 2006, Banaz also informed local police about the threats to Mr Sulemani’s life and stated again the threat to her’s. Although the police offered her a safe place to stay, she returned home believing that her mother would protect her from harm. The very next day, her father and uncle recruited three young Kurdish men to kill Banaz in the family home. Investigators found her body 3 months later on 28 April 2006. Her uncle and father were charged with murder, while the three other men were charged with perverting the course of justice. The father and uncle were found guilty and sentenced to at least 20 and 23 years of life imprisonment, respectively. During the court hearings, it became obvious that Banaz was murdered to redeem the family honor. The prosecuting attorney told the court that her family decided that Banaz had shamed the family and should pay the ultimate price. The father was without remorse and clearly believed that the perceived loss of reputation was more important than his daughter’s life.
Social Ecological Macrolevel and Exolevel Analysis Macrolevel analysis provides insights into the historical, ideological, and cultural contexts related to the honor killing of Banaz Mahmod. Iraq, Iran, and Kurdistan have been involved in conflicts for decades (Hardy, 2005). The Kurds were caught in the middle of the Iran–Iraq war that lasted for 8 years; 100 000 Kurds who fled to Iran were killed. Against this backdrop, the Mahmod family escaped the Iraqi Hussein’s regime and sought political asylum in the United Kingdom. They settled in UK and, as with most immigrants, tried to retain their native culture and traditions. In particular, they adhered closely to the most repressive form of patriarchal ideology according to which women are not entitled to make any decisions about their own lives
Honor Killing: Multidimensional and Multilevel Perspectives
(Idriss, 2011). In the case of Banaz and her sisters, patriarchal ideology (a macrolevel factor) strongly influenced the male family members’ decision to kill her. Both ethical absolutism and ethical relativism can constrain our understanding of this murder case because the former involves ethnocentric culturebound evaluation and the latter perpetuates honor killing in the name of an ethnorelative cultural viewpoint. A metaethics perspective, however, elucidates the story. From this point of view, Banaz Mahmod had universal and civil rights (e.g., the right to life and justice, and the right to form voluntary social relationships) regardless of her cultural group membership. These rights were violated in her killing. Other factors involved her death are historical conflicts and religious differences. Banaz was an Iraqi and her suitor Sulemani was an Iranian (although they both were Kurds). From the point of view of FTP, the following features of the killing are salient: First, this expectation of arranged marriages and fidelity within these arranged relationships is extremely strong, as is the patriarchical motif within Kurdish families. Maintaining izzat (honor, respect, and face concern) is what one does within a collectivistic Muslim cultural community. As Condition 1 in the conflict FTP states: First, the more important the culturally appropriate facework rule is violated, the more severe the perceived FTP. Condition 3 posits: The more important the perceived conflict topic (i.e., Banaz’s running from her marriage and engaged on her own intergroup dating practice) or imposition of the conflict demand, as interpreted from distinctive cultural angles, the more severe the perceived FTP. Finally, Condition 6 in FTP states: Self-face or in-group community-face concern becomes incrementally more salient if several of these conditions are present in FTP. The perception of her father, uncle, and the cultural in-group was that Banaz had clearly violated important (even sacred) cultural norms; she defied patriarchy and fell in love with someone from the out-group. Death was the only appropriate punishment. Indeed, it can probably be said that none other was even contemplated. The topic of faceviolation shame was perceived as so severe that her life had to be snuffed out prematurely. Concurrently, on the social– ecological exolevel analysis, the conflict FTP also posits in Condition 2: The larger the cultural distance between the conflict parties, the more mistrust or misunderstanding cumulate in the FTP. How the British police engaged in standard procedures to deal with the Banaz Mahmod’s family conflict case events showed a wide gap of cultural distance and cultural insensitivity and blundering practices. At this level, established institutions, formal procedures, and their accompanying policies also contributed to the tragic murder of young Banaz. This highlights the importance of using the SEF to train all police officers to understand the crosslevel effect between macrolevel/exolevel and microlevel conflict factors in exacerbating a life threatening case to the eventuality of a heinous murder outcome case.
Social Ecological Mesolevel and Microlevel Analysis At this level, individual’s behavior is influenced by immediate groups, community support or lack of it, and certain organizations. For example, the father was continuously harassed and rejected by others in his in-group community for his dereliction of duty as a man and a father when Banaz’s elder sister Bekhal
189
had absconded the parental home following the uncle, Ari Mahmod’s threat to her life for talking to an unrelated man. Thus, to restore and also protect the honor, status, moral face of the family, the father decided for Banaz’s murder. Indeed, the Daily Mail (2007) reported that Banaz’s family and the traditional members of the Iraqi-Kurdish community in the UK believe that her family’s actions were justified. This critical point also highlights the cross-level interactive effect between the meso- (i.e., the in-group community pressure and reaction) and microlevel (i.e., the actual honor killing conflict story) factors. The microsystem social–ecological level of analysis comprised of both intrapersonal (i.e., personal and social identity issues) interpretations and interpersonal conflict communication processes as they played out over time. Three incidents stand out at this level in Banaz’s story. The first is her forced marriage (at the age of 17) and her subsequent divorce from an abusive husband. This alone may have angered her family as they believed she ‘brought shame’ to the family via divorce. Second, her secret romantic relationship with Sulemani angered her family for multiple reasons, chief among them the apparent promiscuity that this suggested (their kiss at the exit of the train station was photographed by a cousin and presented to the father as incontrovertible proof of her insult to izzat). Third, due to concerns about community izzat and family honor, members of the Kurdish community were enlisted to help the family slaughter the young woman. The dynamic of face concerns and pressurized negative reactions (both real and potential ones) from Mr Mahmod’s ingroup community seemed to have ruled out any option for constructive conflict negotiation or dialogue. Concurrently, police blunders and cultural insensitivity also contributed to the tragic death. The conjoint perspectives elucidated in this discussion contribute to a broader and deeper understanding of honor killing.
