Abstract
All human beings seek to avoid shame, guilt, and fear, responses that sociologists have paired, respectively, with honor, innocence, and power. Examination of cultures has shown that the shame/honor, guilt/innocence, and fear/power affective domain pairs are prioritized differently in different cultures. Western missiologists have seen the connection between guilt and innocence and the Gospel but have also shown interest in the other pairs, and some have linked pair prioritization with particular religious contexts. My research found that, rather than religion per se, the prioritizations emerge from deeply embedded worldview assumptions pertaining to relationship structures, which are culturally or socially determined.
Last century, American anthropologist Ruth Benedict compared North American and Japanese cultures following World War II. She described the collectivist Asian culture of Japan as placing a higher avoidance value on shame than on guilt, and the seeking of honor over innocence. 1 Later, other anthropologists and missiologists, commenting on what Ben Hegeman referred to as avoidance-pursuit pairs, noted the importance given in some cultures to fear and power. 2 So now, along with Benedict’s shame-honor and guilt-innocence pairs, we had the fear-power pair. The difference in the worldview assumptions on which these pairs are based became for some missionaries a significant key for how to present the Gospel in different cultural settings. Robert Blaschke noted that animistic peoples in West Africa were not interested in having sins forgiven but sought a Lord who could protect them from the spirit world. As Alan Howell and Logan Thompson reported regarding animistic peoples in Mozambique, “Rather than sin and guilt, they most desire a way to deal with fear and evil.” 3
This connection between the anthropologists’ studies and theology is interesting, but it raises the more basic question of the source of these avoidance-pursuit pairs. Several attempts to describe the location of the pairs, such as that given by Jayson Georges, hint at their sources: “(1) guilt-innocence cultures are individualistic societies (mostly Western), where people who break the laws are guilty and seek justice or forgiveness to rectify a wrong, (2) shame-honor describes the collectivistic cultures (common in the East), where people shamed for not fulfilling group expectations seek to restore their honor before the community, and (3) fear-power cultures refers to animistic contexts (typically tribal or African), where people afraid of evil and harm pursue power over the spirit world through magical rituals.” 4
Here, guilt-innocence has been located in mostly Western cultures and linked to individualism (individual-centrism or ego-centrism), shame-honor has been located in the East and linked with collectivism (sociocentrism or communitarianism), and fear-power has been located in tribal cultures and linked with animism (biocosmism or dividualism). It would seem that all human beings attempt to minimize guilt, shame, and fear, while attempting to maximize our innocence, honor, and power.
While the literature has suggested that the pairs were closely correlated with religion or religious components of worldview, my research sought to examine what it was in religion that caused the different prioritizing of the avoidance-pursuit pairs in different cultures. It might be noted, however, that rather than being embedded in worldviews, Roland Muller saw the pairs as “planes on which worldview function.” 5 The two cultures whose prioritizations I examined were (1) the Hispanic, Catholic, and evangelical culture of urban Cochabamba, Bolivia, and (2) the rural (campesino) Quechua culture of villagers living outside the city. The research data were extracted from qualitative research interviews with individuals in leadership positions in both cultures.
A multicultural context
Bolivia, the center of South America, is a country of diverse cultures; indeed, it has been named recently the Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia (Plurinational State of Bolivia). The research was set in and around Cochabamba, a city of over one million people situated in a high valley (over 2,500 meters above sea level). The mestizos (Hispanic Bolivians) and foreign participants in the research came from the city, while the Quechua campesino participants lived in, or worked in, villages in the surrounding mountains.
The religious contexts for the participants varied. As a result of the Spanish conquest, the majority of those in the city would claim to be Catholic (“to be Bolivian is to be Catholic”), but there is a growing evangelical church. The majority of those in the villages are animistic, worshiping a range of god-beings and spirits, with the primary deity being Pachamama (i.e., Mother Earth). There is a substantial amount of syncretism evident in both cultures, however, as well as the introduction of Western ideas and ideologies through the mass media.
