Honor Killing

How do anthropologists view honor killing? Is it a patriarchal mechanism to control female sexuality? Or is it the result of jealousy of men to control reproductive capability of women? Or is it historical-cultural practice to punish violators of social norms? Or is this practice rooted in biology to control and keep genes of a group within the group?

What do you people have to say about this?

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Victor Grauer on January 15, 2012 at 5:10pm

Joanne Payton said:

Victor - Could you find me an example of another harmful, irrational, tradition which has survived over such an incredibly long period of time, and such a large and culturally diverse area?

I'll name a tradition very close to me personally, since I endured its effects: circumcision. I'm not sure how harmful it is in the long run, but it hurt like Hell at the time. It's also completely irrational, as far as I can tell. While nowadays it is thought to have some health benefits, such benefits could not have been known to its originators.

It's so irrational and strange that it's almost impossible to understand how or why it got started, and equally difficult to conceive of it having been "independently invented" more than once. If circumcision as commonly practiced by so many African groups is rooted in the same tradition that gave rise to its widespread use among Semitic peoples, then it seems likely it was already being practiced by the Out-of-Africa migrants 60,000 to 80,000 years ago. It's hard to imagine that such a bizarre custom could have been invented more than once, but anything is possible, I suppose.

Circumcision is an excellent example of what I mean when I say that once a tradition gets started it takes on a momentum of its own and requires no further justification. For Jews and Muslims it originated with Abraham's covenant with God and its continued practice is justified on that basis. But nothing in the Old Testament tells us why that particular act would have been chosen by God or anyone else, and the link with Africa strongly suggests that this practice would have already been in place, at least among some Semitic groups, long before Abraham's day.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Victor Grauer on January 15, 2012 at 5:22pm

John McCreery said:

M., It's important to remember that the concept of honor killing was developed to describe the killing of a member of a group by members of the same group, precisely in order to distinguish it from feud. Both feud and honor killing may involve ideas about group honor, but retaliation against an enemy is not the same thing as killing one of "us" who has done something disgraceful.

Yes. It's important also to remember that honor killing is not simply a psychologically motivated act, but also a socially sanctioned act, rooted in (yes, I'll say it again) tradition. There are many reasons why a man might want to kill his daughter or sister. One might even suspect that in certain cases, the motive may be rooted in incestuous sexual abuse and the fear that the victim might expose her attacker. In such cases, the murderer can all too easily explain his act as an "honor killing" by accusing his victim, rightly or wrongly, of flaunting traditional rules and regulations. What makes it an "honor killing" is not the act itself, but the tradition that makes such an act socially acceptable and forgivable.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by M Izabel on January 15, 2012 at 6:59pm

yes, criminality is also disguised as honor killing by its perpetrator. Maybe a father kills his daughter to avoid the exposure of their incestuous relationship or a husband kills his wife to cover up a case of concubinage or domestic abuse.

The definition of honor killing being female-centered has evolved. In Turkey, gay men have been victimized by their brothers, fathers, males cousins, and uncles. Thus, the view that honor killing is a patriarchal way of controlling women and reproduction is myopic.

Blood-feud is a separate event with different term and conceptualization. The killing based on honor that occurs afterwards also has a different term and conceptualization. It is the killing here that is socially codified and tolerated. Feuding is just the cause of the honor killing. Two families in conflict due to property that ends up in murder cases that carry on from generation to generation or through extended kinship is blood feud. There are many cases of blood feud in my country that is inherited and does not result to killing. On the other hand, a case of a family killing another family due to public insult or malicious gossip or unfulfilled arranged marriage or insufficient dowry is honor killing that is socially forgivable.

The view that honor killing is intra-family, intra-group, or intra-community murder case is also problematic. There are cases where the entire family is killed by another family for the restoration of family honor. There are also cases where families of a husband and a wife connive to kill both of them. These show that honor killing is a complex subject, and does not have a singular or general characteristic. To easily understand it, a redefining is called for. Victor is right with his view on tradition, which is a social narrative, in relation to the socially acceptable or tolerated killing. Any killing based on honor that has a history of tradition, cultural practice, acceptance or tolerance, and socially understandable and forgivable motive is honor killing.