I'm writing this today because it seems like a good topic for discussion here. Primarily because it provides meaning to so many things we consider unethical or immoral. But more than anything, because it highlights and names aspects of what we know here as self-service (STS). That, and how it's linked to the psychopathy we witness in the world.
I'll try to make this post usable as an article, if you wish and find it useful. I have no problem with you editing it for that purpose.
I've been following the issue of immigration closely, both in Europe and the United States. I know firsthand what it's like to emigrate to another country, its good and bad sides. The exception is that I come from a Western country, with the same values and/or customs that aren't incompatible with Europe. But I don't want to talk about myself. I want to talk about something I found while browsing the internet, regarding immigration from "third world" countries to "first world" countries.
I must say that the labels "first world" and "third world" seem somewhat arbitrary to me, in principle. Many people, when they hear about a South American country, think we're still living in loincloths, only to find, upon traveling to these latitudes, that it's just another Europe in the Southern Hemisphere.
Perhaps we need to change the meaning and the words we use to understand what constitutes civilizational development. But it's also true that the diversity of cultures and their particular contexts often makes it impossible to find a single word that accurately and generally explains behaviors and customs. Therefore, we're left to examine the specific aspects of each culture and then group them into a set that reveals similarities.
I'll get to the point. While searching and reading about the issue of immigration, I came across a post on X (Twitter) that commented on a cultural aspect of India that explains its behavior: The Izzat.
I'll try to make this post usable as an article, if you wish and find it useful. I have no problem with you editing it for that purpose.
I've been following the issue of immigration closely, both in Europe and the United States. I know firsthand what it's like to emigrate to another country, its good and bad sides. The exception is that I come from a Western country, with the same values and/or customs that aren't incompatible with Europe. But I don't want to talk about myself. I want to talk about something I found while browsing the internet, regarding immigration from "third world" countries to "first world" countries.
I must say that the labels "first world" and "third world" seem somewhat arbitrary to me, in principle. Many people, when they hear about a South American country, think we're still living in loincloths, only to find, upon traveling to these latitudes, that it's just another Europe in the Southern Hemisphere.
Perhaps we need to change the meaning and the words we use to understand what constitutes civilizational development. But it's also true that the diversity of cultures and their particular contexts often makes it impossible to find a single word that accurately and generally explains behaviors and customs. Therefore, we're left to examine the specific aspects of each culture and then group them into a set that reveals similarities.
I'll get to the point. While searching and reading about the issue of immigration, I came across a post on X (Twitter) that commented on a cultural aspect of India that explains its behavior: The Izzat.
From here on out, I'll be relying a bit on Grok to give us a summary of Izzat and how I'll be making comparisons between concepts.
Grok, can you give me a summary of the concept of Izzat?
Sure! The concept of Izzat (عزت in Arabic, pronounced "ízzat") is central to many Muslim cultures, especially in South Asia (Pakistan, India, Bangladesh) and in communities of Arab or Pashtun origin. Summary of the concept of Izzat:
Literal meaning: Honor, prestige, respect, dignity.
Cultural meaning: It is the "family honor" or "collective honor" that belongs not only to the individual, but to the entire family, clan, or biradari (in a Pashtun/Punjabi context). Losing one's izzat affects all members.
Main pillars of Izzat:
1. Women's behavior: Modesty, virginity before marriage, arranged marriage within the social/religious group, and obedience are seen as guardians of family honor. Any relationship perceived as "inappropriate" can seriously damage izzat.
2. Control of female sexuality: Historically, izzat is much more associated with women than with men.
3. Family and tribal loyalty: Betraying the family, disobeying elders, or marrying outside the ethnic/religious group is considered an affront to honor
4. Public Reputation: What the community says or thinks about the family is crucial. The phrase "log kya kahenge" ("what will people say?") is key.
Consequences of losing Izzat:
Social ostracism
Permanent shame for the family
In extreme cases: honor killings, although these are illegal and increasingly condemned
Current Evolution:
Among younger generations (especially in the diaspora: UK, Canada, USA), the concept is under tension: many young people see it as toxic or controlling, while older generations continue to consider it an essential value. In short: Izzat is not just "personal honor," but the social and moral capital of the entire family, which is primarily protected through the behavior of its women and loyalty to the group.
This post explains that Izzat is incompatible with Western values. Can you provide a summary?