Avoidance-pursuit theory
A significant literature has developed surrounding so-called shame-honor cultures, most often Asian cultures, 6 and a number of writers have explored the other avoidance-pursuit pairs. 7 As this research involved leaders across cultures, leadership studies were also considered. David deSilva wrote of honor and shame being social values, and Hegeman referred to the avoidance-pursuit pairs as “four axes of cultural values” of “highest pursuit,” including a fourth axis: pain-pleasure. 8 Muller, using a similar framework to that of Hegeman, preferred to use the term “cultural dimensions” but omitted the affective pain-pleasure pair, claiming that the avoidance of emotional pain and the seeking of pleasure would be distributed equally across all cultures. 9 The designation of cultures as being shame-based or guilt-based, terms used by Benedict and others, while considered helpful by some, 10 may be unhelpful, as Hegeman has pointed out, 11 because it might be expected that a culture with a sensitivity to shame may believe that references to them having a “shame culture” may imply that they are inferior in some way. Hegeman therefore preferred to use the aspirational terms honor-based, innocence-based, power-based, and pleasure-based.
The source of the ranking of the pairs by different cultures, as well as by individuals within those cultures, has been considered by a range of theorists. For Roland Muller the source of the priority given in some cultures to guilt and innocence is to be found in the Western notion of law, which has its roots in the Levitical and Deuteronomic codes of the Old Testament, Roman law, and Greek nomos (law). 12 These carry with them the distinctions of right and wrong and hence a basis for guilt and innocence. Muller asserted that these values contributed to the doctrines and practices of the church and, through the spread of the church, to Western cultures. While syncretism is common in Bolivia, the impact of their dominance in Western religion over the country’s colonial history has been substantial.
According to Patricia Seed, the arrival in Latin America of the Catholic, Spanish Conquistadores attempted to introduce a religion-imposed emphasis on guilt and innocence. 13 Within their Moorish-influenced Mediterranean culture, however, they also brought a prioritization for honor and shame, which contended for supremacy with the guilt-innocence pair. Rather than being identified with religion in a general sense, honor cultures are defined socially. Following Ruth Benedict’s earlier appraisal, “True shame cultures rely on external sanctions for good behavior, not, as true guilt cultures do, on an internalized conviction of sin,” Ruth Lienhard stated that “cultures with an honor/shame axis tend to be group oriented, whereas cultures with a justice/guilt axis are more individualistic. . . . Belonging to the group includes attachment to, responsibility for, one’s fellow members.” 14 This view is further explicated by Ido Weijers: “Guilt has to do with the breaking of rules. With guilt one has done something wrong, one has violated a rule. . . . With shame our whole moral identity is at stake.” 15 The imputation of guilt is therefore conditional on one’s feeling of disapproval of one’s self, while shame is based on a perception that others are disapproving. 16 Within a collectivist culture shame is seen as a threat to a strong relational bond, 17 and behaviors are mediated by the perception of being observed disapprovingly by others.
The collectivism evident in Bolivia may be characterized more accurately as a collectivity of collectivities. Within the Hispanic urban areas collective in-groups are centered on the nuclear family. The relational bonds diminish in strength as one moves further from the nucleus to close relatives, more distant relatives, padrinos (godparents), and even less with other parientes simbólicos (symbolic relatives). 18 Other members of the society may be drawn into the in-group in a fictive relationship in order to serve a particular purpose, such as paying for part of a birthday or wedding celebration, or so that the initiators of the relationship may use the bond for their own advancement socially or for receiving some favor in the future. The Spanish and Quechua languages also reflect the relational context of in-groups and out-groups with the discriminating use of familiar and formal personal pronouns.
It should be noted that while familial bonds are generally strong in collectivist cultures, relationships between distinct in-groups (i.e., an in-group and all other perceived out-groups) is virtually nonexistent. “In collectivist cultures people share and show harmony within in-groups, but the total society may be characterized by much disharmony and non-sharing, because so many interpersonal relationships are individual-outgroup relationships.” 19
While there is considerable literature regarding guilt- and shame-oriented cultures, much less has been written regarding fear-oriented cultures. Both Blaschke and Hegeman have lived among animistic people groups in West Africa, and both have written on the fear animistic people have of the spirit world. This includes fears of spiritual beings such as demons, ghosts, and the spirits of their ancestors. Spirits are also said to inhabit natural objects such as mountains, trees, rocks, and rivers, as well as storms and other weather and climate phenomena. There is a very real perceived need for these spirit-embodiments to be placated when they appear to be angry, or to be resorted to in times of need to seek an ameliorating blessing. Because there is a feeling of powerlessness before these beings, the aim of the community members is therefore to learn to seek some means of control over them, through such practices as offering sacrifices and oblations. There is also a need in power/fear oriented cultures to “live quietly,” such that the spirits not seek punishment. 20
Bolivian research
The data for this research article have been taken from a larger research project that examined the influence of the prioritization of the avoidance-pursuit pairs on the decision-making of leaders in the two Bolivian cultures. The qualitative study involved interviewing forty-two leaders and four key informants. The participants were from education, business, community, church, and union leadership and included twenty-six mestizos, five Quechua, eight “white” Hispanics, and three foreigners, as well as the four Key Informants who had particular, objective knowledge of the culture.