Conclusions and Future Directions Honor killing, we have argued, is a complex, multifaceted cultural behavior that should be looked at from a conjoint ecological and social, psychological perspective. The SEF provides analytical tools to examine various social, cultural, and moral contexts and their interplay; FNT and the motif of izzat offer deeper explanations of the clash of intergroup ‘facework violation’ situations. Honor is an element of face that involves the emotions of acceptance and rejection, pride and shame, punishment and vengeance, and restorative justice and forgiveness. Honor killing is therefore an ultimate, drastic face restoration move that cleanses izzat and restores in-group approval. Six directions for future research on honor killing should be considered. First, what is the relationship between the various face concerns (i.e., self-face, other-face, mutual-face, and community-face) and the various dark facets of face emotions (i.e., shame, guilt, pain, hate, revenge, retribution, and redemption)? Second, how can we restore face imbalance when cultural or community face has gone beyond the tipping point? Third, how can we educate or train individuals in various public institutions (e.g., police, counsellors, social
190
Honor Killing: Multidimensional and Multilevel Perspectives
workers) to be culturally face-sensitive and simultaneously be humanely astute in their situational appraisal of a cultural dilemma? Fourth, what would forgiveness look like in the context of such a heinous crime – how does face concern relate to intercultural-intergroup faith, hope, compassion, and restorative justice? Fifth, culture-sensitive face attunement, dialogue, and forgiveness are interdependent and intertwined. What culturally intelligent strategic facework actions at each chronosystem turning point could have changed the outcome? Finally, to whom should other family members (or perhaps, other in-group community resources, sacred symbols, or languages) appeal in times of cultural crisis that would defuse murderous rage? Honor killing is an inverse mirror image of key metaethical concepts such as global social justice, interpersonal equality and respect, cultural sensitivity, individual and human rights, and the triumph of freedom from the conditions of human suffering. From a humanistic perspective, if we were to actively seek knowledge and understanding of ‘unfamiliar others,’ they would presumably feel accepted and thus, less likely to need to save face through honor killing. From SEF, institutional host members and immigrant individuals also need to come together to learn a community peace-building dialogue and language – in order to live with dreams, hopes, forgiveness, and ultimately, humanitarian renewal and faith.
See also: Children, Rights of: Cultural Concerns; Cultural Rights and Culture Defense: Cultural Concerns; Diversity and Disagreement in Ethics: Philosophical Implications; Domestic Violence: Sociological Perspectives; Ethics and Values; Global Violence Against Women; Identity and Identification; Individualism versus Collectivism: Philosophical Aspects; Integration and Multiculturalism: Focus on Western Europe; Justice, Conflicts, and the Justice of Conflict Resolution; Justice: Philosophical Aspects; Multiculturalism; Relativism: Philosophical Aspects; Shared Belief: Philosophical Aspects; Social Dominance Orientation; Value Pluralism.
Bibliography Baig, N., Ting-Toomey, S., Dorjee, T., 2014. Intergenerational narratives on face: a south asian Indian American perspective. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 7 (2), 127–147. Barton, F., 12 June 2007. The Tragic Story of Banaz Mahmod: She Fell in Love at 19, so her Family Killed Her. Retrieved from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article461378/The-tragic-story-Banaz-Mahmod-fell-love-19-family-killed-her.html. Bronfenbrenner, U., 1977. Toward an experimental ecology of human development. Retrieved from: American Psychologist 32, 513–531. http://jmsw.org/hdf/ facultystaff/Tudge/Bronfenbrenner%201977.pdf. Carline, A., 2011. Honour and shame in domestic homicide. In: Idriss, M.M., Abbas, T. (Eds.), Honour, Violence, Women and Islam. A GlassHouse Book, Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon, pp. 80–95. Chesler, P., 2010. Worldwide trends in honor killings. Middle East Quarterly 17, 3–11. Coomaraswamy, R., 2005. Preface: violence against women and “crimes of honour,”. In: Welchman, L., Hossain, S. (Eds.), ‘Honour’: Crimes, Paradigms and Violence against Women. Zed Books, London, pp. xii–xiii. Court Sees ‘Honour Killing’ Video, 13 March 2007. BBC News. Retrieved from: http:// news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/6446977.stm. Daily Mail, 20 July 2007. Two-hour Rape and Torture of Honour Killing Girl Murdered by Her Father. Retrieved from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk./news/article-469553/ Two-hour-rape-torture-honour-killing-girl-murdered-family.html.
Dorjee, T., 2013. Intercultural and intergroup conflict resolution: nonviolence and middle way approaches. In: Oetzel, J.G., Ting-Toomey, S. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Conflict Communication, second ed. Sage, Los Angeles, CA, pp. 687–711. Dorjee, T., Baig, N., Ting-Toomey, S., 2013. A social ecological perspective in understanding ‘honor killing’: an intercultural moral dilemma. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 41, 1–21. Encarta, 2009. World English Dictionary. Izzat. Retrieved from: http://encarta.msn. com/dictionary_561536116/izzat.html. Giles, H., Willemyns, M., Gallois, C., Anderson, M.C., 2006. Accommodating a new frontier: the context of law enforcement. In: Fielder, K. (Ed.), Social Communication. Psychology Press, New York, pp. 129–162. Hardy, R., 22 September 2005. The Iran-Iraq War: 25 Years on. Retrieved from BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4260420.stm. Haugh, M., Watanabe, Y., 2009. Analysing ‘Face-in-interaction’ in Japanese: insights from intercultural business meetings,’. In: Bargiela-Chiappini, F., Haugh, M. (Eds.), Face, Communication, and Social Interaction. Equinox Publishing, London, U.K, pp. 289–304. Hu, H.C., 1944. The Chinese concepts of “face.” American Anthropologist 46, 45–64. Idriss, M.M., 2011. Honour, violence, women, and Islam – an introduction. In: Idriss, M.M., Abbas, T. (Eds.), Honour, Violence, Women and Islam. A GlassHouse Book, Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon, pp. 1–15. Idriss, M.M., Abbas, T. (Eds.), 2011. Honour, Violence, Women and Islam. A GlassHouse Book, Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon. Klein, K.J., Tosi, H., Cannella, A.A., 1999. Multilevel theory building: benefits, barriers, and new developments. Academy of Management Review 24, 243–248. Lama, D., 2001. Ethics for the New Millennium. Riverhead Trade, USA. Lama, D., 2011. Beyond religions: ethics for a whole world. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, USA. Lee, E.L., Park, H.S., 2011. Why Koreans are more likely to favor “apology,” while Americans are more likely to factor “thank you.” Human Communication Research 37, 125–146. Leung, A., Cohen, D., 2011. Within- and between-culture variation: Individual differences and the cultural logics of honor, face, and dignity culture. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 100, 507–526. Mandelbaum, D.G., 1988. Women’s Seclusion and Men’s Honor: Sex Roles in North India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Nasrullah, M., Haqqi, S., Cummings, K.J., 2009. The epidemiological patterns of honour killing of women in Pakistan. European Journal of Public Health 19 (2), 193–197. Nayar, K.E., 2004. The Sikh Diaspora in Vancouver: Three Generations amid Tradition, Modernity, and Multiculturalism. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada. Nesheiwat, F., 2005. Honor crimes in Jordan: their treatment under Islamic and Jordanian criminal laws. Penn State International Law Review 23, 251–281. Oetzel, J.G., Ting-Toomey, S., Rinderle, S., 2006. Conflict communication in contexts: a social ecological perspective. In: Oetzel, J.G., Ting-Toomey, S. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Conflict Communication: Integrating Theory, Research, and Practice. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 727–740. Pearce, W.B., Littlejohn, S.W., 1997. Moral Conflict: When Social Worlds Collide. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Perlmutte, D., 2011. The semiotics of honor killing and ritual murder. Anthropoetics: The Journal of Generative Anthropology 17. http://www.anthropoetics.ucla.edu/ ap1701/. Scheff, T., 2011. Social-emotional world: mapping a continent. Current Sociology 59, 347–360. Smartt, U., 2006. Honour killings. Justice of the Peace 170, 4–7. Smith, D.E., 2011. India as a Secular State. Princeton University Press, New Jersey, USA. Stokols, D., 1996. Translating social ecological theory into guidelines for community health promotion. American Journal of Health Promotion 10, 282–298. Ting-Toomey, S., 1988. Intercultural conflicts: a face-negotiation theory. In: Kim, Y.Y., Gudykunst, W.B. (Eds.), Theories in Intercultural Communication. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 213–235. Ting-Toomey, S., 1999. Communicating across Cultures. Guilford, New York. Ting-Toomey, S., 2005. The matrix of face: an updated face-negotiation theory. In: Gudykunst, W.B. (Ed.), Theorizing about Intercultural Communication. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 71–92. Ting-Toomey, S., 2009. A mindful approach to managing conflicts in interculturalintimate Couples. In: Karis, T.A., Killian, K. (Eds.), Intercultural Couples: Exploring Diversity in Intimate Relationships. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 455–458.
