In analyzing the convergence of an “honor-based” society and a “dignity-based” society in the film Unforgiven, Orit Kamir determines that these two social orders are “two, fundamental, antithetical bases of unique value systems,” (Kamir, 195). He defines an “honor culture” as a society which uses “shame as a fundamental criterion to determine worthiness and social rank” (197). Thus putative masculinity, pride, and assertiveness are highly valued. Consequently, honor is a “structure of social power,” in that members of such societies often combat humiliation and earn their honor with displays of violence and power, creating a hierarchical social structure in which aggression and dominance may lead to higher status. Paradoxically, Kamir argues that a dignity-based society values intrinsic virtue within all of mankind, which “implies ‘live and let live,’” (203). In Unforgiven, Kamir conceives of honor and dignity as conflicting value systems. Yet in The Sopranos — particularly in episode three of season one — Tony Soprano is involved in a social system in which deterrence, dignity, and honor exist in the same complex network.
Like Kamir’s interpretation of Little Bill in Unforgiven, Soprano believes that “in his own mind he is law and justice, a living fusion of manhood, honor, justice, and the law.” (222) He decides when he applies codes of honor and when he respects human dignity. In the beginning of the episode, hotel owner Shlomo Teittleman offers to give Soprano 25% of his hotel if Soprano forces his son-in-law to agree to a divorce without compensation. Soprano has already established a reputation and claimed honor to his name. Yet verbal intimidation fails to convince the son-in-law to comply because the he lives by a dignity-based code. The son-in-law feels that he has put immeasurable time, effort, and money into his marriage and the hotel, and that it is his fundamental right as a human being to be compensated for the costs of his marriage. But by abiding by the honor-based code, the son-in-law is the means to a profitable end for Soprano, and he overlooks this idea of dignity and human right. To him, a business deal is a business deal.
According to Kamir’s theory, refusing cooperate could be interpreted as an act to humiliate or shame Soprano. In response, he escalates the situation from an honor perspective by physically harming and threatening to kill the son-in-law to “avenge the offense” (203). Yet the son-in-law still refuses to cooperate, insisting that he would rather die than lose his dignity in accepting a fruitless divorce. Again shaming Soprano’s honor in his refusal, Soprano then threatens to castrate the son-in-law as a more effective method of retaliation, and the son-in-law finally accepts the proposal. He decides that he living without “the most cherished attribute of manhood and masculinity,” would be a worse fate than death (217). To him, the cost of living without the humiliation and shame, and thus the loss of honor that accompanies castration exceeds the cost of losing his life.
When Soprano goes to collect his share from Teittleman, he tells Soprano that he and the son-in-law have worked out a deal and thus refuses to pay Soprano for his services. From a deterrence perspective, which is not concerned with settling the score but rather sending a message, he brutally beats Teittleman to as “a message of deterrence” (223). In this case, he intends to warn others of the consequences of breaking a promise made to the Mafia. Yet in confluence with the honor code, he also brutalizes Teittleman to essentially settle the score, and punish him for refusing Soprano the money he feels he is owed and threatening his honor and reputation. At this point Teittleman calls Soprano “Frankenstein,” implying that he is inhuman and thus without basic human dignity and compassion for others.
Yet Soprano often does live by certain codes of dignity in situations involving his loved ones and those he respects. For instance, throughout the episode Soprano struggles with his decision to burn down his best friends Artie Bucco’s restaurant when he is informed that another member of the Mafia plans to murders someone there. He believes that it if someone is murdered in Bucco’s restaurant, he will have to bear the shame of losing all of his customers. However, if the restaurant is burned down, Bucco can collect insurance money and rebuild. Though unconventional, the arson was conducted in an act of “empathy, solidarity, and humanistic obligation” to his companion (203). He sees his coworker ignoring Bucco’s dignity and treating him as merely a means to their end, a pawn in their grander plan. Thus Soprano burns down Bucco’s restaurant to preserve Bucco’s dignity.