In general terms, both the urban and the rural participants saw honor and shame as being of considerable importance for the mestizo communities in the city, but guilt or feeling innocent were of much less importance. Those from, or working in, the rural (campo) areas identified fear and power as being important factors in their village communities. To some extent they also considered community justice and shame important within the village context.
While one might have predicted the significance of innocence and guilt based on religious grounds, in my research both Catholic and evangelical participants saw honor and shame as being particularly important in the city, with only one participant prioritizing the innocence-guilt pair. Respect, however, was seen as something sought by all: “Respect is huge. Honor is huge” (Gonzalo). Honor was seen to be so innate as to lie “under the skin” (Manfred).
In the campo there was a spiritual, if not a “religious,” foundation for fear. Not only was there fear of “people who have the power to do them harm” (Luis), but also of the deceased: “When a person is dying, there is quite a bit of fear in the Andean world regarding the relationship one has had with the deceased [and the impact this] will have on one now” (Juan). Jaime, a medical doctor, told of villagers being afraid of anything that was seen to be unusual or inexplicable, saying, “They have a fear that may be in their nature.”
Consequentialist perspective
Given the social complexity of human beings, simple explanations of behavior are rarely adequate. One factor emerging from the data was the significance of consequences for disregarding established norms, which varied depending on whether shame-honor, guilt-innocence, or fear-power was more prominent in a given cultural setting. By examining such consequences, we can better understand some of the reasons for the guilt-innocence pair not having a high priority in the city.
Guilt/innocence: Breaking the law will incur retribution from the justice system, and sin will incur God’s judgement (Pablo). However, “Here, if no one has seen it, then it isn’t sin. This is the way it is seen” (María). If it is seen, however, others may induce shame effects: “But when there is a pain, a sickness . . . they think that, if they are Christians, the accident will mean that they are in sin” (Carlos). Another link with shame is seen in Flora’s comment that people “try to follow the law but look for honor.” The connection between sin and shame was seen in terms of law-breaking or sin being an affront to others: “Violating certain norms—but the idea of being an affront to a unique creator god is not there. It is the disruption to community relationships” (Juan). There was no significant evidence in the data concerning a striving for being innocent in the sight of God or the law as a personal value.
Shame/honor: Damaging or breaking an in-group relational bond, at its most severe, could result in relegation to out-group status. Attempting to bring honor rather than shame to the family in-group is obligatory. A young person, for example, may study medicine to gain the title “doctor,” “for the title. To be the pride of the family—the only doctor. It is for a pride that traditionally we have had in Bolivia” (Ausberto). Conversely, there is a fear of making a mistake, of being wrong or not achieving stated objectives “because we know that families, all in the family, always must achieve something and fear they won’t reach their objectives” (Ramiro).
Fear/power: Angering the gods and spirits is believed to result in illness or disasters. There is the fear of the nonphysical world, including deities such as Pachamama, but also the spirits of ancestors and spirits indwelling features in the environment.
Most of the offerings to appease Pachamama occur with events that have to do with the use of the Pachamama [i.e., the earth] and to some degree also with sickness caused by Pachamama when she is upset because of a lack of respect for her. (Juan) The campesinos have always believed in spirits. There is the belief in callasiri—a spirit that sucks fat from people. The white cat. They think spirits are from ancestors but also from the environment. (José)
The significance of relationships
Throughout the data, a recurring theme was relationships: “Interpersonal relations are the base [of Bolivian society]” (Héctor); “In our Latin America culture, interpersonal relationships are the priority” (Isabel). These begin in the nuclear family: “If you have to choose, you always stick with family. You won’t back friend over family” (Eliana). Within organizations, a fundamental concern for leadership is the maintenance of relationships. Regarding personnel problems within an organization, Anamaría noted, “First, the restoration [of relationships]. In every case, restoration”; and as Hectór added, “The main point isn’t the issue—it’s the relationships.” Carlos commented that in the city, “We live a lot under the influence of others, and it is because of this that shame has so much force.”