Sure! The post you mentioned, written by a Kiwi Farms user and shared by @XJosh, offers a critical perspective on the concept of Izzat and its supposed incompatibility with Western values, particularly those based on the Enlightenment. Below, I've prepared a detailed summary based on the post's content:
Summary of the Izzat analysis in the post:
1. Definition and nature of Izzat: Izzat doesn't have a direct English translation, but it's similar to "honor," "reputation," or "saving face." However, it's much more complex: it's described as a zero-sum game of collective honor shared by entire groups (families, communities), which everyone takes extremely seriously.
It's not about individual justice or morality, but about who "wins" or "loses" in terms of social prestige.
2. Incompatibility with Western values:
The author argues that Izzat is antithetical to Enlightenment values (such as reason, equality, and good faith) and to any sensible form of governance. This is because it assumes constant conflict and doesn't rely on cooperation or peaceful resolution based on universal principles.
Unlike Western cultures of dignity, where personal worth is intrinsic and offenses can be ignored, in Izzat, reputation depends on public perception and requires active (even violent) defense against any perceived slight.
3. Zero-Sum Game Dynamics:
Izzat conflicts are not resolved by who is right, but by who prevails. Any action, including murder, can be justified to restore lost honor. Izzat is a "limited social currency," and the easiest way to acquire it is to seize it from others. This fosters a cycle of revenge and conflict.
4. Impact on Collective Behavior:
Those who dominate the Izzat game can get away with committing serious acts (murder, rape, theft) without consequence, as long as they protect the honor of their group.
The only "appropriate" response to an attack against the Izzat is the total destruction of the offender, leading to unnecessary escalations, even over trivial matters (such as breaking a garden gnome).
5. Escalation and Social Consequences:
In a dispute between individuals, the Izzat transforms any conflict into something potentially deadly, as no one can back down or admit fault without humiliating themselves and their group.
This can turn a trivial problem into a decades-long feud, affecting the entire community.
6. Implications for Authority and the Police:
The police are reluctant to intervene in Izzat disputes because, by taking sides with one family, they automatically dishonor the other, marking them for retaliation.
Without impartiality, centralized authority (such as the government or the law) cannot function effectively, weakening social structures based on the rule of law.
Author's Critical Perspective:
The post suggests that Izzat promotes selfish and destructive behavior, similar to "malignant narcissism," where personal or group gain justifies any means, even at the expense of others. It is presented as an explanation for stereotypes about Indian behavior, such as an obsession with social status or a willingness to blame others without evidence.
Reflection:
The author views Izzat as a deeply rooted cultural system that clashes with Western ideals of individualism, impartial justice, and peaceful conflict resolution. While the description is detailed, it also reflects a critical and generalizing tone that may not capture the diversity of how Izzat is experienced in different contexts or among modern generations.
Would you like me to analyze any specific point in the post or compare this view with other perspectives on Izzat?
In the post, some comments mention Freier and compare him to Izzat. What can you tell me about this? Please be impartial and objective.
Understood! I will analyze the mentions of Freier in the post's comments and their comparison to Izzat impartially and objectively, based on the provided content and the available cultural context. I will proceed step by step to offer a balanced perspective. Context of the mentions of Freier in the comments:
In the X thread, user mekelstein19288 and others refer to "Freier" in relation to the Izzat, suggesting a conceptual similarity. The term "Freier" appears linked to a Jewish/Hebrew cultural dynamic and is compared to the honor system described for the Izzat.
Furthermore, the "Balashon - Hebrew Language Detective" web result and the academic article "Who's Afraid of Being a Freier" provide context for the term, allowing for an informed comparison.
Definition and Origin of Freier:
Linguistic Origin: The term "Freier" comes from Yiddish and German. Initially, it meant "suitor" or "bachelor" (from the German Freier), but in the modern Israeli context, it has transformed into slang denoting a "sucker," "chump," or someone easily exploited.
Cultural Use in Israel: According to the academic article, Freier is a key cultural framework in Israeli society. Being perceived as a freier (someone who acts with excessive kindness or naiveté) is something many Israelis actively avoid, as it implies losing social status or being manipulated. This influences communication and negotiation patterns, fostering a pragmatic or even cynical approach to interactions.
Social Dynamics: The fear of being a freier can lead to behaviors where people prioritize protecting their image or interests, even at the expense of cooperation or mutual trust.
