Honor and Shame in Ancient Israel

I. Honor and Sexuality

In contemporary U.S. American society, honor is largely a matter of private virtue. The honorable man or woman is good, moral, honest, virtuous. In Mediterranean and Near Eastern societies, honor is also connected to public reputation (often more so than private virtue) and sexuality.

A. Rooted in the Cultural Understanding of Procreation

The ancient Israelite understanding of gender was based on the metaphorical relationship between procreation and agriculture. The Israelites' perception of their sexual bodies was embedded in their experiences of the world. The man is like a farmer who sows the seed of life in the soil; the woman is like a field who receives and nurtures the seed, contributing the necessary environment for life but nothing essential to the life that is created. This metaphorical relationship is presented in the Yahwist creation myth (Genesis 2:4b - 3:24) which, among other purposes, served to symbolize and thereby reinforce the Israelite construction of gender. The man, adam, is born from the arable land, adamah, anticipating human births from Eve, the mother of all living. Yet the arable land is dependent upon the man to till and sow it; the land remains barren without the man's contribution, and for this reason he was created. Similarly, the woman, ishshah, is taken from the man, ish, constructing a metaphor between the woman and the land. Like the arable land, the woman will give birth to new life, and with the acquisition of knowledge the woman knows to bear children. However, she is also dependent upon her husband to sow seed in her just as he plows and sows the field. Through its metaphors and structure, the Yahwist creation myth defines gender, comparing the bodily process of procreation to agriculture.

The Israelites' perception of the body and their concomitant understanding of gender has social implications for the gender roles of men and women. Their perception of the body sustains a particular view of society which is expressed by the fundamental social values of honor and shame. Honor is a person's claim to self-worth and the social acknowledgment of that claim - that is, honor is a person's public reputation which constitutes his or her identity. Shame is a person's concern for reputation. It is a positive value by which a person seeks to maintain or protect his or her honor. Honor and shame belong to both men and women and characterize their behavior as collective members of Israelite society and natural groups such as the family and the village. As individuals, however, men are associated with honor and women with shame. The behavior of each is determined by gender roles which are symbolized by the common understanding of the contribution of each in procreation.

Male honor is based on a man's ability to engender. It is symbolized by the penis and testicles, and also by the head and the face, and is an indication of his manliness and courage. Although the man has the power to create life from his seed (his honor), he does so externally to himself in the field of a woman. A man's honor is thus also dependent upon his ability to ensure that the child born is from his own seed. A woman, like soil, represents an indiscriminate fecundity in which any man might sow his seed. Therefore, just as a farmer marks off soil into a field and guards it against outside intrusion, an honorable man will cover and protect his wife (and his daughters and sisters by extension), and thereby bring order to her fecundity and safeguard the legitimacy of his paternity.

Positive female shame reflects a woman's ancillary role in procreation. It is symbolized by the hymen, and also by the veil, and it represents a woman's shyness, timidity, restraint, or sexually exclusive behavior. A woman will display honor by recognizing her position of shame and acting accordingly. She will yield to her husband's ordering of her sexuality; to do otherwise would be shameless. The sexual purity or exclusiveness of the woman is embedded in the honor of the man.

Because the Israelites' experience of their social world also shaped their perception of their bodies, social realities reinforced or challenged a person's gender identity. As long as a man displays honor - fathering children, ensuring the sexual purity of his wife and daughters, protecting his reputation - his social behavior affirms his male gender identity. However, if a man is unable to maintain his honor against the encroachment of others, then he is shamed, that is, dishonored and disgraced. His behavior and shamed status call into question his masculinity. Because male gender identification and male honor are rooted in the active male sexual role, the loss of honor entails a sexual reversal. He has lost also his male gender identification. The shamed man has been symbolically penetrated like a woman, and is no longer considered a real man. Comparable ethnographies suggest that shamed men are feminized. They are perceived by others as effeminate or emasculated. Symbolically, they have become women.

Gender identification with women is less fragile. In a male oriented society, a woman who acts like a man - that is, performs tasks usually taken care of by men - may often be admired or praised, as the biblical examples of the heroine attest. Yet she remains fully a woman, lacking the anatomical parts which are symbolic of manhood, and rarely is her femininity called into question.