Another key factor that emerged from the data, which adds to the relational context of the communities, was trust. Trust is a key component in any relationship, particularly in collectivist societies, but trust diminishes rapidly the further the relationships move from the family center. With regard to 100 percent trust, Hectór suggested that he did not even trust the person wearing his shirt (i.e., himself!). He added that mothers could be trusted to perhaps 90 percent, and God could be trusted: “I may not understand, but I will trust.” Eliana made the point that she believed that her mother could lie to her but that she would probably do so for Eliana’s good. Within situations further removed from the nuclear center, Hernando noted that friends could not always be trusted to keep their word. Estuardo, a foreigner, responded to a question about trust across communities in general by saying, “No hay! [There isn’t any!] That was an easy one.” He went on to explain that “there is really a sense that if you don’t watch out for yourself, nobody else [will]. They’ll take advantage if they possibly can. And I think that goes to the no hay confianza [a commonly heard expression—there isn’t any trust] stuff.”
Relationship origins of the prioritizations
This research was set in two cultural settings that were geographically separated, but the extent to which the people were culturally distinct was not so clear. Those who were interviewed who lived in the campo visit the city for trade and sometimes for education; only one of this number spoke only Quechua. For those in the city, there has been the modernizing, individualizing, influence of education, external trade and the media—including Western movies, television programs, and Internet content. The city culture therefore can no longer be described as being completely collectivist (Frederico, Edwin), nor the village cultures as being completely animist. Notwithstanding these caveats, the importance of relationships was evident across the prioritizations throughout the data. The relationships that emerged were interpersonal, with the environment (including the spirit world), and with norms and laws.
Interpersonal relationships were seen to diminish from the nuclear family center; the strength of these determined the degree to which shame might be felt and honor was sought.
Relationships with the physical and metaphysical world (a sense of being as one with the environment as opposed to the idea of individual entities distinguishable from the environment) were a significant determinant of the prioritization of the fear-power pair.
The relationship an individual or community might have with norms, laws, or indigenous lore was seen to be a determining factor in prioritization of the guilt-innocence pair. While lore and community norms must be adhered to, from the research data, the law established by the government or rules established by the church were seen as “foreign” and not requiring the same level of compliance. Such a law or regulation is not agreed to through the community consensus processes: “This isn’t democratic; it is imposed” (Luis).
Conclusion
For many years sociologists and anthropologists have addressed the human affective domain in terms of three pursuit-and-avoidance pairs: innocence and guilt, honor and shame, and power and fear. The various cultures of the world have prioritized one or another of these pairs, with anthropologists, sociologists, and missiologists arguing that a guilt/innocence prioritization typically occurs in Western, individualistic, “Christian” cultures; an honor/shame prioritization, in collectivist cultures; and a power/fear prioritization, in animistic cultures. My research indicated that an individual’s perspective on relationship structures was correlated with the prioritization most emphasized. Those in a guilt/innocence culture were most attuned to law or a law-giving God; those in a shame/honor culture emphasized interpersonal relations; those in a fear/power culture gave most attention to people and their physical and spiritual environment.
For those sharing the Gospel in cross-cultural situations, the implications of this research, and that by those cited, are significant. The components of the various pursuit-avoidance pairs appear in the biblical accounts of:
the creation: Gen. 1:26; 2:25; 3:10; Ps. 8:5; the redemption through the cross: John 12:23; Heb. 12:2; 2 Cor. 4:2–4; and the parousia: 1 Cor. 15:23; 1 John 2:28.
In the West we have concentrated on people desiring freedom from sin as the core of the Gospel, but as this research and the work of others has shown, in some cultures it is the Gospel message of freedom from shame or fear that is of more importance, at least initially. For those entering a ministry in another culture, it would therefore seem that a study of the relationship structures within that culture may provide useful guidelines for the presentation of the Gospel.
Footnotes
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
For online readers, read these two related IBMR articles online:
Notes
Author biography