Worf was a character on the 1990’s television series “Star Trek: The Next Generation.” Lt. Commander Worf was the chief security officer on the USS Enterprise, his role crafted to explore and exploit conflicts between the Federation (obstensibly the good guys) and the warrior-centric Klingon Empire, Worf’s home world.
Klingon culture was based on honor and combat. In the series, mortal combat was often fought in defense of one’s (Klingon) honor. Battles to the death ensued. Unlike other Federation officers, Worf killed a fair number of civilians during the series; however, because Worf was a member of the Federation (obstensibly the good guys), each of his killings was explained away as a defense of his Klingon honor or his right of revenge.
There are many ways to hurt people. We should distinguish the pathways to hurt from the weapons that are employed. One can aim to hurt physically, mentally, or both paths at the same time. Physical weapons include hands, guns, chemicals, drugs and sleep deprivation. Mental weapons include verbal abuse, blackmail and fear of torture. Economic and political weapons such as oppression and disenfranchisement deliver damage along both pathways. Weapons are designed to hurt. That’s why people use them.
That said, there is a decided difference between physical and mental weapons. A physical weapon has much the same effect on any of its victims. A knife in my gut causes the same damage as one in yours — our prospects for survival depend less on our anatomies than on the speed and effectiveness of our respective medical teams. Mental weapons, however, have varied effects on individuals — the most effective of these weapons exploit a specific vulnerability of the target individual or group.
An insult is one type of mental weapon. Like other mental weapons, a particular insult can hurt one person and have absolutely no effect on another. One of the strange things about human groups is that they announce to their adversaries, in advance, what they consider to be insulting. This is tantamount to exposing one’s vulnerabilities so as to invite attack, so as to provide justification for one’s own retaliation and restoration of honor. The line in the sand is drawn, its only purpose: to serve as the uncrossable line.
Humans often use insults as proxies for physical weapons in wars that are fought in words, as words are cheap and physical weapons are not. This is not to say that words are used more effectively than guns or missiles. Words also miss their target; words also explode and create collateral damage; words escalate as often as they intimidate.
Christopher Stevens, U.S. Ambassador to Libya, and three other Americans were killed last week — supposedly because of an insult; more probably because terrorists were ready to exploit a chaotic situation. The uncrossable line in the sand had already been drawn and it was inevitable that someone would cross it.
Animals do not kill other animals for honor or revenge — only humans do. Only the human animal recognizes insult and responds to it with self-justified physical, often deadly, force against the offender.
You must admit: we are all Klingons now. The notion of honor poisons all of our cultures. Maintaining honor requires that one respond to insults to one’s honor; but the logical answer is to dispense with honor and thus the need to defend it. That we are subject to insult shows nothing except how fragile we are.
The wise show restraint. The civil do not kill. The strong are not insulted.
Very interesting and insightful view of this. I was thinking about the “incidents” you refer to and wondering if I could or should write something about it. Most blogging about things like this consists of knee-jerk reactions – someone is obviously justified or obviously insane or whatever. But there is a bigger picture and you have framed it well. Zooming out even further, I sometimes think about the evolutionary fallout of in-group behavior. When your in-group consists of your kin or close associates in a nomadic or tribal situation, the impulse to defend your compatriots has clear survival value. Part of the story of civilization is the expansion of in-groups beyond kin and tribe members to towns, cities, nations, religions, and sports team fans. Mostly this is for the good. I feel that people of my community, nation, and world are members of my extended in-group, and I’m happy when my taxes or donations or volunteer efforts can help to support members of this group. But my identification with these groups is somewhat flexible and does not extend to defending against non-physical attacks (as it does in some cases to physical attacks, through proxies like the police and military). Such heightened sensitivity to any attack on the in-group, even an insult, is a particularly strong characteristic of some groups. Not all of them are organized religions. But some are.