HONOR OR INTEGRITY

In the somewhat classic film, Jezebel, a southern aristocrat challenges another character to a duel due to something said – a perceived affront to the aristocrat's reputation. This situation is common enough in old films about our early national history and then there is the very real duel we were all told about between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton – again, over some unsavory comments. Of course, such scenes, either in real life or as depictions in movies are pretty much things of the past. While I believe most of us are relieved by such a development – although we had a prominent politician refer to dueling when his good name came into question recently – I think it is still interesting to ask: what changed in our way of thinking that has made dueling no longer acceptable at any level? This question is relevant to civics in that the change(s) reflects basic belief shifts that affect our civic sensitivities.

In a word, the change has mostly to do with how we view reputation. It used to be that reputation was a product of how we were essentially seen by others. Our reputation had to do with the expected behaviors associated with our standing in society and that, in turn, was derived from the positions we held and the roles we fulfilled within the institutions of which we were a part. Today, this view of reputation has been degraded and in its stead we have a sense of reputation as being a derived function of our usefulness, often in terms of business activity. The first view spoke of honor; the second view speaks of integrity.¹

Words we associate with honor are goodness, glory, distinction. Words we associate with integrity are dependable, ethical, unimpaired. These are not mutually exclusive terms; a person can have both honor and integrity – perhaps the title of this posting should have used the word “and” instead of “or.” The issue arises when the terms are used interchangeably or when they are treated as synonyms. The first, honor, is linked to a person's intrinsic substance, an element that goes toward his or her character or lack of character. The second has more of a practical bent.

Honor is attained by holding and keeping in good standing the roles one has in relation to the institutions one is in such as family, vocation, church, gender, and the like. Honor is also more definitive in terms of expectations. For example, fathers and mothers have definite roles that are well-established within cultural norms and one's honor is unequivocally ensconced in expectations regarding the behaviors and dispositions within the context of those roles. That is why when one's honor was questioned, satisfaction called for an extreme response such as dueling.

As for integrity, while one can attach expected behaviors to people of integrity, they are more situational and apt to be less rigid. When assessing the costs of someone lacking integrity, the talk is not of the person's moral standing, but of the effect the damage has caused others. The question is not so much about the moral shortcomings, but the costs the affected parties will bear. I admit the difference can be very subtle, but I believe the distinction is real and is reflected in such civic realities as judicial reasoning.

Consider cases relating to defamation. Michael Sandel points out that in cases when one party is found to libel or slander another, it is not enough to prove the libelous or slanderous statements were printed or said, not enough to prove the statement is untruthful, not even enough to prove maliciousness; rather, one needs to prove actual harm in concrete terms; what the lawyers call special damages. The terms most likely to be considered are those that are financial in nature or can otherwise be monetized. And while hitting the pocketbook can be painful, it is not the same as bringing into question our sense of value as a connected person within our community. In other words, having our integrity questioned is a far cry from hearing, “Meet you at sunrise; will it be pistols or rapiers?”

I am not advocating a return to dueling, but I do believe it would be good for our commonwealth that we find a way to reintroduce in a meaningful way a notion of honor, at least be able to give it more importance. Yes; honor is a term bandied about, but does its current meaning really affect behavior? My sense is that it does not, at least to any meaningful degree. I remember once saying to a business person on the phone who was treating my mother, then over 80 years old, in an unscrupulous way, “Shame on you.” The response was laughter. We should hold each other to expectations that certain institutional roles entail desired behaviors and that those among us who fail in meeting those expectations are, in proportional terms, dishonorable. They do deserve to feel shame, at the very minimum. I saw Anthony Weiner on a TV show recently and of course his escapades were brought up. Whether sincere or not, his body language communicated shame – I hope that was truly the emotion he was experiencing. It does not mean one cannot work toward redemption – it could be that was what Mr. Weiner was working toward. It does not mean we should change our legal perspectives regarding defamation and the like. But it does mean we can communicate, without embarrassment or hesitation – once the facts of a case are known – how disappointed we are when individuals don't live up to their responsibilities, and that communication should matter! It also behooves us to review what our institutional expectations are. Are they petty? Or perhaps they might be regarding immaterial or unsubstantial issues. We should reserve such judgments to important matters. Like what? How well are kids being taken care of? How honest are our business practices? Do we have a meaningful and useful safety net to help and provide opportunity for those who are running into hard times? Are those in power or with excessive wealth taking advantage of their position to further their interests at the expense of the common welfare? These are the types of issues that affect how well people live, how they can contribute to society, and how they can go about fulfilling their potential. Society depends on non-legalistic institutional processes to inhibit unwanted behaviors – such as infidelity in marriage or irresponsible parenting behavior or abusive practices in the workplace – and it also counts on them to promote those behaviors that are desired. As a social mechanism, we should reflect on what we say and do as we utilize these mechanisms. And while we are about that, we should see if we can develop a healthy sense of honor and recognize it in those who are worthy and withhold it from those who are not.

1The distinction made in this posting relies on the work of Michael J. Sandel. See Sandel, M. J. (1996). Democracy's discontent: America in search of a public philosophy. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.