Honor Killing: Multidimensional and Multilevel Perspectives
Ting-Toomey, S., 2011. Intercultural communication ethics: multiple layered issues. In: Cheney, G., May, S., Munshi, D. (Eds.), The Handbook of Communication Ethics. Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 335–352. Ting-Toomey, S., Kurogi, A., 1998. Facework competence in intercultural conflict: an updated face negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 22, 187–225. Ting-Toomey, S., Oetzel, J.G., 2013. Culture-based situational conflict model: an update and expansion. In: Oetzel, J.G., Ting-Toomey, S. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Conflict Communication, second ed. Sage, Los Angeles, CA, pp. 763–789. Ukosakul, M., 2009. Significance of ‘face’ and politeness in social interaction as revealed through Thai ‘face’ idioms. In: Bargiela-Chiappini, F., Haugh, M. (Eds.), Face, Communication, and Social Interaction. Equinox Publishing, London, UK, pp. 289–304. Welchman, L., Hossain, S. (Eds.), 2005. ‘Honour’: Crimes, Paradigms and Violence against Women. Zed Books, London. Yousafzai, M., Lamb, C., 2013. I Am Malala: The Girl Who Stood up for Education and Was Shot by the Taliban. Little, Brown, and Company, USA.
191
Zhang, R., Ting-Toomey, S., Dorjee, T., Lee, P., 2012. Culture and self-construal as predictors of relational responses to emotional infidelity: China and the United States. Chinese Journal of Communication 5, 137–159.
Relevant Websites www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/honourcrimes/crimesofhonour_1.shtml – BBC – Ethics – Honour Crimes. www.opendemocracy.net/./use-and-abuse-of-honour-based-violence-in – The Use and Abuse of Honour Based Violence in the UK. www.amnestyusa.org – Violence Against Women Information – Amnesty International USA – ‘Women’s Rights’ Violence against Women. www.globalissues.org – Women’s Rights – Global Issues – Issues, Articles. www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs239 – WHO – Violence against women – World Health Organization.
Abstract Honor killing is a crime and a social and intercultural moral dilemma in terms of understanding its motivations and possible prevention. This article presents multiple perspectives to illuminate the multifaceted dimensions of honor killing. Various contemporary ethical and theoretical perspectives on honor killing are addressed. The article is organized into four sections: honor killing as contextualized and defined; honor killing as a complex social, moral, and intercultural issue; social ecological and intercultural facework perspectives on honor killing, with an illustrative application; and finally, conclusions and future directions.
Defining and Contextualizing Honor Killing ‘Honor killing or honor-related violence’ is a multifaceted phenomenon that reflects a heinous social crime, a moral dilemma within societies, and an intercultural challenge. In general, while killing can be accidental, premeditated killing with malice is murder. From this perspective, honor killing is murder, typically, the murder of a female family member by her own family and/or friends to avenge shame or disgrace brought by infidelity or any other culturally unacceptable behaviors (Nasrullah et al., 2009). Women are the majority of victims of honor killing but men can suffer a similar fate (Idriss and Abbas, 2011; Welchman and Hossain, 2005). According to U.N. reports, every year as many as 5000 women are killed in the name of honor (Chesler, 2010; Smartt, 2006), which most observers think is an underestimate. The world-wide average age of female honor killing victims is 23 years. Men are also victims of honor killing (Chesler, 2010; Nesheiwat, 2005). While honor killings can be found around the world, this article focuses on their occurrence within the cultural context of South Asia and the Middle East and addresses different aspects of honor killing from interdisciplinary perspectives. The key English terms to understand the motivations of this form of killing are ‘honor’ and ‘perception.’ ‘Honor’ is the English translation of the term ‘izzat’ in Hindi–Urdu languages and cultures. ‘Izzat’ is a broad term that includes honor, reputation, dignity, respect, social standing, and justice. In many cultures ‘family izzat’ guides social relationships and interactions (Encarta, 2009). All family members are expected to preserve and enhance family izzat. Social mobility from a low-status position to a high-status position via academic and professional achievement or matrimonial alliances, for example, a poor person marrying into a rich family, can enhance family izzat. Given the history of the caste system in India, social position is intimately related to one’s izzat (Mandelbaum, 1988). While promoting family izzat would usually be commended, disgracing family izzat entails serious social consequences including social ostracism and even murder in the name of honor. The term ‘honor killing’ thus illustrates the dark side of izzat. Honor killing is believed to restore family izzat (i.e., honor, dignity, reputation, respect, social standing, and justice). It is primarily a family izzat restoration strategy. Honor killing is
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 11
based on a perceived disgrace or threat to the family izzat. For example, if a family member or friend believed that another family member had done something to disgrace her or his family (e.g., interreligious dating, disobeying the parents’ wishes), the offending person would be punished accordingly in an authoritarian family system, including by death if the offense was sufficiently serious. Thus, the perception of bringing disgrace to the family is central to understanding honor killing or izzat-based killing (Carline, 2011; Perlmutte, 2011).