See also the summary in Women in the Mediterranean.

B. Public and Private

The gendered division of honor and shame is replicated in the division of labor and the arrangement of space. Just as a man's honor is rooted in his ability to engender and a woman's shame is her recognition of dependence upon a man for procreation, so a man's social orientation is outward and a woman's orientation is inward. Because a woman is indiscriminately fecund, her labor and space are ordered to ensure her exclusivity to a man. As a result, a woman models shame through domestic roles such as raising and educating children and managing the household economy. She carries out her tasks primarily in the home. Outside the home she displays the honor of her husband and protects her own shame by limiting herself to public spaces dominated by female activities such as the market, the well, and public ovens. In contrast, men display their honor through work and public activity in space that is common - the fields and industrial areas, city squares and gates - or exclusively male such as the temple and cultic areas.

The woman is symbolized by the house. Not only is the house the primary locus of female activity, it is homologous to the female body itself. Like the female body, the house is bounded space with an entrance that is vulnerable to the encroachment of outsiders. It is a social space that a man marks off as belonging uniquely to himself, analogous to selecting a woman for a wife from the available virgin daughters of Israel. Like a wife, the house is sacred to the man, set apart from common, profane space. The house is the social replication of the female body, mirroring the symbolic relationship between the woman and the field. And just as with his field and his wife, the man's honor is symbolized by his house.

The homology of field, woman, and house is explicitly articulated in the Deuteronomic ideology of war. Because Yahweh fights for Israel against its enemies, the size of the army is unimportant. As a result, certain men should be excused from battle - namely, the man who has built a new house, but has not yet used it; the man who has planted a vineyard, but has not yet enjoyed - that is, harvested - its fruit; and the betrothed man who had not yet consummated the marriage (Deuteronomy 20:5-7). Besides simply noting that the man's comparable relationship to his field, wife, and house is highlighted in this legislation, the Israelite understanding of gender offers an explanation for why these particular men are exempt from military service. What is critical in the case of each man is the incomplete nature of his actions where the commitment of his honor is concerned. In each case, the man has committed his honor - his manhood - without the sufficient opportunity for his claim to honor to be socially recognized. His manhood remains in the balance. His need to defend his honor is paramount. He is freed from military service lest the battle deprives him of this right and thereby deprives him of his honor. Elsewhere, the Deuteronomic legislation builds on this ideology by stating that the newly married man is exempt for one year from military (or other public) service (Deuteronomy 24:5). The man is given a year's reprieve in order to demonstrate his honor by impregnating his wife, which is comparable to enjoying the fruit of his field and living in his own house.

Because the house is like a woman, the boundary of the house is critical to the man's honor. The man must guard the entrance to his house, protecting the household from unwanted intruders. An outsider's unwelcome intrusion into the house threatens the household and brings shame upon the man if not repelled. For this reason, a creditor who gives a loan to a man must wait outside of the man's house to receive his pledge. He may not enter the house to take the pledge for himself (Deuteronomy 24:10-11). Such an act would deprive the debtor of honor, and would be symbolically comparable to raping the women of his house.

This symbolic relationship between a man's house and the women of his household is further illustrated by the Deuteronomic legislation concerning a man who charges that his wife was not a virgin at marriage. If no evidence of her virginity can be found, the husband's charge is deemed true. The woman then should be stoned to death by the men of the town at the entrance of her father's house because she had committed a shameful act by prostituting herself in her father's house (Deuteronomy 22:13-21). For our purposes, what is significant to note in this legislation is twofold: First, the daughter's crime - that she had sexual intercourse prior to marriage, and so shamed her father - is placed in her father's house. This is a symbolic identification rather than the geographic location of the crime. The sexual rights to the daughter belong to the father to give as he sees fit; like a field, she is an economic resource of the household exchangeable through marriage. The sexual violation of his daughter, therefore, represents an unlawful invasion into the father's house. Second, the execution of the daughter takes place at the location which symbolizes the daughter's crime. The daughter's vagina is symbolized by the entrance to her father's house. The participation of the men of the city in her execution further sanctions and reinforces the sacred boundaries represented by the house and the women of the household.