Comparison with Izzat:
1. Collective vs. Individual Basis:
Izzat: It is a collective honor system that encompasses the family or ethnic/religious group. The loss or gain of Izzat affects all members, and individual actions are evaluated according to their impact on group prestige.
Freier: It is more individualistic in its approach. Being a freier implies a personal perception of weakness or naiveté, though it can extend to how a group (for example, a Jewish community) views one of its members in certain interactions.
2. Motivation behind the behavior:
Izzat: The behavior is motivated by the need to maintain or increase collective honor, which may justify extreme actions (such as revenge or honor killings) to restore the group's reputation.
Freier: The motivation is to avoid being seen as naive or easily manipulated, which may lead to tough negotiations or a rejection of gratuitous generosity, but not necessarily to violent escalations.
3. Social consequences:
Izzat: The loss of Izzat can result in ostracism, lasting shame, or even violence within the group to "cleanse" its honor. It is a zero-sum game where one person's gain implies another's loss.
Freier: Being labeled a freier does not lead to formal punishments, but it does lead to a decrease in social respect or personal status. Israeli society tends to value cunning and self-reliance, and the Freier is seen as someone who "loses" in this regard.
4. Relationship with Western Values:
Both the Izzat and the Freier have been pointed out in the post and comments as incompatible with certain Western values (such as selfless cooperation or impartial justice). However, the Izzat is presented as more extreme due to its potential for violence and its focus on group loyalty, while the Freier reflects a more pragmatic attitude common in negotiations.
Comment Perspectives:
User mekelstein19288 suggests that the Freier, like the Izzat, explains specific social behaviors (such as self-proclaiming oneself as an "engineer" or attitudes of superiority), implying that both systems reflect a struggle for status.
TheSoleWitness mentions that "Grok is spilling the beans" on this, indicating that he sees a deep connection between the two concepts, possibly as cultural systems that prioritize prestige over universal ethics.
The link to "Balashon" and the comment about "freiers" in the Gulag (where criminals looked down on political prisoners) suggest that the term also has roots in power dynamics and exploitation, similar to how Izzat can be used to dominate others.
Objective Analysis:
Similarities: Both concepts (Izzat and Freier) reflect social systems where public perception and status play a central role. In both cases, avoiding "loss of face" (whether collective or personal honor) guides interactions, and both can clash with Western ideals of equality or altruism.
Differences:
Izzat has a more structured and collective component, with historical roots in tribal and family structures, while Freier is more fluid, individual, and adapted to a modern urban context (Israel). Izzat may involve physical violence for self-defense, while Freier is resolved more in the social or psychological sphere.
Limitations of the Comparison:
The analogy in the comments seems more speculative than grounded in in-depth analysis. Although both reflect concerns about prestige, their historical, cultural, and practical contexts are distinct, suggesting that the comparison may be more rhetorical than substantive.
Conclusion:
The comparison between Izzat and Freier in the comments appears to stem from a superficial observation of how both systems value status and reject social vulnerability. However, an objective analysis reveals that, while they share some dynamics (such as the avoidance of prestige loss), Izzat is a more rigid and collectivist construct with more serious implications, whereas Freier is a more flexible and personal notion within Israeli culture.
This distinction suggests that, while interesting, the analogies require more evidence to be fully valid.
Would you like me to explore any of these dynamics further or seek more data to refine the comparison?
It would seem that both Izzat and Freier prioritize the subjective over the objective. Since Izzat, for example, prioritizes winning over losing, this implies that in most cases, people are willing to lie to get their way, as the post explains.
Your observation is very interesting and points to a deeper analysis of how both Izzat and Freier might prioritize the subjective (perception, prestige, personal or group narrative) over the objective (facts, verifiable truth, impartial justice). Let's break this down objectively and in detail, based on the content of the post and the cultural context we've discussed, to assess whether this tendency to prioritize the subjective—including the willingness to lie to "win"—is an inherent characteristic of these concepts. Analysis of the prioritization of the subjective over the objective:
1. Izzat: Subjectivity in Collective Honor
Subjective Basis: As described in the post, Izzat does not depend on an objective or absolute moral truth, but rather on how honor is perceived within the community or family. "Victory" in an Izzat dispute is measured by who manages to impose their narrative or prevail, not necessarily by who is right.