Dimensional Complexity of Honor Killing Honor killing is a multidimensional phenomenon that requires interdisciplinary and social–ecological perspectives for breadth and depth of understanding. Below, we discuss the two major perspectives taken on the issue: conflict face-negotiation theory (FNT) (Ting-Toomey, 2005; Ting-Toomey and Kurogi, 1998) and the social–ecological framework (SEF) (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Stokols, 1996; Ting-Toomey, 2011).
Honor Killing: The Sociocriminal Approach Honor killing is often primarily approached as a social issue or crime and is addressed according to the legal constitution of a country (Idriss andAbbas, 2011). The main goals of this approach are social justice for the victims of honor killing and their families and prevention of honor killing in the first place (Idriss and Abbas, 2011; Welchman and Hossain, 2005). Coomaraswamy (2005) offers a sociocriminal approach to understanding and preventing honor killing based on women’s human rights and criminal law: “First, we need to ensure that we draw upon existing international standards and laws in upholding state responsibility. As Special Rapporteur, I called upon states not to invoke custom, tradition or religious considerations to avoid their obligations to eradicate violence against women and girls. .” (Coomaraswamy, 2005: pp. xii–xiii). She recommended developing national penal codes to provide protection to women irrespective of cultural practice. In this regard, scholars have investigated laws pertaining to honor killing in various national contexts such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraqi Kurdistan, Palestine, Egypt, Israel, Latin America, Italy, and United Kingdom
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.64100-4
185
186
Honor Killing: Multidimensional and Multilevel Perspectives
(see Welchman and Hossain, 2005) and other countries (see Idriss and Abbas, 2011). The laws of these different countries vary greatly in their provisions for social justice for the victims of honor killing or honor crimes. Women’s rights proponents continue to advocate for the protection of women’s rights, including the prevention of honor killing and full justice to its victims. A major challenge, of course, is to create uniform national penal codes prohibiting or criminalizing honor killing in nations and societies with incompatible moral values.
regardless of faith or even no faith. In his two classic books, the Dalai Lama (2001, 2011) persuasively argues that secular ethics is rooted in compassion – a sense of caring for others or warm heartedness – that we have inherited biologically from our mothers before we come to know of any religion or ideology. Secular ethics and the so-called ‘middle way’ approach can be useful in addressing many human conflict issues and cultural dilemmas (see Dorjee, 2013).
Honor Killing: Intercultural Conflict Dimension Honor Killing: A Moral Dimension A moral order is the “theory by which a group understands its experience and makes judgments about proper and improper actions” (Pearce and Littlejohn, 1997: p. 51). From an intergroup perspective, moral conflicts that arise from issues such as honor killing are embedded in “incommensurate moral orders” (Pearce and Littlejohn, 1997: p. 54). These moral orders represent the most difficult forms of conflict to manage due to the multiple ways in which group members view being, knowledge, and moral values (Pearce and Littlejohn, 1997). In short, protagonists of honor killing strongly believe it to be the right course of action and represents moral justice (as a means of preserving traditional moral order), while antagonists strongly believe it is a morally reprehensible action and should be condemned and eradicated. Thus, multiple and competing ethical perspectives are brought to bear on the practice, and that creates a moral dilemma (Dorjee et al., 2013; Ting-Toomey, 1999, 2011). Ethical absolutists believe in universal standards, notwithstanding cultural and contextual differences, and they strongly condemn honor killing as immoral action (Dorjee et al., 2013). In contrast, ethical relativists strongly believe that cultural contexts are vital to understanding different moral standards and they may suggest caution before condemning honor killing. While relativism promotes respect for all cultural standards and practices, it can perpetuate negative values and standards such as honor killing, sati tradition, and genital mutilation. Ethical universalists would condemn honor killing (and like practices) because they strongly believe in universal standards systematically derived from cross-cultural comparative standards and humanistic concerns. But it is extremely challenging to develop cross-cultural universal standards. Possibly, a metaethics position (Ting-Toomey, 1999, 2011) that transcends all other ethical positions can be used to understand honor killing. Such a perspective would look at honor killings case by case, always from a multilayered, contextual framework, which does not prejudge the morality of such actions. Two cases of honor killing may differ greatly due to multiple social, cultural, and contextual factors. Honor killing posed a direct challenge to key metaethical concepts such as global social justice, identity equality and respect, human rights and freedom from pain and suffering (Dorjee et al., 2013). Importantly, how can we best ensure these metaethical issues are justly and globally respected and honored? One promising metaethical standpoint is found in the Dalai Lama’s Secular Ethics approach. His understanding of secularism is informed by the constitution of India (Smith, 2011) wherein secularism is defined as respecting all people
Honor killing can also be viewed as an example of intercultural conflict, defined as the implicit or explicit emotional struggle or frustration between individuals of different cultures over perceived incompatible beliefs, values, norms, face-saving concerns, goals, scarce resources, processes, and/or outcomes in a communication situation (Ting-Toomey, 2005, 2011). From an intercultural or relational perspective, honor killing is directly related to face-saving concerns both within and between group community members. Face is an important aspect present in all social interactions. Its meanings, however, differ in specific cultures. The English term face (as used, e.g., in the term ‘saving face’) refers to a claimed sense of desired social image in a relational setting (TingToomey, 1988). On the deeper level, face is a concept people use to gauge their own social self-worth and the social worth of others (Baig et al., 2014). Ting-Toomey’s (2005, 2009) update of FNT explains the influence of cultural norms and values on people’s behavior in different cultural communities and how face is managed in various conflict situations. FNT recognizes three types of face concerns: self-face concern, other-face concern, and mutual-face concern. From cross-cultural perspectives, individualists are likely to be more concerned with self-face issues, but less with other and mutual-face issues. On the contrary, collectivists are likely to be more concerned with other and mutual-face issues, but less with self-face concerns. Since Hu’s (1944) initial conceptualization about the meaning of Chinese face, several researchers have examined other Asian culture-specific meanings pertaining to the concept of face. For example, the Japanese term for face is kao (Haugh and Watanabe, 2009); and the Thai term nâa concerns face (Ukosakul, 2009). In Indian social–cultural contexts, izzat largely connotes communal face concerns. The Tibetan term la gya also refers to group-based face concerns such as community honor, ethnic honor, and national honor. These culturally specific explorations of face provide insight into how face concerns emerge through interaction as well as the various expected communicated rules in these cultures. Nayar (2004) explored the idea of izzat in intergenerational contexts with Punjabi Sikhs in Canada, and found that the value of izzat is “extremely strong and is expressed through the notion of behaving properly to save face, be it the family’s or community” (p. 166). The above cultural terms highlight the importance of maintaining honor or face in interpersonal and intergroup relationships and interactions. In conflict situations, individuals need facework management strategies and skills to effectively negotiate conflict goals including identity goals and relational goals. According to FNT, facework strategy consists of
Honor Killing: Multidimensional and Multilevel Perspectives
two types: face giving strategy and face saving strategy (Lee and Park, 2011; Ting-Toomey, 2005). As social beings, all people want approval, respect, and acceptance. In this regard, it is vital to give others ‘face,’ i.e., by not humiliating others, acknowledging and respecting their identity, and communicating supportive messages in social interactions. However, when face is threatened or undermined, people employ face saving or restoration strategy. In minor face loss situations (such as not getting the expected jobs), individuals can engage in situational scapegoating attributions such as blaming all the foreigners coming in to take away the jobs. However, in major face loss situations, individuals may use sabotage strategies or even undertake drastic measures such as committing suicide or engaging in honor killing to restore face following deep face shame and humiliation (Perlmutte, 2011; Leung and Cohen, 2011; Scheff, 2011). In the case of the honor killing of Banaz Mahmod (see below) to restore family honor or izzat, the father authorized the killing of his own daughter. Societal, acculturational, situational, relational, and personal factors can profoundly shape izzat outlook and perspective (see Dorjee et al., 2013).