In another instance, when two of Soprano’s underlings steal from a truck company that is already paying protection money to Soprano’s uncle, Soprano demands that the two boys pay restitution. This is consistent with values in the honor-code, as he demands that to maintain his uncle’s honor the boys must pay for damage they have caused. From a deterrence perspective however, it can additionally be argued that in forcing the boys to pay a huge sum as retribution for their indiscretion, Soprano also means to use them to deter others from making a similar kind of blunder in the future.
Ultimately, Tony Soprano is immersed in a system in which deterrence, honor-codes, and dignity are all applied in many of the same situations. In the world of the Sopranos, the three value systems can be seen as inseparable, and Tony Soprano uses all three social codes in his leadership tactics.
This is a very interesting piece. I think there is something be said about how similar perhaps Tony Soprano's situation is to the situation of those under the Code of the Street. When we hear the stories from Germantown, Pennsylvania, the definition you chose to use of an honor society seems to fit best. The masculine, get-what-you-deserve type of attitude seems to dominate the streets. What I wonder is though, what allows people the authority to switch between honor and dignity societies. You illustrate the point well that Tony goes back and forth, but what gives him that ability? Perhaps it is the fact that he fits the definition of someone in an honor society so well, that all those below him in that honor society must follow, even if he shows flashes of dignity. There is something to be said about what gives us the authority, or where the authority comes from, to decide what kind of society we live in. I agree that the two societies are not mutually exclusive, but I'd be interested in digging a little deeper in figuring out why not.
ReplyDeleteYour use of the Sopranos to show deterrence, honor codes, and dignity based culture was very interesting. It confirms the fact that these concepts are everywhere in society, and certain television shows permeate with examples. I particularly found the Tiettleman example perfect because in the honor based culture of the mafia there are certain rules to abide by. As Tony Soprano demonstrates over the course of the television show, he will not allow himself to be made out to look weak. Deterrence comes from this protection over his reputation. At the end of the piece you mention that he uses the three social codes as leadership tactics. I’m curious as to how his leadership would be affected by denouncing one of these codes. For example, the showing of dignity. Even for the most ruthless people, like Tony Soprano, compassion is still essential to leadership.
ReplyDelete'The Sopranos' is a great way of examining how an antiquated mafia culture causes rubs against modern-day mores. It's a show that's ripe for examining honor and dignity. Kamir makes an important point in his article, alluding to how easy it is to confuse what constitutes honor with what constitutes dignity. It's argued that Soprano's increasing threats of violence to the son-in-law are simply his way of pressing an honor-based system on to the dignity-based son-in-law. It's possible, however, that Soprano is adopting the son-in-law's logic. Violence can be understood as a violation of dignity. Soprano, understanding that the son-in-law values his dignity, would naturally find violence to be an effective tool.
ReplyDeleteGiven the confusion between honor and dignity it can actually be difficult to see if the son-in-law is really operating under a dignity-based code in the first place. Explicitly alluding to fundamental human rights is usually a good way of deciphering this but, beyond that, it's possible that the son-in-law was attempting to protect his investment and whatever he considers his honor.
This was an interesting analysis, and the Sopranos is a great lens through which to examine theories on societal norms of hierarchy. You do a great job of conveying that Kamir pits honor and dignity-based societies as opposites, and then demonstrating how Tony Soprano seems to straddle both very frequently. One question I have though, is whether you're arguing A) that Kamir's theory is incorrect, B) that it is possible to abide by two antithetical value systems or C) that Tony Soprano is an exception--someone who lacks so much humanity that only he is able to seamlessly switch between these two very different codes. I'm honestly not sure what I think the answer is, but it's definitely something worth exploring. I also find it interesting that, as Tony demonstrates, both the honor and dignity codes can be practiced absent morality. You would think that honor and dignity might imply moral conduct, but as we see in Unforgiven and in the Sopranos, that is surely not the case.
ReplyDeleteThough not as relevant to class topics, I am also curious whether Tony's psychological problems result from this constant shifting between value systems.