Scholars have long noted that cities in ancient Israel, especially Jerusalem and Samaria, are commonly presented in the Bible with feminine images. The city is presented as a virgin daughter, a wife, a mother, a widow, and a whore. However, apart from drawing attention to the suitability of these feminine metaphors for the city in their particular contexts, scholars have rarely explained how the city as a personified woman fits into the ancient Israelite understanding of gender. I suggest that the city was perceived as a further extension of the symbolic replication of the female body on to the house. The city is the collective house of its citizens; it symbolizes the body collective, the socio-political body. Like the family house, the city encloses space exclusive to its populace; it is bound by a city wall with vulnerable entrances at its gates; and it symbolizes the collective honor of its inhabitants.

The biblical texts provide scores of references to the Israelites' collective shame as a result of the people's defeat in battle by their enemies. Although many of the references describe the Israelites' shame in terms of military defeat generally, without further elaborating on the defeat, a significant number of references connect shame to the invasion and destruction of the people's city. The book of Nehemiah, for example, presents the devastation of Jerusalem as the basis for the people's shame: the city is in ruins, the walls are broken down, and its gates have been burned. As a result, Nehemiah can address the populace, "Come, let us rebuild the wall of Jerusalem, so that we may no longer suffer disgrace" (Nehemiah 2:17). Similarly, the book of Joel laments the shame of the people because Jerusalem is being invaded by a powerful locust army that cannot be stopped: It's warriors "leap upon the city, they run upon the walls; they climb up into the houses, they enter through the windows like a thief" (Joel 2:9).

Because the city is perceived as a female body, an assault against the city is like rape. It is an unwanted violation of the collective body; it is a penetration into the dominion of others; it is a defilement of sacred boundaries. The citizens of the city attempt to defend their collective honor by repelling the invasion, but the loss of the city in battle collectively shames its populace in a way comparable to a man who is shamed by the rape of the women of his household. They are a people without honor; they are perceived as women, like the female city that has been raped.

In the prophetic invectives against foreign cities this rape imagery for the destruction of the city is especially prominent. Nahum first challenges the honor of Nineveh by calling her a whore, but defeat will seal her shame for she will be raped: her skirts will be lifted over her face to expose her nakedness and shame to the nations (Nahum 3:5). Moreover, her populace has no will to defend their collective honor: her troops are like women; her gates are wide open inviting the rape from her foes (Nahum 3:13). Jeremiah heralds the coming rape of Babylon - a rape so violent that she will be unable again to bear children, and all who pass by her will be appalled at her wounds (Jeremiah 50:11-16). During this rape, the warriors of the city will have no strength to repel the assault; they will become like women (Jeremiah 51:30). Second Isaiah also proclaims Babylon's rape: Yahweh will uncover her nakedness and reveal her shame; Yahweh will exact vengeance without encountering a man to defend her honor (Isaiah 47:3).

C. Power

Power is a tricky question because it is not always evident and exists at different levels. Power is ultimately exercised by the powerful, and a powerful man might usurp any and all power exercised by his wife. Nevertheless, women in ancient Israel exercised a great deal of power.

The distinction between power and authority is often helpful. Whereas power is simply the ability to effect control or change, authority is the socially legitimated right to exercise power. In ancient Israelite society, men (husbands and fathers) have authority, yet women (wives and daughters) exercise power through many informal and unofficial modes of behavior.

In the domestic domain men give their wives authority. Women manage (or control) the household economy. They control food preparation, the allocation of resources, and the education and socialization of children. Women appear to have played a central role in family religious practices.

Most authority was in the hands of men. Men were publicly over their household. The wife publicly submitted to the husband's authority. Privately, however, women were able to exert influence and change. On the one hand, the woman's control of the household provided her with subtle leverage to influence her husband. On the other hand, because the man's public honor was bound up in his relationship with his wife (and daughters), he is vulnerable to them (compare the father's anxiety over his daughter in Sirach 42:9-14). Because the husband wants his wife to publicly uphold his honor, he will often yield to her privately. Essentially, a bargain is struck which gives the man public authority and the woman private power.

II. Honor and Prestige

Honor is primarily a public value in ancient Israel. It is a person's public claim to worth combined with the public acknowledgement of that worth. As a widely accepted social value, honor provides the basis of social ranking among men in the society.