Conflict FNT in Multilayered Social–Ecological Contexts We believe the conjoint framework of FNT and the SEF can provide the most meaningful explanation of honor killing.
Conflict FNT Research on face and facework can be found in a wide range of disciplines such as anthropology, psychology, sociology, linguistics, management, international diplomacy, and human communication studies, among others. The concept of face has been used to explain linguistic politeness rituals, apology acts, embarrassment situations, requesting behaviors, and conflict interactions. Ting-Toomey’s (1988, 2005) conflict version of FNT explains the culture-based, individual-based, and situationalbased factors that shape communicators’ tendencies in approaching and dealing with conflicts. Based on the results of several large cross-cultural conflict data sets, a third version of the FNT appeared in 2005, and contained 7 premises or assumptions and 24 theoretical propositions. Of the seven assumptions, the four relevant to this discussion are as follows: (1) people in all cultures try to maintain and negotiate face in all communication situations; (2) the concept of face is especially problematic in emotionally threatening or identity vulnerable situations when the situated identities of the communicators are called into question; (3) the value dimensions, in conjunction with individual, relational, and situational factors, influence the use of particular facework behaviors in particular cultural scenes; and (4) intercultural facework competence refers to the optimal integration of knowledge, mindfulness, and communication skills in managing vulnerable identity-based conflict situations appropriately, effectively, and adaptively. When an individual’s face image or a community’s face image is being threatened in a conflict situation, she or he
187
would likely experience identity-based frustration, emotional vulnerability, anger, hurt, and even a desire for vengeance (Zhang et al., 2012). Collectivists tend to emphasize the importance of communal face or izzat more highly than individualists. Individuals can experience face threats at both individual and group membership levels. In the 2005 FNT version, the following conditions were posited concerning the valence direction of an intercultural or intergroup face threatening process (FTP). First, the more important, the culturally appropriate facework rule that has been violated, the more severe the perceived FTP. Second, the larger the cultural distance between the conflict parties, the more mistrust or misunderstanding accumulates in the FTP. Third, the more important the perceived conflict topic or imposition of the conflict demand, as interpreted from distinctive cultural angles, the more severe the perceived FTP. Fourth, the more power the conflict initiator has over the conflict recipient, the more severe the perceived FTP by the recipient and also the initiator. Fifth, the more harm the FTP produces, the more time and effort are needed to repair the FTP. Sixth, self-face or in-group community-face concern becomes incrementally more salient if several of these conditions are present in a FTP. For example, individuals are likely to move toward self-face saving and in-group face-saving emphasis if they perceive the escalation of the various face-threatening conditions directed at them or their salient in-groups. Cultural worldview perspectives, individual personality tendencies, and situational pressures frame the underlying interpretations of what count as a severe intercultural ‘facethreatening’ interaction episode. All five of these facethreatening conditions can aptly explain the intensity and perceived face-threatening level in multiple honor killing cases and in conjunction with the twisted, dark side of ingroup face or izzat.
Multilayered SEF In conjunction with the conflict FNT, the SEF provides us with a set of conceptual tools to sharpen our analysis from the macrolevel viewfinder to the microlevel cultural clash in an honor killing case. Honor killing is not a random act of taking someone’s life. It involves both intercultural/intergroup factors such as incommensurate moral orders, role membership expectations, institutional procedural breakdowns, and communication malfunctions to interpersonal attitudinal rigidity factors. Therefore, research that focuses on any one contextual level underestimates the effects of other contexts. For example, looking at honor killing as a mere violation of criminal law or strictly as a cultural issue would exclude insights gained from examining the interplay of macro- and microlevel factors in honor killing. SEF is the study of people in embedded environments and the reciprocal influence between human behaviors and multiple environmental contexts (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Stokols, 1996). Contemporary interdisciplinary research suggests the importance of a multilevel-theorizing approach to understand the complexity of human behavior (such as honor killing) in embedded contexts (Oetzel et al., 2006). A multilevel perspective enables us to understand (and possibly
188
Honor Killing: Multidimensional and Multilevel Perspectives
challenge) the deeply held assumptions of a particular conflict approach, family/community reactions, institutional bureaucratic procedures, role expectancy violations, and cultural/ religious worldview clashes. According to Ting-Toomey and Oetzel (2013), SEP consists of five contextual levels of analysis: macrosystem, exosystem, mesosystem, microsystem, and chronosystem. The ‘macrolevel’ analysis focuses on the history, values, beliefs, and ideologies of a culture that influence interactants’ conflict perspectives and behaviors. In comparison, the ‘exolevel’ analysis looks at the influence of established institutions and their formal procedures or policies on the community and individuals’ reactions and actions. Meanwhile, the ‘mesolevel’ analysis examines the influences of immediate groups (e.g., family) and organizations (e.g., the workplace or religious groups) on the conflict parties and conflict episodes. The ‘microlevel’ analysis looks at both intrapersonal (e.g., identity issues and attributions) and interpersonal (e.g., the actual face to face or social media interactions) levels of interpretation and communication manifested in the actual conflict settings. The final level, the ‘chronosystem level’ refers to the developmental time span of the case history. Together, these multicontextual levels of analyses can provide a comprehensive understanding of diverse conflict situations – from everyday intercultural-intergroup conflicts to abusive family conflict events. Furthermore, social ecological analytical concepts include three types of cross-level effects: (1) top-down effects, (2) bottom-up effects, and (3) interactive effects (Klein et al., 1999; Ting-Toomey and Oetzel, 2013). Top-down effects refer to how the larger cultural and institutional forces shape the intercultural conflict stance or practice – from the macro, the exo, the meso, to the microlevel. From this vantage point, individuals’ conflict ideologies and practices are shaped by the various layered structures in which people are nested hierarchically (e.g., does the larger cultural worldview or institutional level emphasize communicating apology or forgiveness and does the effect spill downward to the lower levels?). Bottom-up effects focus on how lower levels (e.g., individuals and interpersonal relationships) affect higher levels (e.g., workplace, media news to institutional policies, and then cultural change). These types of effects are not as prevalent in the literature as are top-down effects, but they are no less important. Interactive effects involve simultaneous and mutual effects at more than one level. In some cases, the effects of one level (e.g., culture) moderate the outcomes at another level (e.g., family policies). Unlike top-down or bottom-up effects, interactive effects assume simultaneous process impacts at multiple contextual levels.