Looking at these different applications of honor and dignity through the lens of such a popular and well known television show such as The Sopranos allows for a very intriguing view on these issues, which made this piece a very enjoyable read. Tony Soprano shows an ability in this episode to apply his own views of honor and dignity in different situations while still maintaining his respectability as a mob leader. When Soprano needs to be ruthless to make a point, he will threaten to cut off his son in law's manhood, while at the same time he can protect his honor by forcing the two men who stole from the trucking company to pay restitution. Tony's ability to slide through different situations and apply different forms of deterrence to protect his business interests while still keeping his dignity is what makes him such a successful and powerful man. Additionally, one has to ask what the son in law was thinking by initially refusing to go through with the divorce. While he can stand by the thought that he was "protecting his honor", he must of realized that by insulting Tony he was automatically attacking Soprano's honor and respectability, which would then pretty much lead to a chicken fight of who would eventually back down. After considering Soprano's connections and means to get whatever he wants (the ability to just decide if someone will be castrated), there wasn't much hope from the start for the son in law in this dispute.
ReplyDeleteWhat I found interesting in your article is the inverse relationship you posed between honor and shame. A person can live with one or the other (either honor or shame), but no both. When Tony Soprano's son-in-law initially refused his offer, Tony felt shame that his wishes (which he felt should naturally always be respected) were not respected. Therefore, he did not feel honored. And although you claim his son-in-law lived mainly by a dignity-based code, it was very interesting to see him eventually give in to Tony's claim, as being castrated would bring so much shame to him, he would feel that he had no honor in society - even though he seemed to be living through a dignity-based code! Tony's son-in-law betrayed his dignity-based code because subconsciously, he apparently cared deeply about his honor-based code. This almost makes it seem as if honor-based culture is evolutionary rather than just created by society. This idea goes hand-in-hand with much older texts, as well. In Plato's "The Laws", he discusses how a primary motivation for following laws is based on shame, as well. Through narrative, "The Laws" discusses how ancient Athenians would hold public drinking parties not only as a way to relieve stress and create enjoyment, but also so that the city leaders could observe how prone their citizens were to shame while in a drunken state. In essence, they used this to help create laws based on what acts were committed when citizens were in a worry-free state. Although the honor-based system has been around for a long time, the ruthlessness of Tony Soprano and the experiments of the ancient Athenians show that perhaps this is not the most efficient system to live by. But is it possible to change a system and set of beliefs that might be consciously or even subconsciously inherent?
ReplyDeleteWhat is so interesting about this show is that, even though the family members in power make it seem as if family should always be protected and never betrayed, honor and dignity are undoubtedly favored over family members' lives and safety. In other words, it is apparent in The Sopranos that protecting the family name and reputation from defamation, disrespect and mockery is crucial, even if this means having to remove a beloved family member from the social circle (or, more often, planet earth). For example, when Christopher's girlfriend discovers that she has been leaking confidential information unwittingly to the FBI, and tells the family about this misfortune, Tony Soprano makes sure he eliminates this threat--which he frames as protecting his family--by having her murdered. To solidify the idea that her death was beneficial and necessary to protect the family, Soprano frames this situation as if Christopher's girlfriend was an untrustworthy and callous individual, even though the audience knows she is deeply committed to Christopher, and would never intentionally risk his life by disclosing family secrets. It is no coincidence that the more intelligent people in the family (who typically run the operation and have their subordinates carry out their wishes) fabricate a false sense of family and community in order to engender a fierce and irrational sense of loyalty. This is an ingenious business model because while, ultimately, this benefits and helps to protect the people responsible for perpetuating this system (people like Tony Soprano), it hurts the people who are lower down in the familial hierarchy, either without them even knowing it or, because they willingly accept risk because they have been conditioned to blindly follow and dedicate themselves to preserving the family's honor. Tony Soprano brilliantly exploits people by creating a moral code, in which moral people are unquestionably devoted to their families. He creates a sense of exclusivity and makes family members feel prideful to be a part of this exclusive group, thereby driving them to commit themselves to maintaining it, regardless of risk.