All men are born with honor, but some inherit greater honor than others. This "ascribed" honor is inherited from the honor of one's family. Honor is a value that is shared collectively. Thus, if your are born into a house with great honor, such as a family of the nobility, you share in that honor. This honor is not earned individually, nor can it be challenged individually.

Other honor, in contrast, is acquired; it is the result of great deeds, the acquisition of wealth and power, generosity, and it is usually acquired at the expense of others. Honor is a limited good (see the Model of Limited Good); there is a finite amount of honor to be distributed among the people. Thus one man's gain of honor implies the loss of another man's honor. Through the gain and loss of honor, the social prestige of individual members of society is ranked.

Ancient Israel is what has been labelled an "agonistic society." It is a society in which intense competition among social equals is a way of life. The competition is perceived as a battle for personal honor and family reputation. It takes the form of a confrontation through a challenge and response. Positively, the competition provides a socially acceptable outlet for agressions, diminishing the possibility of feuds or wars. Negatively, it produces a social tension which permeates all social interaction among non-kin or non-group members.

When a man challenges another, he is essentially making the claim to enter the other's social space. The challenge itself bestows honor on the other person, for it proclaims that the other is a person of honor worthy of challenge. In order to maintain his own honor, the other must respond to the man's challenge. He must demonstrate his manliness, his honor, publicly.

Every encounter between non-kin and non-group members is ultimately a challenge. Although this ordeal of constantly defending one's honor before others appears tiresome to us, members of agonistic societies, such as ancient Israel, welcome the challenge. The challenge is a high point in the life of the man who receives it, for the honorable man is constantly ready to respond to any hint of a challenge. In fact, he longs for the challenge because it provides the opportunity for him to demonstrate his manliness to himself and others. Through being challenged a man comes to feel that he fully exists as a man.

The competition for honor is played out only among social equals. A man of high social status gains nothing by challenging someone of low social status - his honor is already greater than the one whom he challenges. Similarly, a man of low social status cannot challenge a man of high status - his challenge is ineffective because he lacks the public honor to support his challenge. Between social equals, however, challenges to one's honor have public ramifications, and must be responded to appropriately to maintain one's honor.

Challenges to honor may be both positive and negative. A positive challenge may be a complement, a favor, or a gift. These acts challenge the honor of the person on whom they are bestowed by implying that the one challenging is greater. If I give you a gift, I imply publicly that I have greater wealth, generosity, and hence honor than you. To maintain your honor, you must respond in kind. You will also give me a gift to show everyone that you are just as generous, and have no need of my favors. Positive challenges are the common social interaction among friends.

Negative challenges come in varying degrees. The negative challenges of regular social interactions involve insults and minor physical affronts. These challenges insinuate that the person is less honorable than he claims. These challenges are usually quite subtle. The challenger does not want to risk serious hostilities, so the insults are veiled in ambiguous language and the physical affronts are presented as "accidents" or "sport." All these challenges are revokable, that is, they can be "taken back," if there is the danger of the escalation of hostilities. These challenges are also effectively nullified by similar responses.

More series challenges to honor involve crimes against the person, his household, or property. Stealing a person's sheep or seducing a man's daughter are serious challenges to a man's honor. Such challenges may be revokable by the challenger, but only by added effort from the challenger. The challenger could return two sheep for the one stolen, or he could pay the bride price and marry the girl he seduced. Effective responses to serious challenges such as these often include violence, but always demand (usually through the threat of force) that the challenger make amends.

The most serious challenges are capital crimes such as rape, murder, and adultery. These challenges are irrevokable, and the only appropriate response to these crimes is vengeance.

Regardless of the degree of challenge, the man who is challenged is faced with three possible responses:

1. Acceptance: The most effective response is for the man to accept the challenge and respond in kind (as appropriate to the degree of challenge).
2. Negative Refusal: The man who does not respond or is unable to respond, acknowledges by his lack of response that his honor is less than the honor of his challenger. Among social equals, a negative refusal leads to the man's dishonor.
3. Positive Rejection: The man who feels that the challenger is unworthy to challenge him rejects his challenge altogether. Such a response might in fact reflect social reality - the challenger might have been a social inferior. However, if the challenger was a social equal, a positive rejection of the challenge insinuates the dishonor of the challenger and may escalate into vengeance.