Conflict Face Negotiation and Social–Ecological Integrative Lens: A Theory–Practice Application Case SEF enables the multicontextual level analysis of richly dense conflict cases such as the honor killing story presented below. In applying the analytical concepts of SEP in a systematic manner, we can explore the interplay of various complexlayered factors that frame honor killing, lead to deeper insights and suggest more compassionate ways to circumvent such heinous crimes in the future. Due to space limitation, we will present an excerpted honor killing story from the work of
Dorjee et al. (2013; for a complete story rendition and detailed analysis, please consult Dorjee et al., 2013). The case amplifies intercultural conflict among the key characters: the victim – Banaz Mahmod; her father – Mahmod Mahmod; and her uncle – Ari Mahmod, The case also exemplifies the cultural clash of the mainstream U.K. community, the Kurdish community living in the UK, and the Mahmod family. An abridged story of her brutal murder is described below. Banaz Mahmod was a 20-year-old, Iraqi-Kurdish female, living in Surrey, UK. She was murdered in her home in January 2006. Strangled with a bootlace, her body was stuffed into a suitcase. Several months later, the suitcase was found buried more than 100 miles away, under a house in a Birmingham suburb. Banaz’s father (Mahmod Mahmod) and uncle (Ari Mahmod), along with three other accomplices, were arrested as murder suspects in the honor killing. Following cultural practice, Banaz had been forced to marry an older man at the age of 17. She returned to her parent’s home when her ‘arranged’ husband proved to be abusive and violent. Later she met Rahmat Sulemani, a young Iranian Kurd, and fell in love with him. A cousin saw Banaz kissing Sulemani outside the tube (train) station informed the father and uncle, who then decided to kill her for this offense. Banaz learned from her mother about the death penalty and went to the police with the information, but she was evidently not persuasive and her situation was ignored. On 23 January 2006, Banaz also informed local police about the threats to Mr Sulemani’s life and stated again the threat to her’s. Although the police offered her a safe place to stay, she returned home believing that her mother would protect her from harm. The very next day, her father and uncle recruited three young Kurdish men to kill Banaz in the family home. Investigators found her body 3 months later on 28 April 2006. Her uncle and father were charged with murder, while the three other men were charged with perverting the course of justice. The father and uncle were found guilty and sentenced to at least 20 and 23 years of life imprisonment, respectively. During the court hearings, it became obvious that Banaz was murdered to redeem the family honor. The prosecuting attorney told the court that her family decided that Banaz had shamed the family and should pay the ultimate price. The father was without remorse and clearly believed that the perceived loss of reputation was more important than his daughter’s life.
Social Ecological Macrolevel and Exolevel Analysis Macrolevel analysis provides insights into the historical, ideological, and cultural contexts related to the honor killing of Banaz Mahmod. Iraq, Iran, and Kurdistan have been involved in conflicts for decades (Hardy, 2005). The Kurds were caught in the middle of the Iran–Iraq war that lasted for 8 years; 100 000 Kurds who fled to Iran were killed. Against this backdrop, the Mahmod family escaped the Iraqi Hussein’s regime and sought political asylum in the United Kingdom. They settled in UK and, as with most immigrants, tried to retain their native culture and traditions. In particular, they adhered closely to the most repressive form of patriarchal ideology according to which women are not entitled to make any decisions about their own lives
Honor Killing: Multidimensional and Multilevel Perspectives
(Idriss, 2011). In the case of Banaz and her sisters, patriarchal ideology (a macrolevel factor) strongly influenced the male family members’ decision to kill her. Both ethical absolutism and ethical relativism can constrain our understanding of this murder case because the former involves ethnocentric culturebound evaluation and the latter perpetuates honor killing in the name of an ethnorelative cultural viewpoint. A metaethics perspective, however, elucidates the story. From this point of view, Banaz Mahmod had universal and civil rights (e.g., the right to life and justice, and the right to form voluntary social relationships) regardless of her cultural group membership. These rights were violated in her killing. Other factors involved her death are historical conflicts and religious differences. Banaz was an Iraqi and her suitor Sulemani was an Iranian (although they both were Kurds). From the point of view of FTP, the following features of the killing are salient: First, this expectation of arranged marriages and fidelity within these arranged relationships is extremely strong, as is the patriarchical motif within Kurdish families. Maintaining izzat (honor, respect, and face concern) is what one does within a collectivistic Muslim cultural community. As Condition 1 in the conflict FTP states: First, the more important the culturally appropriate facework rule is violated, the more severe the perceived FTP. Condition 3 posits: The more important the perceived conflict topic (i.e., Banaz’s running from her marriage and engaged on her own intergroup dating practice) or imposition of the conflict demand, as interpreted from distinctive cultural angles, the more severe the perceived FTP. Finally, Condition 6 in FTP states: Self-face or in-group community-face concern becomes incrementally more salient if several of these conditions are present in FTP. The perception of her father, uncle, and the cultural in-group was that Banaz had clearly violated important (even sacred) cultural norms; she defied patriarchy and fell in love with someone from the out-group. Death was the only appropriate punishment. Indeed, it can probably be said that none other was even contemplated. The topic of faceviolation shame was perceived as so severe that her life had to be snuffed out prematurely. Concurrently, on the social– ecological exolevel analysis, the conflict FTP also posits in Condition 2: The larger the cultural distance between the conflict parties, the more mistrust or misunderstanding cumulate in the FTP. How the British police engaged in standard procedures to deal with the Banaz Mahmod’s family conflict case events showed a wide gap of cultural distance and cultural insensitivity and blundering practices. At this level, established institutions, formal procedures, and their accompanying policies also contributed to the tragic murder of young Banaz. This highlights the importance of using the SEF to train all police officers to understand the crosslevel effect between macrolevel/exolevel and microlevel conflict factors in exacerbating a life threatening case to the eventuality of a heinous murder outcome case.