Willingness to Lie: The post suggests that, since the goal is to "win" (restore or increase Izzat), people may resort to lying, manipulation, or even violence to protect their reputation. For example, false accusations (such as abuse or betrayal) can be used as weapons to dishonor the opponent and thus ensure group victory. This aligns with the idea that the end (maintaining Izzat) justifies the means.
Example from the post: The text mentions that "any action, including murder, can be justified to restore lost honor," implying that objective truth (whether the murder was justified or not) is secondary to the perception of having defended honor.
Cultural context: This subjectivity is rooted in tribal systems where group cohesion and social survival depend more on internal loyalty than on universal principles of truth.
2. Freier: Subjectivity in personal self-sufficiency
Subjective basis: Freier, as an Israeli cultural concept, also emphasizes personal perception. Being seen as a freier (naive or easily manipulated) depends on how others interpret your actions, not necessarily on objective facts. For example, helping someone without expecting anything in return can be seen as weakness, even if the act itself is ethically valid.
Willingness to lie: Although there is no direct evidence in the comments or sources that being a Freier involves systematic lying, the aversion to being perceived as a Freier can lead to strategic behaviors, such as exaggerating abilities or concealing vulnerabilities. This could include omissions or distortions of the truth to maintain an image of shrewdness or control.
Cultural example: The article "Who's Afraid of Being a Freier" notes that Israelis often negotiate with a pragmatic approach, avoiding appearing overly generous, suggesting that public image (subjective) outweighs a commitment to objective transparency.
Cultural context: In an environment where resilience and self-reliance are valued (influenced by Israel's history), the perception of being "tough" or "smart" can override adherence to verifiable facts.
3. Comparison of Willingness to Lie
Izzat: Lying appears to be a more explicit and accepted tool within the Izzat framework, especially when it comes to protecting collective honor. The post illustrates this with examples such as unfounded accusations ("child molestation") used as "killshots" to discredit the opponent, regardless of their veracity.
Freier: Lying doesn't seem as central, but manipulation or exaggeration can emerge as tactics to avoid being labeled a Freier. This is less extreme than in Izzat, since Freier doesn't imply a collective duty or violent justifications, but rather a personal strategy for maintaining status.
Key difference: In Izzat, lying can escalate to serious consequences (violence, ostracism), while in Freier it remains within the realm of social or economic interaction.
4. Implications of Prioritizing “Winning” Over “Losing”
Izzat: As the post points out, Izzat turns every conflict into a zero-sum game where “winning” (maintaining or increasing honor) is the absolute priority. This fosters a mindset where objective truth (what really happened?) is less important than the dominant narrative (who emerged victorious?). The willingness to lie stems from this logic: if losing implies total humiliation, any means to avoid it becomes acceptable.
Freier: “Winning” here refers to avoiding being exploited or perceived as weak. While it also implies a competitive mindset, it doesn’t lead to the same level of escalation as Izzat. Objective truth can be sacrificed for convenience, but not as a structural principle, rather as a situational tactic.
Objective Evaluation:
Subjectivity as a Common Trait: Both concepts reflect an emphasis on social perception over objective truth. In Izzat, this subjectivity is deeply institutionalized within the family/tribal structure, while in Freier it is more of an adaptive cultural norm in a modern context.
Lying as a Strategy: In Izzat, lying appears to be a more systematic and justifiable mechanism within the framework of collective honor, as described in the post. In Freier, it is less structured and more optional, depending on individual circumstances.
Impact on Objective Morality: Both systems can conflict with Western values that prioritize verifiable truth and impartial justice, but Izzat does so more pronouncedly due to its destructive potential and group-oriented approach.
Conclusion:
Your hypothesis that both Izzat and Freier prioritize the subjective over the objective is well-founded. In the case of Izzat, the post makes it clear that the priority of "winning" over "losing" can lead to a willingness to lie as a tool to preserve honor, even at the expense of the truth.
In Freier, this tendency is less extreme, but the avoidance of being perceived as a freier can also lead to distorting reality to maintain an image of strength. The difference lies in the scope: Izzat involves a collective and potentially violent commitment, while Freier is a more pragmatic, personal strategy.
Would you like me to explore how these dynamics manifest in specific interactions (for example, in negotiations or conflicts) or compare this with other global honor systems?
Continued in the next post.