ReplyDeleteWhat is so interesting about this show is that, even though the family members in power make it seem as if family should always be protected and never betrayed, honor and dignity are undoubtedly favored over family members' lives and safety. In other words, it is apparent in The Sopranos that protecting the family name and reputation from defamation, disrespect and mockery is crucial, even if this means having to remove a beloved family member from the social circle (or, more often, planet earth). For example, when Christopher's girlfriend discovers that she has been leaking confidential information unwittingly to the FBI, and tells the family about this misfortune, Tony Soprano makes sure he eliminates this threat--which he frames as protecting his family--by having her murdered. To solidify the idea that her death was beneficial and necessary to protect the family, Soprano frames this situation as if Christopher's girlfriend was an untrustworthy and callous individual, even though the audience knows she is deeply committed to Christopher, and would never intentionally risk his life by disclosing family secrets. It is no coincidence that the more intelligent people in the family (who typically run the operation and have their subordinates carry out their wishes) fabricate a false sense of family and community in order to engender a fierce and irrational sense of loyalty. This is an ingenious business model because while, ultimately, this benefits and helps to protect the people responsible for perpetuating this system (people like Tony Soprano), it hurts the people who are lower down in the familial hierarchy, either without them even knowing it or, because they willingly accept risk because they have been conditioned to blindly follow and dedicate themselves to preserving the family's honor. Tony Soprano brilliantly exploits people by creating a moral code, in which moral people are unquestionably devoted to their families. He creates a sense of exclusivity and makes family members feel prideful to be a part of this exclusive group, thereby driving them to commit themselves to maintaining it, regardless of risk.
ReplyDeleteThe mafia and organized crime are a fantastic lens to study codes of honor and dignity. This in some ways why these movies and TV shows are so fascinating to us. Here we have men who are broken records about the importance of family and honor, and yet in their business dealings they can be anything but honorable.
ReplyDeleteI think your application of the reading is fair, that these heroes decide when honor and dignity applies to them, but I think the relationship between the hero and his opposition plays the most important role. Soprano's relationships with the others in your examples apply to when he acts with honor and dignity, and when he does not.
Interesting analysis. I feel like a good part of your analysis could also apply to the setting of, A Time to Kill, by John Girsham. Where the shame of Carl Lee's daughter, due to her sexual violation, sparks him to, in a display of extreme violence, assert his manhood and avenge his daughter. Ultimately I would argue that the town puts aside it's racial differences in order to condone this display of honorable vengeance to punish the two boys that deviated form the code, because Carl Lee is deemed innocent. There are plenty of other instances of this honor culture in respect to status of women in A Time To Kill, for example all of the female characters in the novel playing stereotypical female roles (house wives, secretaries, etc,) except for Ellen although she only amounts to becoming a probono clerk. Another example is the discussion about men and women having friends of the opposite sex, where by it is illuminated that Jake's wife having other male friends, according to Jake would merit violence toward the other man, to show possession. It is instances like these that contribute to this system of competitive masculinity.
ReplyDeleteI was relieved to read this post, because many of Lauren’s thoughts were one’s that had stuck out in my mind when watching Unforgiven and while reading Kamir’s article. I felt like I wanted to identify with the two societies—either “honor-based” or “dignity-based”—but I ultimately felt excluded from both. But this was because I wanted to restructure these concepts of societies in order to design the landscapes of the societies I see as “honor-based” and “dignity-based,” not because they simply did not apply to me. My conceptions were formed from a two-part process. The first part was based on my initial reaction and intuitive response to these two societies. I was able to imagine these typified societies and understand them in a certain sense. The second part happened as I mapped out my preconceived notion of these societies through the different interpretations presented to me—first while watching Unforgiven, and then again while reading Kamir’s article.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I haven’t seen the Soprano’s, I was able to follow along with Lauren’s examples. Before, I was trying to understand the concepts from my perspective, and used the movie and article as tools to examine this point of view. When I read Lauren’s example, I tried to understand the characters perspectives based on the descriptions. Although the combination of deterrence, honor-codes, and dignity was not a mixture that I particularly identified with, I was able to grapple with some sort of understanding. Ultimately, Lauren came to the same conclusion that I did—that notions of “honor-based” societies and “dignity-based” societies are not concrete. Although they are described in specifics and can be identified based on a set of criteria, these definitions are merely subjective accounts of what these societies are.