Social Ecological Mesolevel and Microlevel Analysis At this level, individual’s behavior is influenced by immediate groups, community support or lack of it, and certain organizations. For example, the father was continuously harassed and rejected by others in his in-group community for his dereliction of duty as a man and a father when Banaz’s elder sister Bekhal
189
had absconded the parental home following the uncle, Ari Mahmod’s threat to her life for talking to an unrelated man. Thus, to restore and also protect the honor, status, moral face of the family, the father decided for Banaz’s murder. Indeed, the Daily Mail (2007) reported that Banaz’s family and the traditional members of the Iraqi-Kurdish community in the UK believe that her family’s actions were justified. This critical point also highlights the cross-level interactive effect between the meso- (i.e., the in-group community pressure and reaction) and microlevel (i.e., the actual honor killing conflict story) factors. The microsystem social–ecological level of analysis comprised of both intrapersonal (i.e., personal and social identity issues) interpretations and interpersonal conflict communication processes as they played out over time. Three incidents stand out at this level in Banaz’s story. The first is her forced marriage (at the age of 17) and her subsequent divorce from an abusive husband. This alone may have angered her family as they believed she ‘brought shame’ to the family via divorce. Second, her secret romantic relationship with Sulemani angered her family for multiple reasons, chief among them the apparent promiscuity that this suggested (their kiss at the exit of the train station was photographed by a cousin and presented to the father as incontrovertible proof of her insult to izzat). Third, due to concerns about community izzat and family honor, members of the Kurdish community were enlisted to help the family slaughter the young woman. The dynamic of face concerns and pressurized negative reactions (both real and potential ones) from Mr Mahmod’s ingroup community seemed to have ruled out any option for constructive conflict negotiation or dialogue. Concurrently, police blunders and cultural insensitivity also contributed to the tragic death. The conjoint perspectives elucidated in this discussion contribute to a broader and deeper understanding of honor killing.
Conclusions and Future Directions Honor killing, we have argued, is a complex, multifaceted cultural behavior that should be looked at from a conjoint ecological and social, psychological perspective. The SEF provides analytical tools to examine various social, cultural, and moral contexts and their interplay; FNT and the motif of izzat offer deeper explanations of the clash of intergroup ‘facework violation’ situations. Honor is an element of face that involves the emotions of acceptance and rejection, pride and shame, punishment and vengeance, and restorative justice and forgiveness. Honor killing is therefore an ultimate, drastic face restoration move that cleanses izzat and restores in-group approval. Six directions for future research on honor killing should be considered. First, what is the relationship between the various face concerns (i.e., self-face, other-face, mutual-face, and community-face) and the various dark facets of face emotions (i.e., shame, guilt, pain, hate, revenge, retribution, and redemption)? Second, how can we restore face imbalance when cultural or community face has gone beyond the tipping point? Third, how can we educate or train individuals in various public institutions (e.g., police, counsellors, social
190
Honor Killing: Multidimensional and Multilevel Perspectives
workers) to be culturally face-sensitive and simultaneously be humanely astute in their situational appraisal of a cultural dilemma? Fourth, what would forgiveness look like in the context of such a heinous crime – how does face concern relate to intercultural-intergroup faith, hope, compassion, and restorative justice? Fifth, culture-sensitive face attunement, dialogue, and forgiveness are interdependent and intertwined. What culturally intelligent strategic facework actions at each chronosystem turning point could have changed the outcome? Finally, to whom should other family members (or perhaps, other in-group community resources, sacred symbols, or languages) appeal in times of cultural crisis that would defuse murderous rage? Honor killing is an inverse mirror image of key metaethical concepts such as global social justice, interpersonal equality and respect, cultural sensitivity, individual and human rights, and the triumph of freedom from the conditions of human suffering. From a humanistic perspective, if we were to actively seek knowledge and understanding of ‘unfamiliar others,’ they would presumably feel accepted and thus, less likely to need to save face through honor killing. From SEF, institutional host members and immigrant individuals also need to come together to learn a community peace-building dialogue and language – in order to live with dreams, hopes, forgiveness, and ultimately, humanitarian renewal and faith.
See also: Children, Rights of: Cultural Concerns; Cultural Rights and Culture Defense: Cultural Concerns; Diversity and Disagreement in Ethics: Philosophical Implications; Domestic Violence: Sociological Perspectives; Ethics and Values; Global Violence Against Women; Identity and Identification; Individualism versus Collectivism: Philosophical Aspects; Integration and Multiculturalism: Focus on Western Europe; Justice, Conflicts, and the Justice of Conflict Resolution; Justice: Philosophical Aspects; Multiculturalism; Relativism: Philosophical Aspects; Shared Belief: Philosophical Aspects; Social Dominance Orientation; Value Pluralism.
Bibliography Baig, N., Ting-Toomey, S., Dorjee, T., 2014. Intergenerational narratives on face: a south asian Indian American perspective. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 7 (2), 127–147. Barton, F., 12 June 2007. The Tragic Story of Banaz Mahmod: She Fell in Love at 19, so her Family Killed Her. Retrieved from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article461378/The-tragic-story-Banaz-Mahmod-fell-love-19-family-killed-her.html. Bronfenbrenner, U., 1977. Toward an experimental ecology of human development. Retrieved from: American Psychologist 32, 513–531. http://jmsw.org/hdf/ facultystaff/Tudge/Bronfenbrenner%201977.pdf. Carline, A., 2011. Honour and shame in domestic homicide. In: Idriss, M.M., Abbas, T. (Eds.), Honour, Violence, Women and Islam. A GlassHouse Book, Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon, pp. 80–95. Chesler, P., 2010. Worldwide trends in honor killings. Middle East Quarterly 17, 3–11. Coomaraswamy, R., 2005. Preface: violence against women and “crimes of honour,”. In: Welchman, L., Hossain, S. (Eds.), ‘Honour’: Crimes, Paradigms and Violence against Women. Zed Books, London, pp. xii–xiii. Court Sees ‘Honour Killing’ Video, 13 March 2007. BBC News. Retrieved from: http:// news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/6446977.stm. Daily Mail, 20 July 2007. Two-hour Rape and Torture of Honour Killing Girl Murdered by Her Father. Retrieved from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk./news/article-469553/ Two-hour-rape-torture-honour-killing-girl-murdered-family.html.
