A lot of folks who know my first book have emailed me about this insightful piece by @DavidAFrench on how the fusion of southern honor culture and evangelicalism explains our current moment. Some thoughts.

French does a great job describing honor as an ethical system in which your worth and identity depends on how others see you. If your claims about yourself are challenged, violence (or rhetorical violence) is an ethically "righteous" response in an honor culture.
French writes, "This approach represents a dramatic contrast with biblical commands to “turn the other cheek” or to “bless those who persecute.” Instead, the shame/honor imperative is to punch back, hard. Any other approach...risks the well-being of the community." Exactly.
I saw this tension between honor and Christianity all the time in 19th c. church disciplinary records where men explained to fellow church members how they had to fight somebody who insulted them (or their mother, wife, family, etc.) even though they knew it was sinful.
I began calling it the "I know it was wrong, but I still had to do it" defense. If you live in the South, you've heard a version of it.
French uses this lens to explain recent outbursts by evangelical figures like Franklin Graham and Dave Ramsey, but I think it might explain even more than that.
Honor is fundamentally concerned with appearance, with accepted opinion, and not with truth or reality (sound familiar?). What matters is that your claims about yourself, your version of events, is accepted, or at least not contradicted. Truth matters less than affirmation.
Presenting evidence that contradicts claims about, say, an election, will never change minds in a culture like this. What matters is what you feel to be true, and whether people respect that or not. If they dismiss you as deluded or foolish, you will feel shamed, and react.
In this sense it matters HOW disagreement is presented, i.e. in such a way that it doesn't directly challenge or contradict a claim, but does it in such a way that it leaves room for a person's sense of the worth of their claim, which is related to their own self-worth.
(For instance, I've done this by acknowledging that, yes, there is usually some fraud in every election, before continuing to make the point that there is little evidence that this election was any better or worse in that regard.)
At any rate, if folks want to read more about the history of this fusion between honor and evangelicalism, let me recommend some books.
First is Christine Heyrman's Southern Cross. I disagree with parts of her argument, but it's a wonderfully written book.
https://t.co/NCHK5aRZrC
Next, @LynnLyerly's Methodism and the Southern Mind.
https://t.co/rekqQ0vUgp
And, finally, my own book, which is squarely on this cultural and ethical intersection in southern life and how it came to be in the 19th century.
https://t.co/Uj8HtTFJE1
And if you don't want to read the whole book, here's an interview I did that will give you the gist.
https://t.co/6YgVSmsNLw

More from Culture

I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x

You May Also Like

Great article from @AsheSchow. I lived thru the 'Satanic Panic' of the 1980's/early 1990's asking myself "Has eveyrbody lost their GODDAMN MINDS?!"


The 3 big things that made the 1980's/early 1990's surreal for me.

1) Satanic Panic - satanism in the day cares ahhhh!

2) "Repressed memory" syndrome

3) Facilitated Communication [FC]

All 3 led to massive abuse.

"Therapists" -and I use the term to describe these quacks loosely - would hypnotize people & convince they they were 'reliving' past memories of Mom & Dad killing babies in Satanic rituals in the basement while they were growing up.

Other 'therapists' would badger kids until they invented stories about watching alligators eat babies dropped into a lake from a hot air balloon. Kids would deny anything happened for hours until the therapist 'broke through' and 'found' the 'truth'.

FC was a movement that started with the claim severely handicapped individuals were able to 'type' legible sentences & communicate if a 'helper' guided their hands over a keyboard.