Dorjee, T., 2013. Intercultural and intergroup conflict resolution: nonviolence and middle way approaches. In: Oetzel, J.G., Ting-Toomey, S. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Conflict Communication, second ed. Sage, Los Angeles, CA, pp. 687–711. Dorjee, T., Baig, N., Ting-Toomey, S., 2013. A social ecological perspective in understanding ‘honor killing’: an intercultural moral dilemma. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 41, 1–21. Encarta, 2009. World English Dictionary. Izzat. Retrieved from: http://encarta.msn. com/dictionary_561536116/izzat.html. Giles, H., Willemyns, M., Gallois, C., Anderson, M.C., 2006. Accommodating a new frontier: the context of law enforcement. In: Fielder, K. (Ed.), Social Communication. Psychology Press, New York, pp. 129–162. Hardy, R., 22 September 2005. The Iran-Iraq War: 25 Years on. Retrieved from BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4260420.stm. Haugh, M., Watanabe, Y., 2009. Analysing ‘Face-in-interaction’ in Japanese: insights from intercultural business meetings,’. In: Bargiela-Chiappini, F., Haugh, M. (Eds.), Face, Communication, and Social Interaction. Equinox Publishing, London, U.K, pp. 289–304. Hu, H.C., 1944. The Chinese concepts of “face.” American Anthropologist 46, 45–64. Idriss, M.M., 2011. Honour, violence, women, and Islam – an introduction. In: Idriss, M.M., Abbas, T. (Eds.), Honour, Violence, Women and Islam. A GlassHouse Book, Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon, pp. 1–15. Idriss, M.M., Abbas, T. (Eds.), 2011. Honour, Violence, Women and Islam. A GlassHouse Book, Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon. Klein, K.J., Tosi, H., Cannella, A.A., 1999. Multilevel theory building: benefits, barriers, and new developments. Academy of Management Review 24, 243–248. Lama, D., 2001. Ethics for the New Millennium. Riverhead Trade, USA. Lama, D., 2011. Beyond religions: ethics for a whole world. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, USA. Lee, E.L., Park, H.S., 2011. Why Koreans are more likely to favor “apology,” while Americans are more likely to factor “thank you.” Human Communication Research 37, 125–146. Leung, A., Cohen, D., 2011. Within- and between-culture variation: Individual differences and the cultural logics of honor, face, and dignity culture. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 100, 507–526. Mandelbaum, D.G., 1988. Women’s Seclusion and Men’s Honor: Sex Roles in North India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Nasrullah, M., Haqqi, S., Cummings, K.J., 2009. The epidemiological patterns of honour killing of women in Pakistan. European Journal of Public Health 19 (2), 193–197. Nayar, K.E., 2004. The Sikh Diaspora in Vancouver: Three Generations amid Tradition, Modernity, and Multiculturalism. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada. Nesheiwat, F., 2005. Honor crimes in Jordan: their treatment under Islamic and Jordanian criminal laws. Penn State International Law Review 23, 251–281. Oetzel, J.G., Ting-Toomey, S., Rinderle, S., 2006. Conflict communication in contexts: a social ecological perspective. In: Oetzel, J.G., Ting-Toomey, S. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Conflict Communication: Integrating Theory, Research, and Practice. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 727–740. Pearce, W.B., Littlejohn, S.W., 1997. Moral Conflict: When Social Worlds Collide. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Perlmutte, D., 2011. The semiotics of honor killing and ritual murder. Anthropoetics: The Journal of Generative Anthropology 17. http://www.anthropoetics.ucla.edu/ ap1701/. Scheff, T., 2011. Social-emotional world: mapping a continent. Current Sociology 59, 347–360. Smartt, U., 2006. Honour killings. Justice of the Peace 170, 4–7. Smith, D.E., 2011. India as a Secular State. Princeton University Press, New Jersey, USA. Stokols, D., 1996. Translating social ecological theory into guidelines for community health promotion. American Journal of Health Promotion 10, 282–298. Ting-Toomey, S., 1988. Intercultural conflicts: a face-negotiation theory. In: Kim, Y.Y., Gudykunst, W.B. (Eds.), Theories in Intercultural Communication. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 213–235. Ting-Toomey, S., 1999. Communicating across Cultures. Guilford, New York. Ting-Toomey, S., 2005. The matrix of face: an updated face-negotiation theory. In: Gudykunst, W.B. (Ed.), Theorizing about Intercultural Communication. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 71–92. Ting-Toomey, S., 2009. A mindful approach to managing conflicts in interculturalintimate Couples. In: Karis, T.A., Killian, K. (Eds.), Intercultural Couples: Exploring Diversity in Intimate Relationships. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 455–458.
Honor Killing: Multidimensional and Multilevel Perspectives
Ting-Toomey, S., 2011. Intercultural communication ethics: multiple layered issues. In: Cheney, G., May, S., Munshi, D. (Eds.), The Handbook of Communication Ethics. Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 335–352. Ting-Toomey, S., Kurogi, A., 1998. Facework competence in intercultural conflict: an updated face negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 22, 187–225. Ting-Toomey, S., Oetzel, J.G., 2013. Culture-based situational conflict model: an update and expansion. In: Oetzel, J.G., Ting-Toomey, S. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Conflict Communication, second ed. Sage, Los Angeles, CA, pp. 763–789. Ukosakul, M., 2009. Significance of ‘face’ and politeness in social interaction as revealed through Thai ‘face’ idioms. In: Bargiela-Chiappini, F., Haugh, M. (Eds.), Face, Communication, and Social Interaction. Equinox Publishing, London, UK, pp. 289–304. Welchman, L., Hossain, S. (Eds.), 2005. ‘Honour’: Crimes, Paradigms and Violence against Women. Zed Books, London. Yousafzai, M., Lamb, C., 2013. I Am Malala: The Girl Who Stood up for Education and Was Shot by the Taliban. Little, Brown, and Company, USA.
191
Zhang, R., Ting-Toomey, S., Dorjee, T., Lee, P., 2012. Culture and self-construal as predictors of relational responses to emotional infidelity: China and the United States. Chinese Journal of Communication 5, 137–159.
Relevant Websites www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/honourcrimes/crimesofhonour_1.shtml – BBC – Ethics – Honour Crimes. www.opendemocracy.net/./use-and-abuse-of-honour-based-violence-in – The Use and Abuse of Honour Based Violence in the UK. www.amnestyusa.org – Violence Against Women Information – Amnesty International USA – ‘Women’s Rights’ Violence against Women. www.globalissues.org – Women’s Rights – Global Issues – Issues, Articles. www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs239 – WHO – Violence against women – World Health Organization.